3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20008
The Honorable Karl A. Racine
Office of the Attorney General
Government of the District of Columbia
441 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (202) 727-3400
Fax: (202) 347-8922
RE: Current Psychiatric Treatment
Dear Mr. Racine:
This will advise the Office of Attorney General that I am currently in weekly out-patient psychotherapy with Alice E. Stone, M.D., a psychiatry resident affiliated with St. Elizabeths Hospital working under the supervision of Earl Baughman, M.D.
I was administered psychological testing by The George Washington University Medical Center Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science in 1994 and in 1996. The testing failed to disclose that I suffer from any diagnosable mental illness. I achieved a perfect score on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (6 errors) in 1996, which virtually rules out schizophrenia and delusional disorder. See Ibanez-Casas, I. "Deficits in Executive and Memory Processes in Delusional Disorder: A Case-Controlled Study." PLoS One, 2013 Jul 2;8(7):e67341.
I have been diagnosed with psychotic mental illness -- Paranoid (Delusional) Disorder -- and receive monthly disability benefits paid by the U.S. Social Security Administration therefor. The cost of psychiatric treatment is reimbursed by Medicare. There is evidence that the only reason I qualify for disability benefits is that I believe I have been the victim of a longstanding criminal conspiracy carried out by attorney managers of the D.C. law firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, my former employer. There is evidence that St. Elizabeths Hospital is billing Medicare for the treatment of nonexistent mental illness. But see, Freedman v. D.C. Department of Human Rights, D.C.C.A 96-CV-961 (Sept. 1, 1998) (Akin Gump had genuine and credible reasons to determine that I suffered from mental illness that rendered me unemployable and a direct threat in the workplace).
In fact, Akin Gump's disability determination was based on a medically worthless psychiatric opinion, offered by a psychiatrist who did not examine me personally and who did not obtain my written consent for the opinion. See American Psychiatric Association (APA) Goldwater Rule, Section 7.3 of the APA's ethics principles. As of the filing of the complaint in the Superior Court proceedings (cited above), in October 1995, and at all times thereafter, it was unlawful under the laws of the District of Columbia for a psychiatrist to offer a professional psychiatric opinion about an individual without benefit of personal examination per APA Section 7.3. 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 District of Columbia Health Occupations Revision Act by D.C. Law 10-247, enacted on March 23, 1995. The Court of Appeals in Freedman v. DHR expressly found that the professional psychiatric opinion offered by the psychiatrist to the employer amounted to the diagnosis of a "disorder." See No. 96-CV-961 at 4. Under current District law the actions of my former employer, Akin Gump in soliciting an illegal act by a psychiatrist might be deemed prosecutable as conspiracy and solicitation.
cc: U.S. Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch