Wednesday, June 08, 2011

U.S. Marshals Service -- Freedom of Information Act Request


I was interviewed at my residence on January 15, 2010 by Deputy U.S. Marshal xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx (Washington, DC) about a law enforcement matter falling within the investigative jurisdiction of the USMS. I believe the interview was part of a conspiracy to intimidate me in violation of 18 U.S.C. 241 (Conspiracy against Rights). The interview was tape-recorded. Would it be possible for me to obtain a transcript of that interview per the Freedom of Information Act?

The following is a message I sent on June 8, 2011 to Rep. John Conyers (House Judiciary Committee) that details facts about my case:

Rep. John Conyers:

The following is the text of an email message I sent to the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice on June 3, 2011. I believe I may currently be defrauding the federal government (The U.S. Social Security Administration) of about a half million dollars, a felony. Further, I may be using the D.C. Dept. of Mental Health to fabricate evidence of mental illness ultimately to defraud the U.S. Social Security Administration, a felony. I am concerned that the DOJ and FBI will not investigate this matter because a full investigation might embarrass the law partners of Vernon Jordan, who is a personal friend of Attorney General Holder. I am concerned that for Mr. Holder personal friendships come before executing the laws of the United States.

Gary Freedman


Criminal Division

U.S. Department of Justice

Dear Sir:

I certify under penalty of criminal prosecution for making false statements that the following declaration is true and correct to the best of my knowledge:

1. The U.S. Department of the Treasury made a wire transfer of $1288 to my bank account on June 3, 2011 per my claim of disability granted by the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA): disability claim no. xxx xx xxxx.

2. The SSA determined that I became disabled and not suitable for employment by reason of severe mental illness that may be associated with a risk of violent behavior, effective October 29, 1991. As part of my initial claim for benefits in 1993 I provided to SSA evidence that my direct supervisor (Christine Robertson), who reported directly to a senior management attorney (R. Bruce McLean, Esq.) at the law firm where I was employed, advised her employees after my termination that she feared I might return to the firm to kill her and arranged to have the firm take protective measures to guard against a possible homicidal assault (agency record at 41).

3. The SSA determined that I became disabled effective October 29, 1991 based on the sworn declaration of Laurence J. Hoffman, Esq. and Dennis M. Race, Esq. of the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, where I was employed until I was diagnosed with mental illness that might be associated with a risk of violence. Akin Gump's mental status determination, according to the sworn declaration, was made in consultation with a practicing psychiatrist (Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D.). Dr. Ticho (deceased) denied in a letter written on her letterhead in July 1993 and in a taped telephone conversation I had with her in October 1993 that she ever had any communications of the kind alleged by Akin Gump.

4. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed (1998) a prior agency determination (1993) that found that Akin Gump's sworn declaration was factual and that the employer's mental status determination was genuine and credible, see Freedman v. D.C. Department of Human Rights, D.C.C.A. no. 96-CV-961 (Sept. 1, 1998), relying in part on the Brief on Appeal filed with the Court on July 25, 1997 by the D.C. Corporation Counsel.

5. On January 15, 2010 I was interviewed by Deputy Marshal xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx of the U.S. Marshals Service (Washington, DC) who had concerns, based on my prior statements and conduct, that I might pose a continuing and indefinite risk of harm to U.S. District Court Judge xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx and the judge's immediate family. It was Judge xxxxxxx who in 1996 affirmed a prior agency determination that failed to find that Akin Gump's published statements that I might have been homicidal and extremely dangerous, see paragraph 2 above (agency record at 41), as of late October 1991 constituted acts of defamation motivated by a discriminatory animus. Judge xxxxxxx relied in part on inapposite case law to exonerate the apparent unlawful conduct of the law partners of Vernon Jordan.

The USMS imposed continuing and indefinite protective measures limiting my access to a public facility and to a house of worship. The protective measures imposed by the USMS are inconsistent with my employability under the Americans With Disabilities Act, which permits an employer to refuse to employ a disabled person who poses a risk of harm at a place of employment.

6. I believe that to the extent that SSA claim no. xxx xx xxxx is based on the sworn declaration of Laurence J. Hoffman, Esq. and Dennis M. Race, Esq. that I became unemployable effective October 29, 1991, that I suffered from severe mental illness and posed a risk of violence as of said date, the claim is based on criminal fraud, a felony under federal law.

7. I believe that to the extent that SSA claim no. xxx xx xxxx is based on the aforementioned Brief on Appeal filed by the D.C. Corporation Counsel with the D.C. Court of Appeals, the claim is based on criminal fraud, a felony under federal law. I believe that the Brief on Appeal contains several material omissions of fact and law calculated to mislead the Court, misrepresents the agency record and findings, and constitutes a willful fraud by the D.C. Corporation Counsel on the D.C. Court of Appeals.

8. I believe that to the extent that SSA claim no. xxx xx xxxx is supported by the action of the USMS in concluding that I pose a continuing and indefinite risk of harm to a federal judge (and that judge's immediate family), and in imposing continuing and indefinite restrictions on my access to a public facility and to a house of worship, the claim is based on criminal fraud, a felony under federal law. I believe that the USMS did not form a good faith belief that I pose a risk of harm nor was the interview that Deputy Marshal xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx conducted at my residence on January 15, 2010, or my prior conduct or statements that occasioned the interview, a sufficient basis to conclude that I pose a risk of harm. Further, I believe that the USMS interview was the product of a criminal conspiracy between the USMS and other(s) to intimidate me in the free exercise of my constitutionally-protected right to publish facts concerning the likely fraudulent nature of my SSA disability claim and the likely criminal conduct of attorney managers of the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld. 18 U.S.C. Section 241 (Conspiracy against Rights).

9. 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 to interview me 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.)

Gary Freedman

3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Apartment 136

Washington, DC 20008

1 comment:

kay sieverding said...

The USMS is definitely willing to engage in criminal conspiracies to deprive rights, in my experience. I don't have a criminal record and wasn't charged with a federal crime but the USMS detained me three times for 5 months total. There was no government prosecutor, no criminal charge, no arraignment, no bail hearing and no speedy trial notice. They stated that they imprisoned me because I sued the same parties under a different theory in a different court and because I filed a Rule 60(b)(3) motion for relief from attorney fees supposedly issued under rule 11 but with no Rule 11(c)(6) orders. The order was by former judge Edward Nottingham who dismissed my complaint with prejudice without writing an opinion. I think what happened is that the judge was a very frequent customer at the Diamond Cabaret strip club and the Denver Players brothel and that the USMS staff was accompanying him.

I originally sued a convicted drug dealer, Kevin Bennett, who was my former neighbor and also president of the Steamboat Springs, Colorado city council and his associates. I was criminally prosecuted there twice. The first time was because my landscaper trimmed an old willow tree that was blocking an entrance to my property without having a trimming permit, a permit that was never ever issued to anyone other than myself. I was given a deferred prosecution on condition that I give up my rights to 60 feet of the street that adjoined my property and let Bennett own the street. The second time was because I complained that he built a detached two story 2000 square foot building with heating and plumbing and multiple rooms that violated the zoning. The city claimed that it was a 2 car garage and Routt County Assessors office claims that it is only 451 square feet and was built in 1950 not in 2000. It parks an Audi and a 25 foot panel truck at the same time and is about 47 feet long and 22 feet wide as well as two stories. There has never been a big drug bust in Steamboat where the police reported to Kevin Bennett and he controlled their salaries and promotions. It was in 2009 that he admitted he was a convicted drug dealer. I originally claimed malfeasance and the magistrate said he never heard of that. Then I claimed "First Amendment Retaliation" and met the standard of Hartman v.Moore since there was no probable cause. According to the police report and witness testimony I accused his wife of violating the zoning and the constitution while I stood on the street adjoining my property. They were unable to get any witnesses to say that I was on her property and she admitted that I hadn't been following her around town, hadn't called her in years, and there was "no offensive touching". But I was threatened with 6 months in jail.

Another fact is that I have now five uses of the signature of William E. Bordley, four in affidavits, and they are all identical. It is just a scan that they insert into a word processing document. Bordley is blind and doesn't know what they do with his signature. See DDC case number 09-cv-0157-RJL document 22-1 page 7, Case 1:09-cv-00562-JDB Document 12 Filed 06/12/2009 Page 3 of 12, Case 1:11-cv-01032-JDB Document 23-1 Filed 08/15/11 Page 3 of 19, Case 1:11-cv-01032-JDB Document 23-1 Filed 8/15/11 page 3 of 19, and a FOIA letter sent to Epic. DOJ's website has a 1993 profile of Bordley stating that he is blind.