August 14, 2000
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008-4530
Nancy Shaffer, Ph.D.
Community Mental Health Center -- North Annex
3246 P Street, NW
Washington, DC 20008-4530
RE: -- Mental Status Affirmation -- D.C. Corporation Counsel
Dear Dr. Shaffer:
I enclose for your review a signed Statement dated August 14, 2000, made under penalty of criminal sanctions, that details the current status of my beliefs about my employment experience at the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld: beliefs that were placed in controversy by the D.C. Office of Corporation Counsel in the litigation of my unlawful job termination complaint. Freedman v. D.C. Dept. of Human Rights, D.C.C.A. no. 96-CV-961.
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2010/04/americans-with-disabilities-act-my.html
I believe the U.S. Attorney might find it of interest that a plaintiff, by the simple act of reaffirming evidence placed in controversy by the Corporation Counsel in civil litigation--evidence that the Corporation Counsel knew was, for the most part, legally-irrelevant--can affect the plaintiff's rights and duties in matters outside the litigation in question. The enclosed Statement impinges on both my right to disability benefits and my duty to serve on a jury.
Incidentally, at the time this matter was litigated before the D.C. Superior Court in 1996 (before Judge [redacted]), the Office of Corporation Counsel was headed by the same person who presented President Clinton's impeachment defense before the U.S. Senate, namely Charles F.C. Ruff. And the subject matter of the litigation in which I was involved relates to a law firm managed by a key actor in the impeachment controversy, namely Vernon E. Jordan, Jr. Mr. Jordan headed President Clinton's transition team following Mr. Clinton's election in 1992; presumably, Mr. Jordan continued to advise the President on matters relating to Presidential appointments throughout Mr. Clinton's presidency.
According to the Code of Judicial Conduct a judge is required to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. There may be a substantial question as to whether Judge [redacted] should have recused xxxself from this potentially high-profile matter when it came before her in D.C. Superior Court. Judge [redacted] is married to one of Charles Ruff's law partners at the law firm of Covington and Burling. Judge [redacted] was appointed to the federal bench earlier this year, following xxx nomination by President Clinton.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
cc: The Honorable [redacted]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
This is the only post-litigation letter I sent to the judge referenced in the post. This one letter was my "one bite at the apple" I refer to in an earlier post.
During the period 2001-2009 current U.S.A.G. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Esq. practiced law at Covington & Burling.
In the lawsuit in question, the D.C. Corporation Counsel placed in controversy before the Superior Court evidence that I believed my former employer's three-member executive committee -- which included Vernon E. Jordan, Jr. -- approved a criminal break-in of my residence in January 1990.
I advised the Superior Court in open court, at a scheduling conference held in late January 1996, that the case might involve criminal wrongdoing. The Court advised from the bench that any criminal investigation of matters relating to my employment problems was irrelevant to my Superior Court civil action.
William J. Earl, Esq., representing the Office of Corporation Counsel, stated that any criminal investigation was irrelevant.
January 5, 2005
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apartment 136
Washington, DC 20008
U.S. Secret Service
245 Murray Drive
Building 410
Washington, DC 20223
Dear Sir:
This will advise the U.S. Secret Service that I have been the victim of an ongoing fraud and racketeering conspiracy run by attorney managers of the Washington, DC law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld: a criminal enterprise that has involved The George Washington University Medical Center Medical Faculty Associates, The District of Columbia Public Library (Richard Jackson, Interim Director), as well as several high-level federal officials including former President William Jefferson Clinton, former Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin, and former Treasury General Counsel, Edward S. Knight, Esq.
The Government of the District of Columbia (Office of The Corporation Counsel) determined (in 1997) that I formed a genuine and good-faith belief (though unsupported by fact) that in January 1990 members of the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld (a class of persons that included Edward S. Knight, Esq.) gained unlawful entry to my apartment (at the above address), and that the unlawful entry was made with the knowledge and consent of the firm's management committee (a class of persons that includes Robert S. Strauss, Esq. and Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Esq.). Freedman v. D.C. Dept. of Human Rights, 96-CV-961 (DCCA, Sept. 1998), Brief of Appellee District of Columbia at 9. The firm did not dispute the District's determination or its legal or factual relevance.
Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Esq. is a close personal friend of former President Clinton's.
Secret Service Special Agent Philip C. Leadroot (now retired) is familiar with this matter.
Enclosed is a collection of pertinent documents.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
Was the Superior Court placed on notice that this was a potentially explosive case?
I advised the Superior Court during the pendency of the litigation that non-record evidence strongly suggested Akin Gump (managed by Vernon Jordan and Ambassador Robert S. Strauss) had engaged in criminal wrongdoing or at least deception inconsistent with the attorney managers' duty of truthful dealing, as officers of the Court.
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2011/06/akin-gump-what-was-dc-corporation.html
Perhaps the U.S. Marshals Service had an improper motive to be so alarmed by this letter (as I was expressly advised by email by USMS Asst. General Counsel xxx xxxxx on June 7, 2011).
USMS Associate General Counsel xxx xxxx (202-xxx xxxx) advised me by email on June 7, 2011 that a letter I sent to Judge xxxxxxx dated August 14, 2000 -- 10 years ago -- triggered the USMS concerns that I might pose a security risk to Judge xxxxxxx and prompted the USMS interview on January 15, 2010. That proposition is so ludicrous that it raises a substantial question about whether the stated reason for the USMS interview was simply pretext for an attempt by the USMS to try to intimidate me: a possible felony per 18 U.S.C. Section 241 (Conspiracy against Rights.)
Post a Comment