Friday, March 18, 2016

email from DBH

Mr. Freedman,

We will pass on the information to the 64 New York Avenue office of DBH - Thank you for making us aware of your filing and keeping us informed.

Sincerely,
Hannah Ong


Hannah J. Ong, M.D.
Director of Psychiatric Services
Saint Elizabeths Hospital
Department of Behavioral Health (DBH)
1100 Alabama Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20032
(202) 299-5199 (office)


This email transmission and any included attachments are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed for their official and confidential use.   This communication, along with any attachments, is covered by federal and state law governing electronic communications and may contain confidential and legally privileged or protected information under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the D.C. Mental Health Information Act (MHIA), or 42 CFR Part 2.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, use, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete/destroy all copies of the original transmission.



From: Gary Freedman [mailto:garfreed@aim.com]
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 2:10 PM
To: Hannah.Ong@dc.gov.
Subject: criminal complaint


Dr, Ong:

The attachment to this email contains a  criminal complaint I have filed against the D.C. Department of Behavioral Health (Tanya A. Royster, M.D.) relating to DBH's denial of services.  

Gary Freedman
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apartment 136
Washington, DC
Telephone: (202) 362 7064

Friday, February 05, 2016

Letter to FBI WFO

February 5, 2016 
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW 
Apartment 136 
Washington, DC 20008 

Mr. Paul Abbate 
Assistant Director in Charge 
FBI Washington Field Office 
601 4th Street, NW 
Washington, DC 20535 

 Dear Mr. Abbate: 

The enclosed documents constitute circumstantial evidence of acts of criminal fraud committed in violation of the laws of the United States and the District of Columbia. Said fraud may ultimately lead to a financial loss to the federal government of up to $500,000. 

 Sincerely 

 Gary Freedman

Thursday, February 04, 2016

Approval of St. Elizabeths Hospital to Engage in Self Advocacy

Mr. Freedman, I hope your self-advocacy resolves this situation to your satisfaction. Best wishes, Maureen
 
Maureen Jais-Mick (I am currently in the office on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays frm 8 am to 2pm.)
Program Analyst
Department of Behavioral Health
Saint Elizabeths Hospital
1100 Alabama Avenue SE
Washington DC 20032
202-299-5220 (office)
202-407-3162 (cellphone)
 
"Saint Elizabeths: Shining the Light since 1855."
 
From: Gary Freedman [mailto:garfreed@aim.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:57 AM
To: Jais-Mick, Maureen (DBH)
Cc: dc.outreach@usdoj.gov; ATD OAG
Subject: doj petition
 
Maureen Jais-Mick
St. Elizabeths Hospital
Washington, DC
 
Ms. Jais-Mick,
 
Attached is a complaint I filed with the U.S. Department of Justice about the failure of DBH to provide psychiatric services.
 
Gary Freedman

Tuesday, February 02, 2016

Petition to Justice Department

February 2, 2016
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW                  
Apartment 136
Washington, DC  20008

The Honorable Leslie R. Caldwell
Assistant U.S. Attorney General
Criminal Division
Office of the Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC  20530-0001

RE:  Failure of State Agency to Provide Legally-Mandated Services

Dear Attorney General Caldwell:

I am writing to you pursuant to the Petition Clause of the First Amendment.

I hereby petition the U.S. Department of Justice to compel the D.C. Department of Behavioral  Health (DBH) to provide the psychiatric services to which I am entitled as a resident of the District of Columbia who is disabled and who has been diagnosed with severe (psychotic) mental illness.  I had been receiving psychiatric services continuously from July 1996 to until February 2, 2015 (20 years), on which date my treatment was abruptly terminated without warning and only two weeks after DBH dispatched an MPDC officer to my residence (January 13, 2016) out of concerns about the severity of my mental condition.

The District Government has made numerous admissions over many years that my situation is extremely serious.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman
                                                          
cc: Dr. Royster (DBH); Karl A. Racine (DCOAG); FBI
                                                                        
February 2, 2016
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apt. 136
Washington, DC  20008

Tanya Royster, M.D.
Director
D.C. Department of Behavioral Health
Third Floor
64 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC  20002

Dr. Royster:

I have received psychiatric treatment provided by the D.C. Department of Behavioral Health (DBH) since the year 1996, 20 years.  On Monday February 1, 2016, I was advised by Monica Acharya, M.D., attending physician at the K Street Clinic (35 K Street, Washington, DC), that DBH was involuntarily terminating my psychiatric treatment with Alice E. Stone, M.D., a third-year psychiatry resident working under the supervision of Earle Baughman, M.D. (St. Elisabeths Hospital).  Dr. Stone had been providing psychiatric treatment to me since August 2015, five months.  My patient record will not disclose any conflicts with Dr. Stone throughout the treatment.

Dr. Acharya told me that I needed to see an experienced psychiatrist, and that DBH has no experienced psychiatrists who can treat me.  Dr. Acharya made no effort to help me locate alternative treatment.  Dr. Acharya admitted that my case is extremely serious.  On the evening of January 13, 2016 Dr. Acharya had an MPDC officer dispatched to my residence out of concerns about me.

I want to make it clear:  I did not refuse to see my treating psychiatrist, Dr. Stone.  I had simply requested to see a male therapist and/or a psychodynamically-oriented therapist (see attached).  I did not file a complaint against Dr. Stone to anyone at DBH; I had communicated my concerns about Dr. Stone’s professional competence to my case manager, Natalie Nichols at the McClendon Center (see attached).

I am a resident of the District of Columbia; I have been diagnosed with severe (psychotic) mental illness including paranoid schizophrenia.  DBH has a legal duty to provide treatment.   My case is of a nature that it must not be allowed to languish.

I need to remind you of troubling aspects of my history.

1.  Dennis M. Race, Esq., (202 887-4028) senior counsel with my former employer, the law firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, determined, in consultation with a practicing psychiatrist, that I was potentially violent and unemployable.  Mr. Race concluded that I posed a direct threat in the workplace.

2.  I have been under federal investigation by the U.S. Secret Service (redacted) as a potential security risk to former President Bill Clinton.

3.  I have been under federal investigation by the U.S. Secret Service (redacted) as a potential security risk to President Obama.

4.  I have been under federal investigation by the U.S. Marshals Service (redacted) as a potential security risk to U.S. District Court Judge (redacted).  At the time of the investigation the USMS imposed temporary protective measures against me.

5.  I was advised by the U.S. Capitol Police (redacted) that my name has been placed on a federal watch list of potentially violent felons.

6.  In the year 2004 10 MPDC officers (including an MPDC Second District Supervisor)  and 4 FBI agents were dispatched to my residence based on concerns that I might become armed and extremely dangerous.  

7.  I am completely isolated socially.  I have no friends or social contacts of any kind.  My only relative is a sister who lives in New Jersey.  I rarely see her.  I live within walking distance of the federal district in Washington, DC.  I suffer from profound loneliness.  Psychological testing performed in the year 2014 disclosed that I am "severely paranoid."

I strongly urge the DC Department of Behavioral Health to locate appropriate counseling treatment for me.  I am sure several U.S. Congressmen would be interested to learn about DBH's handling of my case.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

January 15, 2016
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apartment 136
Washington, DC  20008

Monica Acharya, M.D.
Mental Health Clinic
35 K Street, NE
Third Floor
Washington, DC  20002

Dear Dr. Acharya:

I receive weekly out-patient psychotherapy with Alice E. Stone, M.D. at 35 K Street.  Dr. Stone’s technique is primarily supportive.  I require psychodynamic, insight-oriented therapy.  Could you help locate a therapist for me who offers psychodynamic, insight-oriented therapy?  The attached letter addressed to Dr. Stone outlines some of my psychological problems.

You can reach me at telephone number (202) 362-7064.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

January 12, 2016                  
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apartment 136
Washington, DC  20008

Tanya A. Royster, M.D.
Director
D.C. Department of Behavioral Health
64 New York Avenue, NE
Third Floor
Washington, DC  20002

Dear Dr. Royster:

I am a consumer of mental health services provided by the D.C. Department of Behavioral Health (DBH).  I receive supportive psychotherapy and medical management provided by Alice E. Stone, M.D., a third year psychiatry resident at 35 K Street.  Dr. Stone works under the supervision of Earle Baughman, M.D. (St. Elisabeths Hospital).

I am deeply concerned about the failure of DBH to provide appropriate psychotherapy for me, which would be psychodynamic, insight oriented therapy.  Supportive psychotherapy is inadequate for my needs.

I need to remind the DBH that the D.C. Office of Attorney General and others have grave concerns about my case and my potential for violence, including the potential for armed mass homicide.

1. The D.C. Office of Attorney General affirmed as genuine and credible a psychiatric opinion offered to my former employer, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld (Dennis M. Race, Esq.) (1991) that concluded that I suffered from severe mental illness that rendered me unsuitable for employment and a direct threat in the workplace.  The employer in a sworn statement stated that it feared, based on said psychiatric opinion, that allowing me to remain on the firm’s premises posed a negligence risk to the firm.  (The psychiatrist in question, Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D. (deceased) denied ever having offered said opinion to the employer.  See letter to William J. Earl, Esq. dated March 19, 1996 (enclosed)).

2.  The D.C. Court of Appeals did not find that my former supervisor’s published fear (1991) that I might commit a mass homicidal assault on the firm’s premises and her act of securing her office against such an assault was motivated by discriminatory animus.  See Record at 41, Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights, D.C.C.A. no. 96-CV-961 (Sept. 1, 1998).

3.  The D.C. Office of Attorney General found that my coworkers’ fears that I might become armed and extremely dangerous in August 1989 (two years before my job termination) were genuine and credible.  The AG concluded that my coworkers had genuine and credible fears that I might “buy a gun, bring it in, and shoot everybody.”  See Brief of D.C. Office of Corporation Counsel at 8 citing Record at 276, Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights, D.C.C.A. no. 96-CV-961 (Sept. 1, 1998).

4.  On October 12, 2004 the MPDC dispatched 10 police officers and four FBI agents to my residence to escort me to D.C. General Hospital for an emergency forensic psychiatric examination.  The MPDC feared that I might become armed and extremely dangerous.

I urge the DBH to heed the concerns of the D.C. Attorney General and the MPDC and provide the psychodynamic psychotherapy that I require.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

cc: DC AG (Karl A. Racine); USDOJ (Leslie R. Caldwell)
                                                                              
MEMORANDUM

TO:          File
FROM:    Dennis M. Race [initialed DMR]
DATE:      October 29, 1991 CONFIDENTIAL
RE:           Gary Freedman

__________________________________________

In the course of investigating Gary's complaints about working conditions (none of which, by his own admission, involved activity or conduct which had a direct impact on him), 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) and his continued presence in the firm has been extremely disruptive. 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.

Malcolm Lassman and I have also discussed this matter, including Gary's work habits (as well as his habit of putting negative meanings to even trivial events i.e., "ideas of reference") with two outside consultants and both concurred that termination was the sound approach to take. One outside consultant also cautioned about the possibility of violence.

Accordingly, on the basis of disruptive work habits, unusual behavior and discussions with outside consultants, I believe that termination is warranted. Indeed, to do otherwise may prove to be negligent. I have discussed this with representatives of the Management Committee and our Administrative Staff and everyone concurs.

Gary will be given an additional two weeks severance (a total of four weeks) not only to cover extra time to look for alternative work but also to help cover insurance costs which will be borne directly by him upon leaving the firm.

-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Freedman <garfreed@aim.com>
To: nnichols <nnichols@mcclendoncenter.org>
Sent: Thu, Jan 21, 2016 1:39 pm
Subject: psychotherapy -- Dr. Stone

Ms. Nichols,

I want to confirm that we spoke about the following issues concerning my psychiatrist Dr. Stone, today January 21, 2016.

It is my belief that Dr. Stone falls short of providing appropriate and effective psychotherapy.

1.  Dr. Stone gives the impression of having intellectual limitations.  She me told the the following anecdote: "Before I went to medical school people were saying to me, 'You're not smart enough to be a doctor.  You should be a nurse.'"  It is my subjective perception that Dr. Stone is not the intellectual equal of other residents I have seen.  Without intending to brag, I want to report that my overall IQ was measured at 125 (95th percentile) and my verbal IQ was measured at 136 (99th percentile).  On the School and College Abilities Test (SCAT) my verbal reasoning was measured at 97th percentile among a pool of gifted students.  The SCAT test is only administered to gifted students.  I find it a strain talking to Dr. Stone.

2.  Dr. Stone's professional demeanor is unprofessional and adverse to the process of therapy, which involves the disclosure of sensitive material by a patient.  Dr. Stone tells wisecracks and jokes throughout the session.  For example:  In late December 2015 I told Dr. Stone that I had lined up a possible alternative therapist for me in private practice who happened to be a woman.  Dr. Stone responded (knowing that I wanted a  male therapist), "Well, it sounds like -- if she got a sex change operation she would be the ideal therapist for you."

Dr. Stone said she told the following wisecrack to a fellow psychiatry resident, Dr. Youssefi, a Muslim from Iran: "Do you lock your wife in a room all day?"  When I told her that statement was offensive she said, "He laughed."

When I was talking to Dr. Stone about being on the Atkins Diet and the issue of fat metabolism she said, "Oh, it's been so long since I was a real doctor."

3.  Dr. Stone seems unable to maintain clinical distance and maintain appropriate professional boundaries.  She acts as if she were talking to a friend -- not a patient:

She has told me the following personal facts, which no doctor should reveal to a patient.

a.  Her daughter has autism.

b.  Her mother's birthday is December 20, and her mother gets angry if you only get her a Christmas present and no birthday present.

c.  Her father has suffered from sleep apnea.

d.  Her mother attended American University and complains about the high tuition.

c.  Dr. Stone reported her mother is about my age (62):  Dr. Stone said, "My mother says to me, 'Am I going to die soon?'"

d.  Dr. Stone has revealed that she suffers from ADHD

4.  Dr. Stone talks way too much.  It's as if she were holding conversations with me, not doing psychotherapy.  She's a chatter box.  This may be a symptom of her ADHD.

Gary Freedman
202 362 7064

Letter to DBH re: Treatment Refusal

Maureen Jais-Mick
DC Department of Behavioral Health
64 New York Avenue, NE
Third Floor
Washington, DC  20002

Ms. Jais-Mick:

I have received psychiatric treatment provided by the D.C. Department of Behavioral Health (DBH) since the year 1996, 20 years.  On Monday February 1, 2016, I was advised by Monica Acharya, M.D., attending physician at the K Street Clinic (35 K Street, Washington, DC), that DBH was involuntarily terminating my psychiatric treatment with Alice E. Stone, M.D., a third-year psychiatry resident working under the supervision of Earle Baughman, M.D. (St. Elisabeths Hospital).  Dr. Acharya told me that I needed to see an experienced psychiatrist, and that DBH has no experienced psychiatrists who can treat me.  Dr. Acharya made no effort to help me locate alternative treatment.

I am a resident of the District of Columbia; I have been diagnosed with severe (psychotic) mental illness including paranoid schizophrenia.  DBH has a legal duty to provide psychiatric treatment.  DBH's treatment refusal is a violation of DC law and may also be contrary to applicable federal law.

I need to remind you of troubling aspects of my history.

1.  Dennis M. Race, Esq., (202 887-4028) senior counsel with my former employer, the law firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, determined, in consultation with a practicing psychiatrist, that I was potentially violent and unemployable.  Mr. Race concluded that I posed a direct threat in the workplace.

2.  I have been under federal investigation by the U.S. Secret Service as a potential security risk to former President Bill Clinton.

3.  I have been under federal investigation by the U.S. Secret Service as a potential security risk to President Obama.

4.  I have been under federal investigation by the U.S. Marshals Service as a potential security risk to U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle.  At the time of the investigation the USMS imposed temporary protective measures against me.

5.  I was advised by the U.S. Capitol Police that my name has been placed on a federal watch list of potentially violent felons.

6.  In the year 2004 10 MPDC officers and 4 FBI agents were dispatched to my residence based on concerns that I might become armed and extremely dangerous.  

7.  I am completely isolated socially.  I have no friends or social contacts of any kind.  My only relative is a sister who lives in New Jersey.  I rarely see her.  I live within walking distance of the federal district in Washington, DC.  I suffer from profound loneliness.  Psychological testing performed in the year 2014 disclosed that I am "extremely paranoid."

I strongly urge the DC Department of Behavioral Health to locate appropriate psychiatric treatment for me.  I am sure several U.S. Congressmen would be interested to learn about DBH's handling of my case.

Gary Freedman
Washington, DC
202 362 7064

Monday, February 01, 2016

The Department of Behavioral Health Cuts me Loose

Ms. Nichols,

I met with Monica Acharya, M.D. this afternoon, February 1, 2016.  Dr. Acharya is Dr. Stone's supervisor.  Dr. Acharya has advised me that DBH is terminating my work with Dr. Stone and has talked to McClendon about Dr. Steury taking me on as a psychotherapy patient.  Dr. Acharya emphasized the fact that I need to see an experienced therapist and the only therapists available from DBH are residents.  Apparently DHB is refusing to offer me treatment.

I have serious concerns about DBH cutting me loose.  I have been diagnosed with psychotic mental illness.  Two psychiatrists have diagnosed me with paranoid schizophrenia.  Also the DC Attorney General affirmed to the D.C. Superior Court and the D.C. Court of Appeals that my former coworkers had genuine and credible fears that I could become armed and extremely dangerous.  My former supervisor took precautions against my carrying out a mass homicidal assault on my employer's premises.  Do you think I should contact the U.S. Attorney's Office about the refusal of DBH to provide treatment?

Gary Freedman
202 362 7064

Friday, January 15, 2016

Letter to Dr. Acharya


January 15, 2016
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apartment 136
Washington, DC  20008

Monica Acharya, M.D.
Mental Health Clinic
35 K Street, NE
Third Floor
Washington, DC  20002

Dear Dr. Acharya:

I receive weekly out-patient psychotherapy with Alice E. Stone, M.D. at 35 K Street.  Dr. Stone’s technique is primarily supportive.  I require psychodynamic, insight-oriented therapy.  Could you help locate a therapist for me who offers psychodynamic, insight-oriented therapy?  The attached letter addressed to Dr. Stone outlines some of my psychological problems.

You can reach me at telephone number (202) 362-7064.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

                                                                      December 29, 2015
                                                                      3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
                                                                      Apartment 136
                                                                      Washington, DC 20008

Alice E. Stone, M.D.
Mental Health Clinic
D.C. Department of Behavioral Health
35 K Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002

                               RE: Note Regarding the Idealizing Transference
Dear Dr. Stone:
I have formed an idealizing transference with my primary care doctor that complements my negative transference to you. An examination of my psychological background reveals that my transference reactions to my primary care doctor and you, respectively, appear to be a derivative of my childhood experiences and my early psychological relations with my parents.
I have isolated out of my life history all of the relationships, events, and experiences that can give rise to intense primitive idealization in adulthood. We are left with the following summary:
1. Pre-Oedipal:
a. Subject experienced his mother as engulfing. Subject experienced his father as distant and disappointing.
b. Subject experienced physical trauma in early childhood. His father beat him as an infant and in early childhood. He suffered a serious injury to the oral cavity at age two-and-one-half. Mother negligently failed to protect subject against these traumas (see 3, below).
2. Oedipal:
Subject directed intense destructive (aggressive) impulses against his parents during the Oedipal stage. Subject hated his parents.
3. Latency:
Mother negligently failed to protect subject against narcissistic aggression by family members. (see 1(b) above).
Subject experienced functional libidinal object loss in latency.
4. Adulthood:
Subject is defiant and oppositional.
Subject struggles with the effects of pathological mourning.
Theoretical Implications
Pre-Oedipal:
a. Relationship with Engulfing Mother and Distant Father
Subject’s object hunger, his idealizing merger needs are fixations on archaic pre-oedipal forms deriving from deficits emerging out of his relationship with an engulfing mother who used subject for her own selfobject needs and in his frustrating relationship with a father unavailable for idealization. Cowan, J. “Blutbruderschaft and Self Psychology in D.H. Lawrence’s Women in Love in Self and Sexuality” (2002). Subject’s idealization of males is a defense against being swallowed up by a woman. See Shengold, L. Soul Murder: The Effects of Childhood Deprivation and Abuse (see especially the chapter, “The Parent as Sphinx”). Subject’s psychology parallels Kohut’s analysand Mr. U who, turning away from the unreliable empathy of his mother, tried to gain confirmation of his self through an idealizing relationship with his father. The self absorbed father, however, unable to respond appropriately, rebuffed his son’s attempt to be close to him, depriving him of the needed merger with the idealized self-object and, hence, of the opportunity for gradually recognizing the self-object’s shortcomings. Cowan, Self and Sexuality at 59 quoting Kohut, H. In adulthood, subject views certain males as perfect, without any shortcomings.
Subject’s failure to resolve the dyadic father idealization that emerged at the earliest stages of development has had significant, even profound, reverberations in subject’s adult life. Subject’s dyadic father attachment was never subjected to a sufficient or lasting resolution during his adolescence, namely, at that period in life when the final step in the resolution of the male father complex is normally transacted. Blos, P. “Freud and the Father Complex.” The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child Vol. 37: 425-441 at 434 (1987).
Emotional reverberations of the subject’s unresolved father attachment in the subject’s adult life can be seen in his idealization of certain male figures. Blos at 434-35. Subject’s father idealization suffered a catastrophic shock at his father’s death, Blos at 436, when subject was 23 years old; subject succumbed to severe depression and ultimately attempted suicide 16 months later.
Subject’s unresolved father attachment is probably related to his fears of maternal engulfment and misogyny. The role or function of the early father is that of a rescuer or savior at the time when the small child normally makes his determined effort to gain independence from the first and exclusive caretaking person, the mother. Blos at 428-29. Subject’s continuing need for the protecting presence of the father is a residual effect of both his failure to resolve his early father idealization as well as fantasied and objective dangers emanating from aggressive female objects (and a disturbed male) in the subject’s developmental environment.
1. Pre-Oedipal
b. Trauma (Beatings and Physical Injury)
Subject suffered a physical trauma (an accidental injury in the oral cavity) in childhood (aged 2.5) as well as childhood beatings; theses traumas and their aftermath may have led to an ego attitude of justified rebellion in subject and a distortion in ego-superego interaction that interfered with normal superego maturation. The tendency to massive superego externalization, normal in early latency, may never have been outgrown and may have resulted in a character disturbance in subject termed by Freud, “the exceptions.” Fernando, J. “The Exceptions: Structural and Dynamic Aspects.” The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. Vol. 52: 17-28 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997).
These traumas and their aftermath may have led to a lifelong fate neurosis (repetition compulsion) whereby subject has a tendency to repeat the feelings and reactions of his trauma (including the parents’ attempts to evade their own guilty feelings about the accident by blaming subject), which feelings and reactions may have become structured into a portion of subject’s superego. Fernando at 20.
Subject displays two attitudes–submission and rebellion–toward his fate and toward that portion of his superego into which the strictures of this fate became structured. The circumstances of the accident and the double attitude subject developed because of them are important factors in subject’s ego disturbance. Fernando at 21. Subject has become a victim of fate, destined to have his excited, rising hopes dashed by one circumstance or another. It is at the point where he feels himself badly mistreated by the fate that had crushed his hopes that he assumes the character of an “exception,” until his hopes begin to rise again and he enters the next phase of the cycle. Fernando at 22.
Subject’s development foundered on his inability to accomplish one of the major tasks of late adolescence: the integration of previously unresolved traumas into the character structure, or what Blos calls the “characterological stabilization of residual trauma.” Fernando at 22.
Subject’s superego–or, more correctly, that portion of it into which the demands and treatment of his unfair fate became internalized–did not undergo the usual progressive neutralization of its energies, integration into the personality, and distancing from its origins. Fernando at 23. The relative lack of superego maturation and integration in the subject affects the ego ideal and its integration into the personality as a substructure within the superego system, a process that normally takes place definitively in late adolescence. Fernando at 24. As a consequence subject finds it impossible to relinquish his attachment to the idealized images of his parents and instead attempts to recapture his ideals in concrete form in idealized surrogates, or parental derivatives. Fernando at 24. Subject’s social interests may be largely limited to such persons. Fernando at 18.
cf. Blum, Harold P., “Picasso’s Prolonged Adolescence, Blue Period, and Blind Figures.” The Psychoanalytic Review: Vol. 100, No. 2, pp. 267-287 (2013) (trauma in Picasso’s childhood had reverberations in later life).
2. Oedipal Stage
A common daydream which in spite of its frequency has received very little attention to-date is the fantasy of possessing a twin. It is a conscious fantasy, built up in the latency period as the result of disappointment by the parents — and retaliatory destructive impulses directed by the child in fantasy against the parents — in the oedipus situation, in the child’s search for a partner who will give him all the attention, love and companionship he desires and who will provide an escape from loneliness and solitude. The same emotional conditions are the basis of the family romance. In that well-known daydream the child in the latency period develops fantasies of having a better, kinder and worthier family than his own, which has so bitterly disappointed and disillusioned him. The parents have been unable to gratify the child’s instinctual wishes; in disappointment his love turns to hate; he now despises his family and, in revenge, turns against it. He has death-wishes against the former love-objects, and as a result feels alone and forsaken in the world. Burlingham, D.T. “The Fantasy of Having a Twin.”  The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. Vol. 1 at 205 (1945). A further element in many daydreams of having a twin is that of the imaginary twin being a complement to the daydreamer. The latter endows his twin with all the qualities and talents that he misses in himself and desires for himself. The twin thus represents his superego. Id. at 209.
See also, Coen, S.J., Bradlow, P.A. “Twin Transference as a Compromise Formation.” J. Am. Psychoanal. Assoc., 30(3): 599-620 (1982). Twin transference, together with all twin fantasies, subserves multiple functions, including gratification and defense against the dangers of intense object need. In this formulation, the twinlike representation of the object provides the illusion of influence or control over the object by the pretense of being able to impersonate or transform oneself into the object and the object into the self. Intense object need persists together with a partial narcissistic defense against full acknowledgment of the object by representing the sought-after object as combining aspects of self and other.
3. Latency
Subject experienced an abrupt, defensive internalization of the maternal object in response to her negligent failure to protect him against the narcissistic aggression of family members.
In cases in which internalization of the ambivalently-cathected maternal object (that embodies the combined functions of negative sanction and endowing approval) occurs abruptly and prematurely, without adequate neutralization of ego-ideal and superego precursor, shame and castration anxiety do not become integrated into a smoothly operating unconscious guilt mechanism. Pathological guilt, shame and castration anxiety together with a tendency to intense primitive idealization will be seen in pathological manifestations. Freeman, D.M.A., Foulks, E.F., and Freeman, P.A. “Superego Development and Psychopathology.” The Psychoanalytic Study of Society, vol. 7 at 121 (1976) (Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D., contributing editor).
Subject experienced functional libidinal object loss in latency, that is, his premature and abrupt internalization of the ambivalently-cathected maternal object. Subject’s idealization of my primary care doctor can be seen as a manic defense against destructive impulses. The idealization may be related to the idealization (and splitting) seen in mourners, where the deceased is seen as all-good (manic denial by the mourner of destructive impulses) and the mourner depicts himself as unworthy to have been associated with the deceased. “She was too good for me.” In mourning, according to Melanie Klein, the mourner is provided with the opportunity of splitting the destroyed part of the loved object from the loved part, of burying the destroyed bad objects and impulses, and of protecting the good loved part as an eternal memory. See Jaques, E. “On the Dynamics of Social Structure: A Contribution to the Psychoanalytical Study of Social Phenomena Deriving from the Views of Melanie Klein.” The manic subject tends to downplay the power of the object, to disdain it, while at the same time maintaining maximum control over objects. Manic defenses are typified by three feelings, namely control, triumph, contempt. Klein, Melanie. (1940). “Mourning and its relation to manic-depressive states.” International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 21 : 125-153. In the suspended animation aspect of manic defense, omnipotent control of the bad internal objects stops all truly good relationships. The individual feels dead inside and the world appears still and colorless. Manic defense involves the reversal of depressive feelings. The use of manic defense is typical of individuals who dread sadness and are unable to mourn. Manic defense is a frequent maneuver against pain and suffering associated with object loss (real or functional). Akhtar, S. The Three Faces of Mourning: Melancholia, Manic Defense and Moving On.
4. Adulthood — Oppositional, Defiant and Rebellious Behavior (see also 1(b) above (Preoedipal trauma giving rise to rebellion).
The rivalry feelings of subject with his father (and father derivatives), the expressions of competition, oppositionalism, and defiance, in action and thought, which are directed against the father (or father derivatives), have to be largely comprehended as the result of an incomplete detachment from the early father and his protective presence in the subject’s life–a presence either actual, construed, or wished for. Blos at 426.
Subject’s defiant behavior (toward father derivatives) is a cognate of his idealization (of certain male figures):
Subject had a statistically significant score on MMPI Scale 4 — the Psychopathic Deviate Scale.
In the workplace subject has experienced workplace mobbing in basic assumptions groups. Research shows that basic assumptions groups target as scapegoats persons who harbor intense aggressive impulses against groups. Hafsi, Mohamed. “Experimental Inquiry into the Psychodynamics of the Relationship between the Group’s Dominant Basic Assumption Type and Scapegoating Phenomenon.” Psychologica: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient vol. 41, no. 4 (December 1998): 272-84. 1/
Compare 2 above: subject harbored intense destructive impulses against his parents during the Oedipal period.
So we see that my feelings about my primary care doctor are a condensation of a host of life experiences that give rise to idealization.
Subject’s idealization of his primary care doctor does not simply reflect his loneliness and isolation, but is a symptom of a severe narcissistic defect, a defect of self.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
_________________________________
1/ Hafsi, M. “Experimental Inquiry into the Psychodynamics of the Relationship between the Group’s Dominant Basic Assumption Type and Scapegoating Phenomenon.”
The present study constitutes an attempt to investigate experimentally the conditions leading to the phenomenon of scapegoating. Applying Bion’s concepts of “basic assumptions”, and “valency”, it was hypothesized that 1) scapegoating was more likely to occur in groups characterized by the valency constitution of fight as defined and measured in the present study, 2) that the scapegoated members display a negative attitude towards the group that predispose them to the scapegoat role. Based on their valencies as measured by the Reaction to Group Situation Test Nara University (RGST-Nu), the subjects (N=100) were divided into 20 homogeneous (having a same valency) groups of 5 members each. There were thus 4 “fight” groups, 4 “pairing” groups, 4 “flight” groups, 4 “dependency” groups, and 4 cooperation tendency groups (groups characterized by work group). The results supported the first hypothesis that fight groups were more likely to resort to scapegoating than other groups. Moreover, the results revealed also that, as hypothesized, the scapegoated member displayed in fact the most negative attitude towards the group.
The prime polarity in regard to one’s orientation to a group is alienation versus belonging. One is either a member of a group (belonging) or an outsider (alienation). The corresponding anxieties are a fear of alienation (the fear of being an outsider) versus anxieties attached to belonging, specifically with regard to the need to subvert one’s individuality (de-differentiation). Alford, C.F. Group Psychology and Political Theory.
Most people want to belong. Most people fear alienation. Far more rare is the individual who fears losing his individuality, who is anxious about belonging because he doesn’t want to pay the price of admission — loss of personal identity (de-differentiation) and the assumption of a group identity.
Subject experiences little anxiety about being alienated but experiences intense fear of loss of individuality.
Subject’s idealization of his primary care doctor, a mirror-image object, expresses his need to preserve his individuality. He craves a connection to people who will not require that he give up his identity. Emotional investment in like-minded people preserves his individuality.
Subject’s difficulties in the workplace grow out of his anxieties in relation to belonging to a group whose values differ from his own. And since he doesn’t fear alienation, he doesn’t feel he is losing anything by not belonging. But the cost is assuming the outsider role which can include being subjected to group aggression.
One of the functions of groups is to divert aggression away from group members onto outsiders. Subject assumes the role of the outsider. He is a prime candidate to be a victim of job harassment. Subject’s victimization in a group setting is insidiously and inevitably related to his need for mirror image objects (like his primary care doctor) that allow him to preserve his individuality and avoid de-differentiation.