It was in July 1997 that the D.C. Corporation Counsel filed a Reply Brief in Freedman v. D.C. Dept. of Human Rights, D.C.C.A. no. 96-CV-961 (Sept. 1, 1998) asserting that my former employer's decision that I became unfit for employment effective October 29, 1991 by reason of severe mental illness was lawful and genuine. The District's Reply Brief relied heavily on so-called "after-acquired evidence" (which was legally irrelevant) making it appear to the D.C. Court of Appeals (and the Social Security Administration) that my illness was far worse than even my former employer, the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, believed.
The District's Reply Brief of July 1997 would have made it appear to the Social Security Administration at the time of its periodic review of my claim in the summer of 1997 that the District had determined that my illness was more severe than first recognized by the D.C. Department of Human Rights in its Initial Determination of June 1993 when that agency affirmed that I believed I had been subjected to ten incidents of harassment in the workplace by firm personnel (a belief described by the agency as "ideas of reference"). The District's Reply Brief for the first time asserted that my symptoms included the diagnostic criteria of delusional (paranoid) disorder: a longstanding and genuinely held belief in a systematic conspiracy by Akin Gump's senior attorney managers to break into my apartment as well as disseminate confidential mental health information obtained from my treating psychiatrist. See U.S. v. Francisco Martin Duran, United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, 96 F.3d 1495 (Oct. 8, 1996) (insanity defense failed because defendant did not establish that his "delusions" were genuine and long-held).
I submitted a copy of the District's Reply Brief to the U.S. Social Security Administration in support of my continuing disability claim review in 1997. Social Security approved my claim for benefits in August 1993 and determined that I had become disabled effective October 29, 1991, the date of my job termination by Akin Gump.
It's a case of the District defrauding the Social Security Administration.
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2009/12/dc-coproration-counsel-willful-and.html
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
July 21, 1997
Mr. Gary Freedman
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW #136
Washington, DC 20008
Dear Mr. Freedman:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your Social Security claim. I will be glad to help; however, I am required by the Privacy Act to have your written permission to make inquiries on your behalf.
Therefore, I am enclosing a form to be completed and returned to me at my Congressional District Office, 815 15th Street NW, Suite 100, Washington, DC 20005. Please feel free to use additional pages and to enclose copies of any materials which you feel may be of use to me.
As soon as I receive the completed form, I will contact the proper authorities on your behalf.
Sincerely,
/s/
Eleanor Holmes Norton
EHN:me
Enclosure
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
An earlier version of this post was published on this blog on May 26, 2010.
The District's Reply Brief, specifically its substantial reliance on legally-irrelevant "after-acquired" evidence, was not simply a quantitative distortion of the record: it was a qualitative distortion that implicitly represented to the Court of Appeals that my diagnosis was not simply "ideas of reference" but "delusional (paranoid) disorder."
The Corporation Counsel filed its brief with the D.C. Court of Appeals on July 25, 1997:
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2011/03/dc-reply-brief-freedman-v-dc-dept-human.html
Post a Comment