Monday, June 25, 2007


J-7--Today's newsletter from Ms. Palfrey has brought information on a setback in her case. Perhaps Justice Thomas's willingness to hear the motion was another CYA affair to hide some of his own partisanship (it didn't work). No, I don't think he covered himself, Scalia or even Roberts very well:
The United States Supreme Court denied my motion (Case #06A1110) to stay the criminal proceeding and return my case to the civil courts, this morning. The motion before the Supreme Court involved a time sensitive Congressional mandate, which clearly states that individuals who have had their property seized via the civil asset forfeiture process – as I have - are to receive a hearing within 30 days, once such a motion is made. In my situation, the motion was submitted twice to the lower District Court and ignored twice by the presiding judge, Judge Gladys Kessler. I now have gone well over 200 days, since last fall without any due process in the matter.

Based upon this morning’s decision, my civil attorney, Mr. Montgomery B. Sibley will be contacting post haste Senator Patrick Lehey, Chairperson of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
[Ed.-my emphasis]
The game is to keep the game going for as long as possible [Ed., 07.03.2008--particularly in Palfrey's case, but the govt. also had motives in this direction.] This all has the (ear)marks of the Bush administration's attempts at subjugating the federal bureaucracy in the aftermath of September 11th, 2001. It appears all those anti-terrorism laws have allowed for unparalleled excesses and corruption.

Part of controlling the bureaucracy--obviously--is
to remove "disloyal" elements, replacing them with one's own adherents. One could call it "seeding" the organs of government with your own agents (of change--thanks Regents!).

All roads appear to lead to Rome (the Bush administration). It's time that "journalists," bloggers, citizen journalists, and all interested media start asking Edward T. Norris and Thomas DiBiagio (the first U.S. Attorney fired in the ongoing-scandal) about what they think their place in all of this is. Ignore this at your peril.

This newest development can also be read @:

Postscript, 07.03.2008: Ultimately, the client and counsel would subpoena Sen. Leahy, a nutty move that was discouraged by myself and others. It would prove to be a disastrous approach that yielded nothing and cut-off any potential for redress from the legislative branch.