Wednesday, October 12, 2011

D.C. Superior Court Adverse Ruling -- Letter to U.S. Secret Service

June 17, 1996
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
#136
Washington, DC  20008-4530

Philip C. Leadroot, S.A.
U.S. Secret Service
Washington Field Office
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. Leadroot:

Enclosed for the information of the U.S. Secret Service is a copy of the Order filed by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in Freedman v. D.C. Dept. of Human Rights, MPA No. 95-14.  I will be filing an appeal of the Order in the D.C. Court of Appeals.  The appeals process to the D.C. Court of Appeals (and possibly later to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit) may take an additional 2-5 years.

The Superior Court found that Akin Gump’s concerns about my mental stability and potential for violence were genuine and  non-pretextual, and implicitly found that the fears of senior supervisors that I might be homicidal were genuine and not the product of a hostile or offensive work environment.  The Court implicitly found that a co-worker's fears that I might be armed and homicidal were not evidence of a hostile work environment, and that the action of senior supervisors in securing an office suite against a homicidal assault that I might commit were based on genuine fears that were not the product of a hostile or offensive work environment.

I continue to live within walking distance of numerous venues from which John  Hinckley, Jr. is precluded from approaching by virtue of protective measures prompted by concerns about Mr. Hinckley’s potential for violence. 1/

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

cc:  The Washington Post (tentative)
___________________________________
1/   With respect to fears that I might be planning to harm the President, the U.S. Secret Service has apparently misunderstood my statements.  Contrary to the fears of the U.S. Secret Service, I never threatened to harm the President.  Rather, my letters to the U.S. Secret Service have not been motivated by a hostile animus toward the President, but rather by other persons’ concerns for my mental stability, and that this constitutes a legitimate reason for the letters.

1 comment:

Gary Freedman said...

Footnote 1 of the posted letter is a sarcastic paraphrase of the following quote from the D.C. Superior Court Order:

"With respect to petitioner's arguments regarding DHR’s findings as to his mental condition, petitioner has apparently misunderstood DHR’s decision. Contrary to the petitioner’s argument, DHR did not find that petitioner suffered from a mental illness. Rather, DHR concluded that the law firm was not motivated by a discriminatory animus based on petitioner’s sexual orientation, but rather by a concern for his mental stability, and this constituted a legitimate business reason for his termination."