Saturday, August 30, 2008

Question: Are Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe working with the Palfrey Estate (and others) to recover additional DC Madam "assets"?


Jeane Palfrey: "Matt, nobody has a monopoly on the truth."

The Shadow World--In a conference call that occurred between myself, Los Angeles attorney Sam Deskin, and my co-researcher Monique Rawlings ("Bil"/"SP Biloxi"), Deskin began talking about how Palfrey couldn't have made the $2.2 million that she and the government were claiming from 1993-2006.

From looking at the phone lists covering 13 years in-detail, it seems
mathematically impossible that that was all that she accrued from her escort service. This unprompted topic from Deskin wasn't news to my ears--I'd considered it as early as May of 2007. The conference call was around late-February of this year. Just two-days-later, Palfrey would forward everyone connected to or on the defense team itself an e-mail stating she wasn't going to be taken alive.

I agreed with Deskin, guilt or innocence aside. Rawlings was non-plussed, and I assume that she and journalist Jason Leopold still wrong-headedly cling to the assertion that Palfrey was somehow "innocent." Well yes--until proven guilty, and I believed by the end that she was, and I still do. That's their mistake to make, and I have no problem with them continuing down that road.

But "guilt" wasn't the central issue to me anyway, rather that the defendant wasn't receiving due process and needed help. At the time of the teleconference call (my first ever!), I was only tangentially-connected to the defense, was unpaid, and I was tiring of all the back-stabbing that most assuredly went on without my direct knowledge. In addition, the "client" was acting very erratically, and I'd had enough. By March 18th, it was over, and I never heard from her again. By May 1st, she had committed suicide. It was a crushing-blow that I assumed was coming in some form since last summer.

Palfrey told me herself on a few occasions that she was very well-traveled, and recommended it to me. Yeah, sure. Always the Sphinx, she seemed to be telling me more than she was on the surface. That's what was so unique about our correspondence--she communicated things to me that I don't believe she did with anyone else, though it was often coded by an indirectness and euphemism. And this all brings me to the nexus of why she approached me for aid: I had written in a couple of observational pieces on her case that both she and the government were lying. But what about? Why would the prosecution and the defense lie in a case like hers? The money, and where the rest of it was.

I believe it's out there in offshore accounts, waiting, like pirate treasure, like booty. I believe that the government is trying to recover the money for nefarious purposes, probably through Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe. Why? Because they offices in over 18 nations, including Russia, China--you-name-it. Orrick does business with the United States Government routinely, and one of their attorneys--Preston Burton--now works with and administers the estate of the deceased DC Madam with other Orrick sub-firms. This is extremely convenient, and together with the government, they'll probably find that money...if it's in-fact out there. Like Poe's "The Gold Bug," and the late Jeane Palfrey, it's an encrypted riddle. Which narrative will hold? Which narrative is correct? Nobody seems to know.

Even though it's likely that Jeane would have kicked myself and others to the curb had she won her case, I cannot escape the strong desire that she had survived all of this. The government ensured that this would not occur, and they did their best to hide and to protect her influential clients as well as the putrid picture of American politics and economy that will eventually emerge from the primary materials. Truth crushed to earth rises again.


Statement of intellectual ownership: This article and all other writings generated by the proprietor of this website are the property of said proprietor (Matt Janovic) and may not be republished, transmitted, or quoted past four lines of content without written permission.