Sept 9, 1998
Mr. Gary Freedman
3801 CONNECTICUT AVE NW APT 136
Washington, D.C. 20008-4530
Dear Mr. Freedman:
Thank you for providing me with the information detailed in your recent correspondence. I shall take this information under advisement and refer to it in making future decisions.
If I may be of further help on any matter that falls within my federal legislative and administrative jurisdiction, please feel free to get in touch with me.
Sincerely,
Eleanor Holmes Norton
EHN: cg
Friday, December 23, 2011
New York Times -- William Safire Response -- 1997
[Form postcard from New York Times columnist William Safire with postmark of June 1, 1997]
On Language
You were good to write. (That's better than "It was good of you to write," because sentences with "it" are boring.)
Your comments go into the thought processor inside my head and may one day pop up in a column.
Thanks again (which is repetitious but not redundant).
/s/ with water soluble ink
Bill Safire
WILLIAM SAFIRE
The New York Times
On Language
You were good to write. (That's better than "It was good of you to write," because sentences with "it" are boring.)
Your comments go into the thought processor inside my head and may one day pop up in a column.
Thanks again (which is repetitious but not redundant).
/s/ with water soluble ink
Bill Safire
WILLIAM SAFIRE
Birthday Greeting from Dean Grossman
Dear Gary,
Wishing you a happy birthday and a wonderful year.
Dean Claudio Grossman,
The Office of Alumni Relations
The International Legal Studies Program
Washington College of Law
202-274-4163
Wishing you a happy birthday and a wonderful year.
Dean Claudio Grossman,
The Office of Alumni Relations
The International Legal Studies Program
Washington College of Law
202-274-4163
December 23
On December 23, 1966, I turned 13 years old. My mother bought for me as a gift the Beethoven violin concerto in D major, Op. 61, in a recording conducted by Erich Leinsdorf, with Nathan Milstein as soloist.
I have a personal identification with the Beethoven violin concerto. The work was premiered on 23 December 1806 in the Theater an der Wien in Vienna. Beethoven wrote the concerto for his colleague Franz Clement, a leading violinist of the day. The occasion was a benefit concert for Clement. However, the first printed edition (1808) was dedicated to Beethoven’s friend Stephan von Breuning.
The premiere was not a success, and the concerto was little performed in the following decades.
The work was revived in 1844, well after Beethoven's death, with performances by the then 12-year-old violinist Joseph Joachim -- one of Brahms' Jewish friends -- with the orchestra conducted by Felix Mendelssohn. Ever since, it has been one of the most important works of the violin concerto repertoire, and it is frequently performed and recorded today.
I have a personal identification with the Beethoven violin concerto. The work was premiered on 23 December 1806 in the Theater an der Wien in Vienna. Beethoven wrote the concerto for his colleague Franz Clement, a leading violinist of the day. The occasion was a benefit concert for Clement. However, the first printed edition (1808) was dedicated to Beethoven’s friend Stephan von Breuning.
The premiere was not a success, and the concerto was little performed in the following decades.
The work was revived in 1844, well after Beethoven's death, with performances by the then 12-year-old violinist Joseph Joachim -- one of Brahms' Jewish friends -- with the orchestra conducted by Felix Mendelssohn. Ever since, it has been one of the most important works of the violin concerto repertoire, and it is frequently performed and recorded today.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
The $64,000 Question
Is it at all credible that the Director of the D.C. Department of Human Rights, Margie Utley, was oblivious to the inconsistencies in the depiction of the litigation support department at the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld -- as between Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld and McNeil v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld?
In Freedman the litigation support department was described as an average-expectable work environment. Following my complaint that the work environment in litigation support was unprofessional and distracting, I was described as being pathologically hypersensitive to goings-on in the department, mentally ill and unemployable. My allegation of anti-Semitism in the department was described as paranoid.
In McNeil the environment in the litigation support department was described as being at times disruptive and tinged with anti-Semitism. One employee (Isabell Schotz) who complained about the environment in litigation support was depicted as having reasonable and objective concerns.
In Freedman the litigation support department was described as an average-expectable work environment. Following my complaint that the work environment in litigation support was unprofessional and distracting, I was described as being pathologically hypersensitive to goings-on in the department, mentally ill and unemployable. My allegation of anti-Semitism in the department was described as paranoid.
In McNeil the environment in the litigation support department was described as being at times disruptive and tinged with anti-Semitism. One employee (Isabell Schotz) who complained about the environment in litigation support was depicted as having reasonable and objective concerns.
Akin Gump Surveillance: Handwritten Note Left in Apartment
While I worked at the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld I used to leave notes in a prominent place in my apartment based on my paranoid belief that the manager of my building, Elaine Wranik, inspected my apartment surreptitiously every day and reported to Akin Gump what she saw.
About a day or two after my job termination on October 29, 1991 I left the following note in my apartment:
The Jew is indeed an enduring anomaly;
He survives his ordeal with a tale & a homily.
When his world is destroyed
He's not left with a void.
Mnemonic devices preserve his identity.
About a day or two after my job termination on October 29, 1991 I left the following note in my apartment:
The Jew is indeed an enduring anomaly;
He survives his ordeal with a tale & a homily.
When his world is destroyed
He's not left with a void.
Mnemonic devices preserve his identity.
Akin Gump Confirms Uncorroborated Admission by My Supervisor
In a letter dated December 28, 1992 that I wrote to the D.C. Department of Human Rights (DHR) concerning the unlawful termination complaint the agency had filed against my former employer, the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, I recounted an admission made by my Akin Gump supervisor, Chris Robertson, about the unprofessional and disruptive atmosphere in the litigation support department to which I was assigned. In the days before my job termination on October 29, 1991 I had requested to be promoted to the Legal Assistant Program or moved to a private office. The firm refused either request and, instead, fired me, and alleged to the DHR that I was pathologically hypersensitive to the goings-on in the litigation support department.
Here's what I wrote in my letter to the DHR dated December 28, 1992:
5. April 8, 1991 - mid-August 1991: Terrace Level. In mid-August 1991 I requested of my supervisor that she allow me to be moved to a private office and complained of the noise situation in the terrace level, and discussed certain harassing incidents that I had experienced while working on the 9th floor. This was the only occasion during my employment that I requested of any supervisory employee that I be permitted to move to a private office. (On this occasion, I also requested of my supervisor for the first and only time that she consider having me reassigned to the legal assistant group; my supervisor did not get back to me regarding this request, and I concluded that it would be pointless to ask anyone other than Earl Segal, the partner in charge of the legal assistant program, for such a reassignment.) She acknowledged that noise was a problem in the terrace level, but that she felt there was nothing she could do about the noise. She said she even considered having all the employees’ private telephones removed to cut down on employees’ excessive use of telephones for nonbusiness purposes. The meeting with my supervisor on this occasion in mid-August 1991 was called by her in response to a complaint by a fellow employee, Gregory Courtney, that I had told him to “shut up” earlier that morning. I denied the accusation and explained that I had told Greg Courtney, who was having a loud conversation with another employee, Richard Taylor, to “hold it down.” At that time I had just commenced work on the Hoechst project, which required a quietwork environment. I did not interpret the meeting with my supervisor as a reprimand, nor was I advised that it was intended as such. If anything, my supervisor seemed to find the incident amusing, and confided in me her difficulties in trying to control her other employees’ behavior (including their overuse of the telephone for personal telephone conversations) and her difficulties in hiring conscientious employees such as me. (Also, this was the only interaction with a supervisor that even remotely resembled a reprimand.) On no occasion did I ever tell another employee to “shut up;” on two occasions I politely asked a co-worker, Melissa Whitney, to turn down her radio, which she listened to without earphones. It was Gregory Courtney’s intentional misrepresentation to my supervisor, which my supervisor communicated to me, that prompted my request on this occasion in mid-August 1991 to be moved or, in the alternative, to be reassigned to the legal assistant group. The incident confirmed my suspicion that my co-workers on the terrace level had a propensity to act in an irrational and malicious manner.
Akin Gump's Answer dated March 25, 1993 (below) to a Title VII lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court against the firm by a terminated African-American coworker in the Litigation Support Department confirms circumstantially that my supervisor, Robertson, in fact made the admission (see above) that I alleged.
A word about the actors.
In Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld, the firm stated that the three decisionmakers in my job termination effective October 29, 1991 were my direct supervisor, Chris Robertson; Personnel Director Laurel Digweed; and senior partner, Dennis M. Race, Esq. The firm acknowledged that these three individuals cooperated in the termination decision. It was Dennis Race who investigated my harassment complaint and prepared Akin Gump's responsive pleadings filed with DHR on May 22, 1992. It was Dennis Race who failed to acknowledge in those responsive pleadings that I had lodged a harassment complaint against Robertson in late October 1991.
In McNeil v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, plaintiff alleged that Robertson (an acknowledged racist) colluded with Digweed in the termination of plaintiff on April 9, 1992. Akin Gump denied the allegation of collusion between Robertson and Digweed and claimed that Robertson was not a decisionmaker in plaintiff's termination. The U.S. District Court granted Akin Gump's summary judgment motion citing plaintiff's failure to prove that Robertson was involved in plaintiff's termination. Dennis Race prepared Akin Gump's responsive pleadings filed with DHR in McNeil.
PATRICIA A. MCNEIL
7893 Patriot Drive
Annandale, Virgina 22003
Plaintiff,
v.
AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Defendant.
CIVIL ACTION NO.
93-0477 JHG
______________________________________
Here's what I wrote in my letter to the DHR dated December 28, 1992:
5. April 8, 1991 - mid-August 1991: Terrace Level. In mid-August 1991 I requested of my supervisor that she allow me to be moved to a private office and complained of the noise situation in the terrace level, and discussed certain harassing incidents that I had experienced while working on the 9th floor. This was the only occasion during my employment that I requested of any supervisory employee that I be permitted to move to a private office. (On this occasion, I also requested of my supervisor for the first and only time that she consider having me reassigned to the legal assistant group; my supervisor did not get back to me regarding this request, and I concluded that it would be pointless to ask anyone other than Earl Segal, the partner in charge of the legal assistant program, for such a reassignment.) She acknowledged that noise was a problem in the terrace level, but that she felt there was nothing she could do about the noise. She said she even considered having all the employees’ private telephones removed to cut down on employees’ excessive use of telephones for nonbusiness purposes. The meeting with my supervisor on this occasion in mid-August 1991 was called by her in response to a complaint by a fellow employee, Gregory Courtney, that I had told him to “shut up” earlier that morning. I denied the accusation and explained that I had told Greg Courtney, who was having a loud conversation with another employee, Richard Taylor, to “hold it down.” At that time I had just commenced work on the Hoechst project, which required a quietwork environment. I did not interpret the meeting with my supervisor as a reprimand, nor was I advised that it was intended as such. If anything, my supervisor seemed to find the incident amusing, and confided in me her difficulties in trying to control her other employees’ behavior (including their overuse of the telephone for personal telephone conversations) and her difficulties in hiring conscientious employees such as me. (Also, this was the only interaction with a supervisor that even remotely resembled a reprimand.) On no occasion did I ever tell another employee to “shut up;” on two occasions I politely asked a co-worker, Melissa Whitney, to turn down her radio, which she listened to without earphones. It was Gregory Courtney’s intentional misrepresentation to my supervisor, which my supervisor communicated to me, that prompted my request on this occasion in mid-August 1991 to be moved or, in the alternative, to be reassigned to the legal assistant group. The incident confirmed my suspicion that my co-workers on the terrace level had a propensity to act in an irrational and malicious manner.
Akin Gump's Answer dated March 25, 1993 (below) to a Title VII lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court against the firm by a terminated African-American coworker in the Litigation Support Department confirms circumstantially that my supervisor, Robertson, in fact made the admission (see above) that I alleged.
A word about the actors.
In Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld, the firm stated that the three decisionmakers in my job termination effective October 29, 1991 were my direct supervisor, Chris Robertson; Personnel Director Laurel Digweed; and senior partner, Dennis M. Race, Esq. The firm acknowledged that these three individuals cooperated in the termination decision. It was Dennis Race who investigated my harassment complaint and prepared Akin Gump's responsive pleadings filed with DHR on May 22, 1992. It was Dennis Race who failed to acknowledge in those responsive pleadings that I had lodged a harassment complaint against Robertson in late October 1991.
In McNeil v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, plaintiff alleged that Robertson (an acknowledged racist) colluded with Digweed in the termination of plaintiff on April 9, 1992. Akin Gump denied the allegation of collusion between Robertson and Digweed and claimed that Robertson was not a decisionmaker in plaintiff's termination. The U.S. District Court granted Akin Gump's summary judgment motion citing plaintiff's failure to prove that Robertson was involved in plaintiff's termination. Dennis Race prepared Akin Gump's responsive pleadings filed with DHR in McNeil.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
______________________________________DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PATRICIA A. MCNEIL
7893 Patriot Drive
Annandale, Virgina 22003
Plaintiff,
v.
AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Defendant.
CIVIL ACTION NO.
93-0477 JHG
______________________________________
ANSWER
Defendant, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, as and for its answer to the complaint, hereby states as follows:
1. It is admitted that plaintiff seeks to bring this suit pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The remaining allegations in paragraph 1 are denied.
2. It is admitted that plaintiff seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 626(c), but it is denied that jurisdiction exists under that section.
3. It is admitted that venue in this District is appropriate.
4. Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief with respect to the current residence of plaintiff and, on that basis, that allegation is denied. The remaining allegations of paragraph 4 are admitted.
5. It is denied that defendant's principal offices are located in Washington, D.C. The remaining allegations of paragraph 5 are admitted.
6. The allegations of paragraph 6 are admitted,.
7. It is admitted that written performance reviews were prepared concerning plaintiff's job performance. Those performance reviews speak for themselves and, on that ground, the remaining allegations of paragraph 7 are denied.
8. It is admitted that plaintiff was terminated by defendant on April 9, 1992 in part because she refused to meet with a member of management [Personnel Administrator Laurel Digweed, one of the three decisionmakers in my job termination]. The remaining allegations of paragraph 8 are denied. [Akin Gump filed its Response to Interrogatories and Document Request with DHR in Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld on May 22, 1992, which failed to acknowledge that I had lodged a harassment complaint against my direct supervisor, Robertson, in late October 1991].
9. It is admitted that plaintiff had occasion to meet with a member of management [Digweed] prior to her refusal to meet with that same member of management. The remaining allegations of paragraph 9 are denied.
10. It is admitted that plaintiff had not been previously disciplined by defendant, although she had received verbal and written reprimands for excessive personal telephone use and lack of focus on her work. The remaining allegations of paragraph 10 are denied.
11. The allegations of paragraph 11 are denied.
12. It is admitted that Ms. Robertson had a meeting with several black employees in or about July 1991. The remaining allegations of paragraph 122 are denied. [It is probable that Akin Gump knew of Title VII problems concerning Robertson at the time the firm terminated me on October 29, 1991. Given that probable knowledge, the firm's failure to carefully scrutinize Robertson's written statements about me made in the days after my harassment complaint against Robertson and others was either knowingly wrong or negligent.] [See Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards regarding an employer's use of the so-called Ostrich Defense in Title VII cases.]
13. It is admitted that in or about March 1991 two black employees in the Litigation Support Group were terminated and were not thereafter offered reinstatement. The remaining allegations in paragraph 13 are denied.
14. It is admitted that in or about August 1991, Ms. Robertson became aware that plaintiff was pregnant with her second child. The remaining allegations of paragraph 14 are denied.
15. It is admitted that plaintiff's pregnancy ended in a miscarriage. The remaining allegations of paragraph 15 are denied.
16. It is admitted that on April 7, 1992, plaintiff's immediate supervisor, Ms. Robertson, received a complaint from Isabell Schotz, called plaintiff to her office and told her that plaintiff's excessive use of the telephone for personal business was disruptive to her coworkers. The remaining allegations in paragraph 16 are denied.
17. The allegations of paragraph 17 are denied.
18. It is admitted that on April 9, 1992, Ms. Digweed met with plaintiff to discuss concerns raised by Ms. Schotz and Ms. Robertson. It is also admitted that plaintiff vigorously defended her position, claimed Ms. Schotz was a "liar," and, ultimately, accused Ms. Digweed of using abusive language toward plaintiff and left Ms. Digweed's office. The remaining allegations of paragraph 18 are denied.
19. It is admitted that after the incident described in paragraph 18, Ms. Digweed asked plaintiff to come go her office to continue the discussion described in paragraph 18. It is further admitted that plaintiff refused to go to Ms. Digweed's office and that, ultimately, plaintiff was terminated by Ms. Digweed. The remaining allegations of paragraph 19 are denied.
20. The allegations of paragraph 20 are denied.
21. The defendant lacks information or knoweldge sufficient to form a belief with respect to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 21 and, on that basis, said allegations are denied.
22. It is admitted that a right to sue letter was issued to plaintiff by the EEOC. The defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief with respect to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations of paragraph 22 and, on that basis, those allegations are denied.
23. Except as otherwise expressly admitted herein, the allegations of paragraph 23 are denied.
24. The allegations of paragraph 24 are denied.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff's claim fails because facts which defendant has learned since plaintiff's termination would have justified her termination even earlier than it occurred. [Note that Akin Gump pleads "after-acquired evidence" as an affirmative defense. In Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights, Akin Gump foisted after-acquired evidence on the Court without identifying it as such, thereby misrepresenting to the D.C. Court of Appeals the precise evidence relied on by DHR, the agency below, in making its no probable cause finding.]
WHEREFORE, defendant prays that this Court:
1. Dismiss plaintiff's complaint with prejudice, and
2. Award Defendant its costs, including reasonable attorney's fees.
DATED: March 25, 1993
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Robert J. Higgins
D.C. Bar #155614
Joseph E. Kolick, Jr.
D.C. Bar #292979
DICKSTEIN, SHAPIRO & MORIN
2101 L Street, N.W.
Suite 80
Washington, D.C. 20037
(202) 785-9700
Counsel for the Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 25th day of March, 1993, I caused to be served, by first class mail, postage prepaid, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer upon James L. Kestell, Esquire, 1101 15th Street, N.W., Suite 1010, Washington, D.C. 20005.
______________________
Joseph E. Kolick, Jr.
Ambassador Robert S. Strauss: A Saved Newspaper Clipping
Sorting through my personal papers, I recently came across a newspaper clipping of an article published by the New York Times on August 24, 1991 concerning the assumption by Bob Strauss of the post of U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union. I rarely save newspaper clippings. Two months later, on October 29, 1991, my employment at Bob Strauss's law firm was abruptly terminated.
I had underlined the passage highlighted in yellow, below, and I added the marginal notation "Wiseacre commentators!"
The highlighted passage is psychologically revealing. It suggests my identification with over-achievers or people whose potential is discounted, whose ability to overcome seeming deficiencies is undervalued. Speaking metaphorically (but not simply metaphorically) I identify with the 5'9" star basketball player.
_____________________
Ambassador Robert Strauss of the United States, who rushed to the Soviet Union at the height of coup, said today that he would return home next week and present his credentials in Moscow in September as originally planned.
Mr. Strauss refused to present his credentials to the hard-line coup government after arriving here on Wednesday and has not formally taken his post.
At a brief news conference, he declined to comment on Government changes in the wake of the coup but said, "It seems to me, really, that the winners are the principles that this country, our country, stands for -- the principles of human rights and of freedom and democracy."
"The forces that the United States feels so strongly about have had a great victory," Mr. Strauss said.
Meeting With Shevardnadze
He said he had met with former Foreign Minister Eduard A. Shevardnadze and Mayor Gavriil K. Popov of Moscow, and had tentative meetings planned with President Mikhail S. Gorbachev and with President Boris N. Yeltsin of the Russian republic.
American officials had no advance warning of the coup, Mr. Strauss said, adding: "And I don't think that the people in this Government had any warning it was going to happen. Do I think we have good intelligence? Yes."
Mr. Strauss, a 72-year-old lawyer, alluded to criticism of his appointment on grounds that his decades in Washington and Texas had not prepared him for the complexities of the Soviet Union. "I said to President Bush when he was questioning me about it, 'While I'm no expert on these things, I'm an expert on people,' " he said.
"I've walked these streets," Mr. Strauss said, "and I've looked at people. There is something in the air here. These are happy people. With all the problems that they have, with all the suffering, there are more smiles and there is more bounce on the street in Moscow than there are in most cities of the world.
"These people know they have something, they have earned something. It's theirs because hey earned it."
Mr. Shevardnadze, a leading Soviet reformer, expressed thanks for United States backing during the coup, particularly a telephone conversation between Mr. Bush and Mr. Yeltsin on Tuesday at the height of the coup, Mr. Strauss said. "He said, 'Bob, I hope that when you return to report to President Bush that you will say to him that his call to President Yeltsin was an exceedingly crucial call, coming at the time it did. Nothing could have meant more to President Yeltsin, to me and to others than for him to have made that call. His timing was perfect.' "
I had underlined the passage highlighted in yellow, below, and I added the marginal notation "Wiseacre commentators!"
The highlighted passage is psychologically revealing. It suggests my identification with over-achievers or people whose potential is discounted, whose ability to overcome seeming deficiencies is undervalued. Speaking metaphorically (but not simply metaphorically) I identify with the 5'9" star basketball player.
_____________________
Ambassador Robert Strauss of the United States, who rushed to the Soviet Union at the height of coup, said today that he would return home next week and present his credentials in Moscow in September as originally planned.
Mr. Strauss refused to present his credentials to the hard-line coup government after arriving here on Wednesday and has not formally taken his post.
At a brief news conference, he declined to comment on Government changes in the wake of the coup but said, "It seems to me, really, that the winners are the principles that this country, our country, stands for -- the principles of human rights and of freedom and democracy."
"The forces that the United States feels so strongly about have had a great victory," Mr. Strauss said.
Meeting With Shevardnadze
He said he had met with former Foreign Minister Eduard A. Shevardnadze and Mayor Gavriil K. Popov of Moscow, and had tentative meetings planned with President Mikhail S. Gorbachev and with President Boris N. Yeltsin of the Russian republic.
American officials had no advance warning of the coup, Mr. Strauss said, adding: "And I don't think that the people in this Government had any warning it was going to happen. Do I think we have good intelligence? Yes."
Mr. Strauss, a 72-year-old lawyer, alluded to criticism of his appointment on grounds that his decades in Washington and Texas had not prepared him for the complexities of the Soviet Union. "I said to President Bush when he was questioning me about it, 'While I'm no expert on these things, I'm an expert on people,' " he said.
"I've walked these streets," Mr. Strauss said, "and I've looked at people. There is something in the air here. These are happy people. With all the problems that they have, with all the suffering, there are more smiles and there is more bounce on the street in Moscow than there are in most cities of the world.
"These people know they have something, they have earned something. It's theirs because hey earned it."
Mr. Shevardnadze, a leading Soviet reformer, expressed thanks for United States backing during the coup, particularly a telephone conversation between Mr. Bush and Mr. Yeltsin on Tuesday at the height of the coup, Mr. Strauss said. "He said, 'Bob, I hope that when you return to report to President Bush that you will say to him that his call to President Yeltsin was an exceedingly crucial call, coming at the time it did. Nothing could have meant more to President Yeltsin, to me and to others than for him to have made that call. His timing was perfect.' "
The Creative Process: Me and Charles Darwin
Howard Gruber, a Rutgers professor of psychology and a researcher in creativity, objects to the emphasis psychologists put on flashes of insight in the creative process. His own extensive study of Darwin's notebooks leads him to theorize that the scientific genius works on a problem in something like the way an oyster works on a grain of sand. The key features of the creative process, Gruber believes, are "that you work hard, probably for a long time"; that most geniuses engage in a number of interests, or a "network of enterprises," which they juggle; that they know how to "bracket" parts of a problem resistant to solution so they can concentrate on parts that can be done; and that they regularly employ what he calls "images of wide scope." An example of such an image is Darwin's evolutionary tree. Darwin revised this drawing over and over, and it served as a touchstone for his evolving theory of development.
Well, I'm no Darwin. And certainly I am not a scientific genius. But the creative process Gruber describes seems to apply to my method of working on my book Significant Moments. I started with a basic outline: a collection of quotations that I assembled according to subject matter, a kind of "bracketing," if you will. Over the course of the next eleven years I elaborated and refined the quotations within the brackets of material. The writing evolved like a living organism in the womb, acquiring new features and losing others. Thus, a 550-page book grew out of a basic outline of about 25 pages.
Well, I'm no Darwin. And certainly I am not a scientific genius. But the creative process Gruber describes seems to apply to my method of working on my book Significant Moments. I started with a basic outline: a collection of quotations that I assembled according to subject matter, a kind of "bracketing," if you will. Over the course of the next eleven years I elaborated and refined the quotations within the brackets of material. The writing evolved like a living organism in the womb, acquiring new features and losing others. Thus, a 550-page book grew out of a basic outline of about 25 pages.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
What a Jew Hears When Listening to Beethoven
. . . et vitam venturi saeculi. Amen.
And the Life of the world to come. Amen.
___________________
In one story, a man comes to Shammai asking to be converted on the condition that Shammai make him a high priest. Shammai responds, "Don't we have anyone in Israel to make a high priest rather than this proselyte?" and dismisses the man. The man then approaches Hillel with the same request. Rather than rebuke him, Hillel suggests that this man begin studying the biblical laws of the priesthood. As he learns about the difficulties and dangers of the priesthood, the man abandons this ambition but commits himself to conversion. In a final rebuke to Shammai, the man comments, "Your impatience, Shammai, almost made me remove my soul from the life of this world and of the world to come; and your patience, Hillel, made me worthy to inherit the life of this world and the life of the world to come."
Letter from Franklin Institute Coworker
From 1975 to 1979 I worked at The Franklin Institute in Philadelphia with the author of the following letter, who wrote to me during my first year of law school in Spokane, Washington:
April 29, 1980
Dear Gary,
I saw this article in Science 80 and thought that you might be interested in it. Freud--a closet biologist!
I understand (via Nancy) that your classes and work are going extremely well. Congratulations on your accomplishments.
I hope that you get a chance to come in and visit soon. There have been several changes in our lives (as I'm sure you heard from Nancy), but I don't have the energy to go into them now. Besides, I have to finish correcting my program for my midterm tonight. I'm on the second half of a COBOL programming course. It's fun . . . and irritating. It's true what programmers say . . . "the computer can't do it!" Actually, in case you haven't already guessed, the computer does not impose all that many limitations; it's the programmer and his/her lack of foresight.
Take care of yourself. Don't overwork yourself. Remember the old saying about too much work.
Investment in Brother-In-Law's Business
PROMISSORY NOTE
$7,000.00
Moorestown, New Jersey
May 1, 1983
For value received, the undersigned Edward A. Jacobson hereinafter called Maker, promises to pay to the order of Gary Freedman of Sylvania House, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, hereinafter called Holder, the sum of Seven Thousand Dollars ($7,000.00) with interest at the rate of eighteen percent (18%) per annum. No monthly payment of principal shall be due, but monthly interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the unpaid principal shall be due on the first of each month. The Maker shall have the right to prepay all or part of the interest and principal without penalty for prepayment.
The Holder of the note, Gary Freedman, shall have the right to receive the entire amount of principal and unpaid interest upon (3) days notification to Edward A. Jacobson.
/s/
_________________
EDWARD A. JACOBSON
WITNESS:
[blank]
_________________
Ambassador Robert S. Strauss -- Akin Gump Farewell Reception
MEMORANDUM
To: Everyone
From: Management Committee
Date: August 19, 1991
You are Cordially Invited
To A
Farewell Reception in honor of
Robert S. Strauss and Vera Murray
Thursday, August 29, 1991
5:15 to 6:30 p.m.
9th Floor Reception Area and 9 Main Conference Room
___________________________________R.S.V.P. to Margarita Babb by Friday, August 23
To: Margarita Babb
From: ____________________
I will be able to attend _________________
I will not be able to attend __________________
Farewell Reception - August 29, 1991
GW Psychiatric Treatment: Dr. Wiener's Response to Critique of Psychological Testing
The George Washington University
Washington, D.C.
The Leon Yochelson
Professor and Chairman
October 4, 1994
Mr. Gary Freedman
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW - #136
Washington, DC 20008
Dear Mr. Freedman,
As he indicated, Dr. Ghezzi referred your letter of September 6th to me. I regret that you continue to remain occupied in this way. I do not think any useful purpose can be served in trying to respond to the content of your letter of August 29th to Dr. Georgopoulos.
Sincerely,
Jerry M. Wiener, M.D.
cc: Dr. Ghezzi
Dr. Georgopoulos
Group Therapy -- 2004
In February 2004 I entered group therapy at the Spring Road Clinic of the D.C. Department of Mental Health.
The following is the notice posted on a bulletin board at the clinic advertising the group therapy program:
______________________________
The following is the notice posted on a bulletin board at the clinic advertising the group therapy program:
______________________________
Ongoing Psychotherapy Group
Interpersonal Issues
Meeting Tuesday Afternoons,
1:00 to 2:30 PM
Group Room, 3rd Floor
North Community Mental Health Center
1125 Spring Rd., NW
To join, please contact:
Nicole Rafanello, M.A. or Debra Kosch, M. Phil.
(202) 645-8737
Psychiatric Treatment -- 2000 -- D.C. Dept. Mental Health
TO: Nancy Shaffer, Ph.D.
FROM: Gary Freedman
DATE: October 25, 2000
RE: Job Harassment -- Stereotyping
_________________________________________
Back in August 2000 we reviewed a statement I had prepared titled: STATEMENT OF GARY FREEDMAN CONCERNING MENTAL STATUS AFFIRMATION MADE BY THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL.
You noted that a prominent feature of the writing was my references to homosexual innuendo. You questioned why a law firm that was friendly to homosexuals would single me out for homosexual innuendo as a form of aggression.
Dr. Rothenberg's book Creativity and Madness suggests one possible interpretation: that the content of the innuendo related to my status as an outsider. Rothenberg, in a discussion of social marginality, identifies several groups, namely, homosexuals, Jews, expatriates, disabled persons, and younger siblings (and creative persons) who may to varying degrees be cut off from the social mainstream.
Extending Rothenberg's observations to the issue of stereotyping, perhaps, stereotypes relating to any specific class of outsider may apply to any other class of outsider. Thus, for example, my sister's and brother-in-law's views of me (as a younger sibling) will match up with, and confer a deceptive credibility to, the assessments of my coworkers among whom I was an outsider.
Something I found striking in Rothenberg's book (page 106) was his citation to the idea that a defense against, or reaction formation to, anality can heighten an individual's aesthetic sensibility. This links up with my idea that a defense against anality may also be associated with an impaired ability to derive a sense of narcissistic integrity by merger with a social system. See Letter dated August 5, 1998 (p. 3) from Gary Freedman to Lisa Osborne re: the clinical assessments of William Brown, Ph.D. 1/ It may well be that for some persons fragments of defended against anality will play a role in personality style and social adjustment.
Oddly enough, one can interpret the above-referenced "Statement" as reflecting fragments of defended against anality, expressed in both the structure and content of the writing. The writing's structure suggests an aesthetic need to confer symmetry and order on seemingly unrelated trivial events (see Rothenberg); while the content of the writing elaborates the status of marginality, or the social consequences of an inability to merge with a social system (and, further, the writing condemns the anal allusions of the dominant group as a form of aggression directed against the outsider).
________________________________
1/ "It is interesting to observe that the consequences of social behavior of pre-autonomous superego functioning may be similar to the social effects of a particular level of libidinal phase development, namely, the anal phase. (Conversely, it may be expected that rigid reaction formations against anality together with guilt in relation to a harsh, autonomous superego may entail specific and profound consequences for an individual's social functioning. See e.g., Fernando, J. "The Exceptions: Structural and Dynamic Aspects." In: The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. Vol. 52: 17-28 at 21 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997)).
For the regressed anal character "only the organic insertion within an organized social system gives narcissistic importance to the individual and only this form of narcissistic integrity is capable of giving him a phallus." Grunberger, B. "The Anti-Semite and the Oedipal Conflict." International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 45: 380-385, 384 (1964). A therapist's insistent recommendation that a client interact with others, to the extent that that denies the intrapsychic sources of the client's distress, may reflect the dominant role of anality in the therapist's personality and his failure to develop reaction formations against it."
FROM: Gary Freedman
DATE: October 25, 2000
RE: Job Harassment -- Stereotyping
_________________________________________
Back in August 2000 we reviewed a statement I had prepared titled: STATEMENT OF GARY FREEDMAN CONCERNING MENTAL STATUS AFFIRMATION MADE BY THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL.
You noted that a prominent feature of the writing was my references to homosexual innuendo. You questioned why a law firm that was friendly to homosexuals would single me out for homosexual innuendo as a form of aggression.
Dr. Rothenberg's book Creativity and Madness suggests one possible interpretation: that the content of the innuendo related to my status as an outsider. Rothenberg, in a discussion of social marginality, identifies several groups, namely, homosexuals, Jews, expatriates, disabled persons, and younger siblings (and creative persons) who may to varying degrees be cut off from the social mainstream.
Extending Rothenberg's observations to the issue of stereotyping, perhaps, stereotypes relating to any specific class of outsider may apply to any other class of outsider. Thus, for example, my sister's and brother-in-law's views of me (as a younger sibling) will match up with, and confer a deceptive credibility to, the assessments of my coworkers among whom I was an outsider.
Something I found striking in Rothenberg's book (page 106) was his citation to the idea that a defense against, or reaction formation to, anality can heighten an individual's aesthetic sensibility. This links up with my idea that a defense against anality may also be associated with an impaired ability to derive a sense of narcissistic integrity by merger with a social system. See Letter dated August 5, 1998 (p. 3) from Gary Freedman to Lisa Osborne re: the clinical assessments of William Brown, Ph.D. 1/ It may well be that for some persons fragments of defended against anality will play a role in personality style and social adjustment.
Oddly enough, one can interpret the above-referenced "Statement" as reflecting fragments of defended against anality, expressed in both the structure and content of the writing. The writing's structure suggests an aesthetic need to confer symmetry and order on seemingly unrelated trivial events (see Rothenberg); while the content of the writing elaborates the status of marginality, or the social consequences of an inability to merge with a social system (and, further, the writing condemns the anal allusions of the dominant group as a form of aggression directed against the outsider).
________________________________
1/ "It is interesting to observe that the consequences of social behavior of pre-autonomous superego functioning may be similar to the social effects of a particular level of libidinal phase development, namely, the anal phase. (Conversely, it may be expected that rigid reaction formations against anality together with guilt in relation to a harsh, autonomous superego may entail specific and profound consequences for an individual's social functioning. See e.g., Fernando, J. "The Exceptions: Structural and Dynamic Aspects." In: The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. Vol. 52: 17-28 at 21 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997)).
For the regressed anal character "only the organic insertion within an organized social system gives narcissistic importance to the individual and only this form of narcissistic integrity is capable of giving him a phallus." Grunberger, B. "The Anti-Semite and the Oedipal Conflict." International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 45: 380-385, 384 (1964). A therapist's insistent recommendation that a client interact with others, to the extent that that denies the intrapsychic sources of the client's distress, may reflect the dominant role of anality in the therapist's personality and his failure to develop reaction formations against it."
EEOC -- Substantial Weight Review
September 3, 1998
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008-4530
Ms. Laura Nawrocki
State and Local Coordinator
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Washington Field Office
Suite 200
1400 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 275-7377
RE: DCOHR Docket no. 92-087-P(CN)
Gary Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights
Dear Ms. Nawrocki:
This will serve as my formal written request that the Washington Field Office of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission conduct a Substantial Weight Review of the findings of the District of Columbia Department of Human Rights in Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld, agency no. 92-087-P(CN).
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued its Memorandum Opinion and Judgment in the appeal of the above agency action (titled Freedman v. D.C. Dept. of Human Rights, no. 96-CV-961) on September 1, 1998. The Court's action on September 1, 1998, which affirmed the agency's no probable cause determination, ends the appeals process in this matter and triggers this formal written request for EEOC review.
I can be reached at (202) 362-7064; messages can be left at (202) 363-3800.
Thank you very much for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008-4530
Ms. Laura Nawrocki
State and Local Coordinator
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Washington Field Office
Suite 200
1400 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 275-7377
RE: DCOHR Docket no. 92-087-P(CN)
Gary Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights
Dear Ms. Nawrocki:
This will serve as my formal written request that the Washington Field Office of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission conduct a Substantial Weight Review of the findings of the District of Columbia Department of Human Rights in Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld, agency no. 92-087-P(CN).
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued its Memorandum Opinion and Judgment in the appeal of the above agency action (titled Freedman v. D.C. Dept. of Human Rights, no. 96-CV-961) on September 1, 1998. The Court's action on September 1, 1998, which affirmed the agency's no probable cause determination, ends the appeals process in this matter and triggers this formal written request for EEOC review.
I can be reached at (202) 362-7064; messages can be left at (202) 363-3800.
Thank you very much for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
Albert H. Taub, M.D. -- Fraud on Maryland Medicare
In February 1999 my then treating psychiatrist Albert H. Taub, M.D. advised the D.C. Board of Medicine, in response to a Complaint I had filed against him alleging his failure to obtain informed consent regarding contemplated medical treatment, that I suffered from paranoid schizophrenia of longstanding duration. A brief time later I wrote a letter to Maryland Medicare alleging that Dr. Taub was engaged in defrauding Maryland Medicare. The following is the written response of Maryland Medicare Part A:
______________
Maryland Medicare Part A
1946 Greenspring Drive
Timonium, MD 21093-4141
Date: 03/17/99
GARY FREEDMAN
3801 CONN AVE NE #136
WASHINGTON DC 20008-4530
HIC: xxxxxxxxxA CCN: XXXXXXXXXXX
BENEFICIARY: GARY FREEDMAN
DATES OF SERVICE, FROM 7/16/98 THRU: 07/31/98
SERVICES PROVIDED BY: Dr. Taub
SERVICES PROVIDED TO: GARY FREEDMAN
Dear Mr. Freedman,
Thank you for your recent request. Our office does not process the Medicare claims for Physician charges. Therefore, we have sent your letter to the Medicare Part B Carrier that does process these claims:
Trailblazer Health Enterprises, Inc.
Executive Plaza III Second Floor
11350 McCormick Road
Hunt Valley, MD 21031
Phone: 1-800-444-4606
If you have any questions regarding these charges, please contact Trailblazer Health Enterprises, Inc.
Sincerely,
Gerry Onorato
Medicare A Claims and Service
Medicare Part A
______________
Maryland Medicare Part A
1946 Greenspring Drive
Timonium, MD 21093-4141
Date: 03/17/99
GARY FREEDMAN
3801 CONN AVE NE #136
WASHINGTON DC 20008-4530
HIC: xxxxxxxxxA CCN: XXXXXXXXXXX
BENEFICIARY: GARY FREEDMAN
DATES OF SERVICE, FROM 7/16/98 THRU: 07/31/98
SERVICES PROVIDED BY: Dr. Taub
SERVICES PROVIDED TO: GARY FREEDMAN
Dear Mr. Freedman,
Thank you for your recent request. Our office does not process the Medicare claims for Physician charges. Therefore, we have sent your letter to the Medicare Part B Carrier that does process these claims:
Trailblazer Health Enterprises, Inc.
Executive Plaza III Second Floor
11350 McCormick Road
Hunt Valley, MD 21031
Phone: 1-800-444-4606
If you have any questions regarding these charges, please contact Trailblazer Health Enterprises, Inc.
Sincerely,
Gerry Onorato
Medicare A Claims and Service
Medicare Part A
Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights -- Notice of Civil Rights Violation
The right to seek employment is a fundamental liberty interest guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States; the denial of, or interference with, that right constitutes a federal civil rights violation. See Doe v. Bredesen, U.S. Dist. Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, at Nashville: "Right to Seek Employment . . . While no Supreme Court decision has expressly found the right to work, or at least the right to pursue employment, to be a fundamental right, it can hardly be concluded otherwise."
December 12, 1997
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008-4530
Charles L. Reischel, Esq.
Deputy Corporation Counsel
One Judiciary Square
441 Fourth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 727-6252
RE: Freedman v. D.C. Department Human Rights
D.C. Court of Appeals no. 96-CV-961
Dear Mr. Reischel:
I believe that the enclosed sample letter indicates that a possible decision by the D.C. Court of Appeals in favor of the District may be appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
The letter shows that the affirmation by the D.C. Department of Human Rights that Akin Gump formed genuine concerns about my mental health and stability (based on a consultation with a psychiatrist)--an affirmation made without basis of an evidentiary hearing--arguably imposes a constitutionally impermissible burden on my ability to obtain employment.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
cc: Dennis M. Race, Esq.
Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D.
John C. Keeney, Jr., U.S. Dept. Justice
___________________________________
[DATE]
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008-4530
John Smith
XYZ Incorporated
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. Smith:
I am interested in employment with your company, and transmit herewith a resume that details my education and experience.
I believe I have a duty, arising under tort principles [citation], to advise you that the District of Columbia Department of Human Rights has found that my former employer, the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, had valid business reasons to determine, in late October 1991, that I was not suitable for employment, based on the employer's concerns--deemed genuine by the District--about my mental health and stability, including the potential for violence.
Akin Gump's mental health determination was based on diagnostic psychiatric information provided to the employer by a psychiatrist who did not evaluate me personally. The psychiatrist reportedly provided diagnostic psychiatric information to the employer based on the employer's recital of facts pertinent to my beliefs about my coworkers.
The District's determination that the employer formed genuine concerns about my mental health and my potential for violence was not based on an evidentiary hearing.
I believe I have a duty, arising under tort principles [citation], to advise you that that District of Columbia has determined that the psychiatrist who advised the employer (in violation of the APA's Principles of Ethics) that individuals such as myself may pose a risk of violence is named Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D. Dr. Ticho may be contacted at (202) 244 2113.
I believe the employer, Akin Gump, has a duty, arsing under tort principles [see e.g, Merchants Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Fargo v. United States, (D.N.D. 1967) 272 F. Supp. 409], to apprise you of all facts pertinent to its consultations with mental health professionals (including a psychiatrist) upon which the employer determined that I was not suitable for employment by reason of mental instability and the potential for violence. You may contact Dennis M. Race, Esq., the Akin Gump attorney who terminated my employment, at 202 887 4028.
I believe I have a duty, arising under tort principles [citation], to advise you that the District of Columbia Office of Corporation Counsel has expressly affirmed to the D.C. Court of Appeals that my coworkers at Akin Gump formed genuine concerns that I might have been armed and poised to carry out a homicidal assault on the employer's premises. You may review this matter with Deputy Corporation Counsel Charles L. Reischel at 202 727 6252.
I sincerely hope that the affirmation by the Government of the District of Columbia that my former employer had genuine concerns about my mental health and stability (including the potential for violence) will not adversely affect any employment decision.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
December 12, 1997
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008-4530
Charles L. Reischel, Esq.
Deputy Corporation Counsel
One Judiciary Square
441 Fourth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 727-6252
RE: Freedman v. D.C. Department Human Rights
D.C. Court of Appeals no. 96-CV-961
Dear Mr. Reischel:
I believe that the enclosed sample letter indicates that a possible decision by the D.C. Court of Appeals in favor of the District may be appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
The letter shows that the affirmation by the D.C. Department of Human Rights that Akin Gump formed genuine concerns about my mental health and stability (based on a consultation with a psychiatrist)--an affirmation made without basis of an evidentiary hearing--arguably imposes a constitutionally impermissible burden on my ability to obtain employment.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
cc: Dennis M. Race, Esq.
Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D.
John C. Keeney, Jr., U.S. Dept. Justice
___________________________________
[DATE]
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008-4530
John Smith
XYZ Incorporated
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. Smith:
I am interested in employment with your company, and transmit herewith a resume that details my education and experience.
I believe I have a duty, arising under tort principles [citation], to advise you that the District of Columbia Department of Human Rights has found that my former employer, the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, had valid business reasons to determine, in late October 1991, that I was not suitable for employment, based on the employer's concerns--deemed genuine by the District--about my mental health and stability, including the potential for violence.
Akin Gump's mental health determination was based on diagnostic psychiatric information provided to the employer by a psychiatrist who did not evaluate me personally. The psychiatrist reportedly provided diagnostic psychiatric information to the employer based on the employer's recital of facts pertinent to my beliefs about my coworkers.
The District's determination that the employer formed genuine concerns about my mental health and my potential for violence was not based on an evidentiary hearing.
I believe I have a duty, arising under tort principles [citation], to advise you that that District of Columbia has determined that the psychiatrist who advised the employer (in violation of the APA's Principles of Ethics) that individuals such as myself may pose a risk of violence is named Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D. Dr. Ticho may be contacted at (202) 244 2113.
I believe the employer, Akin Gump, has a duty, arsing under tort principles [see e.g, Merchants Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Fargo v. United States, (D.N.D. 1967) 272 F. Supp. 409], to apprise you of all facts pertinent to its consultations with mental health professionals (including a psychiatrist) upon which the employer determined that I was not suitable for employment by reason of mental instability and the potential for violence. You may contact Dennis M. Race, Esq., the Akin Gump attorney who terminated my employment, at 202 887 4028.
I believe I have a duty, arising under tort principles [citation], to advise you that the District of Columbia Office of Corporation Counsel has expressly affirmed to the D.C. Court of Appeals that my coworkers at Akin Gump formed genuine concerns that I might have been armed and poised to carry out a homicidal assault on the employer's premises. You may review this matter with Deputy Corporation Counsel Charles L. Reischel at 202 727 6252.
I sincerely hope that the affirmation by the Government of the District of Columbia that my former employer had genuine concerns about my mental health and stability (including the potential for violence) will not adversely affect any employment decision.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
