"The mere fact that Roughead’s name along with that of the SAIC is getting ‘out there’ is entirely due to you and your hard work." --Deborah Jeane Palfrey, in a September 12th correspondence with the author.
J-7--I've been noticing a disturbing trend with a number of sites and blogs that have been copying and republishing information found by this site: no intellectual attribution. This is plagiarism. Almost all posts on the internet are copied--'cached'--by internet providers like Google, and by other telecommunications entities.
At this point, I have to reiterate that I am not the first individual to locate Mr. Roughead's phone number in the records of Pamela Martin & Associates, it was an anonymous commenter at a progressive blog whose name escapes me--you do the search. It was posted around July 8th-9th. That's not how I found Mr. Roughead's number in the records, however, as I was one of the 50 original recipients of the phone records of Pamela Martin & Associates in CD-ROM form back in early-July.
I have even gone as far as to call Mr. Roughead personally, getting him on the line for a few moments. The man behind the number is the same man who ran IMN and who I assume is still employed by SAIC to represent them in Washington D.C., amongst other duties.
Note that I didn't begin my searches until July 15th, and found Mr. Roughead's number on that day after just 8 hours of Google searches using the phone numbers. I found the anonymous comment mentioning retired Col. Roughead during the latter-part of my searches, and posted my first article ('Pax Americanas...') on July 16th, where it was subsequently cached. Comments posted by myself at other sites will corroborate as well, along with correspondence in my possession.
In short: don't think that these postings/articles are going away, and that any Johnny-come-lately types can claim the discovery as theirs--that belongs to myself and the anonymous poster. This fact can be instantly established through the postings which are routinely dated with a time-marking, as well as the caching. You can't prove original authorship.
It's a very disheartening trend that I've found in this story of people fighting over credit (like Rawstory), but credit is due here. This writer has literally sweat blood researching the significance of Mr. Roughead, his connections to SAIC, and other aspects that make him pertinent to a "Honey Pot" defense. I can claim considerable responsibility for advising (not legal advice, however, that's illegal) in the new defense strategy.
It was J-7 that first put-forward the theory of a "Honey Trap" in the case of the "DC Madam," and it should be noted here that Ms. Palfrey was non-plussed at the time it was originally posted (see article "Does DC Have Her Own Salon Kittys?"), so it appears that the possibility hadn't escaped her at that time. What can I say to you plagiarists, except that you lack the insight and analytical abilities that I have?
Perhaps it's because many of you are unprincipled careerists, rather than someone who wants to save their country from what could be an encroaching tyranny? Do you really care about saving this nation? What are you...really? Ponder it. What's more important: your country and the people you love in it, or just yourself? On this note, I should remind readers that Roughead's name is only four-pages-in within the 'Cingular, 2005' file (December 17th, three-times) of Ms. Palfrey's phone records. The media is sitting on this story, protecting him, de facto.
To the plagiarists: you are late to this story, and you will be identified as such by simple searches by anyone with a few minutes on their hands. You're all very disappointing opportunists without merit as researchers. Your motives are fairly transparent--you want the glory, whereas I simply want the credit for my own hard work and inherent abilities. So do the work. Cut-and-paste this. It appears not all of the whores are in established media...yet.
Consider the implications of technology and how they can catch people lying for personal-gain (not just the politicians anymore). Today, we can do it more readily, and it's amusing to watch those who haven't figured this out yet. This is a time of scoundrels of every kind. I can prove my contentions here, can you? Do the work, lazy journalists, you bums.
[Ed., 09.13.2008-Palfrey might have been the worst-offender here, precipitating the writing of this article!]