Wednesday, May 02, 2012

email Message to Conoco Phillips re: Director Ruth Harkin -- May 2, 2012

I strongly urge you to direct ConocoPhillips Director Ruth Harkin (spouse of U.S. Senator Tom Harkin) to contact the Washington Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation concerning the following matters. If Ruth Harkin has any information that could help the Bureau investigate the criminal conduct of the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, see Freedman v. D.C. Department of Human Rights, D.C.C.A. no. 96-CV-961 (Sept. 1, 1998), Mrs. Harkin has a legal duty and an ethical duty as a lawyer to disclose that information to federal law enforcement. Mrs. Harkin practiced law at Akin Gump from 1983 to 1993 during my tenure at the firm (1988 to 1991). Mrs. Harkin's failure to disclose evidence of crimes could jeopardize her license to practice law.

The D.C. Office of Corporation Counsel (acting through Charles F.C. Ruff, Esq., Jo Anne Robinson, Esq., Charles L. Reischel, Esq., William J. Earl, Esq. and M. Justin Draycott, Esq.) took the position before the D.C. Superior Court in 1996 and again before the D.C. Court of Appeals in 1997 that my belief that Akin Gump's managers (a class of persons that included Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Esq., Robert S. Strauss, Esq., Malcolm Lassman, Esq., Laurence J. Hoffman, Esq., Joel Jankowsky, Esq. and Richard L. Wyatt, Jr., Esq.) engaged in, or approved the commission of, criminal acts, specifically, approving the break-in of my residence in January 1990 and conspiring to solicit confidential mental health information from my treating psychiatrists in violation of the D.C. Mental Health Information Act of 1978 (from 1989 through 1991) -- acts that in their entirety might constitute the crime of racketeering under federal law -- was genuine. Brief of Appellee District of Columbia, Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights, D.C.C.A. no. 96-CV-961 (Sept. 1, 1998). Neither Strauss, Jordan, Wyatt, Jankowsky, Race, Lassman, managing partner Hoffman nor any Akin Gump manager disputed the D.C. Corporation Counsel's position or questioned its legal or factual relevance.

The D.C. Court of Appeals determined that a Clinical Professor of Psychiatry (Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D., now deceased) at GW offered a professional psychiatric opinion about me to Malcolm Lassman, Esq. and Dennis M. Race, Esq. in late October 1991. The U.S. Social Security Administration relied in 1993 on Mr. Race's sworn declaration about that psychiatric opinion to grant a fraudulent claim of disability insurance. Dr. Ticho's act of providing a professional psychiatric opinion about an (unnamed) individual without benefit of personal examination was a violation of the American Psychiatric Association's Code of Professional Ethics. See Goldwater v. Ginzburg, 396 U.S. 1049 (1970) (the APA's so-called Goldwater Rule prohibits a psychiatrist from offering a professional psychiatric opinion without benefit of personal examination). Information obtained by Akin Gump via Dr. Ticho's violation of the Goldwater Rule was used by Akin Gump's attorney managers to defraud the D.C. Department of Human Rights (1992 and 1993), the D.C. Superior Court (1996), the D.C. Court of Appeals (1997), the D.C. Corporation Counsel (1996 and 1997), and the U.S. Social Security Administration (1993).

The following is the text of an email message I sent to the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice in early April 2012. I sent a copy of the following letter to the office of U.S. Senator Tom Harkin on May 1, 2012; Senator Harkin is the husband of Director Ruth Harkin.







Criminal Division
U.S. Department of Justice

Dear Sir:

The following is my monthly criminal fraud certification per 18 U.S.C.§
4.  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.

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 xxxxx, Esq. at the
law firm of Covington and Burling.  Mr. xxxxx is married to U.S.
District Court Judge xxxxx.  Also, Mr. Holder was a
colleague of Judge xxxxx's when both served as judges on the D.C.
Superior Court.  I believe that both Eric Holder and Judge xxxxx 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 $1334 to
my bank account on April 3, 2012, per my claim of disability
granted by the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA): disability 
claim no. xxxxx.

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).

http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2010/06/social-security-notice-of-award-1993.html

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.

http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2009/12/social-security-administration-initial.html

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.

http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2011/08/gw-psych-testing-concern-about-fraud.html

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 peal filed with the Court on July 25, 1997 by
the D.C. Corporation Counsel.

http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2011/12/dc-court-of-appeals-freedman-v-dc.html
6. On January 15, 2010 I was interviewed by Deputy Marshal xxxxx
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 and the judge's immediate family. It was Judge
xxxxx 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 xxxxx relied in part on
inapposite case law to exonerate the apparent unlawful conduct of the
law partners of Vernon Jordan.

http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2011/04/superior-court-decision-freedman-v-dc.html

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.

http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2010/12/fourth-amendment-touch-my-junk-please.html

7. I believe that to the extent that SSA claim no. xxxxx 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.

http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2011/06/akin-gump-what-was-dc-corporation.html

8. I believe that to the extent that SSA claim no. xxxxx 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 xxxxx 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 xxxxx 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
xxxxx'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. xxxxx 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 xxxxx
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 xxxxx (202-307-xxxx) advised me
by email on June 7, 2011 that a letter I sent to Judge xxxxx dated
August 14, 2000 -- 10 years ago -- triggered the USMS concerns that I
might pose a security risk to Judge xxxxx 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.)

http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2010/05/psychologist-nancy-shaffer-phd-dc-dept_5489.html

Gary Freedman
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apartment 136
Washington, DC 20008



2 comments:

Gary Freedman said...

Ruth Harkin, Esq. was employed at Akin Gump in the capacity "Of Counsel."

Another Akin Gump "Of Counsel" during my tenure was Dawn Starr, who has left the firm.

http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2010/11/akin-gump-connections.html

Gary Freedman said...

Road Runner (24.90.206.174) [Label IP Address] 0 returning visits
United States FlagBrooklyn, New York, United States

(No referring link)
3 May 09:56:31 AM
dailstrug.blogspot.com/2012/05/email-message-to-conoco-phillips-re.html