Background Information

Friday, October 28, 2005


April 29, 2004
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apartment 136
Washington, DC 20008-4530
Telephone: (202) 362 7064

National Alliance for the Mentally Ill
422 8th Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003
Telephone: (202) 546-0646

Dear Sir:

I am a 50-year-old disabled American who suffers from severe mental illness, and I believe I was treated unfairly by the District of Columbia Library (Cleveland Park Branch) because of my illness.

On Wednesday April 21, 2004 an associate librarian, William Decosta, at the direction of Branch Librarian Brian P. Brown, summoned the Metropolitan Police of the District of Columbia to the Cleveland Park Branch in connection with a letter I had written to Mr. Brown on Friday April 16, 2004. Mr. Dacosta advised the Police (Officer J.E. Williams, Badge 1226, Second District, 202 282 0070) that the letter I had written and transmitted to Mr. Brown had aroused serious concerns about my mental health and stability.

The specific statements in the letter that aroused concerns were the following:

(1.) I said I was in a "dark place," psychologically.

(2.) I stated that I had stopped taking the anti-psychotic medication that my psychiatrist had prescribed.

(3.) I said that I was in deep emotional pain and that the persons who had caused the pain would "pay for my pain."

The Police (Officer Williams and his partner) questioned me about the letter. I explained that I am a licensed attorney and that the statement that "others will pay for my pain" referred to my contemplated act of pursuing legal remedies, a form of protected speech. I explained that I was a nonviolent person with no arrest record and that any references to any future action on my part against any persons related solely to my pursuing legal remedies.

The Police (Officer Williams and his partner) were assured that the letter did not contain an unlawful threat to commit a crime of violence. Librarian Decosta also advised the Police (Officer Williams) that I had engaged in a practice of altering the computer menu icons, an act of misconduct.

Librarian William Decosta stated that the Branch Librarian Brian Brown would like me to stay away from the Cleveland Park Branch for the next six months (i.e., until October 21, 2004). I was free to patronize any other District of Columbia Library and use the libraries' computer facilities.

The Police (Officer Williams) agreed that the Branch librarian's requested remediation was reasonable and advised me that I had to honor it. It was made plain to me that my failure to comply with the six-month ban at the Cleveland Park Branch would result in my expulsion and the possible filing of criminal charges against me.

I fully intend to comply with the six-month ban. However I do believe the ban is excessive, and request that the ban be lifted. I offer the following facts in support of my request.

1. I suffer from severe mental illness, which has been diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenia. The illness was first diagnosed by Dimitrios Georgopoulos, M.D. (George Washington University Medical Center) in February 1996. The diagnosis was confirmed by Albert H. Taub, M.D. in February 1999. My current treating psychiatrist, Betsy Jane Cooper, M.D. (D.C. Department of Mental Health, 202 576 6510) has stated that my current psychiatric symptoms fall within the diagnostic ambit of paranoid schizophrenia.

2. My psychotic symptoms include a fixed delusional system of longstanding duration. The delusional system arose in late October 1988 and centers on the belief that attorney managers of my former employer, the firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld ("Akin Gump") have had me under surveillance. I believe that my psychiatrists have transmitted confidential mental health information about me to Akin Gump managers. I further believe that confidential information about me has been transmitted by said managers to various persons including former President William Jefferson Clinton. Senior partners at Akin Gump include Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Esq., a close personal friend of former President Clinton, and Robert S. Strauss, Esq., former U.S. Ambassador to Russia and Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

I also "hear voices," a symptom that first arose in the spring of 1993. Typically I hear the voices of historical figures and fictional characters from literature. For example, I hear the voices of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Rodion Raskolnikov, a character from Dostoyevsky's novel Crime and Punishment. Since 1993 I have been writing down the voices I hear and have been compiling the quotations in a kind of continuous novel; my "novel" is now about 400 pages in length and is contained on three computer discs. The voices I hear are for the most part benign and ego-syntonic. The voices do not direct me to commit any acts, criminal or otherwise. I find the voices entertaining and reassuring, in fact, rather than tormenting. In stressful situations, the voices become intense, but reassuring.

My illness has been refractory to three different anti-psychotic medications: Zyprexa, Abilify, and Risperdal. Clinical trials of these three antipsychotic medications at therapeutic doses have failed to modify my psychotic symptoms of delusions and hallucinations. I experience fatigue while on these medications, but no therapeutic effects. I resumed the Zyprexa on April 21, 2004, following the above-referenced incident at the D.C. Library. At this time I continue to suffer from delusions and hallucinations.

3. Until late October 1991 I was employed at the law firm of Akin Gump as a paralegal. My employment was terminated on October 29, 1991 by Dennis M. Race, Esq. (a senior manager, 202 887 4028), after I had lodged a complaint of harassment against coworkers that was subsequently determined by Mr. Race to be symtomatic of mental illness.

4. The U.S. Social Security Administration determined that I became disabled and qualified for disability benefits as of the date of the job termination, October 29, 1991. I have not worked since the date of the termination (a period of about 13 years), and live on disability benefits and food stamps.

5. Since the date of the termination (in late October 1991) I have visited the Cleveland Park branch of the D.C. Library almost daily. Brian Patrick Brown has been employed as librarian at the Cleveland Park branch since 1988. Mr. Brown has seen me almost daily for 13 years. I have consistently deported myself at the library in a quiet, respectful, and courteous manner. One of Mr. Brown's colleagues, librarian Barbara Gauntt, has referred to me as an ideal library patron. Prior to the incident on April 16, 2004 I had no inappropriate interactions with any librarians, staff persons, or patrons.

6. I believe that Mr. Brown has had me under surveillance at the library since my job termination in October 1991. I believe that he has been in daily communication with a person or persons associated with Akin Gump, possibly Earl L. Segal, Esq. (the head of the paralegal program) and Malcolm Lassman, Esq. (a senior partner who reports to the firm's management committee on issues relating to paralegals). I believe that Mr. Brown has received confidential mental health information about me via persons associated with Akin Gump and that Mr. Brown has shared that information with fellow library employees. I believe that on occasion Mr. Brown and his colleagues have harassed me with said confidential information by their use of double entendres.

7. I am totally isolated socially. I have no friends. The last time I had any social interaction was in early February 1992 (12 years ago), when I had lunch with a friend. I have no family in the area. I have not spoken with my only relative, an older sister, since February 1996. I have not seen my sister since the fall of 1992. Since 1992 my interpersonal interaction has been limited to consultations with mental health professionals.

8. I have taken a liking to Branch Librarian Brian Patrick Brown, who I have seen almost daily since 1991. I think of him as an imaginary friend. I have imaginary conversations with Brian and fantasize about our getting together for conversation or other activities. Since April 2003 (one year ago), I have been writing letters to Brian and saving them on the library's computer hard-drive; I engaged in the act of altering the computer menu icons in order to get Brian's attention. I believe that Brian has been reading the letters since the inception of my letter-writing activity and that he has acquired considerable knowledge about my personal history and my personality. I believe that Brian has found the letters entertaining.

It was the letter dated April 16, 2004, referenced above, that aroused Brian's concerns about my mental health and stability.

9. I have spoken with three treating mental health persons about my activity of writing letters to Brian and saving them on the library's computer hard-drive, namely, Dr. Betsy Jane Cooper (my treating psychiatrist), Dr. Meghana Tembe (my treating psychologist at the GW Center Clinic for Professional Psychology), and Dr. Israela Bash (my D.C. mental health case worker). None of the parties attempted to dissuade me from the activity, although each of them stated that if I wanted to be friendly with Brian I should engage in conversation directly with him. Dr. Bash expressly suggested that I ask Brian to go to lunch with me.

Based on my conversations with my treating therapists, I had no reasonable basis to conclude that my act of writing letters and saving them to the library's computer hard-drive was inappropriate. Note that two of the mental health professionals, namely, Dr. Cooper and Dr. Bash, are employees of the District of Columbia. In effect, I had reason to believe that two employees of the District of Columbia had granted me carte blanche to pursue my activity of writing and saving letters to Brian Brown on the D.C. Library's computer hard-drive.

10. Librarian William Dacosta advised the Police (Officer Williams) that Mr. Brown had read only one of my letters (the letter dated April 16, 2004). Mr. Decosta denied that Mr. Brown had read any other letters that I had written during the previous 12 months. Mr. Dacosta also denied that he or Mr. Brown had any communications about me with persons associated with my former employer, the law firm of Akin Gump. Mr. Decosta denied that he or Mr. Brown had me under surveillance, or that they had daily communications about me with parties outside the library.

11. Mr. Decosta's statements to the Police (Officer Williams) serve as an admission by Mr. Dacosta that the librarians did not believe that I was engaged in the practice of harassing or stalking Brian Brown. Mr. Decosta's statements also serve as an admission that I had not been warned by library personnel on any prior occasion to cease my activity of altering computer menu icons or writing letters to Brian Brown and saving them on the library's computer hard-drive.

12. I advised the Police (Officer Williams) on April 21, 2004 that Mr. Brown had me under surveillance since 1991; that I had been engaged in the activity of writing letters to Brian Brown for the previous year (since April 2003); and that I had been engaged in the activity of modifying the computer icons for the previous year (since April 2003) (in order to gain Brian's attention). I also said that I believed that Brian and I had a lot in common and that perhaps we could become friends.

The Police offered the following observations:

(1.) My accusation that Mr. Brown had me under surveillance appeared to be a civil, and not a criminal matter. The Police advised me that if I had any substantial evidence that Mr. Brown had me under surveillance I should hand over that evidence to the D.C. Police detectives office or the Office of the U.S. Attorney for investigation.

(It will be noted that the continuing act of a state employee in invading the privacy of a citizen, or the act of a state employee in obtaining unlawfully-procured confidential information about a citizen and disseminating that information to other state employees, may constitute a civil rights violation under federal law).

(2.) Writing letters to Mr. Brown and saving them on the computer hard-drive is an inappropriate way to become friends with anyone. (Mr. Decosta advised me that Brian Brown has a policy of not befriending library patrons. I was free to chat with Brian at the library, but my expectation that Brian and I might become friends outside the library was not feasible.)

(3.) The Police stated that my action of altering or tampering with the computer icons was sufficient grounds to bar me from the library for a six month period. The subject letter I had written (dated April 16, 2004) was deemed by the Police to have no law enforcement significance, as it related to my intent to pursue legal remedies and not to inflict bodily or other harm on anyone.

(4.) The Police appeared to accept the denials of Mr. Decosta (and Mr. Brown) that neither party had been aware of my activity of writing letters during the previous year and saving those letters to the library's hard drive. The Police also appeared to accept the librarians' denial that they had any knowledge that I had been altering or tampering with the library's computer menu icons during the previous year.


I request that the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) offer an opinion as to the appropriateness of the action of the D.C. Library in suspending my access to my local public library for a six month period for the sole reason that I, according to the accusation of the Branch Librarian, Brian Brown, altered the computer menu icons of a Cleveland Park Library computer, without any prior warning by library personnel advising me that this trivial act was considered a serious act of misconduct.

NAMI may contact Mr. Brian P. Brown at 202 282 3080. NAMI may contact Mr. Brown's supervisor, Barbara Webb, at Central Library Administration at 202 727 3096. Barbara Webb is the Administrator of the Local Branch Libraries of the D.C. Public Library. My library card number is 211720 1569 8634.

Thank you very much.


Gary Freedman

Cc: (email - Eric H. Holder, Jr., Esq.)

Ms. Barbara Webb, [February 18, 2005]

This will advise that on Wednesday February 16, 2005 an officer of the Metro DC Police (Second District) telephoned me to tell me that she had spoken to Brian Brown (Branch Librarian, Cleveland Park Neighborhood Library) about my returning to the library as a patron.

The officer told me that Brian had set three conditions precedent to my returning. I had to agree to the following:

1. I must have no contact with Brian; Brian wanted nothing to do with me;

2. I must agree to take my medication;

3. I must not alter the computer icons;

4. I must not leave any saved documents on the computer that can be viewed by other library patrons after my computer session ends.

I told the officer that I refused to agree to these conditions, and that therefore I would not be returning to the library.

1. On April 21, 2004 associate librarian William Dacosta told me, in the presence of the police (Officer J.E. Williams (Badge 1226) and his partner), that I was free to chat with Brian in the library as other patrons do. See letter dated April 29, 2004 from Gary Freedman to the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill: "Mr. Decosta advised me that Brian Brown has a policy of not befriending library patrons. I was free to chat with Brian at the library, but my
expectation that Brian and I might become friends outside the library was not feasible."

2. I am not legally required to take medication. As a matter of principle I will not agree to perform an act at the behest of a District employee that I am not legally required to perform, as a condition precedent to using a public facility. [I believe this condition impinges on my civil liberties, and that it amounts to a constructive ban on my access to the library.]

3. Brian's conditions concerning use of the computer are reasonable; however, Brian should have issued a warning to me in April 2004 before contacting the police. I had no reasonable basis to know that using a public access computer in a manner consistent with its intended use would result in police enforcement action against me.

Also, in regard to Brian's concern that the letter I left on the computer upset other patrons I note for purposes of comparison only that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, an employer may not make an employment decision about a disabled employee based on the
generalized fears of other employees.

It is my understanding that I may return as a patron to CPK at any time, so long as I advise Brian that I will honor his conditions. In fact, I may do so at some future time.

Ms. Webb, I appreciate the time you have spent on this matter, and I thank you. This will be my last communication to you and Brian concerning this matter.


On February 13, 2006 a patron at the Cleveland Park Neighborhood Library (Washington, DC) saved the following document to the public access computer hard-drive, in violation of library regulations. The document contains threatening language; the document refers to a program of "clean-killing America." The content of the letter leaves no doubt that the author suffers from serious mental illness, paranoid in nature. I brought this letter to the attention of managing librarian Brian P. Brown. Mr. Brown took no action against the library patron in question. Mr. Brown's nonfeasance leaves little doubt that the stated reasons for banning me from the library for six months beginning on April 21, 2004 -- namely, that I had saved a document to the computer hard-drive that was threating in tone -- was pretextual.


P.O BOX 41003
Bethesda, Maryland 20824
(202) 299-7007

February 13, 2006

H.E. Secretary General Lord Kofi Annan
United Nations
UN Plaza
New York, New York 10017

My Brother:

I guess this is another one of those days, in the week, and months where I am writing you with shocking revelations about the former U.S. government, and it's Presidents, regarding this nightmare. I apologize for these Americans who without having evil to engage in, would not otherwise exist.

I want to begin by saying that I applaud Europe, and the other Commonwealth Realms that adopted my plan for vindicating our King, and my daughter. I want to say that we need them to stick with the program they began implementing of "clean killing" America, even though it hurts me deeply to say this. As Prime Minister of this Hell Realm, I should feel differently about this place. But I never really wanted to be Prime Minister because I knew that it required me to treat Americans better than they deserve to be treated. With that said, I want to first announce that I am not removing any of my corporations from Europe to relocate or bring them back to America. I will relocate my corporations, even those here, in America, to Africa, Latin America (Cuba), the Middle East, Asia, and Island Nations, as opposed to bringing them to, or allowing them to remain in America.

I should know well, by now, that Americans, those in the former U.S. Congress, and the government cannot be trusted to keep their word, or obey laws.

I was sleeping

Let me tell you what awakened me, fully: on February 10th, 2006, I was awakened by a MI 6 Agent, in drag, or I am told that she is MI 6, or Russian...the source knew that it is not an American. This person was up, attacking me. When it went to the restroom, during the middle of the night, I decided to follow. I encountered it, sitting on a toilet stool, talking to it's self, loudly. There were possibly three other people in the bathroom, but not in a stall. I listened to hear what was being said. I overheard a conversation to "Mike"... "Mike" is the internal monitoring system that the "tool shed" uses to eavesdrop on me, and others. The conversation was centered around "Business Hours;" "going on the clock"; and "when you get started." Since it made no sense to me, until I forced myself to wake up and listen, to go to work to see what it all meant, I heard enough to let me know that she was talking to "Mike"...about the conditions that the Contract Killer would be paid under. "Any other job," you work on, you work first, and then get paid; or you are on the job, first." It kept repeating the same phrase, over and over again. I did not dismiss this. I was trying to figure it out, when I walked down the hall toward my sleeping area, encountering women race walking, and some almost running toward the bathroom. I noticed that some of the women who were suddenly awake, were those I suspected to be DIA, and cops..killers, who sell themselves to the highest bidders. I did not speak, going directly to my bed, to think.

I made notes of this, and attempted to go to sleep, when "Steve Harvey," the Russian or British Agent, walked into the room. Just that quick, it knew what my note read, and began a conversation for my ears, on Volunteers. It defined what it means to be a Volunteer. I wondered how he could know so quickly, when everyone I saw racing down the hall was American. How could a Commonwealth citizen who is employed by another Realm, know what I, the Prime Minister of America, and American Mission Diplomat wrote on paper, before I had an opportunity to cover myself in bed.

I noticed that all of the cops that made my list, and my reports-letters to you were up, sitting on the side of their bed, with Francis Styles holding something in her mouth, and still wearing a face mask.

I should note that the reason she wears a face mask is due to chemical and biological agents being pumped into the vents, and the chemical agent pouring out of the vent, into the environment, filling the lungs of everyone in the "shed." I began to receive intelligence on this a while ago, but ignored it. Francis was told about it, by George Herbert Walker Bush, the former President of the U.S., and the father of the former and last American President, George Walker "Dubya" Bush, because the "tool shed" is Daddy Bush's and the former U.S. Congress' "tool shed." They Ordered the military, and the cops to introduce biological and chemical agents into the environment to help them super clean the shed, and kill everyone in there, especially, those they deem "diapers." Apparently, Francis Styles is a good robot, they will keep her around a little longer, to use her. She wore her mask, this night when "Steve Harvey" put his call out for a Contract Killer to hit me for him, and the Russian Federation. Debra Cook, and Debra Caldwell were among the other contract killers who were up and moving toward the bathroom, this night.

I later learned that Harvey was x rayed, and that he may have a "shank" on his person, like the other British Agent that was seated on the bus bench, when I got off the bus. See the photo of her, recently sent to you. It was thought that he was British, because he was hit with the x ray, and a weapon discovered.

At this point, I learned that the "shed" was filled with homosexual males. I may be the only natural female in this place. I learned, yesterday that they were "clones" of some kind, with "physical strength like mine, but no other traits like mine." I received this information from an Intercept. What I believe may have happened, since I know that there is something wrong with these people, is that my DNA may have been injected into them, by some sick CIA physician, in an attempt to replicate me. I have been of interest to the former American government for many reasons, DNA, etc., intelligence. It began when Darling was alive. However, these people kill on Order, anyone they are told to kill. They have no commitment to anyone, or thing, but money.

For sometime, I noticed that my telephone calls were being diverted to keep me from receiving certain phone calls, and to keep me from making phone calls. I knew that the controls for Deutsche Telecom, T-Mobile, and Verizon were inside the building, in all of the separate operations located in the buildings. What I am saying is 425 2nd Street, N.W., in Columbia, though not a telecommunications corporation, with minimal, if any telecommunications employees representing these corporations operating undercover in the "shed"...the domestic terrorist were given telecommunications master control equipment, that allows them to jam my cell phone, control what comes on the screen of my cell phone, where my calls that I make go, and where calls coming into me, go, and not go, depending on who the caller is. This operation is highly illegal, for many reasons, and is the work of, or is put in place by William Clinton, George Herbert Walker Bush, George Dubya Bush, the former U.S. Congress, Condoleezza Rice, as well as the NSA, and CIA. Any person from the streets, or any place, including the international terrorist can access and control my cell phone. I made a 611 call to find out about "Fox In the Box." I have not been able to access this or find out what it does, or how it allows me to counterattack those who attack me because when I tried to dial T-Mobile customer service a Russian Agent, male, from nearby, some where in the area, intercepted my call, and pretended to be customer service. His inability to understand and inform me about the mechanics of the cell phone, tipped me off. I hung up on him, and have avoided dialing 611 since this incident. This Russian Agent, KSS, or KSB, (KGB) could not have complete access to my line, without the aid of an American "tool". The former F.B.I. 's and it's corrupt Special Agents, Mr. "Patrick Manley" and Mr. Christopher "Christine Wendy" Martin used to play on my phone when I dial 611, or attempt to call a number that they knew I normally do not call, to obtain information on someone or thing. I recognized the voices. I believe it was their last attempt to impede my moving forward on the cell phone, when I tried to locate Diana Goldberg to find out about my RAKU Japanese Restaurant that alerted me to them. However, with the new phone, I attempted to try to access some of the other features. I found that domestic terrorists, mainly, were jamming my phone, where ever I go. They began to put "Memory Full" signs up on my Camera program to keep me from taking photos of them. When I initially began to take photos, I could take as many as 66 photos, or so, without being told or seeing a sign that said "Memory Full." However, they began to learn about my phone, and jammed as well as took control of my features. This was and is done by WMATA employees, telecommunications people with the military that are in the "shed".and corrupt cops that are in the "shed." Yesterday, tired of them jamming my phone, and trying to force me to delete photos of their really "hot" corrupt cops, Bush's people who are "diapers," just like Francis Styles, but not immediately for disposal. In order to try to force me to delete Jane Shine's photo, they kept the "Memory Full" sign, and "delete photos, to free memory," and "40.5 kB memory available. Free some memory?" sign on my camera. "Camera on Stand by. Memory Full" signs on my phone, blocking my ability to use my camera, when I want to, and for what I want to. This is to keep me from sending photos to you, Team Annan, and the UN Security Council. What is going on is a group of very evil, very corrupt former American Presidents are telling lies about what is happening to me, what they are doing, as opposed to what is actually being done, and claiming that I am "crazy" to keep me here, without my inheritance. Right now, my Gallery, where photos are stored, is "Empty" because I have not been able to take any photos due to the domestic and international terrorist jamming my phone. To make matters worse, I attempted to get help, and to report to our side that the terrorist were jamming my phone, attacking me, and trying to keep me from photographing those involved in the attacks, as well as to keep me from getting photos of the new "tools"..domestic, and international that were recycled into the "shed" as the old ones are sent some place else to avoid their possibly being arrested, if anyone engaged in arresting people. When I was able to reach a T-Mobile customer service representative, it turned out to be Yolanda Jackson, a for hire piece of ghetto trash. She works for or represents WMATA employees, and will sell her cell phone "pilot" weapon, services to anyone who can pay her. She works for the House of Saudi, and is a Jeans Gang member, working for the House of Windsor, as well. When I heard a voice, I recognized her voice. I asked who it was. She stumbled, thought about a name, and said, "Barbara." I immediately recognized her voice, and knew that the name she gave is my sister Barbara Brooks' name, a WMATA employee. I told her that I knew she was not T-Mobile, but someone from the ghetto. I hung up, and the fact that I reached a WMATA tool, who is now working for a member of Prince George's County government who stole, sold, and began renting real property, placing an advertisement in one of the small newspapers. Wearing a "PGC" t shirt, Yolanda came into the room to let me know that I had indeed spoken to her. Others came into the room to tell me that I had taken the top off their operation. I began to ask questions about domestic terrorist and non-telecommunication employees having access to a utility that they should not have access to, since they do not work for any of my telecommunications corporations. I asked her how she obtained access to the telecommunications equipment, and what was she doing on my phone? She went to bed. Others, including corrupt former FBI agent, Chris Martin told me that I had cancelled their operation, and taken the top off things by busting Yolanda. All night long, or until I cut the phone off, these domestic terrorist blocked my ability to use my camera. This morning it is still blocked. I know that this trash works for George Herbert Walker Bush.

I know that street people, people who work in WMATA, and not a telecommunications corporation could not gain access to a public utility, or invade the privacy of a Monarch, Diplomat, or Prime Minister, without help from someone who could provide them with this equipment, and insure them that they would never be arrested, or charged for violating the privacy of someone at this level. Not one act of violence engaged in, all the attacks, each night, and the contaminated food served to us by D.C. Central Kitchens, an American operation could take place without the help of the NSA, the DIA, the former U.S. Congress, and everyone on the Bigot's List, which include all former Presidents and past members of the defunct Congress. I learned that the domestic "tools" were selling access to my phone, and the equipment to anyone who would pay their price. I learned that the Open Door Shelter employees provide a room for these private operations, as well as computers. To validate their terrorism, these "tools" some of whom received letters from us informing them that they will be arrested, informed Open Door staff, who already knew that I was taking pictures of the "tools" that I was taking illegal photos of them. To make them seem at ease, and to impeded my taking photos, my phone was jammed by Media people, at CBS, and an Anchor whom I fired, years ago, for speaking out against me, on behalf of the criminals, Bruce Johnson, began to rape me, while other so called "sharks" positioned themselves near my table, in some kind of symbolic move to force themselves on me, and gain a foot hold on our organization. It was a nightmare.

When I went to Kinko's to print some of the photos from the Gallery, to try to free some memory, even though I knew that I did not have any photos using memory, I walked into a Kinko's "bag" that was put in place by some folks answering George Herbert Walker Bush's S.O.S. They locked my enlargement capabilities, to keep me from printing large photos of Jane Shine, Rose B. (A Shin Bet, and David Francis Harriman, or my Jewish in-laws, from my Northern Virginia estates.) and "Steve Harvey." I think the jam was to keep me from putting Jane Shine's photo in enlarged form. When we discussed her freedom, or absence thereof, she seemed to be certain that no matter what she did, she and her daughter, Novene Shine, would never go to jail, even when I promised her that they would. I believe that their being Daddy Bush's "tools" that he contracted with for my daughter's oldest children, has something to do with that. Also, the fact that I sleep in a room with men. I am the only woman in the room. Former cops, former F.B.I. agents, and the DIA are my sleeping roommates. In the rooms behind me there are men, and in the rooms on each side of me there are men. I intercepted a message from them to me telling me that they "protect people." They are a nightmare, not only to look at, but to hear, and to simply be near.

I have photos from the Gallery, but they are small, and in black and white. The Kinko's employee disabled the color printer to keep me from printing color photos. This conspiracy is too large, and involves to many variables to be simply street level people or blue collar people working.

I thought about it and know that the former government, led by, I am told, John Kerry, John Edwards, and the former US Congress, calling themselves Robert Ehrlich, is behind the stalls, the delay in turning my assets over to me, and working to impede my getting home, to my private estates, and to my money to not only delay UN Etc., but to also delay their going to jail, or those in jail being Sentenced for Treason, murder, etc., including the 911 WTC terrorism.

When I questioned the attack that took place, when I could not film anyone, and I knew that the utility equipment was being housed, illegally, and used by terrorist, who could really engage in chaos with this equipment, I began to replay everything. Since I spoken to my grandson on the phone, earlier in the day, learning that "Shadow" the dog, and symbol of the CIA's "shadow operation" that is in place, or was in place in my children's homes, placing Rick Buchanan, his children, and their pets, CIA pets, and scientist, in my children's homes, I began to wake up, more. I learned, after having intercepted a message to me from Karen "Connonlley" that Connonlley is not her last name, or surname, at all. Her real name is Karen Buchanan. She is another one of Rick Buchanan's children, and the sister of Larry "Bogart" Buchanan, Denise Buchanan, Gregory "Swistak,' (for my numbered Swiss Bank accounts) Buchanan's sister. Her message to me, after eavesdropping on my conversation with Lord Chase, my grandson, when I learned that "Shadow" was no longer living with the rest of his family in Tim's basement, or in Tony's basement, I was happy, "I had better not hurt her brother, or she would kill me." This message is one of two that Karen sent me, with the other message.


January 22, 1996
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20008-4530

D. Georgopoulos, M.D.
Dept. Psychiatry
George Washington University
Medical Center
2150 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037

Dear Dr. Georgopoulos:

The purpose of this communication is to advise you of the current status of that portion of my belief system that has been termed paranoid by various mental health professionals at GW.

I continue to believe that I am at the center of a large communications network controlled by attorneys associated with the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, and that confidential mental health information has, since the inception of my therapy at GW in September 1992, been routinely transmitted to these attorneys, including Vernon Jordan, Esq., a close friend of President Clinton, and Robert S. Strauss, Esq., former U.S. Ambassador to Russia.

I believe that one or more of the following mental health professionals associated with the GW Department of Psychiatry has transmitted information to Akin Gump from September 1, 1992 until the present.

Stuart Sotsky, M.D.: Director of Out-Patient Care

Napoleon Cuenco, M.D.: conducted initial assessment in September 1992

Daniel Tsao, M.D.: attending physician at time of initial assessment in September 1992. I met with Dr. Tsao on May 28, 1993 to request a transfer from Dr. Pitts to another resident on the grounds of personality conflict and incompetence. Dr. Tsao declined to transfer, citing departmental protocol.

Suzanne M. Pitts, M.D.: treating psychiatrist (resident) during period October 1992 - June 1994. Dr. Pitts consistently maintained that Akin Gump's decision to terminate my employment was justified in view of the severe nature of my illness. She consistently maintained with utter conviction that my belief that I had been subjected to harassment and discrimination at Akin Gump was the product of a psychotic mental illness.

Caroline W. Wohlgemuth, M.D.: attending physician as of late 1993. I spoke by telephone with Dr. Wohlgemuth in about late 1993 to request, for a second time, a transfer from Dr. Pitts to another resident. Dr. Wohlgemuth agreed to meet with me to discuss my concerns about Dr. Pitts, but explained that the requested transfer was contrary to departmental protocol and could not be effected. Dr. Wohlgemuth stated: "I'm not telling you to do this, but you might want to go elsewhere for treatment. There's the P Street Clinic, there's Georgetown, there are other places you could go." I declined to meet with Dr. Wohlgemuth.

Jerry M. Wiener, M.D.: I met with Dr. Wiener in August 1993 to provide him an opportunity to comment on a complaint that I planned to file with the D.C. Board of Medicine relating to my belief that various of my treating psychiatrists had been in communication with my former employer, Akin Gump. Dr. Wiener declined to investigate my allegations of wrongdoing by GW psychiatrists, and stated that my beliefs were the product of paranoia. He stated: "Your paranoia has crippled your life."

Dimitrios Georgopoulos, M.D.: treating psychiatrist (resident) during the period July 1994 to the present. Dr. Georgopoulos has stated that my paranoid belief system has left me "incapacitated."

My beliefs regarding the surveillance currently being carried out by Akin Gump's attorney managers are fully documented in numerous prior letters that I have submitted to Drs. Pitts, Georgopoulos, and Wiener; these beliefs remain unchanged. The letters, including the letter of complaint to the D.C. Board of Medicine (dated August 20, 1993) and a letter to Dr. Georgopoulos (dated January 13, 1995), are hereby incorporated by reference.

By way of brief summary, I believe that I have been under surveillance by attorney managers of the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld since late October 1988. I believe that the employer has had routine and frequent communications with my sister from October 1988 to the present; had enlisted the former manager of my apartment building to routinely spy on me and my possessions during the period 1989 - February 1992; unlawfully gained access to my apartment (on January 2, 1990) to video-tape the apartment's contents, and distributed copies of the tape to my sister and others; has had routine and frequent communications with my friend Craig W. Dye; has communicated with numerous other persons with whom I have had professional or social dealings, including childhood friends; has distributed unlawfully-procured copies of my writings to various persons, possibly including President Clinton, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (who may be a neighbor of Robert Strauss at the Watergate and who is an opera enthusiast), and Federal Reserve Chairman Allen Greenspan, among others. There is a remote possibility that Robert Strauss has used his professional connections to transmit copies of my writings to former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev (who is a Wagner enthusiast) and Czech President Vaclav Havel (a playwright), among others.

I believe that the receipt by President Clinton of writings unlawfully obtained from the GW Department of Psychiatry via attorney managers of Akin Gump may constitute the commission of a crime by President Clinton and, therefore, at least in a technical sense, might constitute an impeachable offense.

I continue to believe that librarians and staff persons at the Cleveland Park Branch of the D.C. Public Library system continue to receive daily reports from person(s) associated with Akin Gump. These reports relate to the content of my psychiatric consultations at GW, Akin Gump's communications with my sister (who lives in New Jersey), and other issues pertinent to my activities.

The pervasive and bizarre quality of my delusional thinking (specifically, the scope, complexity, and duration of the delusions; the delusions regarding use by attorney managers of video-tape equipment and acts that may constitute the crime of burglary; the grandiose delusion of the President's having committed an impeachable offense; the involvement of the former President of the Soviet Union--and the President of the Czech Republic, of all places!) suggests psychopathology indicative of paranoid schizophrenia.

The following is a brief summary of the ideas of reference that I experienced at the Cleveland Park Branch of the D.C. Public Library System on Saturday, January 20, 1996. This brief account indicates the pervasively self-referential quality of my thinking, typical of psychotic thinking, including paranoid schizophrenia (an illness that might predispose me to violent conduct). I notice that generally the library staff will talk in an inaudible tone of voice, but, at certain times, will state
certain words and phrases in a markedly audible tone.

[Debra:] "There's no question about it!" - [possible reference to determination by law enforcement that my allegations or personality attributions are accurate];

[Bruce Snyder (earlier in the week)]: "I felt like one of the three stooges." - [possible reference to a humorous piece I wrote about Akin Gump's attorneys and forwarded to the U.S. Secret Service];

[Bruce Snyder:] "Calvin Klein" - [possible reference to Melanie Klein, a psychoanalyst about whom I spoke with Dr. Georgopoulos at my consultation on Friday January 19, 1996];

[Bruce Snyder:] "I'm sorry" - [possible reference to Melanie Klein and her writings about guilt ("The child regrets the damage he has done to his parents")];

[Bruce Snyder:] "it's gone up in flames" - [possible reference to the actor Mark Harmon's rescue of two passengers from a burning vehicle in Brentwood, California, ultimately relating to my dream about the attempted assassination of president Reagan ("The Dream of Murder in the Lobby"), which mentions Mark Harmon. I attributed significance to the fact that ever since the Mark Harmon incident there has been a frequent use of the words "flames" or "fire" by personnel at the library];

[Bruce Snyder (earlier in the week)]: "it's a book about an imaginary planet in another galaxy" [another possible veiled reference to Mark Harmon, a Superman-like rescuer (Superman was, of course, from the planet Krypton)];

[Bruce Snyder:] "He's creepy" - [possibly a reference to Dr. Georgopoulos].

Also, on Saturday, January 20, 1996, while I was in the Brookville Supermarket, the assistant manager, Jim, stated to a customer (as he saw me) "It's happened before." He then quickly averted his gaze. I interpreted his comment as a reference to the repetition compulsion.

The affect that I attribute to these persons includes jealousy, wonder, awe, admiration, and fear. The minority staff persons seem to convey a quiet admiration and satisfaction. Brian Brown, the head librarian, seems subdued.

Surely, only the gravest of mental disorders could account for this kind of thinking. Precisely how paranoia of this pervasive magnitude could evade detection on a battery of psychological tests is utterly remarkable.

As you can well imagine, my pain and suffering has been extraordinary for the last number of years. I am totally isolated socially. I last visited my family in the fall of 1992, more than three years ago. My last social interaction with a non-family member took place in February 1992, about four years ago, when I had lunch with a friend, who has since told me to be friendly with dead people.

My situation is desperate. On Friday October 2, 1992 I met with a previous treating psychiatrist, Stanley R. Palombo, M.D. Dr. Palombo advised me at that time that I was fully employable, without restriction. By GW's own admission I am now "incapacitated," a "psychological cripple." I continue to believe that I was subjected to a severe, pervasive, and degrading pattern of harassment at my former place of employment, the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld. According to Dr. Pitts, this belief was the product of a psychotic mental disorder. It is as if I have been destroyed, a victim of a psychological homicide.


Gary Freedman


April 26, 2000
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20008-4530

Nancy Shaffer, Ph.D.
Community Mental Health Center
Washington, DC 20007

Dear Dr. Shaffer:

At the consultation on April 19, 2000 I offered the opinion that families that assign one family member the role of scapegoat will tend to be families whose individual members are struggling with the psychological issues of dependency, shame, and narcissistic disorder. The scapegoating will serve to ward off the shame of individual family members and preserve each member's narcissistic integrity and idealized self-image. That members of such families have unusually intense dependency needs is supported by Brodey's observation that members of narcissistically-disturbed families exhibit "extreme intensity of relationship." Brodey, W.M. "On the Dynamics of Narcissism. I. Externalization and Early Ego Development." The Psychoanalytic Study of Society 20: 165-xxx at 166 (1965).

This letter elaborates material about my family that I originally presented in the personality profile I submitted a few months back. In this letter I offer additional data about individual family members that concerns possible sources of shame, dependency, and threats to narcissistic integrity. It is my speculation that in crucial ways I served a unique role in the family, as a regulator of self-esteem of other family members in my designated role as "ego-dystonic trouble unit."


The father was the youngest boy and next to youngest child in a family of seven children (three male, four female). The father's parents were working class immigrants of Orthodox Jewish origin. The parents were strictly religious.

The Father quit high school at age 16, in the tenth grade. The Father had attended a high school for college-bound, academically-talented students. The Father's IQ, as measured in the army, was 125.

(I attended the same high school as father; my grades started to deteriorate badly in the tenth
grade--the same grade my father quit high school).

The Father was employed in factory jobs that did not match his intellectual abilities: jobs in which his coworkers were not his intellectual peers or cultural cohorts.

The Father married at age 40. The Father married a non-Jew, which was unusual both in terms of the time (1946) and given the Father's specific religious background.

The Father was drafted into the army during World War II, at about age 35; he served in the South Pacific with men who were for the most part much younger than himself.

The Father did not drive.

The Father did not have hobbies. His interests were reading the newspaper, listening to the radio, socializing with family members, occasional movies, baseball games and visits to the racetrack.


Grandmother was dysfunctional, abusive, and paranoid. She spoke very little English and was totally dependent on her two daughters for her support, indeed, her very survival. She lived in a house that was purchased by her elder daughter.

Grandmother could have moved in with her elder daughter, who was childless and lived in a suburban house with extra bedrooms. This was never done because of grandmother's personality, including personality conflicts with both sons-in-law.

Elder daughter's husband was a church-going Christian, but he had no problem letting his mother-in-law die of cancer, alone in an empty house, threatened by knife-wielding neighbors, rather than have mother-in-law be cared for by professional nurse at his own house. The elder daughter's decision not to sell the mother's residence during the grandmother's lifetime (and use the proceeds for the mother's nursing care), preserved the equity of the house. The duty of nursing care fell on my own mother, who visited the grandmother each morning before work to wash her, feed her, and clean her sores.

On no occasion did the grandmother ever visit her elder daughter at her house.--ever. Not even for lunch. Reported reason: grandmother was afraid of driving in a car.

(Possible source of aunt's insistent projection: "Why doesn't Gary do more for his mother?")


unindividuated from early attachment objects (mother and elder sister), who were absolutely protected objects.

the mother and her early attachment objects engaged in the mutual denial of aggression on the part of the other parties and frequently they would discuss their dislike for shared displacement objects: other family members, racial minorities.


began dating her future husband at age 17, as a senior in high school; it was the sister's only serious romantic relationship.

Boyfriend did not have plans to attend college

sister was raised as an "as if" child -- a kind of little princess who was required to take instruction in ballet and piano, who would attend college, and, presumably become a professional who would marry a professional

Sister had hopes of majoring in French in college, and was a member of the French Club in High School; sister changed her major to Education in second year of college. Her French studies were too difficult for her (sister's IQ was measured at 132). Intense study would have taken time away from available time with her boyfriend; it is not known what role, if any, the boyfriend had in changing sister's educational plans. (Aunt's response: "Well, isn't that nice. So, she'll become a teacher. She didn't need to study French." The aunt did not respond: "She's just lazy, that's her problem. She could study French, but she's just too lazy to do that. She'd rather just hang around with her worthless boyfriend. That's the reason.")

Following graduation from college, sister enrolled in a master's degree program in education; she never completed the program despite getting top grades and nearly completing the program

At age 36 sister took two courses in accounting, with hopes of becoming a CPA. Despite top grades she dropped her plans

(One of sister's frequent projections directed at brother is: "He never does what he says he's going to do.")

Sister learned to drive at age 20, only at insistence of boyfriend, who said: "I'm not going to have a wife who doesn't drive." (His mother did not drive).

Following graduation from college, sister was unable to secure a teaching position. She took a position as a secretary at a law firm; a job that did not require a college degree. She worked at the job for one year. (Note that aunt did not opine: "A legal secretary? Did she go to college to become a legal secretary? Why, that's a disgrace. Anybody can become a legal secretary, you don't need a college degree to do that.")

Sister obtained a position as a teacher, to being in the fall of 1970. She had graduated college in May 1969.

Sister left teaching in early 1975, after about five years, to give birth to her first child. Sister never went back to work. In late 1975 brother-in-law asked me if I (the helpless, dependent brother) could get some kind of work for sister that she could do at home. I secured a typing position for sister, which was later terminated for administrative reasons. Brother-in-law came back to me: "Isn't there some other job you could get for her?"

In 1980, following death of mother, sister expected that I hand over my insurance proceeds ($10,000) to sister. Note that many women go back to work after they have a child. In effect, sister expected to be able to sit at home and do nothing, and have her mentally-disturbed brother hand over ten thousand dollars to her. Sister's daughter was 5 years old at time I was expected to hand over money--in all that time, sister never worked.


did not expect to attend college, but, reportedly, sister persuaded him to attend college. Mother would say: "That's so nice. If it hadn't been for our daughter, Eddie probably wouldn't have gone to college." (Mother saw sister, in stereotypical fashion, as a positive influence on others; mother was unable to appreciate the possible role her son-in-law had in downgrading her daughter's educational plans--i.e., daughter's decision to change majors to a less time-consuming course of study.)

(Note symmetry: "daughter as good object can only be a good influence on others" = "Black people murdered my mother." -- Mother's mother died of cancer, but had had difficulties with her black neighbors. Implication: mother's perceptions of external objects were really artifacts of the external objects' assigned status. If you were a good object, you were a good influence; if you were a bad object, you were a bad influence on others. Mother's notion that her own sister could only be a good influence on her own children was a product of the same type of thinking. Additional evidence: mother speculated that I (at age 9) was a cause of aunt's heart attack, despite the fact that aunt had been a heavy cigarette smoker.)

Brother-in-law did not pay for college tuition. That was paid for by his maternal uncle.

Brother-in-law majored in business administration. Following graduation his mother obtained employment for son as an elementary school teacher in an impoverished minority school district (Camden, NJ) through family connections.

Brother-in-law needed a deferment from military service; he was afraid of being sent to Vietnam; Mama took care of that.

War ended in January 1973. Brother-in-law remained in teaching position until 1983.

In 1975, brother-in-law instead of seeking a more substantial job upon birth of child, came to me to get an at-home typing job that his wife could do to supplement family income. Sister later lost that job, and brother-in-law came back to me for a second job. Note the brother-in-law's displacement of responsibility (and transmutation of guilt): The statement "Your sister just had a baby, can't you help us out financially by finding work for her?" screened out the statement "My wife just had a baby, I need to find more substantial employment." And if I didn't comply, I would be the bad person.

In 1977 I attempted suicide. Brother-in-law's first reaction was to contact a lawyer to see if my psychiatrist could be sued. The lawyer, who was active in the mental health field, told brother-in-law that suicide is an inherently psychotic act.

In 1980, brother-in-law had me (who brother-in-law knew at the time might be psychotic) hand over $10,000 to sister. At that time brother-in-law remained in teaching position mama got for him in 1969 so he could stay out of the army.

In spring of 1982, sister and brother-in-law went on one-week's vacation in Florida. Brother-in-law asked sister if she would have me call in sick for her husband every morning. Each morning for a week I had to call the Camden School District, because brother-in-law could not do that. Each morning brother-in-law would call me: "Well, did you make the call?"



Subject's ability to regress in the clinical psychotherapeutic setting is restricted. In the course of therapy, subject's superego demands and prohibitions are not easily transferred onto the therapist owing to the highly-developed nature of subject's metabolization of early object relations. Subject's early relations with the environment gave rise to enduring and stable psychological patterns (structures), which reflect their influence; the early relationships and experiences have lost their specific early qualities and have become assimilated or embedded into his psychic system. Subject's restricted capacity for structural demetabolization (the aspect of analytic regression that emerges most clearly in the context of the transference) requires a great deal of time, work, and willingness to overcome. Greenberg, J.R. and Mitchell, S.A. Object Relations in Psychoanalytic Theory at 331 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983) (discussing the theoretical work of Otto Kernberg, M.D.)

Subject's restricted ability to regress may be especially frustrating for the therapist whose work at a public clinic provides her with considerable experience with severely disturbed patients in whom the emergence of early, unmodulated relationships in the transference occurs quickly because adequate metabolization has never taken place. Greenberg and Mitchell at 331-32.


Subject's restricted capacity to regress in the clinical psychotherapeutic setting directly parallels subject's inability, in a social setting, to derive narcissistic support from an identification with the ideals of a group or the ideals of a leader. Unlike many persons, subject is unable to disregard his own superego demands and prohibitions and allow these to be taken over by the group ideals, precepts, and behavior. Sandler, J. "On The Concept of Superego." In: The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. Vol. 15: 152-159 at 156 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960).


Subject faces a powerful obstacle to therapeutic gain in the form of guilt resistance. Subject finds satisfaction in his illness and refuses to give up the punishment of suffering, which has its source in an unconscious sense of guilt. This sense of guilt, which is largely inarticulable, expresses itself only as a resistance to recovery which is extremely difficult to overcome. Freud, S., "The Ego and the Id." Standard Edition. Vol. 19 at 49-50 (1923).

Nothing can be done against subject's sense of guilt directly, and nothing indirectly but the slow procedure of unmasking its unconscious repressed roots, and of thus gradually changing it into a conscious sense of guilt. Freud at 50 n. 1.

Subject requires a therapeutic setting in which he is able to observe his own wishes and abstracted feeling states, make connections between wishes and feelings (as well as different sides of a conflict), and understand these in historical, current, and future contexts. Subject requires a transference relationship and the skilled guidance of a seasoned therapist to avail himself of opportunities for new insight and growth. "A Conversation with Stanley Greenspan." The American Psychoanalyst, 28(3): 25-27 at 26 (1994).

Subject's ability to develop a therapeutic alliance will depend on subject's ability to place the therapist in the place of his ego ideal. Freud at 50 n. 1. Cf. Fernando, J. "The Exceptions: Structural and Dynamic Aspects." The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. Vol. 52: 17-28 at 24 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997) (a disturbance in superego maturation and integration can affect maturation of the ego ideal, interfering with the deconcretization of the ego ideal and its integration into the personality as a substructure within the superego system).

The very factors that militate against subject's ability to develop normal social relations also militate against his developing and maintaining a therapeutic relationship.


Subject is able to derive narcissistic support from certain autonomous persons who provide subject with a sense of cohesion, constancy, and resilience ("selfobjects"), derivatives of idealized parental imagos. The idealizing selfobject relationship is a dominant force for subject, and is expressed intrapsychically in terms of strongly held ideals and values, and interpersonally in a need for autonomous persons who are themselves dominated by a strong sense of autonomy, ideals, and values that are not readily relinquished by means of identification with the ideals of a group. See Greenberg and Mitchell at 353-54 (discussing the theoretical work of Heinz Kohut, M.D.).

It may well be that for subject the only gratifying interpersonal relations are self-selfobject relations in which subject is able to derive narcissistic support from the act of mirroring an autonomous external object, which permits subject to forego regression or identification with alien ideals. Cf. Fernando, J. "The Exceptions: Structural and Dynamic Aspects." The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. Vol. 52: 17-28 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997) (persons whose superego functioning is characterized by a lack of superego integration ("the exceptions") may be attracted to, or even limit their social interests to, other persons with similar ego-superego distortion).

Unlike many people, subject is unable to derive narcissistic support by a subordination of his personal autonomy and values to group values. Cf. Sandler, J. "On The Concept of Superego." In: The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. Vol. 15: 152-159 at 156 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960).


Subject has a ready ability to allow interests to take over some of the functions more usually performed by intimate relationships. For subject, works can represent or substitute for personal "objects." Eagle, M.N. "Interests as Object Relations." Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Thought (1981) cited by Storr, A. Solitude: A Return to the Self at 152 -53 (New York: The Free Press, 1988).

Put another way, interests serve as an extension of or substitute for self-selfobject relations for subject. Cf. Greenberg and Mitchell at 368 ("Adults need selfobjects even at the highest levels of psychological functioning, [Kohut] argues, pointing to the reliance on selfobjects by O'Neill, Nietzsche, and even Freud, particularly during periods of intense creative activity.")


The integrating function that psychotherapy attempts to achieve through empathy and understanding, can be achieved by subject on his own to some extent. Storr, A. Solitude: A Return to the Self at 151-52 (New York: The Free Press, 1988). Subject's ideal of therapy is based on a "therapist-as-selfobject" model in which his autonomy can be preserved.


Subject suffered a physical trauma (an accidental injury in the oral cavity) in childhood (aged 2«); the trauma and its aftermath may have led to an ego attitude of justified rebellion in subject and a distortion in ego-superego interaction that interfered with normal superego maturation. The tendency to massive superego externalization, normal in early latency, may never have been outgrown and may have resulted in a character disturbance in subject termed by Freud, "the exceptions." Fernando, J. "The Exceptions: Structural and Dynamic Aspects." The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. Vol. 52: 17-28 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997).

Also, the very real oral deprivation and oral frustration associated with the injury would pose additional implications for subject's character formation and ego development. Cf. Hamilton, J.W. "Joseph Conrad: His Development as an Artist, 1889-1910." The Psychoanalytic Study of Society. Vol. 8: 277-329 at 279 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979).

The trauma and its aftermath may have led to a lifelong fate neurosis (repetition compulsion) whereby subject has a tendency to repeat the feelings and reactions of his trauma (including the parents' attempts to evade their own guilty feelings about the accident by blaming subject), which feelings and reactions may have become structured into a portion of subject's superego. Fernando at 20.

Subject displays two attitudes--submission and rebellion--toward his fate and toward that portion of his superego into which the strictures of this fate became structured. The circumstances of the accident and the double attitude subject developed because of them are important factors in subject's ego disturbance. Fernando at 21. Subject has become a victim of fate, destined to have his excited, rising hopes dashed by one circumstance or another. It is at the point where he feels himself badly mistreated by the fate that had crushed his hopes that he assumes the character of an "exception," until his hopes begin to rise again and he enters the next phase of the cycle. Fernando at 22.

Subject's development foundered on his inability to accomplish one of the major tasks of late adolescence: the integration of previously unresolved traumas into the character structure, or what Blos calls the "characterological stabilization of residual trauma." Fernando at 22.

Subject's superego--or, more correctly, that portion of it into which the demands and treatment of his unfair fate became internalized--did not undergo the usual progressive neutralization of its energies, integration into the personality, and distancing from its origins. Fernando at 23. The relative lack of superego maturation and integration in the subject affects the ego ideal and its integration into the personality as a substructure within the superego system, a process that normally takes place definitively in late adolescence. Fernando at 24. As a consequence subject finds it impossible to relinquish his attachment to the idealized images of his parents and instead attempts to recapture his ideals in concrete form in idealized surrogates, or parental derivatives. Fernando at 24. Subject's social interests may be largely limited to such persons. Fernando at 18.


Subject's failure to resolve the dyadic father idealization that emerged at the earliest stages of development has had significant, even profound, reverberations in subject's adult life. Subject's dyadic father attachment was never subjected to a sufficient or lasting resolution during his adolescence, namely, at that period in life when the final step in the resolution of the male father complex is normally transacted. Blos, P. "Freud and the Father Complex." The Psychoanalytic Study of Society Vol. 37: 425-441 at 434 (1987). During adolescence subject's father served as the only protection against the aggression targeted at him by narcissistically-disturbed family members; to relinquish his attachment to his father at that time would have posed an overwhelming threat to subject's ego integrity.


Emotional reverberations of the subject's unresolved father attachment in the subject's adult life can be seen in his idealization of certain male figures. Blos at 434-35. Subject's father idealization suffered a catastrophic shock at his father's death, Blos at 436, when subject was 23 years old; subject succumbed to severe depression and ultimately attempted suicide 16 months later.


Subject's unresolved father attachment is probably related to his fears of maternal engulfment and misogyny. The role or function of the early father is that of a rescuer or savior at the time when the small child normally makes his determined effort to gain independence from the first and exclusive caretaking person, the mother. Blos at 428-29. Subject's continuing need for the protecting presence of the father is a residual effect of both his failure to resolve his early father idealization as well as fantasied and objective dangers emanating from aggressive female objects (and a disturbed male) in the subject's developmental environment.

Subject's capacity for therapeutic gain may depend on whether the personality of the therapist allows of the patient's putting him in the place of his ego ideal, in which case the therapist can act as the subject's protector, rescuer, or savior. Freud at 50 n. 1. The chances for any therapeutic gain with a female therapist are very poor.


The rivalry feelings of subject with his father (and father derivatives), the expressions of competition, oppositionalism, and defiance, in action and thought, which are directed against the father (or father derivatives), have to be largely comprehended as the result of an incomplete detachment from the early father and his protective presence in the subject's life--a presence either actual, construed, or wished for. Blos at 426.

Subject's letter writing campaign, rationalized by subject as a crusade in furtherance of an idealistic goal, and waged at the risk of his personal liberty, may be traced back to a disturbed father-son relationship that featured "frequent fights" and "physical punishment" in the form of beatings. Eissler, K.R. "Crusaders." The Psychoanalytic Study of Society, Vol. 3: 329-355 at 334-36 (1972). Cf. Fernando, J. "The Exceptions: Structural and Dynamic Aspects." The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. Vol. 52: 17-28 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997) (the ego attitude of justified rebellion may reflect a lack of superego integration, a structural deficit attributable to maltreatment in childhood).


Subject's career difficulties may be related to his unresolved father attachment. Subject's subordination of his life's work, ambition, dedication, and achievement to the libidinized expectations of his father may be experienced by subject as a submissive and passive adaptation. The effort to surmount this never quite ego-syntonic position of subject's active-passive balance in the mastery of self and environment may have reached a crucial impasse at the closure of adolescence. At that juncture this unresolved imbalance may have merged with associative identity fragments of a feminine self representation. Subject's inability to contain or resolve this conflict may in part account for the abnormal psychic accommodation subject has reached with adult functioning. Blos at 440.


Subject has one sibling, a sister six years older than himself. Subject's sister reported having a beating fantasy about subject, which apparently emerged a brief time following subject's birth; in the sister's fantasy the sister imagined seeing her father beat her infant brother (the subject).

Such a fantasy in the sister may reflect sibling jealousy and abandonment fears of pathological intensity. See Blass, R.B. "Insights into the Struggle of Creativity. A Rereading of Anna Freud's 'Beating Fantasies and Daydreams.'" The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. Vol. 48: 67, 68, 70 (1993).

The significance for subject of this fantasy in his sister may reside in the abnormal intensity of the sister's jealousy, and the possible role of that jealousy for subject's developing personality. There may be a relationship between subject's adaptation in early childhood to a jealous sibling and his possible reenactment of that struggle in his adult peer relations.

Subject's interpersonal relations feature numerous instances of peer jealousy in the form of malicious rumors, invidious sexual innuendo, or other acts. See Sullivan, H.S. The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry at 348-48 (New York: W.W. Norton, 1953) (discussing situations in which an innocent victim of jealousy serves as an absolutely fantasied figure for a group of persons).


Subject is loss-sensitive and separation-prone. Because of a greater constitutional sensitivity to inner and outer sensuous forms, the process of individuation itself was fraught with loss for subject. Irrespective of actual loss, as by death of mother, lapses of empathy on mother's part were experienced by subject as mismatching and a sense of alienation. Rose, G. Necessary Illusion at 121 (Madison: International Universities Press, 1996).

Mother's actual failure to protect subject against aggression by narcissistically-disturbed persons in his developmental environment was experienced by subject as betrayal and abandonment.

Subject's consequent defensive withdrawal of emotional investment in mother fostered attempts at mastery through (alloplastic) symbolic repetitions, and reexperiencings. Rose at 120.


Subject's defensive withdrawal of emotional investment in mother impaired subject's ability to cathect objects--for fear of losing them and because of the incapacity to mourn. Subject attempts to conserve the lost object by hypercathecting it, at the same time that his unconscious self-reproaches and guilt feelings (for having caused its loss) block the mourning process. Subject continues to search for the lost mother in adulthood (primarily in the form of symbolic substitutes, see Hamilton, J.W. "Joseph Conrad: His Development as an Artist, 1889-1910." In: The Psychoanalytic Study of Society. Vol. 8: 277-329 at 285-286 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979)), and subject's emotional constriction may be viewed as a defense against rage. Repeated disappointments throughout his life enable subject to perpetuate the presence of the lost mother, even while such disappointments constitute defiance and revenge against this parent. Haynal, A. Depression and Creativity at 66 (New York: International Universities Press, 1976).


Subject is struggling with the consequences of the defensive withdrawal of his emotional investment in his mother, beginning in late latency. Subject's defensive withdrawal of emotional investment occurred in the face of his mother's failure (inability) to defend him against the aggression of family members who suffered from "extreme narcissistic disturbance" and who used subject as an essential component of their shame-regulation needs. See Brody, W. M. "On the Dynamics of Narcissism. I. Externalization and Early Ego Development." The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. Vol. 20: 165-193 at 166 (New York: International Universities Press, 1965).

Subject's unconscious struggle is identical to that found in patients who lost a parent in childhood, prior to completing the task of individuation. Subject's defensive withdrawal of libidinal investment in his mother, occurring as it did prior to the completion of the work of adolescence, impaired the reworking of the Oedipal struggle, the painful and gradual decathexis of the beloved parent, and the establishment of an identity matrix. Hamilton, J. W. "Joseph Conrad: His Development as an Artist, 1889-1910." The Psychoanalytic Study of Society. Vol. 8: 277-329 at 278-79 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979).

Subject's struggles as an adult center on feelings of betrayal, abandonment and rage (and the concomitant need for protection against these threats) that properly attached to a mother who is hypercathected, internalized, but whose loss was never effectively mourned. Hamilton at 278-79.
Subject has introjected the hypercathected parent (who is now lost), which contributes towards a marked denial of the loss and the formation of a fantasy that someday magically the lost parent will be regained. Subject's fantasy life reflects the desire to regain a lost idealized nurturing object as opposed to a fantasy life centered on retaining the support of an uninternalized idealized nurturing object. Hamilton at 279.

Subject's self-image reflects his sense of having lost (and his need to regain through rescue) a now internalized idealized object and his identification with a dead, injured, or incurable idealized object (as opposed to a self-image that is dependent on the subject retaining the support of an uninternalized idealized nurturing object, including its derivative, the social system). Hamilton at 279.


Subject does not derive narcissistic support from a type of group involvement in which the aggression of fellow protected group members can be discharged collectively onto outsiders while retaining the idealized primary object, in the form of a leader figure or the group itself in order to make up for the lack of a satisfying symbiosis with the mother. Miller, A. For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Child-Rearing and The Roots of Violence at 86 (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1983).

Moreover, subject's personality makes him a suitable candidate to serve as a scapegoat for the discharge of aggression by such groups.

In his developmental environment, subject served other family members as a repository of forbidden impulses and qualities, which role permitted family members to preserve their own idealized self-image, ward off shame, and preserve the idealized primary object (their own mother). Subject's whole family together read a repetitious script--each validating the other's projected wishes and fantasies. Each of the family members gathered to himself parts of the others, which he constructed into a single stereotype or role. These roles were crudely concrete and hypercathected, and had the quality of caricatures. The family relationships were characterized by narcissistic intensity (extreme at times) and its corollary, abandonment fears. Family member's relationships were reciprocal image relationships among individuals who joined in externalizing each other's projections. Brodey, W.M. "On the Dynamics of Narcissism. I. Externalization and Early Ego Development." The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. Vol. 20: 165-193 at 188-89 (New York: International Universities Pres, 1965).

Subject's sister had a tenable position within the family fantasy system, and therefore was not motivated to emerge from it. Subject's role was untenable; his need to emerge was more desperate, while his means of doing so were already undermined. Laing, R.D. The Self and Others at 22-23 (Chicago: Quadrangle, 1962). In the eyes of the family subject's older sibling seemed well adjusted--the jewel in the family crown--while subject was depicted, and frequently treated, in debased ways. Novick, J. and Kelly, K. "Projection and Externalization." The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. Vol. 25: 69-98 at 90 (1970).

In crucial respects, subject was treated as an outsider by his family; subject's social functioning and social difficulties in adulthood mirror his difficulties in a narcissistically-disturbed developmental environment.

Subject's rigid reaction formations against anality may militate against subject's ability to derive narcissistic support by means of identification with a social system. Cf. Grunberger, B. "The Anti-Semite and the Oedipal Conflict." International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 45: 380-385, 384 (1964)

(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."); 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)) (noting the patient's rigid reaction formations against anality that appeared to operate in tandem with the patient's harsh, unmetabolized superego that limited the patient's social interests to a few idealized objects).


Subject was the target of pervasive projections and externalizations in his developmental environment.

As a consequence of externalization by a disturbed family system subject shows severe narcissistic disturbance with mental pain and conflict rooted in the acceptance of the devalued self and the difficulty in integrating positive aspects with this conscious self representation. There is impairment in the maintenance of self-esteem and the development of an adequate self representation. Novick and Kelly at 92.

As a consequence of projection by mother (and mother's sister) subject shows anxiety and guilt in relation to drive expression. In childhood subject's drives were constantly reinforced by the parental projections, and the development of an autonomous and adaptive defense system was hindered. A brittle superstructure, based on an identification with the primitive superego and defense system of the projecting mother (and mother's sister), was created. Novick and Kelly at 93.


Subject's narcissistic personality disorder (predominantly of the self-victimizing masochistic subtype) crystallized in childhood and adolescence in response to a disturbed developmental environment in which subject was a target of the psychological aggression of mother's older sister and, later, beginning at age 11, of subject's future brother-in-law. See Bleiberg, E. "Normal and Pathological Narcissism in Adolescence." American Journal of Psychotherapy, 48(1): 30-51 (1994).


Subject's brother-in-law suffered from a narcissistic personality disorder (with psychopathic qualities).

See Bleiberg. His psychopathic tendencies centered on a "need to exploit others and by hook or crook get the better of them[.]" Horney, K. Self-Analysis (1942) at 54 (New York: W.W. Norten, 1968). The prime focus of the exploitation was money, but the need was overdetermined in exploitive aspects of his personal relations. Id. The brother-in-law took pride in his exploitive skill and had a complementary "dread of being exploited and thus of being 'stupid[' or a 'sucker.']" Id.

The brother-in-law projected issues of gender-identity disturbance, parasitism, and dependency onto subject in a persistent and double-bind fashion. The brother-in-law's grandiosity was severe but covert: he depicted himself as a model of conventional development. His grandiosity was therefore not expressed in an inflated self-image, rather in an intense narcissistic investment in the view that he was a model of conventional development. The nature of his grandiosity was well-described in an observation that subject's sister once made: "Eddie is perfectly developed. He is the perfectly adjusted person. Nothing worries him. Why, he doesn't even dream. He is so well-adjusted that the things that bother other people don't bother him. He doesn't even have to dream." (Note that in this instance the brother-in-law may have been complying with his parent's implicit demand that the brother-in-law not exhibit anxiety or vulnerability. See Berberich, E. "From the Analysis of a 5-Year-Old Boy with Pathological Narcissism." The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. Vol. 43: 263-78 at 271 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988)).

The brother-in-law's grandiosity (or narcissistic investment in conventionality) merged with his authoritarianism; he was perturbed by deviations from conventionality, experienced such deviations as moral infractions, and viewed his own conventionality more as a virtue than a simple character trait. See Kernberg, O. Ideology, Conflict and Leadership in Groups and Organizations (New York: International Universities Press, 1998) (the authoritarian personality places a premium on conventionality and conformance to group norms and tends to rely on an identification with the conventionalized social system as a source of narcissistic integrity). The presence, and influence in the family, of such an individual would pose a serious threat to the self-esteem of a not fully-developed creative personality, like subject.

The brother-in-law's narcissistic investment in conventionality may be seen to parallel subject's sister's "overconventional personality," see Andrews, J.D.W. "Psychotherapy with the Hysterical Personality: An Interpersonal Approach." Psychiatry 47: 211-232 at 213 (August 1984) (Stanley R. Palombo, M.D., consulting ed.), which is often associated with hysterical symptomatology. Subject's sister seemed to possess characteristics associated with the hysteric, a personality type described in the literature as one that rigidly and inappropriately needs to express agreeable, affiliative behavior. See Andrews at 213. It might be said that while the brother-in-law needed to be like everybody, the sister needed to be liked by everybody (and would fuse her value system with whoever offered her love and acceptance). In practical terms, as far as subject was concerned, the brother-in-law needed to depreciate any deviation from conventionality, while the sister could offer no support to the individual so depreciated lest she undermine her relationship with her valued attachment object. Further, the absence of overt anxiety in the brother-in-law (he had an alexithymic, dreamless mental style) paralleled qualities that may have been encouraged in subject's sister: "The mother [of the hysteric] is not only intolerant of overt expressions of aggression and sexuality but also of anxiety in her child" Andrews at 215.

The brother-in-law was preoccupied with minor details of subject's everyday life: the clothes he wore, the music he listened to, whether the subject might glance at a clock, even the way subject chewed his food. See Shengold, L. Soul Murder at 224. The brother-in-law's behavior toward subject had both obsessive and paranoid qualities: the brother-in-law's obsessive concern with the details of subject's everyday life permitted the brother-in-law to abreact the unacknowledged rage engendered by his own mother's intrusive scrutiny of him. See Shengold, L. Soul Murder at 224.

The overt paranoid formulation "I am perpetually being watched" was transformed by the brother-in-law into the covert paranoid posture "I will obsessively scrutinize every detail of his behavior."

Presumably, the brother-in-law's attitude of hypervigilance directed at subject was related to defects in the brother-in-law's superego development. The brother-in-law may have been attempting to work out his feelings of shame associated with parental overcontrol by adopting the parents' critical attitude but directing the blame toward a scapegoat outside. See Freud, A. The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense. 2d ed. (New York: International Universities Press, 1966).

The brother-in-law was an only child. His mother was a depressive woman who was obsessively and intrusively concerned with every detail of her son's life. Further, the brother-in-law was coercively encouraged to develop qualities of independence and autonomy that fit in with his mother's own narcissistic needs, without regard for the son's developmentally-appropriate dependency needs. The brother-in-law endowed with shame the gratification of the dependency needs of others, which reflected both his feelings of envy and the effects of parental overcontrol. Beren, P. "Narcissistic Disorders in Children." In: The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. Vol. 47: 265-278 at 276 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992). Cf. Erikson, E.H. Identity and the Life Cycle quoted in Roazen, P. Erik H. Erikson: The Power and Limits of a Vision at 113-14 (New York: The Free Press, 1976): "from a sense of self-control without loss of self-esteem comes a lasting sense of autonomy and pride; from a sense of muscular and anal impotence, of loss of self-control, and of parental overcontrol comes a lasting sense of doubt and shame."

In his adult relationship with the subject, the brother-in-law abreacted the distress associated with his mother's intrusiveness; the latent homosexual implications are obvious. The classic psychoanalytic formulation of homosexuality "I will love him as mother loved me" was transformed by subject's brother-in-law into "I will torment him the way my mother always tormented me."

The brother-in-law's obsessive concern with the details of the subject's everyday life amounted to a usurpation of the maternal role in his personal overconcern with every aspect of the subject's behavior and every detail of the subject's care, a situation that may have further contributed to the confusion of subject's sexual identity. See Shengold, L. Soul Murder at 224.

Note the similarity of subject's developmental environment to a form of job harassment in which the employee-victim is subjected to chronic and annoying petty intrusions; with the co-workers' implications of homosexuality and paranoia; in which rivalry for acceptance by peers and parental derivatives (company management) predominates;--and in which the victim is forbidden to complain.

The brother-in-law "persistently question[ed] 'the adjustment' of his wife's younger [brother, the subject,] so that [he would] become[] increasingly anxious. In questioning [subject's adjustment] he repeatedly call[ed] attention to areas of [subject's] personality which [were] quite at variance with the person [subject] consider[ed] [himself] to be." Laing, R.D. The Self and Others at 133 (Chicago: Quadrangle Press, 1962). The brother-in-law's chronic behavior tended to "sabotage," "destroy," and "confuse" subject's sense of self, and had the effect of "driving him crazy." Laing at 132-33. If subject did not date, it meant subject was homosexual, yet if subject dated it meant he was a homosexual (who was trying to prove that he wasn't homosexual); if subject was non-athletic it meant he was homosexual, yet if subject showed athletic prowess it meant he was just one step ahead of total worthlessness ("at least he swims"); if subject did not work it meant he was a lazy parasite, if subject worked, well -- "Why do you work so much?" ("What do you need money for, you never do anything"--a question once posed to subject by subject's niece).

The brother-in-law's devaluations of subject provided an acceptable outlet for the sister's feelings of jealousy of her brother (the subject); the brother-in-law's chronic devaluations of subject provided a vicarious outlet for the expression of ideas that were agreeable to the sister, but which she felt forbidden to express. See Andrews, J.D.W. "Psychotherapy with the Hysterical Personality" at 213 (the hysteric desperately needs to preserve her self-image as a "pleasing person, one who is lovable, cooperative, and socially acceptable" and simultaneously needs to fuse her value system with that of the love object; thus, one aspect of the sister's co-dependency with her husband was that the husband's sadistic depreciation of subject "enabled" the sister to preserve her idealized self-image of niceness while simultaneously providing an acceptable outlet for her aggression and jealousy).

In addition, subject's parents viewed the brother-in-law's behavior as having pedagogic value. As a consequence, subject had no protection from the brother-in-law's disturbed behavior from any source.

The brother-in-law's behavior amounted to a narcissistically-disturbed "as if" pedagogy that really masked his sadistic need to torment the weak and vulnerable. The brother-in-law's own younger daughter (another one of his "pedagogic targets") began seeing psychiatrists at age seven, and later, at age 12, entered three-time per week psychoanalysis.


Subject's aunt suffered from a narcissistic disorder (predominantly of the exhibitionistic-histrionic subtype). See Bleiberg. The aunt, precociously, adopted a parental role in childhood, a development that had adaptive value for the family; the aunt's mother was dysfunctional, abusive, paranoid and spoke little English. The aunt was about 6 years old when her father died (subject's mother was about 4). The aunt apparently served as "a little parent" in her family and developed a narcissistic disorder based on precocious ego development characterized by extreme unevenness of ego development; certain capacities and functions were highly matured or overdeveloped while others lagged behind. Beren, P. "Narcissistic Disorders in Children" at 276.

It appears likely that the aunt's relationship to her own mother was radically affected by the absence of a father and that the aunt, as she developed throughout childhood, was increasingly placed in the role of the absent father. Cf. Solomon, M. Beethoven at 29 (New York: Schirmer Books, 1977). Increasingly, it was the aunt who was placed in charge of the family finances. Cf. Solomon at 29. The aunt became the guardian of her mother and younger sister (subject's mother), thus instituting an infantile pattern of relatedness based on domination and care from which the parties would never free themselves. Cf. Solomon at 30. In adulthood the married, but childless, aunt was psychologically driven to assume, if only delusionally, the role of caretaker and benefactor of her sibling's children (the subject and his sister). Cf. Solomon at 231-55.

The aunt's mother (subject's grandmother) may have been able to exercise control over the aunt's life, based upon her ability to manipulate the aunt's sense of pity and guilt (guilt which the aunt later displaced onto subject vis-a-vis his relationship to his own mother). Cf. Solomon at 30. Both the aunt and subject's mother married relatively late (aged 34 and 31, respectively); the daughters lived with their mother, in a house purchased by the aunt, until the time of marriage. The aunt would have to eventually set aside the parasitical or dysfunctional mother whom she simultaneously loved and despised, who had transformed the aunt into a surrogate wife and father, and who was preventing the aunt from achieving fulfillment as a woman. Cf. Solomon at 30.

The aunt's mother (subject's grandmother) was a Polish peasant, who married at about age 18 in Poland, and emigrated shortly thereafter to the United States with her husband. Coincidentally, subject's sister was married at age 21 to a young man she had begun to date at age 17; it had been her only serious romantic relationship. One is tempted to say that, to some degree, it was a need to flee a disagreeable environment that motivated both subject's grandmother and subject's sister to marry. (Oddly, and purely coincidentally, the sister was to become a widow with two daughters, just like her grandmother.)

The involvement of subject's mother and aunt with their own mother's struggle with life reveals the disparate nature of the respective daughters' personalities. See Greenberg and Mitchell at 147 (the child's intrapsychic struggle with love and hate can encompass an identification and involvement with the parent as an actual person in her struggle with life).

The aunt's interaction with her mother (subject's grandmother) was dominated by a sense of duty and responsibility; for the aunt care of the mother inured to the narcissistic aggrandizement of her self and her sense of moral virtue. Subject's mother's interaction with the grandmother (which also involved considerable caretakeing, especially in the grandmother's later years), seemed to be dominated by identification and empathic concern; for subject's mother care of the grandmother centered psychologically on a need to alleviate the grandmother's pain and thereby vicariously cure herself. The respective attitudes of the two daughters can be encapsulated in the following formulation: Aunt--"I care for mother because I have a duty to do so; my actions display my virtue." Mother--"I care for mother because I identify with her pain; to relieve her pain is to relieve my own pain."

One has the sense that at some level subject's mother had a romanticized view of her own mother that denied, or filtered out, her mother's limitiations, her tyrany, and her abuse: that subject's mother's filial devotion was dominated by a view of her mother as a tragic figure who had sacrificed so much in life and had been rewarded with so little. See Greenberg and Mitchell at 147.

Indeed, when divorced from the abject ordinariness of her life, selected facts about the grandmother bear a quality of enchantment and deeply affecting tragedy. Her husband, a coal miner, who was a number of years older than she, had lived for some time in the United States; it was upon his return to Poland that he convinced the grandmother, then about 18--barely more than a child--to emigrate with him to this country. Who was this man she had married? Was he an adventurer who had beguiled her? or had he exploited her? The grandmother left her family and her native country in about 1911, never to return, to make a new life with the man she loved--in a coal mining community in rural West Virginia! But within about ten years, in about 1919, the man for whom she had sacrificed everything was dead, a victim of the great influenza epidemic. The grandmother believed that the members of her immediate family in Poland, with whom she never communicated, all died in the Second World War; the belief was not based on fact, but apparently reflected the ambivalence and guilt the grandmother felt about what may have been the overwhelming sense of loss occasioned by her irreparable separation. See Friedman, M. "Survivor Guilt in the Pathogenesis of Anorexia Nervosa" at 26-27. One knows nothing about the maternal grandmother's inner life or her self-image. What were her motivations, her dreams, her inner despair--and what portion of that inner life did she transmit to her children?

Subject's maleness may have carried for subject's mother and aunt associations to their own ambivalently-cathected father, who died when they were children: a male figure possibly perceived by the two women as an unreliable caretaker and abandoner (and therefore despised) but also a loved figure, a repository of undetermined idealized fantasies, possibly including rescuer and flawless benefactor or caretaker. Cf. Epstein, H. The Children of the Holocaust: Conversations with Sons and Daughters of Survivors. (New York: G.P. Putnam, 1979) (discussing the intergenerational effects of guilt and survivorship).

One might offer the additional tentative theory that subject's maleness reawakened for the aunt unresolved Oedipal issues that originally attached to a father who died when the aunt was six years of age. In this case the subject would have been the target of the aunt's fantasies centering on rivalry, jealousy, and forbidden attachment. It should be noted that abundant independent evidence of the use of projective identification by the aunt renders the aunt's private, unconscious fantasy life a relevant area of consideration in assessing subject's development. See Greenberg and Mitchell at 134 citing Klein, M. The Psycho-analysis of Children at 170 (London: Hogarth Press, 1932): "Klein suggests that the early establishment of harsh superego figures actually stimulates object relations in the real world, as the child seeks out allies and sources of reassurance which in turn transform his internal objects. This process is also the basis for the repetition compulsion, which involves a constant attempt to establish external danger situations to represent internal anxieties. . . . To the extent to which one finds confirmation in reality for internally derived anticipations, or is able to induce others to play the anticipated role, the bad internal objects are reinforced, and the cycle [of projection and introjection] has a negative, regressive direction (emphasis added)."

The aunt's perceptions of subject and subject's sister tended to be rigidly polarized and had the quality of internally derived anticipations that appeared to relate back to an early (oral) stage of the aunt's development (an early orality that may have undergone later pathological modification resulting from the loss of her father at age 6 and the oral deprivations she experienced growing up in an impoverished coal-mining community in West Virginia). Subject was routinely depicted by the aunt as a "bad object" the maternal nurturance of which depleted mother and which object had a duty to replenish and protect mother (or mother's breast); subject's sister was routinely depicted as a "good object" the nurturance of which showcased maternal narcissism and which object had no duty to replenish or protect mother (or mother's breast). See Greenberg and Mitchell at 119-130 (the chapter on Melanie Klein).

It is striking that two distinct forms of psychopathology, guilt and the hysterical personality disorder, can be seen to relate to the disparate projections of a single narcissistically-disturbed authority figure, who depicted subject's normal needs gratifications as guilty acts that destroyed the mother; but who depicted the subject's sister's normal needs gratifications as inuring to the narcissistic aggrandizement of mother. According to Andrews, the hysteric derives her narcissistic integrity by perceiving herself as being loved (a symbolic derivative of being fed by mother's breast). Andrews, J.D.W. "Psychotherapy with the Hysterical Personality" at 213. The hysteric's formulation "I suck Mother's breast, therefore I am good" complements the perverse, polar opposite formulation of the anorexic who is dominated by guilt "I suck Mother's breast, therefore I am bad."

An additional factor in the aunt's intrapsychic functioning that may have played a role in her interpersonal field was her ambivalent attitude toward her younger sister (subject's mother): the aunt's special tenderness and concern toward her younger sister seemed to ward off contrary feelings. The "excessiveness of the tenderness and its compulsive [and at times hypocritical] character betray the fact that this attitude is not the only one present, and that it is ever on guard to keep the contrary attitude suppressed. . . ." Freud, S. The Problem of Anxiety (1936) at 30 (New York: W.W. Norton, 1963).

The aunt's conscious attitude of tenderness toward her younger sister appeared to conceal by reaction formation an attitude of jealousy and hatred. The aunt was hypervigilant in her attention to any aggression directed against her younger sister and would condemn it sharply: a posture that typically suggests that the hypervigilant party is warding off his own forbidden aggressive impulses. There was a quality of shallowness or hypocrisy in the aunt's tenderness as shown, for example, in her request that subject's mother mow her lawn when the aunt went on vacation or in making other demands on her sister's time and energies, such as having her help to paint the aunt's house. Also, the aunt maintained a persistent attitude of bossiness and entitlement toward her younger sister, that was rationalized by the aunt as an expression of care and concern ("You make him do that! You're the mother!"). The aunt's rigid and defensive attitude of tenderness promoted the appearance that the aunt's love for her sister was special and proprietary and that mother's other relationships, including mother's relationship with her son, were intrusive and spurious; and, further, created the impression that subject's mother was especially fragile and vulnerable. The aunt's attitude of caring concern complemented the mother's martyr-like persona; both parties seemed to be acting out caricatured roles established in childhood.

The aunt's ambivalent attitude toward subject's mother reinforced a family culture that was enmeshed, overprotective, and conflict-avoiding, see Friedman, M. "Survivor Guilt in the Pathogenesis of Anorexia Nervosa" at 37, a culture that supported simplistic (one-sided) perceptions of family members, a culture that did not tolerate hostility or anxiety. The aunt demanded that family members, in effect, adopt her own defense of reaction formation in relation to her younger sister (subject's mother); the aunt's own warded-off (negative) feelings about her younger sister (subject's mother) were forbidden to other family members, and an expression of those warded-off feelings by others would trigger the aunt's rage (when directed against the subject, such rage served as an additional source of guilt for him).

Possible evidence of the ambivalent nature of the aunt's attitude is offered later in the discussion.

An important area for consideration and analysis is the possible ways in which the mother's interaction with subject may have been affected by the early loss of her father: whether the mother's loss of her father (at about age four) contributed to special expectations or idealization of subject, cf. Coleman, R.W., et al. "The Study of Variations of Early Parental Attitudes. A Preliminary Report." The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. Vol. 8: 20-47 (New York: International Universities Press, 1953); or, alternatively whether the mother's loss specifically determined a need to blame subject or elicit aggression from subject (or rendered mother unable to defend subject against aggression) as a defense against the rage of abandonment. A statement made by the mother on numerous occasions may offer an important clue. The mother used to say: "You were always special to us. You were the first male we had ever had in our family." But of course, that was incorrect. The mother had had a father. Yet the mother claimed to have no recollection of him, despite the fact that she should have been old enough, when he died, to have registered at least some lasting impression.

"Children are often extremely sensitive to parental anxiety and depression. The developing personality of the child invariably becomes enormously entangled in the sufferings of the parents. . . . [T]he child's struggle with love and hate [go] past his own internally generated fantasies to include the child's perceptions of and involvement with the parents as actual persons in their struggles with life." Greenberg and Mitchell at 147 (discussing extensions of Melanie Klein's theories).

Virtually nothing is known about the aunt's father (subject's maternal grandfather); the possibility that he was abusive, disturbed--or especially loved by the family--cannot be ruled out, nor should the possibility be excluded that the aunt in adulthood was reenacting issues relating to the love, hatred, or loss of her father. We do know that the aunt had a special antipathy for males who failed adequately to perform the role of caretaker.

(It is interesting to note, additionally, that the aunt's father's name was Stanley, the name of a psychiatrist to whom subject seems obsessively attached in fantasy. Oddly enough, the name Stanley figures in the life history of subject's sister: Stanley was the name of the maternal uncle of the sister's husband (subject's brother-in-law), a beloved younger brother of the brother-in-law's mother, a physician and generous benefactor of the brother-in-law's family. In a large sense, this uncle (Stanley) paralleled in the brother-in-law's family the role of caretaker and parental surrogate assumed by the subject's aunt in her family.

Also, when the subject was about 8 years old, subject's sister (aged 14) successfully convinced subject (who does not have a middle name) that his middle name was Stanley. For some time thereafter subject signed his name "Gary S. Freedman." It is a strange and seemingly trivial anecdote that is in some sense suggestive).

A central issue in the aunt's interaction with the subject was her displacement onto subject of what might be termed a "caretaker role." The aunt, in sometimes odd and inappropriate ways, communicated to subject, even as a young boy, that he had a duty to care for mother and improve her lot in life. See Friedman, M. "Survivor Guilt and the Pathogenesis of Anorexia Nervosa." Psychiatry 48: 25-39 at 28-9 (February 1985) (unconscious survivor guilt is encouraged by parents who convey to their children an inaccurate sense of their ability to affect the quality of their parents' lives). The aunt's displacement of a caretaker role onto the subject appeared to be gender-based; the aunt rigidly refrained from placing any expectations on subject's sister that the sister care for her mother. Even reasonable expectations that the sister assist mother with household chores were never expressed by the aunt; yet the aunt routinely admonished the subject, the male child, to help his mother.

An additional issue in the interaction between subject and aunt concerned the aunt's narcissistic investment in pedagogy. See Miller, A. For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Child-Rearing and the Roots of Violence at 4-6 (New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux: 1983) (discussing the 19th century pedagogue Daniel Gottlob Moritz Schreber, an author of numerous books on child-rearing, whose own son suffered a psychotic breakdown in adulthood). See also Shengold, L. Soul Murder at 224. Shengold describes the elder Schreber as "grandiose and paranoid, with [a] confused sexual identit[y]. [He] had aspects of the psychotic about [him], and yet superficially appear[ed] to have a predominantly obsessive-compulsive character of a particular kind. Every detail [had to] be attended to: a detail out of place [brought] about not just anxiety but an overwhelming, cannibalistic rage[.]"

Numerous instances of the aunt's Schreber-like obsessiveness could be cited. Two will suffice. When subject was 15 years old the aunt noticed that subject was squinting, but said nothing. About a week later, the aunt, alone with subject, said: "I couldn't help notice that last week when you were at our house you were squinting. You know, that can be a symptom of constipation. Do you suffer from constipation? Do you have normal bowel functioning?" (It is interesting to note, incidentally, that the aunt was blind in one eye, a lifelong reminder of an instance of misbehavior in childhood. As a child, the aunt had accidentally dropped a light bulb, which she had been playing with. Glass fragments severely damaged an eye. The aunt was probably punished severely by her mother.)

On another occasion, when the subject was about 12 years old, the aunt assigned a chore: the subject was told to gather pieces of out-of-place pea-size gravel that had scattered on the aunt's lawn, from a garden area, during a windstorm. The subject was told that he would earn a penny for every three pieces of gravel that he recovered. ("Should I give you a penny for every two pieces? No, no. That's too easy. I'll make it three.") Upon completion of the task, the aunt methodically counted each piece of gravel--then proceeded to chastise the subject: "You could have earned so much more money if you had worked harder! You could have retrieved so many more pieces. But you were just too lazy to do that." One has the sense that the entire drama was contrived simply to rationalize the outcome. The subject would fail to perform splendidly, and the aunt would chastise his lack of diligence--no matter how many pieces of gravel he might have recovered. See Brodey, W. M. "On the Dynamics of Narcissism" at 167 (projection may be combined with the manipulation of reality selected for the purpose of verifying the projection).

Note, significantly, that the subject's sister was never humiliated in this way.

It is significant that both the aunt and subject's brother-in-law had similar developmental backgrounds: both the aunt and the brother-in-law were raised by mothers who inappropriately encouraged their respective children's precocious development. See Beren, P. "Narcissistic Disorders in Children" at 276. Subject's sister therefore married someone who resembled her aunt. Cf. Shengold, L. Soul Murder at 9: "those who have been maltreated in childhood . . . have an almost uncanny ability to find and to marry someone with a similar background and similar ideas about child rearing" (quoting Steele, B. "Violence within the Family." In Child Abuse and Neglect at 14, ed. R. Helfer and C. Kempe (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1976)).

Developmentally, both aunt and brother-in-law had been compelled to adopt autonomy as a value but had not been provided sufficient nurturance to develop actual autonomy. As a result both parties, despite the appearance of independence, retained strong unacknowledged dependency needs that had to be warded off defensively and that disposed both parties to intense unconscious envy of maternal nurturance. Both aunt and brother-in-law employed a pedagogic rationalization for their sadistic and obsessively intrusive behavior, thereby transmuting their narcissistic disturbance into a sense of guilt in subject ("he is being chastised for his own good"); subject's normal developmental needs were endowed with shame by both parties to discharge envy and the shame of dependency.

To paraphrase, or apply, an observation that Thurman Arnold once made about the legal system: "parental authority in the family is primarily a great reservoir of emotionally important symbols, needs and gratifications: the rule of the parent within the family is based on the belief that there must be something behind and above the parent without which the parent cannot imbue himself with the qualities of authority or respect that might be conferred by the child on any other adult." Lieberman, E.J. Acts of Will at 370 (New York: The Free Press, 1985) quoting Arnold, T. Symbols of Government (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1935). By implication, the arrogation of parental authority by a non-parent can be accomplished by a grandiose assumption of right ("entitlement") combined with a system of rewards and punishments that lure other parties to acquiesce in the arrogation. This is precisely the dynamics found in certain cults, such as the Branch Davidians, in which the cult leader asserts a parental role over the children in the cult, an arrogation of parental rights acquiesced in by the biological parents, who themselves become de facto children vis-a-vis the cult leader. Cf. Brodey, W. M. "On the Dynamics of Narcissism" at 188 (comparing the dynamics of the narcissistically-disturbed family to that of a cult). Cf. FitzGerald, F. Fire in the Lake: The Vietnamese and the Americans in Vietnam at 292-302 (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1972) (discussing the dynamics of colonialism, specifically the subversion of native authority by the colonial power).

An important source of the aunt's power in the family was her use of narcissistic giving, which breached the boundary of "genuine" generosity. Brenman-Gibson, M. Clifford Odets: American Playwright at 677 n. 24.2 (New York: Atheneum, 1981). The aunt's giving--which featured, inter alia, lavish meals that she prepared at her home, to which the family was routinely invited--was a tool of the aunt's manipulation and control (somewhat analogous to the gifts of candy, or lures, used by child molesters to attract young children, cf. Thomas Mann, Mario and the Magician). The aunt's giving "enslaved, trapped, and somehow deprived the [family] of autonomous life and growth, [so that family members'] separate existence [was] threatened, if not violated[.]" Brenman-Gibson at 677 n. 24.2. As a child the subject could not have recognized that the aunt's giving was in fact "controlling, limiting, growth-arresting, and, therefore, exploitive or 'selfish.'" Brenman-Gibson at 677 n. 24.2. And certainly to describe the aunt's giving for what it really was would solicit the label "selfish ingrate;" clearly, the aunt's rationalized narcissism was a potent seductive tool that placed her above reproach and ensured her authority. Cf. Lieberman, E.J. Acts of Will at 370 (citing Thurman Arnold). See Friedman, M. "Survivor Guilt in the Pathogenesis of Anorexia Nervosa" at 37 (anorexia arises in an enmeshed, overprotective, conflict-avoiding, rigid family having a preoccupation with food).

The aunt's exploitive giving heightened her grandiose sense of entitlement (her arrogation of a parental role), heightened the parents' willingness to acquiesce in the aunt's arrogation of a parental role, and heightened the aunt's seductive allure for the subject and his sister. The aunt's giving contributed to the sense of family members that the aunt was a benevolent woman who genuinely cared about the welfare of subject and his sister and who was rightly entitled to participate in (or at times control) the childrens' development. In psychoanalytic terms, however, the aunt's giving might be characterized as an almost literal or concrete assumption of an "as if" nurturing posture (a derivative of the caretaking role that the aunt assumed in childhood to compensate for an inadequate maternal provider, see Beren at 276), a parody of healthy maternal narcissism, that in adulthood discharged in disguised form the rage engendered by the aunt's cannibalistic mother imago.

The aunt's sense of her role as parental figure approached the proportions of a quasi-delusion, an "instance of manifestations in the 'normal' that resemble those of psychosis." See Shengold, L. Soul Murder at 301 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989). On one occasion the aunt said to subject: "If it had been up to your father, you would have had shit. I gave you everything you have." (Note that in this statement the aunt may have identified subject with her own younger sister, over whom the aunt had assumed guardianship in the absence of a paternal caretaker. The aunt's statement may be evidence of ambivalence toward her younger sister; a younger sister who was consciously idealized, but unconsciously seen as a burden for whom much had been sacrificed.)

Subject's parents were psychologically predisposed to acquiesce in the aunt's arrogation of a parental role. Subject's mother was unindividuated from her older sister, and viewed her older sister as a surrogate mother and protector (see discussion below).

Subject's father had an authoritarian streak, which disposed him to tyrannical rule within the immediate family, but paradoxically--though fittingly--made him all the more susceptible to the sway of persons outside the immediate family who seemed to carry an air of power or who provided maternal nurturance.

The father reported that his own mother, an orthodox Jew, was especially revered by the male elders of her synagogue. The father's mother, an immigrant from Riga, Latvia, who died in 1933, used to prepare and deliver meals to these men, who, preoccupied with study and prayer, could not readily attend to their worldly needs. The father used to comment: "When my mother died, they brought her body right into the chapel, near the altar. That's very rare, you know. At most Jewish funerals, the body is kept out in the vestibule."

Subject's father's father, Moses, a factory worker, died in December 1929; subject's father was 23 years old at the time. Following his death the widow (subject's maternal grandmother) commissioned a Torah scroll as a memorial, with the names of family members inscribed therein, which she donated to her congregation (Ohel Jacob). "Those with an intimate acquaintance of Hebrew texts will recognize immediately" the value of such a gift and the unusual generosity that the gift represented. See Yerushalmi, Y.H. Freud's Moses (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991). The gift was paid for with life insurance proceeds of about $2000. For the widow of a working class husband to spend her legacy on such a gift carries an almost bizarre poignancy; keep in mind, also, this was the beginning of the great depression.

One is tempted to speculate that the widow's generosity reflected a lifelong pattern of giving to outsiders, and that the children of such a mother may have felt slighted. Subject's father, the youngest son, and next to youngest of seven children, may have experienced envy of his mother's generosity, which, at some level at least, he may have felt "should have begun at home." Of relevance to subject's development is the possibility that subject's father may have been disposed to a special envy of maternal nurturance; perhaps the father's oedipal rivalry with subject merged with the father's oral envy of the son's nurturance--an additional source of guilt for subject.

The father reported that when he was a young man he developed a friendship with another young man in his neighborhood, Benny Rossman, the cousin of playwright Clifford Odets. Odets' biographer describes the Rossman home in North Philadelphia as "a freewheeling, lively place filled with Yiddish talk and Yiddish newspapers. . . . [A family member] recalled 'lots of people always dropping in, some living with us for a few months if they had no work . . . always good food.'" Brenman-Gibson, M. Clifford Odets: American Playwright at 28 (emphasis added). Subject's father was one of those "people always dropping in" for food and talk -- part of a recurring pattern in the father's life. Coincidentally, Benny Rossman's mother, Esther, the sister of Odets' mother, usurped the maternal role in her relations with Clifford Odets, her nephew, and even referred to the playwright as "my son," to the apparent dismay of her own son, Benny, who may have felt slighted. Brenman-Gibson at 28. Odets' mother was still alive at the time.
Before he married (at age 40) the subject's father developed an enduring relationship with a family in Atlantic City, New Jersey -- "the Blum family." The family, who had an orthodox Jewish background, mirrored the father's own family, and was headed by a woman (Ethel Blum) who was just a few years younger than the father's own mother. A kind of Jewish Madame Vauquer, Ethel Blum used to rent rooms
in her large house to vacationers.

Ethel Blum had numerous children, of the same generation as subject's father, with whom the father was friendly. (One son, Edward Blum, owned and operated, together with his wife, a restaurant in Atlantic City.) In about the 1930's Ethel Bum earned money by preparing and selling knishes or other food items on the beach in Atlantic City, and later opened a corner grocery or delicatessen. Ethel Blum seemed to accept subject's father as a surrogate son; the father used to address her as "Mom." Presumably, the father's involvement with the Blums began after the death of his own mother in December 1933, when the father was 27 years old.

Persuasive evidence points to the likelihood that a particular type of woman held a special allure for subject's father: matriarchal or domineering; preoccupied with food and nurturance, including the nurturance of outsiders; and a woman disposed to establish an "as if" maternal connection to a male (a surrogate son), possibly involving usurpation of the biological mother. Subject's aunt (the father's sister-in-law) had all these qualities.


Subject's mother was unindividuated from her early object attachments (her own mother and perhaps even more important, her older sister). Mother's relations with the subject vis-a-vis her own early attachment objects therefore paralleled the relations of a child with a doll (transitional object) vis-a-vis the child's mother. As a consequence mother in some sense treated her son, the subject, as a kind of doll or transitional object. Mother found it difficult to confirm any agency on the subject's part. Mother was unable to respond in an appropriately meaningful way to the spontaneity of subject and could only interact with subject if the mother could be the initiator of any interaction between them. To some extent it was this passive listless "thing" quality of the subject that mother regarded as most "normal" about him. The mother tended to react to any spontaneity on the part of subject with anxiety and attributions of badness or madness. To be good was to do what subject was told. Laing, R.D. The Self and Others at 92 (Chicago: Quadrangle, 1962). See Brodey, W.M. "On the Dynamics of Narcissism" at 181 (mother appeared aware only of those movements in the child that she herself had initiated, and held her child "like a doll"). If subject spoke in an animated way, subject's mother would comment: "Who wound you up?" (note the doll imagery).

Negatively, subject's interaction with such a mother impaired the development of healthy attitudes about drive expression and may have fostered ambivalence and guilt about individuation and autonomy. Positively, subject's interaction with such a mother may have prompted subject to develop, and largely reside in, an inner world of thought over which mother had no control. For subject to think is to be masculine, autonomous, and defiant.


Because subject's mother was unindividuated from her older sister, and relied on that sister as a primary object, subject's mother could offer subject no protection against the aggression of mother's older sister, subject's aunt. Subject's mother was unable to hold any belief (even salutary beliefs about her own son) that might conflict with the views of her sister.

The failure or inability of subject's mother to protect subject against the aggression of mother's sister, an individual dominated by extreme narcissistic disturbance, promoted feelings of intense rage in subject against his mother. Further, mother's failure to protect subject, which the subject experienced as coldness, prompted a narcissistic response in subject, a coldness which he appropriated for himself and used as his own defense. This led to a narcissistic splitting of the self into a know-it-all, unfeeling part and a painfully feeling but brutally destroyed part--a condensation of vulnerability and callousness. Berberich, E. "From the Analysis of a 5-Year-Old Boy With Pathological Narcissism." The Psychoanalytical Study of the Child, 43: 263-278 at 271 (1988) (citing the theoretical work of S. Ferenczi).


Subject suffers from unconscious survivor guilt, which is a major motivating force in subject's masochistic psychopathology. It is guilt based on an unconscious belief that the pursuit of normal developmental goals are harmful to mother. It stems from the inappropriate expectations and blaming behavior of narcissistically-disturbed persons in subject's developmental environment that centered on the idea that subject's normal developmental needs were a cause of pain to subject's mother and that subject had an ability or duty to ameliorate mother's pain. Subject's survivor guilt was fostered by narcissistically-disturbed persons in subject's developmental environment who conveyed to subject an inaccurate sense of subject's ability to affect the quality of his mother's life. Friedman, M. "Survivor Guilt in the Pathogenesis of Anorexia Nervosa." Psychiatry 48(2): 25-39 at 28-29 (February 1985) (Stanley R. Palombo, M.D., consulting editor).

Persons in subject's developmental background routinely depicted the gratification of subject's normal developmental needs as inappropriate impulse gratification, thereby defending against their own envy and transmuting that envy into a sense of guilt for the subject.


Subject's individuality (autonomy) makes him vulnerable to aggression, or attack, in groups characterized by a high level of cohesion, i.e., groups that have regressed to a state of pre-autonomous superego functioning. The affect underlying the group aggression is envy--envy of subject's independent thinking, individuality, and rationality. Unfounded rumors or accusations that subject is potentially violent, which may be transformed into a conviction of absolute certainty by group members, are a response to the threat that subject's autonomy poses to group cohesion. Kernberg, O. Ideology, Conflict and Leadership in Groups and Organizations at 5-6 (New York: International Universities Press, 1998).

Subject has a tendency to denounce or challenge social sanctions to the point where he may lose sight of his own best interests, see Results of Psychological Testing--George Washington University Medical Center at 5, a character trait that may contribute to subject's social difficulties. See also Fernando, J. "The Exceptions: Structural and Dynamic Aspects" (discussing a character type that features the traits of rebellion and defiance).


Subject is unusually independent in thought and actions. MacKinnon, D.W. "The Study of Creative Persons." In Creativity and Learning. Edited by J. Kagan. (Boston: Beacon, 1967).

Subject has a sense of psychological role in life, a concept that denotes inner tendencies, deeply imbedded in the personality of subject, not easily modified, which determine nearly all meaningful relationships. This does not mean that it is not possible for subject to act in a manner that is inconsistent with that role, but when doing so anxiety will probably result, and consequently impair the degree of efficiency with which his life's problems are handled. Since subject's sense of role in life represents a more or less definite conception of reality and of his role in it, a change from such a basic concept is difficult and unlikely. Subject is apt to be independent of the opinions of others, and is apt to be more original and creative. This requires more intellectual effort than does conformity. Myden, W. "An Interpretation and Evaluation of Certain Personality Characteristics Involved in Creative Production." In A Rorschach Reader at 165-65. Edited by M.H. Sherman. (New York: International Universities Press, 1960).

Subject is apt to investigate the causes of things; hence, while his rate of learning may be slower, its effects are more lasting. Myden at 164. Indeed, subject's score on scale 6 (paranoia) of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) was elevated, consistent with a "curious, questioning, and investigative" personality. Anastasi, A. Psychological Testing, 6th ed. (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1988).

Subject's Rorschach responses (which were unusually detailed and expansive) are consistent with an ability to create new personalized constructions and the capacity for inner creation and living more within himself than in the outer world. Consequently, subject is apt to put intellect before feeling; that is, his relations with others are not apt to be easy or fluent. Subject is introverted, and has a tendency to drain off energy into grandiosity and obsessional ruminations or into original conceptions. Myden at 165.

Subject has markedly stronger feelings about interpersonal relationships than noncreative persons; subject's interpersonal relations (to the extent they exist) involve greater intensity. Subject has a consequent tendency to withdraw from unpleasant interpersonal situations. Myden at 165.

Negatively, subject has a "need to control self and others through reason[.]" Horney, K. Self-Analysis (1942) at 53 (New York: W.W. Norten, 1968). Subject believes in "the omnipotence of intelligence and reason, and has feelings of contempt for everything within self that lags behind the image of intellectual superiority." Id. He has a dread of recognizing objective limitations of the power of reason, and experiences a dread of stupidity and bad judgment. Id.


Subject has ambivalent feelings about social relations. He feels a hunger for a certain kind of social closeness, but at the same time does not feel that he genuinely belongs. Subject feels both a certain disdain for an ordinary sense of belonging, and a hunger or a nostalgia for that very belonging. Masson, J.M. Final Analysis at 124 (New York: Harper Perennial, 1991).


Subject accepts id drives and fears, and handles them through a strong ego, which is constantly engaged in reality testing. Subject reaches out for every form of clue in his environment and retains almost every bit of information, which evidently helps to satisfy his need for intellectual control of his relationships with the outer world. Subject is sensitive to every nuance of reaction from the outer world as it pertains to him. Myden, W. "An Interpretation and Evaluation of Certain Personality Characteristics Involved in Creative Production." In: A Rorschach Reader at 164-65. Sherman, M.H., ed. (New York: International Universities Press, Inc., 1960).


Subject tends to be a non-joiner, but is socially sensitive. He is fearful of undue influence from others (according to Hartmann, the fear of contamination from others can be a product of ego strength) and it may be his very sensitivity to what others are thinking and feeling that makes him shun too much company. Subject seems to have only a tenuous sense of his own identity. Subject's sensitivity together with his depressive psychopathology disposes him to very easily identify himself with others; and, lacking certainty in his own uniqueness, feels an especial need to assert and preserve what he feels to be precarious. Storr, A. The Dynamics of Creation at 190 (New York: Atheneum, 1972).


Subject is unusually sensitive to implicit messages contained in the communications of others. Subject's sensitivity results from his adaptation to a disturbed developmental environment in which there were often remarkable discrepancies between what family members said they felt and what they actually felt. Rothenberg, A. Creativity and Madness at 12 (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990).


Subject's interaction with exploitive and manipulative persons in a disturbed developmental environment forced him into an adaptive paranoid attitude. Subject's early environment demanded constant wariness, the habit of observation, and attendance on moods and tempers; the noting of discrepancies between speech and action; a certain reserve of demeanor and automatic suspicion of sudden favors. Shengold, L. Soul Murder at 244-45 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989).


Subject exhibits a split between the observing ego and the experiencing ego (a vertical split) of unusual magnitude, which he is able to put to adaptive, creative use. The strength and pervasiveness of his isolative defenses do resemble what is found in those who have to ward off the overstimulation and rage that are the results of child abuse. Shengold, L. Soul Murder at 83 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989).


Subject possesses greater creative potential than many of his peers; he has greater capacity for regression in the service of the ego and an ego-controlled availability of primary process thinking. Subject's mental approach is unusually systematic (as disclosed by his detailed and expansive responses on Rorschach testing); he handles objective data with an especially keen awareness of peculiarities and selective theoretical interest, which indicates a high reality testing potential. Subject's easy access to infantile fantasies and experiences suggests a capacity for creative integration of the alien past into the life cycle, a capacity that lies beyond mere disruptive psychopathology. Ducey, C. "The Life History and Creative Psychopathology of the Shaman: Ethnopsychoanalytic Perspectives." In: The Psychoanalytic Study of Society. Vol. 7: 173-230 at 176. Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D., contributing ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976).


Subject's synthetic functioning, a libido-derived function, is highly developed, and impels him to harmonious unification and creativity in the broadest sense of the term. Subject's highly-developed synthetic functioning impels him to simplify, to generalize, and ultimately to understand--by assimilating external and internal elements, by reconciling conflicting ideas, by uniting contrasts, and by seeking for causality. Campbell, R.J. Psychiatric Dictionary at 734 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989, 6th ed.).


The unusual extension of subject's synthetic function, beyond conventional parameters, may be viewed as an autoplastic adaptation to a severe stressor, namely, traumatic loss of the maternal object. Nunberg, H. "The Synthetic Function." Practice and Theory of Psychoanalysis at 127. (New York: International Universities Press, 1948).


Subject exhibits a highly-developed verbal fluency, an unusual capacity to bring together remote associations, and the ability to extend effort in idea production (ideational fluency). Guilford, J.P. The Nature of Intelligence (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967); Mednick, S.A. "The Associative Basis of the Creative Process." Psychological Review 69: 220-232 (1962); Parnes, S.J. "Research on Developing Creative Behavior." In: Widening Horizons in Creativity. Edited by C.W. Taylor. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1964).

Subject's intellectual abilities are so highly-developed that they have been mistaken, even by psychiatrists, as psychotic symptoms in the form of pressured, rapid speech; flight of ideas; and loose associations. See Psychiatric Assessment Chart (Napoleon Cuenco, M.D., St. Elizabeths Hospital Residency Training Program), George Washington University Department of Psychiatry (September 1992) (Daniel Tsao, M.D., Attending Physician). The implications for difficulties in subject's social and occupational functioning are obvious.