Friday, November 16, 2007
Prosecutors in Palfrey Case Refuse Once Again to Present List of Accusers or Any Evidence for Pretrial Hearings
Washington D.C.--In a repeat performance from June 5th of this year, the government's prosecution has refused to provide the names of the women (and anyone else, not even military strategist Harlan Ullman or "Jennifer," a former employee of high powered law firm Akin Gump) testifying against Deborah Jeane Palfrey, with an impending hearing for discovery slated for November 28th. The public has the right to know this, and other evidence the prosecution has, as does the defendant.
Some have presumed that the defense is aware of who all the accusers are, and while this is likely to be true overall, there could still be some surprises. Other interesting events occurred on that same day of June 5th: Ms. Palfrey's ailing mother was confronted at her Florida home by agents of the IRS and the Justice Department just minutes after Palfrey had left the residence for a visit.
This means these federal agents were lying-in-wait at a very close proximity, making for some possibly humorous imagery. One can imagine a gaggle of these individuals hiding in the brush somewhere, or chewing on donuts and gum in their vehicles paid for by the average American taxpayer. Maybe they were just bored and impatient. Predictably, they aren't explaining their investigative procedures (or legal demeanor), and they're still not telling....anything at all. Considering how bumbling they all come-off, they might not want anyone to know what their actual investigative procedure entails--and certainly not the federal grand jury. It's unknown whether the jury is aware of the backgrounds of Palfrey's accusers or not, though it's doubtful.
It should also be noted that on-or-around June 5th the pseudo story that Dick Cheney "might" be in the phone records of Pamela Martin & Associates was trotted-out by the poorly-dressed Wayne Madsen. This writer ponders whether Madsen will ever reveal any of his sources, though it's also doubtful. Dissemination of the "Cheney story" was immediate and nearly ubiquitous. The week centering around was an awfully active one, wasn't it? Why it was gulped-up by far too many sites, blogs, and even some of the mainstream media is probably a matter of economics. Again, just another quick-fix that leads nowhere and means nothing, smelling more like disinformation than anything else. But since it brings in so many hits to a site, it's considered valuable. This is a point of vulnerability that legitimate and sincere sites should be considering...
And so, in this context it should be considered by all that Ret. Colonel Ronald Roughead (of SAIC) ran propaganda operations through the IMN (Iraqi Media Network), a fact that is pregnant with possibilities. It appears some of his work at SAIC focuses on "terrorist" activities on the internet and the dissemination of information. Surely, he's acquainted with affecting the flow of information, and could possibly be involved in activities on the web meant to isolate and channel information damaging to himself and his brother. He's got the skills and the resources, and considering the anarchic era we're in, it's not unlikely that he's been using them, having an entire crew to work with. In the private sector, this might not be illegal, unless it was work being done under a government contract, then the rules could be very different.
But according to the mainstream media--and even so-called "progressive" publications, sites, and blogs--none of this is important. Either the story isn't important (Corn's likely assertion), or maybe she's "lying. This appears to be John Cook's (Radar) and Larisa Alexandrovna's (Rawstory) contention. Just ask David Corn of the Nation. On this note, you can kiss your credibility goodbye, Mr. Corn. Either you're incredibly naive, or you might just be protecting people of the same class. Something is blinding many of you in the press to the possibilities of this story, and this writer believes many of you have been had.
Perhaps its a matter of professional loyalty to one's peers, which this writer rejects wholly. Do you really want to end this war and this criminal presidential administration or not? What's obvious is that Ret. Colonel Ron's brother Rear Admiral Gary Roughead--or someone under his command--has been searching the internet on the story relating to themselves, and from various geographic locations from U.S. Navy ISPs. Rear Admiral Gary Roughead is the current CNO of the entire U.S. Naval Fleets, but obviously this isn't newsworthy.
All of this is documented elsewhere on this site. Considering that one of the women testifying against Palfrey that she engaged in prostitution for Pamela Martin & Associates is still serving as a supply officer at Annapolis, and you could have a very real case of conflict of interest regarding the Roughead connection. But that kind of a relationship seems to be at the heart of the entire affair, and this is the second Bush era, after all. British military authorities shot Mata Hari for reporting information on the British tanks before the Battle of the Somme in 1916, tipping-off the Germans. Are similar actions being expedited in Washington thanks to the corruption and incompetence of those sworn to protect us?