email Message to McGuire Woods -- May 21, 2012

May 21, 2012

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Earl Segal <esegal@ezracompany.com>
To: Gary Freedman <garfreed@yahoo.com>
Cc: "tvick@mcguirewoods.com" <tvick@mcguirewoods.com>; "washington.field@ic.fbi.gov" <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>; "darrell.valdez@usdoj.gov" <darrell.valdez@usdoj.gov>; "drace@akingump.com" <drace@akingump.com>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 8:03 AM
Subject: Re: criminal fraud

Please remove me from all future correspondence.

EARL SEGAL  |  Senior Vice President

 

THE EZRA COMPANY Commercial Real Estate Services
1350 I Street, NW   Suite 1280   Washington, DC 20005

Direct 202 266 3251 |  Mobile 703 244 2208
Main 202 789 1300  |  Fax 202 789 1335esegal@ezracompany.com  |  www.ezracompany.com

__________________________________________________ 

EZRA Exclusively Tenant Focused
__________________________________________________

From: Gary Freedman <garfreed@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Gary Freedman <garfreed@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 16:21:55 -0500
To: "tvick@mcguirewoods.com" <tvick@mcguirewoods.com>, "washington.field@ic.fbi.gov" <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, "drace@akingump.com" <drace@akingump.com>, Earl Segal <esegal@ezracompany.com>, "darrell.valdez@usdoj.gov" <darrell.valdez@usdoj.gov>
Subject: criminal fraud

Howard C. Vick, Jr.
White Collar Criminal Defense Practice Group
Maguire Woods

Dear Mr. Vick:

I was employed as a paralegal in the DC office of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld from 1988 to 1991.  J.D. Neary, Maguire Woods' Director of Professional Development & Attorney Recruiting (Richmond), was employed as legal assistant coordinator at Akin Gump during my tenure.  I request that Maguire Woods counsel Mr. Neary to disclose to the FBI any information about the following matters that may be of interest to federal law enforcement.  It was reported to me by Dennis M. Race, Esq. at Akin Gump that Mr. Neary told Mr. Race in late October 1991 that he was afraid of me, that I was difficult to work with, and that he couldn't work with me.  See Freedman v. D.C. Department of Human Rights, D.C.C.A. no. 96-CV-961 (Sept. 1. 1998) (admission against interest; record on appeal at 201).  Mr. Neary's statements about me contributed to my being able to carry out what appears to be a major financial fraud against the Government of the United States, a possible felony.

Gary Freedman
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apt. 136
Washington, DC  20008
202 362 7064

cc: FBI Washington Field Office
___________________________
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 May 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. (202 887 4028) 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 Appeal 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 xxxxxx 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-xxx-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 me 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
202 362 7064
Washington, DC 20008

Akin Gump: A Tale of Two Partners -- Street Smarts versus Naivete

I used to work as a paralegal at the law firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, from 1988 to 1991.  I believed I was a victim of job harassment during the entirety of my tenure and, in fact, I was terminated a few days after I lodged a harassment complaint against my supervisor and others.

One of my blog posts is a collection of anecdotes about a law firm partner (Dennis M. Race, Esq.) -- it is a collection of perceptions about him.  Dennis Race had preceded Earl Segal as the partner in charge of the firm's paralegal program.  The perceptions are for the most part neutral or positive in tone.

http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2010/03/social-security-document-submission_03.html

One of my blog posts is a collection of anecdotes about another law firm partner (Earl L. Segal, Esq.) -- it is a collection of perceptions about him.  Earl Segal was the partner in charge of the firm's paralegal program throughout my employment.  The perceptions are suggestive of some unexplained hostility.

http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2012/06/did-earl-segal-participate-in-decision.html

Why would two attorneys -- two partners, two individuals in the same employment group of an organization -- have a notably different reaction to me?  What would explain the seeming disparity in their reactions to me?  Is it possible that the disparate reactions of Dennis Race and Earl Segal reflected a political rift in the firm?  Did Dennis Race and Earl Segal belong to two opposing political factions at the firm?  Or am I being paranoid?

One curious fact about my writings concerning these two individuals is that two of the anecdotes have a polar opposite quality on the issue of "street smarts" versus naivete.  There is a suggestion that Dennis Race saw me as shrewd while Earl Segal saw me as clueless and unsophisticated.

The blog post about Earl Segal contains the following observation:

• At 5:30 that afternoon, I was leaving the office for the weekend. I worked on the fifth floor at that time. I walked out into the elevator area, and I saw two people: Earl L. Segal, Esq. and the young associate, Amy Cohen, Esq. Earl Segal looked at me in the strangest way. It was a look of strong negative emotion. I believed the look was directed at me, but didn't know what the look meant.
  
  I got on the elevator to leave the building. Amy Cohen got on the elevator with me. The elevator door closed. Amy Cohen said to me: "I forgot my umbrella." (That tells me it was a rainy day.) Then she spurted out: "Are you stupid?" I replied: "I'm not the one who forgot his umbrella."
  
  I reasoned that Daniel Cutler had telephoned Maggie Sinnott or Earl Segal at Akin Gump about my job proposition. Earl Segal thought that I had acted stupidly. 

The blog post about Dennis Race contains the following observation: 

• 1. In about late March 1989 I telephoned you, on a weekend, for the first time in a few months. (I had the impression that my failure to call you led to a stir at the firm, and decided it was a good idea if I called you. But that’s part of another axis.) I think it was on the Monday following my call to you that I saw Dennis Race talking to David Tobin in an elevator area. When Dennis Race saw me he smiled, and, talking to David Tobin, said, “He’s smart.” I didn’t know who Dennis Race was at that time but had the peculiar feeling his comment, “He’s smart,” in some symbolic way referred to me. I also had the tentative, self-referential notion that if the statement did refer to me it related to the fact that I had called you.

Akin Gump: A Culture of Embarrassability

I used to work as a paralegal at the law firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, from 1988 to 1991.  I was fired on October 29, 1991 after I had lodged a job harassment complaint against my supervisor and others.  The firm concluded that my complaint itself was symptomatic of mental illness and that I was not fit for employment.

I have written about the firm extensively on this blog and elsewhere.  Several of the anecdotes concern the issue of embarrassment.

1.  At the termination meeting on October 29, 1991 I met with the attorney Dennis M. Race, Esq. in his office together with my supervisor who told me about the decision to fire me.  Prior to the meeting a box of my personal effects had been brought from my work station to Mr. Race's office.  At the meeting, I was advised to look through the box and pick out the items I wanted to take home with me.  Here's what I wrote about the incident in September 1992, about a year after the termination:

B. On October 29, 1991, after Dennis Race advised me of my termination, Mr. Race had me sift through two boxes of my personal effects in the presence of my supervisor in Mr. Race's office. The two boxes containing my personal effects had been housed in the terrace level of the building, and had presumably been brought up to the fourth floor and placed outside Mr. Race's office before he called me to his office to advise me of the decision to terminate. The presumed purpose of having me sift through the contents of the boxes was to elicit and gauge a reaction (compare paragraph C below regarding Mr. Race's irrational concern with the issue of embarrassment). At three points Mr. Race, seated at his desk and apparently reading something, registered a nonverbal vocalization as I reviewed my personal effects: (1) at the point I identified to my supervisor and handed over to her my Lexis and Westlaw ID's; (2) at the point I asked my supervisor whether I could keep my job evaluations; and (3) at the point I discarded my Walkman radio and said to my supervisor regarding the radio, "it doesn't work."

Mr. Race's action of gauging my response strongly indicated that the review of my personal effects had been planned in advance with the intent to determine what response the interaction would elicit (which perhaps explains the odd timing of the notice of termination. See 2/). Any evidence so gathered was gratuitous because regardless of how I reacted, my reaction would in no way alter the decision to terminated. The evidence so gathered might be termed "inoperative" evidence. (However, I apparently made a good impression on the attorney managers by my cool response. Later in the morning, when I returned to the terrace level to return my key, my supervisor was on the telephone in her office. When she saw me, she momentarily grimaced with a look of disgust--hardly a look of sympathy or triumph. But she quickly changed her expression and shortly thereafter, while talking to me briefly, was unusually friendly and polite. The momentary look of disgust suggested that I had not behaved in Dennis Race's office the way she had anticipated or would have liked. Also, two days later when I met with Laurel Digweed, her initial response was to ogle my pay stub--a look of anger that I interpreted as a good sign with respect to my relations with the attorney managers. Her first words were to the effect that these were "difficult circumstances," an apparent mocking reference to a note I had left on Malcolm Lassman's desk shortly after I was advised of my termination, "It's a shame we had to meet under such difficult circumstances.")

The attempt to elicit gratuitous evidence might be characterized as paranoid.

2. A second incident involving the issue of embarrassment arose the following day, on the morning of October 30, 1991.  I described the incident in the same document I wrote in September 1992, which is quoted in paragraph 1, above:

C. On October 30, 1991, during a telephone call with Dennis Race regarding unemployment compensation, he stated that I should refrain from making any statements on the unemployment application that might embarrass the firm. None of my previous actions in relation to the firm would indicate a propensity to embarrass the firm. Also, an attempt to embarrass the firm by means of statements on the unemployment application would only result in my ineligibility for benefits. The personnel administrator, Laurel Digweed, later expressly dismissed Dennis Race's comment as inapposite.

3.  A third instance relating to embarrassment arose in the fall of the year 2009, years after my employment ended in 1991.   I began posting documents on this blog (My Daily Struggles) concerning my employment experience.  I subscribe to a service that allows me to see who logs onto my blog posts.  Akin Gump developed an obsessive preoccupation with my postings beginning in November 2009.  The firm logged onto the blog several times a day.  Indeed, I discussed Akin Gump's extensive interest in my blog on one of my postings.  Do you think the firm was embarrassed by the things I was posting on my blog?  One wonders.

The issue of embarrassability, (i.e., susceptibility to embarrassment) has been studied by psychologists.  One study found that the strength of the independent self-construal (the image of self as separate from others) is negatively correlated with embarrassability. Second, the strength of the interdependent self-construal (the image of self as connected with others) is positively associated with embarrassability.  Many prior studies have associated embarrassability with social deficiencies -- such as deficiencies in an independent self-concept and the need for social support to maintain self-esteem.  Conversely, embarrassbility correlates negatively with self-reliance, solitariness, resourcefulness, individualism, and self-sufficiency (qualities found by Raymond Cattell to characterize persons at a high level of ego strength). 
If embarrassability is indeed an important part of Akin Gump culture, one would expect to find that characteristics associated with embarrasability -- such as a high level of group-orientedness, affiliative behavior, the expectation that one be a joiner and follower dependent -- would be salient features of Akin Gump culture as well.  

Is there any evidence in my writings that supports the view that Akin Gump culture places a special premium on group-orientedness as opposed to individualism?

I offer the following writings that support that very viewpoint:

Did Akin Gump Operate Like a Cult?
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2010/02/did-akin-gump-operate-like-cult.html 

A Budding Psychoanalytical Theorist 
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2013/07/a-budding-psychoanalytic-theorist.html

Reputation Evidence: Akin Gump is Fratty
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2012/06/reputation-evidence-akin-gump-is-fratty.html  

The following are observations by an employee in the paralegal group about the "country-club atmosphere" that prevailed at the firm:

7. Some time in early April 1988 a legal assistant named Sandra Sussman, with whom I shared office space for a few days, told me that it was per perception that prospective legal assistants were hired more for their social skills and ability to fit in the group than for their professional ability.  She may have used the phrase “country club” to describe her perception of the Akin Gump legal assistant environment.

She stated that she felt she did not fit in because she was older (about 28 years old), more mature, and had a different background than the other legal assistants.  Ms. Sussman had served in the armed forces, and, if I recall correctly, was stationed in the Netherlands.

Ms. Sussman voluntarily resigned from the firm a few weeks later, in April 1988. Record on appeal at 187-201 in Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights, D.C.C.A. no. 96-CV-961 (Sept. 1, 1998).  

 One might go so far as to see the following observations made about me by Dennis Race as a negative spin on my individualism.  In the following observations Dennis Race emphasized my lack of group-orientedness, my lack of affiliative behavior, and my failure to meet  the firm's expectation that an employee be a joiner and follower dependent -- all characteristics associated with embarrassability.  Note again that Dennis Race evidenced an over-concern with the issue of embarrassment in two instances at the time of my termination (see discussion, above). 

 -- Because Claimant preferred to work in isolation, Respondent attempted to accommodate him -- and did so until work and space constraints became a problem.

 -- Claimant was uncomfortable communicating with his peers and required work that ensured total isolation. 

 --  Claimant was informed that the law firm did not have a position (similar to his job tasks for client, Eastern Airlines) which allowed Claimant to work alone and isolated from other employees. He was also told that it was clear that he could not function in a group setting (he could not work with or in close proximity to other legal assistants or litigation support personnel). Claimant had openly admitted that he had difficulties interacting with co-workers and requested virtual isolation. He was informed that although Respondent tried to accommodate him, there was no longer work (or space) available to suit him.

 --  C. Claimant was told that "there did not appear to be a good fit" because of his demand for isolation; (2) his difficulty working with or near other employees;

 --  I concluded that Gary's inability to work or interrelate with others is a substantial problem for the firm. There is only so much work that can be done without any interaction among our staff (which is what he requests)

--  In addition he is very difficult to supervise -- (i.e., I exhibit deficiencies in the characteristic "follower dependence")

In a sense, Dennis Race's observations about my personality can be viewed as a perverse parody of statements made about me in my job performance evaluations -- specifically, about my self-reliance:

-- works well independently 

-- self-sufficient

--  highly motivated individual 

--   Totally independent, self-sustaining and committed to his work. 

--   I trust Gary's ability to meet whatever the demand with little guidance. 

--  independent nature. 

--  Gary is a self-starter in all respects. 

--  Gary is the soul of dependability and responsibility. 

--   He is a self-starter and thoroughly dependable.

--   Always know he can be relied upon to complete a project with no supervision, and it will be done accurately and efficiently.

--   A self-starter

Pennsylvania Anti-Mobbing Bill

The following link contains the text of House Bill No. 1179 introduced into the Pennsylvania General Assembly on April 15, 2013.  The bill ("The Healthy Workplace Act") provides a civil legal remedy for individuals who have suffered injuries as a result of workplace mobbing:

http://www.healthyworkplacebill.org/states/pa/HB1179.pdf

email Message to Lewis A. Winkler, MD

Dr. Winkler:

I had three consults with you in April 1991.  I was a paralegal at the law firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld.  Attached is the link to a workers' compensation claim I have filed based on injuries I suffered at Akin Gump and you negligently failed to address.  You promoted yourself as knowledgeable about employment-related problems, but in my case you were unable to identify the specific and recognized problem of workplace mobbing that I was experiencing.  Shonda, Dr. Winkler, shonda!

http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2013/10/dc-workers-compensation-claim.html

Gary Freedman
Washington, DC

email Message to the Former President of the American Psychiatric Association (2005-2006)

Steven Sharfstein, M.D.

President and Chief Executive Officer

Sheppard Pratt Health System

6501 North Charles Street
Towson, MD 21285
(410) 938-3000

Dr. Sharfstein:

Sheppard Pratt was the employee assistance program provider for my former employer, the D.C. office of the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld.

In October 1991 Dennis M. Race, Esq. (202 887 4028), an Akin Gump management partner, consulted a Sheppard Pratt counselor who acquiesced in Mr. Race's decision to terminate my employment.  I was not given an opportunity to discuss my employment problems with Sheppard Pratt. 

Attached is a workers' compensation claim I have filed based on injuries I suffered at Akin Gump and which Sheppard Pratt (Washington, DC) negligently failed to address.  Sheppard Pratt promoted itself as knowledgeable about employment-related problems, but in my case Sheppard Pratt was unable to identify the specific and recognized problem of workplace mobbing that I was experiencing.

Gary Freedman

Washington, DC

202 362 7064

Attracting the Interest of Professor Dan Kovalik (University of Pittsburgh Law School)

Thanks, Gary!  This is of great interest.

Best

Dan

On Oct 6, 2013, at 2:34 PM, "Gary Freedman" <garfreed@yahoo.com> wrote:

Professor Kovalik,

I thought you might have an academic interest in the following unusual workers' compensation claim alleging workplace mobbing.  Incidentally, the Akin Gump partner in charge of the firm's paralegal program during my tenure was a University of Pittsburgh Law school alumnus, Earl L. Segal, Esq. (202 266 3251), currently senior vice president of The Ezra Company in Washington, DC.

Gary Freedman

Washington, DC

_________________________

October 4, 2013 

3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Apartment 136

Washington, DC  20008

DC Department of Employment Services

Labor Standards Bureau

Office of Workers' Compensation

4058 Minnesota Avenue, NE, Third Floor

Washington, DC 20019

Phone: (202) 671-1000

Dear Sir or Madam:

I hereby file a claim for Workers' Compensation with the Department of Employment Services of the Government of the District of Columbia.  Enclosed are completed form OWC-7 (Employee's Notice of Accidental Injury or Occupational Disease) and completed form OWC-7A (Employee's Claim Application).

I certify under penalty of perjury for making false statements that all the statements I make in support of my claim are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.  I certify that there is documentation that corroborates all the statements I make in support of my claim and that I will be able to forward copies of said documentation to the Department of Employment Services upon request.

Attracting the Interest of Professor Susan Carle (American University Law School)

Thank you for sharing this with me. I wish you the very best.  SDC

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 5, 2013, at 8:54 AM, "Gary Freedman" <garfreed@yahoo.com> wrote:

Professor Carle:

I thought you might have an academic interest in the following unusual workers' compensation claim that alleges workplace mobbing.  Incidentally, Professor Grossman is familiar with my case.

Gary Freedman

Washington, DC

LL.M., The Washington College of Law, 1984

_______________________

October 4, 2013 

3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Apartment 136

Washington, DC  20008

DC Department of Employment Services

Labor Standards Bureau

Office of Workers' Compensation

4058 Minnesota Avenue, NE, Third Floor

Washington, DC 20019

Phone: (202) 671-1000

Dear Sir or Madam:

I hereby file a claim for Workers' Compensation with the Department of Employment Services of the Government of the District of Columbia.  Enclosed are completed form OWC-7 (Employee's Notice of Accidental Injury or Occupational Disease) and completed form OWC-7A (Employee's Claim Application).

I certify under penalty of perjury for making false statements that all the statements I make in support of my claim are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.  I certify that there is documentation that corroborates all the statements I make in support of my claim and that I will be able to forward copies of said documentation to the Department of Employment Services upon request.

email Message to Judy Peres, Former Sheppard Pratt Counselor

Ms. Peres:

In October 1991 Dennis M. Race, Esq. (202 887 4028) (Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld) consulted a Sheppard Pratt counselor who acquiesced in Mr. Race's decision to terminate my employment.  I was not given an opportunity to discuss my employment problems with Sheppard Pratt, which was Akin Gump's Employee Assistance Provider.  Attached is a workers' comp claim I have filed based on injuries I suffered at Akin Gump and which Sheppard Pratt (Washington, DC) and you specifically failed to address.  Sheppard Pratt promoted itself as knowledgeable about employment-related problems, but in my case SP was unable to identify the specific and recognized problem of workplace mobbing. 
______________

October 4, 2013
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apartment 136
Washington, DC  20008

DC Department of Employment Services
Labor Standards Bureau
Office of Workers' Compensation
4058 Minnesota Avenue, NE, Third Floor
Washington, DC 20019
Phone: (202) 671-1000

Dear Sir or Madam:

I hereby file a claim for Workers' Compensation with the Department of Employment Services of the Government of the District of Columbia.  Enclosed are completed form OWC-7 (Employee's Notice of Accidental Injury or Occupational Disease) and completed form OWC-7A (Employee's Claim Application).

I certify under penalty of perjury for making false statements that all the statements I make in support of my claim are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.  I certify that there is documentation that corroborates all the statements I make in support of my claim and that I will be able to forward copies of said documentation to the Department of Employment Services upon request.

http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2013/10/dc-workers-compensation-claim.html 

Attracting the Interest of Noa Zanolli Davenport Ph.D.

Mr Freedman:

Thank you for letting me know.

Best wishes,

NZD

www.mobbing-usa.com

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Gary Freedman [mailto:garfreed@yahoo.com]
Gesendet: Freitag, 4. Oktober 2013 18:14
An: nzanolli@reconfigure.ch
Betreff: workplace mobbing

Dr. Davenport:

I thought you might have an academic interest in the following workers' compensation claim that alleges workplace mobbing.

Gary Freedman

Washington, DC

__________________

October 3, 2013 

3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Apartment 136

Washington, DC  20008

DC Department of Employment Services

Labor Standards Bureau

Office of Workers' Compensation

4058 Minnesota Avenue, NE, Third Floor

Washington, DC 20019

Phone: (202) 671-1000

Dear Sir or Madam:

I hereby file a claim for Workers' Compensation with the Department of Employment Services of the Government of the District of Columbia.  Enclosed are completed form OWC-7 (Employee's Notice of Accidental Injury or Occupational Disease) and completed form OWC-7A (Employee's Claim Application).

I certify under penalty of perjury for making false statements that all the statements I make in support of my claim are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.  I certify that there is documentation that corroborates all the statements I make in support of my claim and that I will be able to forward copies of said documentation to the Department of Employment Services upon request.

 ____________________________________

http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2013/10/dc-workers-compensation-claim.html 

D.C. Workers' Compensation Claim

October 4, 2013 

3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Apartment 136

Washington, DC  20008

DC Department of Employment Services

Labor Standards Bureau

Office of Workers' Compensation

4058 Minnesota Avenue, NE, Third Floor

Washington, DC 20019

Phone: (202) 671-1000

Dear Sir or Madam:

I hereby file a claim for Workers' Compensation with the Department of Employment Services of the Government of the District of Columbia.  Enclosed are completed form OWC-7 (Employee's Notice of Accidental Injury or Occupational Disease) and completed form OWC-7A (Employee's Claim Application).

I certify under penalty of perjury for making false statements that all the statements I make in support of my claim are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.  I certify that there is documentation that corroborates all the statements I make in support of my claim and that I will be able to forward copies of said documentation to the Department of Employment Services upon request.

________________

Gary Freedman

Washington, DC

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION BENEFITS

1.  I was employed as a paralegal at the Washington, DC office of the law firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld ("Akin Gump," "the employer," or "the firm") during the period June 13, 1988, the date I was hired as a temporary paralegal, to October 29, 1991.  I had started work at Akin Gump in early March 1988 as an agency-supplied temporary paralegal. 

During the entirety of my tenure at Akin Gump I was subjected to a recognized subtle form of job harassment known as "workplace mobbing."

2.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has acknowledged the phenomenon of workplace mobbing, which the court defined as a form of "group harassment" that involves "a process of abusive behaviors inflicted over time." Sousa v. Roque, Docket No. 07-1892-CV, August 21, 2009.  "The mobbing syndrome is a malicious attempt to force a person out of the workplace through unjustified accusations, humiliation, general harassment, emotional abuse, and/or terror. It is a 'ganging up' by the leader(s) - organization, superior, co-worker, or subordinate – who rallies others in to systematic and frequent 'mob-like' behaviour.  Because the organization ignores, condones or even instigates the behaviour, it can be said that the victim, seemingly helpless against the powerful and many, is indeed 'mobbed.' The result is always injury – physical or mental distress or illness and social misery and, most often, expulsion from the workplace."    Davenport, N., Distler-Schwartz, R., & Pursell-Elliott, G. (1999). Mobbing: Emotional abuse in the American workplace. Ames, IA: Civil Society Publishing (referenced by the court in Sousa v. Roque, Docket No. 07-1892-CV, August 21, 2009).

California Assembly Bill 1582 (Abusive work environments), introduced in 2003, would have provided a civil legal remedy to victims of workplace mobbing in California but was not enacted.  Wisconsin Assembly Bill 894 (prohibiting abusive working environments), introduced in 2009, would have provided a civil legal remedy to victims of workplace mobbing in Wisconsin, but was not enacted. 

There is no anti-mobbing statute in the District of Columbia.  The District's Human Rights Act of 1977 (as amended) does not provide a civil remedy for abusive work environments, or workplace mobbing.

3.  In about November 1991 I provided to the D.C. Department of Human Rights (DHR) an approximate 20-page document describing the abusive working environment to which I was subjected during the entirety of my tenure at Akin Gump.  My allegations of facts concerning the abusive working environment, or mobbing, were affirmed as genuine and truthful by the Government of the District of Columbia in an unlawful job termination complaint and subsequent litigation styled Freedman v. D.C. Department of Human Rights, D.C.C.A. no. 96-CV-961 (Sept. 1, 1998).  See Brief of Appellee (D.C. Office of Corporation Counsel).

The following findings made by DHR, admissions or statements made by Akin Gump (including its supervisory employees), and affirmations made by the D.C. Office of Corporation Counsel highlight the conclusion that I was a victim of workplace mobbing:

(a.)  DHR found that I consulted regularly with Mental Health Counselors, Psychologists and Psychiatrists starting in 1989 with 28 consultations between January 1 and October 8, 1991. Some of those consultations were with professionals connected with Akin Gump’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP).  DHR found that I invited my supervisor to attend one of my sessions with a psychologist, implicitly indicating that my psychological distress was work-related. 

(b.) The District of Columbia Office of Corporation Counsel ("the Corporation Counsel"), predecessor of the District of Columbia Office of Attorney General, affirmed that I learned on May 3, 1989 that Akin Gump coworkers had spread a sexual rumor about me to the effect that I was homosexual.   At common law the spreading of a false rumor that an individual is homosexual would be actionable as defamation per se.  See, e.g., Stern v. Cosby, 645 F.Supp.2d 258 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); Murphy v. Millenium Radio Group LLC, 2011 WL 2315128 (3rd Cir. 2011).

Moreover, malicious rumors and innuendo in the workplace are behaviors critical to mobbing.  Davenport, et al. (see paragraph 2, above) identify mobbing as a particular type of bullying that is not as apparent as most, defining it as " . . . an emotional assault. It begins when an individual becomes the target of disrespectful and harmful behavior. Through innuendo, rumors, and public discrediting, a hostile environment is created in which one individual gathers others to willingly, or unwillingly, participate in continuous malevolent actions to force a person out of the workplace."  Davenport, N., Distler-Schwartz, R., & Pursell-Elliott, G. (1999). Mobbing: Emotional abuse in the American workplace. Ames, IA: Civil Society Publishing (referenced by the court in Sousa v. Roque, Docket No. 07-1892-CV, August 21, 2009).

(c.) The Corporation Counsel affirmed that in early August 1989 a coworker said to me: "We're all afraid of you.  We're all afraid you're going to buy a gun, bring it in and shoot everybody."  The statement was unfounded and delusional.  The statement was not supported by my personnel records.  DHR found that my performance evaluations throughout my tenure were above-average or outstanding.  A performance evaluation dated November 6, 1989 that covered the previous six-month period (i.e., including August 1989) specifically rated my ability to get along with coworkers as "above-average."  My personnel file contained no record of any reprimands, either oral or written.  The coworker in question, a temporary paralegal, was later reportedly terminated for gross misconduct in May 1990.

Guidelines of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) state that false, malicious, delusional and unfounded statements that tend to damage an employee's reputation and inflict severe emotional distress constitute a form of verbal intimidation that are rightly termed  “workplace violence.” 

One researcher in the field of workplace mobbing has found that "mobbers’ fear of violence from target" is one of 16 key indicators of mobbing.  Westhues, K. Checklist of Mobbing Indicators.  Kenneth Westhues is a professor of sociology at the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

In mid-September 1989 I consulted Akin Gump's EAP to report my concerns about workplace mobbing and workplace violence (per OSHA Guidelines).  My EAP chart states that I complained about the above delusional statement by a coworker to the EAP social worker with whom I consulted.

(d.) In March 1990 I was demoted without cause from the firm's legal assistant program to the firm's litigation support group.  Akin Gump admitted in unrelated litigation that a transfer from the firm's legal assistant program to the firm's litigation support group constituted a demotion.  DHR found that my performance evaluations were above-average or outstanding throughout my tenure; DHR did not explain or justify the demotion. 

(e.) The record on appeal in Freedman v. D.C. Department of Human Rights -- the appeal of DHR's no probable cause determination issued in September 1993 -- reports that I learned on July 1, 1993 that my direct supervisor told her employees (my coworkers) a short time after my termination on October 29, 1991 that she was afraid that I might return to the firm to kill her and my coworkers in a mass homicidal assault.  Reportedly, the supervisor arranged with staff to have the lock to her office suite changed to prevent my re-entry.  Neither the supervisor nor her superiors contacted law enforcement about fears that I might be homicidal.  The supervisor reported directly to a senior firm partner, who was a member of Akin Gump's management committee.

My patient records at The George Washington University Medical Center Department of Psychiatry, where I received out-patient treatment from September 1992 to June 1996, indicate that there was a severe worsening in my mental condition in August 1993, weeks after I learned that my supervisor had made false, delusional and unfounded statements about me to my former coworkers and staff members.

Again, OSHA guidelines state that false, malicious, delusional and unfounded statements that tend to damage an employee's reputation and inflict severe emotional distress constitute a form of verbal intimidation that are rightly termed  “workplace violence.” 

With specific regard to workplace mobbing, when mobbing occurs as emotional abuse in the workplace, such as "ganging up" by co-workers, subordinates -- or superiors -- to force someone out of the workplace through intimidation, humiliation, and discrediting it is also referred to as malicious, nonsexual, nonracial, general harassment.  Davenport, N., Distler-Schwartz, R., & Pursell-Elliott, G. (1999). Mobbing: Emotional abuse in the American workplace. Ames, IA: Civil Society Publishing (referenced by the court in Sousa v. Roque, Docket No. 07-1892-CV, August 21, 2009).

"Mobbers’ fear of violence from target" is one of 16 key indicators of mobbing.  Westhues, K. Checklist of Mobbing Indicators.

(f.)  I have been continuously disabled and unemployed since October 29, 1991.  The effective date of my disability, October 29, 1991, is drawn from allegations made in a sworn declaration filed on May 22, 1992 with DHR by Dennis M. Race, Esq. and Laurence J. Hoffman, Esq., senior Akin Gump management partners.  According to the declaration Akin Gump had been advised by a DC-licensed practicing psychiatrist, Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D. (deceased) that I appeared to suffer from the psychiatric "disorder" ideas of reference (consistent with schizophrenia), that I was not fit for employment and that I could become violent (i.e., that I posed a "direct threat in the workplace" which arguably denied me, as a disabled American, the protections of The Americans With Disabilities Act). 

According to a second sworn declaration filed on May 17, 1993 by Akin Gump with DHR, Race and Malcolm Lassman, Esq. consulted Dr. Ticho in a telephone conference call in late October 1991 to seek advice and guidance concerning a job harassment complaint I had lodged against my supervisor and coworkers pursuant to Title VII and/or The D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977.  Freedman v. D.C. Department of Human Rights, D.C.C.A. no. 96-CV-961 (Memorandum Opinion and Judgment, Sept. 1, 1998) ("the firm . . . learned [upon consulting a practicing psychiatrist] that [Mr. Freedman's] behavior was indicative of a disorder known as 'ideas of reference,' which is sometimes accompanied by violent behavior.').  Dr. Ticho did not examine me in person.  I never met Dr. Ticho or had any contact with her of any kind prior to October 29, 1991.  According to Race, Dr. Ticho was a "personal friend" of Lassman, a senior firm manager.

Since Akin Gump's psychiatric consultant, Dr. Ticho had never examined me personally her professional opinion violated the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA'S) so-called Goldwater Rule which prohibits a psychiatrist from offering a professional psychiatric opinion about an individual without benefit of personal examination and without the individual’s consent for the opinion. (The D.C. Code in its latest revision makes it unlawful for a physician to "[fail] to conform to standards of acceptable conduct and prevailing practice within a health profession." See D.C. Code 2-3305.14(26). This provision was added to the D.C. Health Occupations Revision Act by D.C. Law 10-247, enacted on March 23, 1995.  Under current District law the act of Akin Gump partners (Race and Lassman) in soliciting a professional psychiatric opinion about an employee without personal examination and without the employee's consent for the opinion might be deemed criminal.)

DHR determined that the psychiatric opinion proffered by Akin Gump to DHR (in May 1992) was genuine and credible.  In fact, the act of Akin Gump's attorney managers, Race and Hoffman -- who were themselves licensed professionals, sensitive to the ethical constraints imposed on other licensed professionals -- in proffering a medically-unfounded psychiatric opinion about me to DHR that was defamatory on its face, was a malicious act of intimidation, humiliation and discrediting that damaged my reputation.

OSHA guidelines state that false, malicious, (delusional) and unfounded statements that tend to damage an employee's reputation and inflict severe emotional distress constitute a form of verbal intimidation that are rightly termed  “workplace violence.” 

Again, with specific regard to workplace mobbing, when mobbing occurs as emotional abuse in the workplace, such as "ganging up" by co-workers, subordinates -- or superiors -- to force someone out of the workplace through intimidation, humiliation, and discrediting it is also referred to as malicious, nonsexual, nonracial, general harassment.  Davenport, N., Distler-Schwartz, R., & Pursell-Elliott, G. (1999). Mobbing: Emotional abuse in the American workplace. Ames, IA: Civil Society Publishing (referenced by the court in Sousa v. Roque, Docket No. 07-1892-CV, August 21, 2009).

Arguably, I have been denied the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act because I was deemed by Akin Gump “potentially violent, ” i.e., a “direct threat in the workplace” based on the above-referenced defamatory allegation made by Akin Gump, a defamatory allegation that was affirmed as genuine and credible by DHR, a state human rights agency. The U.S. Supreme Court has held private citizens to be liable as state actors when they conspire with government officials to deprive persons of their rights. Thus, my former employer, Akin Gump may have committed a “color of law violation,” a felony that falls within the investigative jurisdiction of the FBI. See 18 USC § 241 (Conspiracy against rights).  

4.  Neither Akin Gump nor the Corporation Counsel denied that I was a victim of workplace mobbing.  The issue of whether I was a victim of workplace mobbing was never litigated since there is no anti-mobbing statute in the District of Columbia.  No administrative agency or court has ever determined that I was not a victim of workplace mobbing.

5.  Since May 2009 I have been a patient at the McClendon Center, a Core Services Agency of the District of Columbia, where I receive medical management for mental illness.  On September 17, 2013 I was advised in an email message by Dennis Hobb, Program Manager, McClendon Center that my chart includes the following psychiatric diagnoses: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Major Depression, Alcohol Dependence (in remission), and Paranoia (as well as Schizoid Personality Disorder, a non-psychotic psychiatric disorder that does not render an individual unemployable, but that may require that the individual's need to work in isolation be accommodated by the employer under the Americans With Disabilities Act).  Prior to that email message of September 17, 2013, I was not aware of my psychiatric diagnoses or the causal connection between my illness and the workplace mobbing to which I was subjected at Akin Gump.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Hobb <dhobb@mcclendoncenter.org>
To: 'Gary Freedman' <garfreed@netscape.net>
Cc: 'Natalie Nichols' <nnichols@mcclendoncenter.org>; 'Michael Burt' <mburt@mcclendoncenter.org>; 'Anne Degirolamo' <adegirolamo@mcclendoncenter.org>; 'Sallie Twentyman' <stwentyman@mcclendoncenter.org>
Sent: Tue, Sep 17, 2013 3:57 pm
Subject: RE: : Complaint against Nurse Sara F. Carroll

Mr. Freedman,

At the McClendon Center we take allegations of Medicare/Medicaid fraud and abuse very seriously.  Actual fraud would have been committed if Nurse Carroll had billed for services that she didn't provide.  I have no reason to believe that she did not see you on the days for which she billed, so I believe no fraud was committed.  Abuse can encompass a range of issues.  It can vary from claiming too much (or too little) time with the patient, or it can be committed if you did not have a valid treating diagnosis.  Your file contains the following diagnoses: Delusional Disorder (297.1), Major Depression Recurrent Severe Without Psychotic Features (296.33), Alcohol Dependence in Sustained Remission (303.90), and PTSD (309.81), and Schizoid Personality Disorder (301.20).  These diagnoses were made by Aimee Calderone-Burgess, who is a Licensed Independent Clinical Social worker, and therefore qualified to diagnose mental health conditions in the District of Columbia.  As you have valid DSM diagnoses and are being appropriately treated by an Advance Practice Registered Nurse, I believe your allegations of Medicare/Medicaid fraud are unfounded.  However, it is your prerogative to contact an appropriate agency such as the Office of Health Care Ombudsman to register your concerns.  You have my assurance that we will cooperate fully in any investigation conducted by any oversight agency at which you register a complaint.

Dennis Hobb

6.  Major Depression, PTSD, Alcohol Dependence, and Paranoia are medically-recognized consequences of workplace mobbing.

Victims of workplace mobbing frequently suffer from: adjustment disorders, somatic symptoms (e.g., headaches or irritable bowel syndrome),psychological trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder and major depresssion).  In mobbing targets with PTSD, Heinz Leymann notes that the mental effects were fully comparable with PTSD from war or prison camp experiences. Some patients may develop alcoholism or other substance abuse disorders. Family relationships routinely suffer. Some targets may even develop brief psychotic episodes, generally with paranoid symptoms. Leymann estimated that 15% of suicides in Sweden could be directly attributed to workplace mobbing.  Hillard JR "Workplace mobbing: Are they really out to get your patient?" Current Psychiatry 8(4): 45-51, April 2009.

Akin Gump admits that I suffered from paranoid symptoms during my employment at the firm.  The D.C. Workers' Compensation program administers the special/second injury fund, which provides benefits in instances where an injury combines with a pre-existing disability to cause a substantially greater disability.

7.  On January 15, 2010 I was interviewed by Deputy Marshal xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx (202 xxx xxxx) of the U.S. Marshals Service (U.S. Department of Justice) as part of a threat investigation relating to U.S. District Court Judge xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx (District of Columbia).  Deputy Marshal xxxxxxxxxx was concerned about my obsessive preoccupation with my employment experience at Akin Gump and the intense anger expressed in my writings published on the Internet about that employment experience.   Deputy Marshal xxxxxxxxxx specifically asked, "What was your motivation in writing a blog (titled 'My Daily Struggles')?"  He added that he had been reading my blog for the previous two months, since November 2009.

Anger, obsessive preoccupation with past trauma, and the potential for violent acting out are symptoms of PTSD.  Thus, the U.S. Department of Justice has affirmed as genuine the symptoms diagnosed by the McClendon Center as constituting PTSD, a recognized consequence of workplace mobbing.

In an email message dated June 7, 2011 USMS Associate General Counsel xxx xxxxx advised me that the USMS instituted a threat investigation in January 2010 because I had "sent numerous communications to U.S. District Court Judge xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx" (beginning with a letter dated August 14, 2000, more than a decade ago, in which I accused Judge xxxxxxx of a possible ethical infraction for failing to recuse herself from presiding over my Petition for Review of Agency Determination when she sat as a judge on the D.C. Superior Court).

8.  I advised the U.S. Department of Justice by letter dated January 5, 1994 that I had suffered severe emotional distress as a result of Akin Gump's action in using the legal processes of a state agency, DHR to defame me in pleadings filed by the firm (in May 1992) with that agency.

There is no evidence that I suffered from Major Depression or PTSD prior to September 1992, that is before I learned in late December 1992 that Akin Gump had used the legal processes of a state agency (in May 1992) to defame, humiliate and embarrass me, which resulted in the infliction of extreme emotional distress.   I underwent a 2-hour psychiatric assessment at the George Washington University Medical Center Department of Psychiatry (GW) in September 1992.  GW's initial assessment dated September 24, 1992 does not state that I suffered from either Major Depression or PTSD at that time.  These disorders arose later.

Experts in workplace mobbing recognize that a frequently encountered aspect of the phenomenon is that the employer himself ultimately colludes with coworkers in mobbing behavior which typically features behaviors intended to defame, humiliate and embarrass the mobbing victim and which includes mobbers' fears that the mobbing victim may become violent.  Thus, an expert in workplace mobbing could very well conclude that Akin Gump's act of filing false and defamatory written statements about me in May 1992 (seven months after my employment ended on October 29, 1991) -- statements that included the allegation by Akin Gump that the firm feared that I might become violent -- with a state agency was, in fact, an integral part of the mobbing.  See paragraph 2, above, for example.  In workplace mobbing the organization "condones or even instigates the behaviour."

9.  Under the D.C. Worker's Compensation program a claimant is required to report job-related injury or illness in writing to the Office of Workers’ Compensation within 30 days of occurrence or awareness.  I became aware that I suffered from the recognized consequences of workplace mobbing experienced at Akin Gump (1988-1991) on September 17, 2013 by way of the above email message (see paragraph 3, above) sent to me by Dennis Hobb, Program Manager of the McClendon Center. 

I have until October 17, 2013 to file a timely claim for workers' compensation from the Department of Employment Services on the grounds that there is a causal link between the workplace mobbing I experienced at Akin Gump from 1988-1991 and the recognized consequences of workplace mobbing in the form of Major Depression, PTSD, Alcohol Dependence (in remission), and Paranoid symptoms: disorders about which I first became aware on September 17, 2013 (see paragraph 5, above).

Gary Freedman

3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Apt. 136

Washington, DC  20008

telephone: 202 362 7064