I will be filing a claim for compensation from President Trump's $1.7 billion Anti-Weaponization slush fund
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Attorney General / Anti-Weaponization Fund
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Re: Claim for Redress Under the Anti-Weaponization Fund — U.S. Marshals Service Threat-Assessment Investigation of Protected Public-Interest Speech
Dear Attorney General / Members of the Anti-Weaponization Fund:
I submit this claim for consideration under the Department of Justice’s Anti-Weaponization Fund. My claim concerns a U.S. Marshals Service threat-assessment investigation of me conducted from approximately November 2009 through January 2010, including a tape-recorded interview at my residence on or about January 15, 2010.
The investigation was triggered by blog posts I published on My Daily Struggles concerning matters of public concern: alleged fraud on the Social Security Administration, alleged perjury or material misrepresentation by my former employer Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, the public accountability of a federal judge, and the institutional handling of evidence that, in my view, tended to show that my Social Security disability claim had been founded in material part on a false disability narrative.
I respectfully request review and redress on the ground that the USMS investigation appears to have used federal judicial-security machinery to scrutinize and chill protected First Amendment speech rather than to respond to any genuine threat.
The Department’s Anti-Weaponization Fund was announced as a process to hear and redress claims of persons who suffered “weaponization and lawfare”; the Department stated that the Fund may issue formal apologies and monetary relief, that no partisan requirement applies, and that the Fund shall cease processing claims no later than December 1, 2028.
I. Summary of Claim
I do not dispute that the U.S. Marshals Service has legitimate responsibility to protect federal judges. My claim is narrower and more specific: in my case, the USMS appears to have treated protected blog commentary as suspicious, questioned my motive for writing, focused on metaphorical language taken from a federal judge’s own courtroom statement, relied on an undisclosed tipster, and declined to refer the underlying fraud allegation even after I expressly raised it at the outset of the recorded interview.
At the beginning of the USMS interview, I said in substance: “My Social Security claim is a total fraud. Will you make a criminal referral to the FBI?” The Deputy U.S. Marshal replied: “No.”
That exchange captures the constitutional asymmetry at the center of this claim. The government was willing to investigate the speaker, question the motive for his blog, and examine the rhetoric of his protected speech, but it declined to refer the alleged fraud that the speech concerned.
II. Background: Akin Gump, the Disability Narrative, and the SSA Claim
I was employed by Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld as a paralegal from approximately March 1988 until October 29, 1991, when my employment was terminated. In April 1993, I filed a claim for Social Security disability benefits. In August 1993, SSA granted the claim, with an onset date of October 29, 1991, the date of my termination from Akin Gump. My disability benefits continued until December 2019, when they converted to retirement benefits. My March 2026 certification states that Akin Gump’s sworn disability determination, supported by an outside psychiatric opinion, supported SSA’s decision.
The central problem is that Akin Gump’s sworn disability-related submission contained statements I believe were false, materially misleading, defamatory, or likely perjured. In a February 13, 2017 letter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, I stated that Akin Gump’s May 22, 1992 sworn response to interrogatories formed the basis of my SSA disability claim and that SSA’s August 1993 Notice of Award determined I became disabled as of October 29, 1991 on the basis of that sworn statement.
That 2017 letter identified numerous statements in Akin Gump’s sworn filing that I characterized as false, controverted, defamatory, or materially misleading. These included, among other matters, the timing of Eastern Airlines’ bankruptcy in relation to my hiring; the claim that coworkers and supervisors had been consulted about my alleged emotional problems; reliance on a psychiatric characterization made without personal examination; inconsistent explanations of whether my work performance was a problem; denial that sexual-orientation discrimination had been raised; and the characterization of a paralegal-to-litigation-support move as a mere transfer rather than a demotion.
In that same letter, I concluded that SSA’s August 1993 disability determination was based on Akin Gump’s sworn statement, which I alleged knowingly misrepresented the nature of my employment and the circumstances surrounding my termination, and knowingly created a false impression of my mental state and suitability for employment.
Thus, my later blog posts were not mere private invective. They addressed a matter of public concern: whether a federal disability-benefits claim had been materially affected by a false employer submission and whether public institutions had failed to address that problem.
III. The Psychiatric Opinion and the “Dangerousness” Narrative
Akin Gump’s disability narrative relied in part on an outside psychiatric opinion. My March 2026 certification states that the D.C. Department of Human Rights made a finding that Akin Gump contacted an outside psychiatrist, Dr. Gertrude Ticho, who characterized my tendency to put negative meaning on events as “ideas of reference” and cautioned that individuals in similar circumstances may become violent.
The same certification states that Akin Gump later disclosed that Malcolm Lassman had consulted Dr. Ticho and that she was his personal friend.
This is relevant to the present claim because the 2009–2010 USMS investigation appears to have revived or echoed the earlier “dangerousness” narrative that had been used in connection with my termination and disability determination. My protected speech about alleged fraud, perjury, and institutional wrongdoing was treated through a threat-assessment lens, even though the speech itself was public-interest commentary.
IV. Institutional Context: Akin Gump, Vernon Jordan, and Reputational Sensitivity
Akin Gump was not an ordinary private actor in the relevant institutional setting. During my employment, its leadership included nationally prominent political and legal figures. My March 2026 certification states that the firm was managed by a three-person executive committee that included Robert S. Strauss and Vernon E. Jordan, Jr. It further states that court pleadings in McNeil v. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld alleged discriminatory conduct by my supervisor Christine Robertson toward Black employees, including racial remarks and preferential treatment of white employees.
The certification also recounts that, one day after my termination, Akin Gump senior counsel Dennis Race told me that the firm would sign off on an unemployment compensation claim as long as I did not tell the unemployment office “anything that embarrasses the firm.”
These facts are relevant because my blog posts concerned alleged fraud, alleged perjury, workplace discrimination issues, and reputationally sensitive matters involving a powerful Washington law firm with significant political connections, including a nationally prominent Democratic figure, Vernon E. Jordan, Jr. I do not ask the Department to presume improper coordination. I ask the Department to review whether the USMS threat-assessment process was influenced, directly or indirectly, by institutional, reputational, political, or professional interests unrelated to genuine judicial-security concerns.
V. Obama-Era DOJ Context: Eric Holder, USMS, and Institutional Interest
The USMS investigation occurred during the Obama Administration, under the Department of Justice headed by Attorney General Eric Holder. That fact does not, standing alone, prove wrongdoing. But it is relevant to the Anti-Weaponization Fund’s purpose because the claim concerns the possible misuse of an Obama-era DOJ component against protected speech concerning politically connected legal actors and public-interest allegations.
The institutional question is not whether Attorney General Holder personally knew of or directed the investigation. I make no such claim without evidence. The question is whether an Obama-era DOJ component used federal threat-assessment authority in a way that burdened protected speech about alleged fraud, perjury, and institutional embarrassment involving actors with political and professional connections.
This matter may warrant heightened review precisely because it involves possible weaponization not by a local agency or private actor, but by a federal law-enforcement component within DOJ.
VI. The Blog Posts Concerning Judge Huvelle and Margie Utley
In late 2009 and early 2010, I published blog posts concerning Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle, my prior employment-discrimination matter, and related institutional issues. I believed then, and continue to believe, that certain judicial and administrative actions had the effect of leaving unaddressed the alleged perjury or material misrepresentation by Akin Gump that had affected my SSA disability claim.
Shortly before the January 2010 USMS interview, I published a blog post concerning Margie A. Utley, who had served as Director of the D.C. Department of Human Rights during the pendency of my discrimination complaint against Akin Gump. The post discussed public-record facts concerning Utley’s later Hatch Act violation and disbarment, and placed those facts in the context of Akin Gump’s political connections, including Vernon Jordan.
That post bore the title: “Judge [redacted]: ‘This case has been screaming for attention for years.’” The title paraphrased a statement made by Judge Huvelle in open court in an unrelated Guantanamo matter: “this is a case that’s been screaming to everybody for years.” According to my recollection, I had read a July 2009 New York Times article reporting Judge Huvelle’s criticism of the government’s case in that Guantanamo matter as an “outrage” that was “riddled with holes.”
I identified with Judge Huvelle’s outrage. I believed that her language about a case “screaming” for attention also applied metaphorically to my own Akin Gump / SSA / perjury matter. In my usage, “screaming” meant a desperate plea for institutional attention — like a person in a burning building screaming for help — not rage, threat, or violent intent.
VII. The USMS Interview and the “Screaming” Question
At the January 2010 USMS interview, the Deputy Marshal’s first substantive question, according to my present recollection, concerned that blog post title. He quoted or paraphrased the title and said, in effect: “You have to agree that is an alarming thing to say . . . Screaming?”
I was stunned by the question. The word “screaming” had been taken from Judge Huvelle’s own courtroom language in an unrelated public case. It was used metaphorically and non-threateningly. The Marshal then asked what I meant by “screaming,” and my answer apparently put him at ease.
This episode is highly relevant to my claim. It shows that the USMS investigation focused not on any true threat but on expressive language in a blog title, stripped of its public-source and metaphorical context. The government appeared to treat protected rhetoric as suspicious because it concerned a federal judge and institutional embarrassment.
VIII. The Question About My Motive for Blogging
During the interview, the Deputy Marshal also asked me: “What was your motive in writing a blog?”
That question is constitutionally significant. A citizen has a First Amendment right to write a blog about public officials, courts, agencies, law firms, alleged fraud, alleged perjury, and institutional nonresponse. That right does not depend on motive. The motive may be civic, personal, political, literary, accusatory, angry, self-defensive, self-vindicating, or mixed. The First Amendment does not protect only serene or disinterested speech.
The proper inquiry in a threat-assessment context is whether the speech contains a true threat or is otherwise unprotected. The government may not treat the mere existence of a motive for criticism as suspicious. By questioning my motive for blogging, the USMS appeared to be scrutinizing the legitimacy of protected expression itself.
IX. The Undisclosed Tipster
The USMS investigation was triggered, at least in part, by information supplied by an individual whose identity the USMS refused to disclose to me.
That fact is important. The government relied on an undisclosed accuser to bring federal law-enforcement scrutiny to my residence and my speech. I was not given a meaningful opportunity to assess the accuser’s motives, relationship to Akin Gump, relationship to Judge Huvelle, or possible connection to persons who may have had an institutional interest in suppressing or discrediting my blog posts.
I respectfully request that the Fund review the USMS file to determine who supplied the information, what was said, whether the information was accurate, whether it omitted context, and whether the tipster had any relationship to Akin Gump, DOJ, Judge Huvelle, Covington & Burling, the D.C. Department of Human Rights, or any other interested actor.
X. The Refusal to Refer the Fraud Allegation
At the outset of the recorded interview, I said in substance: “My Social Security claim is a total fraud. Will you make a criminal referral to the FBI?” The Deputy Marshal answered: “No.”
I recognize that a private citizen does not have an enforceable right to compel a criminal referral or prosecution. I do not present the refusal as a standalone damages claim. I present it as evidence of the nature of the investigation.
The government showed interest in my blog, my motives, my language, and the possible discomfort caused by my speech. It showed no comparable interest in the alleged fraud that the speech attempted to expose. That asymmetry supports the inference that the investigation was speech-focused rather than fraud-focused, and that the machinery of federal threat assessment was used against the speaker rather than toward the public-interest issue he raised.
XI. Relevance of the Surveillance Affidavit
I attach my March 5, 2026 certification concerning possible Social Security disability fraud and surveillance-related facts not to ask the Fund to relitigate every aspect of my employment case, but to show the factual and public-interest basis for the blog posts that triggered the USMS investigation.
The certification sets forth the background of my employment at Akin Gump, my belief that I was subjected to workplace mobbing, the role of Akin Gump’s psychiatric consultation, the disability determination, the alleged perjured or misleading employer submission, and later evidence that, in my view, supported my concerns. It also states that I filed a 2017 letter with the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia setting forth circumstantial evidence that Akin Gump’s disability determination was perjured.
This affidavit is relevant because it shows that the blog posts had a factual substrate. They were not random threats, harassment, or fantasies. They were writings about alleged fraud, alleged perjury, psychiatric labeling, workplace discrimination, possible institutional cover-up, and the failure of public officials to address those matters.
XII. Legal Characterization
My claim may be characterized as involving:
First Amendment retaliation or chilling of protected speech;
improper or disproportionate use of federal threat-assessment authority;
failure to distinguish protected metaphorical and public-interest speech from true threats;
decontextualization of speech that quoted or paraphrased a federal judge’s own public courtroom language;
reliance on an undisclosed tipster whose motives and connections were not disclosed;
scrutiny of the speaker’s motive rather than investigation of the alleged fraud;
dignitary, emotional, reputational, and constitutional harm caused by federal law-enforcement scrutiny of protected expression.
The issue is not whether the USMS may ever inquire into communications involving a federal judge. The issue is whether, in this case, federal judicial-security authority was used in an excessive, pretextual, retaliatory, or speech-chilling manner against a citizen who was publishing public-interest allegations concerning fraud, perjury, and politically connected institutions.
XIII. Requested Relief
I respectfully request that the Anti-Weaponization Fund:
accept this submission as a claim for redress;
obtain and review the complete USMS file concerning me from approximately November 2009 through January 2010;
review the tape-recorded January 2010 threat-assessment interview;
determine the identity, institutional affiliation, and factual assertions of the tipster whose report triggered or contributed to the investigation;
determine whether the tipster had any connection to Akin Gump, Judge Huvelle, DOJ, Covington & Burling, the D.C. Department of Human Rights, or any other interested person or entity;
review whether the USMS properly distinguished protected public-interest speech from any genuine threat;
review why the Deputy Marshal declined to refer my express allegation of Social Security fraud to the FBI;
determine whether the investigation constituted improper weaponization of federal authority against protected First Amendment activity;
issue a formal apology if the Fund finds that the investigation was improper, excessive, pretextual, retaliatory, or constitutionally chilling; and
award appropriate monetary relief for emotional distress, dignitary injury, reputational harm, and the chilling of protected speech.
XIV. Proposed Supporting Exhibits
I can provide the following documents:
Exhibit A: My affidavit concerning the 2009–2010 U.S. Marshals Service investigation and January 2010 interview.
Exhibit B: Tape recording or transcript of the USMS interview, if available.
Exhibit C: Blog posts from My Daily Struggles concerning Judge Huvelle, Margie Utley, Akin Gump, SSA fraud, and related matters.
Exhibit D: My February 13, 2017 letter to U.S. Attorney Channing D. Phillips concerning alleged Social Security fraud and Akin Gump’s sworn disability-related submission.
Exhibit E: Akin Gump’s May 22, 1992 sworn response to interrogatories and document request in Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld.
Exhibit F: SSA records concerning the August 1993 disability award and onset date.
Exhibit G: My March 5, 2026 certification concerning possible Social Security disability fraud and surveillance-related facts.
Exhibit H: Any FOIA responses or correspondence concerning the USMS investigation, including refusal to disclose the identity of the tipster.
Exhibit I: Public records concerning Margie A. Utley’s Hatch Act violation and disbarment.
Exhibit J: Public-record materials concerning McNeil v. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld and allegations of discrimination involving Christine Robertson.
XV. Conclusion
This claim presents a serious question of whether federal law-enforcement power was used to burden protected speech.
My blog posts concerned alleged fraud on the Social Security Administration, alleged perjury or material misrepresentation by Akin Gump, psychiatric labeling used to justify a disability narrative, public-record misconduct by officials connected to my discrimination matter, and the institutional accountability of a federal judge. Those subjects are matters of public concern.
The USMS
Office of the Attorney General / Anti-Weaponization Fund
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Re: Claim for Redress Under the Anti-Weaponization Fund — U.S. Marshals Service Threat-Assessment Investigation of Protected Public-Interest Speech
Dear Attorney General / Members of the Anti-Weaponization Fund:
I submit this claim for consideration under the Department of Justice’s Anti-Weaponization Fund. My claim concerns a U.S. Marshals Service threat-assessment investigation of me conducted from approximately November 2009 through January 2010, including a tape-recorded interview at my residence on or about January 15, 2010.
The investigation was triggered by blog posts I published on My Daily Struggles concerning matters of public concern: alleged fraud on the Social Security Administration, alleged perjury or material misrepresentation by my former employer Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, the public accountability of a federal judge, and the institutional handling of evidence that, in my view, tended to show that my Social Security disability claim had been founded in material part on a false disability narrative.
I respectfully request review and redress on the ground that the USMS investigation appears to have used federal judicial-security machinery to scrutinize and chill protected First Amendment speech rather than to respond to any genuine threat.
The Department’s Anti-Weaponization Fund was announced as a process to hear and redress claims of persons who suffered “weaponization and lawfare”; the Department stated that the Fund may issue formal apologies and monetary relief, that no partisan requirement applies, and that the Fund shall cease processing claims no later than December 1, 2028.
I. Summary of Claim
I do not dispute that the U.S. Marshals Service has legitimate responsibility to protect federal judges. My claim is narrower and more specific: in my case, the USMS appears to have treated protected blog commentary as suspicious, questioned my motive for writing, focused on metaphorical language taken from a federal judge’s own courtroom statement, relied on an undisclosed tipster, and declined to refer the underlying fraud allegation even after I expressly raised it at the outset of the recorded interview.
At the beginning of the USMS interview, I said in substance: “My Social Security claim is a total fraud. Will you make a criminal referral to the FBI?” The Deputy U.S. Marshal replied: “No.”
That exchange captures the constitutional asymmetry at the center of this claim. The government was willing to investigate the speaker, question the motive for his blog, and examine the rhetoric of his protected speech, but it declined to refer the alleged fraud that the speech concerned.
II. Background: Akin Gump, the Disability Narrative, and the SSA Claim
I was employed by Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld as a paralegal from approximately March 1988 until October 29, 1991, when my employment was terminated. In April 1993, I filed a claim for Social Security disability benefits. In August 1993, SSA granted the claim, with an onset date of October 29, 1991, the date of my termination from Akin Gump. My disability benefits continued until December 2019, when they converted to retirement benefits. My March 2026 certification states that Akin Gump’s sworn disability determination, supported by an outside psychiatric opinion, supported SSA’s decision.
The central problem is that Akin Gump’s sworn disability-related submission contained statements I believe were false, materially misleading, defamatory, or likely perjured. In a February 13, 2017 letter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, I stated that Akin Gump’s May 22, 1992 sworn response to interrogatories formed the basis of my SSA disability claim and that SSA’s August 1993 Notice of Award determined I became disabled as of October 29, 1991 on the basis of that sworn statement.
That 2017 letter identified numerous statements in Akin Gump’s sworn filing that I characterized as false, controverted, defamatory, or materially misleading. These included, among other matters, the timing of Eastern Airlines’ bankruptcy in relation to my hiring; the claim that coworkers and supervisors had been consulted about my alleged emotional problems; reliance on a psychiatric characterization made without personal examination; inconsistent explanations of whether my work performance was a problem; denial that sexual-orientation discrimination had been raised; and the characterization of a paralegal-to-litigation-support move as a mere transfer rather than a demotion.
In that same letter, I concluded that SSA’s August 1993 disability determination was based on Akin Gump’s sworn statement, which I alleged knowingly misrepresented the nature of my employment and the circumstances surrounding my termination, and knowingly created a false impression of my mental state and suitability for employment.
Thus, my later blog posts were not mere private invective. They addressed a matter of public concern: whether a federal disability-benefits claim had been materially affected by a false employer submission and whether public institutions had failed to address that problem.
III. The Psychiatric Opinion and the “Dangerousness” Narrative
Akin Gump’s disability narrative relied in part on an outside psychiatric opinion. My March 2026 certification states that the D.C. Department of Human Rights made a finding that Akin Gump contacted an outside psychiatrist, Dr. Gertrude Ticho, who characterized my tendency to put negative meaning on events as “ideas of reference” and cautioned that individuals in similar circumstances may become violent.
The same certification states that Akin Gump later disclosed that Malcolm Lassman had consulted Dr. Ticho and that she was his personal friend.
This is relevant to the present claim because the 2009–2010 USMS investigation appears to have revived or echoed the earlier “dangerousness” narrative that had been used in connection with my termination and disability determination. My protected speech about alleged fraud, perjury, and institutional wrongdoing was treated through a threat-assessment lens, even though the speech itself was public-interest commentary.
IV. Institutional Context: Akin Gump, Vernon Jordan, and Reputational Sensitivity
Akin Gump was not an ordinary private actor in the relevant institutional setting. During my employment, its leadership included nationally prominent political and legal figures. My March 2026 certification states that the firm was managed by a three-person executive committee that included Robert S. Strauss and Vernon E. Jordan, Jr. It further states that court pleadings in McNeil v. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld alleged discriminatory conduct by my supervisor Christine Robertson toward Black employees, including racial remarks and preferential treatment of white employees.
The certification also recounts that, one day after my termination, Akin Gump senior counsel Dennis Race told me that the firm would sign off on an unemployment compensation claim as long as I did not tell the unemployment office “anything that embarrasses the firm.”
These facts are relevant because my blog posts concerned alleged fraud, alleged perjury, workplace discrimination issues, and reputationally sensitive matters involving a powerful Washington law firm with significant political connections, including a nationally prominent Democratic figure, Vernon E. Jordan, Jr. I do not ask the Department to presume improper coordination. I ask the Department to review whether the USMS threat-assessment process was influenced, directly or indirectly, by institutional, reputational, political, or professional interests unrelated to genuine judicial-security concerns.
V. Obama-Era DOJ Context: Eric Holder, USMS, and Institutional Interest
The USMS investigation occurred during the Obama Administration, under the Department of Justice headed by Attorney General Eric Holder. That fact does not, standing alone, prove wrongdoing. But it is relevant to the Anti-Weaponization Fund’s purpose because the claim concerns the possible misuse of an Obama-era DOJ component against protected speech concerning politically connected legal actors and public-interest allegations.
The institutional question is not whether Attorney General Holder personally knew of or directed the investigation. I make no such claim without evidence. The question is whether an Obama-era DOJ component used federal threat-assessment authority in a way that burdened protected speech about alleged fraud, perjury, and institutional embarrassment involving actors with political and professional connections.
This matter may warrant heightened review precisely because it involves possible weaponization not by a local agency or private actor, but by a federal law-enforcement component within DOJ.
VI. The Blog Posts Concerning Judge Huvelle and Margie Utley
In late 2009 and early 2010, I published blog posts concerning Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle, my prior employment-discrimination matter, and related institutional issues. I believed then, and continue to believe, that certain judicial and administrative actions had the effect of leaving unaddressed the alleged perjury or material misrepresentation by Akin Gump that had affected my SSA disability claim.
Shortly before the January 2010 USMS interview, I published a blog post concerning Margie A. Utley, who had served as Director of the D.C. Department of Human Rights during the pendency of my discrimination complaint against Akin Gump. The post discussed public-record facts concerning Utley’s later Hatch Act violation and disbarment, and placed those facts in the context of Akin Gump’s political connections, including Vernon Jordan.
That post bore the title: “Judge [redacted]: ‘This case has been screaming for attention for years.’” The title paraphrased a statement made by Judge Huvelle in open court in an unrelated Guantanamo matter: “this is a case that’s been screaming to everybody for years.” According to my recollection, I had read a July 2009 New York Times article reporting Judge Huvelle’s criticism of the government’s case in that Guantanamo matter as an “outrage” that was “riddled with holes.”
I identified with Judge Huvelle’s outrage. I believed that her language about a case “screaming” for attention also applied metaphorically to my own Akin Gump / SSA / perjury matter. In my usage, “screaming” meant a desperate plea for institutional attention — like a person in a burning building screaming for help — not rage, threat, or violent intent.
VII. The USMS Interview and the “Screaming” Question
At the January 2010 USMS interview, the Deputy Marshal’s first substantive question, according to my present recollection, concerned that blog post title. He quoted or paraphrased the title and said, in effect: “You have to agree that is an alarming thing to say . . . Screaming?”
I was stunned by the question. The word “screaming” had been taken from Judge Huvelle’s own courtroom language in an unrelated public case. It was used metaphorically and non-threateningly. The Marshal then asked what I meant by “screaming,” and my answer apparently put him at ease.
This episode is highly relevant to my claim. It shows that the USMS investigation focused not on any true threat but on expressive language in a blog title, stripped of its public-source and metaphorical context. The government appeared to treat protected rhetoric as suspicious because it concerned a federal judge and institutional embarrassment.
VIII. The Question About My Motive for Blogging
During the interview, the Deputy Marshal also asked me: “What was your motive in writing a blog?”
That question is constitutionally significant. A citizen has a First Amendment right to write a blog about public officials, courts, agencies, law firms, alleged fraud, alleged perjury, and institutional nonresponse. That right does not depend on motive. The motive may be civic, personal, political, literary, accusatory, angry, self-defensive, self-vindicating, or mixed. The First Amendment does not protect only serene or disinterested speech.
The proper inquiry in a threat-assessment context is whether the speech contains a true threat or is otherwise unprotected. The government may not treat the mere existence of a motive for criticism as suspicious. By questioning my motive for blogging, the USMS appeared to be scrutinizing the legitimacy of protected expression itself.
IX. The Undisclosed Tipster
The USMS investigation was triggered, at least in part, by information supplied by an individual whose identity the USMS refused to disclose to me.
That fact is important. The government relied on an undisclosed accuser to bring federal law-enforcement scrutiny to my residence and my speech. I was not given a meaningful opportunity to assess the accuser’s motives, relationship to Akin Gump, relationship to Judge Huvelle, or possible connection to persons who may have had an institutional interest in suppressing or discrediting my blog posts.
I respectfully request that the Fund review the USMS file to determine who supplied the information, what was said, whether the information was accurate, whether it omitted context, and whether the tipster had any relationship to Akin Gump, DOJ, Judge Huvelle, Covington & Burling, the D.C. Department of Human Rights, or any other interested actor.
X. The Refusal to Refer the Fraud Allegation
At the outset of the recorded interview, I said in substance: “My Social Security claim is a total fraud. Will you make a criminal referral to the FBI?” The Deputy Marshal answered: “No.”
I recognize that a private citizen does not have an enforceable right to compel a criminal referral or prosecution. I do not present the refusal as a standalone damages claim. I present it as evidence of the nature of the investigation.
The government showed interest in my blog, my motives, my language, and the possible discomfort caused by my speech. It showed no comparable interest in the alleged fraud that the speech attempted to expose. That asymmetry supports the inference that the investigation was speech-focused rather than fraud-focused, and that the machinery of federal threat assessment was used against the speaker rather than toward the public-interest issue he raised.
XI. Relevance of the Surveillance Affidavit
I attach my March 5, 2026 certification concerning possible Social Security disability fraud and surveillance-related facts not to ask the Fund to relitigate every aspect of my employment case, but to show the factual and public-interest basis for the blog posts that triggered the USMS investigation.
The certification sets forth the background of my employment at Akin Gump, my belief that I was subjected to workplace mobbing, the role of Akin Gump’s psychiatric consultation, the disability determination, the alleged perjured or misleading employer submission, and later evidence that, in my view, supported my concerns. It also states that I filed a 2017 letter with the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia setting forth circumstantial evidence that Akin Gump’s disability determination was perjured.
This affidavit is relevant because it shows that the blog posts had a factual substrate. They were not random threats, harassment, or fantasies. They were writings about alleged fraud, alleged perjury, psychiatric labeling, workplace discrimination, possible institutional cover-up, and the failure of public officials to address those matters.
XII. Legal Characterization
My claim may be characterized as involving:
First Amendment retaliation or chilling of protected speech;
improper or disproportionate use of federal threat-assessment authority;
failure to distinguish protected metaphorical and public-interest speech from true threats;
decontextualization of speech that quoted or paraphrased a federal judge’s own public courtroom language;
reliance on an undisclosed tipster whose motives and connections were not disclosed;
scrutiny of the speaker’s motive rather than investigation of the alleged fraud;
dignitary, emotional, reputational, and constitutional harm caused by federal law-enforcement scrutiny of protected expression.
The issue is not whether the USMS may ever inquire into communications involving a federal judge. The issue is whether, in this case, federal judicial-security authority was used in an excessive, pretextual, retaliatory, or speech-chilling manner against a citizen who was publishing public-interest allegations concerning fraud, perjury, and politically connected institutions.
XIII. Requested Relief
I respectfully request that the Anti-Weaponization Fund:
accept this submission as a claim for redress;
obtain and review the complete USMS file concerning me from approximately November 2009 through January 2010;
review the tape-recorded January 2010 threat-assessment interview;
determine the identity, institutional affiliation, and factual assertions of the tipster whose report triggered or contributed to the investigation;
determine whether the tipster had any connection to Akin Gump, Judge Huvelle, DOJ, Covington & Burling, the D.C. Department of Human Rights, or any other interested person or entity;
review whether the USMS properly distinguished protected public-interest speech from any genuine threat;
review why the Deputy Marshal declined to refer my express allegation of Social Security fraud to the FBI;
determine whether the investigation constituted improper weaponization of federal authority against protected First Amendment activity;
issue a formal apology if the Fund finds that the investigation was improper, excessive, pretextual, retaliatory, or constitutionally chilling; and
award appropriate monetary relief for emotional distress, dignitary injury, reputational harm, and the chilling of protected speech.
XIV. Proposed Supporting Exhibits
I can provide the following documents:
Exhibit A: My affidavit concerning the 2009–2010 U.S. Marshals Service investigation and January 2010 interview.
Exhibit B: Tape recording or transcript of the USMS interview, if available.
Exhibit C: Blog posts from My Daily Struggles concerning Judge Huvelle, Margie Utley, Akin Gump, SSA fraud, and related matters.
Exhibit D: My February 13, 2017 letter to U.S. Attorney Channing D. Phillips concerning alleged Social Security fraud and Akin Gump’s sworn disability-related submission.
Exhibit E: Akin Gump’s May 22, 1992 sworn response to interrogatories and document request in Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld.
Exhibit F: SSA records concerning the August 1993 disability award and onset date.
Exhibit G: My March 5, 2026 certification concerning possible Social Security disability fraud and surveillance-related facts.
Exhibit H: Any FOIA responses or correspondence concerning the USMS investigation, including refusal to disclose the identity of the tipster.
Exhibit I: Public records concerning Margie A. Utley’s Hatch Act violation and disbarment.
Exhibit J: Public-record materials concerning McNeil v. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld and allegations of discrimination involving Christine Robertson.
XV. Conclusion
This claim presents a serious question of whether federal law-enforcement power was used to burden protected speech.
My blog posts concerned alleged fraud on the Social Security Administration, alleged perjury or material misrepresentation by Akin Gump, psychiatric labeling used to justify a disability narrative, public-record misconduct by officials connected to my discrimination matter, and the institutional accountability of a federal judge. Those subjects are matters of public concern.
The USMS
