I filed a whistleblower complaint electronically with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel at about 12:30 PM, Friday October 21, 2011. I alleged that the U.S. Social Security Administration has failed to investigate a possible felony per Title 42, ch. 7, subch. VIII, § 1011.
There is circumstantial evidence that I am currently engaged in the commission of a felony against the Government of the United States. There is circumstantial evidence that I have been engaged in a long-term scheme to defraud the Government of the United States of up to about $500,000 in public monies. The Justice Department, the FBI, and the U.S. Social Security Administration will not investigate this matter.
I am concerned that the Department of Justice will not investigate this matter because a full investigation might embarrass the law partners of Vernon R. Jordan, Jr., who happens to be a close personal friend of Attorney General Holder. Further, both the head of the criminal division, Lanny Breuer, and the Attorney General, Eric Holder, are former law partners of xxxxxxx, Esq. at the law firm of Covington and Burling. Mr. xxxxxxx is married to U.S. District Court Judge xxxxxxx. Also, Mr. Holder was a colleague of Judge xxxxxxx's when both served as judges on the D.C. Superior Court. I believe that both Eric Holder and Judge xxxxxxx are proteges of Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia's representative in Congress. As a concerned citizen I am specifically concerned about the possibility of an obstruction of justice at the highest levels of the U.S. Department of Justice.
I believe the following statement discharges my duty per 18 U.S.C. § 4 (misprision of felony) to report the commission of a felony perpetrated against the Government of the United States.
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 October 3, 2011, 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 of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld 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. Comprehensive psychological testing performed by The George Washington University Medical Center Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences (Washington, DC) in May 1994 and in March 1996 failed to disclose that I suffer from any mental illness of any kind and, further, failed to disclose the presence of any psychotic thought processes. In fact, I achieved a perfect score on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test in March 1996 -- a test of psychotic thinking -- which is unusual even in normal test subjects. I was not on any medication at the time of testing in 1994 or 1996.
5. 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.
6. On January 15, 2010 I was interviewed by Deputy Marshal xxxxxxx 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 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. To the extent that Judge xxxxxxx exonerated the unethical conduct of a psychiatrist in providing an ex parte professional opinion about my mental health and stability to my former employer in violation of the American Psychiatric Association's Goldwater Rule, which prohibits such communications, Judge xxxxxxx exceeded her judicial power. A professional opinion offered by a psychiatrist about the mental health and stability of an individual whom she has not seen in private consultation does not meet the criteria established to ensure the reliability of an expert psychiatric opinion and has no more clinical value than a lay opinion and is therefore defamatory. Further, Judge xxxxxxx's action in exonerating the unethical conduct of a licensed professional -- conduct that was, in fact, illegal per D.C. Code §2-3305.14(26) as of the filing of the complaint in Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights -- at the behest of her husband's law partner (the late Charles F.C. Ruff, Esq., attorney for the defendant, Akin Gump), carries the appearance of impropriety.
10. 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 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).
11. USMS Associate General Counsel xxxxxxx (202-307-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 interview 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.)