Did Laurence J. Hoffman, Esq. Approve the Commission of a Felony? What Did the U.S. Marshal Say?

These are the facts:

The D.C. Office of Attorney General (acting through Charles F.C. Ruff, Esq., Jo Anne Robinson, Esq., Charles L. Reischel, Esq., William J. Earl, Esq. and M. Justin Draycott, Esq.) took the position before the D.C. Superior Court in 1996 and again before the D.C. Court of Appeals in 1997 that my belief that Akin Gump's managers (a class of persons that included Laurence J. Hoffman, Esq., managing partner) engaged in, or approved the commission of, criminal acts, specifically, approving the break-in of my residence in January 1990 and conspiring to solicit confidential mental health information from my treating psychiatrists in violation of the D.C. Mental Health Information Act of 1978 (from 1989 through 1991) -- acts that in their entirety might constitute the crime of racketeering under federal law -- was genuine. Brief of Appellee District of Columbia, Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights, D.C.C.A. no. 96-CV-961 (Sept. 1, 1998). Neither managing partner Laurence J. Hoffman nor any Akin Gump attorney manager disputed the D.C. Attorney General's position or questioned its legal or factual relevance. 


http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2010/07/akin-gump-let-record-speak-for-itself.html

On January 15, 2010 the U.S. Marshal Service implicitly cautioned me against questioning the validity of the D.C. Court of Appeals' opinion in Freedman, and by extension cautioned that I should not question the validity of the determination of the D.C. Attorney General that an employee of Akin Gump formed a genuine, good faith belief that Laurence J. Hoffman or other Akin Gump attorney managers approved the break-in of my apartment in January 1990.

At least one attorney (Pennsylvania Bar ID #41032) who used to be employed at Akin Gump has formed a genuine, good faith belief that Laurence J. Hoffman (or other Akin Gump attorney manager) approved the commission of a felony in 1990.  That's the opinion of the D.C. Office of Attorney General.  

What did the U.S. Marshal say?

The action of the D.C. Court of Appeals in ruling in favor of the D.C. Attorney General should not be questioned.  And that's what the U.S. Marshal has implicitly said.