 Washington, District Of Columbia, United States Steptoe & Johnson (63.88.112.229) (No referring link) | ||||||
| 22 Sep | 09:24:10 AM | |||||
| 22 Sep | 09:24:30 AM | |||||
| 22 Sep | 09:24:42 AM | |||||
(No referring link) | ||||||
| 22 Sep | 09:58:14 AM | |||||
| 22 Sep | 10:26:57 AM | |||||
| 22 Sep | 10:27:22 AM | dailstrug.blogspot.com/2011/09/steptoe-johnson-declination-of-legal.html
|
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Steptoe & Johnson Just Can't Look Away!
Request to Intervene in Appeal: Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D.
In August 1993, two months before I wrote the letter below, my then treating psychiatrist Suzanne M. Pitts, M.D. (The George Washington University Medical Center) recommended that I take the anti-psychotic medication, Haldol. I did not take the medication as recommended by Dr. Pitts. Presumably, the following letter -- and the cognitive and emotional reactions that it evidences -- was the product of psychotic mental illness.
October 22, 1993
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008
Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D.
3120 Brandywine Street, NW
Washington, DC
Dear Dr. Ticho:
This will respectfully advise that the District of Columbia Department of Human Rights (DOHR) determined by opinion issued September 24, 1993 (copy enclosed) that my former employer, the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, determined that I was unsuitable for employment based in part on a consultation with you that occurred in late October 1991.
DOHR determined that this consultation occurred despite your written denial addressed to me, dated July 4, 1993, a copy of which I forwarded to the DOHR.
This will formally advise that I have filed an appeal of DOHR's determination with the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, on October 22, 1993.
Please be advised that you have a right to intervene in the above proceedings before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals per Rule 14(f) of the Court within 30 days of the filing of the Petition for Review, which was on October 22, 1993.
RULE 14(f) states in pertinent part: "Any other party who desires to intervene shall file a motion containing a concise statement of the interest of the moving party in the appeal and the grounds upon which intervention is sought. The notice of intervention or motion for leave to intervene shall indicate on which side the party is intervening. It shall be filed within 30 days of the date on which the petition for review is filed, unless the time is extended by order of the court for good cause."
Be advised that intervention in the above proceedings before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals is the only means by which you may disavow the findings of the DOHR and preserve your legal rights. You may wish to contact an attorney concerning this matter.
You may reach me at (202) 362-7064 or leave a message at (202) 363-3800.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
October 22, 1993
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008
Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D.
3120 Brandywine Street, NW
Washington, DC
Dear Dr. Ticho:
This will respectfully advise that the District of Columbia Department of Human Rights (DOHR) determined by opinion issued September 24, 1993 (copy enclosed) that my former employer, the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, determined that I was unsuitable for employment based in part on a consultation with you that occurred in late October 1991.
DOHR determined that this consultation occurred despite your written denial addressed to me, dated July 4, 1993, a copy of which I forwarded to the DOHR.
This will formally advise that I have filed an appeal of DOHR's determination with the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, on October 22, 1993.
Please be advised that you have a right to intervene in the above proceedings before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals per Rule 14(f) of the Court within 30 days of the filing of the Petition for Review, which was on October 22, 1993.
RULE 14(f) states in pertinent part: "Any other party who desires to intervene shall file a motion containing a concise statement of the interest of the moving party in the appeal and the grounds upon which intervention is sought. The notice of intervention or motion for leave to intervene shall indicate on which side the party is intervening. It shall be filed within 30 days of the date on which the petition for review is filed, unless the time is extended by order of the court for good cause."
Be advised that intervention in the above proceedings before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals is the only means by which you may disavow the findings of the DOHR and preserve your legal rights. You may wish to contact an attorney concerning this matter.
You may reach me at (202) 362-7064 or leave a message at (202) 363-3800.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
What Seinfeld Says About People Like Me!
The Empty Core: An Object Relations Approach to Psychotherapy of the Schizoid Personality by Jeffrey Seinfeld.
This book is about the psychodynamics and treatment of schizoid disorders. These patients are pervasive in psychotherapeutic practice, but are often misdiagnosed as neurotic, borderline, or narcissistic. Far more attention is devoted in the literature to the narcissistic and borderline conditions than to this most common of the personality disorders. Schizoid patients go through the motions of daily living, but superficially, like robots, without any zest or enthusiasm. They may be involved in ongoing relationships and social situations, but they do not experience the joy or pain of living because a crucial part of their feelings has been radically repressed and isolated from their central personality. They have split off the emotional hunger for love, care, and contact, and at the heart of the personality there is a core of emptiness. The hunger for love, first felt as a vital, fleeting need, becomes a constant state of mind as it remains unmet. This state of mind is split off from the remaining personality, and gradually its needs are extinguished. The active emptiness of hunger becomes a frozen, static, lifeless emptiness. Thus, schizoid patients experience a death-in-life and a pervasive, compulsive conflictual hunger for things: food, drugs, sex, money, admiration, or tyranny over others to fill the empty core. They go through life as the living dead, hungering for things, as the vampire thirsts for blood to keep itself going. In treatment, these patients go through the motions of therapy without genuine involvement. Initially, therapists often mistake them for easy patients because they do not make inordinate demands. The therapist may forget to discuss the patient in supervision or never think of him between sessions. Dr. Seinfeld poignantly describes the apathy that gradually pervades the therapeutic relationship. A profound fear of rejection and merger underlies the patient's seeming indifference to the therapist, and the patient may drop out of therapy before important progress is made.
This book is about the psychodynamics and treatment of schizoid disorders. These patients are pervasive in psychotherapeutic practice, but are often misdiagnosed as neurotic, borderline, or narcissistic. Far more attention is devoted in the literature to the narcissistic and borderline conditions than to this most common of the personality disorders. Schizoid patients go through the motions of daily living, but superficially, like robots, without any zest or enthusiasm. They may be involved in ongoing relationships and social situations, but they do not experience the joy or pain of living because a crucial part of their feelings has been radically repressed and isolated from their central personality. They have split off the emotional hunger for love, care, and contact, and at the heart of the personality there is a core of emptiness. The hunger for love, first felt as a vital, fleeting need, becomes a constant state of mind as it remains unmet. This state of mind is split off from the remaining personality, and gradually its needs are extinguished. The active emptiness of hunger becomes a frozen, static, lifeless emptiness. Thus, schizoid patients experience a death-in-life and a pervasive, compulsive conflictual hunger for things: food, drugs, sex, money, admiration, or tyranny over others to fill the empty core. They go through life as the living dead, hungering for things, as the vampire thirsts for blood to keep itself going. In treatment, these patients go through the motions of therapy without genuine involvement. Initially, therapists often mistake them for easy patients because they do not make inordinate demands. The therapist may forget to discuss the patient in supervision or never think of him between sessions. Dr. Seinfeld poignantly describes the apathy that gradually pervades the therapeutic relationship. A profound fear of rejection and merger underlies the patient's seeming indifference to the therapist, and the patient may drop out of therapy before important progress is made.
GW: Chronology of Psychiatric Treatment -- Submission to SSA 10/94
October 10, 1994
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington Field Office
1900 Half Street, SW
Washington, DC 20324-1600
RE: Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld
Dear Sir:
Enclosed for your information is a letter dated October 10, 1994 that I have forwarded to the U.S. Social Security Administration, together with two of the enclosures. (“Item 3” and “item 4” have already been forwarded to you under separate cover.)
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
_________________
The following letter and attached statement were submitted to the U.S. Social Security Administration under penalty of criminal prosecution for making false statements. The following documents have the legal weight of sworn statements.
October 10, 1994
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apt. 136
Washington, DC 20008
Joseph R. Muffolett
Director
Office of Disability and
International Operations
U.S. Social Security Administration
1500 Woodlawn Drive
Baltimore, MD 21241-0001
RE: Disability Claim No. xxx-xx-xxxx
Dear Mr. Muffolett:
Enclosed are four items pertinent to the above-referenced claim.
1. Tape recording of telephone conversation between me and my sister, Mrs. Estelle Jacobson, on the evening of Thursday August 19, 1993, immediately prior to my receipt of the Social Security Administration’s Notice of Award, dated August 17, 1993. I discuss meeting with Jerry M. Wiener, M.D. earlier in the day, and the upcoming telephone conference call between my sister and my then treating psychiatrist, Suzanne M. Pitts, M.D.
2. Report that I have prepared summarizing my treatment history at the George Washington University Medical Center Department of Psychiatry.
3. Letter dated September 28, 1994 from Keith T. Ghezzi, M.D., Interim Medical Director at GW re: my letter to Dr. Georgopoulos dated August 29, 1994.
4. Letter dated October 4, 1994 from Jerry M. Wiener, M.D. declining to comment on concerns stated in my letter to Dr. Georgopoulos dated August 29, 1994.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
cc: FBI
Social Security Disability Claim: xxx-xx-xxxx
Claimant: Gary Freedman
Psychiatric Treatment History at the George Washington University Medical Center Department of Psychiatry
September 24, 1992: Initial assessment chart prepared by Napoleon Cuenco, M.D. Dx: Bi-Polar Disorder (rule out schizoaffective disorder); Rx: Lithium (and possibly neuroleptic). Dr. Cuenco acknowledges having read my “autobiographical study” that details what appears to be a complex delusional belief system.
January 13, 1993; I submit to Dr. Pitts, under cover letter dated January 13, 1993, a copy of Akin Gump’s Response to Interrogatories and Document Request (in connection with my unlawful termination complaint against Akin Gump). I had received Akin Gump’s Response via the U.S. Postal Service on December 22, 1992. Akin Gump’s pleading states that the employer had determined, in consultation with two mental health professionals (including an unidentified psychiatrist), that I was paranoid and potentially violent.
January 19, 1993: Dr. Pitts advises that she will be scheduling an EEG and prescribing an appropriate drug. See Letter to Dr. Pitts dated January 19, 1993.
February 9, 1993: Drug therapy commences with prescription of Lithium (no drugs were prescribed or discussed prior to January 19, 1993).
February 16, 1993: Under cover of letter dated February 16, 1993 I submit to Dr. Pitts a detailed statement (“Draft Letter to D.C. Certification Board in Neurology & Psychiatry”) outlining the apparently paranoid fantasy that I am under surveillance by my former employer. (It is to be six months later, on August 26, 1993, that Dr. Pitts makes her first specific recommendation for anti-psychotic medication).
February 26, 1993: I discontinue Lithium. Dr. Pitts makes no further specific pharmacologic recommendations until August 26, 1993.
July 1, 1993: I receive via the U.S. Postal Service a copy of the D.C. Department of Human Rights’ Initial Determination dismissing my unlawful termination complaint against Akin Gump . I learn by way of the Initial Determination that Akin Gump claims that it was Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D. who advised the firm that I was paranoid and potentially violent. (I had never consulted Dr. Ticho).
[Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D. was a clinical professor of psychiatry at the George Washington University Medical Center.]
July 1, 1993: [evening]: I speak by telephone with a former coworker at Akin Gump, Mrs. Patricia McNeil. I learn for first time, from Mrs. McNeil, that Dennis Race at Akin Gump had conducted a de minimis investigation, if any, of my complaint of harassment immediately prior to his decision to terminate my employment effective October 29, 1991. Mrs. McNeil states that she had not formed the belief that I was mentally ill, and knew of no other Akin Gump employees who had. Mrs. McNeil seems surprised when I report Akin Gump’s allegation that coworkers found my behavior frightening.
July 2, 1993 [morning]: I telephone Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D. Dr. Ticho denies ever having had any contact with any attorneys at Akin Gump concerning me. I learn for first time that Akin Gump had apparently fabricated evidence that it had determined, in consultation with Dr. Ticho, that I was paranoid and potentially violent.
July 6, 1993 (approx.): I report to Dr. Pitts that I had determined that Akin Gump had apparently fabricated evidence that it had determined in consultation with two mental health professionals, including Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D., that I was paranoid and potentially violent.
July 1993: Dr. Pitts begins making treatment recommendations consistent with a severe mental illness, and inconsistent with her prior handling of my case. Dr. Pitts, on her own initiative, states that she can have me admitted to GW as an in-patient. (Dr. Pitts knows that I have no financial resources). I mention to Dr. Pitts in a casual manner that I had been reading about a drug called Clozapine, an anti-schizophrenic drug. Dr. Pitts states in response: “I can prescribe Clozapine for you.” (Apparently Dr. Pitts had not yet ruled out a schizoaffective disorder).
August 20, 1993: I forward to Warren Strudwick, M.D. of the D.C. Board of Medicine the final version of a letter of complaint requesting that the Board investigate my current and past psychiatric treatment. (The complaint was subsequently dismissed by action of the D.C. Board of Medicine in September 1993).
I copy the letter (or draft version of same) to the following persons:
(a.) Arthur Isack, George Washington University Medical Faculty Associates Director, August 6, 1993
(b.) Betsy Ranslow, Ethics Director, American Psychological Association, August 9, 1993
(c.) Jerry M. Wiener, M.D., GW Psych. Dept. Chairman, August 17, 1993
(d.) Harold F. Baker, GW University trustee (and partner, However & Simon), August 20, 1993
(e.) Sheldon S. Cohen, GW University trustee (and partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius), August 20, 1993
August 19, 1993 [morning]: Consultation with Dr. Pitts. Dr. Pitts and I agree that she and I will have a telephone conference with my sister, Mrs. Estelle Jacobson, regarding my psychiatric treatment at GW. Dr. Pitts does not state what she plans to discuss with my sister, and does not state that she will be recommending the prescription of a neuroleptic. I form the belief that the telephone conference call will take place on the morning of Monday August 23, 1993. (On the evening of August 19, 1993, during a telephone call to my sister [see enclosed tape recording], I give no indication to my sister that I am in any way aware that Dr. Pitts plans to discuss prescribing the neuroleptic Haldol. Dr. Pitts had not discussed in any specific manner any plans to prescribe a neuroleptic as of the morning of August 19, 1993).
August 19, 1993 [afternoon]: I meet with GW psych. department chairman, Dr. Jerry M. Wiener to discuss the letter of complaint that I plan to send to the D.C. Board of Medicine. (I thought that it was appropriate that I meet with a Board Certified Psychiatrist before sending the letter of complaint to the D.C. Board of Medicine, and I had first sought to meet with previous psychiatrist, Stanley R. Palombo, M.D. I learned, however, that Dr. Palombo would be away from his office until Monday August 23, 1993. It was upon learning that Dr. Palombo was unavailable that I arranged an appointment with Dr. Wiener). At my meeting with Dr. Wiener he advises that he has read the letter of complaint, a copy of which I submitted to him on August 17, 1993. He states that the letter is incontrovertible evidence of my paranoia, and that my paranoid preoccupations have crippled my life. He states that he declines to investigate the charges made in the letter of complaint to the D.C. Board of Medicine. Throughout the meeting, Dr. Wiener refers to the letter of complaint, copies of which I have forwarded to various parties, as symptomatic of severe psychopathology. Dr. Wiener refuses, however, to reduce to a writing his comments concerning my paranoid mental state that I could then submit to the U.S. Social Security Administration in connection with my disability claim; he reminds me that I had initially agreed that my meeting with him was in his capacity as Psychiatry Department Chairman and not as a psychiatrist conducting a consultation. We do not discuss Dr. Pitts or my current psychiatric treatment, per se, and Dr. Wiener makes no treatment recommendations, which is consistent with the agreed nature of the meeting.
August 19, 1993 [evening]: I speak by telephone with my sister (tape recording enclosed). I discuss meeting with Dr. Wiener earlier in the day. I also review Dr. Pitts’ statement that she can have me admitted to GW as an in-patient, and her having mentioned the prescription of the anti-schizophrenic drug Clozapine. I advise my sister that Dr. Pitts would like to have a telephone conference call with my sister and that the telephone conference will be held on Monday August 23, 1993. I appear to have no idea what Dr. Pitts plans to discuss. I give no indication to my sister that I am in any way aware that Dr. Pitts plans to discuss prescribing the neuroleptic Haldol. Dr. Pitts had not discussed in any specific manner any plans to prescribe a neuroleptic as of the morning of August 19, 1993.
August 23, 1993: Dr. Pitts advises that the telephone conference call with my sister will have to await the availability of a speaker phone.
August 26, 1993 [morning]: Dr. Pitts advises that the telephone conference call with my sister will be held on Monday morning August 30, 1993. Dr. Pitts gives me three pages of handwritten notes, dated August 26, 1993, summarizing the content of the planned conference call. Dr. Pitts, for the first time in my psychiatric treatment with her, recommends that I take the neuroleptic Haldol, an antipsychotic medication. I ask Dr. Pitts why she plans to discuss with my sister my letter of complaint to the D.C. Board of Medicine (see final paragraph of Dr. Pitts’ handwritten notes dated August 26, 1993). Dr. Pitts responds: "If you don’t stop sending out letters, the Medical Center might just decide there’s nothing more it can do for you.” Dr. Pitts’ treatment recommendations seem to me to be a radical departure from my treatment to date and I ask for a second psychiatric evaluation. Dr. Pitts prepares in my presence a handwritten note stating that it is appropriate that I seek a second initial assessment.
August 26, 1993 [early afternoon]: I telephone my sister and review with her the handwritten notes prepared by Dr. Pitts. My sister is incredulous when I tell her that I have been diagnosed as manic depressive: “Bi-polar!! You don’t have mood swings high and low!!”
August 30, 1993 [morning]: Telephone conference call with my sister and Dr. Pitts (I refuse a neuroleptic during the entire subsequent course of therapy).
August 30, 1993 [afternoon]: Consultation with Stanley R. Palombo, M.D. to discuss my concerns about Dr. Pitts. Dr. Palombo affirms that Dr. Pitts’ handling of my case is appropriate.
May 3, 1994 (and subsequent dates): Psychological testing performed by Yu-Ling Han at GW, under the supervision of William Fabian, Ph.D. Testing discloses no psychotic thought processes and fails to yield an Axis I or Axis II diagnosis. Dr. Fabian assigns the diagnosis Paranoid (Delusional) Disorder on the billing statement for the testing. Test report summary prepared by Yu-Ling Han states that I may have lied on the testing to conceal the severity of my paranoia (though the validity scores on the MMPI and Millon self-report surveys fail to indicate that I lied).
August 29, 1994: I state concerns regarding the psychological testing in a letter to my current treating psychiatrist, Dr. Georgopoulos. I forward a copy of the letter to Keith T. Ghezzi, M.D. Interim Medical Director at GW, who, in turn, submits the letter to Dr. Wiener for comment.
October 4, 1994: Dr. Wiener responds to my letter to Dr. Georgopoulos dated August 29, 1994, which had been forwarded to Dr. Wiener by Dr. Ghezzi. Dr. Wiener declines to comment, apparently ratifying the test result summary prepared by Yu-Ling Han, including Ms. Han’s comment that I had may have lied on the testing in order to conceal the severity of my paranoia.
/s/
_______________
Gary Freedman
October 9, 1994
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington Field Office
1900 Half Street, SW
Washington, DC 20324-1600
RE: Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld
Dear Sir:
Enclosed for your information is a letter dated October 10, 1994 that I have forwarded to the U.S. Social Security Administration, together with two of the enclosures. (“Item 3” and “item 4” have already been forwarded to you under separate cover.)
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
_________________
The following letter and attached statement were submitted to the U.S. Social Security Administration under penalty of criminal prosecution for making false statements. The following documents have the legal weight of sworn statements.
October 10, 1994
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apt. 136
Washington, DC 20008
Joseph R. Muffolett
Director
Office of Disability and
International Operations
U.S. Social Security Administration
1500 Woodlawn Drive
Baltimore, MD 21241-0001
RE: Disability Claim No. xxx-xx-xxxx
Dear Mr. Muffolett:
Enclosed are four items pertinent to the above-referenced claim.
1. Tape recording of telephone conversation between me and my sister, Mrs. Estelle Jacobson, on the evening of Thursday August 19, 1993, immediately prior to my receipt of the Social Security Administration’s Notice of Award, dated August 17, 1993. I discuss meeting with Jerry M. Wiener, M.D. earlier in the day, and the upcoming telephone conference call between my sister and my then treating psychiatrist, Suzanne M. Pitts, M.D.
2. Report that I have prepared summarizing my treatment history at the George Washington University Medical Center Department of Psychiatry.
3. Letter dated September 28, 1994 from Keith T. Ghezzi, M.D., Interim Medical Director at GW re: my letter to Dr. Georgopoulos dated August 29, 1994.
4. Letter dated October 4, 1994 from Jerry M. Wiener, M.D. declining to comment on concerns stated in my letter to Dr. Georgopoulos dated August 29, 1994.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
cc: FBI
Social Security Disability Claim: xxx-xx-xxxx
Claimant: Gary Freedman
Psychiatric Treatment History at the George Washington University Medical Center Department of Psychiatry
September 24, 1992: Initial assessment chart prepared by Napoleon Cuenco, M.D. Dx: Bi-Polar Disorder (rule out schizoaffective disorder); Rx: Lithium (and possibly neuroleptic). Dr. Cuenco acknowledges having read my “autobiographical study” that details what appears to be a complex delusional belief system.
January 13, 1993; I submit to Dr. Pitts, under cover letter dated January 13, 1993, a copy of Akin Gump’s Response to Interrogatories and Document Request (in connection with my unlawful termination complaint against Akin Gump). I had received Akin Gump’s Response via the U.S. Postal Service on December 22, 1992. Akin Gump’s pleading states that the employer had determined, in consultation with two mental health professionals (including an unidentified psychiatrist), that I was paranoid and potentially violent.
January 19, 1993: Dr. Pitts advises that she will be scheduling an EEG and prescribing an appropriate drug. See Letter to Dr. Pitts dated January 19, 1993.
February 9, 1993: Drug therapy commences with prescription of Lithium (no drugs were prescribed or discussed prior to January 19, 1993).
February 16, 1993: Under cover of letter dated February 16, 1993 I submit to Dr. Pitts a detailed statement (“Draft Letter to D.C. Certification Board in Neurology & Psychiatry”) outlining the apparently paranoid fantasy that I am under surveillance by my former employer. (It is to be six months later, on August 26, 1993, that Dr. Pitts makes her first specific recommendation for anti-psychotic medication).
February 26, 1993: I discontinue Lithium. Dr. Pitts makes no further specific pharmacologic recommendations until August 26, 1993.
July 1, 1993: I receive via the U.S. Postal Service a copy of the D.C. Department of Human Rights’ Initial Determination dismissing my unlawful termination complaint against Akin Gump . I learn by way of the Initial Determination that Akin Gump claims that it was Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D. who advised the firm that I was paranoid and potentially violent. (I had never consulted Dr. Ticho).
[Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D. was a clinical professor of psychiatry at the George Washington University Medical Center.]
July 1, 1993: [evening]: I speak by telephone with a former coworker at Akin Gump, Mrs. Patricia McNeil. I learn for first time, from Mrs. McNeil, that Dennis Race at Akin Gump had conducted a de minimis investigation, if any, of my complaint of harassment immediately prior to his decision to terminate my employment effective October 29, 1991. Mrs. McNeil states that she had not formed the belief that I was mentally ill, and knew of no other Akin Gump employees who had. Mrs. McNeil seems surprised when I report Akin Gump’s allegation that coworkers found my behavior frightening.
July 2, 1993 [morning]: I telephone Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D. Dr. Ticho denies ever having had any contact with any attorneys at Akin Gump concerning me. I learn for first time that Akin Gump had apparently fabricated evidence that it had determined, in consultation with Dr. Ticho, that I was paranoid and potentially violent.
July 6, 1993 (approx.): I report to Dr. Pitts that I had determined that Akin Gump had apparently fabricated evidence that it had determined in consultation with two mental health professionals, including Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D., that I was paranoid and potentially violent.
July 1993: Dr. Pitts begins making treatment recommendations consistent with a severe mental illness, and inconsistent with her prior handling of my case. Dr. Pitts, on her own initiative, states that she can have me admitted to GW as an in-patient. (Dr. Pitts knows that I have no financial resources). I mention to Dr. Pitts in a casual manner that I had been reading about a drug called Clozapine, an anti-schizophrenic drug. Dr. Pitts states in response: “I can prescribe Clozapine for you.” (Apparently Dr. Pitts had not yet ruled out a schizoaffective disorder).
August 20, 1993: I forward to Warren Strudwick, M.D. of the D.C. Board of Medicine the final version of a letter of complaint requesting that the Board investigate my current and past psychiatric treatment. (The complaint was subsequently dismissed by action of the D.C. Board of Medicine in September 1993).
I copy the letter (or draft version of same) to the following persons:
(a.) Arthur Isack, George Washington University Medical Faculty Associates Director, August 6, 1993
(b.) Betsy Ranslow, Ethics Director, American Psychological Association, August 9, 1993
(c.) Jerry M. Wiener, M.D., GW Psych. Dept. Chairman, August 17, 1993
(d.) Harold F. Baker, GW University trustee (and partner, However & Simon), August 20, 1993
(e.) Sheldon S. Cohen, GW University trustee (and partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius), August 20, 1993
August 19, 1993 [morning]: Consultation with Dr. Pitts. Dr. Pitts and I agree that she and I will have a telephone conference with my sister, Mrs. Estelle Jacobson, regarding my psychiatric treatment at GW. Dr. Pitts does not state what she plans to discuss with my sister, and does not state that she will be recommending the prescription of a neuroleptic. I form the belief that the telephone conference call will take place on the morning of Monday August 23, 1993. (On the evening of August 19, 1993, during a telephone call to my sister [see enclosed tape recording], I give no indication to my sister that I am in any way aware that Dr. Pitts plans to discuss prescribing the neuroleptic Haldol. Dr. Pitts had not discussed in any specific manner any plans to prescribe a neuroleptic as of the morning of August 19, 1993).
August 19, 1993 [afternoon]: I meet with GW psych. department chairman, Dr. Jerry M. Wiener to discuss the letter of complaint that I plan to send to the D.C. Board of Medicine. (I thought that it was appropriate that I meet with a Board Certified Psychiatrist before sending the letter of complaint to the D.C. Board of Medicine, and I had first sought to meet with previous psychiatrist, Stanley R. Palombo, M.D. I learned, however, that Dr. Palombo would be away from his office until Monday August 23, 1993. It was upon learning that Dr. Palombo was unavailable that I arranged an appointment with Dr. Wiener). At my meeting with Dr. Wiener he advises that he has read the letter of complaint, a copy of which I submitted to him on August 17, 1993. He states that the letter is incontrovertible evidence of my paranoia, and that my paranoid preoccupations have crippled my life. He states that he declines to investigate the charges made in the letter of complaint to the D.C. Board of Medicine. Throughout the meeting, Dr. Wiener refers to the letter of complaint, copies of which I have forwarded to various parties, as symptomatic of severe psychopathology. Dr. Wiener refuses, however, to reduce to a writing his comments concerning my paranoid mental state that I could then submit to the U.S. Social Security Administration in connection with my disability claim; he reminds me that I had initially agreed that my meeting with him was in his capacity as Psychiatry Department Chairman and not as a psychiatrist conducting a consultation. We do not discuss Dr. Pitts or my current psychiatric treatment, per se, and Dr. Wiener makes no treatment recommendations, which is consistent with the agreed nature of the meeting.
August 19, 1993 [evening]: I speak by telephone with my sister (tape recording enclosed). I discuss meeting with Dr. Wiener earlier in the day. I also review Dr. Pitts’ statement that she can have me admitted to GW as an in-patient, and her having mentioned the prescription of the anti-schizophrenic drug Clozapine. I advise my sister that Dr. Pitts would like to have a telephone conference call with my sister and that the telephone conference will be held on Monday August 23, 1993. I appear to have no idea what Dr. Pitts plans to discuss. I give no indication to my sister that I am in any way aware that Dr. Pitts plans to discuss prescribing the neuroleptic Haldol. Dr. Pitts had not discussed in any specific manner any plans to prescribe a neuroleptic as of the morning of August 19, 1993.
August 23, 1993: Dr. Pitts advises that the telephone conference call with my sister will have to await the availability of a speaker phone.
August 26, 1993 [morning]: Dr. Pitts advises that the telephone conference call with my sister will be held on Monday morning August 30, 1993. Dr. Pitts gives me three pages of handwritten notes, dated August 26, 1993, summarizing the content of the planned conference call. Dr. Pitts, for the first time in my psychiatric treatment with her, recommends that I take the neuroleptic Haldol, an antipsychotic medication. I ask Dr. Pitts why she plans to discuss with my sister my letter of complaint to the D.C. Board of Medicine (see final paragraph of Dr. Pitts’ handwritten notes dated August 26, 1993). Dr. Pitts responds: "If you don’t stop sending out letters, the Medical Center might just decide there’s nothing more it can do for you.” Dr. Pitts’ treatment recommendations seem to me to be a radical departure from my treatment to date and I ask for a second psychiatric evaluation. Dr. Pitts prepares in my presence a handwritten note stating that it is appropriate that I seek a second initial assessment.
August 26, 1993 [early afternoon]: I telephone my sister and review with her the handwritten notes prepared by Dr. Pitts. My sister is incredulous when I tell her that I have been diagnosed as manic depressive: “Bi-polar!! You don’t have mood swings high and low!!”
August 30, 1993 [morning]: Telephone conference call with my sister and Dr. Pitts (I refuse a neuroleptic during the entire subsequent course of therapy).
August 30, 1993 [afternoon]: Consultation with Stanley R. Palombo, M.D. to discuss my concerns about Dr. Pitts. Dr. Palombo affirms that Dr. Pitts’ handling of my case is appropriate.
May 3, 1994 (and subsequent dates): Psychological testing performed by Yu-Ling Han at GW, under the supervision of William Fabian, Ph.D. Testing discloses no psychotic thought processes and fails to yield an Axis I or Axis II diagnosis. Dr. Fabian assigns the diagnosis Paranoid (Delusional) Disorder on the billing statement for the testing. Test report summary prepared by Yu-Ling Han states that I may have lied on the testing to conceal the severity of my paranoia (though the validity scores on the MMPI and Millon self-report surveys fail to indicate that I lied).
August 29, 1994: I state concerns regarding the psychological testing in a letter to my current treating psychiatrist, Dr. Georgopoulos. I forward a copy of the letter to Keith T. Ghezzi, M.D. Interim Medical Director at GW, who, in turn, submits the letter to Dr. Wiener for comment.
October 4, 1994: Dr. Wiener responds to my letter to Dr. Georgopoulos dated August 29, 1994, which had been forwarded to Dr. Wiener by Dr. Ghezzi. Dr. Wiener declines to comment, apparently ratifying the test result summary prepared by Yu-Ling Han, including Ms. Han’s comment that I had may have lied on the testing in order to conceal the severity of my paranoia.
/s/
_______________
Gary Freedman
October 9, 1994
GW: Letter to Dr. Pitts re: Admission to GW Hospital as In-Patient
January 20, 1994
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008
Suzanne M. Pitts, MD
Dept. of Psychiatry
GW Univ. Medical Center
2150 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
Dear Dr. Pitts:
This letter will confirm that at one of our consultations in about mid-August 1993 you stated on your own initiative that you could have me admitted to the George Washington University Medical Center as an in-patient. Further, this was the only occasion during my treatment with you, which began on October 27, 1992, that you mentioned hospitalization. I assume that your statement was related to your assessment of my condition at that time; it will be recalled that it was in approximately the same time frame, on August 26, 1993, that you made for the first time a specific recommendation regarding the prescription of a neuroleptic.
You will note that it was on July 2, 1993 that I learned for the first time, by way of a telephone conversation with Dr. Gertrude Ticho, that Akin Gump had fabricated evidence that it had determined in consultation with Dr. Ticho that I suffered from a severe paranoid disorder and was potentially violent.
Also, it was by way of a letter dated July 14, 1993 that Sheppard Pratt Preferred Resources confirmed that that organization had no record of any contacts with either Malcolm Lassman or Dennis Race of Akin Gump.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
cc: Jerry Wiener, M.D.
Eric H. Holder, Jr.
James P. Turner
FBI
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008
Suzanne M. Pitts, MD
Dept. of Psychiatry
GW Univ. Medical Center
2150 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
Dear Dr. Pitts:
This letter will confirm that at one of our consultations in about mid-August 1993 you stated on your own initiative that you could have me admitted to the George Washington University Medical Center as an in-patient. Further, this was the only occasion during my treatment with you, which began on October 27, 1992, that you mentioned hospitalization. I assume that your statement was related to your assessment of my condition at that time; it will be recalled that it was in approximately the same time frame, on August 26, 1993, that you made for the first time a specific recommendation regarding the prescription of a neuroleptic.
You will note that it was on July 2, 1993 that I learned for the first time, by way of a telephone conversation with Dr. Gertrude Ticho, that Akin Gump had fabricated evidence that it had determined in consultation with Dr. Ticho that I suffered from a severe paranoid disorder and was potentially violent.
Also, it was by way of a letter dated July 14, 1993 that Sheppard Pratt Preferred Resources confirmed that that organization had no record of any contacts with either Malcolm Lassman or Dennis Race of Akin Gump.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
cc: Jerry Wiener, M.D.
Eric H. Holder, Jr.
James P. Turner
FBI
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
People Take Advantage of Me!!
According to the DSM-IV-TR "The essential feature of schizoid personality disorder (SPD) is a pervasive pattern of detachment from social relationships and a restricted range of expression of emotions in interpersonal settings." SPD overlaps with the negative symptoms of schizophrenia: flat affect, lack of motivation, and social withdrawal. SPD have also traits in common with other personality disorder such as lack of empathy with narcissistic (NPD) and antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), withdraw (self-sufficiently in the case of NPD) from others, and failure to form human and social relationships with NPD and avoidant personality disorder.
Persons with SPD are driven into hiding by fear, then experiences a deep, sequestered loneliness that provides the drive to come out of hiding and to go back into the adaptive interface with the world. They tend toward great passivity and look only to themselves as sources of validation and enhancement. However, their lack of positive affiliation and affective indifference often put them in a position to be easily taken advantage of by others, and at times they may struggle with personal feelings of social isolation and alienation. At a stylistic level, these persons may seek out and enjoy social and intimate affiliation, but typically not with a great deal of concern.
Millon & Davis speculated that the significant deficit in the schizoid disorders is the person's intrinsic incapacities to experience the joyful and pleasurable aspects of life. It does represent a fundamental incapacities to sense the moods and needs that are experienced by others. Klein suggested that there are at least two quite separate categories of patients with schizoid personality disorder: shy, socially backward, inept, obedient persons who are fearful and therefore isolated but appreciates sociability and would like to be part of the crowd: and there are the asocial, eccentric, (imperceptive and undiplomatic) persons who seek to be alone and have difficulty in relationships with the peers, frequently resulting in social ostracism and scapegoating.
In this article the link between SPD and loneliness is examined, which is relevant to the construction of adequate assessment, diagnostic and therapeutic programs.
Persons with SPD are driven into hiding by fear, then experiences a deep, sequestered loneliness that provides the drive to come out of hiding and to go back into the adaptive interface with the world. They tend toward great passivity and look only to themselves as sources of validation and enhancement. However, their lack of positive affiliation and affective indifference often put them in a position to be easily taken advantage of by others, and at times they may struggle with personal feelings of social isolation and alienation. At a stylistic level, these persons may seek out and enjoy social and intimate affiliation, but typically not with a great deal of concern.
Millon & Davis speculated that the significant deficit in the schizoid disorders is the person's intrinsic incapacities to experience the joyful and pleasurable aspects of life. It does represent a fundamental incapacities to sense the moods and needs that are experienced by others. Klein suggested that there are at least two quite separate categories of patients with schizoid personality disorder: shy, socially backward, inept, obedient persons who are fearful and therefore isolated but appreciates sociability and would like to be part of the crowd: and there are the asocial, eccentric, (imperceptive and undiplomatic) persons who seek to be alone and have difficulty in relationships with the peers, frequently resulting in social ostracism and scapegoating.
In this article the link between SPD and loneliness is examined, which is relevant to the construction of adequate assessment, diagnostic and therapeutic programs.
GW Psychiatric Treatment -- Complaint to Medical Director
I had sent a letter of complaint about my psychiatric treatment at the George Washington University Medical Center to the Medical Director, Dr. Keith Ghezzi, who forwarded the following response:
September 28, 1994
Mr. Gary Freedman
3801 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. #136
Washington, D.C. 20008
Dear Mr. Freedman:
I received your letter of September 6, 1994. Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. I have referred your letter and the attached documentation to Jerry Wiener, M.D., Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences. The Department will consider the issues you raised and prepare an appropriate response to your concerns.
Sincerely,
Keith T. Ghezzi, M.D.
Interim Medical Director
KTG/mvp
cc: Jerry Wiener, M.D.
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2011/06/george-washington-university-medical.html
September 28, 1994
Mr. Gary Freedman
3801 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. #136
Washington, D.C. 20008
Dear Mr. Freedman:
I received your letter of September 6, 1994. Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. I have referred your letter and the attached documentation to Jerry Wiener, M.D., Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences. The Department will consider the issues you raised and prepare an appropriate response to your concerns.
Sincerely,
Keith T. Ghezzi, M.D.
Interim Medical Director
KTG/mvp
cc: Jerry Wiener, M.D.
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2011/06/george-washington-university-medical.html
Freedman v. DHR -- D.C. Court of Appeals No. 93-AA-1342 -- Memorandum Opinion and Judgment
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
No. 93-AA-1342
GARY FREEDMAN, PETITIONER
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS,
RESPONDENT
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
District of Columbia Department of Human Rights
(Argued October 13, 1994 Decided January 10, 1995)
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
District of Columbia Department of Human Rights
(Argued October 13, 1994 Decided January 10, 1995)
Before FERREN and TERRY, Associate Judges, and MACK, Senior Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
Petitioner, Gary Freedman, seeks review of a decision by the Department of Human Rights (DHR). Mr. Freedman, who had been employed as a legal assistant by a local law firm, had filed a complaint with the DHR alleging that he had been the victim of unlawful discrimination in the course of his employment and that he had been fired as a result of such discrimination. The DHR concluded "that there is no probable cause to believe that discrimination has occurred in this matter," and on reconsideration it affirmed that ruling. Mr. Freedman then filed with this court a petition for review.
At oral argument the court sua sponte raised a question as to its jurisdiction to hear this case. We directed petitioner to file a memorandum addressing this jurisdictional issue, and invited DHR and petitioner's former employer to file responsive memorandum. Petitioner filed a memorandum, but neither DHR nor the employer submitted a response.
On consideration of petitioner's memorandum and of the record before us, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to consider this case because it was filed in the wrong court. In Lamont v. Rogers, 479 A.2d 1274, 1278 (D.C. 1984), this court held that a finding of no probable cause by the Office of Human Rights (DHR's predecessor) was not a decision in a "contested case," D.C. Code Section 1-1510(a) (1992), and that such a finding was therefore not directly reviewable in this court. In Simpson v. District of Columbia Office of Human Rights, 597 A.2d 392, 397-399 (D.C. 1991), we held, citing Lamont and other cases, that a finding of no probable cause by the OHR was subject to judicial review, but only in a civil action filed in the Superior Court. Petitioner asserts in his memorandum that this case is distinguishable from Lamont and Simpson because the finding of no probable cause here was actually an adjudication of his mental competence, but his arguments are not persuasive. We therefore hold that we have no jurisdiction to consider the merits of petitioner's discrimination claim. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the instant petition for review is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, without prejudice to the timely filing of an appropriate civil action in the Superior Court.
FOR THE COURT:
William H. Ng
Clerk
Copies to:
Gary Freedman
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW #136
Washington, DC 20008
Dennis M. Race, Esquire
1333 New Hampshire Ave., NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
Charles L. Reischel, Esquire
Deputy Corporation Counsel
________________
1/ See Simpson, supra, 597 A.2d at 400-402.
Freedman v. DHR -- D.C. Court of Appeals No. 93-AA-1342 -- Final Order
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
No. 93-AA-1342
GARY FREEDMAN, PETITIONER
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS,
RESPONDENT
Before FERREN and TERRY, Associate Judges, and MACK, Senior Judge.
ORDER
On consideration of petitioner's petition for rehearing, it is
ORDERED that the petition for rehearing is granted in part. The Memorandum Opinion and Judgment filed January 10, 1995, is amended by adding a new footnote 1 after the word "persuasive" in line 8 on page 2, which shall read as follows:
1/ We express no opinion as to whether the finding of no probable cause was based on matters pretextual in nature.
The present footnote 1 shall be renumbered as footnote 2.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that in all other respects petitioner's petition for rehearing is denied.
PER CURIAM.
Catching the Interest of Steptoe & Johnson
| Washington, District Of Columbia, United States Steptoe & Johnson (63.88.112.229) [Label IP Address] 0 returning visits | ||
|---|---|---|
(No referring link) | ||
| 19 Sep | 01:19:11 PM | |
(No referring link) | ||
| 19 Sep | 01:20:36 PM | |
| 19 Sep | 01:22:04 PM | |
| 19 Sep | 01:22:22 PM | |
(No referring link) | ||
| 19 Sep | 01:24:34 PM | |
(No referring link) | ||
| 19 Sep | 01:24:47 PM | |
| 19 Sep | 01:24:54 PM | |
(No referring link) | ||
| 19 Sep | 01:25:02 PM | |
| 19 Sep | 01:28:31 PM | |
| 19 Sep | 01:28:44 PM | |
| 19 Sep | 01:29:07 PM | |
(No referring link) | ||
| 19 Sep | 01:29:12 PM | |
(No referring link) | ||
| 19 Sep | 01:29:34 PM | |
| 19 Sep | 01:29:42 PM | |
| 19 Sep | 01:29:51 PM | |
| 19 Sep | 01:30:02 PM | |
(No referring link) | ||
| 19 Sep | 01:30:59 PM | |
(No referring link) | ||
| 19 Sep | 01:38:34 PM | |
(No referring link) | ||
| 19 Sep | 01:40:29 PM | |
(No referring link) | ||
| 19 Sep | 02:40:53 PM | |
| 19 Sep | 02:41:07 PM | |
(No referring link) | ||
| 19 Sep | 02:41:13 PM | |
(No referring link) | ||
| 19 Sep | 03:09:08 PM | |
(No referring link) | ||
| 19 Sep | 03:21:32 PM | |
(No referring link) | ||
| 19 Sep | 03:21:37 PM | |
(No referring link) | ||
| 19 Sep | 03:28:36 PM | |
(No referring link) | ||
| 20 Sep | 02:08:42 PM | |
Monday, September 19, 2011
On Playing and not Playing the Game
On Not Playing the Game
Jerry: [indignantly] What's the matter with you?
George: [quietly] C'mon, go along . . .
Jerry: I'm not goin' along. I can just see you in Berlin in 1939 goose-stepping past me: "C'mon Jerry, go along, go along . . ."
From: The Seinfeld Episode: "The Outing"
______________________
On Playing the Game
Allert gives a variety of examples of both enthusiasm for the gesture [the Hitler salute], and attempts to avoid it. Among the pictures included is one of Richard Strauss, his half-hearted gesture in marked contrast to the others celebrating around him (though by that time he also had the excuse of being a very old man), and one of an abbot, walking between two rows of saluting soldiers, his own arm raised in what could just as easily be a wave to the crowd or blessing. But it's clear that it was hard not to play along -- which was part of the point: by allowing no variation, by demanding and sticking to the specific formula, and thus also making it very obvious when someone didn't respond in the appropriate manner every citizen was forced to already compromise on this level. It may seem almost trivial, and yet once they've been compromised into this, and act as one dutiful mass, the next steps get easier.
From: The Hitler Salute by Tilman Albert
__________________
On Not Playing the Game
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.
From: Doctor Zhivago by Boris Pasternak
Jerry: [indignantly] What's the matter with you?
George: [quietly] C'mon, go along . . .
Jerry: I'm not goin' along. I can just see you in Berlin in 1939 goose-stepping past me: "C'mon Jerry, go along, go along . . ."
From: The Seinfeld Episode: "The Outing"
______________________
On Playing the Game
Allert gives a variety of examples of both enthusiasm for the gesture [the Hitler salute], and attempts to avoid it. Among the pictures included is one of Richard Strauss, his half-hearted gesture in marked contrast to the others celebrating around him (though by that time he also had the excuse of being a very old man), and one of an abbot, walking between two rows of saluting soldiers, his own arm raised in what could just as easily be a wave to the crowd or blessing. But it's clear that it was hard not to play along -- which was part of the point: by allowing no variation, by demanding and sticking to the specific formula, and thus also making it very obvious when someone didn't respond in the appropriate manner every citizen was forced to already compromise on this level. It may seem almost trivial, and yet once they've been compromised into this, and act as one dutiful mass, the next steps get easier.
From: The Hitler Salute by Tilman Albert
__________________
On Not Playing the Game
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.
From: Doctor Zhivago by Boris Pasternak
Richard Strauss: June 11, 1864 - September 8, 1949
Es sind die mehreren Dinge auf der Welt
so, daß sie eins nicht glauben tät,
wenn man sie möcht erzählen hören.
Alleinig wers erlebt, der glaubt daran und weiß nicht wie . . .
There are many things in this world
that you don't believe when you hear about them --
but if you lived them you believe, and don't know why.
-- Richard Strauss, Act III, Der Rosenkavalier
so, daß sie eins nicht glauben tät,
wenn man sie möcht erzählen hören.
Alleinig wers erlebt, der glaubt daran und weiß nicht wie . . .
There are many things in this world
that you don't believe when you hear about them --
but if you lived them you believe, and don't know why.
-- Richard Strauss, Act III, Der Rosenkavalier
Kalijarvi & Chuzi, P.C. -- Declination of Legal Representation
January 14, 1994
Gary Freedman
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
Apt. 136
Washington, DC 20008
Dear Mr. Freedman:
I am writing in response to your letter received by our office on January 13, 1994, in which you inquired about representation in a law suit. Unfortunately, we are unable to assist you at this time. Also, I did not receive any messages from you in July.
If we can be of any assistance to you in the future however, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
June D.W. Kalijarvi
Gary Freedman
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
Apt. 136
Washington, DC 20008
Dear Mr. Freedman:
I am writing in response to your letter received by our office on January 13, 1994, in which you inquired about representation in a law suit. Unfortunately, we are unable to assist you at this time. Also, I did not receive any messages from you in July.
If we can be of any assistance to you in the future however, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
June D.W. Kalijarvi
Akin Gump: Notice of Possible Document Fabrication
Oddly, the following cover letter which suggests illegality by Akin Gump was not included by DHR in the case record, later the record on appeal.
January 5, 1993
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apartment 136
Washington, DC 20008
Mr. Donald M. Stocks
Case Investigations
Government of the District of
Columbia
Department of Human Rights and
Minority Business Development
2000 14th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
RE: Docket No.: 02-087-P(N)
Gary Freedman v. Akin, Hump, Hauer & Feld
Dear Mr. Stocks:
Enclosed is Complainant's Reply to Respondent's Response to Interrogatories and Document Request. The Reply and attachments have been signed, sworn and notarized.
Also, I would like to state a reservation regarding the authenticity of the confidential memorandum dated October 29, 1991 from Dennis Race to File RE: Gary Freedman (designated Attachment F by Respondent) (designated Attachment L by Complainant). The memo reads as if it was written on the day the decision to terminate was made, which was probably Monday October 28, 1991; the severance check was dated October 28, 1991, as Respondent's business records will verify. Yet the memorandum is dated October 29, 1991. Note the opening of the concluding sentence which reads: "Gary will be given an additional two weeks severance. . . ."
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
January 5, 1993
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apartment 136
Washington, DC 20008
Mr. Donald M. Stocks
Case Investigations
Government of the District of
Columbia
Department of Human Rights and
Minority Business Development
2000 14th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
RE: Docket No.: 02-087-P(N)
Gary Freedman v. Akin, Hump, Hauer & Feld
Dear Mr. Stocks:
Enclosed is Complainant's Reply to Respondent's Response to Interrogatories and Document Request. The Reply and attachments have been signed, sworn and notarized.
Also, I would like to state a reservation regarding the authenticity of the confidential memorandum dated October 29, 1991 from Dennis Race to File RE: Gary Freedman (designated Attachment F by Respondent) (designated Attachment L by Complainant). The memo reads as if it was written on the day the decision to terminate was made, which was probably Monday October 28, 1991; the severance check was dated October 28, 1991, as Respondent's business records will verify. Yet the memorandum is dated October 29, 1991. Note the opening of the concluding sentence which reads: "Gary will be given an additional two weeks severance. . . ."
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
Akin Gump/Social Security -- Disability Income
May 6, 1993
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008
Ms. Fay E. Peterson
Disability Claims Examiner
District of Columbia
Rehabilitation Services Administration
Disability Determination Division
P.O. Box 37608
Washington, DC 20013
RE: Disability Claim xxx xx xxxx
Dear Ms. Peterson:
I enclose the following letter for your information.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2011/06/social-security-public-policy-concerns.html
_________________
May 6, 1993
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008
Division of Technical
Assistance/Inquiries
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration
U.S. Department of Labor
200 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Room N-5658
Washington, DC 20210
Re: Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld Long Term Disability Income Plan ("Plan")
Dear Sir:
I have been advised that the Division of Technical Assistance/Inquiries is reviewing my query regarding the Plan.
In order to assist you in your review, I would like to provide additional facts and documents.
At the time of my termination on October 29, 1991, I was not advised of my conversion privileges under the Plan. The only information and documentation I received upon termination concerned (1) conversion of the firm's group life insurance with Prudential, (2) election of continued medical coverage with Northwestern National, and (3) election of continued employee assistance program coverage.
Enclosed are all the documents my employer provided at the termination meeting on October 29, 1991.
Further, on October 29, 1991 my employer did not state as justification for the termination the fact that it had determined in consultation with two mental health professionals, including a psychiatrist, that I was paranoid and potentially violent. I was apprised of this only upon my receipt on December 23, 1992 of the firm's Response to my Complaint alleging an unlawful termination filed with the D.C. Department of Human Rights. Therefore, it was 14 months after termination that I was apprised that my employer had considered me disabled. The plan requires a written notice of claim within 30 days of the date the disability starts. Even if I had converted to an individual contract, the information provided by my employer at the time of the termination would have been inadequate to alert me to file a claim under the Plan.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008
Ms. Fay E. Peterson
Disability Claims Examiner
District of Columbia
Rehabilitation Services Administration
Disability Determination Division
P.O. Box 37608
Washington, DC 20013
RE: Disability Claim xxx xx xxxx
Dear Ms. Peterson:
I enclose the following letter for your information.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2011/06/social-security-public-policy-concerns.html
_________________
May 6, 1993
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008
Division of Technical
Assistance/Inquiries
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration
U.S. Department of Labor
200 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Room N-5658
Washington, DC 20210
Re: Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld Long Term Disability Income Plan ("Plan")
Dear Sir:
I have been advised that the Division of Technical Assistance/Inquiries is reviewing my query regarding the Plan.
In order to assist you in your review, I would like to provide additional facts and documents.
At the time of my termination on October 29, 1991, I was not advised of my conversion privileges under the Plan. The only information and documentation I received upon termination concerned (1) conversion of the firm's group life insurance with Prudential, (2) election of continued medical coverage with Northwestern National, and (3) election of continued employee assistance program coverage.
Enclosed are all the documents my employer provided at the termination meeting on October 29, 1991.
Further, on October 29, 1991 my employer did not state as justification for the termination the fact that it had determined in consultation with two mental health professionals, including a psychiatrist, that I was paranoid and potentially violent. I was apprised of this only upon my receipt on December 23, 1992 of the firm's Response to my Complaint alleging an unlawful termination filed with the D.C. Department of Human Rights. Therefore, it was 14 months after termination that I was apprised that my employer had considered me disabled. The plan requires a written notice of claim within 30 days of the date the disability starts. Even if I had converted to an individual contract, the information provided by my employer at the time of the termination would have been inadequate to alert me to file a claim under the Plan.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Steptoe & Johnson: Declination of Legal Representation
September 1, 2011
Mr. Gary Freedman
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apartment 136
Washington, DC 20008
Re: Declination of Legal Representation
Dear Mr. Freedman:
We are in receipt of your email dated August 31, 2011. This letter is to advise you that this Firm will nor represent you with respect to the matter described in your correspondence. This letter also confirms that we do not currently represent you in any other matter.
If you wish to pursue your claim with another lawyer, you may want to act promptly. There may be important deadlines involved in any legal matter. If you fail to take appropriate actions in a timely manner, you may permanently lose some, if not all, of your rights.
The only information we have with respect to your situation is your email of August 31, 2011, and thus we do not believe that we have obtained any information from or about you or your claim that must be considered confidential.
Sincerely,
/s/ Steptoe and Johnson LLP
Steptoe & Johnson LLP
_____________________
On August 31, 2011 I sent email messages to several lawyers in the Steptoe & Johnson White Collar Crime Practice Group, which read:
Mr. Herrington:
I have advised the Federal Bureau of Investigation that there is circumstantial evidence that I am currently engaged in the commission of a felony against the Government of the United States. There is circumstantial evidence that I am engaged in a long-term criminal scheme to defraud the federal government of about a half-million dollars. I seek your pro bono representation in the event the Justice Department indicts me for fraud. The following is the text of an email message I sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (NY and DC Field Offices) on August 30, 2011:
_____________________
To the New York Field Office of the FBI:
I am writing to the NY Field Office of the FBI as a concerned citizen. I understand that the matter I am bringing to your attention falls outside the NY Field Office's jurisdiction. There is circumstantial evidence that I am committing a felony against the government of the United States. I have repeatedly brought this matter to the attention of the criminal division of the Justice Department and the Washington Field Office of the FBI. Both the DOJ and the FBI have brushed me off by saying this is a matter for the Social Security Administration.
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2011/08/criminal-division.html
I am concerned about public corruption at the highest levels of the Justice Department. Specifically, I am concerned that the Holder Justice Department will not investigate this matter because a full investigation might embarrass Attorney General Holder's close personal friend, Vernon Jordan. Further, both the head of the criminal division, Lanny Breuer, and the Attorney General, Eric Holder, are both former law partners of xxxxxxx x xxxxxxx, Esq. at the law firm of Covington and Burling. Mr. xxxxxxx is married to federal judge xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx. Also, Mr. Holder was a colleague of Judge xxxxxxx's when both served as judges on the D.C. Superior Court. I believe that both Eric Holder and Judge xxxxxxx are proteges of Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia's representative in Congress.
As a concerned citizen I am specifically concerned about the possibility of an obstruction of justice at the highest levels of the U.S. Department of Justice.
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2011/08/draft-criminal-fraud-certification-per_29.html
Gary Freedman
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apartment 136
Washington, DC 20008
202 362 7064
Mr. Gary Freedman
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apartment 136
Washington, DC 20008
Re: Declination of Legal Representation
Dear Mr. Freedman:
We are in receipt of your email dated August 31, 2011. This letter is to advise you that this Firm will nor represent you with respect to the matter described in your correspondence. This letter also confirms that we do not currently represent you in any other matter.
If you wish to pursue your claim with another lawyer, you may want to act promptly. There may be important deadlines involved in any legal matter. If you fail to take appropriate actions in a timely manner, you may permanently lose some, if not all, of your rights.
The only information we have with respect to your situation is your email of August 31, 2011, and thus we do not believe that we have obtained any information from or about you or your claim that must be considered confidential.
Sincerely,
/s/ Steptoe and Johnson LLP
Steptoe & Johnson LLP
_____________________
On August 31, 2011 I sent email messages to several lawyers in the Steptoe & Johnson White Collar Crime Practice Group, which read:
Mr. Herrington:
I have advised the Federal Bureau of Investigation that there is circumstantial evidence that I am currently engaged in the commission of a felony against the Government of the United States. There is circumstantial evidence that I am engaged in a long-term criminal scheme to defraud the federal government of about a half-million dollars. I seek your pro bono representation in the event the Justice Department indicts me for fraud. The following is the text of an email message I sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (NY and DC Field Offices) on August 30, 2011:
_____________________
To the New York Field Office of the FBI:
I am writing to the NY Field Office of the FBI as a concerned citizen. I understand that the matter I am bringing to your attention falls outside the NY Field Office's jurisdiction. There is circumstantial evidence that I am committing a felony against the government of the United States. I have repeatedly brought this matter to the attention of the criminal division of the Justice Department and the Washington Field Office of the FBI. Both the DOJ and the FBI have brushed me off by saying this is a matter for the Social Security Administration.
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2011/08/criminal-division.html
I am concerned about public corruption at the highest levels of the Justice Department. Specifically, I am concerned that the Holder Justice Department will not investigate this matter because a full investigation might embarrass Attorney General Holder's close personal friend, Vernon Jordan. Further, both the head of the criminal division, Lanny Breuer, and the Attorney General, Eric Holder, are both former law partners of xxxxxxx x xxxxxxx, Esq. at the law firm of Covington and Burling. Mr. xxxxxxx is married to federal judge xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx. Also, Mr. Holder was a colleague of Judge xxxxxxx's when both served as judges on the D.C. Superior Court. I believe that both Eric Holder and Judge xxxxxxx are proteges of Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia's representative in Congress.
As a concerned citizen I am specifically concerned about the possibility of an obstruction of justice at the highest levels of the U.S. Department of Justice.
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2011/08/draft-criminal-fraud-certification-per_29.html
Gary Freedman
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apartment 136
Washington, DC 20008
202 362 7064
Friday, September 16, 2011
U.S. Department of Justice -- Request for Court Intervention
January 14, 1995
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington Field Office
1900 Half Street, SW
Washington, DC 20324-1600
Re: Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld
Dear Sir:
Further to my letter to you dated January 12, 1995 that forwarded a copy of the D.C. Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinion and Judgment, filed January 10, 1995, I want to state that I believe that the Opinion is erroneous as a mater of law and that the Judgment has the effect of unreasonably perpetuating an undue burden on the federal interest. Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Federal Bureau of Investigation consider inquiring of the Office of U.S. Attorney whether the U.S. Attorney might file a motion to intervene in District of Columbia Court of Appeals No. 93-AA-1342, Gary Freeman v. District of Columbia Department of Human Rights, for the purpose of filing a petition for rehearing per D.C.App. Rule 40. A petition for rehearing must be filed, if at all, within 14 days after the filing of a judgment (or as modified by order of the Court), which in this case is January 10, 1995.
I believe that the above-referenced Opinion is erroneous as a matter of law for the following reason: an agency’s particularized findings of fact are as a matter of law and logic necessarily subsumed in the agency’s ultimate conclusion, regardless of how general and nonspecific the ultimate conclusion.
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals denies that the agency’s no probable cause finding was an adjudication of my mental competence. Admittedly, the clear language of the agency’s ultimate conclusion, quoted by the Court, “there there is no probable cause to believe that discrimination has occurred in this matter” fully disposes of my discrimination Complaint. The agency’s general and nonspecific conclusion neither expressly adjudicates my mental competence nor does it refer in any manner to my mental competence.
Yet, the agency’s ultimate conclusion dismissing the Complaint necessarily incorporates, as a matter of law, the express and particularized findings by the District of Columbia Department of Human Rights, including Finding of Fact No. 6 that my former employer determined in consultation with a psychiatrist that I suffered from a mental disorder that rendered me potentially violent: “Respondent also sought outside professional guidance because of the emotional and psychological nature of Complainant’s allegations and his coworkers responses. Respondent contacted an unnamed counselor from its Employee Assistance Program and an outside psychiatrist. Both agreed that Complainant should seek counseling. Dr. Gertrude Ticho [M.D.] identified Complainant’s behavior, putting a negative meaning to virtually every event as “ideas of reference” and cautioned that individuals in similar circumstances may become violent. . . .” Department of Human Rights Initial Determination, dated June 30, 1993, page 7.
The agency’s final action dismissing my discrimination complaint, though stated in language that does not refer to any factual basis for the dismissal, incorporates as a mater of law each of the agency’s particularized seven Findings of Fact, including the above-quoted Finding of Fact No. 6 that sets forth the agency’s conclusions regarding my purportedly pathological mental state and potential for violence. I believe, therefore, that the agency’s action functions as a de facto adjudication of my mental health and the adjudicative nature of the agency’s action confers “contested case” status to this matter, and, hence, jurisdiction in the D.C. Court of Appeals.
Further, the Judgment has the effect of unreasonably perpetuating an undue burden on the federal interest. The agency’s determination that I suffer from severe mental disorder that renders me potentially violent has and will continue to pose a concern to federal law enforcement agencies. On December 15, 1994 I underwent an informal interrogation by the U.S. Secret Service so that that agency might resolve concerns regarding my potential for violence, concerns raised by the determination by the D.C. Department of Human Rights that I am potentially violent. How many man hours have been spent--and how many man hours will be spent--by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Secret Service to investigate a chimera created by a state agency?
It is unconscionable that two federal law enforcement agencies, the U.S. Secret Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are and will continue to he held hostage by an unreliable--indeed, factually insupportable determination by an apparently incompetent and possibly corrupt state official.
I therefore respectfully propose that the Office of U.S. Attorney intervene in the above-referenced appeal for the purpose of filing a petition for rehearing of District of Columbia Court of Appeals No. 93-AA-1342, Freedman v. District of Columbia Department of Human Rights.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington Field Office
1900 Half Street, SW
Washington, DC 20324-1600
Re: Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld
Dear Sir:
Further to my letter to you dated January 12, 1995 that forwarded a copy of the D.C. Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinion and Judgment, filed January 10, 1995, I want to state that I believe that the Opinion is erroneous as a mater of law and that the Judgment has the effect of unreasonably perpetuating an undue burden on the federal interest. Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Federal Bureau of Investigation consider inquiring of the Office of U.S. Attorney whether the U.S. Attorney might file a motion to intervene in District of Columbia Court of Appeals No. 93-AA-1342, Gary Freeman v. District of Columbia Department of Human Rights, for the purpose of filing a petition for rehearing per D.C.App. Rule 40. A petition for rehearing must be filed, if at all, within 14 days after the filing of a judgment (or as modified by order of the Court), which in this case is January 10, 1995.
I believe that the above-referenced Opinion is erroneous as a matter of law for the following reason: an agency’s particularized findings of fact are as a matter of law and logic necessarily subsumed in the agency’s ultimate conclusion, regardless of how general and nonspecific the ultimate conclusion.
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals denies that the agency’s no probable cause finding was an adjudication of my mental competence. Admittedly, the clear language of the agency’s ultimate conclusion, quoted by the Court, “there there is no probable cause to believe that discrimination has occurred in this matter” fully disposes of my discrimination Complaint. The agency’s general and nonspecific conclusion neither expressly adjudicates my mental competence nor does it refer in any manner to my mental competence.
Yet, the agency’s ultimate conclusion dismissing the Complaint necessarily incorporates, as a matter of law, the express and particularized findings by the District of Columbia Department of Human Rights, including Finding of Fact No. 6 that my former employer determined in consultation with a psychiatrist that I suffered from a mental disorder that rendered me potentially violent: “Respondent also sought outside professional guidance because of the emotional and psychological nature of Complainant’s allegations and his coworkers responses. Respondent contacted an unnamed counselor from its Employee Assistance Program and an outside psychiatrist. Both agreed that Complainant should seek counseling. Dr. Gertrude Ticho [M.D.] identified Complainant’s behavior, putting a negative meaning to virtually every event as “ideas of reference” and cautioned that individuals in similar circumstances may become violent. . . .” Department of Human Rights Initial Determination, dated June 30, 1993, page 7.
The agency’s final action dismissing my discrimination complaint, though stated in language that does not refer to any factual basis for the dismissal, incorporates as a mater of law each of the agency’s particularized seven Findings of Fact, including the above-quoted Finding of Fact No. 6 that sets forth the agency’s conclusions regarding my purportedly pathological mental state and potential for violence. I believe, therefore, that the agency’s action functions as a de facto adjudication of my mental health and the adjudicative nature of the agency’s action confers “contested case” status to this matter, and, hence, jurisdiction in the D.C. Court of Appeals.
Further, the Judgment has the effect of unreasonably perpetuating an undue burden on the federal interest. The agency’s determination that I suffer from severe mental disorder that renders me potentially violent has and will continue to pose a concern to federal law enforcement agencies. On December 15, 1994 I underwent an informal interrogation by the U.S. Secret Service so that that agency might resolve concerns regarding my potential for violence, concerns raised by the determination by the D.C. Department of Human Rights that I am potentially violent. How many man hours have been spent--and how many man hours will be spent--by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Secret Service to investigate a chimera created by a state agency?
It is unconscionable that two federal law enforcement agencies, the U.S. Secret Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are and will continue to he held hostage by an unreliable--indeed, factually insupportable determination by an apparently incompetent and possibly corrupt state official.
I therefore respectfully propose that the Office of U.S. Attorney intervene in the above-referenced appeal for the purpose of filing a petition for rehearing of District of Columbia Court of Appeals No. 93-AA-1342, Freedman v. District of Columbia Department of Human Rights.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
Letter to FBI -- 1995
January 12, 1995
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington Field Office
1900 Half Street, SW
Washington, DC 20324-1600
Dear Sir:
The enclosed Memorandum Opinion and Judgment issued by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, No. 93-AA-1342, is forwarded for your information.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is advised that, in view of the above-referenced Opinion, the following determination by the D.C. Department of Human Rights continues to stand:
As of October 29 1991 I suffered from a severe mental disorder that rendered me paranoid, potentially violent, a threat to those in my environment, and unemployable.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is further advised that to the best of my knowledge, my former employer, the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, has not disavowed the determination by my former supervisor, Mrs. Christine Robertson, that I may be armed and homicidal (extremely dangerous).
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington Field Office
1900 Half Street, SW
Washington, DC 20324-1600
Dear Sir:
The enclosed Memorandum Opinion and Judgment issued by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, No. 93-AA-1342, is forwarded for your information.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is advised that, in view of the above-referenced Opinion, the following determination by the D.C. Department of Human Rights continues to stand:
As of October 29 1991 I suffered from a severe mental disorder that rendered me paranoid, potentially violent, a threat to those in my environment, and unemployable.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is further advised that to the best of my knowledge, my former employer, the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, has not disavowed the determination by my former supervisor, Mrs. Christine Robertson, that I may be armed and homicidal (extremely dangerous).
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
Thursday, September 15, 2011
How Would Judge Judy Have Disposed of My Case?
I used to work as a paralegal at the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld.
Akin Gump determined that I was mentally ill and potentially violent and terminated my employment effective October 29, 1991.
I filed an unlawful job termination complaint with the D.C. Department of Human Rights in February 1992, which eventually made its way to the D.C. Court of Appeals.
I filed pleadings in this matter in 1994 in the D.C. Court of Appeals that were lucid and coherent and did not appear to betray any signs of mental illness that would impair my ability to work in the legal field. I was not on any medication when I filed the pleadings.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) determined, based on Akin Gump's sworn allegations about my mental state the firm filed with the D.C. Department of Human Rights, that I was unemployable as of October 29, 1991 pursuant to a disability claim I had filed with SSA in April 1993. A disability determination by SSA means that a person cannot do the work he was trained to do or which he has done in the past.
In effect, SSA determined that I was unable to do the work of a paralegal or a lawyer effective October 29, 1991.
The D.C. Court of Appeals knew that I was on Social Security Disability when I filed my Petition for Review. My Petition to Proceed on Appeal in forma pauperis filed with the Court stated that I was on Social Security Disability.
What I find interesting is that when Judge Judy has a litigant before her who is on Social Security disability but she believes is not disabled, or who admits to facts that call into question the validity of the claim, she will say: "I am sending a copy of a tape of this proceedings to the Social Security Administration."
Why didn't the judges on the D.C. Court of Appeals who heard my case report me to the Social Security Administration or the U.S. Attorney as a possible case of Social Security fraud?
Akin Gump determined that I was mentally ill and potentially violent and terminated my employment effective October 29, 1991.
I filed an unlawful job termination complaint with the D.C. Department of Human Rights in February 1992, which eventually made its way to the D.C. Court of Appeals.
I filed pleadings in this matter in 1994 in the D.C. Court of Appeals that were lucid and coherent and did not appear to betray any signs of mental illness that would impair my ability to work in the legal field. I was not on any medication when I filed the pleadings.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) determined, based on Akin Gump's sworn allegations about my mental state the firm filed with the D.C. Department of Human Rights, that I was unemployable as of October 29, 1991 pursuant to a disability claim I had filed with SSA in April 1993. A disability determination by SSA means that a person cannot do the work he was trained to do or which he has done in the past.
In effect, SSA determined that I was unable to do the work of a paralegal or a lawyer effective October 29, 1991.
The D.C. Court of Appeals knew that I was on Social Security Disability when I filed my Petition for Review. My Petition to Proceed on Appeal in forma pauperis filed with the Court stated that I was on Social Security Disability.
What I find interesting is that when Judge Judy has a litigant before her who is on Social Security disability but she believes is not disabled, or who admits to facts that call into question the validity of the claim, she will say: "I am sending a copy of a tape of this proceedings to the Social Security Administration."
Why didn't the judges on the D.C. Court of Appeals who heard my case report me to the Social Security Administration or the U.S. Attorney as a possible case of Social Security fraud?
Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights -- Court Order re: Jurisdiction -- No. 93-AA-1342
In September 1993 the D.C. Department of Human Rights (DOHR) determined that there was no probable cause to believe that my job termination by the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld in October 1991 was discriminatory in violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977. I thereupon filed a Petition for Review with the D.C. Court of Appeals. At oral argument in October 1994 the Court (Judge John A. Terry) questioned whether it had jurisdiction; by order of the Court filed October 17, 1994 the Court requested that I brief the issue. Under case law, a DOHR no probable cause determination must first be reviewed in a civil action filed in the D.C. Superior Court; an unfavorable ruling by the Superior Court may then be reviewed in the Court of Appeals.
____________________________
At oral argument before this court, a question arose regarding the court's jurisdiction to hear this case. In Lamont v. Rogers, 479 A.2d 1274, 1278 (D.C. 1984), this court held that a finding of no probable cause by the Office of Human Rights (OHR) was not a decision in a "contested case," D.C. Code Section 1-1510(a) (1992), and that such a finding was therefore not directly reviewable in this court. In Simpson v. District of Columbia Office of Human Rights, 597 A.2d 392, 397-399 (D.C. 1991), we held, citing Lamont and other cases, that a finding of no probable cause by the OHR was subject to judicial review, but only in a civil action filed in the Superior Court. In light of Lamont and Simpson, it is
ORDERED that petitioner, within 21 days from the date of this order, shall file a supplemental memorandum with this court addressing the question of whether this court has jurisdiction to consider this case on direct review under D.C. Code Section 1-1510(a) (1992). Respondent and petitioner's employer may each file a supplemental memorandum within 21 days after the filing of petitioner's memorandum. 1/
The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this order on petitioner, respondent, and petitioner's employer.
1/ For the purpose of filing a memorandum pursuant to this order, petitioner's employer shall be deemed an intervenor.
____________________________
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
No.93-AA-1342
GARY FREEDMAN, PETITIONER
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS,
RESPONDENT
Before FERREN and TERRY, Associate Judges, and MACK, Senior Judge.
ORDER
At oral argument before this court, a question arose regarding the court's jurisdiction to hear this case. In Lamont v. Rogers, 479 A.2d 1274, 1278 (D.C. 1984), this court held that a finding of no probable cause by the Office of Human Rights (OHR) was not a decision in a "contested case," D.C. Code Section 1-1510(a) (1992), and that such a finding was therefore not directly reviewable in this court. In Simpson v. District of Columbia Office of Human Rights, 597 A.2d 392, 397-399 (D.C. 1991), we held, citing Lamont and other cases, that a finding of no probable cause by the OHR was subject to judicial review, but only in a civil action filed in the Superior Court. In light of Lamont and Simpson, it is
ORDERED that petitioner, within 21 days from the date of this order, shall file a supplemental memorandum with this court addressing the question of whether this court has jurisdiction to consider this case on direct review under D.C. Code Section 1-1510(a) (1992). Respondent and petitioner's employer may each file a supplemental memorandum within 21 days after the filing of petitioner's memorandum. 1/
The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this order on petitioner, respondent, and petitioner's employer.
PER CURIAM.
________________________
1/ For the purpose of filing a memorandum pursuant to this order, petitioner's employer shall be deemed an intervenor.
No. 93-AA-1342
Copies to:
Mr. Gary Freedman
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 136
Washington, D.C. 20008
Charles L. Reischel, Esquire
Deputy Corporation Counsel
Dennis M. Race, Esquire
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW
Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20036
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Thirteen Rules for Dealing with a Sociopath
Martha Stout is an American psychologist and author.
She completed her professional training in psychology at the McLean Psychiatric Hospital, where she obtained her Ph.D.. She served as an instructor on the faculty of the Harvard Medical School for over twenty-five years and during that time taught at The New School, the Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology, and Wellesley College. She has written several books on psychology that appeal to the popular market.
In her most popular book, The Sociopath Next Door: The Ruthless Versus the Rest of Us, she advises developing an awareness of the nature of anti-social behavior in order to avoid becoming its victim and proposes thirteen rules as self-help guidelines to assessing relationships and behavior for these characteristics, as well as offering advice on handling situations when one encounters the behavior. The Sociopath Next Door received positive reviews from Kirkus Reviews and Library Journal and a mixed review from Publishers Weekly.
Stout currently is in private practice as a clinical psychologist in Boston and resides in Cape Ann, Massachusetts.
Is there such a thing as a sociopathic law firm? One wonders!
The following are Martha Stout's 13 rules for dealing with sociopaths:
1: Swallow the bitter pill of accepting that some people literally have no conscience.
2: In a contest between your instincts and what is implied by the role a person has taken on—educator, doctor, leader, animal lover, humanist, parent—go with your instincts.
3: When considering a new relationship of any kind, practice the Rule of Threes regarding the claims and promises a person makes, and the responsibilities he or she has. Make the Rule of Threes your personal policy. One lie, one broken promise, or a single neglected responsibility may be a misunderstanding. Two may involve a serious mistake. But three lies says you’re dealing with a liar, and deceit is the linchpin of conscienceless behaviour.
4: Question authority. At least six out of ten people will blindly obey authority to the bitter end. The good news is that having social support makes people somewhat more likely to challenge authority. Encourage those around you to question too.
5: Suspect flattery. Compliments are lovely, especially when they are sincere. In contrast, flattery is extreme and appeals to our ego in unrealistic ways. It is the material of counterfeit charm, and nearly always involves an intent to manipulate.
6: If necessary, redefine your concept of respect. Too often, we mistake fear for respect. In a perfect world, human respect would be an automatic reaction only to those who are strong, kind, and morally courageous. The person who profits from frightening you is not likely to be any of these.
7: Do not join the game. Resist the temptation to compete with a seductive sociopath, to outsmart him, psychoanalyze, or even banter with him. In addition to reducing yourself to his level, you would be distracting yourself from what is really important, which is to protect yourself.
8: The best way to protect yourself from a sociopath is to avoid him, to refuse any kind of contact or communication.
9: Question your tendency to pity too easily. Pity is a socially valuable response, and t should be reserved for innocent people who are in genuine pain or who have fallen on misfortune. If, instead, you find yourself pitying someone who consistently hurts you or other people, and who actively campaigns for your sympathy, the chances are close to 100 percent that you are dealing with a sociopath.
10: Do not try to redeem the unredeemable. Second, third, fourth and fifth chances are for people who possess conscience. If you are dealing with a person who has no conscience, know how to swallow hard and cut your losses.
11: Never agree, out of pity or for any other reason, to help a sociopath conceal his or her true character. “Please don’t tell,” often spoken tearfully and with great gnashing of teeth, is the trademark plea of thieves, child abusers—and sociopaths. Do not listen to this siren song. Other people deserve to be warned more than sociopaths deserve to have you keep their secrets.
If someone without conscience insists that you “owe” him or her, recall what you are about to read here: “You owe me” has been the standard line of sociopaths for thousands of years, quite literally, and is still so.
We tend to experience “you owe me” as a compelling claim, but it is simply not true. Do not listen. Also, ignore the one that goes, “You are just like me.” You are not.
12: Defend your psyche. Do not allow someone without conscience, or even a string of such people, to convince you that humanity is a failure. Most human beings do possess a conscience. Most human beings are able to love.
13: Living well is the best revenge.
She completed her professional training in psychology at the McLean Psychiatric Hospital, where she obtained her Ph.D.. She served as an instructor on the faculty of the Harvard Medical School for over twenty-five years and during that time taught at The New School, the Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology, and Wellesley College. She has written several books on psychology that appeal to the popular market.
In her most popular book, The Sociopath Next Door: The Ruthless Versus the Rest of Us, she advises developing an awareness of the nature of anti-social behavior in order to avoid becoming its victim and proposes thirteen rules as self-help guidelines to assessing relationships and behavior for these characteristics, as well as offering advice on handling situations when one encounters the behavior. The Sociopath Next Door received positive reviews from Kirkus Reviews and Library Journal and a mixed review from Publishers Weekly.
Stout currently is in private practice as a clinical psychologist in Boston and resides in Cape Ann, Massachusetts.
Is there such a thing as a sociopathic law firm? One wonders!
The following are Martha Stout's 13 rules for dealing with sociopaths:
1: Swallow the bitter pill of accepting that some people literally have no conscience.
2: In a contest between your instincts and what is implied by the role a person has taken on—educator, doctor, leader, animal lover, humanist, parent—go with your instincts.
3: When considering a new relationship of any kind, practice the Rule of Threes regarding the claims and promises a person makes, and the responsibilities he or she has. Make the Rule of Threes your personal policy. One lie, one broken promise, or a single neglected responsibility may be a misunderstanding. Two may involve a serious mistake. But three lies says you’re dealing with a liar, and deceit is the linchpin of conscienceless behaviour.
4: Question authority. At least six out of ten people will blindly obey authority to the bitter end. The good news is that having social support makes people somewhat more likely to challenge authority. Encourage those around you to question too.
5: Suspect flattery. Compliments are lovely, especially when they are sincere. In contrast, flattery is extreme and appeals to our ego in unrealistic ways. It is the material of counterfeit charm, and nearly always involves an intent to manipulate.
6: If necessary, redefine your concept of respect. Too often, we mistake fear for respect. In a perfect world, human respect would be an automatic reaction only to those who are strong, kind, and morally courageous. The person who profits from frightening you is not likely to be any of these.
7: Do not join the game. Resist the temptation to compete with a seductive sociopath, to outsmart him, psychoanalyze, or even banter with him. In addition to reducing yourself to his level, you would be distracting yourself from what is really important, which is to protect yourself.
8: The best way to protect yourself from a sociopath is to avoid him, to refuse any kind of contact or communication.
9: Question your tendency to pity too easily. Pity is a socially valuable response, and t should be reserved for innocent people who are in genuine pain or who have fallen on misfortune. If, instead, you find yourself pitying someone who consistently hurts you or other people, and who actively campaigns for your sympathy, the chances are close to 100 percent that you are dealing with a sociopath.
10: Do not try to redeem the unredeemable. Second, third, fourth and fifth chances are for people who possess conscience. If you are dealing with a person who has no conscience, know how to swallow hard and cut your losses.
11: Never agree, out of pity or for any other reason, to help a sociopath conceal his or her true character. “Please don’t tell,” often spoken tearfully and with great gnashing of teeth, is the trademark plea of thieves, child abusers—and sociopaths. Do not listen to this siren song. Other people deserve to be warned more than sociopaths deserve to have you keep their secrets.
If someone without conscience insists that you “owe” him or her, recall what you are about to read here: “You owe me” has been the standard line of sociopaths for thousands of years, quite literally, and is still so.
We tend to experience “you owe me” as a compelling claim, but it is simply not true. Do not listen. Also, ignore the one that goes, “You are just like me.” You are not.
12: Defend your psyche. Do not allow someone without conscience, or even a string of such people, to convince you that humanity is a failure. Most human beings do possess a conscience. Most human beings are able to love.
13: Living well is the best revenge.
Akin Gump Termination Meeting: Contemporaneous Report
The following is a letter I faxed to my sister some time in 1992. I had been terminated by the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, where I had worked as a paralegal, on October 29, 1991. The letter confirms that I had been told that I was being terminated because my work was of poor quality. In a pleading Akin Gump filed with the D.C. Department of Human Rights (May 22, 1992) in my unlawful job termination complaint, a copy of which pleading I received in late December 1992, I learned for the first time that the firm was claiming that I was terminated because of mental health reasons. The sworn pleading (prepared by Dennis M. Race, the lawyer who terminated me) stated that my work quality was not an issue in the decision to terminate.
FAX NO. 609 235 5569 MEREDITH FINANCIAL SERVICES
transmittal for Mrs. Estelle Jacobson c/o Mr. Edward Jacobson
______________________________________________
Dear Stell,
This may be a totally innocent thing, but it struck me as slightly odd. And where Akin Gump is concerned you never know.
The day I was terminated I was in Dennis Race's office with Christine [Robertson, my supervisor]. Dennis Race asked me how current I was with my LMS [the attorney billing computer program]. I told him I was current as of the previous afternoon. He told me not to bother logging in my time for the morning of October 29, 1991 (about 3.75 hours). It would only have taken a minute to do so. (When did you ever hear an attorney say, "We won't bother billing the client." Sam Rayburn may have said the Democrats were the party with a heart, but please.)
I went down to the terrace level to bring down to Christine the batch of work I had been working on. I instructed her on what remained to be done on the batch. She asked me if I would log on to a terminal to do what had to be done. I politely refused, saying, "I don't work here anymore." (I figured "what would she do, fire me?") She didn't say anything else about the issue, as if it weren't important.
Do you think her request that I log on to the computer was totally innocuous?
(Also, if my work was so poor so as to justify my termination, wouldn't her first thought have been, "well it will all have to be redone anyway.")
GF
I later learned in July 1993 during a telephone conversation with Pat McNeil, a coworker, that after I left the building, Robertson called a meeting of her employees and told them she was afraid I might return to the premises to kill her. She advised that the lock to the office suite was being changed to prevent my re-entry. Obviously, Robertson's statements and actions were a self-serving defamation. The D.C. Department of Human Rights and the D.C. Court of Appeals failed to find that my supervisor's obvious defamation was evidence of discriminatory animus or a hostile work environment.
FAX NO. 609 235 5569 MEREDITH FINANCIAL SERVICES
transmittal for Mrs. Estelle Jacobson c/o Mr. Edward Jacobson
______________________________________________
Dear Stell,
This may be a totally innocent thing, but it struck me as slightly odd. And where Akin Gump is concerned you never know.
The day I was terminated I was in Dennis Race's office with Christine [Robertson, my supervisor]. Dennis Race asked me how current I was with my LMS [the attorney billing computer program]. I told him I was current as of the previous afternoon. He told me not to bother logging in my time for the morning of October 29, 1991 (about 3.75 hours). It would only have taken a minute to do so. (When did you ever hear an attorney say, "We won't bother billing the client." Sam Rayburn may have said the Democrats were the party with a heart, but please.)
I went down to the terrace level to bring down to Christine the batch of work I had been working on. I instructed her on what remained to be done on the batch. She asked me if I would log on to a terminal to do what had to be done. I politely refused, saying, "I don't work here anymore." (I figured "what would she do, fire me?") She didn't say anything else about the issue, as if it weren't important.
Do you think her request that I log on to the computer was totally innocuous?
(Also, if my work was so poor so as to justify my termination, wouldn't her first thought have been, "well it will all have to be redone anyway.")
GF
I later learned in July 1993 during a telephone conversation with Pat McNeil, a coworker, that after I left the building, Robertson called a meeting of her employees and told them she was afraid I might return to the premises to kill her. She advised that the lock to the office suite was being changed to prevent my re-entry. Obviously, Robertson's statements and actions were a self-serving defamation. The D.C. Department of Human Rights and the D.C. Court of Appeals failed to find that my supervisor's obvious defamation was evidence of discriminatory animus or a hostile work environment.
GW Psychiatric Treatment -- Complaint to DC Medical Board -- Harold F. Baker
The following cover letter transmitted to GW University trustee, Harold F. Baker, Esq. (deceased) a copy of a complaint I filed against my then treating psychiatrist, Suzanne M. Pitts, M.D. Coincidentally, Randy Levine, Esq., senior counsel, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, New York Office, is a GW University trustee. Also, Heather Foley, husband of former Speaker of the House, Tom Foley, himself a retired Akin Gump partner, serves as a GW University trustee.
August 20, 1993
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008
Harold F. Baker, Esq.
Trustee
George Washington University
c/o Howery & Simon
1730 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20006-4793
Dear Mr. Baker:
I am transmitting a copy of the enclosed letter to you for your information in your capacity as a trustee of the George Washington University.
A copy of the enclosed letter is also being forwarded to another university trustee, Mr. Sheldon S. Cohen, Esq.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
Copy of Letter of Complaint
Akin Gump's Ties to GW University
Medical Board Exoneration of Suzanne M. Pitts, MD
August 20, 1993
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008
Harold F. Baker, Esq.
Trustee
George Washington University
c/o Howery & Simon
1730 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20006-4793
Dear Mr. Baker:
I am transmitting a copy of the enclosed letter to you for your information in your capacity as a trustee of the George Washington University.
A copy of the enclosed letter is also being forwarded to another university trustee, Mr. Sheldon S. Cohen, Esq.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
Copy of Letter of Complaint
Akin Gump's Ties to GW University
Medical Board Exoneration of Suzanne M. Pitts, MD
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Letter to Sister -- 1992 -- The Soviet Ambassador
I sent the following letter to my sister some time during the year 1992. I later elaborated the following ideas in a letter dated November 23, 1992 that I submitted to my then treating psychiatrist at the George Washington University Medical Center, Suzanne M. Pitts, M.D. The letter suggests something about my reality testing: my need to find evidence confirming or supporting my theories about the world. The following letter is about William Bullitt, appointed by FDR as the first U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union. Bullitt collaborated with Freud on a psychobiography of President Woodrow Wilson, and was instrumental in securing Freud's safe passage from Nazi-occupied Austria in 1938.
Dear Stell,
Even I thought that letter I faxed about Freud and Bullitt was idiotic, so I went to the library and looked up a biography of Bullitt. Instead of refuting my ideas, the Bullitt biography bolstered the contentions in my letter that Freud might have identified Bullitt with Moses.
According to Anna Freud, Bullitt was “tremendously personable and charming, [but also] frightfully arrogant.” Such a description matches the characteristics that one would expect to find in a phallic narcissistic character See Reich, W. Character Analysis. According to Dr. Shengold (Malcolm, J. In The Freud Archives), Freud had a special need and weakness for such persons, and Shengold cites Freud’s relationship with Fleiss as an example. Indeed, the Bullitt biography notes that Bullitt was only one of three people that Freud is known to have allowed to address him by his first name. It is plausible that Freud might place Bullitt in the category “prophet, redeemer, savior.” Bullitt’s own phallic narcissistic character is consistent with a possible “rescue fantasy,” predisposing Bullitt not unlike Moses to attempt to rescue persons in a precarious position (note Bullitt’s enlisting in the French army during WWII after being rejected as too old by the U.S. military--possibly evidencing a determined need to rescue). On a political level, Bullitt’s views are expressly termed “prophetic:” his condemnation of the Versailles treaty, his warning to FDR regarding Stalin.
Check this out: the theme of “dual citizenship” as an identity element
Moses - as Hebrew and Egyptian prince
Bullitt - dual U.S. and French citizenship
RSS - “Prince” of the Democratic party serving in high profile diplomatic position in a Republican administration
(Or is this just evidence of the fact that you can find connections wherever you want to find them?)
GF
Dear Stell,
Even I thought that letter I faxed about Freud and Bullitt was idiotic, so I went to the library and looked up a biography of Bullitt. Instead of refuting my ideas, the Bullitt biography bolstered the contentions in my letter that Freud might have identified Bullitt with Moses.
According to Anna Freud, Bullitt was “tremendously personable and charming, [but also] frightfully arrogant.” Such a description matches the characteristics that one would expect to find in a phallic narcissistic character See Reich, W. Character Analysis. According to Dr. Shengold (Malcolm, J. In The Freud Archives), Freud had a special need and weakness for such persons, and Shengold cites Freud’s relationship with Fleiss as an example. Indeed, the Bullitt biography notes that Bullitt was only one of three people that Freud is known to have allowed to address him by his first name. It is plausible that Freud might place Bullitt in the category “prophet, redeemer, savior.” Bullitt’s own phallic narcissistic character is consistent with a possible “rescue fantasy,” predisposing Bullitt not unlike Moses to attempt to rescue persons in a precarious position (note Bullitt’s enlisting in the French army during WWII after being rejected as too old by the U.S. military--possibly evidencing a determined need to rescue). On a political level, Bullitt’s views are expressly termed “prophetic:” his condemnation of the Versailles treaty, his warning to FDR regarding Stalin.
Check this out: the theme of “dual citizenship” as an identity element
Moses - as Hebrew and Egyptian prince
Bullitt - dual U.S. and French citizenship
RSS - “Prince” of the Democratic party serving in high profile diplomatic position in a Republican administration
(Or is this just evidence of the fact that you can find connections wherever you want to find them?)
GF
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
