FBI: "Sorry, There's Nothing to Investigate Here"

I really think the totality of bizarre facts and implications of my case can probably only arise if there is some underlying network of criminal activity.

Think about it:

Paranoid schizophrenia that comes and goes and that doesn't affect a person's legal reasoning or fact analysis.

Bipolar disorder in full bloom that does not affect the person's legal reasoning or fact analysis.

"Cartoon physics." "He was an outstanding employee, but when we found out he was actually crazy and potentially violent before he was hired (and throughout his employment with us), we had to fire him."

A sister who implores her unmedicated "potentially violent" and "psychotic brother" to babysit her 13-year-old daughter for the weekend so that she and her husband can go on a cruise (April 1995).  (In a telephone conference call in August 1993, the brother's psychiatrist told the sister that her brother needed to be administered the potent anti-psychotic medication Haldol.  He never took the Haldol or any medication, other than lithium for bipolar disorder that had gone into spontaneous remission.)  By the way, the sister's husband was an unprosecuted felon.

A major medical center terminates a patient's outpatient psychiatric care without helping him find alternative care despite the fact that the patient suffers from (unmedicated) paranoid schizophrenia, and several reliable sources indicate that the patient might become violent or homicidal.

A supervisor who asks a potentially homicidal employee to stay in the office after he is fired to complete the work he was doing before he got fired.  (At the termination meeting minutes earlier a senior managing attorney told the employee that his work was of poor quality.)  "He might be a crazed homicidal maniac, but we need him to complete his work, although, of course, his work quality is poor."

A lawyer who foists on a court a mountain of legally-irrelevant evidence to win a case that his boss had earlier said he wouldn't even defend in court.

An individual diagnosed with psychotic mental illness again and again who shows no evidence of illness other than his accusation that he is a victim of an organized crime.

A senior law firm manager tells an employee who was terminated by reason of severe mental illness that he is concerned that the employee might try to embarrass the employer.  Just how does a psychotic individual go about embarrassing his former employer -- or anyone?

A senior law firm manager who has terminated an employee because he fears the individual might become violent permits the employee to go home to get a suitcase and return to the office to carry his personal belongings home.

A senior law firm manager certifies that an employee's complaint of job harassment is the product of severe psychiatric illness but acknowledges that the employee's work environment was disruptive and unprofesssional in response to another employee's Title VII complaint.

An employee develops a psychotic delusion in August 1990 -- without any supporting evidence -- that his employer has spoken to a specific psychiatrist about him (Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D.); the employee knows nothing about any relationship between Dr. Ticho and any of the employer's managers. In May 1993 the employer admits that of all the psychiatrists in the Washington, D.C. region the employer spoke to none other than -- you guessed it! -- Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D. in late October 1991 who reportedly advised that the employee was severely disturbed and potentially violent.  In May 1993 the employer discloses that Gertrude R. Ticho was a "personal friend" of Bob Strauss's right-hand man at the firm.  (Imagine the amazing coincidence!  Why did the employee develop a psychotic delusion about Gertrude R. Ticho, of all people, in August 1990?)

One of the firm's senior managers is a personal friend of the Attorney General of the United States.  That senior manager reportedly attempted to buy the silence of a White House intern in the late 1990s, an individual who had evidence that could lead to the impeachment of the President of the United States.

Oh, and believe me, we've only scratched the surface!  These are just the highlights.

By the way, the entire time the FBI was telling me there was nothing to investigate about my case, just who do you think was the U.S. Attorney in Washington, DC?  You guessed it -- the current Attorney General of the United States!

Again, I believe it is probably true that compelling evidence of widespread deception and ludicrous allegations of fact probably do not exist or arise in the absence of an underlying organized criminal conspiracy.  But then I have asymptomatic paranoid schizophrenia.  What do I know?