Thursday, January 31, 2013

Catching the Interest of Holland & Knight

Holland & Knight Llp (     4 returning visits
United States FlagWashington, District Of Columbia, United States    

(No referring link)
31 Jan03:23:49 PM
31 Jan03:23:53 PM
31 Jan03:24:05 PM
31 Jan03:24:25 PM
31 Jan03:24:44 PM
31 Jan03:24:46 PM
31 Jan03:24:50 PM
31 Jan03:25:39 PM
31 Jan03:25:42 PM
31 Jan03:26:37 PM
31 Jan03:26:46 PM
31 Jan03:26:51 PM
31 Jan03:26:54 PM
31 Jan03:27:35 PM
31 Jan03:28:40 PM
31 Jan03:29:01 PM
31 Jan03:29:06 PM
31 Jan03:29:15 PM
31 Jan03:29:22 PM
31 Jan03:29:28 PM
31 Jan03:29:29 PM
31 Jan03:29:37 PM
31 Jan03:29:41 PM
31 Jan03:29:56 PM
31 Jan03:30:18 PM
31 Jan03:30:21 PM
31 Jan03:30:31 PM
31 Jan03:30:38 PM
31 Jan03:31:15 PM
31 Jan04:02:12 PM
31 Jan04:02:26 PM
(No referring link)
31 Jan04:52:24 PM

Monday, January 28, 2013

Akin Gump Defamation: JD Journal Published My Letter

Why Are People Talking in Tel Aviv?

Bezeq International (   0 returning visits
Israel FlagTel Aviv, Israel    

28 Jan10:17:33 AM
28 Jan10:20:33 AM

Akin Gump: Bizarre Behavior in the Workplace

Respondent denies that discrimination of any nature was a factor in the ultimate decision to terminate Claimant. His behavior was described by several employees, including his direct supervisor as bizarre: he demanded isolation; he was volatile; and he frightened many of his co-workers.

* * * *

Reported outbursts and arguably bizarre behavior have made it uncomfortable and sometimes disruptive for many of his co-workers -- some of whom have voiced fear in working with or nearby him. In addition he is very difficult to supervise.

* * * *

C. Claimant was told that "there did not appear to be a good fit" because of his demand for isolation;

Excursis: Independence of thought is a hallmark of creative thinking.  Some law firms encourage independence of thought.  Patterson Belknap is a magnet for independent thinkers.  The firm was founded by attorneys who believed they could create a more congenial atmosphere on their own, away from the lockstep anonymity of larger firms.  Patterson Belknap carefully manages growth and purposefully operates with a single office in New York City.

Perhaps a notable fact is that Akin Gump has offices in several U.S. cities as well as around the world.  The firm prides itself on growth and seems to operate on the maxim: "The bigger the better."  Query: Is there a relationship between Patterson Belknap's single office policy and its parallel emphasis on independence of thought, on the one hand, and, on the other, Akin Gump's premium on firm size and its possible emphasis on uniformity of thought among its attorneys?  Is groupthink a hallmark of Akin Gump's decisionmaking?

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Akin Gump: A Pattern or Practice of Defamation?

According to a complaint, which was only five pages long, the defendants named tried to disrupt the business relationships of Arnold and then blackmail him until he agreed to the demands, which were illegal, of the defendant’s secret clients. The contents of the letter are not discussed in detail within the complaint.

A second defamation lawsuit has been filed against Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP within one week. As with the previous lawsuit, this one was filed against the firm and one of the firm’s partners from the securities practice. Both lawsuits were filed in Los Angeles.

The plaintiff in the case is Charles Arnold. Arnold claims that Douglas A. Rappaport, a partner for Akin Gump, mailed a letter to another party. The letter to the third party said that Arnold lied, broke his fiduciary duties as an adviser, and alleged that Arnold committed an unidentified crime.

“The law presumes that Mr. Arnold has suffered harm to his reputation, as well as shame, mortification and hurt feelings, as a result of defendants’ libel per se,” Arnold said. “Without presenting evidence of damage, Mr. Arnold is entitled to receive compensation for his assumed harm in whatever sum the jury believes to be reasonable.”

The letter was allegedly sent to someone named James Worsham, who is not described in the complaint. Worsham’s relationship to the people involved in the complaint is not described either. The complaint did say the following about Worsham, “Worsham was under strong pressure to communicate defendants’ statements to additional people, and he did so.”

Last Tuesday, the law firm had an almost identical lawsuit filed against it by an attorney in California named John Kirkland. Kirkland claimed that Rappaport mailed a letter to Worsham, one that called Kirkland a thief and a liar. According to Kirkland and his lawsuit, the libelous letter sent out to a third party hurt his reputation as an attorney. He also says that the defendants used fraud, oppression, and malice.

From the Kirkland lawsuit, he is look for damages that are worth more than $120 million. In the lawsuit, Arnold is asking for close to $10 million in damages in the presumed category, $10 million in damages in the actual category and $100 million in damages in the punitive category. He also has claimed claiming libel.

An Akin Gump spokeswoman refused to comment about the lawsuit when questioned while attorneys for Arnold were not reached for comment. Mark A. Vega and Mona Mahdara Alcala from Libertas Law Group are representing Arnold in the lawsuit. The title of the case is Arnold v. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP et al., with the case number of BC477723. The case was filed in the State of California’s Superior Court in the county of Los Angeles.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

email Message to Temple Law School's Former Dean

Prof. Robert J. Reinstein
Professor of Law and Former Dean
Temple University Law School
Philadelphia, PA

Dear Professor Reinstein:

Here's a heads-up on my current status.  Ironically, I was a student in your class in Employment Discrimination at Temple.

Gary Freedman

J.D., Temple University, May 1982
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Freedman <>
To: darrell.valdez <>; redacted; redacted; whistleblower <>; washington.field <>
Sent: Fri, Jan 4, 2013 1:02 pm
Subject: criminal fraud certification

Darrell Valdez, Esq.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Washington, D

Dear Mr. Valdez:

Attached is my monthly criminal fraud certification for January 2013.  It appears that I am continuing to commit a major financial fraud, a felony, against the Government of the United State
s.  There is circumstantial evidence that I have used The George Washington University to help me defraud the government of the United States of hundreds of thousands of dollars in Social Security Disability and Medicare benefits as well as the Government of the District of Columbia of DC Medicaid Benefits.

I was employed as a paralegal at the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld from 1988 to October 29, 1991, on which date my employment was terminated.  To avoid the legal consequences of an unlawful termination, several Akin Gump management partners (including Earl L. Segal, Esq.) conspired to defame me, enabling me to defraud the U.S. Social Security Administration of hundreds of thousands of dollars in disability benefits on the grounds that I suffered from disabling mental illness that might be associated with a risk of violence.

U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder is fully familiar with my case and may have useful information about me to share with federal authorities.

Gary Freedman, Esq.
PA ATTY ID 41032
Washington, DC

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

I Wasn't Born Yesterday

I knew from the outset that if I was to make a case against the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, implicating the firm in a criminal act, all the evidence for my spurious Social Security Disability Claim would have to come from the firm and my statements about my good faith beliefs about the firm -- and not from me.  I could not make any statements alleging that I believed that I was unemployable.  In fact, I never told Social Security that I believed I was unemployable.  "That's what she said!"