I sent a job application to Covington & Burling in 1992 for a paralegal position. Mr. Dolin replied to my inquiry. This is a followup letter.
The copyee Lanny A. Breuer, Esq., who worked at the Clinton White House in 1997, had been a Covington & Burling partner.
Incidentally, current U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., Esq. practiced law at the firm from the years 2001 to 2009. Other partners have included Charles F.C. Ruff, Esq. (now deceased) who also served as D.C. Corporation Counsel in the 1990s; and Eugene Lambert, Esq., a trustee of the George Washington University where I underwent psychiatric treatment in the 1990s.
October 20, 1997
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008-4530
Mitchell F. Dolin, Esq.
Covington & Burling
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20044-7566
RE: Covington & Burling Employment Inquiry - Homicide/Violence Risk
Dear Mr. Dolin:
The enclosed documentation is submitted further to my letter to you dated December 9, 1996.
I am writing to assure the law firm of Covington & Burling that at the time of my employment inquiry in the year 1992, to which you responded by letter dated July 22, 1992 (copy attached), I did not intentionally withhold any facts pertinent to my current mental illness: an apparently rare form of paranoid schizophrenia--a debilitating psychotic disorder--that causes me to become more intelligent even as the illness worsens in severity, and which cannot be detected on comprehensive psychological testing as performed by a major medical center.
As a courtesy to Covington & Burling I forward (on the enclosed computer disc) two pleadings that I filed in the D.C. Court of Appeals, in a currently pending appeal, that will satisfy any questions you or your partners may have concerning the risk of violence (including homicide) to which I unintentionally subjected your firm. The disc also contains a document pertinent to a criminal investigation instituted by the Federal Protective Service (Jerry McGill, S.A.), ancillary to concerns, affirmed as genuine by the Government of the District of Columbia (Charles F.C. Ruff, Esq., Corporation Counsel) relating to a reported risk of violence (including homicide) that I posed at the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, my former employer.
For your additional information, I enclose a collection of letters that, hopefully, will clarify this matter for Covington & Burling.
Supervisory Special Agent David M. Bowie, FBI Washington Field Office, is familiar with this matter. Mr. Bowie may be reached at (202) 252 7801.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
cc: Lanny A. Breuer, Esq. (The White House)
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query covington. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query covington. Sort by date Show all posts
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Is There Anybody Here Who Isn't a Covington & Burling Partner?
During the summer of 1992 I sent a job application for a paralegal position to the law firm of Covington & Burling. I received a cordial reply from a Covington & Burling partner named Mitchell Dolin. The cover letter I sent to Covington & Burling offered the name of Dennis M. Race, Esq. (Akin Gump) as a job reference. I do not know what communications, if any, Mitchell Dolin had with Dennis Race.
I sent an attention-grabbing follow-up letter to Mr. Dolin five years later, in 1997. I copied that letter to Mr. Dolin's law partner at Covington & Burling, Lanny Breuer, who, in 1997, served as assistant White House Counsel under another former Covington & Burling partner, Charles F.C. Ruff who, in 1997, served as White House Counsel to President Bill Clinton. It was Charles F.C. Ruff who, in his role as Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia, defended my appeal of Freedman v. D.C. Department of Human Rights before the D.C. Superior Court in 1996. Incidentally, the presiding judge in that case is married to another Covington & Burling partner to whom I had sent several email messages during the period 2005-2009.
Lanny Breuer currently serves as head of the Criminal Division at the U.S. Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. who served as a Covington & Burling partner during the period 2001-2009.
I wonder what Lanny Breuer knows about me?
I sent an attention-grabbing follow-up letter to Mr. Dolin five years later, in 1997. I copied that letter to Mr. Dolin's law partner at Covington & Burling, Lanny Breuer, who, in 1997, served as assistant White House Counsel under another former Covington & Burling partner, Charles F.C. Ruff who, in 1997, served as White House Counsel to President Bill Clinton. It was Charles F.C. Ruff who, in his role as Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia, defended my appeal of Freedman v. D.C. Department of Human Rights before the D.C. Superior Court in 1996. Incidentally, the presiding judge in that case is married to another Covington & Burling partner to whom I had sent several email messages during the period 2005-2009.
Lanny Breuer currently serves as head of the Criminal Division at the U.S. Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. who served as a Covington & Burling partner during the period 2001-2009.
I wonder what Lanny Breuer knows about me?
Thursday, February 03, 2011
Open Letter to Dan Spiegel (Covington & Burling) -- Is Dan Spiegel Concealing Knowledge of a Felony?
Dan Spiegel, Esq.
Covington & Burling
Mr. Spiegel:
I strongly urge you to speak to the Washington Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation concerning the following matters. If you have any information that could help the Bureau investigate the criminal conduct of the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, see Freedman v. D.C. Department of Human Rights, D.C.C.A. no. 96-CV-961 (Sept. 1, 1998), you have a legal duty and an ethical duty as a lawyer to disclose that information to federal law enforcement. You practiced law at Akin Gump during my tenure at the firm; your association with the firm extended to the year 2008. Your failure to disclose evidence of crimes could jeopardize your license to practice law.
The D.C. Office of Corporation Counsel (acting through Charles F.C. Ruff, Esq., Jo Anne Robinson, Esq., Charles L. Reischel, Esq., William J. Earl, Esq. and M. Justin Draycott, Esq.) took the position before the D.C. Superior Court in 1996 and again before the D.C. Court of Appeals in 1997 that my belief that Akin Gump's managers (a class of persons that included Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Esq., Robert S. Strauss, Esq., Malcolm Lassman, Esq., Laurence J. Hoffman, Esq., Joel Jankowsky, Esq. and Richard L. Wyatt, Jr., Esq.) engaged in, or approved the commission of, criminal acts, specifically, approving the break-in of my residence in January 1990 and conspiring to solicit confidential mental health information from my treating psychiatrists in violation of the D.C. Mental Health Information Act of 1978 (from 1989 through 1991) -- acts that in their entirety might constitute the crime of racketeering under federal law -- was genuine. Brief of Appellee District of Columbia, Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights, D.C.C.A. no. 96-CV-961 (Sept. 1, 1998). Neither Strauss, Jordan, Wyatt, Jankowsky, Race, Lassman, managing partner Hoffman nor any Akin Gump manager disputed the D.C. Corporation Counsel's position or questioned its legal or factual relevance.
Charles F.C. Ruff, Esq., a Covington & Burling partner, served as D.C. Corporation Counsel during the pendency of the above-referenced D.C. Superior Court litigation (1996). Mr. Ruff's Corporation Counsel office filed with the D.C. Superior Court pleadings that relied heavily on legally-irrelevant "after-acquired evidence" without an order by the court granting leave to make said proffer. Cf. Gross v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld (D.D.C. 2007).
I have had numerous communications about these matters with U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., Esq., formerly a Covington & Burling partner.
The D.C. Court of Appeals determined that a Clinical Professor of Psychiatry (Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D., now deceased) at GW offered a professional psychiatric opinion about me to Malcolm Lassman, Esq. and Dennis M. Race, Esq. in late October 1991. The U.S. Social Security Administration relied in 1993 on Mr. Race's sworn declaration about that psychiatric opinion to grant a fraudulent claim of disability insurance. Dr. Ticho's act of providing a professional psychiatric opinion about an (unnamed) individual without benefit of personal examination was a violation of the American Psychiatric Association's Code of Professional Ethics. See Goldwater v. Ginzburg, 396 U.S. 1049 (1970) (the APA's so-called Goldwater Rule prohibits a psychiatrist from offering a professional psychiatric opinion without benefit of personal examination). Information obtained by Akin Gump via Dr. Ticho's violation of the Goldwater Rule was used by Akin Gump's attorney managers to defraud the D.C. Department of Human Rights (1992 and 1993), the D.C. Superior Court (1996), the D.C. Court of Appeals (1997), the D.C. Corporation Counsel (1996 and 1997), and the U.S. Social Security Administration (1993).
The D.C. Office of Corporation Counsel (acting through Charles F.C. Ruff, Esq., Jo Anne Robinson, Esq., Charles L. Reischel, Esq., William J. Earl, Esq. and M. Justin Draycott, Esq.) took the position before the D.C. Superior Court in 1996 and again before the D.C. Court of Appeals in 1997 that my belief that Akin Gump's managers (a class of persons that included Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Esq., Robert S. Strauss, Esq., Malcolm Lassman, Esq., Laurence J. Hoffman, Esq., Joel Jankowsky, Esq. and Richard L. Wyatt, Jr., Esq.) engaged in, or approved the commission of, criminal acts, specifically, approving the break-in of my residence in January 1990 and conspiring to solicit confidential mental health information from my treating psychiatrists in violation of the D.C. Mental Health Information Act of 1978 (from 1989 through 1991) -- acts that in their entirety might constitute the crime of racketeering under federal law -- was genuine. Brief of Appellee District of Columbia, Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights, D.C.C.A. no. 96-CV-961 (Sept. 1, 1998). Neither Strauss, Jordan, Wyatt, Jankowsky, Race, Lassman, managing partner Hoffman nor any Akin Gump manager disputed the D.C. Corporation Counsel's position or questioned its legal or factual relevance.
Charles F.C. Ruff, Esq., a Covington & Burling partner, served as D.C. Corporation Counsel during the pendency of the above-referenced D.C. Superior Court litigation (1996). Mr. Ruff's Corporation Counsel office filed with the D.C. Superior Court pleadings that relied heavily on legally-irrelevant "after-acquired evidence" without an order by the court granting leave to make said proffer. Cf. Gross v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld (D.D.C. 2007).
I have had numerous communications about these matters with U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., Esq., formerly a Covington & Burling partner.
The D.C. Court of Appeals determined that a Clinical Professor of Psychiatry (Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D., now deceased) at GW offered a professional psychiatric opinion about me to Malcolm Lassman, Esq. and Dennis M. Race, Esq. in late October 1991. The U.S. Social Security Administration relied in 1993 on Mr. Race's sworn declaration about that psychiatric opinion to grant a fraudulent claim of disability insurance. Dr. Ticho's act of providing a professional psychiatric opinion about an (unnamed) individual without benefit of personal examination was a violation of the American Psychiatric Association's Code of Professional Ethics. See Goldwater v. Ginzburg, 396 U.S. 1049 (1970) (the APA's so-called Goldwater Rule prohibits a psychiatrist from offering a professional psychiatric opinion without benefit of personal examination). Information obtained by Akin Gump via Dr. Ticho's violation of the Goldwater Rule was used by Akin Gump's attorney managers to defraud the D.C. Department of Human Rights (1992 and 1993), the D.C. Superior Court (1996), the D.C. Court of Appeals (1997), the D.C. Corporation Counsel (1996 and 1997), and the U.S. Social Security Administration (1993).
I believe that you know Dennis M. Race, an Akin Gump partner, and that you may have first-hand information about the circumstances surrounding my job termination by Mr. Race on October 29, 1991.
The spouse of a Covington & Burling partner was the presiding judge in the D.C. Superior Court (1996) litigation cited above. I have had several written communications with that Covington & Burling partner.
Mr. Eugene I. Lambert, Esq., a Covington & Burling partner, was placed on notice about the criminal activity of Akin Gump's senior attorney managers as early as the year 2004.
Gary Freedman
Washington, DC
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
What Did DOJ Criminal Chief Lanny Breuer Know and When Did He Know It?
I sent a job application to Covington & Burling in 1992 for a paralegal position. Mr. Dolin replied to my inquiry. This is a followup letter.
The copyee Lanny A. Breuer, Esq., who worked at the Clinton White House in 1997, had been a Covington & Burling partner. Mr. Breuer currently serves as chief of the criminal division of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Incidentally, current U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., Esq. practiced law at the firm from the years 2001 to 2009. Other partners have included Charles F.C. Ruff, Esq. (now deceased) who also served as D.C. Corporation Counsel in the 1990s; and Eugene Lambert, Esq., a trustee of the George Washington University where I underwent psychiatric treatment in the 1990s.
October 20, 1997
The copyee Lanny A. Breuer, Esq., who worked at the Clinton White House in 1997, had been a Covington & Burling partner. Mr. Breuer currently serves as chief of the criminal division of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Incidentally, current U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., Esq. practiced law at the firm from the years 2001 to 2009. Other partners have included Charles F.C. Ruff, Esq. (now deceased) who also served as D.C. Corporation Counsel in the 1990s; and Eugene Lambert, Esq., a trustee of the George Washington University where I underwent psychiatric treatment in the 1990s.
October 20, 1997
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008-4530
Mitchell F. Dolin, Esq.
Covington & Burling
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20044-7566
RE: Covington & Burling Employment Inquiry - Homicide/Violence Risk
Dear Mr. Dolin:
The enclosed documentation is submitted further to my letter to you dated December 9, 1996.
I am writing to assure the law firm of Covington & Burling that at the time of my employment inquiry in the year 1992, to which you responded by letter dated July 22, 1992 (copy attached), I did not intentionally withhold any facts pertinent to my current mental illness: an apparently rare form of paranoid schizophrenia--a debilitating psychotic disorder--that causes me to become more intelligent even as the illness worsens in severity, and which cannot be detected on comprehensive psychological testing as performed by a major medical center.
As a courtesy to Covington & Burling I forward (on the enclosed computer disc) two pleadings that I filed in the D.C. Court of Appeals, in a currently pending appeal, that will satisfy any questions you or your partners may have concerning the risk of violence (including homicide) to which I unintentionally subjected your firm. The disc also contains a document pertinent to a criminal investigation instituted by the Federal Protective Service (Jerry McGill, S.A.), ancillary to concerns, affirmed as genuine by the Government of the District of Columbia (Charles F.C. Ruff, Esq., Corporation Counsel) relating to a reported risk of violence (including homicide) that I posed at the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, my former employer.
For your additional information, I enclose a collection of letters that, hopefully, will clarify this matter for Covington & Burling.
Supervisory Special Agent David M. Bowie, FBI Washington Field Office, is familiar with this matter. Mr. Bowie may be reached at (202) 252 7801.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
cc: Lanny A. Breuer, Esq. (The White House)
Friday, February 04, 2011
Blog Activity: The George Washington University
The George Washington University (128.164.124.88) 
Washington, District Of Columbia, United States, 0 returning visits| Date | Time | Type | WebPage |
4th February 2011 10:35:11 AM Page View No referring link dailstrug.blogspot.com/2011/02/open-letter-to-dan-spiegel-covington.html 4th February 2011 10:35:49 AM Page View dailstrug.blogspot.com/2011/02/open-letter-to-dan-spiegel-covington.html dailstrug.blogspot.com/2011/02/dc-court-of-appeals-and-apas-goldwater.html 4th February 2011 10:35:51 AM Page View No referring link dailstrug.blogspot.com/2011/02/open-letter-to-dan-spiegel-covington.html 4th February 2011 10:40:55 AM Page View www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Freedman v. D.C. Department of Human Rights dailstrug.blogspot.com/2010/06/freedman-v-dc-dept-human-rights-and.html 4th February 2011 10:40:56 AM Page View dailstrug.blogspot.com/2010/06/freedman-v-dc-dept-human-rights-and.html dailstrug.blogspot.com/ 4th February 2011 10:41:06 AM Page View www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Freedman v. D.C. Department of Human Rights dailstrug.blogspot.com/2010/06/freedman-v-dc-dept-human-rights-and.html 4th February 2011 10:42:07 AM Page View www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Freedman v. D.C. Department of Human Rights dailstrug.blogspot.com/2010/06/freedman-v-dc-dept-human-rights-and.html 4th February 2011 10:43:59 AM Page View No referring link dailstrug.blogspot.com/2011/02/open-letter-to-dan-spiegel-covington.html 4th February 2011 10:47:26 AM Page View No referring link dailstrug.blogspot.com/2011/02/open-letter-to-dan-spiegel-covington.html 4th February 2011 10:49:17 AM Page View No referring link dailstrug.blogspot.com/2011/02/open-letter-to-dan-spiegel-covington.html 4th February 2011 10:50:29 AM Page View www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22gary freedman%22 dailstrug.blogspot.com/ 4th February 2011 11:32:51 AM Page View No referring link dailstrug.blogspot.com/2011/02/open-letter-to-dan-spiegel-covington.html |
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Covington & Burling: Interest in the Writings of a Psychotic
Covington & Burling (216.200.93.134) Washington, District Of Columbia, United States, 0 returning visitsSaturday, April 10, 2010
Psychosis By Estoppel
I think that's what I'm going to call my next book: Psychosis by Estoppel: How I Defrauded the Federal Government of a Quarter Million Dollars with the Help of the Justice Department!
Don't you just love the fact that the Justice Department can't distinguish between a person who is a victim of false sworn statements that he is mentally ill and potentially violent -- which is fraud; and threats by a mentally ill person that he might commit an act of violence -- which calls for a threat investigation. Now really, does it take a Rhodes Scholar to appreciate the not-so-fine distinction between fraud and violence?
Don't you just love the fact that the Justice Department can't distinguish between a person who reports or complains that he is a victim of false sworn statements filed with a government agency alleging that he is mentally ill and potentially violent -- i.e., the individual is a victim of a crime; and threats by a mentally ill person that he might commit an act of violence - i.e., the individual is the perpretator of a crime?
Victim, perpetrator, fraud, violence: those are rudimentary concepts. You'd think the Justice Department would have figured out the difference between those concepts by this time.
Thank God, Justice Department employees have problems with reading comprehension. I guess I could title my book How America's Schools are Failing Us But Filling the Pockets of Scam Artists!
Perhaps the uncompromisingly lofty and elaborate linguistic demands of my blog posts and their widely varied range of syntactic nuances and densely textured web of primary and secondary meanings confounded Justice Department personnel when they initially read them.
Look, people, I have a verbal IQ of 136 (99th percentile). Can the Justice Department employees who read my blog posts say the same?
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2009/10/psychological-test-results-gw-may-1994.html
I think if terrorists had any brains, they'd give up violence, stop building bombs, and flying airplanes into buildings; and instead file for Social Security Disability. With the help of powerful lawyers -- and incompetent bureaucrats -- they could turn that into a career!
During the period November 2009 until January 14, 2010 someone at the Justice Department logged onto my blog every day. Whenever I referred to the law firm of Covington and Burling, someone at Covington and Burling logged onto my blog. On the Friday after Thanksgiving (November 27, 2009) that individual at Justice read my blog all morning, from about 9:00 am till about 12:30 pm. I subscribe to a blog tracking service that tracks people who log onto my blog: http://statcounter.com/. Recommendation: The Office of Inspector General needs to track down that individual and give him or her a reading comprehension test. That individual is a menace to the U.S. Department of Justice.
On January 15, 2010 the Justice Department sent two officers to my residence to interview me; they were concerned that I posed a risk of harm to the spouse of a Covington and Burling partner. I smell conspiracy! But then, I suffer from paranoid schizophrenia.
And by the way, is there anybody at Justice who isn't a former Covington and Burling partner or spouse of a Covington and Burling partner? Ha!
Don't you just love the fact that the Justice Department can't distinguish between a person who is a victim of false sworn statements that he is mentally ill and potentially violent -- which is fraud; and threats by a mentally ill person that he might commit an act of violence -- which calls for a threat investigation. Now really, does it take a Rhodes Scholar to appreciate the not-so-fine distinction between fraud and violence?
Don't you just love the fact that the Justice Department can't distinguish between a person who reports or complains that he is a victim of false sworn statements filed with a government agency alleging that he is mentally ill and potentially violent -- i.e., the individual is a victim of a crime; and threats by a mentally ill person that he might commit an act of violence - i.e., the individual is the perpretator of a crime?
Victim, perpetrator, fraud, violence: those are rudimentary concepts. You'd think the Justice Department would have figured out the difference between those concepts by this time.
Thank God, Justice Department employees have problems with reading comprehension. I guess I could title my book How America's Schools are Failing Us But Filling the Pockets of Scam Artists!
Perhaps the uncompromisingly lofty and elaborate linguistic demands of my blog posts and their widely varied range of syntactic nuances and densely textured web of primary and secondary meanings confounded Justice Department personnel when they initially read them.
Look, people, I have a verbal IQ of 136 (99th percentile). Can the Justice Department employees who read my blog posts say the same?
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2009/10/psychological-test-results-gw-may-1994.html
I think if terrorists had any brains, they'd give up violence, stop building bombs, and flying airplanes into buildings; and instead file for Social Security Disability. With the help of powerful lawyers -- and incompetent bureaucrats -- they could turn that into a career!
During the period November 2009 until January 14, 2010 someone at the Justice Department logged onto my blog every day. Whenever I referred to the law firm of Covington and Burling, someone at Covington and Burling logged onto my blog. On the Friday after Thanksgiving (November 27, 2009) that individual at Justice read my blog all morning, from about 9:00 am till about 12:30 pm. I subscribe to a blog tracking service that tracks people who log onto my blog: http://statcounter.com/. Recommendation: The Office of Inspector General needs to track down that individual and give him or her a reading comprehension test. That individual is a menace to the U.S. Department of Justice.
On January 15, 2010 the Justice Department sent two officers to my residence to interview me; they were concerned that I posed a risk of harm to the spouse of a Covington and Burling partner. I smell conspiracy! But then, I suffer from paranoid schizophrenia.
And by the way, is there anybody at Justice who isn't a former Covington and Burling partner or spouse of a Covington and Burling partner? Ha!
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Covington & Burling Job Application -- 1992
U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. practiced law at Covington & Burling from 2001-2009. I sent several email messages to Covington & Burling partner Jeffrey G. Huvelle, Esq. between 2005-2009. I also sent several email messages to Covington & Burling partner Eugene I. Lambert, Esq., who happens to be a trustee of The George Washington University. Did Mitchell F. Dolin contact anyone at Akin Gump (including Dennis M. Race, Esq.) in connection with my job application? I listed Mr. Race as a job reference on the cover letter.
Covington & Burling
July 22, 1992
Mr. Gary Freedman
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apartment 136
Washington, D.C. 20008
Dear Mr. Freedman:
Thank you for your recent letter inquiring about employment here as a paralegal. We regularly receive a large number of applications, and I am sorry to advise you that, despite your qualifications, we are unable to offer you a position.
We appreciate your inquiry and interest.
Sincerely yours,
Managing Partner for Paralegals
Monday, November 29, 2010
What did Attorney General Eric Holder Know and When Did He Know It? Background of Defamation
In June 2009 I forwarded to one of U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr.'s former law partners at the firm of Covington & Burling (Jeffrey G. Huvelle) the following email inquiring into legal representation concerning a civil rights violation I experienced that grew out of the illegal activities of my former employer, the law firm of Akin Gump, Strauss, Hauer and Feld. Mr. Huvelle did not reply. But I did get a reply from former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, now an attorney in private practice.
On January 15, 2010 the U.S. Department of Justice sent two U.S. Marshals to my residence to direct me, under penalty of criminal prosecution, not to contact Mr. Huvelle again. Both Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. and DOJ Criminal Division Chief Lanny Breuer were law partners of Mr. Huvelle's before they assumed their current positions at DOJ.
Mr. Huvelle did not personally advise me not to contact him.
-----Original Message-----
From: garfreed@aim.com
To: Jeffrey Huvelle at Covington & Burling
Sent: Thu, Jun 4, 2009 2:11 pm
Subject: Fwd: Civil Rights Complaint
Mr. Huvelle:
I forward an email I received from former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh (1988-91). Apparently, Governor Thornburgh did not believe my civil rights complaint was frivolous or nonmeritorious.
GARY FREEDMAN, ESQ.
202 362 7064
_____________________________________________
Dear Mr. Freedman:
Thank you for your inquiry. Upon review of this matter, I find that we are not equipped to handle your case on a pro bono basis.
Sincerely,
Dick Thornburgh
________________
Dick Thornburgh
K&L Gates LLP
1601 K Street, N.W.
7th Floor
Washington, DC 20006-1600
Phone: 202-778-9080
Fax: 202-778-9100
email: dick.thornburgh@klgates.com
-----Original Message-----
From: garfreed@aim.com
To: redacted@cov.com
Sent: Wed, 13 May 2009 1:14 pm
Subject: Fwd: Civil Rights Complaint
Mr. Huvelle
Covington & Burling
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. Huvelle:
I am writing to inquire into pro bono representation in the following employment discrimination/federal civil rights matter. The pertinent issues are detailed in the attached email that I have forwarded to the U.S. Department of Justice. As a threshold issue, I seek counsel on how to proceed with this matter: either through the Justice Department, Civil Rights Division or a civil lawsuit. I understand that Covgington & Burling has a substantial pro bono practice and that you are experienced in employment law.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you or someone at Covington and Burling.
GARY FREEDMAN
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apartment 136
Washington, DC 20008
202 362-7064
-----Original Message-----
From: garfreed@aim.com
To: askDOJ@usdoj.gov
Sent: Mon, 11 May 2009 2:56 pm
Subject: Civil Rights Complaint
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Dear Sir:
I was a victim of a federal civil rights violation committed by the Metropolitan Police of the District of Columbia (MPDC), on October 12, 2004. The violation is a continuing one.
I am prevented from seeking employment and invoking my rights as a disabled American because of intimidation by the MPDC. If I disclose the full nature of my disability to a prospective employer I risk arrest or commitment to a mental hospital.
The following letter details the matter.
November 2, 2004
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apartment 136
Washington, DC 20008
The Honorable Charles Ramsey
Chief of Police
300 Indiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC
RE: Mental Disability -- Discrimination -- Police/FBI
Dear Chief Ramsey:
I am writing to you, Chief Ramsey, to apprise the Office of Chief of Police of a serious police matter that arose in the second district on October 12, 2004. Underlying the police matter is an issue of discrimination involving the DC Office of Corporation Counsel.
I forwarded a letter to the Washington Field Office of the FBI concerning the following matter on October 23, 2004.
I have been unemployed and disabled under U.S. Social Security Administration eligibility rules since October 29, 1991. My Social Security no. is xxx xx xxxx.
I am a patient of the DC Department of Mental Health (Patient no. xxxxxx). I receive psychotropic medications from the DC Department of Mental Health.
I was employed as a paralegal at the Washington, DC law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld until October 29, 1991. Dennis M. Race, Esq. (202 887 4028), a senior management partner, terminated my employment upon determining in consultation with a psychiatrist (who did not examine me personally) that there were reasonable concerns about my mental health and stability that rendered me unsuitable for employment. Freedman v. DC Dept. of Human Rights, 96-CV-961 (DCCA, Sept. 1998). The fact that I had received "above average or outstanding" job performance ratings during my three-and-one-half-year tenure was not disputed; also undisputed was the fact that my personnel file contained no record of reprimands, oral or written.
SSA granted my claim for benefits (in August 1993) in part based on Mr. Race's sworn interrogatory responses filed with the DC Dept. of Human Rights (in May 1992); SSA's disability determination date, October 29, 1991, was the date of job termination.
There is substantial evidence that Mr. Race's interrogatory responses were perjured; that Mr. Race did not in fact consult with the psychiatrist, Gertrude R. Ticho, MD [now deceased], a physician licensed to practice in the District of Columbia. See Brief of Appellant, 96-CV-961. Additionally, I possess tape recordings of two telephone conversations in which Dr. Ticho denies any contacts or acquaintance with Dennis M. Race. Officer J.E. Williams, Badge 1226, Second District, Metro DC Police is in possession of copies of those conversations (202 282 0070).
I was seriously defamed by Mr. Race, my supervisor, a coworker (who was subsequently terminated for gross misconduct), and the DC Office of Corporation Counsel. In the past several months I have been sending out job inquiries to employers, which summarize allegations made against me by the above-named parties. On October 12, 2004 ten (10) Metro DC Police officers (including a second district supervisor) plus four (4) FBI agents showed up at my residence because of a letter I sent to an employer, who had contacted the police in alarm. The letter was purely factual; several prospective employers, including The Montgomery County Government, sent me a cordial reply to a nearly identical letter. So damaging was the defamation to which I was subjected that the police were convinced I must be insane to have written such a letter. The police had me transported to DC General Hospital in handcuffs for an emergency psychiatric examination. I was interviewed by a Dr. Martin at DC General (202 673 9319) (ECURA #224623) who determined that I did not require admission. I was released; no medication was administered, prescribed or recommended. Of course, the incident bolsters my Social Security disability claim. I have already received in excess of $100,000 in benefits.
The defamatory allegations about my character that arose at my last place of employment, which I have a legal duty to report to a prospective employer, may impose a constitutionally-impermissible burden on my ability to obtain employment. The allegations, made at my last place of employment, were presumably a substantial factor in SSA's disability determination. Despite the fact that the allegations were made at least 13 years ago, they remain material to my difficulties in my last employment situation.
Facts about my psychiatric treatment history since 1992 are peculiar, if not bizarre:
1. I was diagnosed with bipolar disorder in September 1992 as an outpatient at The George Washington University Medical Center Department of Psychiatry (Napoleon Cuenco, MD). The illness did not respond to lithium, and later underwent spontaneous remission.
2. I underwent comprehensive psychological testing at GW in May 1994 (William Fabian, Ph.D.). The testing did not yield a psychiatric diagnosis or disclose any psychotic thought processes. The testing yielded a valid profile. I was not on any meds at the time. The WAIS yielded a verbal IQ of 135 (99th percentile) and an overall IQ of 125 (above average).
3. In February 1996 I was diagnosed at GW (Dimitrios Georgopoulos, MD) with paranoid schizophrenia that later underwent spontaneous remission.
4. In March 1996 I took a psychological test called "The Wisconsin Scales of Psychosis Proneness" (Ramin Mojtabai, MD). Results were negative. I scored six non-perseverative errors -- one of the lowest possible scores, indicating high concept-formation ability. I was not on any meds at the time.
DC DEPT. OF MENTAL HEALTH
5. In July 1996 I entered the DC Dept. of Mental Health System. In January 1998 my psychiatrist, Dr. Singh (a resident) determined in consultation with his supervisor (Stephen Quint, MD) that I suffered from no diagnosis or condition for which meds were indicated.
6. In February 1999 Albert H. Taub, MD diagnosed me with paranoid schizophrenia, which later underwent spontaneous remission. I was later diagnosed with delusional disorder. That portion of my thinking termed delusional has not responded to three different antipsychotic meds: Zyprexa, Abilify, and Risperdal. I currently take Effexor for depression and Xanax for insomnia.
7. On March 16-17 2004 I had a minor bout of paranoid schizophrenia, so-called "24-hour" paranoid schizophrenia, diagnosed by Betsy Jane Cooper, MD. My treatment plan prepared on March 17, 2004 by my case manager/therapist, Dr. Israella Bash, records that Dr. Cooper diagnosed me with paranoid schizophrenia on March 17, 2004; Dr. Cooper prescribed Zyprexa on March 17, 2004, which I took for about a month. There was no change in my delusional thinking. My current diagnosis is delusional disorder. Again, Dr. Martin at DC General recommended no anti-psychotic meds during my emergency psychiatric assessment on October 12, 2004; I was not agitated on October 12, 2004--my blood pressure was normal, 130/85.
I am totally socially isolated. I have no friends. I haven't spoken to my only relative, an older sister, since February 1996.
I have created an imaginary friend who I write letters to periodically, Brian Patrick Brown, manager of the Cleveland Park Branch of the DC Library System. The enclosed disc contains some of my recent letters to Brian.
I like Brian a lot, and would welcome him as a real friend. How I wish I could be Brian's real buddy!
My therapist, Dr. Bash (DC Dept. of Mental Health) is at 202 576 8939. My psychiatrist, Henry Barbot, MD, is at 202 576 8946.
Thank you. The U.S. Attorney's Office in DC (202 514 7566) is familiar with this matter.
In closing, this will respectfully advise the Office of Chief of Police that I have a constitutionally-protected right to seek employment. Also, in order to invoke my rights under the Americans With Disabilities Act I must fully apprise a prospective employer of facts concerning my disability, including allegations (however defamatory) placed in controversy by Dennis M. Race, Esq., his employees, and the DC Office of Corporation Counsel. State action that impairs my right to seek employment or my right to protections under federal law may be legally actionable.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
APPENDIX A:
LETTER FROM OFFICE OF HUMAN RESOURCES, MONTGOMERY COUNTY GOVERNMENT [unsigned], DATED OCTOBER 14, 2004:
Dear Applicant:
Enclosed you will find the resume/application that you submitted to the Office of Human Resources. We are returning this resume/application because you must apply for a specific position.
In order to be considered for employment with Montgomery County Government, you must apply for an announced position. Information pertaining to current employment opportunities is available on our website at www.montgomerycountymd.gov - click on careers.
We appreciate your interest in Montgomery County and wish you continued success in your employment endeavors.
Sincerely,
Office of Human Resources
Montgomery County Government
APPENDIX B:
LETTER FROM GARY FREEDMAN TO MONTGOMERY COUNTY GOVERNMENT THAT IS VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL TO THE ONE I SENT TO A WASHINGTON, DC EMPLOYER, WHICH TRIGGERED A LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE BY TEN METRO DC POLICE OFFICERS ASSISTED BY FOUR FBI AGENTS. THE LETTER IS PURELY FACTUAL; IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY THREATS OF VIOLENCE BY ME. THE LETTER SUMMARIZES FALSE, MALICIOUS, AND DEFAMATORY ACCUSATIONS MADE ABOUT ME, AND IS EVIDENCE OF MASSIVE DEFAMATION BY ATTORNEY MANAGERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE LAW FIRM OF AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER AND FELD, AS WELL AS THE DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL (CHARLES L. REISCHEL, ESQ., DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL, APPELLATE DIVISION). NOTE THAT UNDER SUPREME COURT RULINGS, DEFAMATION BY A STATE AGENCY CONSTITUTES A FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION [WHERE THAT DEFAMATION INJURES A FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTY INTEREST SUCH AS THE RIGHT TO SEEK EMPLOYMENT. Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 712, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 1165-66, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976).]
[The following letter is stamped by the Montgomery County Government: RECEIVED - HUMAN RESOURCES - 04 OCT 13 A10:47 - MONTGOMERY COUNTY GOVERNMENT]
October 12, 2004
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008
Office of Human Resources
101 Monroe Street
7th Floor
Rockville, MD 20850
RE: EMPLOYMENT -- ARMED, MASS HOMICIDE -- REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF HARM
Dear Sir:
I am writing to you at the express direction of the Metropolitan District of Columbia Police Department (Officer J.E. Williams, Badge 1226, Second District, Washington, DC: 202 282 0070) that I actively seek employment consistent with my high intelligence as well as my professional and academic credentials.
I am specifically interested in the position of senior legislative attorney for the Montgomery County Council. I am an attorney, licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I hold an advanced degree (Master of Laws) in international trade law.
I am a disabled American, and I qualify for the legal protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I believe I have a legal duty to apprise you, as a prospective employer, of the following matters.
1. TERRORISTIC THREATS: On April 21, 2004 the Metro DC Police issued a protective order against me, on the petition of Brian Patrick Brown, Manager of the Cleveland Park Branch of the DC Public Library. Brian Brown alleged that I had made terrorist threats, in writing, against unspecified persons. The six-month order of protection prohibits my entering or loitering in the vicinity of said library, under penalty of arrest and prosecution. The investigating officer was the aforementioned Officer Williams. This will advise that at this time I continue to satisfy the prognostic criteria that were determined by the Metro DC Police in April 2004 to indicate that I am at significant risk of committing a crime of violence or arousing a reasonable apprehension of committing a crime of violence. It is likely that I will satisfy said criteria for committing a crime of violence or arousing a reasonable apprehension of same in the future event I obtain employment with The Montgomery County Council. On April 21, 2004 Officer Williams stated to me: "You seem OK to me right now, but what I'm worried about is what's going to happen a few days from now." Obviously, my future conduct was a substantial concern to the Metro DC Police. [Note that if I had made an actual threat I would have been arrested or transported to DC General Hospital for a forensic psychiatric examination. It is clear that what the MPDC did was to simply rubber-stamp a specious request made by a supervisory DC employee.]
2. VIOLENCE-RISK DETERMINATION: My former employer, Dennis M. Race, Esq. (202 887 4028), a senior management partner at the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, determined, in consultation with a psychiatrist, that my thinking was consistent with a psychiatric "disorder" that might be associated with a risk of violent behavior. See Freedman v. DC Dept. of Human Rights, 96-CV-961 (DCCA, Sept. 1998). [The psychiatrist did not evaluate me personally. There is no documentary evidence that Mr. Race, in fact, consulted a psychiatrist. Under applicable law, the employer had a burden of production, not a burden of persuasion -- a very low evidentiary threshold.] Mr. Race determined that my continued presence on the firm's premises might pose a risk of tort liability for the firm, and terminated my employment effective October 29, 1991. I have been unemployed and disabled under Social Security Administration eligibility rules since the date of the termination. My thinking, upon which Mr. Race's violence-risk determination was based, remains unchanged.
3. HOMICIDE-RISK DETERMINATION: Shortly after conferring with Mr. Race about his forensic psychiatric determination, my supervisor called a meeting of her employees to advise them that she had formed a reasonable apprehension that I might have been planning to kill her [an act of defamation]. The supervisor undertook [self-serving] protective measures [to give the appearance that she needed] to ensure her safety as well as that of her employees against a possible future homicidal assault. See Brief of Appellant. Mr. Race did not challenge appellant's brief. The supervisor was a senior non-attorney manager who reported directly to a member of the firm's management committee, R. Bruce MacLean, Esq. Mr. MacLean is the firm's current managing partner.
4. ARMED, MASS HOMICIDAL ASSAULT: The DC Corporation Counsel determined, sua sponte [relying on legally-irrelevant, "after-acquired" evidence], that my coworkers had formed genuine and credible fears that I might carry out an armed, mass homicidal assault on the firm's premises, and that said widespread fears of an armed, mass homicide were material to Mr. Race's termination decision. See Brief of Appellee, District of Columbia (citing statement of coworker [who was later terminated for gross misconduct] in record on appeal: "We're all afraid of you. We're all afraid you're going to buy a gun, bring it in and shoot everybody!"). At oral argument before the DC Court of Appeals, the Assistant Corporation Counsel declared to the Court, referencing the above record evidence, that I had "admitted" that my "coworkers were afraid of" me. Mr. Race did not challenge the District's handling of 96-CV-961.
5. MULTIPLE ARMED HOMICIDE UNDER FEDERAL LAW: On the evening of August 6, 1998 two Special Agents of the US Capitol Police (Threat Investigation Unit) forcibly entered my home, after frisking me for weapons, and proceeded to interrogate me about an allegation made by a DC employee that, earlier in the day, at the height of an enraged argument, I had threatened to kill two federal officers at point-blank range, execution style in the Capitol rotunda. Later investigation by Agent Steven Horan disclosed that said allegation was mistakenly based on a letter I had written to my psychiatrist (Stephen Quint, MD) and copied to a DC agency that factually summarized Mr. Race's violence-risk determination [an act of defamation]; my supervisor's homicide-risk determination [an act of defamation]; as well as the DC Corporation Counsel's determination that my coworkers had formed a reasonable apprehension that I might commit an armed, mass homicide [an act of defamation]. Though I was exonerated of making unlawful threats, Officer Horan photo ID'd me to all federal officers assigned to the U.S. Capitol Building as a protective measure.
6. POTENTIAL TERRORIST: On August 7, 1998 Agent Horan advised me that the federal government (unbeknownst to me) had previously placed my name on a national registry of potential terrorists because of a letter I had written in 1996 to a local psychiatric facility (The Meyer Clinic), inquiring into out-patient services. Said letter elaborated Mr. Race's violence-risk determination [an act of defamation] as well as my supervisor's homicide-risk determination [an act of defamation].
7. PRESIDENTIAL THREAT: On the afternoon of August 7, 1998 two Special Agents of the U.S. Secret Service placed me under house arrest because of concerns I might pose a risk of harm to President Clinton. The two Secret Service agents were part of a team of six federal special agents who had been assigned to interrogate me and secure my person, over a two-day period (August 6-7, 1998). Federal law enforcement concerns were aroused by a letter I had written and sent to a DC agency that discussed the federal civil rights implications of the DC Corporation Counsel's handling of 96-CV-961. I had sent an identical letter to U.S. Senator Arlen Specter (R.-PA.) on Capitol Hill, who responded with a cordial and personalized reply. Senator Specter, a former prosecutor, saw absolutely nothing threatening about the letter I had written, much less did he see the need to assign six federal special agents to interrogate me and secure my person.
8. POSSIBLE DOCUMENT FORGERY: The District speculates that I might have filed an inauthentic letter with a DC agency (purportedly written by a psychiatrist) in order to invidiously deny competent forensic psychiatric evidence proffered by Mr. Race under oath that showed I had been reasonably determined to be potentially violent. Presumably, according to the District [contrary to well-established case law], I might have forged a psychiatrist's signature and/or fabricated her letterhead. The U.S. Attorney's Office in DC has not yet issued me a notice of an intent to prosecute me.
9. UNLAWFUL SEXUAL THOUGHTS: The DC Corporation Counsel determined, sua sponte [relying on legally-irrelevant, "after-acquired" evidence], that private, undisclosed sexual thoughts I experienced on April 13, 1990 concerning the activity of masturbation were material to Mr. Race's termination decision as well as to Mr. Race's violence-risk determination. Mr. Race did not challenge the District's brief. I admit to having sexual thoughts in the workplace.
I look forward to hearing from you. Please send my regards to Doug Gansler, Esq. He's a bit of an attention seeker, but he knows what he's talking about.
Sincerely,
[signed]
Gary Freedman
PA ATTY ID 41032
On January 15, 2010 the U.S. Department of Justice sent two U.S. Marshals to my residence to direct me, under penalty of criminal prosecution, not to contact Mr. Huvelle again. Both Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. and DOJ Criminal Division Chief Lanny Breuer were law partners of Mr. Huvelle's before they assumed their current positions at DOJ.
Mr. Huvelle did not personally advise me not to contact him.
-----Original Message-----
From: garfreed@aim.com
To: Jeffrey Huvelle at Covington & Burling
Sent: Thu, Jun 4, 2009 2:11 pm
Subject: Fwd: Civil Rights Complaint
Mr. Huvelle:
I forward an email I received from former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh (1988-91). Apparently, Governor Thornburgh did not believe my civil rights complaint was frivolous or nonmeritorious.
GARY FREEDMAN, ESQ.
202 362 7064
_____________________________________________
Dear Mr. Freedman:
Thank you for your inquiry. Upon review of this matter, I find that we are not equipped to handle your case on a pro bono basis.
Sincerely,
Dick Thornburgh
________________
Dick Thornburgh
K&L Gates LLP
1601 K Street, N.W.
7th Floor
Washington, DC 20006-1600
Phone: 202-778-9080
Fax: 202-778-9100
email: dick.thornburgh@klgates.com
-----Original Message-----
From: garfreed@aim.com
To: redacted@cov.com
Sent: Wed, 13 May 2009 1:14 pm
Subject: Fwd: Civil Rights Complaint
Mr. Huvelle
Covington & Burling
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. Huvelle:
I am writing to inquire into pro bono representation in the following employment discrimination/federal civil rights matter. The pertinent issues are detailed in the attached email that I have forwarded to the U.S. Department of Justice. As a threshold issue, I seek counsel on how to proceed with this matter: either through the Justice Department, Civil Rights Division or a civil lawsuit. I understand that Covgington & Burling has a substantial pro bono practice and that you are experienced in employment law.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you or someone at Covington and Burling.
GARY FREEDMAN
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apartment 136
Washington, DC 20008
202 362-7064
-----Original Message-----
From: garfreed@aim.com
To: askDOJ@usdoj.gov
Sent: Mon, 11 May 2009 2:56 pm
Subject: Civil Rights Complaint
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Dear Sir:
I was a victim of a federal civil rights violation committed by the Metropolitan Police of the District of Columbia (MPDC), on October 12, 2004. The violation is a continuing one.
I am prevented from seeking employment and invoking my rights as a disabled American because of intimidation by the MPDC. If I disclose the full nature of my disability to a prospective employer I risk arrest or commitment to a mental hospital.
The following letter details the matter.
November 2, 2004
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apartment 136
Washington, DC 20008
The Honorable Charles Ramsey
Chief of Police
300 Indiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC
RE: Mental Disability -- Discrimination -- Police/FBI
Dear Chief Ramsey:
I am writing to you, Chief Ramsey, to apprise the Office of Chief of Police of a serious police matter that arose in the second district on October 12, 2004. Underlying the police matter is an issue of discrimination involving the DC Office of Corporation Counsel.
I forwarded a letter to the Washington Field Office of the FBI concerning the following matter on October 23, 2004.
I have been unemployed and disabled under U.S. Social Security Administration eligibility rules since October 29, 1991. My Social Security no. is xxx xx xxxx.
I am a patient of the DC Department of Mental Health (Patient no. xxxxxx). I receive psychotropic medications from the DC Department of Mental Health.
I was employed as a paralegal at the Washington, DC law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld until October 29, 1991. Dennis M. Race, Esq. (202 887 4028), a senior management partner, terminated my employment upon determining in consultation with a psychiatrist (who did not examine me personally) that there were reasonable concerns about my mental health and stability that rendered me unsuitable for employment. Freedman v. DC Dept. of Human Rights, 96-CV-961 (DCCA, Sept. 1998). The fact that I had received "above average or outstanding" job performance ratings during my three-and-one-half-year tenure was not disputed; also undisputed was the fact that my personnel file contained no record of reprimands, oral or written.
SSA granted my claim for benefits (in August 1993) in part based on Mr. Race's sworn interrogatory responses filed with the DC Dept. of Human Rights (in May 1992); SSA's disability determination date, October 29, 1991, was the date of job termination.
There is substantial evidence that Mr. Race's interrogatory responses were perjured; that Mr. Race did not in fact consult with the psychiatrist, Gertrude R. Ticho, MD [now deceased], a physician licensed to practice in the District of Columbia. See Brief of Appellant, 96-CV-961. Additionally, I possess tape recordings of two telephone conversations in which Dr. Ticho denies any contacts or acquaintance with Dennis M. Race. Officer J.E. Williams, Badge 1226, Second District, Metro DC Police is in possession of copies of those conversations (202 282 0070).
I was seriously defamed by Mr. Race, my supervisor, a coworker (who was subsequently terminated for gross misconduct), and the DC Office of Corporation Counsel. In the past several months I have been sending out job inquiries to employers, which summarize allegations made against me by the above-named parties. On October 12, 2004 ten (10) Metro DC Police officers (including a second district supervisor) plus four (4) FBI agents showed up at my residence because of a letter I sent to an employer, who had contacted the police in alarm. The letter was purely factual; several prospective employers, including The Montgomery County Government, sent me a cordial reply to a nearly identical letter. So damaging was the defamation to which I was subjected that the police were convinced I must be insane to have written such a letter. The police had me transported to DC General Hospital in handcuffs for an emergency psychiatric examination. I was interviewed by a Dr. Martin at DC General (202 673 9319) (ECURA #224623) who determined that I did not require admission. I was released; no medication was administered, prescribed or recommended. Of course, the incident bolsters my Social Security disability claim. I have already received in excess of $100,000 in benefits.
The defamatory allegations about my character that arose at my last place of employment, which I have a legal duty to report to a prospective employer, may impose a constitutionally-impermissible burden on my ability to obtain employment. The allegations, made at my last place of employment, were presumably a substantial factor in SSA's disability determination. Despite the fact that the allegations were made at least 13 years ago, they remain material to my difficulties in my last employment situation.
Facts about my psychiatric treatment history since 1992 are peculiar, if not bizarre:
1. I was diagnosed with bipolar disorder in September 1992 as an outpatient at The George Washington University Medical Center Department of Psychiatry (Napoleon Cuenco, MD). The illness did not respond to lithium, and later underwent spontaneous remission.
2. I underwent comprehensive psychological testing at GW in May 1994 (William Fabian, Ph.D.). The testing did not yield a psychiatric diagnosis or disclose any psychotic thought processes. The testing yielded a valid profile. I was not on any meds at the time. The WAIS yielded a verbal IQ of 135 (99th percentile) and an overall IQ of 125 (above average).
3. In February 1996 I was diagnosed at GW (Dimitrios Georgopoulos, MD) with paranoid schizophrenia that later underwent spontaneous remission.
4. In March 1996 I took a psychological test called "The Wisconsin Scales of Psychosis Proneness" (Ramin Mojtabai, MD). Results were negative. I scored six non-perseverative errors -- one of the lowest possible scores, indicating high concept-formation ability. I was not on any meds at the time.
DC DEPT. OF MENTAL HEALTH
5. In July 1996 I entered the DC Dept. of Mental Health System. In January 1998 my psychiatrist, Dr. Singh (a resident) determined in consultation with his supervisor (Stephen Quint, MD) that I suffered from no diagnosis or condition for which meds were indicated.
6. In February 1999 Albert H. Taub, MD diagnosed me with paranoid schizophrenia, which later underwent spontaneous remission. I was later diagnosed with delusional disorder. That portion of my thinking termed delusional has not responded to three different antipsychotic meds: Zyprexa, Abilify, and Risperdal. I currently take Effexor for depression and Xanax for insomnia.
7. On March 16-17 2004 I had a minor bout of paranoid schizophrenia, so-called "24-hour" paranoid schizophrenia, diagnosed by Betsy Jane Cooper, MD. My treatment plan prepared on March 17, 2004 by my case manager/therapist, Dr. Israella Bash, records that Dr. Cooper diagnosed me with paranoid schizophrenia on March 17, 2004; Dr. Cooper prescribed Zyprexa on March 17, 2004, which I took for about a month. There was no change in my delusional thinking. My current diagnosis is delusional disorder. Again, Dr. Martin at DC General recommended no anti-psychotic meds during my emergency psychiatric assessment on October 12, 2004; I was not agitated on October 12, 2004--my blood pressure was normal, 130/85.
I am totally socially isolated. I have no friends. I haven't spoken to my only relative, an older sister, since February 1996.
I have created an imaginary friend who I write letters to periodically, Brian Patrick Brown, manager of the Cleveland Park Branch of the DC Library System. The enclosed disc contains some of my recent letters to Brian.
I like Brian a lot, and would welcome him as a real friend. How I wish I could be Brian's real buddy!
My therapist, Dr. Bash (DC Dept. of Mental Health) is at 202 576 8939. My psychiatrist, Henry Barbot, MD, is at 202 576 8946.
Thank you. The U.S. Attorney's Office in DC (202 514 7566) is familiar with this matter.
In closing, this will respectfully advise the Office of Chief of Police that I have a constitutionally-protected right to seek employment. Also, in order to invoke my rights under the Americans With Disabilities Act I must fully apprise a prospective employer of facts concerning my disability, including allegations (however defamatory) placed in controversy by Dennis M. Race, Esq., his employees, and the DC Office of Corporation Counsel. State action that impairs my right to seek employment or my right to protections under federal law may be legally actionable.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
APPENDIX A:
LETTER FROM OFFICE OF HUMAN RESOURCES, MONTGOMERY COUNTY GOVERNMENT [unsigned], DATED OCTOBER 14, 2004:
Dear Applicant:
Enclosed you will find the resume/application that you submitted to the Office of Human Resources. We are returning this resume/application because you must apply for a specific position.
In order to be considered for employment with Montgomery County Government, you must apply for an announced position. Information pertaining to current employment opportunities is available on our website at www.montgomerycountymd.gov - click on careers.
We appreciate your interest in Montgomery County and wish you continued success in your employment endeavors.
Sincerely,
Office of Human Resources
Montgomery County Government
APPENDIX B:
LETTER FROM GARY FREEDMAN TO MONTGOMERY COUNTY GOVERNMENT THAT IS VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL TO THE ONE I SENT TO A WASHINGTON, DC EMPLOYER, WHICH TRIGGERED A LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE BY TEN METRO DC POLICE OFFICERS ASSISTED BY FOUR FBI AGENTS. THE LETTER IS PURELY FACTUAL; IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY THREATS OF VIOLENCE BY ME. THE LETTER SUMMARIZES FALSE, MALICIOUS, AND DEFAMATORY ACCUSATIONS MADE ABOUT ME, AND IS EVIDENCE OF MASSIVE DEFAMATION BY ATTORNEY MANAGERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE LAW FIRM OF AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER AND FELD, AS WELL AS THE DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL (CHARLES L. REISCHEL, ESQ., DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL, APPELLATE DIVISION). NOTE THAT UNDER SUPREME COURT RULINGS, DEFAMATION BY A STATE AGENCY CONSTITUTES A FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION [WHERE THAT DEFAMATION INJURES A FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTY INTEREST SUCH AS THE RIGHT TO SEEK EMPLOYMENT. Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 712, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 1165-66, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976).]
[The following letter is stamped by the Montgomery County Government: RECEIVED - HUMAN RESOURCES - 04 OCT 13 A10:47 - MONTGOMERY COUNTY GOVERNMENT]
October 12, 2004
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008
Office of Human Resources
101 Monroe Street
7th Floor
Rockville, MD 20850
RE: EMPLOYMENT -- ARMED, MASS HOMICIDE -- REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF HARM
Dear Sir:
I am writing to you at the express direction of the Metropolitan District of Columbia Police Department (Officer J.E. Williams, Badge 1226, Second District, Washington, DC: 202 282 0070) that I actively seek employment consistent with my high intelligence as well as my professional and academic credentials.
I am specifically interested in the position of senior legislative attorney for the Montgomery County Council. I am an attorney, licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I hold an advanced degree (Master of Laws) in international trade law.
I am a disabled American, and I qualify for the legal protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I believe I have a legal duty to apprise you, as a prospective employer, of the following matters.
1. TERRORISTIC THREATS: On April 21, 2004 the Metro DC Police issued a protective order against me, on the petition of Brian Patrick Brown, Manager of the Cleveland Park Branch of the DC Public Library. Brian Brown alleged that I had made terrorist threats, in writing, against unspecified persons. The six-month order of protection prohibits my entering or loitering in the vicinity of said library, under penalty of arrest and prosecution. The investigating officer was the aforementioned Officer Williams. This will advise that at this time I continue to satisfy the prognostic criteria that were determined by the Metro DC Police in April 2004 to indicate that I am at significant risk of committing a crime of violence or arousing a reasonable apprehension of committing a crime of violence. It is likely that I will satisfy said criteria for committing a crime of violence or arousing a reasonable apprehension of same in the future event I obtain employment with The Montgomery County Council. On April 21, 2004 Officer Williams stated to me: "You seem OK to me right now, but what I'm worried about is what's going to happen a few days from now." Obviously, my future conduct was a substantial concern to the Metro DC Police. [Note that if I had made an actual threat I would have been arrested or transported to DC General Hospital for a forensic psychiatric examination. It is clear that what the MPDC did was to simply rubber-stamp a specious request made by a supervisory DC employee.]
2. VIOLENCE-RISK DETERMINATION: My former employer, Dennis M. Race, Esq. (202 887 4028), a senior management partner at the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, determined, in consultation with a psychiatrist, that my thinking was consistent with a psychiatric "disorder" that might be associated with a risk of violent behavior. See Freedman v. DC Dept. of Human Rights, 96-CV-961 (DCCA, Sept. 1998). [The psychiatrist did not evaluate me personally. There is no documentary evidence that Mr. Race, in fact, consulted a psychiatrist. Under applicable law, the employer had a burden of production, not a burden of persuasion -- a very low evidentiary threshold.] Mr. Race determined that my continued presence on the firm's premises might pose a risk of tort liability for the firm, and terminated my employment effective October 29, 1991. I have been unemployed and disabled under Social Security Administration eligibility rules since the date of the termination. My thinking, upon which Mr. Race's violence-risk determination was based, remains unchanged.
3. HOMICIDE-RISK DETERMINATION: Shortly after conferring with Mr. Race about his forensic psychiatric determination, my supervisor called a meeting of her employees to advise them that she had formed a reasonable apprehension that I might have been planning to kill her [an act of defamation]. The supervisor undertook [self-serving] protective measures [to give the appearance that she needed] to ensure her safety as well as that of her employees against a possible future homicidal assault. See Brief of Appellant. Mr. Race did not challenge appellant's brief. The supervisor was a senior non-attorney manager who reported directly to a member of the firm's management committee, R. Bruce MacLean, Esq. Mr. MacLean is the firm's current managing partner.
4. ARMED, MASS HOMICIDAL ASSAULT: The DC Corporation Counsel determined, sua sponte [relying on legally-irrelevant, "after-acquired" evidence], that my coworkers had formed genuine and credible fears that I might carry out an armed, mass homicidal assault on the firm's premises, and that said widespread fears of an armed, mass homicide were material to Mr. Race's termination decision. See Brief of Appellee, District of Columbia (citing statement of coworker [who was later terminated for gross misconduct] in record on appeal: "We're all afraid of you. We're all afraid you're going to buy a gun, bring it in and shoot everybody!"). At oral argument before the DC Court of Appeals, the Assistant Corporation Counsel declared to the Court, referencing the above record evidence, that I had "admitted" that my "coworkers were afraid of" me. Mr. Race did not challenge the District's handling of 96-CV-961.
5. MULTIPLE ARMED HOMICIDE UNDER FEDERAL LAW: On the evening of August 6, 1998 two Special Agents of the US Capitol Police (Threat Investigation Unit) forcibly entered my home, after frisking me for weapons, and proceeded to interrogate me about an allegation made by a DC employee that, earlier in the day, at the height of an enraged argument, I had threatened to kill two federal officers at point-blank range, execution style in the Capitol rotunda. Later investigation by Agent Steven Horan disclosed that said allegation was mistakenly based on a letter I had written to my psychiatrist (Stephen Quint, MD) and copied to a DC agency that factually summarized Mr. Race's violence-risk determination [an act of defamation]; my supervisor's homicide-risk determination [an act of defamation]; as well as the DC Corporation Counsel's determination that my coworkers had formed a reasonable apprehension that I might commit an armed, mass homicide [an act of defamation]. Though I was exonerated of making unlawful threats, Officer Horan photo ID'd me to all federal officers assigned to the U.S. Capitol Building as a protective measure.
6. POTENTIAL TERRORIST: On August 7, 1998 Agent Horan advised me that the federal government (unbeknownst to me) had previously placed my name on a national registry of potential terrorists because of a letter I had written in 1996 to a local psychiatric facility (The Meyer Clinic), inquiring into out-patient services. Said letter elaborated Mr. Race's violence-risk determination [an act of defamation] as well as my supervisor's homicide-risk determination [an act of defamation].
7. PRESIDENTIAL THREAT: On the afternoon of August 7, 1998 two Special Agents of the U.S. Secret Service placed me under house arrest because of concerns I might pose a risk of harm to President Clinton. The two Secret Service agents were part of a team of six federal special agents who had been assigned to interrogate me and secure my person, over a two-day period (August 6-7, 1998). Federal law enforcement concerns were aroused by a letter I had written and sent to a DC agency that discussed the federal civil rights implications of the DC Corporation Counsel's handling of 96-CV-961. I had sent an identical letter to U.S. Senator Arlen Specter (R.-PA.) on Capitol Hill, who responded with a cordial and personalized reply. Senator Specter, a former prosecutor, saw absolutely nothing threatening about the letter I had written, much less did he see the need to assign six federal special agents to interrogate me and secure my person.
8. POSSIBLE DOCUMENT FORGERY: The District speculates that I might have filed an inauthentic letter with a DC agency (purportedly written by a psychiatrist) in order to invidiously deny competent forensic psychiatric evidence proffered by Mr. Race under oath that showed I had been reasonably determined to be potentially violent. Presumably, according to the District [contrary to well-established case law], I might have forged a psychiatrist's signature and/or fabricated her letterhead. The U.S. Attorney's Office in DC has not yet issued me a notice of an intent to prosecute me.
9. UNLAWFUL SEXUAL THOUGHTS: The DC Corporation Counsel determined, sua sponte [relying on legally-irrelevant, "after-acquired" evidence], that private, undisclosed sexual thoughts I experienced on April 13, 1990 concerning the activity of masturbation were material to Mr. Race's termination decision as well as to Mr. Race's violence-risk determination. Mr. Race did not challenge the District's brief. I admit to having sexual thoughts in the workplace.
I look forward to hearing from you. Please send my regards to Doug Gansler, Esq. He's a bit of an attention seeker, but he knows what he's talking about.
Sincerely,
[signed]
Gary Freedman
PA ATTY ID 41032
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Covington & Burling Responds to Representation Solicitation
Mr. Freedman -
Thank
you for contacting Covington to inquire about the availability of pro
bono assistance. Unfortunately, the firm receives more requests for its
pro bono resources than it can accommodate and is not in a position to
assist with your matter. You may wish to visit this website: http://www.lawhelp.org/
You may find that it has helpful information about your legal issues,
as well as how to find an attorney, including possible referrals for
free services (usually depending on your financial eligibility).
I wish you the best in finding legal help.
Sincerely,
Kelly Voss202.662.6658
From: Gary Freedman [mailto:garfreed@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 11:17 AM
To: Voss, Kelly
Subject: worker's comp claim
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 11:17 AM
To: Voss, Kelly
Subject: worker's comp claim
Kelly D. Voss, Esq.
Covington & Burling
Washington, DC
Covington & Burling
Washington, DC
I am writing to inquire whether Covington & Burling would consent to represent me pro bono
in the following matter. I intend to file a worker's compensation
claim regarding injuries I sustained during my employment at Akin Gump
(1988-1991). The following email message I sent to Dennis Race will
explain the claim in detail. If you cannot represent me, perhaps you
could refer me to another DC attorney?
Thank you.
Gary Freedman
Washington, DC
202 362 7064
202 362 7064
Friday, January 21, 2011
DOJ Interview: Prior Perceptions that Colored My Interpretation
The way we psychologically experience and process events depends on our past experiences and perceptions. Each of our experiences has some relation to previous events and perceptions. There is no event in our lives that is written on a blank slate.
On Friday January 15, 2010 I was interviewed at my residence by two officers from the U.S. Department of Justice about a law enforcement matter that concerned the spouse of a partner at the law firm of Covington & Burling. I had started to blog about my experiences as an employee of the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, where I had worked as a paralegal from 1988-1991, during the fall of 2009.
The officers seemed oddly curious about the blog in general. They wanted to know what it was that motivated me to write a blog and what it was that I was trying to accomplish with my blog.
The officers' interest in my blog in general called to mind a collection of previous perceptions from the fall of 2009. My perceptions of the officers' behaviors and statements on January 15, 2010 were colored by previous clues in the environment concerning my blog.
1. I subscribe to a service that tells me who logs onto my blog, statcounter.com. In the fall of 2009 persons at Akin Gump were logging onto my blog every day: sometimes several times a day. I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say that Akin Gump seemed obsessively preoccupied with what I was posting. Not only were persons from the Washington, D.C. office reading my blog, but also persons at the Dallas office, the Austin office, and even the London office were logging onto the blog.
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2011/02/akin-gump-dc-obsessive-interest-in-my.html
2. The librarian Barbara Gauntt at the Cleveland Park Neighborhood Library, which I visit every day, seemed overstimulated in some way in late 2009. Barbara Gauntt had assumed the position of temporary branch manager after Brian Brown retired in the fall of 2009. There were days when Barbara Gauntt seemed absolutely discombobulated. She used words and phrases that seemed to be related to my blogging activity.
3. During telephone conversations I had with my sister she seemed increasingly agitated over the weeks and months of the fall of 2009. In about December 2009 I recall one conversation in which I picked up a stream of symbolic references to my mother. My mother had died in early January 1980, almost 30 years earlier. I formed the tentative theory that my sister had been asked by somebody, "Do you have any idea why your brother would be blogging about these matters at this particular time? What would motivate your brother to write these things on the Internet?" I formed the belief that my sister responded, "January 2010 will be the 30th anniversary of my mother's death. Maybe he's reacting to that."
4. Beginning in the fall of 2009 someone at the U.S. Department of Justice logged onto my blog almost every day. I told my psychiatrist Abbas Jama, M.D. about that.
Also, someone at the law firm of Covington & Burling logged onto my blog frequently. Both the Attorney General Eric H. Holder and the head of the criminal division at DOJ, Lanny Breuer, are former Covington & Burling partners. Remember that the DOJ officers who interviewed me on January 15, 2010 were concerned about the spouse of a Covington & Burling partner.
5. The day after Thanksgiving, Friday November 27, 2009, someone with a Department of Justice IP address was logged onto my blog all morning, from about 9:30 am until about 12:30 pm, reading post after post.
When I was interviewed on January 15, 2010 by DOJ officers my perception of that interview was influenced by earlier perceptions concerning my blog.
On Friday January 15, 2010 I was interviewed at my residence by two officers from the U.S. Department of Justice about a law enforcement matter that concerned the spouse of a partner at the law firm of Covington & Burling. I had started to blog about my experiences as an employee of the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, where I had worked as a paralegal from 1988-1991, during the fall of 2009.
The officers seemed oddly curious about the blog in general. They wanted to know what it was that motivated me to write a blog and what it was that I was trying to accomplish with my blog.
The officers' interest in my blog in general called to mind a collection of previous perceptions from the fall of 2009. My perceptions of the officers' behaviors and statements on January 15, 2010 were colored by previous clues in the environment concerning my blog.
1. I subscribe to a service that tells me who logs onto my blog, statcounter.com. In the fall of 2009 persons at Akin Gump were logging onto my blog every day: sometimes several times a day. I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say that Akin Gump seemed obsessively preoccupied with what I was posting. Not only were persons from the Washington, D.C. office reading my blog, but also persons at the Dallas office, the Austin office, and even the London office were logging onto the blog.
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2011/02/akin-gump-dc-obsessive-interest-in-my.html
2. The librarian Barbara Gauntt at the Cleveland Park Neighborhood Library, which I visit every day, seemed overstimulated in some way in late 2009. Barbara Gauntt had assumed the position of temporary branch manager after Brian Brown retired in the fall of 2009. There were days when Barbara Gauntt seemed absolutely discombobulated. She used words and phrases that seemed to be related to my blogging activity.
3. During telephone conversations I had with my sister she seemed increasingly agitated over the weeks and months of the fall of 2009. In about December 2009 I recall one conversation in which I picked up a stream of symbolic references to my mother. My mother had died in early January 1980, almost 30 years earlier. I formed the tentative theory that my sister had been asked by somebody, "Do you have any idea why your brother would be blogging about these matters at this particular time? What would motivate your brother to write these things on the Internet?" I formed the belief that my sister responded, "January 2010 will be the 30th anniversary of my mother's death. Maybe he's reacting to that."
4. Beginning in the fall of 2009 someone at the U.S. Department of Justice logged onto my blog almost every day. I told my psychiatrist Abbas Jama, M.D. about that.
Also, someone at the law firm of Covington & Burling logged onto my blog frequently. Both the Attorney General Eric H. Holder and the head of the criminal division at DOJ, Lanny Breuer, are former Covington & Burling partners. Remember that the DOJ officers who interviewed me on January 15, 2010 were concerned about the spouse of a Covington & Burling partner.
5. The day after Thanksgiving, Friday November 27, 2009, someone with a Department of Justice IP address was logged onto my blog all morning, from about 9:30 am until about 12:30 pm, reading post after post.
When I was interviewed on January 15, 2010 by DOJ officers my perception of that interview was influenced by earlier perceptions concerning my blog.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
A Case for the Inspector General of the United States?
On Friday January 15, 2010 two Deputy U.S. Marshals interviewed me at my home about a law enforcement matter. The interview was suspect. The officers wanted to know what I might talk about in a men's room, what grocery stores I shop at, whether I had attended the opera recently, and -- whether I was looking for a spiritual connection in life! A spiritual connection? I don't even know what a spiritual connection is! At the conclusion of the interview one Deputy Marshal asked me to autograph a book I had written and had given to him as a keepsake. He asked me to address the book to "Derrick."
Did a political appointee in the Justice Department use the U.S. Marshal Service in January 2010 to intimidate me, infringe on my civil rights, and possibly further a conspiracy to obstruct Justice?
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2010/06/america-wants-to-know_26.html
I have been writing a blog, My Daily Struggles, that discusses the circumstances of my job termination by the D.C. law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld. Akin Gump may view my blog as an embarrassment. On October 30, 1991, the day after I was terminated, a senior partner at the firm cautioned me not to write anything embarrassing about the firm. Akin Gump has connections to the highest levels of the Justice Department, including the Attorney General himself as well as the head of the Criminal Division: both former partners at the law firm of Covington & Burling. Incidentally, it was a former Covington & Burling partner who, as D.C. Corporation Counsel, filed pleadings in my lawsuit against Akin Gump in 1996 that defended Akin Gump's alleged determination that I was mentally ill, potentially violent and unfit for employment. In the late 1990s, a senior partner at Akin Gump allegedly tried to buy the silence of a White House intern who had incriminating evidence that might lead to the impeachment of the President of the United States.
Who was the individual in the Justice Department who was reading my blog every day since November 2009, and who read my blog all morning (from 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM) on the Friday following Thanksgiving? Who in the Justice Department was coordinating his activities with someone at the law firm of Covington & Burling who was also reading my blog since November 2009?
America wants to know!
The FBI or the Inspector General needs to contact statcounter.com to find out who was reading my blog at DOJ and Covington & Burling since November 2009. Who was it at DOJ who was reading my blog all morning the Friday after Thanksgiving 2009? Statcounter.com must retain this information.
Did a political appointee in the Justice Department use the U.S. Marshal Service in January 2010 to intimidate me, infringe on my civil rights, and possibly further a conspiracy to obstruct Justice?
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2010/06/america-wants-to-know_26.html
I have been writing a blog, My Daily Struggles, that discusses the circumstances of my job termination by the D.C. law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld. Akin Gump may view my blog as an embarrassment. On October 30, 1991, the day after I was terminated, a senior partner at the firm cautioned me not to write anything embarrassing about the firm. Akin Gump has connections to the highest levels of the Justice Department, including the Attorney General himself as well as the head of the Criminal Division: both former partners at the law firm of Covington & Burling. Incidentally, it was a former Covington & Burling partner who, as D.C. Corporation Counsel, filed pleadings in my lawsuit against Akin Gump in 1996 that defended Akin Gump's alleged determination that I was mentally ill, potentially violent and unfit for employment. In the late 1990s, a senior partner at Akin Gump allegedly tried to buy the silence of a White House intern who had incriminating evidence that might lead to the impeachment of the President of the United States.
Who was the individual in the Justice Department who was reading my blog every day since November 2009, and who read my blog all morning (from 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM) on the Friday following Thanksgiving? Who in the Justice Department was coordinating his activities with someone at the law firm of Covington & Burling who was also reading my blog since November 2009?
America wants to know!
The FBI or the Inspector General needs to contact statcounter.com to find out who was reading my blog at DOJ and Covington & Burling since November 2009. Who was it at DOJ who was reading my blog all morning the Friday after Thanksgiving 2009? Statcounter.com must retain this information.
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
What Did Attorney General Eric Holder Know And When Did He Know It?
The following is a lengthy email message that I sent to Jeffrey G. Huvelle, a former law partner of current U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. on July 22, 2005 at the law firm of Covington & Burling in Washington, DC. Did the communication put Mr. Holder on notice that the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld was engaged in illegal activity that warranted a criminal inquiry? Charles F.C. Ruff, Esq. (now deceased) is a former law partner at Covington & Burling.
On January 15, 2010 the U.S. Department of Justice sent two Deputy U.S. Marshals to my residence to direct me, under penalty of criminal prosecution, not to contact Mr. Huvelle again. Mr. Huvelle never directed me personally not to contact him. Both Attorney General Eric Holder and DOJ Criminal Division Chief Lanny Breuer are former law partners of Mr. Huvelle's at Covington & Burling.
-----Original Message-----
From: GarFreed@netscape.net
To: Jeffrey G. Huvelle at Covington & Burling
Sent: Fri, Jul 22, 2005 2:47 pm
Subject: CHARLES RUFF -- ETHICALLY QUESTIONABLE CONDUCT -- CIVIL RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
The following letter discusses the federal civil rights implications of Charles Ruff's (and his successor's) use of legally-irrelevant evidence in Freedman v. DC Department of Human Rights, DC Sup. Ct. and DC Court of Appeals, 96-CV-961.
Please send my regards to Eric H. Holder, Jr., Esq. He is someone I admire a great deal.
GARY FREEDMAN
_______________________________________________________
November 2, 2004
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008
The Honorable Charles Ramsey
Chief of Police
300 Indiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC
RE: Mental Disability -- Discrimination -- Police/FBI
RE: Mental Disability -- Discrimination -- Police/FBI
Dear Chief Ramsey:
I am writing to you, Chief Ramsey, to apprise the Office of Chief of Police of a serious police matter that arose in the second district on October 12, 2004. Underlying the police matter is an issue of discrimination involving the DC Office of Corporation Counsel.
I forwarded a letter to the Washington Field Office of the FBI concerning the following matter on October 23, 2004.
I have been unemployed and disabled under U.S. Social Security Administration eligibility rules since October 29, 1991. My Social Security no. is xxx xx xxxx.
I am a patient of the DC Department of Mental Health (Patient no. xxxxxx). I receive psychotropic medications from the DC Department of Mental Health.
I was employed as a paralegal at the Washington, DC law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld until October 29, 1991. Dennis M. Race, Esq. (202 887 4028), a senior management partner, terminated my employment upon determining in consultation with a psychiatrist (who did not examine me personally) that there were reasonable concerns about my mental health and stability that rendered me unsuitable for employment. Freedman v. DC Dept. of Human Rights, 96-CV-961 (DCCA, Sept. 1998). The fact that I had received "above average or outstanding" job performance ratings during my three-and-one-half-year tenure was not disputed; also undisputed was the fact that my personnel file contained no record of reprimands, oral or written.
SSA granted my claim for benefits (in August 1993) in part based on Mr. Race's sworn interrogatory responses filed with the DC Dept. of Human Rights (in May 1992); SSA's disability determination date, October 29, 1991, was the date of job termination.
There is substantial evidence that Mr. Race's interrogatory responses were perjured; that Mr. Race did not in fact consult with the psychiatrist, Gertrude R. Ticho, MD [now deceased], a physician licensed to practice in the District of Columbia. See Brief of Appellant, 96-CV-961. Additionally, I possess tape recordings of two telephone conversations in which Dr. Ticho denies any contacts or acquaintance with Dennis M. Race. Officer J.E. Williams, Badge 1226, Second District, Metro DC Police is in possession of copies of those conversations (202 282 0070).
I was seriously defamed by Mr. Race, my supervisor, a coworker (who was subsequently terminated for gross misconduct), and the DC Office of Corporation Counsel. In the past several months I have been sending out job inquiries to employers, which summarize allegations made against me by the above-named parties. On October 12, 2004 ten (10) Metro DC Police officers (including a second district supervisor) plus four (4) FBI agents showed up at my residence because of a letter I sent to an employer, who had contacted the police in alarm. The letter was purely factual; several prospective employers, including The Montgomery County Government, sent me a cordial reply to a nearly identical letter. So damaging was the defamation to which I was subjected that the police were convinced I must be insane to have written such a letter. The police had me transported to DC General Hospital in handcuffs for an emergency psychiatric examination. I was interviewed by a Dr. Martin at DC General (202 673 9319) (ECURA #224623) who determined that I did not require admission. I was released; no medication was administered, prescribed or recommended. Of course, the incident bolsters my Social Security disability claim. I have already received in excess of $100,000 in benefits.
The defamatory allegations about my character that arose at my last place of employment, which I have a legal duty to report to a prospective employer, may impose a constitutionally-impermissible burden on my ability to obtain employment. The allegations, made at my last place of employment, were presumably a substantial factor in SSA's disability determination. Despite the fact that the allegations were made at least 13 years ago, they remain material to my difficulties in my last employment situation.
Facts about my psychiatric treatment history since 1992 are peculiar, if not bizarre:
1. I was diagnosed with bipolar disorder in September 1992 as an outpatient at The George Washington University Medical Center Department of Psychiatry (Napoleon Cuenco, MD). The illness did not respond to lithium, and later underwent spontaneous remission.
2. I underwent comprehensive psychological testing at GW in May 1994 (William Fabian, Ph.D.). The testing did not yield a psychiatric diagnosis or disclose any psychotic thought processes. The testing yielded a valid profile. I was not on any meds at the time. The WAIS yielded a verbal IQ of 135 (99th percentile) and an overall IQ of 125 (above average).
3. In February 1996 I was diagnosed at GW (Dimitrios Georgopoulos, MD) with paranoid schizophrenia that later underwent spontaneous remission.
4. In March 1996 I took a psychological test called "The Wisconsin Scales of Psychosis Proneness" (Ramin Mojtabai, MD). Results were negative. I scored six non-perseverative errors -- one of the lowest possible scores, indicating high concept-formation ability. I was not on any meds at the time.
DC DEPT. OF MENTAL HEALTH
5. In July 1996 I entered the DC Dept. of Mental Health System. In January 1998 my psychiatrist, Dr. Singh (a resident) determined in consultation with his supervisor (Stephen Quint, MD) that I suffered from no diagnosis or condition for which meds were indicated.
6. In February 1999 Albert H. Taub, MD diagnosed me with paranoid schizophrenia, which later underwent spontaneous remission. I was later diagnosed with delusional disorder. That portion of my thinking termed delusional has not responded to three different antipsychotic meds: Zyprexa, Abilify, and Risperdal. I currently take Effexor for depression and Xanax for insomnia.
7. On March 16-17 2004 I had a minor bout of paranoid schizophrenia, so-called "24-hour" paranoid schizophrenia, diagnosed by Betsy Jane Cooper, MD. My treatment plan prepared on March 17, 2004 by my case manager/therapist, Dr. Israella Bash, records that Dr. Cooper diagnosed me with paranoid schizophrenia on March 17, 2004; Dr. Cooper prescribed Zyprexa on March 17, 2004, which I took for about a month. There was no change in my delusional thinking. My current diagnosis is delusional disorder. Again, Dr. Martin at DC General recommended no anti-psychotic meds during my emergency psychiatric assessment on October 12, 2004; I was not agitated on October 12, 2004--my blood pressure was normal, 130/85.
I am totally socially isolated. I have no friends. I haven't spoken to my only relative, an older sister, since February 1996.
I have created an imaginary friend who I write letters to periodically, Brian Patrick Brown, manager of the Cleveland Park Branch of the DC Library System. The enclosed disc contains some of my recent letters to Brian.
I like Brian a lot, and would welcome him as a real friend. How I wish I could be Brian's real buddy!
My therapist, Dr. Bash (DC Dept. of Mental Health) is at 202 576 8939. My psychiatrist, Henry Barbot, MD, is at 202 576 8946.
Thank you. The U.S. Attorney's Office in DC (202 514 7566) is familiar with this matter.
In closing, this will respectfully advise the Office of Chief of Police that I have a constitutionally-protected right to seek employment. Also, in order to invoke my rights under the Americans With Disabilities Act I must fully apprise a prospective employer of facts concerning my disability, including allegations (however defamatory) placed in controversy by Dennis M. Race, Esq., his employees, and the DC Office of Corporation Counsel. State action that impairs my right to seek employment or my right to protections under federal law may be legally actionable.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
APPENDIX A:
LETTER FROM OFFICE OF HUMAN RESOURCES, MONTGOMERY COUNTY GOVERNMENT [unsigned], DATED OCTOBER 14, 2004:
Dear Applicant:
Enclosed you will find the resume/application that you submitted to the Office of Human Resources. We are returning this resume/application because you must apply for a specific position.
In order to be considered for employment with Montgomery County Government, you must apply for an announced position. Information pertaining to current employment opportunities is available on our website at www.montgomerycountymd.gov - click on careers.
We appreciate your interest in Montgomery County and wish you continued success in your employment endeavors.
Sincerely,
Office of Human Resources
Montgomery County Government
APPENDIX B:
LETTER FROM GARY FREEDMAN TO MONTGOMERY COUNTY GOVERNMENT THAT IS VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL TO THE ONE I SENT TO A WASHINGTON, DC EMPLOYER, WHICH TRIGGERED A LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE BY TEN METRO DC POLICE OFFICERS ASSISTED BY FOUR FBI AGENTS. THE LETTER IS PURELY FACTUAL; IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY THREATS OF VIOLENCE BY ME. THE LETTER SUMMARIZES FALSE, MALICIOUS, AND DEFAMATORY ACCUSATIONS MADE ABOUT ME, AND IS EVIDENCE OF MASSIVE DEFAMATION BY ATTORNEY MANAGERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE LAW FIRM OF AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, AS WELL AS THE DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL (CHARLES L. REISCHEL, ESQ., DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL, APPELLATE DIVISION). NOTE THAT UNDER SUPREME COURT RULINGS, DEFAMATION BY A STATE AGENCY CONSTITUTES A FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION [WHERE THAT DEFAMATION INJURES A FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTY INTEREST SUCH AS THE RIGHT TO SEEK EMPLOYMENT. Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 712, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 1165-66, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976).]
[The following letter is stamped by the Montgomery County Government: RECEIVED - HUMAN RESOURCES - 04 OCT 13 A10:47 - MONTGOMERY COUNTY GOVERNMENT]
October 12, 2004
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008
Office of Human Resources
101 Monroe Street
7th Floor
Rockville, MD 20850
RE: EMPLOYMENT -- ARMED, MASS HOMICIDE -- REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF HARM
Dear Sir:
I am writing to you at the express direction of the Metropolitan District of Columbia Police Department (Officer J.E. Williams, Badge 1226, Second District, Washington, DC: 202 282 0070) that I actively seek employment consistent with my high intelligence as well as my professional and academic credentials.
I am specifically interested in the position of senior legislative attorney for the Montgomery County Council. I am an attorney, licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I hold an advanced degree (Master of Laws) in international trade law.
I am a disabled American, and I qualify for the legal protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I believe I have a legal duty to apprise you, as a prospective employer, of the following matters.
1. TERRORISTIC THREATS: On April 21, 2004 the Metro DC Police issued a protective order against me, on the petition of Brian Patrick Brown, Manager of the Cleveland Park Branch of the DC Public Library. Brian Brown alleged that I had made terrorist threats, in writing, against unspecified persons. The six-month order of protection prohibits my entering or loitering in the vicinity of said library, under penalty of arrest and prosecution. The investigating officer was the aforementioned Officer Williams. This will advise that at this time I continue to satisfy the prognostic criteria that were determined by the Metro DC Police in April 2004 to indicate that I am at significant risk of committing a crime of violence or arousing a reasonable apprehension of committing a crime of violence. It is likely that I will satisfy said criteria for committing a crime of violence or arousing a reasonable apprehension of same in the future event I obtain employment with The Montgomery County Council. On April 21, 2004 Officer Williams stated to me: "You seem OK to me right now, but what I'm worried about is what's going to happen a few days from now." Obviously, my future conduct was a substantial concern to the Metro DC Police. [Note that if I had made an actual threat I would have been arrested or transported to DC General Hospital for a forensic psychiatric examination. It is clear that what the MPDC did was to simply rubber-stamp a specious request made by a supervisory DC employee.]
2. VIOLENCE-RISK DETERMINATION: My former employer, Dennis M. Race, Esq. (202 887 4028), a senior management partner at the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, determined, in consultation with a psychiatrist, that my thinking was consistent with a psychiatric "disorder" that might be associated with a risk of violent behavior. See Freedman v. DC Dept. of Human Rights, 96-CV-961 (DCCA, Sept. 1998). [The psychiatrist did not evaluate me personally. There is no documentary evidence that Mr. Race, in fact, consulted a psychiatrist. Under applicable law, the employer had a burden of production, not a burden of persuasion -- a very low evidentiary threshold.] Mr. Race determined that my continued presence on the firm's premises might pose a risk of tort liability for the firm, and terminated my employment effective October 29, 1991. I have been unemployed and disabled under Social Security Administration eligibility rules since the date of the termination. My thinking, upon which Mr. Race's violence-risk determination was based, remains unchanged.
3. HOMICIDE-RISK DETERMINATION: Shortly after conferring with Mr. Race about his forensic psychiatric determination, my supervisor called a meeting of her employees to advise them that she had formed a reasonable apprehension that I might have been planning to kill her [an act of defamation]. The supervisor undertook [self-serving] protective measures [to give the appearance that she needed] to ensure her safety as well as that of her employees against a possible future homicidal assault. See Brief of Appellant. Mr. Race did not challenge appellant's brief. The supervisor was a senior non-attorney manager who reported directly to a member of the firm's management committee, R. Bruce MacLean, Esq. Mr. MacLean is the firm's current managing partner.
4. ARMED, MASS HOMICIDAL ASSAULT: The DC Corporation Counsel determined, sua sponte [relying on legally-irrelevant, "after-acquired" evidence], that my coworkers had formed genuine and credible fears that I might carry out an armed, mass homicidal assault on the firm's premises, and that said widespread fears of an armed, mass homicide were material to Mr. Race's termination decision. See Brief of Appellee, District of Columbia (citing statement of coworker [who was later terminated for gross misconduct] in record on appeal: "We're all afraid of you. We're all afraid you're going to buy a gun, bring it in and shoot everybody!"). At oral argument before the DC Court of Appeals, the Assistant Corporation Counsel declared to the Court, referencing the above record evidence, that I had "admitted" that my "coworkers were afraid of" me. Mr. Race did not challenge the District's handling of 96-CV-961.
5. MULTIPLE ARMED HOMICIDE UNDER FEDERAL LAW: On the evening of August 6, 1998 two Special Agents of the US Capitol Police (Threat Investigation Unit) forcibly entered my home, after frisking me for weapons, and proceeded to interrogate me about an allegation made by a DC employee that, earlier in the day, at the height of an enraged argument, I had threatened to kill two federal officers at point-blank range, execution style in the Capitol rotunda. Later investigation by Agent Steven Horan disclosed that said allegation was mistakenly based on a letter I had written to my psychiatrist (Stephen Quint, MD) and copied to a DC agency that factually summarized Mr. Race's violence-risk determination [an act of defamation]; my supervisor's homicide-risk determination [an act of defamation]; as well as the DC Corporation Counsel's determination that my coworkers had formed a reasonable apprehension that I might commit an armed, mass homicide [an act of defamation]. Though I was exonerated of making unlawful threats, Officer Horan photo ID'd me to all federal officers assigned to the U.S. Capitol Building as a protective measure.
6. POTENTIAL TERRORIST: On August 7, 1998 Agent Horan advised me that the federal government (unbeknownst to me) had previously placed my name on a national registry of potential terrorists because of a letter I had written in 1996 to a local psychiatric facility (The Meyer Clinic), inquiring into out-patient services. Said letter elaborated Mr. Race's violence-risk determination [an act of defamation] as well as my supervisor's homicide-risk determination [an act of defamation].
7. PRESIDENTIAL THREAT: On the afternoon of August 7, 1998 two Special Agents of the U.S. Secret Service placed me under house arrest because of concerns I might pose a risk of harm to President Clinton. The two Secret Service agents were part of a team of six federal special agents who had been assigned to interrogate me and secure my person, over a two-day period (August 6-7, 1998). Federal law enforcement concerns were aroused by a letter I had written and sent to a DC agency that discussed the federal civil rights implications of the DC Corporation Counsel's handling of 96-CV-961. I had sent an identical letter to U.S. Senator Arlen Specter (R.-PA.) on Capitol Hill, who responded with a cordial and personalized reply. Senator Specter, a former prosecutor, saw absolutely nothing threatening about the letter I had written, much less did he see the need to assign six federal special agents to interrogate me and secure my person.
8. POSSIBLE DOCUMENT FORGERY: The District speculates that I might have filed an inauthentic letter with a DC agency (purportedly written by a psychiatrist) in order to invidiously deny competent forensic psychiatric evidence proffered by Mr. Race under oath that showed I had been reasonably determined to be potentially violent. Presumably, according to the District [contrary to well-established case law], I might have forged a psychiatrist's signature and/or fabricated her letterhead. The U.S. Attorney's Office in DC has not yet issued me a notice of an intent to prosecute me.
9. UNLAWFUL SEXUAL THOUGHTS: The DC Corporation Counsel determined, sua sponte [relying on legally-irrelevant, "after-acquired" evidence], that private, undisclosed sexual thoughts I experienced on April 13, 1990 concerning the activity of masturbation were material to Mr. Race's termination decision as well as to Mr. Race's violence-risk determination. Mr. Race did not challenge the District's brief. I admit to having sexual thoughts in the workplace.
I look forward to hearing from you. Please send my regards to Doug Gansler, Esq. He's a bit of an attention seeker, but he knows what he's talking about.
Sincerely,
[signed]
Gary Freedman
PA ATTY ID 41032
On January 15, 2010 the U.S. Department of Justice sent two Deputy U.S. Marshals to my residence to direct me, under penalty of criminal prosecution, not to contact Mr. Huvelle again. Mr. Huvelle never directed me personally not to contact him. Both Attorney General Eric Holder and DOJ Criminal Division Chief Lanny Breuer are former law partners of Mr. Huvelle's at Covington & Burling.
-----Original Message-----
From: GarFreed@netscape.net
To: Jeffrey G. Huvelle at Covington & Burling
Sent: Fri, Jul 22, 2005 2:47 pm
Subject: CHARLES RUFF -- ETHICALLY QUESTIONABLE CONDUCT -- CIVIL RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
The following letter discusses the federal civil rights implications of Charles Ruff's (and his successor's) use of legally-irrelevant evidence in Freedman v. DC Department of Human Rights, DC Sup. Ct. and DC Court of Appeals, 96-CV-961.
Please send my regards to Eric H. Holder, Jr., Esq. He is someone I admire a great deal.
GARY FREEDMAN
_______________________________________________________
November 2, 2004
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008
The Honorable Charles Ramsey
Chief of Police
300 Indiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC
RE: Mental Disability -- Discrimination -- Police/FBI
RE: Mental Disability -- Discrimination -- Police/FBI
Dear Chief Ramsey:
I am writing to you, Chief Ramsey, to apprise the Office of Chief of Police of a serious police matter that arose in the second district on October 12, 2004. Underlying the police matter is an issue of discrimination involving the DC Office of Corporation Counsel.
I forwarded a letter to the Washington Field Office of the FBI concerning the following matter on October 23, 2004.
I have been unemployed and disabled under U.S. Social Security Administration eligibility rules since October 29, 1991. My Social Security no. is xxx xx xxxx.
I am a patient of the DC Department of Mental Health (Patient no. xxxxxx). I receive psychotropic medications from the DC Department of Mental Health.
I was employed as a paralegal at the Washington, DC law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld until October 29, 1991. Dennis M. Race, Esq. (202 887 4028), a senior management partner, terminated my employment upon determining in consultation with a psychiatrist (who did not examine me personally) that there were reasonable concerns about my mental health and stability that rendered me unsuitable for employment. Freedman v. DC Dept. of Human Rights, 96-CV-961 (DCCA, Sept. 1998). The fact that I had received "above average or outstanding" job performance ratings during my three-and-one-half-year tenure was not disputed; also undisputed was the fact that my personnel file contained no record of reprimands, oral or written.
SSA granted my claim for benefits (in August 1993) in part based on Mr. Race's sworn interrogatory responses filed with the DC Dept. of Human Rights (in May 1992); SSA's disability determination date, October 29, 1991, was the date of job termination.
There is substantial evidence that Mr. Race's interrogatory responses were perjured; that Mr. Race did not in fact consult with the psychiatrist, Gertrude R. Ticho, MD [now deceased], a physician licensed to practice in the District of Columbia. See Brief of Appellant, 96-CV-961. Additionally, I possess tape recordings of two telephone conversations in which Dr. Ticho denies any contacts or acquaintance with Dennis M. Race. Officer J.E. Williams, Badge 1226, Second District, Metro DC Police is in possession of copies of those conversations (202 282 0070).
I was seriously defamed by Mr. Race, my supervisor, a coworker (who was subsequently terminated for gross misconduct), and the DC Office of Corporation Counsel. In the past several months I have been sending out job inquiries to employers, which summarize allegations made against me by the above-named parties. On October 12, 2004 ten (10) Metro DC Police officers (including a second district supervisor) plus four (4) FBI agents showed up at my residence because of a letter I sent to an employer, who had contacted the police in alarm. The letter was purely factual; several prospective employers, including The Montgomery County Government, sent me a cordial reply to a nearly identical letter. So damaging was the defamation to which I was subjected that the police were convinced I must be insane to have written such a letter. The police had me transported to DC General Hospital in handcuffs for an emergency psychiatric examination. I was interviewed by a Dr. Martin at DC General (202 673 9319) (ECURA #224623) who determined that I did not require admission. I was released; no medication was administered, prescribed or recommended. Of course, the incident bolsters my Social Security disability claim. I have already received in excess of $100,000 in benefits.
The defamatory allegations about my character that arose at my last place of employment, which I have a legal duty to report to a prospective employer, may impose a constitutionally-impermissible burden on my ability to obtain employment. The allegations, made at my last place of employment, were presumably a substantial factor in SSA's disability determination. Despite the fact that the allegations were made at least 13 years ago, they remain material to my difficulties in my last employment situation.
Facts about my psychiatric treatment history since 1992 are peculiar, if not bizarre:
1. I was diagnosed with bipolar disorder in September 1992 as an outpatient at The George Washington University Medical Center Department of Psychiatry (Napoleon Cuenco, MD). The illness did not respond to lithium, and later underwent spontaneous remission.
2. I underwent comprehensive psychological testing at GW in May 1994 (William Fabian, Ph.D.). The testing did not yield a psychiatric diagnosis or disclose any psychotic thought processes. The testing yielded a valid profile. I was not on any meds at the time. The WAIS yielded a verbal IQ of 135 (99th percentile) and an overall IQ of 125 (above average).
3. In February 1996 I was diagnosed at GW (Dimitrios Georgopoulos, MD) with paranoid schizophrenia that later underwent spontaneous remission.
4. In March 1996 I took a psychological test called "The Wisconsin Scales of Psychosis Proneness" (Ramin Mojtabai, MD). Results were negative. I scored six non-perseverative errors -- one of the lowest possible scores, indicating high concept-formation ability. I was not on any meds at the time.
DC DEPT. OF MENTAL HEALTH
5. In July 1996 I entered the DC Dept. of Mental Health System. In January 1998 my psychiatrist, Dr. Singh (a resident) determined in consultation with his supervisor (Stephen Quint, MD) that I suffered from no diagnosis or condition for which meds were indicated.
6. In February 1999 Albert H. Taub, MD diagnosed me with paranoid schizophrenia, which later underwent spontaneous remission. I was later diagnosed with delusional disorder. That portion of my thinking termed delusional has not responded to three different antipsychotic meds: Zyprexa, Abilify, and Risperdal. I currently take Effexor for depression and Xanax for insomnia.
7. On March 16-17 2004 I had a minor bout of paranoid schizophrenia, so-called "24-hour" paranoid schizophrenia, diagnosed by Betsy Jane Cooper, MD. My treatment plan prepared on March 17, 2004 by my case manager/therapist, Dr. Israella Bash, records that Dr. Cooper diagnosed me with paranoid schizophrenia on March 17, 2004; Dr. Cooper prescribed Zyprexa on March 17, 2004, which I took for about a month. There was no change in my delusional thinking. My current diagnosis is delusional disorder. Again, Dr. Martin at DC General recommended no anti-psychotic meds during my emergency psychiatric assessment on October 12, 2004; I was not agitated on October 12, 2004--my blood pressure was normal, 130/85.
I am totally socially isolated. I have no friends. I haven't spoken to my only relative, an older sister, since February 1996.
I have created an imaginary friend who I write letters to periodically, Brian Patrick Brown, manager of the Cleveland Park Branch of the DC Library System. The enclosed disc contains some of my recent letters to Brian.
I like Brian a lot, and would welcome him as a real friend. How I wish I could be Brian's real buddy!
My therapist, Dr. Bash (DC Dept. of Mental Health) is at 202 576 8939. My psychiatrist, Henry Barbot, MD, is at 202 576 8946.
Thank you. The U.S. Attorney's Office in DC (202 514 7566) is familiar with this matter.
In closing, this will respectfully advise the Office of Chief of Police that I have a constitutionally-protected right to seek employment. Also, in order to invoke my rights under the Americans With Disabilities Act I must fully apprise a prospective employer of facts concerning my disability, including allegations (however defamatory) placed in controversy by Dennis M. Race, Esq., his employees, and the DC Office of Corporation Counsel. State action that impairs my right to seek employment or my right to protections under federal law may be legally actionable.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
APPENDIX A:
LETTER FROM OFFICE OF HUMAN RESOURCES, MONTGOMERY COUNTY GOVERNMENT [unsigned], DATED OCTOBER 14, 2004:
Dear Applicant:
Enclosed you will find the resume/application that you submitted to the Office of Human Resources. We are returning this resume/application because you must apply for a specific position.
In order to be considered for employment with Montgomery County Government, you must apply for an announced position. Information pertaining to current employment opportunities is available on our website at www.montgomerycountymd.gov - click on careers.
We appreciate your interest in Montgomery County and wish you continued success in your employment endeavors.
Sincerely,
Office of Human Resources
Montgomery County Government
APPENDIX B:
LETTER FROM GARY FREEDMAN TO MONTGOMERY COUNTY GOVERNMENT THAT IS VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL TO THE ONE I SENT TO A WASHINGTON, DC EMPLOYER, WHICH TRIGGERED A LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE BY TEN METRO DC POLICE OFFICERS ASSISTED BY FOUR FBI AGENTS. THE LETTER IS PURELY FACTUAL; IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY THREATS OF VIOLENCE BY ME. THE LETTER SUMMARIZES FALSE, MALICIOUS, AND DEFAMATORY ACCUSATIONS MADE ABOUT ME, AND IS EVIDENCE OF MASSIVE DEFAMATION BY ATTORNEY MANAGERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE LAW FIRM OF AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, AS WELL AS THE DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL (CHARLES L. REISCHEL, ESQ., DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL, APPELLATE DIVISION). NOTE THAT UNDER SUPREME COURT RULINGS, DEFAMATION BY A STATE AGENCY CONSTITUTES A FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION [WHERE THAT DEFAMATION INJURES A FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTY INTEREST SUCH AS THE RIGHT TO SEEK EMPLOYMENT. Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 712, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 1165-66, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976).]
[The following letter is stamped by the Montgomery County Government: RECEIVED - HUMAN RESOURCES - 04 OCT 13 A10:47 - MONTGOMERY COUNTY GOVERNMENT]
October 12, 2004
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008
Office of Human Resources
101 Monroe Street
7th Floor
Rockville, MD 20850
RE: EMPLOYMENT -- ARMED, MASS HOMICIDE -- REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF HARM
Dear Sir:
I am writing to you at the express direction of the Metropolitan District of Columbia Police Department (Officer J.E. Williams, Badge 1226, Second District, Washington, DC: 202 282 0070) that I actively seek employment consistent with my high intelligence as well as my professional and academic credentials.
I am specifically interested in the position of senior legislative attorney for the Montgomery County Council. I am an attorney, licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I hold an advanced degree (Master of Laws) in international trade law.
I am a disabled American, and I qualify for the legal protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I believe I have a legal duty to apprise you, as a prospective employer, of the following matters.
1. TERRORISTIC THREATS: On April 21, 2004 the Metro DC Police issued a protective order against me, on the petition of Brian Patrick Brown, Manager of the Cleveland Park Branch of the DC Public Library. Brian Brown alleged that I had made terrorist threats, in writing, against unspecified persons. The six-month order of protection prohibits my entering or loitering in the vicinity of said library, under penalty of arrest and prosecution. The investigating officer was the aforementioned Officer Williams. This will advise that at this time I continue to satisfy the prognostic criteria that were determined by the Metro DC Police in April 2004 to indicate that I am at significant risk of committing a crime of violence or arousing a reasonable apprehension of committing a crime of violence. It is likely that I will satisfy said criteria for committing a crime of violence or arousing a reasonable apprehension of same in the future event I obtain employment with The Montgomery County Council. On April 21, 2004 Officer Williams stated to me: "You seem OK to me right now, but what I'm worried about is what's going to happen a few days from now." Obviously, my future conduct was a substantial concern to the Metro DC Police. [Note that if I had made an actual threat I would have been arrested or transported to DC General Hospital for a forensic psychiatric examination. It is clear that what the MPDC did was to simply rubber-stamp a specious request made by a supervisory DC employee.]
2. VIOLENCE-RISK DETERMINATION: My former employer, Dennis M. Race, Esq. (202 887 4028), a senior management partner at the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, determined, in consultation with a psychiatrist, that my thinking was consistent with a psychiatric "disorder" that might be associated with a risk of violent behavior. See Freedman v. DC Dept. of Human Rights, 96-CV-961 (DCCA, Sept. 1998). [The psychiatrist did not evaluate me personally. There is no documentary evidence that Mr. Race, in fact, consulted a psychiatrist. Under applicable law, the employer had a burden of production, not a burden of persuasion -- a very low evidentiary threshold.] Mr. Race determined that my continued presence on the firm's premises might pose a risk of tort liability for the firm, and terminated my employment effective October 29, 1991. I have been unemployed and disabled under Social Security Administration eligibility rules since the date of the termination. My thinking, upon which Mr. Race's violence-risk determination was based, remains unchanged.
3. HOMICIDE-RISK DETERMINATION: Shortly after conferring with Mr. Race about his forensic psychiatric determination, my supervisor called a meeting of her employees to advise them that she had formed a reasonable apprehension that I might have been planning to kill her [an act of defamation]. The supervisor undertook [self-serving] protective measures [to give the appearance that she needed] to ensure her safety as well as that of her employees against a possible future homicidal assault. See Brief of Appellant. Mr. Race did not challenge appellant's brief. The supervisor was a senior non-attorney manager who reported directly to a member of the firm's management committee, R. Bruce MacLean, Esq. Mr. MacLean is the firm's current managing partner.
4. ARMED, MASS HOMICIDAL ASSAULT: The DC Corporation Counsel determined, sua sponte [relying on legally-irrelevant, "after-acquired" evidence], that my coworkers had formed genuine and credible fears that I might carry out an armed, mass homicidal assault on the firm's premises, and that said widespread fears of an armed, mass homicide were material to Mr. Race's termination decision. See Brief of Appellee, District of Columbia (citing statement of coworker [who was later terminated for gross misconduct] in record on appeal: "We're all afraid of you. We're all afraid you're going to buy a gun, bring it in and shoot everybody!"). At oral argument before the DC Court of Appeals, the Assistant Corporation Counsel declared to the Court, referencing the above record evidence, that I had "admitted" that my "coworkers were afraid of" me. Mr. Race did not challenge the District's handling of 96-CV-961.
5. MULTIPLE ARMED HOMICIDE UNDER FEDERAL LAW: On the evening of August 6, 1998 two Special Agents of the US Capitol Police (Threat Investigation Unit) forcibly entered my home, after frisking me for weapons, and proceeded to interrogate me about an allegation made by a DC employee that, earlier in the day, at the height of an enraged argument, I had threatened to kill two federal officers at point-blank range, execution style in the Capitol rotunda. Later investigation by Agent Steven Horan disclosed that said allegation was mistakenly based on a letter I had written to my psychiatrist (Stephen Quint, MD) and copied to a DC agency that factually summarized Mr. Race's violence-risk determination [an act of defamation]; my supervisor's homicide-risk determination [an act of defamation]; as well as the DC Corporation Counsel's determination that my coworkers had formed a reasonable apprehension that I might commit an armed, mass homicide [an act of defamation]. Though I was exonerated of making unlawful threats, Officer Horan photo ID'd me to all federal officers assigned to the U.S. Capitol Building as a protective measure.
6. POTENTIAL TERRORIST: On August 7, 1998 Agent Horan advised me that the federal government (unbeknownst to me) had previously placed my name on a national registry of potential terrorists because of a letter I had written in 1996 to a local psychiatric facility (The Meyer Clinic), inquiring into out-patient services. Said letter elaborated Mr. Race's violence-risk determination [an act of defamation] as well as my supervisor's homicide-risk determination [an act of defamation].
7. PRESIDENTIAL THREAT: On the afternoon of August 7, 1998 two Special Agents of the U.S. Secret Service placed me under house arrest because of concerns I might pose a risk of harm to President Clinton. The two Secret Service agents were part of a team of six federal special agents who had been assigned to interrogate me and secure my person, over a two-day period (August 6-7, 1998). Federal law enforcement concerns were aroused by a letter I had written and sent to a DC agency that discussed the federal civil rights implications of the DC Corporation Counsel's handling of 96-CV-961. I had sent an identical letter to U.S. Senator Arlen Specter (R.-PA.) on Capitol Hill, who responded with a cordial and personalized reply. Senator Specter, a former prosecutor, saw absolutely nothing threatening about the letter I had written, much less did he see the need to assign six federal special agents to interrogate me and secure my person.
8. POSSIBLE DOCUMENT FORGERY: The District speculates that I might have filed an inauthentic letter with a DC agency (purportedly written by a psychiatrist) in order to invidiously deny competent forensic psychiatric evidence proffered by Mr. Race under oath that showed I had been reasonably determined to be potentially violent. Presumably, according to the District [contrary to well-established case law], I might have forged a psychiatrist's signature and/or fabricated her letterhead. The U.S. Attorney's Office in DC has not yet issued me a notice of an intent to prosecute me.
9. UNLAWFUL SEXUAL THOUGHTS: The DC Corporation Counsel determined, sua sponte [relying on legally-irrelevant, "after-acquired" evidence], that private, undisclosed sexual thoughts I experienced on April 13, 1990 concerning the activity of masturbation were material to Mr. Race's termination decision as well as to Mr. Race's violence-risk determination. Mr. Race did not challenge the District's brief. I admit to having sexual thoughts in the workplace.
I look forward to hearing from you. Please send my regards to Doug Gansler, Esq. He's a bit of an attention seeker, but he knows what he's talking about.
Sincerely,
[signed]
Gary Freedman
PA ATTY ID 41032
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
