In late October 1991 I lodged a harassment complaint against coworkers and my supervisor Christine Robertson at the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld. A few days later the firm terminated my employment. Thereafter the firm alleged that it had spoken with a psychiatrist, Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D. (GRT), who advised the employer that my harassment complaint was the product of a psychiatric disorder that might dispose me to become violent. Some time later I spoke by telephone with Dr. Ticho who, at my request, wrote a letter denying that she spoke to the employer. I subsequently used the letter in legal proceedings concerning my job termination.
Here is a portion of the transcript of a telephone conversation I had with Dr. Ticho in October 1993:
GF: Yes. I, I was wondering if you received the letter I sent you earlier this week.
GRT: But it has nothing to do with me.
GF: Um. But it's very important that, um, you file an objection to these findings of the Department of Human Rights. I think it's in your interest to do that.
GRT: No. I have nothing to do with that. You only wanted to know whether I have seen you. And I told you that I haven't seen you in consultation. That's all.
GF: Yes. But the Department of Human Rights states that there's a possibility that you responded to a hypothetical question about me, ah, in conversation with my former employer.
GRT: Yea. But that, that has nothing to do with me. And, ah, I, I gave you that, ah, ah, letter -- and that's all . . . that concerns me.
Be that as it may.
When I was a boy I saw a movie on television, a Billy Wilder film, Witness for the Prosecution. I was much impressed with the movie. I suspect that somehow the movie resonates with my adult psychological concerns with perjury and the authenticity of letters.