Federal Protective Service: Threat Investigation --Senator Alfonse D'Amato -- Letter

Akin Gump partner Michael Madigan, Esq. served as counsel to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, on which Senator D'Amato also served, as of December 1997.

December 1, 1997
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008-4530

Hon. Alfonse D'Amato
SH-520 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-3202

RE: Homicide/Violence Risk - U.S. International Trade Commission Security

Dear Senator D'Amato:

This will advise Senator D'Amato--a member of the Senate Finance Committee, which oversees the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC)--that I have been cooperating fully with a criminal investigation instituted by the Federal Protective Service (Jerry McGill, S.A.), at the request of USITC General Counsel Lyn Schlitt, Esq.

The subject investigation was prompted by a letter dated July 7, 1997 (copy attached) that I wrote and forwarded to USITC General Counsel Schlitt that referred to a homicide/violence risk determination 1/ made by my former employer, the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, and which was affirmed as genuine by the D.C. Office of Corporation Counsel (Charles F.C. Ruff, Esq.) and the District of Columbia Superior Court (name of state court judge redacted at the implicit direction of the Justice Department) in Freedman v. D.C. Department of Human Rights, no. MPA 95-14. Mr. Ruff currently serves as White House counsel to President Clinton.

The enclosed two computer disks contain all of my most recent computer files, which should satisfy any questions the Senate Finance Committee may have with respect to the above-referenced security risk to the USITC.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman
_____________________________

1/ In the period immediately following my job termination effective October 29, 1991, senior Akin Gump managers acted to secure the premises against a homicidal assault that it was feared I might commit. The D.C. Superior Court (name of state court judge redacted at the implicit direction of the Justice Department) affirmed that the employer had genuine concerns that I suffered from a psychiatric symptom associated with a risk of violence, and implicitly affirmed the employer's allegation that I posed a negligence risk to the firm. See Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights, no. MPA 95-14. The D.C. Department of Human Rights has speculated that I filed with that agency inauthentic (i.e., forged or fabricated) documentary evidence in order to overcome forensic psychiatric evidence proffered by the employer that showed that I suffered from a psychiatric symptom associated with a risk of violence.