Intimidation by the Justice Department? Or Just Poor Reading Comprehension Skills at the DOJ?

On Friday January 15, 2010 the Justice Department sent two officers to my residence to interview me about a law enforcement matter.  One of the officers said he had been reading my blog, My Daily Struggles, since November 2009 and that he was concerned by the law enforcement implications of the tone and content of my writings. 

Funny thing.  A federal appeals court judge read one of my letters -- the type of letter that the Justice Department had concerns about -- and, not only did he not contact the authorities, he had his secretary send me a cordial reply.  Now why do you think that is?  Why would the Justice Department have concerns about my writings: concerns that were not shared by a federal appeals court judge?  Could it be that the Justice Department's concerns were not genuine -- but simply a sham?  Could it be that the Justice Department was using a law enforcement interview as a form of intimidation to get me to stop writing my blog?

How striking that a senior management partner of my former employer has close ties the highest levels of the Justice Department.  But then, some things are just coincidence.  And, of course, reading comprehension skills are not what they used to be in this country.  Message for the Justice Department: You should try to hire people with at least minimal literacy. 

Judge Tatel was the billing partner on a document production task on which I was assigned at the law firm of Hogan & Hartson, in the 1980s.  I never had any contact with Judge Tatel.  Judge Tatel is a personal friend of Elliott Mincberg, Esq., a former Hogan partner with whom I did have contact.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse

April 14, 1997

Mr. Gary Freedman
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW #136
Washington, DC  20008-4530

Dear Mr. Freedman:

Judge Tatel has reviewed your letter of April 2, 1997 and has asked me to let you know he has no recollection of any of the events described in your letter and has no information to report.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Doris Brown
Secretary to Judge Tatel

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

April 2, 1997
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW #136
Washington, DC 20008-4530

Hon. David S. Tatel
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Washington, DC 20001

RE: Weapons Possession - Intent to Inflict Grievous Bodily Harm/Possible Intent to Commit Murder - D.C. Corporation Counsel Affirmation - Possible Concealment of State and/or Federal Weapons Law Violations

Dear Judge Tatel:

During the period March 1988 to October 1991 I was employed as a legal assistant at the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld ("Akin Gump"). Attorney managers at Akin Gump terminated my employment effective October 29, 1991 upon determining, in consultation with a psychiatrist, that a complaint of harassment I had lodged against several co-workers was attributable to a psychiatric symptom ("ideas of reference") prominent in the psychotic disorders and typically associated with a risk of violent behavior. See Freedman v. D.C. Dept. of Human Rights, D.C. Superior Court no. MPA 95-14 (final order issued June 10, 1996) (name of state court judge redacted at the implicit direction of the Justice Department). In the period immediately after my job termination senior Akin Gump managers determined that it was advisable to secure the office of my direct supervisor against a possible homicidal assault, which it was feared I might commit.

During the period September 1985 to February 1988 I served a long-term temporary legal assistant assignment, as an employee of the temporary agency Personnel Pool, at the law firm of Hogan & Hartson, of which your honor was formerly a member. From October 1985 to April 1987 I was assigned to work, within the Computer Applications Department of Hogan & Hartson, on a document coding project for desegregation litigation involving the client Milwaukee Public Schools, of which your honor was billing partner. 1/

I have been under investigation by the U.S. Secret Service as a potential security risk to President William J. Clinton, and was interrogated at the Washington Field Office by Special Agent Philip C. Leadroot (202 435-5100) as recently as February 1996, about one year ago.

I request that your honor candidly disclose to federal authorities any information, rumor, or reputation evidence derived from my assignment at Hogan & Hartson, that in any way supports Akin Gump's concerns--affirmed as genuine by the D.C. Office of Corporation Counsel--relating to my potential for violence, intent to acquire firearms, or intent to inflict grievous bodily harm (or commit murder).

Akin Gump admits that it was aware that I worked at Hogan & Hartson. Freedman v. D.C. Dept. of Human Rights, no. MPA 95-14, Record on Appeal at 139 and 142. I therefore further request that your honor disclose the content of any possible communications you may have had with any Akin Gump attorneys (possibly including Malcolm Lassman, Earl L. Segal, Dennis M. Race or Laurence J. Hoffman) relating to the subject matter of my work at Hogan & Hartson.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

__________________________

1/ Other Hogan & Hartson billing partners for whom I worked comprise: William Bradford (client: AVCO), Jerome Sonosky (client: Mercedes Benz), and James Hourihan (client: Chrysler).