WWW--As a participant in some of what happened, this is going to take some recalibration, but having perused through Mr. Sibley's book today, I have to say that first impressions are everything and that my own is a good one.
Amazon.com began exclusive sales yesterday, the first anniversary of Jeane's untimely death, and it's a wait-and-see what the public and critical responses are going to be. Having been "burned" (some of this remains to be seen) by Palfrey on several occasions, it's hard to say if any of the mainstream media or press are going to bite. At 598 pages, it's a hefty tome, but definitely a page-turner, and the public shouldn't be dissuaded that it's going to be a litany of legal citations, it is not.
From what I'm seeing in the text based on my own experiences, they should find a very intriguing story that would rival most pulp detective stories for their twists-and-turns.
Jeane became an internationally known, heroic figure for living her life without excuses and standing up to the Bush Administration’s misogynist, right-wing pandering, political agenda. The book identifies the external and internal demons that drove Jeane from an initially defiant woman willing to fight the government to a woman so despairing as to take her own life prior to sentencing upon her conviction for Prostitution Racketeering and Money Laundering. (Homepage, www.whyjusther.com, 05.01.2009)I don't entirely agree or disagree with Mr. Sibley's contentions of the first sentence of the paragraph, but there is a core truth to it. She really was up against a culture of institutionalized misogyny--a culture that will go to great lengths to protect itself in the courts. To his credit, Sibley doesn't pander to the contention that Palfrey was somehow murdered by the federal government.
If anyone might feel compelled to, it would be him. Good show, and an honorable thing.
But truly, one lone woman actually did have to stand up to the questionable Bush II Justice Department, it's just the truth of the matter. In a way, she was an unwilling reformer. In a Hermetic reversal, Palfrey handily took down the State Department's Randall L. Tobias, just another dubious appointee of a totally corrupt administration; she exposed former Clinton adviser Dick Morris (this is frequently forgotten), and exposed a standing Republican senator as a hypocrite and a liar. Her case made it plain what the legal disparities are in prostitution cases in America between the prostitutes and their clients. Most of the time, the "johns" walk and the women go to jail. Palfrey's case could be the final underscoring of this fact. But the book--by its nature as an account--is also about former counsel Montgomery Blair Sibley.
In keeping with this, there was there was another related action on the very same day of the release of Sibley's book: the upholding of the three year suspension of his law license in D.C. . In just another curiously timed decision in what can only be called a bizarre saga, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that Sibley cannot practice law in the District of Columbia for three years, but with a hitch that might be missed by the layman.
Sibley's suspension is partially retroactive, but the actual suspension will be three years upon its completion, ostensibly in the spring of 2011:
We subsequently appointed amicus curiae to assist the court and heard argument at Sibley’s request. The issues before the court are whether the procedures [PAGE BREAK] employed by the Florida Supreme Court and the Referee appointed by that court were so lacking in notice or the opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process and whether the Florida Supreme Court issued a sanction with such infirmity of proof as to require further review. We find that Sibley has failed to demonstrate that there was a lack of notice or infirmity of proof and thus suspend Sibley from practicing before this court for three years, nunc pro tunc to May 12, 2008, on the same conditions as imposed by the Florida Supreme Court. (U.S. Court of Appeals Docket case "No. 08-7121, IN RE: MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY, RESPONDENT," uscourts.gov, 05.01.2009)"Nunc pro tunc" is a legal term meaning that the suspension is retroactive to May 12, 2008. In other words, he's already "served" the first year already, simple.
A review of Why Just Her will be forthcoming at this location. Expect more of the unexpected.
U.S. Court of Appeals Docket case "No. 08-7121, IN RE: MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY, RESPONDENT ": http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200905/08-7121-1178624.pdf
The official site of Why Just Her:www.whyjusther.com