Dr. Taub defended a complaint I later filed against him with the D.C. Board of Medicine by advising the Medical Board that I suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, a severe (psychotic) mental illness. I believe Dr. Taub's diagnosis was self-serving and knowlingly false. Dr. Taub thereby filed a material false statement with a state agency and also misled the U.S. Social Security Administration to believe that my illness was more severe than it really was. In my mind, that says everything you need to know about the ethics of Dr. Taub.
September 14, 1998
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW #136
Washington, DC 20008-4530
Albert H. Taub, M.D.
Attending Physician
Community Mental Health Center (Area A)
Washington, DC 20007
(202) 282 2229
Dear Dr. Taub:
As I advised at our consultation on Thursday September 10, 1998, I have concerns about your requirement that I continue to see you more frequently than one time every three months, the standard schedule for patients who have been assigned for therapy with a non-physician psychotherapist (in my case, Lisa Osborne).
While I do not know whether I may refuse to communicate with you under a 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, I set forth the following facts that explain the background of my concerns about communicating with you, which facts do relate to a credible jeopardy to my liberty interests arising out of such communication.
_________________________________
1. I have been, and may still be, under criminal investigation by the U.S. Capitol Police as well as the U.S. Secret Service.
2. Dr. Taub is not a forensic psychiatrist. While it is true that the mental health laws of the District of Columbia, see e.g. D.C. Code 21-501 (Hospitalization of the Mentally Ill), do not require that a psychiatrist possess formal forensic qualifications to determine whether a mental patient poses a risk of physical harm to others, there are credible concerns (detailed below) that Dr. Taub may interpret clinical facts relating to me as suggesting a disposition to violence, whereas those same facts interpreted by a forensic psychiatrist would be viewed as innocuous.
3. Dr. Taub declined to arrange a consultation with a forensic psychiatrist (8/7/98). In response to my request that Dr. Taub arrange an assessment with a forensic psychiatrist (8/7/98), Dr. Taub stated sarcastically: "You can get a forensic exam when you're sent to John Howard [i.e., St. Elizabeths Hospital]."
4. Dr. Taub refused to contact my sister (8/7/98). When I requested that Dr. Taub review concerns about me with my sister (8/7/98), Dr. Taub responded sarcastically: "I won't allow you to make yourself the center of my life; I will not cater to your need for attention." This indicates Dr. Taub's inappropriate hostility to my reasonable behavior.
5. Dr. Taub refused without explanation (8/27/98) to permit me to tape record my consultations with him, despite the fact that I advised Dr. Taub that a Special Agent of the Capitol Police said (8/7/98) he was receptive to the idea that I tape record my consultations and forward copies of the tapes to the Capitol Police for review.
6. Dr. Taub declined to review, or inquire into the content of, documents that I stated (8/7/98) that I had written that related to the (1) [redacted] of the President, (2) design of [redacted] of mass [redacted], (3) [redacted] the government, and (4) commission of a [redacted] double [redacted]. (The U.S. Secret Service had already reviewed the documents and had found them to be of no interest.) The documents, nonetheless, have clinical significance, and merit review by a trained mental health professional.
Dr. Taub exhibits a pattern, or trend, of either assessing or declining to assess clinical material on the basis of the needs of law enforcement, and eschewing his proper role as psychotherapist in assessing clinical material for its psychological content.
Based on my experience with Dr. Taub, it is my belief that Dr. Taub's work is driven by law enforcement concerns, and not by concerns about, or interest in, my psychological functioning and well-being.
With regard to my written productions, Dr. Taub emphasizes censorship ("Don't write that!" or "That is bad!") over inquiry ("What does that writing mean?").
7. Dr. Taub is unable to cite a genuine therapeutic purpose for my meeting with two different mental health professionals each week for a total of eight sessions per month. It was I who pointed out (9/3/98) to Dr. Taub that my having to maintain simultaneously a therapeutic alliance with two different therapists might actually pose a therapeutically indefensible strain on me.
8. Incontrovertible evidence that Dr. Taub's response to me is driven by law enforcement concerns is provided by his response to a letter dated July 27, 1998 that I submitted to attending physician Stephen D. Quint, M.D. When Dr. Quint reviewed my letter to him (in which I compared myself with a criminal suspect), he proceeded to assign me to a psychology intern (Lisa Osborne) rather than a psychiatry resident, for once per month consultations. It was only after law enforcement learned of the letter, and expressed serious concerns about the letter, that Dr. Taub increased the number of consultations to eight per month. Despite the fact that Dr. Taub states that it was the content of the letter that is disturbing ("You threatened to pull a [redacted]."), the fact is that the change in treatment schedule was not made following a review of the content of the letter by one of the clinic's attending physicians (namely, Dr. Quint on about July 28, 1998), but rather only after law enforcement showed concerns (on August 7, 1998). Again, in mid-year 1996, at the commencement of my work at the clinic, I had provided several letters to the clinic that referred to serious crimes of violence, yet Dr. Quint proceeded to assign me initially to a social worker (Marjorie Heydt) and later to a psychiatry resident (Dr. Singh) for once per month sessions.
9. Dr. Taub fails to assess my underlying psychological motive in writing the letter addressed to Dr. Quint (dated 7/27/98) and proceeds to transmute law enforcement concerns about the possibility that I pose a risk of violence into the attribution that my motive in writing the letter is the product of intrinsic qualities that may dispose me to violence.
One plausible explanation for the letter to Dr. Quint (dated 7/27/98) is that it is the product of posturing. Dr. Taub seems unable to assess the possibility that I may be engaged in acts of posturing (compare Hamlet: "I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly, I know a hawk from a hand-saw!") One possibility is simply that I do not suffer from a disability, I know I do not suffer from a disability, and that I wrote the letter to ensure my continued eligibility for disability benefits. Applying Dr. Taub's procedure, any person who has a questionable disability claim can simply write a crazy letter to insure his eligibility for disability benefits. If Dr. Taub's procedure were followed universally, anyone could make himself qualify for disability benefits simply by writing a self-serving letter that makes it appear that the claimant is potentially violent.
DR. TAUB HAS NEVER CONDUCTED A GENUINE PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT; HIS VIEW OF ME IS BASED ON MY BEHAVIORS (REGARDLESS OF HOW SELF-SERVING THOSE BEHAVIORS MAY BE) AND THE RESPONSE OF OUTSIDE PARTIES (LAW ENFORCEMENT) WHO ALSO ARE RESPONDING TO MY MANIFEST BEHAVIORS AND NOT TO MY INTRINSIC PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND UNDERLYING MOTIVES.
10. When I advised Dr. Taub that I planned to write a letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office that would set forth the factual basis for my invoking a 5th Amendment privilege in my interaction with Dr. Taub (9/10/98), Dr. Taub stated emphatically: "Don't write any letters to the U.S. Attorney's Office," thereby casually dismissing without inquiry the basis of my concerns, and intruding on my right to assert and defend my legal rights.
11. Dr. Taub dismissed the significance (9/10/98) of the action of employees of the District of Columbia in providing erroneous or false information about me to law enforcement that resulted in my being subjected to criminal interrogation at my residence, search of my person, and a request by law enforcement for consent to search my residence, actions that exceeded in scope and intensity the actions officials would have carried out but for said erroneous information.
Moreover, and most disturbingly, Dr. Taub casually dismisses the fact that the specific erroneous or false information provided by employees of the District government to federal law enforcement on August 6, 1998 (namely, that I had expressly threatened to commit a crime of violence during an interaction with employees of a mental health clinic where I had been undergoing outpatient psychiatric treatment) would form the basis under D.C. Code 21-521 for law enforcement agents to arrest, detain, and arrange for my involuntary commitment to a hospital. It is important to observe that none of my writings, that is nothing specifically emanating from me, would provide the basis for legal action under D.C. Code 21-521. 1/
_____________________________________________________________________________
1/ I formed the impression on the morning of August 7, 1998 that the U.S. Capitol Police had provided to employees of the D.C. Metro system a photo ID of me the previous evening; that this action by the Capitol Police was based on the specific erroneous report made by D.C. government employees that I had threatened to commit a crime of violence on Capitol Hill. That morning a Metro supervisor glared at me intently in a peculiar way as I made my way through the Cleveland Park station.
This evidences Dr. Taub's gross lack of concern about my legal rights, specifically my right not to be interrogated or subjected to search on the basis of erroneous or false information provided by state employees to federal law enforcement; or to be subjected under D.C. Code 21-521 to the possibility of arrest, detention, and involuntary commitment on the basis of erroneous or false information. Dr. Taub's demonstrated cavalier attitude about my 4th and 5th Amendment rights raises substantial concerns about his respect for my right against self-incrimination, as protected by the 5th Amendment, as it relates to my clinical reports to a mental health professional employed by a state-operated clinic.
12. When I advised Dr. Taub (8/7/98) that I planned to submit to the U.S. Capitol Police three computer discs that contained all of my personal correspondence for the period November 1996 to the present, he advised me against doing this, in coercive terms. ("You just don't stop. You just keep getting yourself in deeper and deeper. You're going to end up confined at John Howard."). In fact the Capitol Police stated an interest in reviewing the said documents, an issue that I reviewed with agents on the previous evening, August 6, 1998. This indicates Dr. Taub's failure to inquire into the specific facts and circumstances that underlie my behaviors, statements, and transactions, with all that implies about the reliability of Dr. Taub's communications with law enforcement about me.
13. When I advised Dr. Taub (8/7/98) that coworkers stated they were afraid that I was potentially violent, Dr. Taub stated: "of course, the way you talk about violence. You elicit these reactions by the things you say." Dr. Taub's response shows his tendency to offer, in a mechanical fashion, damaging observations about my behavior without any regard to the need for an inquiry into the facts. In fact, the supervisor who said she was afraid I might kill her was a court-adjudicated racist, and an employee who said she was afraid I might be homicidal was later terminated for gross misconduct. This also shows Dr. Taub's absolute disposition to depict everything "bad" as necessarily emanating from me, or being elicited by my "bad" acts. Compare paragraph 8, above.
14. When I advised Dr. Taub of my desire to stop therapy with him or to cut down the frequency of my consultations with him (8/27/98), he asked how I felt about working with Osborne. When I told Dr. Taub that I found Osborne acceptable, he stated in a coercive manner: "Good. Because if you said that you could not work with Lisa Osborne either, I would have to contact the Secret Service and tell them about that." This suggests Dr. Taub's deferral to the concerns of law enforcement, and lack of sensitivity to my own psychological best interests. It is significant that at a later consultation, on September 10, 1998, Dr. Taub denied ever having threatened to contact the Secret Service, suggesting that Dr. Taub's earlier threat was simply vindictive. (Documented circumstantial evidence supports my assertion; my letter to the U.S. Capitol Police (dated August 27, 1998) memorializes that I raised the issue of tape-recording my sessions with Dr. Taub, at the consultation on August 27, 1998. In fact, I raised the possibility of my tape-recording my consultations with him only in response to his coercive threat to contact the U.S. Secret Service about me.)
Evidence of Dr. Taub's mendacity (in denying past statements he made that relate to my liberty interests) as well as evidence of Dr. Taub's vindictiveness raise substantial concerns about his honesty, professionalism, impartiality, ability to act in my best interests, and his ability to appreciate the consequences of his actions for my liberty interests arising out of his dealings with law enforcement authorities.
15. Dr. Taub insistently maintained (8/7/98) that the letter I wrote to Dr. Quint (dated 7/27/98) in which I compared my personality with that of a criminal suspect, see paragraph 8 (above), amounted to a threat to commit a crime of violence. Dr. Taub expressly stated, repeatedly: "You threatened to pull a [redacted]." Dr. Taub refused to modify his interpretation. Dr. Taub's factual distortion raises very serious concerns about his ability to distinguish between a threat to commit a crime (which is prosecutable) and a patient's statement that justifiably triggers law enforcement concerns. Dr. Taub has a tendency to confuse his impressionistic interpretation of facts with the facts themselves, or objective reality.
16. Dr. Taub refuses to prepare and sign a statement that delimits the reasons underlying his medical recommendation that I take the drug Xyprexa. A draft statement I prepared suggests that Dr. Taub acknowledge that employees of the District of Columbia provided erroneous or false information about me to federal law enforcement officials that caused said officials to undertake a search of my person and interrogation (at my residence on the evening of August 6, 1998) that exceeded in scope and intensity the actions officials would have carried out but for said erroneous information: that is, exceeded in scope and intensity the actions that law enforcement would have carried out on the basis of my own actions or statements alone.
17. Dr. Taub has repeatedly threatened that my statements and behaviors might lead to my involuntary commitment to St. Elizabeths, despite the fact that there is no evidence that I pose a risk of harm to others, that any of my past statements or behaviors evidence such a risk, or that Dr. Taub (who is not trained in forensics) has any competence to make a valid risk assessment on the basis of the highly ambiguous documents I have written.
18. There is circumstantial evidence that Dr. Taub was less than honest or was misinformed when he stated to me, on September 10, 1998, that employees of the P Street Clinic were not the source of erroneous information about me that caused the U.S. Capitol Police to falsely charge, at my residence on the evening of August 6, 1998, that I had gotten into a violent argument earlier in the day with my therapist and that at the culmination of the argument I had threatened to, in the words of the Capitol Police: "Pull a [redacted]."
The Capitol Police interrogated me (8/6/98) about various persons employed at the clinic including a "Dr. Schaffer" (whom I have never met, but whom I subsequently learned is the administrative supervisor of my current therapist, Osborne) and a "Dr. Quince" (that is, Dr. Quint, who, in fact, was on vacation at that time).
At my consultation with Dr. Taub, on the following day, August 7, 1998, Dr. Taub repeatedly used the same phrase that was used by the Capitol Police: in Dr. Taub's words, "You threatened to 'Pull a [redacted].'" In fact, I have never used that phrase, or made any such threat, which was later confirmed by the Capitol Police.
________________________________
For all of the above reasons, I believe there are substantial concerns that my communications with Dr. Taub may jeopardize my liberty interests. Indeed, erroneous information provided by District employees to federal law enforcement about me has already been the basis of search of my person, request for consent to search my residence, and interrogation by federal law enforcement officials that exceeded in scope and intensity the actions that law enforcement would have carried out but for said erroneous information: that is, exceeded in scope and intensity the actions that law enforcement would have carried out on the basis of my own actions or statements alone. Compare paragraph 13, above. Further, said erroneous or false information might have formed the basis of my arrest, detention, and involuntary commitment under D.C. Code 21-521 on the evening of August 6, 1998.
I believe it is appropriate, on the basis of the above facts, that my interaction with Dr. Taub be reduced from the current schedule of once per week consultations to the standard once per three months.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
********************************************
May 27, 1996
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW #136
Washington, DC 20008-4530
Ms. Heydt
Community Mental Health Center-North
3246 P Street, NW
Washington, DC 20007
(202) 282-2229
Dear Ms. Heydt:
We spoke by telephone on Thursday May 16, 1996 at which time I inquired about the availability of psychotherapy at the P Street Clinic. You advised me that psychotherapy was not feasible because of the staffing limitations at the Clinic.
I remain interested in therapy at the Clinic, and I enclose a document relating to my current situation: Memorandum dated
May 21, 1996 to Stuart M. Sotsky, M.D., Director of Psychiatric Out-Patient Care at the George Washington University Medical Center.
My situation remains desperate. According to senior managers at the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld (my former employer), my belief system is the product of a severe mental disturbance that renders me potentially violent. Senior supervisors stated a concern during my tenure at the firm that I might have been disposed to commit murder. The D.C. Corporation Counsel has affirmed, in a document filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on May 17, 1996, that the fears of Akin Gump managers and senior supervisors were genuine.
Please, please I beg of you. Don't turn away from me. According to the D.C. Corporation Counsel, recommendations that I need counseling are based on a good-faith belief that I suffer from a serious mental disturbance that renders me potentially violent. How many lives might be lost, how many people will be destroyed 1/, if I do not get the psychological counseling that the Government of the District of Columbia has affirmed that I need?
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
cc: U.S. Department of Justice
_____________________________________
1/ Consistent with the determination of senior Akin Gump managers and supervisors that I suffer from a severe mental disturbance that renders me potentially violent or homicidal.
************************************
August 2, 1996
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW #136
Washington, DC 20008-4530
Dr. Ghaddai
Community Mental Health Center North Annex
Washington, DC 20007 (202) 282 0027
RE: Client No. 230923
Dear Dr. Ghaddai:
Mrs. Heydt advised me on August 1, 1996 of the decision of the clinic that consultations with Mrs. Heydt, a social worker, will constitute the sole counseling to be provided by the Community Mental Health Center North Annex.
I have serious concerns about the adequacy of such a treatment recommendation in a situation where:
I have been under investigation by the U.S. Secret Service as a potential security threat to the President of the United States and where the investigation conducted by the Secret Service has related specifically to concerns centering on homicidal rage, my possession of firearms, and possible intent to assassinate the President;
The Office of Corporation Counsel of the District of Columbia has expressly affirmed that my former employer (the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld) had genuine concerns that I suffer from a serious mental illness that renders me potentially violent, and has implicitly affirmed that the employer's concerns that I might be armed and homicidal were genuine and worthy of credence;
I have been diagnosed by the George Washington University Medical Center as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, a psychotic mental illness associated with a risk of violence;
I continue to have fantasies relating to the assassination of the President of the United States and the designing of weapons of mass destruction.
I find it ludicrous that the D.C. Mental Health Services Administration is unable to provide adequate psychiatric counseling in a case such as mine--assigning me instead to a social worker--yet is concerned that I undergo blood testing and an eye exam with an ophthalmologist (a medical doctor)!
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
cc: Michael C. Rogers (City Administrator); U.S. Secret Service
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment