Tuesday, August 25, 2009

A DC Madam missive: Palfrey was going to invoke the names of Cunningham and Wilkes at trial


Ed.--This is part of what the Court and the rest of the players unknown wanted suppressed and kept out of the record. Palfrey asked me about this, but I'm not an attorney and couldn't give her legal advice. Decide for yourself. I am 100% certain that her criminal counsel Preston Burton dissuaded her from this route or any other route that Montgomery Blair Sibley was going to invoke at trial.

I'm pretty sure she read the statement, and Judge Robertson, being the hoodwinking, biased jurist that he is, more-or-less ignored and/or neutralized the statement. Imagine that. As we all know, this other legal strategy--
besides Sibley's, the one that got 86'd for reasons unknown--worked-out gangbusters, Ms. Palfrey was exonerated, and is currently living in an apartment on the outskirts of Eastern Berlin. Ms. Palfrey's family might want to consider such facts when considering any deals with the Devil...

----- Original Message -----
To:
Cc:
Sent: 1/13/2008 12:51:03 AM

Judge Robertson has ordered me back to Washington for Wednesday's hearing. Completely expected. I will be reading a five or six page statement in open court (about 10 minutes) outlining events to date, as well as justifying my reasoning for terminating Blair (terminate is now the correct word since he won't leave of his own accord). In addition, I intend to invoke the names of the " D ukester" and Wilkes. In particular, I intend to describe the Smoking Gun incident and state how I remember Wilkes regular patronage of my former business. So, you two – just how much "holy hallelujah" (a favorite saying of my mother) and drama do you think will happen next Wednesday morning, in D .C. Federal Court? -Jeane


Postscript, 08.26.2009: I should add here for the sake of clarification that Ms. Palfrey ran her case pro se, meaning that she was in charge of it after the departure of Mr. Sibley, although one could argue she always had been and insisted on such.

The January 18, 2008 email below makes it pretty clear she wasn't coerced into taking Burton back on to assist her. It seems to me that he did much more than that and worked very hard at persuasion in several directions of their strategy, namely not calling any witnesses at all. They lost the case.


...FYI – Judge Robertson called this morning, to inform me that he has had second thoughts about appointing a CJA attorney to me. Correspondingly, he suggested I might want to reconsider Preston Burton; especially since, Mr. Burton is considered to be one of the finest attorneys in Washington . I agreed. I will continue in pro se, with Preston's assistance. In many ways, this is the best of both worlds. Realistically, he will do ALL of the work, but will not be able to act – even if well intended – without my full knowledge and consent. Best of all – unlike Blair – he can get the job done. This is the guy, who successfully argued to have the phone records injunction lifted, last June/July. –Best, Jeane