Akin Gump: Persuasive Circumstantial Evidence of a Crime

In March 1996 I provided the D.C. Corporation Counsel  persuasive circumstantial evidence that a crime had been committed by the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, the crime of "false statements," a misdemeanor under the D.C. Code.  Did the Corporation Counsel have an ethical duty to contact the U.S. Attorney concerning this evidence?  Did the Corporation Counsel have an ethical duty to contact the D.C. Bar Counsel concerning this evidence? I don't know.  There is no such crime as "misprision of a misdemeanor."  I remember that when Eric Holder was the U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, back in the 1990s, he made a public statement urging people to contact the authorities whenever they had any information concerning the commission of a crime.  I suppose Eric Holder was referring also to indirect or circumstantial evidence that a crime had been committed.

March 19, 1996
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008-4530

William J. Earl, Esq.
Assistant Corporation Counsel
Office of D.C. Corporation Counsel
441 4th Street, NW
Room 6S-077
Washington, DC 20001

RE: Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights - D.C. Superior Court Docket No. 95-MPA-0014

Dear Mr. Earl:

Enclosed for the information of the Office of D.C. Corporation Counsel with respect to the above-referenced matter is a collection of documents and tape recording comprising non-record evidence in my possession that either directly or indirectly controverts sworn statements made to the D.C. Department of Human Rights (DHR) by Laurence J. Hoffman, Esq. and Dennis M. Race, Esq., both attorney managers of the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld 1/, respondent in the agency proceedings below.

The documents are forwarded to the Office of D.C. Corporation Council so that you, as an officer of the court, may take any action you deem appropriate, consistent with your professional responsibilities, to prevent a possible fraud on the court.

The enclosed documentation comprises:

1. Tape recording (and transcript) of telephone conversation between myself and Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D., that occurred on July 2, 1993, in which Dr. Ticho expressly denies having made any representations of the nature alleged in DHR Finding of Fact no. 6, which adopts as fact sworn statements made by Messrs. Hoffman and Race. See Record at 17.

2. Tape recording (and transcript) of telephone conversation between myself and Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D., that occurred in late October 1993 in which Dr. Ticho expressly denies having made any representations of the nature alleged in DHR Finding of Fact no. 6, which adopts as fact sworn statements made by Messrs. Hoffman and Race. See Record at 17.

3. Tape recording (and transcript) of telephone conversation that occurred on July 2, 1993 between myself and Alana Baptiste, an employee of Akin Gump's Employee Assistance Program Provider, Sheppard Pratt Preferred Resources. Statements made by Alana Baptiste controvert DHR Finding of Fact no. 6, which adopts as fact sworn statements made to DHR by Messrs. Hoffman and Race. See Record at 17.

4. Letter dated October 17, 1994 addressed to Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, relating to the possible filing by attorney managers of the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld in Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, agency no. 92-087-P(CN), of willfully false sworn statements, which were adopted by DHR in its final determination as Finding of Fact no. 6, a possible felony under D.C. Code 22-2513 (false swearing) or a possible misdemeanor under D.C. Code 22-2514 (false statements).

5. Letter dated April 8, 1994 addressed to Deputy D.C. Corporation Counsel Charles L. Reischel regarding inconsistent material sworn statements made by attorney managers of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld in two unrelated job termination proceedings: McNeil v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, No. 93-0477 (D.C.D.C., filed Nov. 29, 1993) (memorandum opinion and order) (Green, Joyce Hens, J.) and Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, agency no. 92-087-P(CN).

The Office of D.C. Corporation Counsel is further respectfully advised that any unqualified reaffirmation of DHR Finding of Fact no. 6 by the Office of D.C. Corporation Counsel, notwithstanding the existence of reliable and persuasive non-record evidence of infirmities in said finding of fact, may constitute a knowing repetition by the D.C. Office of Corporation Counsel of unreliable or libelous statements relating to my mental fitness, and may therefore constitute an additional violation of my civil rights under the laws and constitution of the United States. Cf. generally Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 47 L.Ed.2d 405, 96 S.Ct. 1155 (1976); Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 48 L.Ed.2d 684, 96 S.Ct. 2074 (1976); Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 33 L.Ed.2d 548, 92 S.Ct. 2701 (1972).

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

cc: [name of Superior Court judge redacted]

1/ Both attorneys are admitted to practice in the District of Columbia and are, therefore, officers of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.


***************************

March 19, 1996
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008-4530

[Name of Superior Court judge redacted]
Superior Court of the District of Columbia
Civil Division
500 Indiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001

RE: Freedman v. D.C. Dept. of Human Rights -- Civil Calendar 14 - Docket 95-MPA-0014

Dear Judge [redacted]:

Enclosed for the information of the court is a copy of a letter (minus attachments) dated March 19, 1996 addressed to William J. Earl, Esq., Assistant D.C. Corporation Counsel, attorney for Respondent in the above-referenced matter.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman
Petitioner pro se

cc: William J. Earl, Esq.