Social Security Document Submission: June 1993

I am starting a new feature on My Daily Struggles. I plan to upload the entire 183-page document submission I made to the U.S. Social Security Administration in June 1993 in support of my disability claim that I filed in April 1993, which claim was granted in August 1993 by the agency. When reading the documents, keep in mind that they were written by an individual who had been diagnosed with bi-polar disorder in September 1992 by the George Washington University Medical Center.
__________________________________

Page 1 of document submission to Social Security Administration

FAX NO. 609 235 5569 MEREDITH FINANCIAL SERVICES
Transmittal for Mrs. Estelle Jacobson c/o Mr. Edward Jacobson

Dear Stell,

Check this out:

“Because of the emotional and psychological nature of Mr. Freedman’s complaints and those lodged against him, Messrs. Lassman and Race also sought professional guidance from two outside consultants: (1) a representation from the Employee Assistance Program; and (2) a practicing psychiatrist.”

An express admission of a conspiracy to solicit the commission of a misdemeanor.

GF

Page 2 of document submission to Social Security Administration

FAX NO. 609 235 5569 MEREDITH FINANCIAL SERVICES
Transmittal for Mrs. Estelle Jacobson c/o Mr. Edward Jacobson

Dear Stell,

I have to look up modern D.C. law, but just based on the materials I have at home, this is what I've come up with.

1. Tapack v. U.S., 220 F. 445 (3d Cir. 1915) (a person not bankrupt may be convicted of conspiring with a bankrupt to conceal the latter's property from the trustee, an offense defined only in terms of a bankrupt's actions). Cf. D.C. Code Sec. 6-2002.

2. State v. Myers, 36 Idaho 396, 211 P. 440 (1922) (the giver of a bribe may be convicted of conspiring with a public official to commit the crime of receiving a bribe, defined as receiving by a public officer). Cf. D.C. Code Sec. 6-2002. Although this case is distinguishable in that the giving of a bribe, though not part of the prohibited offense, was probably an inherently unlawful act, unlike the mere receipt of information from a mental health professional, which is not inherently unlawful. But one could argue that the receipt of the information was inherently unlawful because it was done in furtherance of an unlawful discriminatory practice (but I would have to prove intent).
_____________________________________

Combine the above with what follows, and I've come up with a novel tort theory. The recklessly negligent jeopardization by an attorney of another attorney's license to practice law. Under an old version of the canon of legal ethics, an attorney may be subject to disbarment if he does not report evidence of another attorney's unethical or illegal acts. If I don't report another attorney's unlawful acts, I may be
subject to disciplinary proceedings, including disbarment. (Also Steven Sack writes that some creative attorneys have been able to win lawsuits for unlawfully terminated employees under RICO. See The Employee Handbook of Rights, at 104. "Innovative lawyers are asserting federal racketeering (RICO) claims, seeking criminal sanctions and treble (triple) damages against companies. This is in addition to fraud and misrepresentation claims against individuals responsible for making wrongful termination decisions." Gotta look up RICO.

GF

Page 3 of document submission to Social Security Administration

FAX NO. 609 235 5569 MEREDITH FINANCIAL SERVICES
Transmittal for Mrs. Estelle Jacobson c/o Mr. Edward Jacobson

Dear Stell,

[On August 1, 1989], Claimant was employed as a full-time legal assistant (“paralegal”) to manage massive amounts of documents for a major client (See Attachment C). Shortly thereafter, [on March 9, 1989], the client filed for bankruptcy protection and eventually the legal work diminished.

Akin Gump IS a Stephen Hawking universe!

GF

Pages 4-5 of document submission to Social Security Administration

FAX NO. 609 235 5569 MEREDITH FINANCIAL SERVICES
Transmittal for Mrs. Estelle Jacobson c/o Mr. Edward Jacobson

Dear Stell,

While working at Akin Gump I was generally assigned to low grade tasks inconsistent with my educational background. At certain points in time, however, I was called upon to perform more intellectually challenging tasks. The assignment to more challenging tasks at particular points in time does not raise per se the issue of a lack of bad faith by supervisory personnel; however, these assignments do merit further inquiry.

1. The one occasion I was called for an assignment by J.D. Neary, to the best of my know recollection, was also the only time I was requested to cite check a brief. I believe this was Friday July 28, 1989--one working day before my employment status was officially upgraded from temporary legal assistant to full time legal assistant, on July 31, 1989. I met with J.D. and Stacey Schaar in J.D. Neary’s office on the morning of Friday July 28, 1989 at which time he gave us portions of a Craig Hall/RICO matter brief, prepared by attorney Ms. Merrill Spiegel.

2. During the summer of 1990, while assigned as a legal assistant in the litigation support group under Chris Robertson, I received a telephone call from Maggie and Chris while Chris was on vacation. Maggie advised me that there was transcript digesting available that I could do. Maggie’s offer of an assignment seemed peculiar in that I was no longer one of her employees. (Her telephone call seems even more peculiar in light of Maggie’s statement to management just prior to my termination on October 29, 1991 that she couldn’t work with me; one wonders, in view of her stated reluctance to deal with me, why Maggie would have gone out of her way to offer me an assignment).

3. In early August 1991 I was assigned to the chemical analysis phase of the Hoechst coding project. Late in the afternoon on about Thursday August 1, 1991 Chris Robertson advised me that she had spoken with attorney Mary Ellen Connor about my working on Hoechst chemical analysis and that Mary Ellen Connor had said that she was “enthusiastic” about my working on the project. In early August 1991 there was a considerable backlog of work on the chemical analysis phase of the Hoechst project.

Paragraph 3 raises additional questions regarding inconsistent statements or inconsistent behavior.

1. When Dennis Race advised me of my termination on October 29, 1991 he told me that he learned during his investigation that although my work on Eastern had been very good, after my work on Eastern ceased, in the spring of 1990, my work became poor. (Mr. Race reiterated this position during my telephone call to him on Wednesday morning October 30, 1991, when I inquired about unemployment compensation). If my work was poor, why did Chris Robertson select me, on August 1, 1991--at a time of a critical backlog on the project--to work on Hoechst chemical analysis? If I had a general reputation in the firm of doing poor work, why did Mary Ellen Connor say she was “enthusiastic” about my working on the project. (Precisely what did Marty Ellen Connor know about me that would have made her “enthusiastic” about my working on the project? Who was the source of Mary Ellen Connor’s knowledge about the quality of my work?)

We are left with two possible conclusions:

1. Chris Robertson had a good faith belief that since the cessation of my Eastern assignment, I did poor work and her statement to Dennis Race that my work was poor was a full and truthful statement. In this case, her assigning me to work on Hoechst chemical analysis on August 1, 1991 was done in bad faith.

2. On August 1, 1991 Chris Robertson’s decision to have me work on Hoechst was made in good faith and was based on her knowledge that my work was generally of high quality. In this case, her statement to Dennis Race that my work was generally of poor quality since about the spring of 1990 was an intentional misstatement calculated to damage my employment relationship with the firm. (Also, assuming a parallel between my difficulties at Hogan & Hartson and Akin Gump, as has been asserted, Chris Robertson’s possible intentional misstatement of facts to a member of management raises the issue of cognate behaviors.)

[Note that this message was written in the summer of 1992 before I received a copy of Akin Gumps’ Response to Interrogatories filed with the D.C. Department of Human Rights' unlawful job termination complaint--a pleading that asserted that the quality of my work was not an issue in the decision to terminate. Note the defensiveness in this memo regarding the issue of the quality of my work. Obviously, I was responding to an accusation at the termination meeting made by Dennis Race that my work quality was a factor in the decision to terminate me.]


Pages 6-11 of document submission to Social Security Administration

FAX NO. 609 235 5569 MEREDITH FINANCIAL SERVICES
Transmittal for Mrs. Estelle Jacobson c/o Mr. Edward Jacobson

Dear Stell,

Attached is a listing of six business decisions taken while I was employed at Akin Hump, together with a discussion of the business rationale for those decisions. Appended to the listing of these decisions is a discussion of background circumstances that may in some way have been related to the business decisions. Only a hopelessly deluded individual would assert that each of the decisions had no legitimate business purpose and that they were taken solely to harass. At the same time, only a foolish optimist would fail to observe that the background circumstances may have influenced the business decisions or provided a motive or opportunity for certain employees to engage in harassing behavior.

1. On Friday March 17, 1989 J.D. Neary advised me that I was to be moved from the private office I had occupied on the fifth floor to office space on the sixth floor. He said, “They’ve decided to move you.” I began working in an open area on the sixth floor at the start of business on Monday March 20, 1989. (One might wish to note as ancillary facts that despite being advised that I was losing a private office, I carried out the move without complaint or protest on Sunday March 19, 1989. Early on Monday morning March 20, 1989 I dropped off a bag of doughnuts with David Hardees’s secretary, Lisa Hassel, whose work station adjoined my office on the fifth floor. Later in the day Maggie Sinnott thanked me for being so cooperative. Compare Maggie’s remark to me on Monday March 20, 1989 with her reported statement to Dennis Race shortly before my termination that she found me difficult to work with and that I aroused feelings of fear in her.)

Business Rationale: A newly-hired legal assistant, Lisa Marcus, began working at the firm on Monday March 20, 1989. She was assigned to the private office I had occupied on the fifth floor. J.D. Neary’s statement to me on March 17, 1989, “They’ve decided to move you,” suggests that the decision to reassign me to a different work space was taken by members of management, thus precluding an improper motive.

Background Circumstances: On Thursday March 9, 1989 the client for whom I had been working, Eastern Airlines, filed for bankruptcy.

Shortly after I was moved to the sixth floor office space shared with Stacey Schaar and Gwen Lesh, on March 20, 1989, there began repeated references, especially by Ms. Schaar, to my friendship with Craig Dye, with whom I had worked at the law firm of Hogan & Hartson. The references centered on a supposedly homosexual interest I had in Craig. Apparently, some time in March 1989 an Akin Gump employee had had some contact with an employee or employees at Hogan, and information obtained from these communications was used to harass me at Akin Gump.

A former Hogan attorney, Douglas Rosenfeld, who began working at Akin Gump on Monday March 13, 1989, may have served as a conduit of information between the two law firms. Doug Rosenfeld was a friend of a former roommate of Craig’s, named Daniel Cutler, who also worked at Hogan, until about late April 1989. [Douglas Rosenfeld, Esq. was assigned to the Labor Practice Group to work on Eastern Airlines litigation. His office was adjacent to that of David Callet, Esq. a senior attorney on Eastern.]

Shortly after I moved to office space on the sixth floor, on March 20, 1989, Bong Suh, a consultant who also worked on the sixth floor, said in a kind of mischievous tone of voice while passing by my desk, “It won’t be long now,” (Bong’s voice modulated upward during the phrase, and fell sharply while stating the work “now.”) Both the content and tone of Bong’s statement had an ominous quality about it. In fact, shortly after Stacey Schaar and Gwen Lesh moved to the sixth floor office space there began the most intense harassment I had experienced since I began working at Akin Gump in early March 1988.

The Eastern bankruptcy filing on Thursday March 9, 1989 may have contributed to the perception by certain Akin Gump employees that I had become vulnerable.

2. On a Friday in early spring 1990 (possibly March 30, 1990), Ms. Constance Brown advised me that since there was little work to be done on Eastern, she had arranged that I meet with the administrator of litigation support, Ms. Chris Robertson, on Monday morning (possibly April 2, 1990) and that Chris would provide me with work. On Monday morning shortly after 9:00 AM, I reported to litigation support, which was housed on the terrace level of the building, and met with Chris for about 15 to 20 minutes. Chris provided instruction on a particular task that I was to do for MCA. This was my first contact with Chris Robertson in the relation of employee to supervisor; up until this time I had worked predominantly for Ms. Constance Brown on Eastern. This was also the first time that I was to work in the terrace level office. At the conclusion of my conversation with Chris, she led me from her office to a work station where I was to perform the assigned task. Upon spotting the work station, Chris said to me, “You can sit here.” This was at approximately 9:30 AM. After sitting down at the desk I looked into the trash basket next to the desk. The trash basket was empty except for a baby food jar. The baby food jar had been wiped clean before being placed in the trash basket, consistent with the jar having been brought from home by someone for the express purpose of placing it in the trash basket with the intent to harass.

I worked in the terrace level office for a few days. During this period, on several occasions, various employees gathered near the work station at which I was working and engaged in conversations that had a sexual content. I can expressly recall that one of the conversations concerned the issue of homosexuality. None of the conversations expressly concerned me. I experienced these conversations as annoying and harassing. On the basis of one of these conversations, which like the others ostensibly did not concern me, I formed the belief that firm management had contacted my 8th grade English teacher, Louis Silverstein [Wagner Junior High School, Philadelphia Public Schools, 1966-1967 school year]. After a few days, Chris said that I could continue on the assigned task at my permanent work space on the ninth floor. I completed the assignment for MCA on the ninth floor.

Business Rationale: There was in fact a dearth of work on Eastern at that time; in less than two months all work on Eastern stopped following an order by the bankruptcy court that Akin Gump cease its representation of either Eastern or Continental. It made sense for me to work in the terrace level while engaged on the task for MCA, since I could maintain contact with other employees who were also engaged on the project and have ready access to Chris Robertson in case I needed to ask any questions. Note, however, that I was sent back up to the ninth floor after a few days, even though I was still working on MCA.

Background Circumstances: On March 30, 1990 the following article, titled “Eastern’s Creditors Threaten to Move For Liquidation,” appeared in The Wall Street Journal.

"Eastern Airlines’ unsecured creditors have threatened to call for a bankruptcy-court liquidation of the beleaguered carrier if Eastern’s parent, Texas Air Corp., doesn’t take a bigger role in current efforts to reorganize it.

But Texas Air officials, in turn, have told the creditors’ committee that it can’t make the kind of wide-ranging financial assurance apparently being sought, according to people familiar with the case.

The sudden standoff is an outgrowth of the disclosure earlier this week by Eastern President Phil Bakes that the airline couldn’t meet the terms of a settlement reached only a month earlier. That agreement called for repaying unsecured creditors about 50 cents on the dollar. . . .

According to people close to the latest discussions, Eastern’s creditors are weighing other possible responses, including backing the appointment of a trustee by the court. A trustee would replace Eastern’s managers and run the airline’s day-to-day operations. The idea has been proposed before and was strongly backed by Eastern’s unions and bitterly opposed by Eastern and Texas Air management. Until now, creditors have also resisted the notion. Creditors are further understood to be pressing their advisors to search for a possible buyer of Eastern, a move they haven’t previously pushed. . . ."

The deteriorating situation regarding Eastern may have contributed to the perception by certain Akin Gump employees that I was now particularly vulnerable. [See also "Eastern Airlines, Unable to Meet Terms For Unsecured Creditors, Plans Cost Cuts,” The Wall Street Journal, March 28, 1990 (reporting that the bankruptcy-court saga recently seemed to be heading toward conclusion)].

3. On the afternoon of Tuesday April 2, 1991, Chris Robertson advised me that I was to begin work on the Hoechst-Celanese document coding project. She further advised me that she was holding a training session for document coders assigned to the Hoechst project the next day, Wednesday April 3, 1991.

On Friday afternoon April 5, 1991 Chris Robertson advised me that I was being moved from the ninth floor office space to the terrace level. I had been working on the ninth floor since late October 1989. During the period late October 1989 until the spring of 1990 I worked predominantly for Ms. Constance Brown, whose office was located on the second floor. Beginning in the spring of 1990 I began working exclusively for Chris Robertson, whose office was located in the terrace level. Working on the ninth floor had caused no logistical problems for me.

Business Rationale: Assignment to work on Hoechst-Celanese: I was assigned to coding projects based on the needs of litigation support. A particular project might require additional personnel at any time, so that an employee might expect to be assigned to a project at any time.

Change of work space from ninth floor to terrace level: Until my move to the terrace level on Monday April 8, 1991, I had been the only litigation support employee not housed on the terrace level. There was a clear business rationale to have me work alongside litigation support personnel in the terrace level. Not working in the terrace level was an inconvenience to the litigation support administrator and to fellow employees who might need to interact with me from time to time.

Background Circumstances: I had consulted with Dr. Lewis A. Winkler, a psychiatrist, for the first time on the afternoon of Tuesday April 2, 1991. Immediately upon returning to the building from my consultation with Dr. Winkler, I ran into Chris Robertson in the elevator area on the lobby level. It was at that time that Chris advised me that she was reassigning me to Hoechst and that she was holding a training session for coders the next day, Wednesday April 3, 1991. [Lewis Winkler, M.D. was Jewish and born in Brooklyn, NY. He seemed very Jewish. Firm manager Malcolm Lassman was Jewish and born in Brooklyn, NY.]

The Hoechst training session on April 3, 1991, which lasted about 1.5 hours, appeared to have been hastily called in that a number of key issues with regard to the design of the data base had not yet been decided upon. A number of questions had to be left unanswered, pending a final determination with regard to the data base design. The attorney Cynthia Hogue attended the meeting. At one point in the meeting Cynthia Hogue reported on a conversation she had had with David Callet with regard to Hoechst document coding. Cynthia Hogue mildly ridiculed David Callet, a highly respected partner in the firm, and concluded her remarks about him with the comment, “Oh, silly David.” [I had the paranoid feeling that David Callet had made a favorable comment about me based on information reported to firm management by Dr. Winkler--and that David Callet's comment about me aroused the jealousy of firm personnel; I had the feeling Cynthia Hogue was trying to elicit a negative facial expression from me upon hearing David Callet's name, which would then be reported back to David Callet. David Callet had been the senior attorney on Eastern Airlines and, like me, was a graduate of The Pennsylvania State University.]

During the week of April 1, 1991 rumors were circulating in the firm that management was planning to lay off a number of legal assistants as a result of the recession. On Friday afternoon April 5, 1991, shortly after Chris Robertson advised me that I was being reassigned from the ninth floor to a permanent space on the terrace level, I attended a legal assistant meeting featuring Mr. Malcolm Lassman. The meeting had been called to respond to the rumors of planned lay-offs. Mr. Lassman reassured the legal assistants that their jobs were secure.

As in paragraph 1 and 2 above, we see a change in work space assignment and/or task assignment at a time when certain employees may have formed the perception that my job was vulnerable.

4. In early August 1991 I was assigned to the chemical analysis phase of the Hoechst coding project. Late in the afternoon on Thursday August 8, 1991 Chris advised me that she had spoken with attorney Mary Ellen Connor about my working on Hoechst chemical analysis and that Mary Ellen Connor had said she was “enthusiastic” about my working on the project.

Business Rationale: In early August 1991 there was a considerable backlog of work on the chemical analysis phase of the Hoechst project. My being assigned to the chemical analysis phase was a rational decision in view of my educational background.

Background Circumstances: My assignment to the Hoechst chemical analysis project roughly coincided with Mr. Strauss’ departure for his diplomatic mission in Moscow. Also, certain verbal cues by employees on August 8, 1991 suggested to me that firm management had had some communication with Dr. Winkler that day. (cf. paragraph 3, Background Circumstances: discussing my being informed of the assignment to Hoechst document coding immediately upon returning to the building from my initial consultation with Dr. Winkler on Tuesday April 2, 1991.]

5. On Friday August 30, 1991 I received a telephone call from Chris Robertson. She advised me that litigation support was designing a computer program that would allow direct entry of data by legal assistants assigned to the Hoechst chemical analysis project. During the course of the conversation Chris used certain words and phrases including: guinea pig, bugs, data conversation, scroll down and scan, “It will be better for you,” and fine tuning.

Business Rationale: Direct entry of Hoechst chemical analysis data was a rational goal, since it would have bypassed the steps of (1) handwriting the data by a legal assistant and (2) subsequent data entry by litigation support personnel. But, in fact, the program as developed was later found to be unusable because the character limit imposed by “Notebook” was far less than that required for the lengthier Hoechst records. Chris Robertson was seemingly not aware of that software limitation at the time of her telephone call to me on August 30, 1991 (cf. paragraph 2, Background Circumstances: discussing Hoechst training session on April 3, 1991, which appeared to have been called prematurely).

Background Circumstances: Possible communication with Dr. Palombo on Friday August 30, 1991.

[I had the paranoid impression that the words and phrases Chris Robertson used were double entendres relating to a possible conversation between Dr. Palombo and firm management:

guinea pig = a pejorative reference to Italians; presumably Dr. Palombo was of Italian heritage

bugs = Jews or younger siblings; Freud believed that psychoanalytically references to insects by patients symbolized the envied younger sibling; also Hitler used the insecticide Zyklon B in the gas chambers to kill Jews

data conversation = a play on the term "religious conversion" -- a reference to the fact that I am only half-Jewish

scroll down and scan -- homosexuality, looking down at a man's genital area

“It will be better for you,” and -- ?

fine tuning = Dr. Palombo used this phrase periodically with me -- he used to say that my personality needed "fine tuning," thereby indicating the mildness of my personality problems]

6. On the afternoon of Wednesday October 2, 1991 I met with legal assistant Katherine Harkness to review some work I had been doing under her direction on the Hoechst chemical analysis project. I was seated in front of her desk. Kathy was in back of her desk, but leaning over it, supporting her torso with her elbows. As she was reviewing her work she proceeded in a continuous motion to gyrate her hips and rub her pelvic region against the desk in a sexually suggestive manner while simultaneously expressing her work-related comments in the form of double entendres. This lasted for about two to four minutes. (Ms. Harkness’ motions gave the impression of symbolic masturbation.)

Business Rationale: The providing of feedback concerning an employee’s work is a useful and necessary part of office routine.

Background Circumstances: I had had a consultation with Dr. William Brown on Tuesday October 1, 1991. On Wednesday October 2, 1991 I had formed the belief, independent of my interaction with Katherine Harkness, that a member of firm management, possibly Mr. Malcolm Lassman had had a particularly difficult telephone conversation with a member of my family.
_____________________________

June 14, 1993
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20008

Paul G. Yessler, MD
2501 Calvert Street, NW
Suite 101
Washington, DC 20008

RE: Social Security Disability Psychiatric Evaluation
xxx-xx-xxxx

Dear Dr. Yessler:

Enclosed with respect to the above-referenced matter is a collection of letters I wrote and sent (by mail or fax) to my sister after my job termination on October 29, 1991 and before the filing of a disability claim with the Social Security Administration. Most of the letters were in fact written and sent in the year 1992.

I wrote the letters under the influence of my belief that my sister was in communication with my former employer, Akin Gump, and that my sister, upon receipt of the letters, would transmit the letters by fax communication back to managers of Akin Gump.

Both the writing and sending of the letters together with the content of the letters establish the persistence of seemingly paranoid ideation throughout the period beginning October 29, 1991. The letters deal, among other issues, with my concerns regarding harassment by Akin Gump co-workers; harassing (and anti-Semitic) telephone calls I received during 1991 and 1992; my belief that various of my treating psychiatrists were in communication with my former employer; the belief that librarians at the Cleveland Park Public Library (referred to as "the Club") harassed me; my belief that a clerk at a Giant Supermarket in my neighborhood (Adam) harassed me concerning my friendship with Craig Dye; my belief that a specialist at the Brookings Institution (Stephen Hess) was in communication with my former employer; the belief that it was not a mere accident that my former supervisor, Christine Robertson, had me touch her breasts, etc.

Please forward these materials to:

Ms. Fay Peterson
District of Columbia
Rehabilitation Services Administration
Disability Determination Division
P.O. Box 37608
Washington, DC 20013

If you have any questions, you may contact me at (xxx) xxx-xxxx (or leave messages at xxx xxx-xxxx). Might I suggest a follow-up evaluation consult?

You may contact my sister, Mrs. Estelle Jacobson, at (609) 727-3295.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely ,

Gary Freedman

The above cover letter transmitted a document production of approximately 185 pages. The document production is presumably on file at the Social Security Administration. The produced documents were presumably a significant factor in Social Security's disability determination of August 1993.