Thursday, October 13, 2011

What Did Charles F.C. Ruff Know and When Did He Know It?

January 27, 1996
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, DC  20008-4530

Charles F.C. Ruff, Esq.
Corporation Counsel
Government of the District of
441 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC  20001

RE:  Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights
       D.C. Superior Court No. 0014  M.P.A.

Dear Mr. Ruff:

The enclosed correspondence is forwarded for the information of the Office of Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia with respect to the above-referenced matter.

The above-referenced matter is an appeal of a no probable cause determination by the D.C. Department of Human Rights.  The no probable cause determination was based on an express finding of fact that my belief that I had been fired as a result of unlawful discrimination was the product of a severe paranoid mental disturbance that rendered me potentially violent and not suitable for employment.

Be advised that any substantive pleadings filed by the Office of Corporation Counsel in the above-referenced matter that support the said finding of fact may be material to a possible future insanity defense were I to commit a crime of violence (including homicide or other heinous crime) under the laws of the United States or the District of Columbia.  Any such pleadings filed by the Office of Corporation Counsel may necessarily impair the prosecution of any crime with which I am charged that requires a specific mental state.


Gary Freedman

cc:  Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney for D.C.
      John C. Keeney, Acting U.S. Attorney General, Crim. Div.
      William J. Earl, Esq., Office of D.C. Corp. Counsel


Gary Freedman said...

DHR Finding of Fact No. 6:

6. Respondent also sought outside professional guidance because of the emotional and psychological nature of Complainant’s allegations and his coworkers responses. Respondent contacted an unnamed counselor from its Employee Assistance Program and an outside psychiatrist. Dr. Gertrude Ticho identified Complainant’s behavior, putting a negative meaning to virtually every event as “ideas of reference” and cautioned that individuals in similar circumstances may become violent. After Respondent’s investigators consulted with Complainant’s supervisor and Respondent’s Management team, Respondent terminated Complainant’s employment.

Gary Freedman said...

The Ruff meshpucha:

Gary Freedman said...

Eric Holder and D.C. Corporation Counsel Charles Ruff were both partners at Covington & Burling at different periods; the AG was a colleague of the Superior Court judge in the cited case in the early 1990s; the AG was a law partner of the judge's husband in the period 2001-2009; both the AG and the Superior Court judge are proteges of Eleanor Holmes Norton.

I appeared in open court in D.C. Superior Court on Friday January 26, 1996 at which time the judge issued the cited scheduling order from the bench. That was the only time I have ever seen the judge, and I so advised the USMS.

I have no record of the enclosures I transmitted with the posted letter.

Eric Holder is also a personal friend of Vernon Jordan, executive partner at Akin Gump as of 1996.