Sunday, May 11, 2008

The Jeane Palfrey and Sam Deskin Missives


J-7 archives
--I still haven't decided the who, what, where, when, and whys of Los Angeles attorney Sam Deskin's momentary involvement in Jeane Palfrey's legal predicament. Why did he approach Jeane at the 11th hour? Why did he try to get me to merge his site Government Dirt with my own (for no money, naturally)? Let the e-mails speak-for-themselves.

Note:
Begin reading from-the-bottom-up. Jeane forwarded this and many other missives to me for reasons that presently escapes me. Regardless, she forwarded it to me in toto, and the attorney-client privilege ended with her death. This is for the public record, let history record what happened, piece-by-piece. I make no judgment on the text or the individuals who authored them. They are unedited with no alterations to the layout, with the exception of Editor's comments for clarification.

Samuel… let’s do this. Unfortunately, I did not win yesterday’s suppression motion. Consequently, I am headed for a full-jury trial in six short weeks, on April 7th. I will need to uncover and subpoena as many former clients as possible here to come into court and testify on my behalf. Bil from the ‘Justice League’ and Matt (myboigie@earthlink.net), both cc’ed above – can assist you in getting started. Bil and Matt have worked extensively on various lists of subpoenaed records, in addition to those found on DCPhoneListers. I will be returning to California, later today. I will have limited email capability as a result. However, I can be reached via phone tomorrow. Let’s tentatively plan on speaking at this time. –Sincerely, Jeane
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeane Palfrey [mailto:jeanepalfrey@sprynet.com]
Sent:
Sunday, February 10, 2008 4:25 PM
To: 'Samuel Deskin'
Cc: '
Burton, Preston'
Subject: RE: Jeane Palfrey...
Samuel… I on hold until the suppression hearing takes place, on February 25th. –Sincerely, Jeane
-----Original Message-----
From: Samuel Deskin [mailto:ssd@deskinlawfirm.com]
Sent:
Sunday, February 10, 2008 3:39 PM
To: jeanepalfrey@sprynet.com
Subject: RE: Jeane Palfrey...
Hi Jeanne,
How is your case coming?
Samuel Deskin




From: Jeane Palfrey [mailto:jeanepalfrey@sprynet.com]
Sent:
Monday, January 28, 2008 10:53 AM
To: ssd@deskinlawfirm.com
Cc: '
Burton, Preston'
Subject: RE: Jeane Palfrey...
Samuel… thank you for your understanding. –Sincerely, Jeane
-----Original Message-----
From: Samuel Deskin [mailto:ssd@deskinlawfirm.com]
Sent:
Monday, January 28, 2008 9:38 AM
To: jeanepalfrey@sprynet.com; Samuel Deskin
Cc: 'Burton, Preston'
Subject: Re: Jeane Palfrey...
Sounds good Jeanne. That is why we were checking!
Let's talk when you know what is going on.
Good luck and take care.
Samuel Deskin
Deskin Law Firm, a professional law corporation
-----Original Message-----
From: "Jeane Palfrey"
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 20:37:22
To:"'Samuel Deskin'"
Cc:"'Burton, Preston'"
Subject: RE: Jeane Palfrey...
Samuel… after speaking with Mr. Burton, this afternoon as well some reflection on my part – I don’t believe delving into and subsequently publishing the names of former clients (albeit perhaps a few hypocrites worth exposing) will benefit my overall case. In fact, efforts to embarrass various individuals likely will be seen as a malicious act on my part, at this juncture and subsequently could hurt my position in the eyes of the Court. A critical suppression hearing is scheduled for February 25th; one, where we will be arguing facts other than the “Who’s Who List”. If I am able to suppress the evidence, at this hearing – the Government’s case (for all intents and purposes) will be kaput. I simply cannot jeopardize my chances to end this matter once and for all, just so a few political jackasses might be exposed. With this said, if I do not prevail at the upcoming hearing – I have every intention of bringing as many high-powered politicians and politicos into court, as Judge Robertson will permit at trial. Therefore, can we table this matter until the suppression hearing is concluded? -Sincerely, Jeane
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeane Palfrey [mailto:jeanepalfrey@sprynet.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 9:32 AM
To: 'Samuel Deskin'
Cc: 'Burton, Preston'
Subject: RE: Jeane Palfrey...
I am speaking with him this afternoon.
-----Original Message-----
From: Samuel Deskin [mailto:ssd@deskinlawfirm.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 8:18 AM
To: jeanepalfrey@sprynet.com
Subject: RE: Jeane Palfrey...
Jeanne,
I have not heard from your attorney.
Samuel Deskin
Deskin Law Firm, a professional law corporation
(310) 720-3634
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and its attachments are from DLF and intended solely for the designated recipient(s). The information contained is confidential and may be privileged and may not be used, reviewed, copied, published, disseminated, redistributed, or forwarded without express written permission from DLF. If you are not a designated recipient of this e-mail, please contact DLF by replying to the e-mail, destroy all copies of this e-mail and attachments and delete them from your system.
LEGAL INFORMATION: Any Information provided is designed to be for informational purposes only and not intended as legal advice. Each case is unique and outcomes vary depending on the facts and legal issues of your case. There is no attorney-client relationship formed unless DLF has a signed retainer agreement with you.
----------------
----------------
From: Jeane Palfrey [mailto:jeanepalfrey@sprynet.com]
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 9:02 PM
To: 'Burton, Preston'
Cc: 'Samuel Deskin'
Subject: RE: Jeane Palfrey...
Preston… Mr. Deskin is a Southern California attorney and political activist. He has been interested in the government corruption angle of my case, since it became publicly known last spring. Particularly, Mr. Deskin is interested in mining the telephone records – including the recently subpoenaed cell phone records. Before proceeding with this undertaking, we each agreed that it would be prudent to discuss the matter first with you. At this juncture, it may OR may not wise to place emphasis on the “Who’s Who List”. I look forward to your input. –Sincerely, Jeane
-----Original Message-----
From: Samuel Deskin [mailto:ssd@deskinlawfirm.com]
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 1:06 PM
To: jeanepalfrey@sprynet.com; Samuel Deskin
Subject: Re: Jeane Palfrey...
Jeanne,
I look forward to speaking with you. My colleague and I may be able to help you with your case. And I would like to work on the list. Give me acall when you get a chance.
310 720 3634
Samuel Deskin
Deskin Law Firm, a professional law corporation
-----Original Message-----
From: "Jeane Palfrey"
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:14:27
To:"'Samuel Deskin'"
Subject: RE: Jeane Palfrey...
Samuel… my attorney, Mr. Sibley was discharged from my case, yesterday. I have been granted pro se representation. Currently, I am at Chicago O’Hara waiting to board a return flight to San Francisco. I feel that I now am in a better position to move forward with you, ASAP. I need to surround myself with as many allies as possible, at this time. Trial definitely is scheduled for April 7th, in U.S. District Court, in Washington. If nothing else, it promises to be likely the “trial of the year”. I doubt there ever has been anything like it in American history. A real ‘David and Goliath’ scenario, with a mix of politics, sex, scandal and real ‘who dunnit’, i.e. the real motivation behind the Government’s prosecution of me. Ironically, I have endeavored to resolve my situation at numerous points along the way, but to no avail. The DOJ is like a machine; this despite, what I believe to be a significant dearth of evidence against me. Nonetheless, I will contact you via phone in the next day or so. –Sincerely, Jeane
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeane Palfrey [mailto:jeanepalfrey@sprynet.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 11:03 AM
To: 'Samuel Deskin'
Subject: RE: Jeane Palfrey...
Samuel… your patience and understanding here are greatly appreciated. –Thank you, Jeane
-----Original Message-----
From: Samuel Deskin [mailto:ssd@deskinlawfirm.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 8:58 AM
To: jeanepalfrey@sprynet.com
Subject: RE: Jeane Palfrey...
No problem. I will wait for your communication. Best of luck with your hearing.
Samuel Deskin
Deskin Law Firm, a professional law corporation
http://deskinlawfirm.com
(310) 720-3634
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and its attachments are from DLF and intended solely for the designated recipient(s). The information contained is confidential and may be privileged and may not be used, reviewed, copied, published, disseminated, redistributed, or forwarded without express written permission from DLF. If you are not a designated recipient of this e-mail, please contact DLF by replying to the e-mail, destroy all copies of this e-mail and attachments and delete them from your system.
LEGAL INFORMATION: Any Information provided is designed to be for informational purposes only and not intended as legal advice. Each case is unique and outcomes vary depending on the facts and legal issues of your case. There is no attorney-client relationship formed unless DLF has a signed retainer agreement with you.
----------------
----------------
From: Jeane Palfrey [mailto:jeanepalfrey@sprynet.com]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 9:20 PM
To: 'Samuel Deskin'
Subject: Jeane Palfrey...
Samuel… I am sorry that I missed your call, last evening. I very much would like to speak with you; however, I need to travel to Washington, this Monday for a court hearing, on Wednesday morning. The hearing I fear is going to be rather intense and consequently, I will need to spend the weekend preparing for it. Unfortunately, I am parting company with Sibley, over his objections. Let’s plan to speak the week of the 21st. I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this might cause you. –Best, Jeane Palfrey
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeane Palfrey [mailto:jeanepalfrey@sprynet.com]
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 10:01 PM
To: 'Samuel Deskin'
Cc: 'Montgomery Sibley'
Subject: RE:
Dear Samuel… I apologize for not getting in touch with you sooner. Unfortunately, I have been without power here in Northern California, for approximately 24 hours ‘on and off’, over the last four days. My life is operating in fits and starts, so to speak. Again, I will cooperate to the best of my ability with client identification. However, I am not particularly interested in profiting from the misfortune of others, if I can avoid it. I certainly can understand however, the need to cover any involved costs and the subsequent need to raise money – somehow/someway. I also do not necessarily have a problem with ‘outing’ hypocrites, cheats and liars (of the political variety). More than anything though, I will need to understand the true identities of my former clients, if I have to go to trial. This is my true motivation to work with you. Nonetheless, libel/slander insurance is an excellent idea and as far as I am concerned – you certainly can take the lead in this endeavor. Perhaps, the next step would be to speak via phone. What time would be good for you in the next few days? -Sincerely, Jeane 707-648-1000 PS Mr. Sibley will be withdrawing as counsel in both my criminal and civil cases this week. He has been cc’ed this correspondence as a matter of courtesy. I anticipate going forward as a pro se defendant, with the assistance of skilled professionals.
-----Original Message-----
From: Samuel Deskin [mailto:ssd@deskinlawfirm.com]
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 8:19 AM
To: jeanepalfrey@sprynet.com
Cc: 'Montgomery Sibley'
Subject: RE:
Jeanne,
Understanding your situation and needs of fundraising, I have come up with a means for fundraising using the information that you have and I wanted to see if this works for you.
I will have the numbers researched to find out whom the owners were as of the phone call dates. I will determine “who” the people are – as in – if they are public figures. Your Verizon cell phone numbers may come in handy here.
You will determine whether the people identified are, in fact, people who were clients of yours and possibly identify who their escort was to corroborate. You will get as close to 100% sure that an individual was a paying client of yours as possible.
We will purchase liability insurance to protect us from claims of libel or slander.
I can take the lead or we can work together to sell the information to the networks along with an exclusive interview by you with regard to each client. I already have a game plan in mind to create a feeding frenzy.
We will split the profits 50/50.
How does this sound?
Samuel Deskin
Deskin Law Firm, a professional law corporation
http://deskinlawfirm.com
(310) 720-3634
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and its attachments are from DLF and intended solely for the designated recipient(s). The information contained is confidential and may be privileged and may not be used, reviewed, copied, published, disseminated, redistributed, or forwarded without express written permission from DLF. If you are not a designated recipient of this e-mail, please contact DLF by replying to the e-mail, destroy all copies of this e-mail and attachments and delete them from your system.
LEGAL INFORMATION: Any Information provided is designed to be for informational purposes only and not intended as legal advice. Each case is unique and outcomes vary depending on the facts and legal issues of your case. There is no attorney-client relationship formed unless DLF has a signed retainer agreement with you.
----------------
----------------
From: Jeane Palfrey [mailto:jeanepalfrey@sprynet.com]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 10:50 AM
To: 'Samuel Deskin'
Cc: 'Montgomery Sibley'
Subject: RE:
Dear Samuel… answers to your various questions and comments are highlighted below. –Sincerely, Jeane
-----Original Message-----
From: Samuel Deskin [mailto:ssd@deskinlawfirm.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 9:49 PM
To: jeanepalfrey@sprynet.com
Cc: 'Montgomery Sibley'
Subject: RE:
Dear Jeanne,
Thank you for your prompt response.
To answer your question, my law firm has experience doing this type of research for our own cases. We would use commercial databases to research the numbers and ascertain the owners of the phone numbers at the particular time. Do you know if this has been done before? No, simply because we have not had the necessary monies to conduct a second tier investigation of the records by a professional firm of our choosing. The records listed on ‘DCPhoneListers’ should be viewed only as a first pass. Indeed, there were a few lucky hits, with this list – including Senator David Vitter. However, even those who spent money to identify the various telephone numbers and attached names were unsuccessful, since any number researched could have had multiple owners – and often did - during its ownership history. Many big names have been found – yet, those who have uncovered various high-profile individuals have not reported on them for fear of being mistaken and ultimately sued; without the capability to subpoena documents or the individuals themselves – these folks indeed are wise not to proceed further. And of course, the ‘bought and paid’ press/media is doing nothing with the information. It is my opinion, they have taken their cue from the 20/20 experience, which I firmly believe was stopped dead in its tracks, by the White House, at the eleventh hour. Another problem has been the fact that as soon as my home was raided on October 4, 2006 and my situation became public – EVERYONE previously affiliated with me (client or escort) changed their telephone numbers. Another problem has been the inability to determine various cellular or mobile numbers NOT listed in any public directory. Currently, we are in the process of receiving these numbers via subpoena – with accompanying names, addresses and social security numbers – from a variety of cell/mobile companies. At the moment, we have a few (for all intents and purposes) volunteers combing through the recently submitted Verizon Wireless list of 815 numbers.
Our website, http://governmentdirt.com would like to be able to publicize the names of politicians for its overall mission of uncovering government dirt.
With some help from you, we may be able to cut the costs down, whether it is paid by our firm or by the court, by asking you a few questions. If you don’t mind: I would be more than happy to cooperate with a second tier investigation, with the end result being “uncovering government dirt” of any kind. In fact, Mr. Sibley and I have on numerous occasions discussed the possibility of fundraising in order to tackle a variety of tasks, the Court is unlikely to fund. However, we really do not have the requisite skills and frankly, the time to donate to such an undertaking. I would be willing to attend a charity event, to defray costs, if your firm organized one.
1. There are thousands of numbers that were called once or twice. Can you identify whether a client would need to be spoken to more times than once to get services arranged? Yes.
2. There are phone numbers all over the United States. Would clientele be concentrated in a certain area such that we could concentrate on certain area codes instead of the whole list? 50% local and 50% out of town.
If we were able to conduct the search, would you be in a position to be able to confirm that a specific person was your client or are you unaware of the identity of your clients? Very likely.
Samuel Deskin
Deskin Law Firm, a professional law corporation
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and its attachments are from DLF and intended solely for the designated recipient(s). The information contained is confidential and may be privileged and may not be used, reviewed, copied, published, disseminated, redistributed, or forwarded without express written permission from DLF. If you are not a designated recipient of this e-mail, please contact DLF by replying to the e-mail, destroy all copies of this e-mail and attachments and delete them from your system.
LEGAL INFORMATION: Any Information provided is designed to be for informational purposes only and not intended as legal advice. Each case is unique and outcomes vary depending on the facts and legal issues of your case. There is no attorney-client relationship formed unless DLF has a signed retainer agreement with you.
----------------
----------------
From: Jeane Palfrey [mailto:jeanepalfrey@sprynet.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 8:07 PM
To: 'Samuel Deskin'
Cc: 'Montgomery Sibley'
Subject: RE:
Mr. Deskin…
As you might very well have heard me state – at some point along the way - I have had to rely “upon the kindness of strangers” to assist me in my seemingly never-ending war with the United States Department of Justice. Other than a meager budget allotted by Judge Kessler, before her bizarre departure from my case in late November, I have had to depend solely on others – mostly in the media and press – to help with the factual investigation and analysis of my case. Even though, Mr. Sibley will ask the Court for more money in the near future, for a variety of pursuits – including the dissemination of the records – it is unlikely 1.) we are going to be issued new funding and 2.) if we are – it is not realistic to think additional budgeting would incorporate efforts such as the one you are proposing; even though, the identification of clients would be extremely helpful to my case. Therefore, if you wish to proceed here – it needs to be established from the onset that any efforts on your part most likely will be for patriotic and altruistic reasons. With this said – if by some miracle, monies become available – you will be paid accordingly.
I would be more than happy to cooperate in any manner deemed advisable by Mr. Sibley. I actually am quite anxious to ascertain the true identities of many of my former clientele. The shoddy, veneered attempts by the press and media over the summer did not permit for any real examination of the phone records. The process is one which will take professional expertise combined with subpoena power. In all fairness though to all those who have sifted through the records to date [Ed.--I and my co-researcher had just begun sifting further.]-the records, in their current state on ‘DCPhoneListers’, for all intents and purposes should be considered overall a false positive. They appear to be the real thing, but they are not; especially, since they are absent the aid of the almighty subpoena.
May I ask why you and your law firm are interested in the records here? Please forgive me, if you previously have explained your position. Needless to say, I have a lot on my mind.
I look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
Jeane Palfrey
-----Original Message-----
From: Samuel Deskin [mailto:ssd@deskinlawfirm.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 6:53 PM
To: 'Montgomery Sibley'; jeanepalfrey@sprynet.com
Cc: 'Samuel Deskin'
Subject:
Dear Montgomery & Jeanne,
Happy New Year.
I have determined that it will cost my firm about $17,700 to parse the 5900 phone numbers in Jeanne’s phone list. That works out to $3.00 per phone number to conduct a database search for the phone number based on the time frame of receiving the call and a manual review of all the names to determine “who” the individuals are.
I understand that the court has not authorized the expenditure of funds for this purpose. I am writing to determine if identifying the names has value to you and your cause and if there is another means by which you can get the information.
I would also like to convey that I would be fine with chipping in to pay for part of the research costs for the benefit of being the exclusive (first) publisher of the names and having confirmation by Jeanne that the individuals that we have identified are, in fact, the “right” people. Also having Jeanne involved, to the extent she feels comfortable or as legally advised, in the dissemination of the names on our website.
Any amount of funds to help fund the research would be greatly appreciated. About 90% of the costs to research these names are actual out of pocket costs that we will incur in research.
Samuel Deskin
Deskin Law Firm, a professional law corporation
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and its attachments are from DLF and intended solely for the designated recipient(s). The information contained is confidential and may be privileged and may not be used, reviewed, copied, published, disseminated, redistributed, or forwarded without express written permission from DLF. If you are not a designated recipient of this e-mail, please contact DLF by replying to the e-mail, destroy all copies of this e-mail and attachments and delete them from your system.
LEGAL INFORMATION: Any Information provided is designed to be for informational purposes only and not intended as legal advice. Each case is unique and outcomes vary depending on the facts and legal issues of your case. There is no attorney-client relationship formed unless DLF has a signed retainer agreement with you.
---------------- 

No comments: