Why the Suicide of Deborah Jeane Palfrey Was Not Unexpected

J-7/Tarpon Springs, Florida--I would like to express my deepest condolences to the family of the deceased Ms. Palfrey. This writer never met Jeane--as she liked to be called by friends--and I only spoke with her a few times telephonically--our correspondence occurred through the Internet. That doesn't make this any easier to write.

Jeane claimed--she claimed a lot of things, most-of-which were accurate--that James Grady, author of "Three Days of the Condor" told her (paraphrased), "They've handed you a gun to blow their heads off with." He wasn't wrong, and this story opened a door into things that most of us assumed were going on in Washington D.C. It confirmed our suspicions. Expect it to keep delivering.

What's disturbing is what Jeane told myself and others on the defense team: that she had had contact with Brent Wilkes, the convicted Poway defense contractor who bribed GOP Rep. Randall Cunningham, and likely many-many other congressmen, primarily Republican ones.

Predictably, the comment boards are already flowing with a lot of ignorant speculation that Jeane was somehow "murdered" by a "conspiracy." Larry Flynt has told this to Fox News, but what do expect from Larry Flynt? This is not only disrespectful to the memory of a human being who felt compelled to kill herself by hanging, it's cracked and has no basis in reality whatsoever. It's all about patriarchy-run-amok. There were other names that Jeane told me. Ironically, she had conveyed them to Wayne Madsen very early-on in this story. One of them is Vice President Richard Cheney, though Jeane claimed that it was during the late-1990s when he was CEO of Halliburton. Whenever I asked if she could prove this and other things, I got silence. Take from that what you will.

Here's why: being a researcher on her defense team gave me an inside-view of things. Just weeks before the trial, Jeane sent this e-mail out to Jason Leopold--formerly of Talkout, whose editors forced him from covering the story this year--and forwarded it to the rest of us on the legal defense team. It contains an entire exchange in it for context. From February 28th, 2008 (paragraph-breaks added):

Jason… let’s put it like this, the bastards aren’t going to take me alive. Of course, anytime that you want to do an interview – I will make myself available. However, I doubt that I will be doing any interviews once I am in D.C., for the trial. –Best, Jeane

-----Original Message-----
From: jasonleopold@hotmail.com [mailto:jasonleopold@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:40 AM
To: jeanepalfrey@sprynet.com; 'Justice League'
Cc: myboigie@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: "D.C. Madam trial scheduled for April 7th" (Jeane Palfrey)...

Jeane

I have no doubt that you will prevail. Your fighting spirit is infectious. I am in the process of setting up my own shop. I will actually be in DC for your trial and would love to get you on camera theb for the new nesit if possible.

Best

Jason

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----

From: "Jeane Palfrey"

Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:25:30

To:"'Justice League'"

Cc:,

Subject: RE: "D.C. Madam trial scheduled for April 7th" (Jeane Palfrey)...

Bil… thanks for the kinds words. If USA’s can’t file racketeering charges, then who can? More specifically, who filed them in my case? -Jeane

-----Original Message-----

From: Justice League [mailto:spbiloxi00@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:11 AM

To: jeanepalfrey@sprynet.com

Cc: jason leopold

Subject: Re: "D.C. Madam trial scheduled for April 7th" (Jeane Palfrey)...

Good Morning Jeane:

Thanks for your update and concerns in your case. I am copying Jason. I will post your email on my blog and on the Newsinkling.org. Jason and I know that you are innocent. Just remember. This is a battle of a much corrupted justice system. And we are with you on the long haul no matter what happen. Keep in mind that your case is in the hands of 12 jurors. You are innocent until proven guilty.

Also, I wanted to bring this to you and Jason. I was watching a webcast of the House Judiciary Committee hearing that was held on Tuesday about the matter of the procedures of a Special Prosecutor. There were two panels of attorneys that were experinced attorneys that dealt with a Special Prosecutor or was a Special Prosecutor or Independent counsel. I watched carefully to the last person to testify in the second panel: USA and Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. One the committee asked this question to Fitzgerald that was interesting:


Cannon: Distinction between special counsel and normal prosecutor.

Patrick Fitzgerald: One common misunderstanding is that we didn't follow DOJ guidelines. I was bound by those guidelines. Many of the procedures I was the decision maker. When you prosecute as USA, you have to follow the guidelines. In an ordinary case, USA has an awful lot of power. In many cases, the volume of our cases, we can bring charges that will imprison people with out possibility of parole. No wiretap without DOJ, no immunity for witnesses, no govt appeal or attorney or member of the media. USAs can't file racketeering charges.

I found the last part of Fitzgerald's statement about racketeering charges interesting. And I appreciate him explaining what the role of as an USA. His statement is a very clear indication on why certain USAs were fired, why certain USAs were selected as interims, and what role within the WH and AG played in allowing certain charges to stick on certain individuals for political and personal means, and finally the handpicking of certain judges in certain cases. It would be interesting on how much power [especially USA Taylor] the selected USA interims with the DOJ by the WH. Here is the link of the webcast. Fitzgerald's testimony is about 15 minutes toward the end: 2:20.52

http://judiciary.edgeboss.net/real/judiciary/commercial/comm022608.smi

Bil

On 2/28/08, Jeane Palfrey > wrote:

My and defense counsel's various efforts the past 17 months to resolve the charges levied against me by the Department of Justice have been unsuccessful. Therefore, a full-jury trial is scheduled to take place on April 7th, in Federal District Court, in Washington, D.C.

I intend to defend myself vigorously against the charges of racketeering, money laundering and conspiracy. I will call witnesses to testify on my behalf about the legal, sexual nature of my former business – Pamela Martin & Associates. These witnesses likely will be culled from the existing research – conducted over the past 8 months - by a variety of press/media, bloggers and interested third parties.

It should be noted ALL charges are predicated upon the seldom utilized Travel Act, which allows the Government to claim jurisdiction for ANY crime – including misdemeanor offenses such as prostitution – when state lines are crossed. In the course of regular business operation in the Washington, D.C. area, state lines are crossed routinely by any number of businesses, including escort services. In fact, all one has to do is quite literally cross the street in hundreds, if not thousands of locations in the vicinity to cross a state line.

The Travel Act is important here because – unlike the state misdemeanor crime of prostitution – the Travel Act can be used to satisfy the requirement of an SUA (specified unlawful activity), which must be in place in order for the Government, not only to claim jurisdiction, but to be able to charge racketeering, money laundering and conspiracy. Federal law recognizes dozens of SUAs. Normally, such activities involve murder, treason, rape, kidnapping, drug trafficking, white slavery, extortion, embezzlement, etc and subsequently are utilized to support broader crimes like racketeering and conspiracy.

Perhaps, it also should be stated (and clarified) the racketeering charge is based in part upon the belief my previous business – to this day - is an ongoing criminal enterprise. Pamela Martin & Associates ceased to exist the day phone service was disconnected by me, in August of 2006. Any/all affiliated parties went their separate ways, at this time. The money laundering charge has been built upon the fact that payment transaction was done through the U.S. Mail.

Since I did not live in the Washington, D.C. area, during the 13 year period, PM&A was a viable concern – there realistically was no other logistical way for the women in my employ to send agency revenue onto me. Lastly, conspiracy – from what I have been able to ascertain – ostensibly occurs when two minds agree to commit a crime. Strangely, a person also can conspire with himself/herself, without the inclusion of a second individual.

Without doubt, I am in the fight of my life.Unfortunately, the Government will not capitulate, nor will I in this extremely bizarre case; one,where no person other than myself–including all former clients and escorts-is being charged with any crime here. Technically the Government has been successful in making the charges against me work on paper.

As a result, I have no choice- nor have I ever had any alternative - but to fight on and clear my name via the facts of the case, particularly since - if convicted, federal sentencing guidelines allow for a maximum sentence of 55 years imprisonment. Realistically, it has been calculated I would receive 8 to 10 to 15 years. Nonetheless for me at age 51, such a harsh penalty would be tantamount to a virtual life sentence – stripping me of some of the most productive years remaining in my life.

Jeane Palfrey

There's an image I have of Blanche Palfrey finding her daughter's body, hanging in the shed outside of her residential trailer. It's an image that should stick in the minds of all the "Johns," the privileged ones, forever. This is the real face of our elected (and appointed) representatives, and Republican Senator David Vitter is hardly alone in all of this. It's also the face of privileged businessmen, most of them whom would be nothing without a prostitute-facilitated government handout. Just ask Brent Wilkes. This is the face of lawlessness, a profoundly sexist patriarchy...it is the face of a homegrown American Fascism that so closely resembles a 19th century mining town.

I once told Jeane that she resembled the femme fatale movie star Joan Bennett (of Fritz Lang's "Scarlet Street"). Her response made sense: she she seemed to convey that she was both flattered and taken off-guard. It's horrible to see how accurate the statement was. This political and economic system uses women like Deborah Jeane Palfrey and her former escorts to facilitate government contracts. 

When things get uncovered, the press acts as the gatekeepers that they are (including people like David Corn), and they throw them away through prosecution. Jeane, I hardly knew you, but you didn't deserve this ending. I have to wonder what the dirty political prosecutors told you about sentencing, and whether it contributed to your decision to kill yourself. Your story will be told, and what I've learned in all of this will become public. This I vow.