Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has a favorite movie! No, it's not “Transformers 2.”
At a judical conference in West Virginia in June 2009, Chief Justice Roberts was asked about his favorite film, and he confirmed previous reports that it is “Dr. Zhivago.”
But then Roberts went on and on, waxing lyrical in a very good imitation of a USC film school grad. He praised “Dr. Zhivago” – a story of a man torn between two women against the backdrop of the 1917 Russian Revolution – for its “astounding” cast, its “wonderful” cinematography, and its “great” drama. Then he began to dissect its themes, among them its message that art endures even in the midst of great peril.
“See, once you get me started on ‘Dr. Zhivago’...,” he said, to general laughter. “You know ... the symbolism of these people triumphing over the Russian winter and the storyline of their fundamental human emotions persisting through human oppression, I just think it all comes together, and it’s a great story,” he said.
Amazingly, the conference moderator, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson of the Fourth US Circuit Court of Appeals, admitted that “Dr. Zhivago” was his favorite movie, too. Surely that has nothing to do with the fact that Roberts can sit in judgment of Judge Wilkinson’s rulings.
Note to Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor: this movie is widely available on DVD. You know, just in case you are interested.
____________________________
In January 1990 I embarked on psychotherapy with Stanley R. Palombo, M.D., a Washington, D.C. psychiatrist. I told Dr. Palombo that I believed I was under surveillance by my employer, the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, whose founder, Robert S. Strauss, was named to the post of U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union in mid-year 1991. Dr. Palombo suggested that I treat my beliefs as if they were a fantasy.
In October 1991 my employment was terminated by Akin Gump. Effective December 31, 1991 the Soviet Union was dissolved and was succeeded by the Russian Federation, to which Robert Strauss remained U.S. Ambassador. In late December 1991 I formed the unsubstantiated belief that Ambassador Strauss had talked to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev about me, and perhaps had given him one of my writings.
The political events of late December 1991, and the emotions those events evoked in me, prompted me to revisit Dr. Palombo’s earlier suggestion that I treat my “surveillance fantasy” as if it were fantasy. In a writing I took the trouble to prepare on New Year’s Eve 1991 I merged my “surveillance fantasy” with my thoughts about Russia and the Russian Revolution. My fantasies about Russia could be traced back to age thirteen when I saw the movie Doctor Zhivago, in August 1967 (incidentally, the so-called Glassboro (New Jersey) Summit was held on June 23-25 1967 between then President Johnson and Soviet leader Andrei Gromyko).
In early January 1992, perhaps Thursday January 2, 1992, I mailed a copy of my paper, 18 pages in length, to my sister. A few days later I made some changes to the paper and I mailed the revised version to my sister, which explains the cover letter, below.
I attached the paper to my self-analysis, The Caliban Complex: An Attempt at Self Analysis, in a binder. The two writings, bound in a single binder, is the document I submitted to the George Washington University Medical Center (Jerry M. Wiener, M.D.) in about July 1992 in contemplation of my beginning psychotherapy at GW. If Dr. Wiener read the writing he would therefore know that my former employer was the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld; the name of the firm is mentioned in the following writing. Did Dr. Wiener, perhaps, contact Akin Gump at that time?
___________________________
Dear Stell,
Please discard the earlier version of this, which you may not have received yet. Thank you.
If you check out paragraphs 20 and 21 you can see that the character Valjean in Les Miserables is really a metaphor for the artist. Interestingly, my friend Craig always had an interest in intelligence work. In view of other elements in his personality, that interest may be related to his creativity.
GF
______________________________
1. A 36-year-old male tells his psychiatrist that he believes the therapist is having secret communications with members of management of the patient’s employer, one of the largest law firms in the country. The psychiatrist possibly concludes that the patient’s belief reflects grandiose and persecutory elements in the patient’s personality, since the patient is able to offer no more than what appear to be ideas of reference to support his belief. The idea of secret communications is grandiose because it implies that members of management of this large law firm have taken a special interest in someone who holds no more than a very minor position in the organization. The idea of secret communications is persecutory because it implies that the psychiatrist is engaging in a betrayal of the patient, or that the psychiatrist and the employer are conspiring against the patient.
The patient’s suspicion that the psychiatrist is having secret communications with the patient’s employer may also reflect superego resistance. First, such communications would violate D.C. statutes prohibiting nonconsensual communications between a psychiatrist and a patient’s employer. Symbolically, the D.C. authorities are superego representatives, and D.C. laws symbolically represent superego injunctions. The patient’s fantasy may reflect anxiety that the patient feels in connection with his own imagined violation of superego injunctions--anxieties that are projected onto his relationship with his psychiatrist. Psychotherapy, and the moderation of a sense of guilt that therapy seeks to achieve, may represent for this patient the defiance of an overweening superego precursor that seeks to hold him in bondage; his anxiety may reflect a fear of overthrowing a dictatorial superego. Assuming that a central feature of the patient’s psychology is an overweening superego, “cure” in the case of this patient means a lessening of the crippling grip that his conscience holds on his life. The anxiety this patient feels in therapy can be likened to the anxiety that a person in a totalitarian state might experience if his aid and support were enlisted to overthrow the oppressive regime; he wants a better, freer life but he fears the existing authorities. He sympathizes with the aims of the revolutionary forces that seek to overthrow the regime [symbolically represented by the psychiatrist], but fears that if he participates in revolutionary activities he will suffer reprisals by those loyal to the dictatorial regime. The subject may defend against his fear of violating the injunctions of a harsh superego that seeks to retain its power over his life by saying, in effect, “It is not I who am breaking the ‘law,’ it is you, Doctor, who are breaking the law.”
Second, the aspect of the patient’s fantasy that implies that his employer has taken a “special” interest in him may be a projection of the patient’s own unacknowledged, intense, primitive idealization of the his employer. The subject may defend against his idealization by translating that idealization into the statement, “It is not I who think that Akin Gump is special, rather it is the management of Akin Gump who thinks I am special.” (Indeed, the patient made a number of mildly disparaging remarks about the firm to his psychiatrist). The patient thereby conceals his secret longing for affiliation with, and protection by, the father--symbolically represented by the management of the firm.
Thus, the patient’s fantasy that his psychiatrist is in communication with his employer may conceal the workings of a sadistic and punitive superego precursor and an ego ideal of intense, primitive idealization.
2. In August 1967 the subject saw for the first time the movie, Dr. Zhivago, based on the novel by the Russian writer, Boris Pasternak. In the next eight months he saw the film an additional three times, and viewed the movie numerous times thereafter. Apparently, the film has some special meaning for him.
3. According to an article about Boris Pasternak in the Encyclopedia Britannica the novel Dr. Zhivago is “[a]n epic of wandering, spiritual isolation, and love amid the harshness of the Russian Revolution.”
4. One theme of Dr. Zhivago (both movie and book) is political surveillance by the “authorities” (superego representatives). Thus, we find the lawyer Komarovsky warn Zhivago:
“There exists a certain Communist style, Yuri Andreievich. Few people measure up to it. But no one flouts that way of life and thought as openly as you do. Why you have to flirt with danger, I can’t imagine. You are a living mockery of that whole world, a walking insult to it. If at least your past were your own secret--but there are people from Moscow who know you inside out. . . .” Pasternak, B. (1956) Dr. Zhivago, at 350 (Signet Paperback Edition). [All of the bold type in this post is in the original document.] [Bob Strauss was living in Moscow as of the writing of this document in December 1991.] [According to Akin Gump one of the reasons for my job termination was that there was "a lack of fit" between me and other firm personnel--in effect, I flouted the firm's culture.]
5. The Russian Revolution can be interpreted psychoanalytically as representing an inversion of the Family Romance, a fantasy in which the child replaces his biological (humble) parents with idealized or “royal” (noble) substitutes. In Dr. Zhivago, the Royal Romanov line, together with the aristocracy, is overthrown, and the humble of Russian society, under Lenin and his followers, rule in their place.
6. The Family Romance, and the intense idealization and displacement that the fantasy implies, is assumed to play an important role in the subject’s psychology.
7. At about the age of 11 the subject developed a keen interest--indeed, obsession--in the life and work of the composer Richard Wagner. He has carried this interest into adulthood.
8. Important themes in the work of Richard Wagner are, as in Dr. Zhivago, wandering, spiritual isolation, and love. Variations on the Family Romance Fantasy (a kind of psychological revolution) are also featured prominently in the operas.
9. The themes of wandering, spiritual isolation, love, revolution, and political intrigue were important aspects of Wagner’s life. The following excerpt from a biography of Wagner [Gregor-Dellin, M. Richard Wagner His Life, His Work, His Century, at 289-291 (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich: 1983)] highlights the occurrence of these themes during one brief period in Wagner’s life. (Also, the theme of political surveillance by the authorities [superego representatives] arises in the context of these themes, as in Dr. Zhivago):
[From the chapter titled “Peregrinations Resumed,” signifying the theme of wandering. Wagner had been living in exile since the year 1848, when a warrant had been issued for his arrest by the German state of Saxony for his participation in revolutionary activities directed at overthrowing the Saxon monarchy that year.]
Wagner relished his solitude [spiritual isolation]. Venice was the source from which the world would hear ‘lamentations of the most anguished bliss,' he confided to the exhibitionistic journal he kept for Mathilde’s benefit from August 21, 1858, until April 4 of the following year. It contained all he felt about the object of his ill-starred adoration [love]. Mathilde did not read this diary until Eliza Wille had persuaded her to forgive its author for the scandal he had caused. His effusions provide our most eloquent indication of what the whole affair was worth: It had paralleled Tristan by transporting him into a frenzy that became the receptive for all his unfulfilled and sublimated sexuality. On October 15, he resumed work on the orchestral sketch for Tristan, albeit laboriously and plagued by various ailments that convinced him he did not have many years to live. He developed gastritis, together with an ulcerated leg so painful than it prevented him from walking for some time and made sitting at his desk a torment. The second act of Tristan very nearly sustained another dramatic interruption. Wagner’s seven-month seclusion in Venice was not quite as relaxed as his daily routine and his journal for Mathilde’s might lead one to suppose.
The sole tenant of the Palazzo Giustiniani had been under police surveillance from the outset. Wagner’s sojourn in Venice, which did not go unreported by the Austrian press, gave rise to some brisk and wide-ranging political activity by government and police authorities at work behind the scenes [surveillance by the authorities]. Though not itself a part of the German Confederation, Venetia had been administered by Austria ever since the defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte, who had ousted the last of the doges. The head of the supreme Vienna police authority, Baron Johann Kempen von Fichtenstamm, had urged the Austrian premier and minister of foreign affairs, Count Karl von Buol-Schauenstein, to do Saxony a favor by expelling the “political refugee” from Venice at once. Rebuffed, he notified the Dresden authorities of his correct procedure in this matter and sent an official directive to police headquarters in Venice. This drew a soothing response from the music-loving Venetian police superintendent, Angelo Crespi, whose acknowledgement of September 5, 1858, referred to Wagner’s “artistic genius” and reported that the exile was devoting himself entirely to his profession. Crespi could not, however, prevent Kempen from gaining a free hand in consequence of wider political developments. [harshness of political turmoil]
As tension increased between Austria on the one hand and Sardinia-Piedmont on the other, Buol-Schauenstein became too preoccupied with the international situation to care whether the letter of the law was observed in the case of a runaway conductor. On February 2, 1859, Kempen decreed Wagner’s expulsion. Again the local police came to the rescue. Wagner was advised to obtain a medical certificate and apply to Archduke Maximilian, governor general of Lombardy and later emperor of Mexico, for permission to extend his stay. The request was granted, and Wagner, who was among the crowds that welcomed Maximilian when he visited Venice soon afterward, raised his hat from afar in gratitude for this act of indulgence. Alarmed by the activities of Garibaldi and Cavour, who aimed to unite and liberate their country, the Austrians massed half a million men in northern Italy. Some of their units disembarked at Venice, so Wagner’s peaceful strolls became a thing of the past. If he were not to get caught between the opposing forces [cf. Dr. Zhivago--caught between conflict of Whites and Reds after flight to Ural mountains], Wagner’s departure could be delayed no longer. On March 24, he said good-bye to [his friend] Karl Ritter for the last time. Traveling by way of Milan, Como, and Lugano, he reached the snowy St. Gotthard, which he crossed in an open sleigh. He arrived in Lucerne on March 28. The Austrian police promptly reported his change of residence through diplomatic channels, and the Saxon Foreign Ministry transmitted this information to the ministries of the Interior and Justice in the following terms: “With reference to his communication dated September 24, of last year, the undersigned most humbly begs to report that, as recently advised by the Imperial and Royal Austrian Legation here, and notified by the head of the Imperial Supreme Police Authority, the fugitive Richard Wagner departed Venice on the 25th of last month and has gone to Lucerne. Dresden, April 13, 1859. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Beust.”
10. In October 1988 the subject prepared a biographical sketch, and revised it numerous times thereafter. In its final form the autobiographical sketch may be said, roughly, to cover the themes of wandering,
[See, for example, the following passage from my autobiographical sketch relative to the theme of "wandering":
(Compare the age-old aspiration of the Jews, which found practical expression in the Zionists’ goal: the end of Jews’ exile from their ancient homeland, or “motherland,” and the revival of a lost Hebrew (phallic) identity. Interpreted psychoanalytically, exile for the Jews meant a traumatic separation from a symbolic nurturing mother, resulting in a collective identity loss in the form of a regression, on a cultural level, to a pre-phallic stage. Return of the Jews transformed the Jewish identity into an Israeli identity (and indeed transformed the whole region, once so stagnant). “The Israeli is now possessed of a sovereign state, whose power, though objectively not great, represents for the unconscious a phallus like any other The Israeli, by living in his own land, has thus refound the mother and forms with her a couple, as is the case with most other peoples. He lives, not in a vacuum like the Jew, but in a material (as Freud remarked, the words materia and mater have the same derivation) world that is governed and organized.” Grunberger, B. “The Anti-Semite and the Oedipal Conflict.” International Journal of Psychoanalysis 45: 380-385, at 384-385 (1964). And “[i]n his ‘homeland,’ and tilling his very home soil,” Erikson notes, “the ‘ingathered’ Jew was to overcome such evil identities as result from eternal wandering . . . and intellectualizing and was to become whole again in body and mind. . . .” Erikson, E.H. Identity and the Life Cycle (1959), at 172 (Norton: 1980)).]
spiritual isolation, libidinal cathexes, all amid the fantasy of the Family Romance. The themes correspond, more or less, with the essential themes of Dr. Zhivago and the life and works of Richard Wagner. (At the time he prepared the autobiographical sketch in October 1988, the subject had no specific intent to model his sketch on Dr. Zhivago or any other work.) An additional important theme in the final version of the subject’s biographical sketch is that of personality transformation, expressed in the hope that the subject’s personality might undergo a process of reform, leading to a fuller and freer life.
11. In mid-October 1988 the subject mailed copies of the autobiographical sketch to three friends with whom he used to work at the law firm of Hogan and Hartson. These three individuals were the only persons who were in possession of a copy of the paper, until September 1989.
12. In late October 1988 the subject first developed the fantasy that he was being “surveilled’ by his employer. His fantasy centered on the suspicion that his employer was in communication with his sister. At no time prior to late October 1988 did the subject ever fantasize that his employer was in any way “surveilling” him.
13. From the time that his employment began at the law firm of Akin Gump, in early March 1988, the subject fantasized that he was being harassed by co-workers. His fantasies of harassment became especially intense in late October 1988, coincident with the emergence of his fantasy that his employer was in communication with his sister.
[I find paragraph 13 interesting. I wrote this document on December 31, 1991. Paragraph 13 refers to my belief that I was being harassed at Akin Gump as a fantasy. It was not until late December 1992, one year later, that I received in the mail a copy of Akin Gump’s Response to my unlawful job termination complaint filed by the D.C. Department of Human Rights. It was in Akin Gump’s Response that I learned for the first time that Akin Gump was claiming that I had been fired for mental health reasons: that my belief that I had been a victim of job harassment at the firm was, in Akin Gump’s view, in effect, a fantasy. In April 1993 I filed for Social Security disability benefits. In June 1993 I was assessed by Paul Yessler, M.D., a psychiatrist/consultant for the Social Security Administration. I specifically recall that I gave Dr. Yessler a copy of this document. The document seems tailor-made to support a disability claim in that it refers to my belief that I was a victim of job harassment as a fantasy or delusion, possibly a product of psychotic mental illness. Yet, the above chronology establishes that there is no way I could have anticipated that I would file for disability benefits as of December 31, 1991, that is, as of the date I wrote this document.]
14. The subject’s fantasy that his employer began to surveill him after he distributed copies of an autobiographical sketch that implicitly expressed the hope for reform of his personality parallels the following clinical vignette. The vignette describes a man in the Soviet Union who was confined to a mental hospital after the authorities [superego representatives] found a copy of a book the man had written calling for a reform of the Soviet Communist state. (The vignette is from Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., Skodol, A.E., Williams, J.B.W., and First, M.B. DSM-III-R Casebook. A Learning Companion to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Third Edition, Revised), at 427-430 (American Psychiatric Press: 1989)). The subject first read the following account during the week of December 30, 1991.
Crimes Against the State. Gregor, a 40-year-old economist, is brought to the maximum security ward of the Moscow Central Institute for Forensic Psychiatry from the KGB prison. Four months earlier, while searching the house of a friend, the KGB agents discovered a book, written by Gregor, that was critical of the Soviet economic system. In this book Gregor defined himself as a "Marxist economist" and a patriot of his country. He used language indistinguishable from that of the "official" and "approved" concepts current in Soviet economic and political thought. However the book is an impassioned argument for reform of the state economy in order to bring about greater prosperity and economic stability in the country.
Gregor was arrested and charged with "anti-government propaganda and agitation harmful to the interests of the Socialist state." Because he was uncooperative during his detention, he has now been referred for a psychiatric evaluation by a KGB investigator, who writes in the referring document that "There are strong reasons to suspect that this detainee suffers from chronic mental illness, which is responsible for his behavior and has resulted in serious crimes against the state, with which he is charged."
The prisoner arrives in handcuffs, looking anxious and fearful. At the beginning of his admission report, the forensic psychiatrist takes note of "burning and penetrating eyes, and a Christ like beard."
During the interview the prisoner insists on his right to take notes and to write down the questions asked of him; when this is denied, he refuses to participate in the evaluation interview. On the ward, surrounded by seriously ill offenders, he keeps to himself and is described as "withdrawn, with long staring spells, and persistent refusal to discuss his thoughts and feelings." The ward staff is puzzled by his "excessive attention" to food served in the hospital, and his concern that medication has been put into his food is described in ward notes as "paranoid."
By the end of the first week, the prisoner is demanding to see the medical director of the hospital. When the director obliges, the prisoner confronts him with an accusation of "collaborating in crimes against humanity." The doctor is reminded of the fate of the Nazi doctors during the Nuremberg Trials. The prisoner categorically denies the criminal nature of his activity and claims that he pursued his chosen profession in writing a book about the state economy.
From the information provided by the secret police investigator and summaries of treatment obtained from the local health center and the district mental health clinic, the forensic psychiatrist learns that the patient had a "stormy adolescence," during which he pursued, with abandon, the study of his country's history, literature, and art. He was described by his teachers as "stubborn, oppositional, and obsessed with his ideas."
[Note that the description of Gregor as "stubborn, oppositional, and obsessed with his ideas" is consistent with high ego strength. Persons with high ego strength are described as "stubborn," "oppositional," and "absorbed in ideas."]
His principal wrote: "This young man is far too sensitive and intense for his age. He is negative about everything our country stands for, and his tastes in art and music are bizarre. However, he is a great mathematician, and with proper guidance and education, he can be an asset to our country."
The records of the local draft board revealed that the prisoner was relieved from compulsory military duty because of a diagnosis of "psychoneurosis" established by a psychiatrist at the district mental health clinic. The records from the clinic described a young man who was "moody, preoccupied with his interest in history and mathematics, precise and compulsive in his habits, with some excessive concern about his health." Apparently, the prisoner was seen at the mental health clinic only three times, and never requested any treatment.
The forensic psychiatrist makes no attempt to contact or interview by telephone, Gregor's wife, parents, or friends and colleagues (he is under strict orders not to reveal the prisoner's whereabouts because of the KGB's insistence on keeping Gregor incommunicado before the trial). Failing to do that, the forensic psychiatrist never learns that the prisoner was a "star student" in the department of economics of a leading state university, or that he was universally admired by his peers and faculty. Most of his professors later became his colleagues, when Gregor was invited to remain in the department to continue his research. The forensic psychiatrist also never learns that the prisoner has written several articles approved for publication in respected professional journals, that he has been married for 18 years, maintains numerous close and enduring friendships, and has adopted two children, after having been approved as an adoptive parent. Finally, the forensic psychiatrist was also denied an opportunity to read Gregor's book, which presumably was a product of a disturbed mind.
By the end of the third week, the prisoner was forcibly given small doses of a neuroleptic. He became weak and apathetic, complained of dryness of the mouth, increased appetite and grogginess throughout the day, and an increasingly troublesome tremor. Each time the prisoner was given medication, he offered resistance. This was described in the record as "paranoid refusal to believe in the good intentions of the medical personnel, and inability to develop insight into his condition and his own needs."
When medication produces no change in the prisoner's attitude except for obvious side effects, it is discontinued. One week after this, the prisoner is looking more cheerful, and finally agrees to cooperate with the expert committee consisting of three forensic psychiatrists. When the committee sees the prisoner, none of its members has a chance to read the manuscript that brought the man to the attention of the authorities. During the interview, the prisoner is attentive and guarded, and later is described by one of the members as "hypervigilant, with obvious ideas of reference."
[The description of Gregor as having "ideas of reference" seems uncanny now, in the year 2011. I wrote this document on December 31, 1991. It was not until late December 1992, one year later, that I learned that Akin Gump alleged, in its Response to my unlawful job termination complaint filed by the D.C. Department of Human Rights, that I suffered from "ideas of reference."]
The committee unanimously agrees on the diagnosis offered by the forensic psychiatrist, Sluggish Schizophrenia. (Sluggish Schizophrenia is considered by Soviet authorities to be the mildest form of the continuous subtype of Schizophrenia. It is roughly equivalent to the concepts of "pseudoneurotic" and "pseudopsychopathic" Schizophrenias that were used by clinicians in the United States in previous decades. It is presumed to have a more favorable course than the other types of Schizophrenia.) The committee recommends compulsory psychiatric treatment for Gregor "because of his inability to have a critical attitude toward his own condition and circumstances and failure to cooperate with necessary medical treatment."
Discusssion of "Crimes Against the State"
The Soviet psychiatrist (now living in the United States) who provided this case suggests that the KGB investigator knew that the state would have considerable difficulty in prosecuting Gregor since it would have had to prove that he had a malicious intent to "undermine and harm the interests of the Socialist State." Because Gregor is articulate and persuasive, a public trial would have been an embarrassment to the government. Knowing that Gregor had been given a psychiatric diagnosis that exempted him from the draft, the KGB investigator reasoned that a trial would be unnecessary and that the credibility of Gregor's ideas would be undermined if his behavior could be attributed to a mental disorder.
The forensic psychiatrist was given inadequate and biased information, had no access to his "patient's" family or colleagues, and had to deal with a frightened and unwilling man. Practicing within a social system with an extremely narrow range of "permissible" behavior and within a profession that uses an extraordinarily broad concept of Schizophrenia, the forensic psychiatrist could very well have been sincere in considering Gregor mentally ill. It is also possible that the psychiatrist was cynically using his power to make diagnoses, hospitalize, and treat in order to satisfy an implicit request from the KGB to take this "troublesome man" off their hands.
Whether or not the forensic psychiatrist actually believed that Gregor was ill, he probably justified his diagnosis as follows: The onset of Gregor's Schizophrenia was, as is usual in this illness, at the time of adolescent transition to adult life. He exhibited overvalued ideas, instability of mood, inappropriately intense and single-minded pursuit of interests unusual for boys of his age, and obsessive compulsive personality traits. He developed a system of rationalized obsessive preoccupations with seeking reforms in Soviet society His tragic world view is evidence of chronic dysphoria and anhedonia. His belief that he can make a contribution to the economic theory and well-being of his country is evidence of an overvalued idea that has progressed into a fantastic delusion of reform. His cautious attitude toward authorities and state-appointed physicians is an expression of paranoid and self-referential perception.
In contrast to the Soviet forensic psychiatrist, we see absolutely no justification for making a psychiatric diagnosis in Gregor's case. His difficulties are certainly a result of the interaction between his personality traits and an oppressive society. However, in a freer society these personality traits might not cause any particular difficulties--indeed, might even be rewarded.
[DSM-III-R Diagnosis:
Axis I: V71.09 No Diagnosis or Condition
Axis II: V71.09 No Diagnosis or Condition]
15. During the spring of 1985 the subject read a book by E. James Lieberman, titled Acts of Will: The Life and Work of Otto Rank (The Free Press: 1985). The introduction to the book, at xxxii, contains the following passage: “Upon Rank’s death that same year [1939], Ernest Jones described his late rival as a mentally sick man. In his subsequent biography of Freud, Jones relentlessly pursued this theme. ‘Rank in a dramatic fashion presently to be described, and Ferenczi more gradually toward the end of his life, developed psychotic manifestations that revealed themselves in, among other ways, a turning away from Freud and his doctrines. . . . I had known that Rank had suffered much in childhood from a strongly repressed hostility to his brother, and that this usually covered a similar attitude towards a father. That was now being unloaded onto me, and my dominant concern was how to protect Freud from the consequences. . . . It became plain that a manic phase of cyclothymia was gradually intensifying.’”
While reading the above book in the spring of 1985 the subject made a handwritten marginal notation next to the above quoted passage. The subject’s notation reads: “insanity as defiance of authority: cf. Psych in USSR.” The subject highlighted the phrase underlined above, concluding with the phrase, “Freud and his doctrines." Next to that highlighted phrase the subject wrote the following marginal notation, “(Marx & his doctrines?).”
[My employment at Akin Gump started three years later, in March 1988.]
16. The subject’s fantasy that harassment by co-workers became especially intense in late October 1988, after he sent copies of his autobiographical sketch to some friends, parallels the reception in the Soviet Union of Pasternak’s novel, Dr. Zhivago.
An article about the author in the Encyclopedia Britannica states: “Although Pasternak hoped for the best when he submitted Dr. Zhivago to a leading Moscow monthly in 1956, it was rejected with the accusation that ‘it represented in a libelous manner the October Revolution, the people who made it, and social construction in the Soviet Union’ . . . In the Soviet Union, the Nobel Prize brought a campaign of abuse, Pasternak was ejected from the Union of Soviet writers and thus deprived of his livelihood.”
[Upon award of the Nobel Prize to Pasternak the presidium of the Union of Soviet Writers passed a resolution demanding that Pasternak be stripped of Soviet citizenship. One wonders whether patriotism or jealousy motivated this action by fellow writers.]
In late October 1988, at the time the subject began to fantasize that his co-workers were harassing him and that firm management was in communication with his sister, he had no specific knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the publication of the novel Dr. Zhivago. The subject first read the above-quoted encyclopedia article around September 1991.
[The campaign against Pasternak involved personal harassment. To cite one incident: “Misha Svetlov, who was living out at Peredelkino that autumn, told me how one dark evening some local hooligans and drunks threw stones at Pasternak’s windows. They also shouted anti-Semitic remarks.” Gladkov, A. Meetings with Pasternak: A Memoir at 168 (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1977).]
17. Beginning in August 1990 the subject began to fantasize that firm management was sending copies of his autobiographical paper to various experts, seeking their opinion of the writing. The subject experienced this fantasy for the first time in early August 1990, nearly two years after he initially wrote the paper and mailed it to three individuals in October 1988. In early August 1990 the subject imagined that firm management had asked Dr. Ernst Ticho for his opinion of the writing. The subject fantasized that Dr. Ticho said of the subject, “He did a good job.” The subject imagined, during the course of succeeding months, that his employer sent copies of the writing to other individuals including, among others, Professors Peter Gay, Harold Bloom, Fritz Stern, and Dr. Anthony Storr. He imagined that Dr. Gerald Post in January 1991, after reviewing the writing, said of the subject. “He wants to be respected.” This particular fantasy, of secret circulation of the writing, parallels the reception of the novel Dr. Zhivago, of which the Encyclopedia Britannica says “[the novel was] circulated only in secrecy and translation in his own land.” Again, the subject had no specific knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the reception of the novel until he read the encyclopedia article in the fall of 1991.
[The late psychoanalyst Ernst Ticho, Ph.D., a mentor of Otto Kernberg's, was married to Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D. It was not until a year-and-one-half after I wrote this document (December 1991) that Akin Gump disclosed for the first time (May 1993) that it had consulted Gertrude Ticho, M.D. in connection with its plans to terminate my employment in late October 1991. See Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights, D.C.C.A. no. 96-CV-961 (Sept. 1, 1998). How uncanny that I should have had a paranoid fantasy about Ernst Ticho in August 1990, years before I knew about his actual links to Akin Gump!]
18. In a brief “creative” piece written in July 1987, the subject described a fictional scenario set in the Communist “witch hunt” days of the early 1950’s. The piece concerned an enigmatic fellow, suspected of Communist sympathies, who tries to become an FBI agent. He is scrutinized carefully and questioned closely by FBI agents, who seek to learn more about the fellow before they will allow him to join the “Bureau.” In sum, the piece concerned the issue of surveillance by FBI agents (superego representatives). The subject wrote the piece while employed at the law firm of Hogan and Hartson, before he began employment at Akin Gump.
19. The subject’s “creative” piece about a man seeking a position with the FBI is reproduced below. Note that the piece was written in late July 1987 coincident with the so-called “Iran-Contra” investigation, conducted by the U.S. Senate. Note also that the name “Brandon Bloke” was probably inspired by the name of Mr. Oliver North’s attorney, Mr. Brendan Sullivan. Further, the fictional characters in the piece, “Cadler” and “Bloke,” were inspired by two of the subject’s co-workers at the law firm of Hogan & Hartson. These persons were also two of the three individuals to whom the subject sent copies of his autobiographical sketch in mid-October 1988.
Malice With Dignity. Scenario for Short Story. Scene: early 1950’s. Cadler was a middle level supervisory employee at the FBI. He was a 100% American with unquestioned loyalties to his country. The mere mention of the word communist was enough to make him see red. He was always on the lookout for suspected communists. Ordinarily he would have nothing to do with communists or persons suspected of communist leanings.
His associate at the Bureau was one Brandon Bloke (or as his Chinese friends in Taiwan simply called him, Blandon Broke), another thorough going, dyed-in-the wool American. Bloke had an even more intense hatred of Communists and persons suspected of Communist sympathies. Bloke was a middle level employee at the Bureau, but was hoping to move up in the ranks. He was waiting for his security clearance, which would enable him to move on to a higher position within the Bureau. Because he was being investigated for his security clearance he was even more scrupulous than usual in avoiding persons suspected of having left-wing leanings since this would jeopardize his chances of advancement in the Bureau, and compromise his status with fellow agents (not to mention his position vis-a-vis the more politically-conservative Wahine).
Enigman had applied for a position with the Bureau. He was an unknown quantity to everyone. No one knew about his background or his loyalties. Was he loyal to his country? Did he have left-leaning tendencies? Was he in fact a communist? There were many rumors about Enigman. One rumor had it that he was really a Soviet agent who was trying to infiltrate the Bureau, that he was desperate to get a position with the Bureau simply to betray his country.
Bloke and Cadler decided on a plan of action. Cadler would get friendly with Enigman simply to find out more about his motives. Ordinarily, Cadler wouldn’t have anything to do with someone of such suspect political orientation was Enigman, but he could pretend to be friendly with someone like Enigman for the sake of Bureau and Country. (Cadler would be acting out of a desire to protect his country and what it was meant to stand for).
As noted, little was known about Enigman, but what was known was not too promising. It was known that he liked opera--Russian opera (he had real pinko interests). He didn’t appear to have normal American interests, like a regular Joe (no one ever saw him eating apple pie).
There were other things known about Enigman, however. He was known to be a very bright fellow. Bloke knew that if he was in fact loyal to his country, Enigman might prove to be a valuable employee of the Bureau.
Then there was Mary Cheltenham, the alluring and nubile supervisor of the Bureau’s intelligence decoding operation. She monitored the situation surrounding Cadler, Bloke, and Enigman with interest. She too wanted to know more about Enigman.
So, Cadler, proceeded with the plan. He used to engage Enigman in conversation, always reporting back to Bloke what he had learned. Bloke used to pick Cadler’s brain about what was learned in Cadler’s conversations with Enigman to the point where Cadler’s brain started to look like Swiss cheese.
Enigman was no fool. He knew what was going on. He had formulated his own game plan. Enigman was different--but not a Communist. He seemed to derive some perverse pleasure out of playing along with Cadler--even going so far as to lead Cadler on to thinking he was interested in infiltrating the Bureau. Enigman would sit back and watch Cadler and Bloke draw their typical inferences and end up embarrassing themselves in front of Mary Cheltenham.
On one occasion, Enigman even rearranged his lunch schedule, just to lead Cadler and Bloke on--to make them believe he was interested in meeting with them to further his goal of getting a job with the Bureau. **** (According to Freud, humor veils aggression, permitting the joke-teller, in Freud’s words, “to be malicious with dignity.”)
20. At the time he wrote the above “creative” piece in late July 1987, while employed at Hogan & Hartson, the subject did not know that a founding partner of Akin Gump, Mr. Robert Strauss, had started his career as an FBI agent. The subject first learned about Mr. Strauss’ affiliation with “The Bureau” in a front-page article in the New York Times, dated June 5, 1991, written in connection with Mr. Strauss’ nomination to the post of U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union. Titled “’The Ultimate Capitalist’ - Robert Schwarz Strauss,” the article states in part: “After he graduated from the University of Texas Law School in 1941, Robert S. Strauss took a job as an F.B.I. agent ‘watching out for Communists,’ he jokingly recalled today about his F.B.I. postings in Washington, Ohio, Iowa and Texas. ‘I would come home at night and my wife, Helen, would say, ‘Did you catch any spies today, dear?’’” (Paradoxically, in later years, as founder of a law firm Mr. Strauss was to devote some of his energies to spotting potential legal talent, just as earlier in his career he was assigned the task of identifying subversives. And so, one finds that the impresario bears an affinity with the domestic intelligence officer just as the talented bear an affinity with the criminal element.)
21. In Wagner’s Die Meistersinger, a comic opera set in the sixteenth century, a somewhat enigmatic knight arrives in Nürnberg from another city, seeking to become a member of the Mastersinger guild. “Schliesst, Meister, in die Zunft mich ein!” he says [Allow me to join the guild, Masters!]. The knight later learns that the winner of a soon-to-be-hold song contest will be granted both admission to the guild and the in hand in marriage of the heroine. Thus, the issue of the knight’s suitability for membership in the fraternal guild becomes entangled--at both the psychological and political levels on which the drama operates--with the libidinal rivalries of the protagonists. The skeptical and suspicious masters carefully scrutinize and closely question the knight on his origins. He provides them with a brief autobiographical sketch: “Am stillen Herd. . . .” An idealized father figure, venerated by the townspeople and the Masters, with an appreciation for the novel in art, protects the knight from the pedants who try to undo him. In the second act of the opera, this father figure surveills the night to prevent him from running off with the opera’s heroine. The world of Wagner’s opera is a world of guilds--of apprentices seeking to become masters. It is a hierarchical world that engenders political rivalry, a world that mirrors the politically-charged atmosphere of a major law firm--an organization of associates and partners.
22. There is an ego property, “a form of alloplastic adaptation in which the external world is pressed into the service of the ego in order to combat instinctual threats.” Day, R. and Davidson, R.H. “Magic and Healing: An Ethnopsychoanalytic Examination.” In: The Psychoanalytic Study of Society, at 281 (Yale University Press: 1976). Individuals who employ this mode of alloplastic adaptation engage in a “fusion of inner and outer reality” that “represents a magical mode of synthetic functioning that operates at both the primary and secondary process levels. In the former instance there exists a mixture of idiosyncratic and cultural forms of primary process thinking--symbolism tends to reflect the intrapsychic conflicts and the reality of the inner world; in the latter case, however, symbolism tends to follow the general functioning that is characteristic of secondary process thinking--it is ‘object-related, conventionalized, and subject to linguistically-determined rules’ . . .--though retaining certain aspects of the magic-omnipotent primary process level.” Id., at 291. For individuals who engage in this type of alloplastic adaptation, seemingly-idiosyncratic fantasies may fuse with object-related secondary process thinking so that, in the end, the individual’s fantasies become identical to the objective and real.
[At this point in the exposition it becomes clear that a Janusian process of fusing opposing or antithetical ideas inspired the writing. The writing conceives and elaborates the opposing ideas of delusion and reality as one and the same thing.
Dr. Albert Rothenberg, a noted researcher on the creative process, identified a process in 1979 he terms, "Janusian Thinking", named for the Roman god Janus, who had two faces that looked in opposite directions. The way to use Janusian Thinking is to ask "What is the opposite of this?" and then try to imagine both opposites existing at the same time.
Incidentally, Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D. served as a contributing editor on the text quoted above. In May 1993 Akin Gump revealed for the first time that it had consulted Dr. Ticho prior to my job termination and that Dr. Ticho diagnosed my thinking as paranoid, a conclusion that was decisive in the firm’s decision to fire me -- or so the firm claims. Ironically, it was Dr. Ticho who, in a sense, set in motion the events of the last 20 years concerning my relations with Akin Gump. Thus, it was Dr. Ticho who in some way facilitated the process whereby my fantasies have become identical to the objective and real.]
23. Wagner expressed an appreciation of the operation of the synthetic function in his life when he wrote in the late 1850’s, “My poetic conceptions have always been so far ahead of my experiences that I can only consider these conceptions as determining and ordering my moral development.” Richard Wagner to Mathilde’s Wesendonk. Trans. By William Ashton Ellis. (Scribner: 1905). Wagner found that there were instances when his conception of a dramatic situation actually preceded an occurrence of a like experience in his life. Indeed, King Ludwig’s improbable rescue in 1864 of the 50-year-old destitute and debt-ridden composer is foreshadowed by the themes of rescue and redemption that inform Wagner’s previously-completed works. Thus, we find in Wagner a fusion of inner and outer reality; we find him pressing the outer world into the service of his inner world.
24. The characters and dramatic structure of Wagner’s operas reflect their own creator’s synthetic functioning; the characters appear to thrust their inner psychological motives outward to an historical, political level. “Friedrich Nietzsche was the first to realize that at the heart of Wagner’s dramas there is a peculiar ‘double perspective’ affecting both action and psychological motivation. . . . Wagner set the action [of Lohengrin] on two different levels; he composed a fairy-tale opera in the guise of an historical drama. . . . Lohengrin’s tragedy is intelligible only if the two levels on which the drama operates are strictly separated one from the other. The historical level is the contrasting background that throws the absolute, timeless artist into relief. The ‘external’ action, rooted in a definite historical period, is contrasted with the ‘inner’ action, which is motivated on a purely psychological level and which resolves around the complementary relationship between Elsa and Lohengrin, a relationship that is brought into light through Ortrud’s intrigue. [Wagner] throws the inner action outwards and thus creates a true drama.” Holland, D. Lohengrin (Decca Record Co.: 1987) (insert accompanying recording). The “double perspective" is also an important aspect of Die Meistersinger. The Oedipal rivalries of the central characters are mirrored in the Oedipally-charged milieu of guild politics. Individual psychological relationships are thrust outward to a political level, and political causes are used, in turn, to settle old scores between the protagonist.
[I wrote this essay in December 1991. Dr. Kernberg's book Ideology, Conflict, and Leadership in Groups and Organizations was published seven years later, in 1998.]
25. Poetic conception preceded life experiences for Pasternak as well as for Wagner. Zhivago, the poet-physician, whose poetry is disfavored by the ruling Bolshevik elite, leaves Moscow to avoid the possible political consequences. Ironically, the novel Dr. Zhivago aroused so much opposition against Pasternak in the Soviet Union that there were pubic meetings calling for its author’s expulsion. Thus, Pasternak, who lived out his remaining years in seclusion, succumbed to the same fate as his fictional creation. Pasternak’s crime against the state, in an uncannily literal sense, was Zhivago's crime against the state.
26. A kind of “double perspective,” like that found in Wagner, can be seen in Dr. Zhivago, where the Family Romance operates both on a psychological level and a political level. On a political level, the Russian revolution can be viewed as an inverted Family Romance, with the rule of the noble father, the Czar, overthrown in favor of that of the humble father, represented by Lenin and the Bolsheviks. The orphaned Zhivago, like Russia, has a succession of fathers--in Zhivago's case, one biological and one adopted. Moreover, Zhivago's biological father himself has both a noble and humble identity; originally wealthy, he sinks into a state of poverty. Zhivago's fate mirrored Russia’s fate, just as Pasternak’s fate mirrored Zhivago's fate. For Pasternak, the inner world fused with the outer world, the psychological fused with the political; fantasy was reality.
27. The form of synthetic ego functioning described above can appear to be related -- in terms of its effect -- to the repetition compulsion in which the “ . . . the individual unconsciously arranges for variations of an original theme which he has not learned to overcome or to live with; he tries to master a situation which had been too much for him by meeting it repeatedly and of his own accord. . . . ” Brenman-Gibson, M. Clifford Odets: American Playwright - The Years from 1906 to 1940, at 636 (Atheneum: 1982), quoting Erikson, E. H., Childhood and Society (Norton: 1950). To some degree, the individual who unconsciously arranges for repetitions of infantile and childhood experiences, like the individual who engages in the form of alloplastic adaptation discussed in paragraph 22, draws the objective world into the service of his inner world. (The “creative” piece at paragraph 29 suggests the simultaneous operation of the repetition compulsion and synthetic ego functioning.)
28. Freud provides instructive examples of the compulsion to repeat: “Thus we have come across people all of whose human relationships have the same outcome: such as the benefactor who is abandoned in anger after a time by each of his protégés, however much they may otherwise differ from one another, and who thus seems doomed to taste all the bitterness of ingratitude; or the man whose friendships all end in betrayal by his friend; or the man who time after time in the course of his life raises someone else into a position of great private or public authority and then, after a certain interval, himself upsets that authority and replaces him by a new one; or, again, the lover each of whose love affairs with a woman passes through the same phases and reaches the same conclusion. This 'perpetual recurrence of the same thing' causes us no astonishment when it relates to active behavior on the part of the person concerned and when we can discern in him an essential character-trait which always remains the same and which is compelled to find expression in a repetition of the same experiences.” Freud, S. (1920) Beyond the Pleasure Principle, at 16 (Norton: 1961).
29. The following “creative” piece, which the subject wrote in April 1990, may indicate the subject’s compulsion to repeat. The subject’s description of a conflict between his personality traits and a succession of like environments merits comparison with the case of Gregor, at paragraph 14. (The piece contains minor revisions made in May 1991).
I.
An American moves to a small Albanian village. The American speaks only a few words of Albanian. None of the Albanians speak more than a few words of English. Relations between the Albanian villagers and the American are marginal. The Albanians view the American as aloof, cold, and strange. The negative interaction between the American and the Albanians is experienced as a torment by the American. Over a period of time the American internalizes the Albanians' negative view of him; he adopts the Albanians' view of him as his own view of himself. The American decides to leave the village and move to a second Albanian village.
II.
In the second village the American speaks only a few words of Albanian and none of the Albanians speak more than a few words of English. Again, relations between the American and the villagers are poor. But now, in a addition to the problems posed by the American's language barrier he also bears the psychological scars he acquired in the first Albanian village. The American's problems are twofold, but interrelated. One difficulty is an interpersonal problem rooted in the conflict between his identity and the identity of the villagers (just as in the first village). A second difficulty is an intrapsychic conflict -- with interpersonal effects -- rooted in the internalization of the negative valuations to which he was subjected in the first village, a difficulty ultimately attributable to some degree to a conflict of identities. In a process analogous to the phenomenon of sympathetic vibration, the American's interpersonal relations, to the degree they are mirrored in his intrapsychic functioning, produce "vibrations of the same period" in his introject.
A second American moves to the Albanian village; fortunately for him, the second American speaks Albanian fluently and gets on well with the local population. The first American strikes up a kind of friendship with the second American. (The two Americans do not necessarily read the same books, but the respective books they do read are written in the same language: a situation that gives rise to a rumor that our American friend is homospatial or, at least, has homospatial tendencies). The Albanian villagers, envious and angry that the American has made a friend, begin to spread a story that he is homospatial. The townspeople in the second Albanian village view the American not simply as aloof, cold, and strange, but as an aloof, cold, and strange homospatial. The American decides to move to a third Albanian village.
III.
In the third Albanian village, the American speaks only a few words of Albanian and the local Albanians speak no more than a few words of English. Again, relations between the Albanian villagers and the American are poor. But now, in addition to the problems posed by the American's language barrier and psychological scars, he is plagued by rumors that he is homospatial (that is, he has a marked tendency to think metaphorically of males whom he admires, integrating their contradictions into figures of speech). The rumors have been spread by contacts between residents of the second and third Albanian villages. Also, villagers from the first Albanian village, retaining their old vendetta against the American, provide information that confers a vogue of credibility to the rumors in the second and third Albanian villages.
[Note that the term "First American" is a play on words. First American is also the name of a bank.
Former Secretary of Defense and Washington insider Clark Clifford was the Chairman of First American Corporation from 1981 to August 1991 and was the Chairman of First American Bankshares from 1982 through August 1991. Robert Altman was a Director and President of First American Corporation from 1981 to August 1991. Clifford and Altman were law partners who, at a psychological level, had a symbolic father-son or mentor-protege relationship. Coincidentally, their firm's office in the 1980s was located at 815 Connecticut Avenue, in Washington, DC. The office of the Hogan & Hartson law firm, where I used to work, was located in that building until April 1987; on occasion I saw Clark Clifford on the elevator. See page 114A of Social Security document Submission.]
(The subject’s “creative” piece was to some extent inspired by, and includes a quotation from, Gold and Iron: Bismarck, Bleichröder, and the Building of the German Empire (Knopf: 1977), a book by Professor Fritz Stern. In the words of the author the book is “about Germans and Jews, power and money. It is a book focused on Bismarck and Bleichroeder, Junker and Jew, statesman and banker, collaborators for over thirty years. The setting is that of a Germany where two worlds clashed. . . .” The book employs the “double perspective" structure that Nietzsche discerns in the Wagner operas. Here, the psychological relationship of Bismarck and Bleichroeder is thrust outward to the world of German society and politics. Paraphrasing Holland’s analysis of the structure of Wagner’s Lohengrin [see paragraph 24], one might say that “Bleichroeder's tragedy is intelligible only if the two levels on which the book operates are strictly separated one from the other. The historical level is the contrasting background that throws the absolute, timeless, wandering Jew--represented by the banker, Bleichroeder--into relief. The ‘external’ action, rooted in a definite historical period, is contrasted with the ‘inner’ action, which is motivated around the complementary relationship between Bismarck and Bleichroeder, a relationship that is brought into the light through German provincialism.”)
30. Freud observes that the compulsion to repeat is not limited in all cases to active behaviors on the part of the person concerned: “We are much more impressed by cases where the subject appears to have a passive experience, over which he has no influence, but in which he meets with a repetition of the same fatality.” Freud, S. Beyond the Pleasure Principle (1920), at 16 (Norton: 1961).
31. During the period March 1988 through October 1991, the subject was employed at the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, founded by Mr. Robert Strauss. Mr. Strauss withdrew from the partnership during the summer of 1991 to assume the post of U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union; following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991, Mr. Strauss became U.S. Ambassador to Russia).
Earlier in his life, during various periods from July 1970 until July 1979, the subject was employed in a division of the Franklin Institute, a scientific research organization located in Philadelphia. The subject was employed in a division of the Institute, called the Science Information Services Organization, founded and headed by Mr. Alec Peters.
32. Robert Strauss, a Jewish-American lawyer, who started his career as an FBI agent, founds a law firm, that grows to be a large organization employing hundreds of people; the organization branches out to cities worldwide. He ends up in Moscow as U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union, a political position of honor and esteem. (In October 1991 the subject was terminated from the firm founded by Mr. Strauss.) The Soviet Union is dissolved and Mr. Strauss is left ambassador to a remaining constituent part of the Union, Russia. (The parent structure is dissolved and the part remains.)
Alec Peters, a Jewish-Romanian lawyer, spends ten painful and humiliating years as a political prisoner at the hands of the KGB in Lubianka prison (KGB headquarters) in Moscow after World War II. After his release, he emigrates to the United States, and founds an organization that ultimately employs hundreds of people, which is itself a constituent part of a larger scientific institution, The Franklin Institute; Mr. Peters’ organization branches out to cities worldwide. He ends up in a position of honor and esteem as Vice-President of The Franklin Institute. (In July 1979 the subject resigned from the organization founded by Mr. Peters.) Mr. Peters is ultimately fired, and the organization he founded is later dissolved. The Franklin Institute, of which Mr. Peters’ organization was a constitution part, remains. (The parent structure remains and the part is dissolved.)
Friday, August 12, 2011
Thursday, August 11, 2011
email Message to Andrew Gerst, Esq. -- July 22, 2005
The following is the text of an email message I sent to Andrew Gerst, Esq., a legal adviser to former D.C. Council Member Carol Schwartz. Mr. Gerst resided in my apartment building as of July 22, 2005 when I sent the following email to him. Mr. Gerst and I were not acquainted; he has no reason to know who I am other than through the emails I transmitted to him.
_____________
Andrew Gerst, Esq.
Office of the Honorable Carol Schwartz
Council of the District of Columbia
Dear Mr. Gerst:
I am forwarding, for your information, a copy of a pleading I filed in the DC Court of Appeals in litigation concerning my job termination, in 1991, by the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld. The District of Columbia Corporation Counsel defended the determination of the Department of Human Rights (issued in September 1993) that there was no probable cause to believe that the reasons produced by the employer to support its termination decision, namely, that I suffered from a mental disorder that rendered me unsuitable for employment, was pretextual in nature.
I had met with Deputy Corporation Counsel Charles L. Reischel, Esq. in his office at One Judiciary Square in March 1997, at which time he vehemently stated that he had no intention of devoting the resources of his office to defending the appeal. He said angrily, "I have no intention of serving as Akin Gump's attorney. If they want to defend the appeal, they can do it themselves."
After I filed my brief with the court in May 1997 Mr. Reischel telephoned me to state that he intended to file a reply -- contrary to his statements inMarch 1997. He stated that his office now had the resources to devote to defending the appeal.
Remarkably, not only did the Office of Corporation Counsel do an about-face in deciding to defend the appeal, but it resorted to the ethically-questionable device of using a sizable quantum of legally-irrelevant evidence to do so.
Ultimately, what did the Corporation Counsel accomplish? Basically, the District simply bolstered my Social Security Disability claim. (I submitted the District's pleadings with Social Security in support of the claim that I suffer from severe mental illness.) If I remain disabled till age 65, I will have collected over $250,000 in disability benefits. I also collect food stamps. I have applied for Medicaid. If I develop a costly illness, the District might have to foot the bill for my treatment.
What in God's name did the District accomplish?
Incidentally, you probably know that Council member David Catania practices law at Akin Gump.
Also, the corporation counsel at the initial phase of the litigation was the late Charles F.C. Ruff, Esq. See Freedman v. D.C. Dept. of Human Rights, D.C. Superior Court, xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx (associate judge), 1996. Mr. Ruff was subsequently named counsel toformer President Clinton. President Clinton's closest friend, Vernon E. Jordan, Esq., is a senior management partner at Akin Gump. In addition, the Director of the Department of Human Rights (Margie Utley), who issued the Initial Agency Determination in 1993, served under former Mayor Sharon Pratt Kelley. It was Vernon Jordan, who, in 1990, served as the transition chairman for Mayor-elect Kelley. It may have been Vernon Jordan who vetted Margie Utley.
One could draw certain paranoid inferences.
(Keep in mind that the following text was written by an individual who, according to the District, does not have the mental capacity to hold down a job and who is entitled to state and federal benefits (that currently exceed $100,000) because of that mental incapacity.)
GARY FREEDMAN
The email included the text of the following pleading:
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2009/11/freedman-v-dc-dept-mental-health-akin.html
_____________
Andrew Gerst, Esq.
Office of the Honorable Carol Schwartz
Council of the District of Columbia
Dear Mr. Gerst:
I am forwarding, for your information, a copy of a pleading I filed in the DC Court of Appeals in litigation concerning my job termination, in 1991, by the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld. The District of Columbia Corporation Counsel defended the determination of the Department of Human Rights (issued in September 1993) that there was no probable cause to believe that the reasons produced by the employer to support its termination decision, namely, that I suffered from a mental disorder that rendered me unsuitable for employment, was pretextual in nature.
I had met with Deputy Corporation Counsel Charles L. Reischel, Esq. in his office at One Judiciary Square in March 1997, at which time he vehemently stated that he had no intention of devoting the resources of his office to defending the appeal. He said angrily, "I have no intention of serving as Akin Gump's attorney. If they want to defend the appeal, they can do it themselves."
After I filed my brief with the court in May 1997 Mr. Reischel telephoned me to state that he intended to file a reply -- contrary to his statements inMarch 1997. He stated that his office now had the resources to devote to defending the appeal.
Remarkably, not only did the Office of Corporation Counsel do an about-face in deciding to defend the appeal, but it resorted to the ethically-questionable device of using a sizable quantum of legally-irrelevant evidence to do so.
Ultimately, what did the Corporation Counsel accomplish? Basically, the District simply bolstered my Social Security Disability claim. (I submitted the District's pleadings with Social Security in support of the claim that I suffer from severe mental illness.) If I remain disabled till age 65, I will have collected over $250,000 in disability benefits. I also collect food stamps. I have applied for Medicaid. If I develop a costly illness, the District might have to foot the bill for my treatment.
What in God's name did the District accomplish?
Incidentally, you probably know that Council member David Catania practices law at Akin Gump.
Also, the corporation counsel at the initial phase of the litigation was the late Charles F.C. Ruff, Esq. See Freedman v. D.C. Dept. of Human Rights, D.C. Superior Court, xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx (associate judge), 1996. Mr. Ruff was subsequently named counsel toformer President Clinton. President Clinton's closest friend, Vernon E. Jordan, Esq., is a senior management partner at Akin Gump. In addition, the Director of the Department of Human Rights (Margie Utley), who issued the Initial Agency Determination in 1993, served under former Mayor Sharon Pratt Kelley. It was Vernon Jordan, who, in 1990, served as the transition chairman for Mayor-elect Kelley. It may have been Vernon Jordan who vetted Margie Utley.
One could draw certain paranoid inferences.
(Keep in mind that the following text was written by an individual who, according to the District, does not have the mental capacity to hold down a job and who is entitled to state and federal benefits (that currently exceed $100,000) because of that mental incapacity.)
GARY FREEDMAN
The email included the text of the following pleading:
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2009/11/freedman-v-dc-dept-mental-health-akin.html
Covington & Burling -- email message July 22, 2005
The following is the text of an email I sent to a partner at Covington & Burling on July 22, 2005 concerning D.C. Corporation Counsel Charles F.C. Ruff who was also a partner at Covington & Burling. As of 2005 current U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., Esq. was a partner at Covington & Burling. Mr. Huvelle apparently did not find the message threatening despite the fact that it refers to a member of his immediate family.
CHARLES RUFF -- ETHICALLY QUESTIONABLE CONDUCT -- CIVIL RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
Mr. Huvelle,
The following letter discusses the federal civil rights implications of Charles Ruff's (and his successor's) use of legally-irrelevant evidence in Freedman v. DC Department of Human Rights, DC Sup. Ct. (xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx, J.) and DC Court of Appeals, 96-CV-961.
Please send my regards to Eric H. Holder, Jr., Esq. He is someone I admire a great deal.
GARY FREEDMAN
_______________________________________________________
November 2, 2004
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008
The Honorable Charles Ramsey
Chief of Police
300 Indiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC
RE: Mental Disability -- Discrimination -- Police/FBI
Dear Chief Ramsey:
I am writing to you, Chief Ramsey, to apprise the Office of Chief of Police of a serious police matter that arose in the second district on October 12, 2004. Underlying the police matter is an issue of discrimination involving the DC Office of Corporation Counsel.
I forwarded a letter to the Washington Field Office of the FBI concerning the following matter on October 23, 2004.
I have been unemployed and disabled under U.S. Social Security Administration eligibility rules since October 29, 1991. My Social Security no. is xxx xx xxxx.
I am a patient of the DC Department of Mental Health (Patient no. 230923). I receive psychotropic medications from the DC Department of Mental Health.
I was employed as a paralegal at the Washington, DC law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld until October 29, 1991. Dennis M. Race, Esq. (202 887 4028), a senior management partner, terminated my employment upon determining in consultation with a psychiatrist (who did not examine me personally) that there were reasonable concerns about my mental health and stability that rendered me unsuitable for employment. Freedman v. DC Dept. of Human Rights, 96-CV-961 (DCCA, Sept. 1998). The fact that I had received "above average or outstanding" job performance ratings during my three-and-one-half-year tenure was not disputed; also undisputed was the fact that my personnel file contained no record of reprimands, oral or written.
SSA granted my claim for benefits (in August 1993) in part based on Mr. Race's sworn interrogatory responses filed with the DC Dept. of Human Rights (in May 1992); SSA's disability determination date, October 29, 1991, was the date of job termination.
There is substantial evidence that Mr. Race's interrogatory responses were perjured; that Mr. Race did not in fact consult with the psychiatrist, Gertrude R. Ticho, MD [now deceased], a physician licensed to practice in the District of Columbia. See Brief of Appellant, 96-CV-961. Additionally, I possess tape recordings of two telephone conversations in which Dr. Ticho denies any contacts or acquaintance with Dennis M. Race. Officer J.E. Williams, Badge 1226, Second District, Metro DC Police is in possession of copies of those conversations (202 282 0070).
I was seriously defamed by Mr. Race, my supervisor, a coworker (who was subsequently terminated for gross misconduct), and the DC Office of Corporation Counsel. In the past several months I have been sending out job inquiries to employers, which summarize allegations made against me by the above-named
parties. On October 12, 2004 ten (10) Metro DC Police officers (including a second district supervisor) plus four (4) FBI agents showed up at my residence because of a letter I sent to an employer, who had contacted the police in alarm. The letter was purely factual; several prospective employers, including The Montgomery County Government, sent me a cordial reply to a nearly identical letter. So damaging was the defamation to which I was subjected that the police were convinced I must be insane to have written such a letter. The police had me transported to DC General Hospital in handcuffs for an emergency psychiatric examination. I was interviewed by a Dr. Martin at DC General (202 673 9319) (ECURA #xxxxxxx) who determined that I did not require admission. I was released; no medication was administered, prescribed or recommended. Of course, the incident bolsters my Social Security disability claim. I have already received in excess of $100,000 in benefits.
The defamatory allegations about my character that arose at my last place of employment, which I have a legal duty to report to a prospective employer, may impose a constitutionally-impermissible burden on my ability to obtain employment. The allegations, made at my last place of employment, were presumably a substantial factor in SSA's disability determination. Despite the fact that the allegations were made at least 13 years ago, they remain material to my difficulties in my last employment situation.
Facts about my psychiatric treatment history since 1992 are peculiar, if not bizarre:
1. I was diagnosed with bipolar disorder in September 1992 as an outpatient at The George Washington University Medical Center Department of Psychiatry (Napoleon Cuenco, MD). The illness did not respond to lithium, and later underwent spontaneous remission.
2. I underwent comprehensive psychological testing at GW in May 1994 (William Fabian, Ph.D.). The testing did not yield a psychiatric diagnosis or disclose any psychotic thought processes. The testing yielded a valid profile. I was not on any meds at the time. The WAIS yielded a verbal IQ of 135 (99th percentile) and an overall IQ of 125 (above average).
3. In February 1996 I was diagnosed at GW (Dimitrios Georgopoulos, MD) with paranoid schizophrenia that later underwent spontaneous remission.
4. In March 1996 I took a psychological test called "The Wisconsin Scales of Psychosis Proneness" (Ramin Mojtabai, MD). Results were negative. I scored six non-perseverative errors -- one of the lowest possible scores, indicating high concept-formation ability. I was not on any meds at the time of the testing.
DC DEPT. OF MENTAL HEALTH
5. In July 1996 I entered the DC Dept. of Mental Health System. In January 1998 my psychiatrist, Dr. Singh (a resident) determined in consultation with his supervisor (Stephen Quint, MD) that I suffered from no diagnosis or condition for which meds were indicated.
6. In February 1999 Albert H. Taub, MD diagnosed me with paranoid schizophrenia, which later underwent spontaneous remission. I was later diagnosed with delusional disorder. That portion of my thinking termed
delusional has not responded to three different antipsychotic meds: Zyprexa, Abilify, and Risperdal. I currently take Effexor for depression and Xanax for insomnia.
7. On March 16-17 2004 I had a minor bout of paranoid schizophrenia, so-called "24-hour" paranoid schizophrenia, diagnosed by Betsy Jane Cooper, MD. My treatment plan prepared on March 17, 2004 by my case manager/therapist, Dr. Israella Bash, records that Dr. Cooper diagnosed me with paranoid schizophrenia on March 17, 2004; Dr. Cooper prescribed Zyprexa on March 17, 2004, which I took for about a month. There was no change in my delusional thinking. My current diagnosis is delusional disorder. Again, Dr. Martin at DC General recommended no anti-psychotic meds during my emergency psychiatric assessment on October 12, 2004; I was not agitated on October 12, 2004--my blood pressure was normal, 130/85.
I am totally socially isolated. I have no friends. I haven't spoken to my only relative, an older sister, since February 1996.
I have created an imaginary friend who I write letters to periodically, Brian Patrick Brown, manager of the Cleveland Park Branch of the DC Library System. The enclosed disc contains some of my recent letters to Brian.
I like Brian a lot, and would welcome him as a real friend. How I wish I could be Brian's real buddy!
My therapist, Dr. Bash (DC Dept. of Mental Health) is at 202 576 8939. My psychiatrist, Henry Barbot, MD, is at 202 576 8946.
Thank you. The U.S. Attorney's Office in DC (202 514 7566) is familiar with this matter.
In closing, this will respectfully advise the Office of Chief of Police that I have a constitutionally-protected right to seek employment. Also, in order to invoke my rights under the Americans With Disabilities Act I must fully apprise a prospective employer of facts concerning my disability, including allegations (however defamatory) placed in controversy by Dennis M. Race, Esq., his employees, and the DC Office of Corporation Counsel. State action that impairs my right to seek employment or my right to protections under federal law may be legally actionable.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
APPENDIX A:
LETTER FROM OFFICE OF HUMAN RESOURCES, MONTGOMERY COUNTY GOVERNMENT
[unsigned],
DATED OCTOBER 14, 2004:
Dear Applicant:
Enclosed you will find the resume/application that you submitted to the Office of Human Resources. We are returning this resume/application because you must apply for a specific position.
In order to be considered for employment with Montgomery County Government, you must apply for an announced position. Information pertaining to current employment opportunities is available on our website at www.montgomerycountymd.gov - click on careers.
We appreciate your interest in Montgomery County and wish you continued success in your employment endeavors.
Sincerely,
Office of Human Resources
Montgomery County Government
APPENDIX B:
LETTER FROM GARY FREEDMAN TO MONTGOMERY COUNTY GOVERNMENT THAT IS VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL TO THE ONE I SENT TO A WASHINGTON, DC EMPLOYER, WHICH TRIGGERED A LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE BY TEN METRO DC POLICE OFFICERS ASSISTED BY FOUR FBI AGENTS. THE LETTER IS PURELY FACTUAL; IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY THREATS OF VIOLENCE BY ME. THE LETTER SUMMARIZES FALSE, MALICIOUS, AND DEFAMATORY ACCUSATIONS MADE ABOUT ME, AND IS EVIDENCE OF MASSIVE DEFAMATION BY ATTORNEY MANAGERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE LAW FIRM OF AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, AS WELL AS THE DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL (CHARLES L. REISCHEL, ESQ., DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL, APPELLATE DIVISION). NOTE THAT UNDER SUPREME COURT RULINGS, DEFAMATION BY A STATE AGENCY CONSTITUTES A FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION.
[The following letter is stamped by the Montgomery County Government: RECEIVED - HUMAN RESOURCES - 04 OCT 13 A10:47 - MONTGOMERY COUNTY GOVERNMENT]
October 12, 2004
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008
OHR
101 Monroe Street
7th Floor
Rockville, MD 20850
RE: EMPLOYMENT -- ARMED, MASS HOMICIDE -- REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF HARM
Dear Sir:
I am writing to you at the express direction of the Metropolitan District of Columbia Police Department (Officer J.E. Williams, Badge 1226, Second District, Washington, DC: 202 282 0070) that I actively seek employment consistent with my high intelligence as well as my professional and academic credentials.
I am specifically interested in the position of senior legislative attorney for the Montgomery County Council. I am an attorney, licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I hold an advanced degree (Master of Laws) in international trade law.
I am a disabled American, and I qualify for the legal protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I believe I have a legal duty to apprise you, as a prospective employer, of the following matters.
1. TERRORISTIC THREATS: On April 21, 2004 the Metro DC Police issued a protective order against me, on the petition of Brian Patrick Brown, Manager of the Cleveland Park Branch of the DC Public Library. Brian Brown alleged that I had made terrorist threats, in writing, against unspecified persons. The
six-month order of protection prohibits my entering or loitering in the vicinity of said library, under penalty of arrest and prosecution. The investigating officer was the aforementioned Officer Williams. This will advise that at this time I continue to satisfy the prognostic criteria that were determined by the Metro DC Police in April 2004 to indicate that I am at significant risk of committing a crime of violence or arousing a reasonable apprehension of committing a crime of violence. It is likely that I will satisfy said criteria for committing a crime of violence or arousing a reasonable apprehension of same in the future event I obtain employment with The Montgomery County Council. On April 21, 2004 Officer Williams stated to me: "You seem OK to me right now, but what I'm worried about is what's going to happen a few days from now." Obviously, my future conduct was a substantial concern to the Metro DC Police. [Note that if I had made an actual threat I would have been arrested or transported to DC General Hospital for a forensic psychiatric examination. It
is clear that what the MPDC did was to simply rubber-stamp a specious request made by a supervisory DC employee.]
2. VIOLENCE-RISK DETERMINATION: My former employer, Dennis M. Race, Esq. (202 887 4028), a senior management partner at the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, determined, in consultation with a psychiatrist, that my thinking was consistent with a psychiatric "disorder" that might be associated with a risk of violent behavior. See Freedman v. DC Dept. of Human Rights, 96-CV-961 (DCCA, Sept. 1998). [The psychiatrist did not evaluate me personally. There is no documentary evidence that Mr. Race, in fact, consulted a psychiatrist. Under applicable law, the employer had a burden of production, not a burden of persuasion -- a very low evidentiary threshold.] Mr. Race determined that my
continued presence on the firm's premises might pose a risk of tort liability for the firm, and terminated my employment effective October 29, 1991. I have been unemployed and disabled under Social Security Administration eligibility rules since the date of the termination. My thinking, upon which Mr. Race's
violence-risk determination was based, remains unchanged.
3. HOMICIDE-RISK DETERMINATION: Shortly after conferring with Mr. Race about his forensic psychiatric determination, my supervisor called a meeting of her employees to advise them that she had formed a reasonable apprehension that I might have been planning to kill her [an act of defamation]. The supervisor undertook [self-serving] protective measures [to give the appearance that she needed] to ensure her safety as well as that of her employees against a possible future homicidal assault. See Brief of Appellant. Mr. Race did not challenge appellant's brief. The supervisor was a senior non-attorney manager who reported directly to a member of the firm's management committee, R. Bruce MacLean, Esq. Mr. MacLean is the firm's current managing partner.
4. ARMED, MASS HOMICIDAL ASSAULT: The DC Corporation Counsel determined, sua sponte [relying on legally-irrelevant, "after-acquired" evidence], that my coworkers had formed genuine and credible fears that I might carry out an armed, mass homicidal assault on the firm's premises, and that said widespread fears of an armed, mass homicide were material to Mr. Race's termination decision. See Brief of Appellee, District of Columbia (citing statement of coworker [who was later terminated for gross misconduct] in record on appeal: "We're all afraid of you. We're all afraid you're going to buy a gun, bring it in and shoot everybody!"). At oral argument before the DC Court of Appeals, the Assistant Corporation Counsel declared to the Court, referencing the above record evidence, that I had "admitted" that my "coworkers were afraid of" me. Mr. Race did not challenge the District's handling of 96-CV-961.
5. MULTIPLE ARMED HOMICIDE UNDER FEDERAL LAW: On the evening of August 6, 1998 two Special Agents of the US Capitol Police (Threat Investigation Unit) forcibly entered my home, after frisking me for weapons, and proceeded to interrogate me about an allegation made by a DC employee that, earlier in the day, at the height of an enraged argument, I had threatened to kill two federal officers at point-blank range, execution style in the Capitol rotunda. Later investigation by Agent Steven Horan disclosed that said allegation was mistakenly based on a letter I had written to my psychiatrist (Stephen Quint, MD) and copied to a DC agency that factually summarized Mr. Race's violence-risk determination [an act of defamation]; my supervisor's homicide-risk determination [an act of defamation]; as well as the DC Corporation Counsel's determination that my coworkers had formed a reasonable apprehension that I might commit an armed, mass homicide [an act of defamation]. Though I was exonerated of making unlawful threats, Officer Horan photo ID'd me to all federal officers assigned to the U.S. Capitol Building as a protective measure.
6. POTENTIAL TERRORIST: On August 7, 1998 Agent Horan advised me that the federal government (unbeknownst to me) had previously placed my name on a national registry of potential terrorists because of a letter I had written in 1996 to a local psychiatric facility (The Meyer Clinic), inquiring into out-patient services. Said letter elaborated Mr. Race's violence-risk determination [an act of defamation] as well as my supervisor's homicide-risk determination [an act of defamation].
7. PRESIDENTIAL THREAT: On the afternoon of August 7, 1998 two Special Agents of the U.S. Secret Service placed me under house arrest because of concerns I might pose a risk of harm to President Clinton. The two Secret Service agents were part of a team of six federal special agents who had been assigned to
interrogate me and secure my person, over a two-day period (August 6-7, 1998). Federal law enforcement concerns were aroused by a letter I had written and sent to a DC agency that discussed the federal civil rights implications of the DC Corporation Counsel's handling of 96-CV-961. I had sent an identical letter to U.S. Senator Arlen Specter (R.-PA.) on Capitol Hill, who responded with a cordial and personalized reply. Senator Specter, a former prosecutor, saw absolutely nothing threatening about the letter I had written, much less did he see the need to assign six federal special agents to interrogate me and secure my person.
8. POSSIBLE DOCUMENT FORGERY: The District speculates that I might have filed an inauthentic letter with a DC agency (purportedly written by a psychiatrist) in order to invidiously deny competent forensic psychiatric evidence proffered by Mr. Race under oath that showed I had been reasonably determined to be potentially violent. Presumably, according to the District [contrary to well-established case law], I might have forged a psychiatrist's signature and/or fabricated her letterhead. The U.S. Attorney's Office in DC has not yet issued me a notice of an intent to prosecute me.
9. UNLAWFUL SEXUAL THOUGHTS: The DC Corporation Counsel determined, sua sponte [relying on legally-irrelevant, "after-acquired" evidence], that private, undisclosed sexual thoughts I experienced on April 13, 1990 concerning the activity of masturbation were material to Mr. Race's termination decision as well as to Mr. Race's violence-risk determination. Mr. Race did not challenge the District's brief. I admit to having sexual thoughts in the workplace.
I look forward to hearing from you. Please send my regards to Doug Gansler, Esq. He's a bit of an attention seeker, but he knows what he's talking about.
Sincerely,
[signed]
Gary Freedman
PA ATTY ID 41032
CHARLES RUFF -- ETHICALLY QUESTIONABLE CONDUCT -- CIVIL RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
Mr. Huvelle,
The following letter discusses the federal civil rights implications of Charles Ruff's (and his successor's) use of legally-irrelevant evidence in Freedman v. DC Department of Human Rights, DC Sup. Ct. (xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx, J.) and DC Court of Appeals, 96-CV-961.
Please send my regards to Eric H. Holder, Jr., Esq. He is someone I admire a great deal.
GARY FREEDMAN
_______________________________________________________
November 2, 2004
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008
The Honorable Charles Ramsey
Chief of Police
300 Indiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC
RE: Mental Disability -- Discrimination -- Police/FBI
Dear Chief Ramsey:
I am writing to you, Chief Ramsey, to apprise the Office of Chief of Police of a serious police matter that arose in the second district on October 12, 2004. Underlying the police matter is an issue of discrimination involving the DC Office of Corporation Counsel.
I forwarded a letter to the Washington Field Office of the FBI concerning the following matter on October 23, 2004.
I have been unemployed and disabled under U.S. Social Security Administration eligibility rules since October 29, 1991. My Social Security no. is xxx xx xxxx.
I am a patient of the DC Department of Mental Health (Patient no. 230923). I receive psychotropic medications from the DC Department of Mental Health.
I was employed as a paralegal at the Washington, DC law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld until October 29, 1991. Dennis M. Race, Esq. (202 887 4028), a senior management partner, terminated my employment upon determining in consultation with a psychiatrist (who did not examine me personally) that there were reasonable concerns about my mental health and stability that rendered me unsuitable for employment. Freedman v. DC Dept. of Human Rights, 96-CV-961 (DCCA, Sept. 1998). The fact that I had received "above average or outstanding" job performance ratings during my three-and-one-half-year tenure was not disputed; also undisputed was the fact that my personnel file contained no record of reprimands, oral or written.
SSA granted my claim for benefits (in August 1993) in part based on Mr. Race's sworn interrogatory responses filed with the DC Dept. of Human Rights (in May 1992); SSA's disability determination date, October 29, 1991, was the date of job termination.
There is substantial evidence that Mr. Race's interrogatory responses were perjured; that Mr. Race did not in fact consult with the psychiatrist, Gertrude R. Ticho, MD [now deceased], a physician licensed to practice in the District of Columbia. See Brief of Appellant, 96-CV-961. Additionally, I possess tape recordings of two telephone conversations in which Dr. Ticho denies any contacts or acquaintance with Dennis M. Race. Officer J.E. Williams, Badge 1226, Second District, Metro DC Police is in possession of copies of those conversations (202 282 0070).
I was seriously defamed by Mr. Race, my supervisor, a coworker (who was subsequently terminated for gross misconduct), and the DC Office of Corporation Counsel. In the past several months I have been sending out job inquiries to employers, which summarize allegations made against me by the above-named
parties. On October 12, 2004 ten (10) Metro DC Police officers (including a second district supervisor) plus four (4) FBI agents showed up at my residence because of a letter I sent to an employer, who had contacted the police in alarm. The letter was purely factual; several prospective employers, including The Montgomery County Government, sent me a cordial reply to a nearly identical letter. So damaging was the defamation to which I was subjected that the police were convinced I must be insane to have written such a letter. The police had me transported to DC General Hospital in handcuffs for an emergency psychiatric examination. I was interviewed by a Dr. Martin at DC General (202 673 9319) (ECURA #xxxxxxx) who determined that I did not require admission. I was released; no medication was administered, prescribed or recommended. Of course, the incident bolsters my Social Security disability claim. I have already received in excess of $100,000 in benefits.
The defamatory allegations about my character that arose at my last place of employment, which I have a legal duty to report to a prospective employer, may impose a constitutionally-impermissible burden on my ability to obtain employment. The allegations, made at my last place of employment, were presumably a substantial factor in SSA's disability determination. Despite the fact that the allegations were made at least 13 years ago, they remain material to my difficulties in my last employment situation.
Facts about my psychiatric treatment history since 1992 are peculiar, if not bizarre:
1. I was diagnosed with bipolar disorder in September 1992 as an outpatient at The George Washington University Medical Center Department of Psychiatry (Napoleon Cuenco, MD). The illness did not respond to lithium, and later underwent spontaneous remission.
2. I underwent comprehensive psychological testing at GW in May 1994 (William Fabian, Ph.D.). The testing did not yield a psychiatric diagnosis or disclose any psychotic thought processes. The testing yielded a valid profile. I was not on any meds at the time. The WAIS yielded a verbal IQ of 135 (99th percentile) and an overall IQ of 125 (above average).
3. In February 1996 I was diagnosed at GW (Dimitrios Georgopoulos, MD) with paranoid schizophrenia that later underwent spontaneous remission.
4. In March 1996 I took a psychological test called "The Wisconsin Scales of Psychosis Proneness" (Ramin Mojtabai, MD). Results were negative. I scored six non-perseverative errors -- one of the lowest possible scores, indicating high concept-formation ability. I was not on any meds at the time of the testing.
DC DEPT. OF MENTAL HEALTH
5. In July 1996 I entered the DC Dept. of Mental Health System. In January 1998 my psychiatrist, Dr. Singh (a resident) determined in consultation with his supervisor (Stephen Quint, MD) that I suffered from no diagnosis or condition for which meds were indicated.
6. In February 1999 Albert H. Taub, MD diagnosed me with paranoid schizophrenia, which later underwent spontaneous remission. I was later diagnosed with delusional disorder. That portion of my thinking termed
delusional has not responded to three different antipsychotic meds: Zyprexa, Abilify, and Risperdal. I currently take Effexor for depression and Xanax for insomnia.
7. On March 16-17 2004 I had a minor bout of paranoid schizophrenia, so-called "24-hour" paranoid schizophrenia, diagnosed by Betsy Jane Cooper, MD. My treatment plan prepared on March 17, 2004 by my case manager/therapist, Dr. Israella Bash, records that Dr. Cooper diagnosed me with paranoid schizophrenia on March 17, 2004; Dr. Cooper prescribed Zyprexa on March 17, 2004, which I took for about a month. There was no change in my delusional thinking. My current diagnosis is delusional disorder. Again, Dr. Martin at DC General recommended no anti-psychotic meds during my emergency psychiatric assessment on October 12, 2004; I was not agitated on October 12, 2004--my blood pressure was normal, 130/85.
I am totally socially isolated. I have no friends. I haven't spoken to my only relative, an older sister, since February 1996.
I have created an imaginary friend who I write letters to periodically, Brian Patrick Brown, manager of the Cleveland Park Branch of the DC Library System. The enclosed disc contains some of my recent letters to Brian.
I like Brian a lot, and would welcome him as a real friend. How I wish I could be Brian's real buddy!
My therapist, Dr. Bash (DC Dept. of Mental Health) is at 202 576 8939. My psychiatrist, Henry Barbot, MD, is at 202 576 8946.
Thank you. The U.S. Attorney's Office in DC (202 514 7566) is familiar with this matter.
In closing, this will respectfully advise the Office of Chief of Police that I have a constitutionally-protected right to seek employment. Also, in order to invoke my rights under the Americans With Disabilities Act I must fully apprise a prospective employer of facts concerning my disability, including allegations (however defamatory) placed in controversy by Dennis M. Race, Esq., his employees, and the DC Office of Corporation Counsel. State action that impairs my right to seek employment or my right to protections under federal law may be legally actionable.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
APPENDIX A:
LETTER FROM OFFICE OF HUMAN RESOURCES, MONTGOMERY COUNTY GOVERNMENT
[unsigned],
DATED OCTOBER 14, 2004:
Dear Applicant:
Enclosed you will find the resume/application that you submitted to the Office of Human Resources. We are returning this resume/application because you must apply for a specific position.
In order to be considered for employment with Montgomery County Government, you must apply for an announced position. Information pertaining to current employment opportunities is available on our website at www.montgomerycountymd.gov - click on careers.
We appreciate your interest in Montgomery County and wish you continued success in your employment endeavors.
Sincerely,
Office of Human Resources
Montgomery County Government
APPENDIX B:
LETTER FROM GARY FREEDMAN TO MONTGOMERY COUNTY GOVERNMENT THAT IS VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL TO THE ONE I SENT TO A WASHINGTON, DC EMPLOYER, WHICH TRIGGERED A LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE BY TEN METRO DC POLICE OFFICERS ASSISTED BY FOUR FBI AGENTS. THE LETTER IS PURELY FACTUAL; IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY THREATS OF VIOLENCE BY ME. THE LETTER SUMMARIZES FALSE, MALICIOUS, AND DEFAMATORY ACCUSATIONS MADE ABOUT ME, AND IS EVIDENCE OF MASSIVE DEFAMATION BY ATTORNEY MANAGERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE LAW FIRM OF AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, AS WELL AS THE DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL (CHARLES L. REISCHEL, ESQ., DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL, APPELLATE DIVISION). NOTE THAT UNDER SUPREME COURT RULINGS, DEFAMATION BY A STATE AGENCY CONSTITUTES A FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION.
[The following letter is stamped by the Montgomery County Government: RECEIVED - HUMAN RESOURCES - 04 OCT 13 A10:47 - MONTGOMERY COUNTY GOVERNMENT]
October 12, 2004
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008
OHR
101 Monroe Street
7th Floor
Rockville, MD 20850
RE: EMPLOYMENT -- ARMED, MASS HOMICIDE -- REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF HARM
Dear Sir:
I am writing to you at the express direction of the Metropolitan District of Columbia Police Department (Officer J.E. Williams, Badge 1226, Second District, Washington, DC: 202 282 0070) that I actively seek employment consistent with my high intelligence as well as my professional and academic credentials.
I am specifically interested in the position of senior legislative attorney for the Montgomery County Council. I am an attorney, licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I hold an advanced degree (Master of Laws) in international trade law.
I am a disabled American, and I qualify for the legal protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I believe I have a legal duty to apprise you, as a prospective employer, of the following matters.
1. TERRORISTIC THREATS: On April 21, 2004 the Metro DC Police issued a protective order against me, on the petition of Brian Patrick Brown, Manager of the Cleveland Park Branch of the DC Public Library. Brian Brown alleged that I had made terrorist threats, in writing, against unspecified persons. The
six-month order of protection prohibits my entering or loitering in the vicinity of said library, under penalty of arrest and prosecution. The investigating officer was the aforementioned Officer Williams. This will advise that at this time I continue to satisfy the prognostic criteria that were determined by the Metro DC Police in April 2004 to indicate that I am at significant risk of committing a crime of violence or arousing a reasonable apprehension of committing a crime of violence. It is likely that I will satisfy said criteria for committing a crime of violence or arousing a reasonable apprehension of same in the future event I obtain employment with The Montgomery County Council. On April 21, 2004 Officer Williams stated to me: "You seem OK to me right now, but what I'm worried about is what's going to happen a few days from now." Obviously, my future conduct was a substantial concern to the Metro DC Police. [Note that if I had made an actual threat I would have been arrested or transported to DC General Hospital for a forensic psychiatric examination. It
is clear that what the MPDC did was to simply rubber-stamp a specious request made by a supervisory DC employee.]
2. VIOLENCE-RISK DETERMINATION: My former employer, Dennis M. Race, Esq. (202 887 4028), a senior management partner at the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, determined, in consultation with a psychiatrist, that my thinking was consistent with a psychiatric "disorder" that might be associated with a risk of violent behavior. See Freedman v. DC Dept. of Human Rights, 96-CV-961 (DCCA, Sept. 1998). [The psychiatrist did not evaluate me personally. There is no documentary evidence that Mr. Race, in fact, consulted a psychiatrist. Under applicable law, the employer had a burden of production, not a burden of persuasion -- a very low evidentiary threshold.] Mr. Race determined that my
continued presence on the firm's premises might pose a risk of tort liability for the firm, and terminated my employment effective October 29, 1991. I have been unemployed and disabled under Social Security Administration eligibility rules since the date of the termination. My thinking, upon which Mr. Race's
violence-risk determination was based, remains unchanged.
3. HOMICIDE-RISK DETERMINATION: Shortly after conferring with Mr. Race about his forensic psychiatric determination, my supervisor called a meeting of her employees to advise them that she had formed a reasonable apprehension that I might have been planning to kill her [an act of defamation]. The supervisor undertook [self-serving] protective measures [to give the appearance that she needed] to ensure her safety as well as that of her employees against a possible future homicidal assault. See Brief of Appellant. Mr. Race did not challenge appellant's brief. The supervisor was a senior non-attorney manager who reported directly to a member of the firm's management committee, R. Bruce MacLean, Esq. Mr. MacLean is the firm's current managing partner.
4. ARMED, MASS HOMICIDAL ASSAULT: The DC Corporation Counsel determined, sua sponte [relying on legally-irrelevant, "after-acquired" evidence], that my coworkers had formed genuine and credible fears that I might carry out an armed, mass homicidal assault on the firm's premises, and that said widespread fears of an armed, mass homicide were material to Mr. Race's termination decision. See Brief of Appellee, District of Columbia (citing statement of coworker [who was later terminated for gross misconduct] in record on appeal: "We're all afraid of you. We're all afraid you're going to buy a gun, bring it in and shoot everybody!"). At oral argument before the DC Court of Appeals, the Assistant Corporation Counsel declared to the Court, referencing the above record evidence, that I had "admitted" that my "coworkers were afraid of" me. Mr. Race did not challenge the District's handling of 96-CV-961.
5. MULTIPLE ARMED HOMICIDE UNDER FEDERAL LAW: On the evening of August 6, 1998 two Special Agents of the US Capitol Police (Threat Investigation Unit) forcibly entered my home, after frisking me for weapons, and proceeded to interrogate me about an allegation made by a DC employee that, earlier in the day, at the height of an enraged argument, I had threatened to kill two federal officers at point-blank range, execution style in the Capitol rotunda. Later investigation by Agent Steven Horan disclosed that said allegation was mistakenly based on a letter I had written to my psychiatrist (Stephen Quint, MD) and copied to a DC agency that factually summarized Mr. Race's violence-risk determination [an act of defamation]; my supervisor's homicide-risk determination [an act of defamation]; as well as the DC Corporation Counsel's determination that my coworkers had formed a reasonable apprehension that I might commit an armed, mass homicide [an act of defamation]. Though I was exonerated of making unlawful threats, Officer Horan photo ID'd me to all federal officers assigned to the U.S. Capitol Building as a protective measure.
6. POTENTIAL TERRORIST: On August 7, 1998 Agent Horan advised me that the federal government (unbeknownst to me) had previously placed my name on a national registry of potential terrorists because of a letter I had written in 1996 to a local psychiatric facility (The Meyer Clinic), inquiring into out-patient services. Said letter elaborated Mr. Race's violence-risk determination [an act of defamation] as well as my supervisor's homicide-risk determination [an act of defamation].
7. PRESIDENTIAL THREAT: On the afternoon of August 7, 1998 two Special Agents of the U.S. Secret Service placed me under house arrest because of concerns I might pose a risk of harm to President Clinton. The two Secret Service agents were part of a team of six federal special agents who had been assigned to
interrogate me and secure my person, over a two-day period (August 6-7, 1998). Federal law enforcement concerns were aroused by a letter I had written and sent to a DC agency that discussed the federal civil rights implications of the DC Corporation Counsel's handling of 96-CV-961. I had sent an identical letter to U.S. Senator Arlen Specter (R.-PA.) on Capitol Hill, who responded with a cordial and personalized reply. Senator Specter, a former prosecutor, saw absolutely nothing threatening about the letter I had written, much less did he see the need to assign six federal special agents to interrogate me and secure my person.
8. POSSIBLE DOCUMENT FORGERY: The District speculates that I might have filed an inauthentic letter with a DC agency (purportedly written by a psychiatrist) in order to invidiously deny competent forensic psychiatric evidence proffered by Mr. Race under oath that showed I had been reasonably determined to be potentially violent. Presumably, according to the District [contrary to well-established case law], I might have forged a psychiatrist's signature and/or fabricated her letterhead. The U.S. Attorney's Office in DC has not yet issued me a notice of an intent to prosecute me.
9. UNLAWFUL SEXUAL THOUGHTS: The DC Corporation Counsel determined, sua sponte [relying on legally-irrelevant, "after-acquired" evidence], that private, undisclosed sexual thoughts I experienced on April 13, 1990 concerning the activity of masturbation were material to Mr. Race's termination decision as well as to Mr. Race's violence-risk determination. Mr. Race did not challenge the District's brief. I admit to having sexual thoughts in the workplace.
I look forward to hearing from you. Please send my regards to Doug Gansler, Esq. He's a bit of an attention seeker, but he knows what he's talking about.
Sincerely,
[signed]
Gary Freedman
PA ATTY ID 41032
GW Psych Testing: Concern About Fraud
I was administered comprehensive psychological testing by the George Washington University Medical Center in May 1994 by Yu-Ling Han. During the summer of 1994 my then treating psychiatrist Dimitrios Georgopoulos, M.D. reviewed the test report with me. I asked him for a copy of the test report. He said he would make a copy and give it to me. Weeks passed and I never got the report as promised. I asked for the test report again. Again, Dr. Georgopoulos promised to provide a copy but never did. This interaction continued for the next two years. In April 1996 I submitted the following formal written request to Dr. Georgopoulos. In fact, what happened was that after Dr. Georgopoulos completed his residency program at the end of June 1996, he left a copy of the report in an envelope at the receptionist's desk in the psychiatry department for me to pick up. I found Dr. Georgopoulos' behavior to be suspicious: an act of concealment. Why did it take him two years to provide a copy of the test report? The test report failed to disclose that I suffered from any psychiatric disorder or psychotic thought processes, a fact that was inconsistent with Dr. Georgopoulos's medical recommendation that I take anti-psychotic medication.
A second peculiarity. At the psychological testing with Dr. Ramin Mojtabai in March 1996 I reported an incident that occurred between me and the manager of my apartment building Elaine Wranik in early November 1991. I reported that I got into a heated argument with Elaine Wranik at the height of which I threatened her. I said, "My sister still has that video tape." Elaine Wranik seemed immediately to know what I was talking about and replied, "I have pictures of my own." Oddly, she didn't say, "Videotape? What videotape? What are you talking about?" Dr. Mojtabai omitted that incident from his test report, a fact that I discuss in the letter below.
April 19, 1996
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW #136
Washington, DC 20008-4530
D. Georgopoulos, MD
Dept. Psychiatry
GW Univ. Med. Ctr.
2150 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
Dear Dr. Georgopoulos:
This will constitute formal written notice per the client access provision of the District of Columbia Mental Health Information Act, D.C. Code Section 6-2041, that I wish to obtain copies of the following documents in the custody the George Washington University Medical Center.
(a.) all raw data pertaining to psychological testing administered by Yu-Ling Han in May 1994 (including but not limited to raw data pertaining to the Rorschach test and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory [MMPI]);
(b.) report prepared by Yu-Ling Han that summarizes the results of the psychological testing administered in May 1994;
(c.) all raw data pertaining to psychological testing administered by Ramin Mojtabai, M.D. in March 1996;
(d.) report prepared by Ramin Mojtabai, M.D. that summarizes the results of the psychological testing administered in March 1996,
I would like to forward the above-referenced documents to the U.S. Department of Justice and/or the U.S. Social Security Administration so that these agencies might review the test data and possibly undertake an independent analysis of the test data.
At this time I would like to state the following concerns regarding the test report prepared by Ramin Mojtabai, M.D., which you reviewed with me at our consultation on Wednesday April 17, 1996. Specifically, I believe that Dr. Mojtabai consistently used negative or ambiguous test results, consistent with either normality or psychosis, to conclude that I suffer from a psychotic condition. Dr. Mojtabai’s conclusions therefore raise issues of concern for both the U.S. Social Security Administration and federal law enforcement officials relating, respectively, to (a.) my continued eligibility for disability benefits, and (b.) my potential for violence and mental capacity in the event I were to be prosecuted for a crime of violence. Dr. Mojtabai’s statements “are consistent with” my continued eligibility for Social Security disability payments and “consistent with” a psychotic mental state that might preclude or impair my prosecution for a crime of violence,.
1. I am concerned by Dr. Mojtabai’s statement that the results of the Wisconsin Scales of Psychosis Proneness (WSPP), which were within the normal range (6 nonperseverative errors), are nonetheless consistent with the existence of a delusional disorder. By analogy, negative EEG results may not necessarily rule out a neurological disorder; but it would be overstating the case to say that negative EEG results are consistent with the existence of a neurological disorder. I am concerned that negative findings that are consistent with either normality or pathology are used by Dr. Mojtabai to support the existence of pathology.
2. I am concerned about Dr. Mojtabai’s statement that the WSPP results are consistent with the prior Rorschach and MMPI results--and therefore support the existence of a delusional disorder when in fact the prior administered Rorschach and MMPI failed to yield any diagnosis and did not indicate any psychotic thought processes. Indeed, Yu-Ling Han expressly states in the 1994 test report that I might have lied on the tests in order to conceal my paranoia, which clearly indicates that the tests failed to disclose paranoia One wonders how normal range WSPP results that are consistent with the prior normal range Rorschach and MMPI can nonetheless support the existence of a delusional disorder.
Of additional concern is the fact that Yu-Ling Han singled out an elevated paranoia scale on the 1994 MMPI to conclude a tendency toward paranoia and suspiciousness in my interpersonal relations; Yu-Ling Han’s procedure is directly inconsistent with the recommendations of experts in the field of psychological testing, who caution that an elevated score on the MMPI paranoia scale 1/ should not be used to infer paranoia since an elevated paranoia scale in itself is also consistent with healthy inquisitiveness and skepticism. See Anastasia, A. Psychological Testing (see Appendix A, attached). One assumes that any good lawyer (or FBI agent) would have an elevated score on the MMPI paranoia scale.
3. See Letter to the U.S. Secret Service dated January 6, 1995 (attached). I am concerned that Dr. Mojtabai omitted material facts concerning an interaction I had with the former manager of my apartment building, Elaine Wranik, during the week of November 4, 1991. I took care to explain these facts to Dr. Mojtabai, but he chose to ignore them in his written report; he reported only that portion of my belief system that supported the existence of a delusional disorder.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
____________________________
1/ Cf. Tarter, R.E. and Perley, R. N. “Clinical and Perceptual Characteristics of Paranoids and Paranoid Schizophrenics.” J. Clin. Psychol. 31: 42-44 (1975) (see Appendix A to this letter). The study found that paranoid schizophrenics score in a characteristic, multidimensional fashion on the MMPI.
[Appendices A and B omitted].
A second peculiarity. At the psychological testing with Dr. Ramin Mojtabai in March 1996 I reported an incident that occurred between me and the manager of my apartment building Elaine Wranik in early November 1991. I reported that I got into a heated argument with Elaine Wranik at the height of which I threatened her. I said, "My sister still has that video tape." Elaine Wranik seemed immediately to know what I was talking about and replied, "I have pictures of my own." Oddly, she didn't say, "Videotape? What videotape? What are you talking about?" Dr. Mojtabai omitted that incident from his test report, a fact that I discuss in the letter below.
April 19, 1996
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW #136
Washington, DC 20008-4530
D. Georgopoulos, MD
Dept. Psychiatry
GW Univ. Med. Ctr.
2150 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
Dear Dr. Georgopoulos:
This will constitute formal written notice per the client access provision of the District of Columbia Mental Health Information Act, D.C. Code Section 6-2041, that I wish to obtain copies of the following documents in the custody the George Washington University Medical Center.
(a.) all raw data pertaining to psychological testing administered by Yu-Ling Han in May 1994 (including but not limited to raw data pertaining to the Rorschach test and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory [MMPI]);
(b.) report prepared by Yu-Ling Han that summarizes the results of the psychological testing administered in May 1994;
(c.) all raw data pertaining to psychological testing administered by Ramin Mojtabai, M.D. in March 1996;
(d.) report prepared by Ramin Mojtabai, M.D. that summarizes the results of the psychological testing administered in March 1996,
I would like to forward the above-referenced documents to the U.S. Department of Justice and/or the U.S. Social Security Administration so that these agencies might review the test data and possibly undertake an independent analysis of the test data.
At this time I would like to state the following concerns regarding the test report prepared by Ramin Mojtabai, M.D., which you reviewed with me at our consultation on Wednesday April 17, 1996. Specifically, I believe that Dr. Mojtabai consistently used negative or ambiguous test results, consistent with either normality or psychosis, to conclude that I suffer from a psychotic condition. Dr. Mojtabai’s conclusions therefore raise issues of concern for both the U.S. Social Security Administration and federal law enforcement officials relating, respectively, to (a.) my continued eligibility for disability benefits, and (b.) my potential for violence and mental capacity in the event I were to be prosecuted for a crime of violence. Dr. Mojtabai’s statements “are consistent with” my continued eligibility for Social Security disability payments and “consistent with” a psychotic mental state that might preclude or impair my prosecution for a crime of violence,.
1. I am concerned by Dr. Mojtabai’s statement that the results of the Wisconsin Scales of Psychosis Proneness (WSPP), which were within the normal range (6 nonperseverative errors), are nonetheless consistent with the existence of a delusional disorder. By analogy, negative EEG results may not necessarily rule out a neurological disorder; but it would be overstating the case to say that negative EEG results are consistent with the existence of a neurological disorder. I am concerned that negative findings that are consistent with either normality or pathology are used by Dr. Mojtabai to support the existence of pathology.
2. I am concerned about Dr. Mojtabai’s statement that the WSPP results are consistent with the prior Rorschach and MMPI results--and therefore support the existence of a delusional disorder when in fact the prior administered Rorschach and MMPI failed to yield any diagnosis and did not indicate any psychotic thought processes. Indeed, Yu-Ling Han expressly states in the 1994 test report that I might have lied on the tests in order to conceal my paranoia, which clearly indicates that the tests failed to disclose paranoia One wonders how normal range WSPP results that are consistent with the prior normal range Rorschach and MMPI can nonetheless support the existence of a delusional disorder.
Of additional concern is the fact that Yu-Ling Han singled out an elevated paranoia scale on the 1994 MMPI to conclude a tendency toward paranoia and suspiciousness in my interpersonal relations; Yu-Ling Han’s procedure is directly inconsistent with the recommendations of experts in the field of psychological testing, who caution that an elevated score on the MMPI paranoia scale 1/ should not be used to infer paranoia since an elevated paranoia scale in itself is also consistent with healthy inquisitiveness and skepticism. See Anastasia, A. Psychological Testing (see Appendix A, attached). One assumes that any good lawyer (or FBI agent) would have an elevated score on the MMPI paranoia scale.
3. See Letter to the U.S. Secret Service dated January 6, 1995 (attached). I am concerned that Dr. Mojtabai omitted material facts concerning an interaction I had with the former manager of my apartment building, Elaine Wranik, during the week of November 4, 1991. I took care to explain these facts to Dr. Mojtabai, but he chose to ignore them in his written report; he reported only that portion of my belief system that supported the existence of a delusional disorder.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
____________________________
1/ Cf. Tarter, R.E. and Perley, R. N. “Clinical and Perceptual Characteristics of Paranoids and Paranoid Schizophrenics.” J. Clin. Psychol. 31: 42-44 (1975) (see Appendix A to this letter). The study found that paranoid schizophrenics score in a characteristic, multidimensional fashion on the MMPI.
[Appendices A and B omitted].
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
