RIP Jeane...

This isn't a five year or ten year benchmark, but considerable time has passed now, and I need to make my peace. Jeane, I tried my best to help save you, but as the months and years have passed by, I came to understand that there was no saving you, that you were doomed long before we crossed paths, before you came my way asking for help. I'm sorry you had the life you had, my heart was broken watching them destroy you, a human being, flawed, but not evil, not nearly as "criminal" as the people prosecuting you, who used Pamela Martin. No one is as evil as them, no one.

At least once a week I think about how this all affected your mother, maybe one of the most painful things I have to consider in all of this. That's why I have left her in peace. You did the best you could with a rotten life in a bad culture, a sexist, exploitative nation that appears as doomed as you were. Your case made you a proverbial canary in the coal mine--a victim of the final stages in the construction of a police state in America, the end of a good dream, maybe the end of everything. Perhaps you were lucky to go when you did, I don't know, but the future doesn't appear a bright one for the rest of us, the "survivors".

All I can hope is that you're at peace, and that hope is hardly in vain. Whether there's something after this (I find this doubtful) is irrelevant: you are free, they can no longer harm you, and you won, you beat the "bastards," as you referred to them so accurately. Jeffrey Taylor, Cowden, Butler, Connelly, Rakestraw--everyone involved in investigating and prosecuting you--will have to carry this around with them for the rest of their lives. If it doesn't bother them, they have bigger problems, like being a deranged psychopath, like the people they serve, and that's not the public, hardly. One day the entire truth will be known and people will gasp at the horror of what was done to you.

Rest in Peace, Jeane, you earned it. Soon, they're going to get a taste of payback simply by my telling the truth.

On my upcoming DC Madam account

WWW--Things are proceeding nicely, and the text is nearly 3/4s completed and should clock in around 300 pages, give or take. I have a working title as well, after reading about the murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964 in Queens. Genovese was attacked, raped, and murdered over the span of 35 minutes before her neighbors called the police.

Their inaction was called "the bystander effect," and I think what happened to Palfrey and Genovese has similar themes in common. In Palfrey's case, it was obvious that she was suicidal, and a lot of us noticed. But what do you do when you're just not sure? It depends on where you're situated. I was that proverbial "fly on the wall," not that I ever planned on being one. But there I was, the guy in the corner taking notes, preserving things for the historical record.

Thirty-eight of Genovese's neighbors watched her being attacked, stabbed, raped, and finally finished off by her psychopathic murderer. What people tend to forget is that each neighbor only saw a small portion of the overall event, so that it was hard for them to put together what was happening. Finally, one of them did, but this is rarely remembered. Would it have mattered had they called earlier? Maybe. In Palfrey's case, things were so compartmentalized and fragmented (when she wasn't making inadvisable media appearances, Palfrey spent a lot of time in her Vallejo laundry room manning her computer working on her defense, corresponding, etc.) that it wasn't always easy to put a finger on whether she was just outraged over the charges against her, an underworld nihilist, or just unhinged. Perhaps it only became truly evident once she killed herself, but I have to wonder if there were outbursts by her during the legal proceedings that were blatant, obvious.

What could anyone have done? I don't think that there was anything to be done after she refused two very generous plea deals, and she must have made some sort of a quiet death pact with herself. It's reported that she let out a very audible sigh when the guilty verdict was read. Death it would be. Were there ever deals like this? What I cannot fathom is why she told them to me in our first telephone conversation in 2007, and in pretty good detail. She told Brain Ross, and he did mention them on air, but not their specifics, they were the best you could get from prosecutors. The prosecution team were dumbbells working for ignoble aims, but they certainly had a live one on their hands. In 2008, some of them were quoted as saying that they "felt bad" how it all ended, that it was "unfortunate."

Bullshit.

They knew. I knew. You couldn't miss it.

Anyone who read or watched interviews with her at the time knew that she was expressing suicidal thoughts. "I'm not going to spend even one more day in prison," she said over and over again, her other mantra besides, "They're not taking my assets." Weirdly, the government prosecutors drove a disturbed woman over the edge and she killed herself as we thought she might. They knew. The Bystander Effect: An account of the DC Madam it is, at least for now. But I can't see it changing either.

The House Judiciary Committee releases the Rove/Miers interviews related to the U.S. Attorney firings (with some excerpts from the Miers testimony)

Washington D.C.--And so, we finally have a window, a real window, into what was going on at the DOJ during the time leading-up to the U.S. Attorney firings in that culminated in December 2006.

The House Judiciary Committee has today released what several scholars and pundits were saying would never see the light of day: the transcripts of the interviews with Bush II political operative and adviser Karl Rove and former Deputy Chief of Staff and White House Counsel (the president's legal adviser until early 2007), as well as emails and other documents and materials relating to what appears to be politically motivated firings of U.S. Attorneys, thus endangering their abilities to enforce the law correctly without undue or illegal political influence and/or obstruction through a general abuse of office.

Some highlights of the Miers testimony from June of this year:

(Beginning P.7) ...Q Yes, and also prior to that time. Let me -- why don't I start out asking you, before your work in the White House in any capacity, did you have any role in the selection of U.S. Attorneys or in the discharge of U.S. Attorneys?

A Not that I recall. (pg. 8) ...

(P.14) ...Q Now, there could be inappropriate reasons why a U.S. Attorney would be let go, as well, right?

A Yes.

Q If the Department of Justice were to recommend removal of the U.S. Attorney for a political partisan purpose, that would be an inappropriate basis for removal, right?

A I don't know what that term means. U.S. Attorneys are, by their nature, political.

Q Well, would you find it proper to remove a U.S. Attorney to stop him from prosecuting a friend of the President?

A I would not expect the Department to recommend removal for the U.S. Attorney doing his or her job. And if his or her job was investigating someone and there was an effort to cause that 15 person to step down because of that reason, I would view that as inappropriate.

Q So if the Department of Justice were recommending a U.S. Attorney be forced to resign because he was investigating a friend of the President, that would be an inappropriate reason for the Department to recommend his removal?

A If the reason was to interfere with a prosecutor's ongoing investigation of a particular matter, I would consider that inappropriate.

Q And, along those lines, if a U.S. Attorney refused to prosecute a political opponent of the President, that would also be an inappropriate reason to remove them?

A If the reason for a recommendation to ask a person to step down or to take action against the person was to cause them to take action that was inappropriate, then, yes, I would consider that not something that should happen.

Q Well, I just wanted to be very clear on this. If a U.S. Attorney is asked to resign because he refused to prosecute an opponent of the President, that would be improper, wouldn't it?

A If it was to cause the U.S. Attorney to take some action that the U.S. Attorney and others believed to be appropriate -- or inappropriate, then I would consider that something that should not happen. ...

P.16) ...Q And if, by the same token, a prosecutor refuses to bring a meritless prosecution against an opponent to the President, that would be improper also, right?

A If someone is asked to step down because they weren't bringing something that they, in good faith, thought they shouldn't and the examination concluded that that was a legitimate 17 position, then I would not expect them to be asked to step down.

Q Let me ask you also about the timing of prosecutions. Would it be improper to remove a U.S. Attorney because that U.S. Attorney failed to bring a prosecution that would aid a candidate during election time?

A It would be inappropriate to interfere one way or the other, either by asking somebody to bring an action they shouldn't bring or to not bring an action that they should, in both instances it would be inappropriate.

Q And particularly so if it was done with a design to influence an election?

A If that was the purpose, then I would think it would be inappropriate to attempt to influence an election.

Q Are there circumstances in which it would be proper to remove a U.S. Attorney based on purely partisan political considerations? A I would have difficulty answering that question.

Q Would it be proper to remove a U.S. Attorney because he refused to use his office to assist Republican candidates for elective office?

A If the sole purpose of asking someone to leave or to step down is to influence an election or do something the individual thought shouldn't be done, and the examination indicates that is correct, or to not do something, I think any of those things would have been inappropriate. ...

(P. 18) ...Q Would it be appropriate to remove a U.S. Attorney simply because one of the President's political allies or supporters has asked that U.S. Attorney to be removed?

A That would depend on the circumstances.

Q If the sole reason that the President removes a U.S. Attorney is because a supporter asked, would that be appropriate?

A U.S. Attorneys are serving at the pleasure of the President. And so, if anything is presented to him, then he has the ability to remove that person. ...

(P.21) ...Q Under what circumstances do you think it would be appropriate for the origination of the idea to remove a U.S. Attorney to come from the White House?

A I would think that would be perfectly appropriate from any other source. ...

(P. 27) ...Q Well, let's say you had a U.S. Attorney who refused to bring meritless cases.

A Well, you can stop right there. No one is going to condone bringing meritless cases.

Q And so, removing them for the failure to bring meritless cases would be an inappropriate reason to remove them?

A I believe we have already covered that. And I said you should not ask someone to leave because they won't bring a meritless case. ...

(P.38) ...Q And what about the Office of Political Affairs' role in the decision to let U.S. Attorneys go. What role did they play in 39 the process?

A I would say providing information.

Q And what type of information would they provide?

A Whatever they had in any particular situation. And if they had any, I would think many times they would not, but if they had any they may well have let their views be known. And in fact, and I apologize for not thinking about this at the time, someone from that office frequently attended the Judicial Selection Committee. So they were always there to provide the political sense with respect to the environment in any particular state.

Q And who was it from the Office of Political Affairs that attended the JSC meetings?

A Sometimes Karl Rove himself participated, but he may have had on his deputy chief of staff hat. But the Office of Political Affairs reported to him, so he could have been there. I don't really have a recollection of Sara Taylor being there, but she would have been logical. I remember Scott Jennings being there.

Q Do you recall any of the JSC meetings where it was clear Mr. Rove attended for the specific purpose that a U.S. Attorney removal was the issue to be discussed?

A I don't have a recollection of that.

Q Do you recall any case where the suggestion for the removal of a particular U.S. Attorney originated in the Office of Political Affairs rather than the Department of Justice? 40

A I think that's a good question. And I know that, for example, with respect to Mr. Iglesias that there were comments made about him and his performance. And those comments certainly could have been made at a Judicial Selection Committee meeting, but I don't recall it.

Q And did you raise the case of Mr. Iglesias because the first suggestion that he be considered for removal came from the Office of Political Affairs rather than the Department of Justice?

A I don't know whether it did or not come from the Department of Justice or whether that was just one more voice if, in fact, it happened. But I don't really know who came up with the idea. But certainly there were comments about Mr. Iglesias coming from the political office, or the deputy chief of staff for that matter. ...

(P. 41) ...Q But it was a call that Mr. Rove originated, you didn't call him? A Well, unless I called him back. But, yeah, he instigated the call. 42

Q And tell us the best you can about what you recall what Mr. Rove had to say when he called?

A My best recollection is that he was very agitated about the U.S. Attorney in New Mexico. I don't know that I knew the gentleman's name at that time.

Q And what did he tell you about the U.S. Attorney in New Mexico?

A That he was getting barraged by a lot of complaints about the U.S. Attorney and his not doing his job.

Q And who were the complaints coming from?

A People that he was in contact with, which I assumed, of course, and he may have said, were political people that were active in New Mexico.

Q These are Republican Party activists?

A They were the people that he would have been interfacing with as political leadership of the State, is my assumption.

Q And who would that have been?

A I have no idea.

Q Would they have been Republican Party activists?

A All I can tell you is that Karl was reporting multiple people complaining about Mr. Iglesias.

Q And did he identify any of the people who were complaining to him about Mr. Iglesias?

A I don't recall that.

Q Did he tell you what they were complaining about? 43

A That he wasn't doing his job. I do recall that.

Q Do you recall what specifically the complaints were that he wasn't doing his job?

A I don't recall the specifics of what he was saying.

Q Did Mr. Rove raise with you complaints about voter fraud prosecutions?

A That's my best recollection, that he did.

Q And what did he say about that?

A I don't know what he said. I know it's my impression that he talked about the complaints that the guy wouldn't do his job. And I believe he mentioned voter fraud.

Q What else do you recall that Mr. Rove said about the complaints, if anything?

A I'm giving you all the information that I can about that call. That's my best recollection that that happened.

Q And you said Mr. Rove was agitated. What led you to believe that he was agitated?

A He was just upset. I remember his being upset.

Q Was it the language he used or was it the tone of his voice that told you he was upset?

A I can't tell you. It's my recollection that he was upset. And how that was conveyed to me I can't tell you.

Q Did Mr. Rove tell you that he wanted the U.S. Attorney gone?

A I don't have that specific recollection. And I'm under 44 oath and I'm not going to swear to something coming out of his mouth that I just can't remember. The clear import was that he was upset with how this individual was performing.

Q And was the clear import also that he wanted him removed from his position?

A He was getting complaints about the guy. And he wanted to express, I think, and this is my general sense about the New Mexico situation, that there were complaints about how he was performing.

Q Ms. Miers, wasn't the clear import of his conversation with you that he wanted the U.S. Attorney removed from office?

A I can't say with certainty that he ever used that language. He may well have. I don't recall it.

Q Well, I'm not asking about specific language, but you were able to tell us the clear import of part of his conversation was that the U.S. Attorney was not doing his job and he was getting an earful?

A That's correct.

Q If Mr. Rove communicated to you that he wanted a U.S. Attorney replaced, you would recall that, right?

A Not necessarily.

Q Well, in this case did Mr. Rove communicate to you in whatever language he used that he wanted this U.S. Attorney removed?

A I can't put those words in his mouth. 45

Q I'm not using any specific words. But when you hung up with the -- when you hung up the phone call with Mr. Rove, was it clear to you that he wanted this U.S. Attorney removed?

A It was clear to me that he felt like he had a serious problem and that he wanted something done about it. And whether he said, and the answer is ask the guy to be removed, I can't -- I don't recall that, I just don't recall it.

Q But you do recall he wanted something done about it? A Yes, sir. I think he was calling for that purpose.

Q And he may have asked you, or he may have told you that he wanted the U.S. Attorney removed?

A That's speculation. And I can't put those exact words in his mouth. I mean, he was complaining about the guy.

Q The clear import was that he wanted something done about it, right?

A Yes, sir. That was his purpose in calling me.

Q And at this point, you can't rule out whether he asked that he be removed from office?

A I can't swear that he did or did not say that. Q So he may have? A I can't swear one way or the other.

Q So he may have asked for him to be removed, you just can't recall?

A I don't recall his using words like I want him fired or words of similar import. I just don't have that recollection. 46

Could he have said that, I can't rule it out. I probably should say that he may have said can't we get rid of this guy or something like that.

Q And do you recall what your response would have been?

A I don't recall him saying even that, so I certainly don't recall my response.

Q But he may have said that?

A I can't rule it out.

Q If Mr. Rove wanted him removed, what would the next step have been?

A If he had said that he wanted us to consider removing the guy, then I would have relayed that along with whatever else I believe I called Paul McNulty about. Because my belief is that I called Paul McNulty and reported this situation.

Q So at some point after your conversation with Mr. Rove, you called Mr. McNulty at the Justice Department?

A That's my belief. That I took whatever information he gave me and I called Paul and gave it to him. ...

Not a pretty picture at all, and these are just excerpts. I'm assuming Rove's transcript has some relevant material but that it's generally a lot of skirting around his culpability/guilt in the affair. And yes, we can expect them to protect the president at all costs...unless, perhaps, it means that they're going to to go to prison.

Keep in mind that this woman was nominated for the Supreme Court. Now we know why she declined.

The House Judiciary Committe's Rove/Miers interviews and materials: http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_WHInterviews.html

The House Judiciary Committee's democratic counsel contacted the DC Madam in late 2007: the exchange

Ed.--This one is long overdue and comes thanks to a recent comment from a reader who wishes to remain anonymous. Forgive the layout, courtesy of Blogspot bugs that never seem to get fixed. That said, read from the bottom-up.

Really? Then – why I wonder – am I getting the brush off?

-----Original Message-----
From: Justice League [mailto:spbiloxi00@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:36 AM
To: jeanepalfrey@sprynet.com
Cc: Matt Janovic
Subject: Re: Deborah Jeane Palfrey & CAFRA

Jeane:

Let's hope that the HJC respond to you. The HJC certainly responded to the cases Siegelman and Katheryn Shields and her husband.

Bil

On Dec 17, 2007 11:24 AM, Jeane Palfrey <jeanepalfrey@sprynet.com> wrote:

Matt and Bil… FYI - speaking of the House Judiciary Committee. Let's see what, if any response I receive here. -Jeane

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeane Palfrey [mailto: jeanepalfrey@sprynet.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 10:49 PM
To: 'Diana.Oo@mail.house.gov'
Subject: RE: Deborah Jeane Palfrey & CAFRA

Ms. Oo…

It is my understanding from the following thread and conversations with my attorney, Mr. Montgomery B. Sibley, that the House Judiciary Committee is interested in the civil asset forfeiture portion of my case. Accordingly, you made an appointment to speak with Mr. Sibley, on Thursday, December 5 ^th; an appointment, you did not keep. Despite messages – email and voicemail – from Mr. Sibley inquiring of your absence, to date you have chosen not to deign him and correspondingly me, with an explanation or apology here.

Your "on/off" behavior is rather interesting. It is particularly so, in light of similar actions by Judge Kessler, of late. It should be noted though, my case is replete with a history of sudden and inexplicable events, which seemingly shut down any and every opportunity I am given to uncover the truth in my bizarre situation.

I truly hope this is not the case with the House Judiciary Committee. You see, I take your statement regarding the Committee's interest in the due process rights of citizens in civil forfeiture matters quite literally.

Mr. Sibley and I look forward to speaking with you, as soon as possible.

Your attention to this concern is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Jeane Palfrey

-----Original Message-----
From: Montgomery Sibley [mailto: mbsibley@civilforfeiture.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 7:39 AM
To: 'Oo, Diana'
Subject: RE: Deborah Jeane Palfrey & CAFRA

Diana,

Do you still want to discuss the government's abuse of the forfeiture laws in my client Jeane Palfrey's case?

Montgomery

---

From: Oo, Diana [mailto:Diana.Oo@mail.house.gov]
Sent: 12/04/2007 12:33 PM
To: mbsibley@civilforfeiture.com
Subject: Re: Deborah Jeane Palfrey & CAFRA

Montgomery, are you available to discuss by phone tomorrow afternoon, say around 2?




----- Original Message -----
From: Montgomery Sibley <mbsibley@civilforfeiture.com>
To: Oo, Diana
Sent: Mon Dec 03 14:17:39 2007
Subject: FW: Deborah Jeane Palfrey & CAFRA

Diana,

Can you update me?

Thanks,
Montgomery


________________________________

From: Montgomery Sibley [ mailto:mbsibley@civilforfeiture.com]
Sent: 11/30/2007 7:04 AM
To: 'Oo, Diana'
Subject: RE: Deborah Jeane Palfrey & CAFRA


Diana,

I am committed on Monday to matters I can't change without a court order. However, I can meet with you at your offices on Tuesday next most anytime. Let me know what works best for you.

yours,

Montgomery


________________________________

From: Oo, Diana [mailto:Diana.Oo@mail.house.gov]
Sent: 11/29/2007 4:05 PM
To: sibley@civilforfeiture.com
Subject: Deborah Jeane Palfrey & CAFRA



Hi Montgomery,

Thank you for your letter on this matter. The Committee is of course interested in ensuring that the due process rights of all citizens are preserved during the civil forfeiture process. I have some questions. Would you like to discuss this case on Monday?


Diana Oo

Democratic Counsel

House Judiciary Committee

2138 Rayburn

Washington, D.C. 20515

P: 202.225.3951

F: 202.225.7680

JEFFREY A. TAYLOR: "What's he up to these days?" and other tales of high weirdness

Washington D.C.--I didn't notice this, but Jeffrey A. Taylor resigned as an interim appointed U.S. Attorney on May 28th of this year. Yeah, must have been all that Michael Jackson news...oh yeah, and all that drama in Iran that we're all soon to forget.

But at least we'll never forget all those missing kids.

Occasionally, I get an email from someone "in trouble," and they usually tend to be mistaken or just plain weird or disturbed writers. This weekend, I got a real live one that might, or might not be valid. That said, it was unsolicited, I'm not an attorney, and she wanted her "help," so I'm putting it out there mainly to see whether it's real or not. If it helps, good.

From Ms. Cooley, the entire text of what I assume is a form letter:

July 8, 2009

Dear [Matt Janovic/?]

My name is Michelle Cooley. I am a resident of the city [of] New York. I work for [a] customer support and tech support with a company called Arise. I am a single mother of a 14 year old boy.

These past 5 months I have been dedicated to the discovery process of investigating the parties involved in my late father's probate case. Amongst many possible legal violations -I have found possible elements of fraud, white collar crime, judicial fraud, IRS fraud, RICO Act Violations, and estate fraud. The estate could be worth possibly millions of dollars. My sister, myself, and sub sequentiality[SIC,] my 14 year old son would be the only heirs.

The last week of June, I discovered that the remains of my late father, William Mack Cooley, were missing from the Barrington, Illinios church where he was purportedly laid to rest. I was about to go to the F.B.I. with my information, and the documentation and evidence to back up my discoveries this past week - however impeding my contact with the F.B.I. was “gas leak” in my residence.

Starting on July 2, I was terrified and intimidated by a group of “FDNY” who appeared at my apartment on 2 occasions. I was told on both occasions that my gas had been turned off. I was informed by Con Edison that it had never been turned off. Apart from feeling terribly sick, I was terrified by the behavior of these “FDNY”. I have been a New York resident since 2000 and I have always found the FDNY very amicable and professional. This time however, I was treated with disrespect and contempt.

My life and the life of my 14 year old son were put at risk. Our gas was not turned off for over three days, despite being told that is had been by FDNY personnel. When I decided to go to the hospital to get tested for possible Co2 poisoning I was stopped by a group of amicable NY PD who informed me that someone had called them and told them “a women was passed out on the floor”. I never called the police that night. The NYPD did not seem to be aware of what was going on.

I was put in an Ambulance, and was told by an EMS worker repeatedly that I needed to “take my meds”. She then stayed with me until I was put in the psychiatric ward. She reported to the Doctor at Metropolitan hospital that I was “psychotic”, “suicidal”, “homicidal”, and “playing with the gas pipes.” She also told them I drank “booze”. Thankfully I was seen by a unbiased Psychiatrist at Metropolitan Hospital who released me just an hour later. I insisted on a co2 test, and was told my level was at 0.5.

I have never been diagnosed as psychotic, nor homicidal. I would never hurt anyone or anything.

I have repeatedly tried to find out the names of the FDNY who were dispatched to my apartment. No one at the FDNY, as of yet, will give me any information. I am too afraid for to even return to my apartment after what transpired this weekend. My family is afraid for my our safety as well.

The very people I grew up admiring and believing I could turn to for help – I now fear to call. My son and myself have been traumatized. We are both currently staying away from our home- too afraid to return.

Both my grandfather, and my grandfather worked for the United States Department of Defense.

There are many questions and concerning the events around my later father's death, and the handling of his estate by a the head Probate judge in Washington D.C.

As a citizen of the United States of America, I have a right to investigate the death of my father – and to find out what happened to his remains. My son and I have the right to live without intimidation and harassment.

I have since discovered that a Lt. Duggan was the person who was in charge of dispatching to Con Edison about my gas leak. The gas leak dispatch report was reported three days after the gas leak.

Robert McDonald the head supervisor of gas department was inside my apartment without me being there. I was informed by a Con Edison worker that “supervisors” do not usually go on “gas leak” calls at 1 am in the morning.

I have since learned that Lt. Duggan was in the army. I believe that all the “FDNY” that were dispatched to my apartment were Army reserve or personnel. I do not believe they know the reason that they were called for this “gas leak”.

I would like to inform them, and any anyone else, that I am a kind, caring human being. My son and I object to having been treated like an animals in a gas chamber. I also have the right to go to a hospital to check my physical health, and not be tossed into an ambulance whilst being accused and portrayed to medical personal with absurd accusations of psychiatric problems by FNDY EMS.

My son is an innocent little boy . He has done no harm to anyone.

For the record- I am not suicidal, psychotic, or homicidal. I do not no drugs of any kind. I am a daughter trying to find out what happened to her father. That is not a crime.

I am seeking protection and advocacy from the appropriate agency. We have the right to live our lives with the normalcy we had - before I discovered the possible criminal elements around my late father's case. I am attaching documentation to this letter with the cause of events, and other documentation.

My son and I are truly afraid for our safety at this point in time. We would appreciate any kind of support, advice, or protection..

Sincerely, Michelle Cooley ("Cooley to the author")

Pretty incredible claims, right? In another email she sent before this one--the first one--she enclosed the document below with the claim on Icke's b-board page that, "Well I was looking through the court papers of my "bankrupt" father whose probate case is still open in the Washington D.C. probate court... And look whose name is on the paper work for the judge AFTER he's already RESIGNED!!!" (Comment "#13" from the link below)

Yet, there's no real context given. The date on the document is April 6, 2009. Taylor split on May 28. Disinformation? Could be. Does it sound like a bad spy novel? It sure does, hence my suspicions.

"Context": http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?s=44931b74b9a309cc88b1bc69cdc11b11&t=71259&page=2

On the recent revelations surrounding profound torture and mistreatment at Guantanamo and around the globe by American authorities

The recent release of documents authorizing torture at Guantanamo and in prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other parts of the globe by American operatives has proven that torture was authorized by the hierarchy of the former Bush II administration. It's now irrefutable and part of the historical record.

This week, we're getting some more corroboration in the form of an oral testimony that was posted by CSHRA (The Center for the Study of Human Rights in the Americas) on their website of Spc. (Specialist) Brandon Neely, a former U.S. Army MP who served at the detention facility in its first months. Neely's story account is a short one, but it indicates a compartmentalized bevy of horror that would shock and stagger the imagination of Edgar Allan Poe.

Neely's story corroborates previously released documents that state medical doctors, psychiatrists, and nurses were utilized in torture sessions on Guantanamo inmates on numerous occasions, and at various locations around the world. The use of physicians by the CIA for these purposes is not unknown, however, and is nothing new. But the solid proof of authorization by the executive branch is, and it's going to open a Pandora's Box that could hamper such methods. The Obama administration's recent comments on the issue aren't reassuring.

It should be a foregone conclusion in our culture that these methods are a direct threat to the liberties and human rights of almost everyone, especially our children. Children? Yes, children.

While it's doubtful that many of these physicians are working in the outlying society (we can presume that many are military physicians and medics), they are committing not only grievous actions that deprive these internees of their basic human rights, they are violating their oaths as practitioners. Where is the AMA and the rest of the medical and mental health profession over this? The suicides of three Guantanamo detainees in 2006 prompted action on their part.

On July 3rd, 2006, along with the American Psychiactric Association (APA), the AMA ruled that physicians couldn't participate in interrogations in any way of war on terror detainees.

The CEJA opinion also says physicians have a duty to disclose how much access interrogators have to prisoners' medical information and to report any coercive interrogations to authorities. If action isn't taken after they raise awareness, the opinion says, doctors are ethically obligated to report the offenses to independent authorities empowered to investigate.

David Fassler, MD, an American Academy of Adolescent and Child Psychiatry delegate who proposed a resolution on interrogation at the 2005 Interim Meeting, applauded the CEJA report. "Physicians should not design, participate in or monitor the interrogation of prisoners or detainees," he said. "Such activities are incompatible with our primary obligation to do no harm. ... I'm glad to see that organized medicine will now be able to speak with one voice on this issue." ("AMA adopts policy on interrogations," AMNews, 07.03.2006)

But the Pentagon's rules around that time allowed for psychiatrists to intervene in some cases "to monitor questioning," and presumably still do. What if laws are broken? Who reports them then? The key appears keeping certain personnel under military authority and control, ignoring civilian professional rulings when it comes to psychiatrists. While I don't entirely agree with journalist Larisa Alexandrovna's recent take (see link at the bottom) that these people could be treating some of our loved ones now (we don't really know, as she points-out, but we definitely should know, and soon), some of them will be.

The CEJA's recommendations were picked-up, and follow that physicians:

• "Must neither conduct nor directly participate in an interrogation;"
• "Must not monitor interrogations with the intention of intervening in the process, because this constitutes direct participation in an interrogation;"
• And when physicians "have reason to believe that interrogations are coercive, they must report their observations to appropriate authorities. If authorities are aware of coercive interrogations but have not intervened, physicians are ethically obligated to report the offenses to independent authorities that have the power to investigate or adjudicate such allegations." ("AMA: Prisoner Interrogation Unethical for Physicians, Declares AMA Panel," Medpage Today, 06.12.2006)
  

I agree with Ms. Alexandrovna and others who contend that the physicians who violated their professional oaths should be stripped of their licensing--all of them, even military ones--for their participation in these activities that they agreed to engage in at Guantanamo and other locations. After that, they should be investigated for the commission of war crimes, human rights violations, and the violation of international and American law.

Spc. Neely's account offers some insights, and others who worked in these facilities are beginning to come forward. Additional details are emerging from documents that go as far as detainees being beaten to death, their genitals mutilated with a scalpel, and even the sexual abuse and the detention of the elderly and children, and there are more revelations to come. Authorizing torture techniques that result in death, even one, is a criminal act and a war crime.

No accountability means that these people--these psychopaths who broke their professional ethics and got involved in torturing human beings--are murders among us. Best to start prosecuting from the top, down. Ask yourself why the mainstream media isn't covering this. While you're at it, why not ask them directly some time? At the moment, the new administration isn't offering much change in this direction at all, but redress could be coming from certain quarters of Congress, two bills calling for looser state secrets rules have been proposed. The new president has a strange way of interpreting the constitution, being a scholar of it.

"AMA adopts policy on interrogations," AMNews, 07.03.2006: http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/AMA/3530

"AMA: Prisoner Interrogation Unethical for Physicians, Declares AMA Panel," Medpage Today, 06.12.2006: http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/AMA/3530

2002 Bush II administration memos authorizing torture (available since 2004): http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/

"Unspeakable Abuse at Gitmo--We Need the Names of These Medical Personnel," Huffington Post, 02.16.2009: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/we-need-the-names-of-thes_b_167247.html

"Newly Unredacted Torture Documents Reveal Deaths, Abuse," Blog.ACLU, 02.11.2009: http://blog.aclu.org/2009/02/11/newly-unredacted-torture-documents-reveal-deaths-abuse/

The ACLU's Page on National Security and Torture (lots of links): http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/index.html

"Two Bills in One Day-State Secrets Fix on the Horizon," Blog.ACLU, 02.13.2009: http://blog.aclu.org/2009/02/13/two-bills-in-one-day-state-secrets-fix-on-the-horizon/

Five days left in the eight year illegal occupation of the White House

Washington D.C.--And so, it's ending, and not with a whimper (except from Georgie boy). President-elect Barack Obama is going to do his darndest not to prosecute these bastards, trying to make us think that Congress can't do likewise. It's all just bait-and-switch, the oldest game there is aside from the shell game.

Demand, demand, demand the appointment of a Special Prosecutor armed with subpoena power and the immense resources that it's going to take to unravel the mess left by yet another criminally-inept Republican presidential administration and era.

This will happen again otherwise--if we're even able to emerge from this man-made economic crisis intact. Indeed, we all own our little part of this mess, but George W. Bush and his administration and a Republican Congress created the lion's share of the corporate crime wave we've been living under since 2000. Truth be known, it's been much longer in duration, stretching-back decades. That's how big this is, it's literally the end of an era and possibly of an order.

My hunch is that Obama and the rest of them in Washington are going to try to do things as they've always done, attempting to save a rotten barrel. When that doesn't work, they're going to keep fighting the reality that market capitalism is really and truly over, waste valuable time they could be finding constructive solutions, and drive us further down into a mess that's going to dwarf the Great Depression. Congress will also lend-a-hand in creating this catastrophe.

But there's a alternative: mount a massive and aggressive prosecution on the soon-to-be former Bush II administration's most obvious offenders. There must also be the formation of prosecution units to take-on Wall Street offenders, and there must be prosecutions, there must be accountability. No accountability means no renewal of faith in the financial and political system, and the evidence criminality will be found where it ran riot in government under the Republicans and in the private sector.

But we have to quit fooling ourselves. It's also going to be found in the ranks of Congress itself, the reason why there's no will to prosecute the outgoing Bush II administration. They were complicit with them, and they compromised themselves.

If President-elect Obama is the political hack that I suspect he is, he's in as much trouble as Alberto Gonzales already, which is saying a lot considering the fact that no law firm in North America will hire the disgraced former Attorney General. We don't need any repeats from the last eight years, America cannot survive it and remain America. Hope is great, but false hope is just cynicism by another name.

The Bush II administration's time is finally ending, but...

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."--Abraham Lincoln

It's incumbent on all of us to demand a Truth Commission on every single crime committed by them from the 2000 elections until their final day in office. The involvement of the RNC and her operatives should also be thoroughly investigated. This Truth Commission should be hydra-headed because of the multifarious nature of the crimes due to their breadth and scope and the fact that they were ongoing.

Every single pertinent classified record of the Bush II years must be declassified and reviewed by a special non-partisan prosecution and investigation team and all records must be preserved. If key records are found to have been negligently destroyed or eliminated with a dark purpose, all federal laws applying punitive legal sanctions should be employed swiftly and aggressively.

Any loopholes found in procedural laws regarding the executive branch should be noted, legislative proposals made to seal them by the special prosecution, and Congress should act swiftly with enforceable legislation to heal the breach. The whole point of this is not to allow the policies that expanded executive power to stand, this being a system of precedents. Each expansion of power should be challenged at every turn.

It would behoove President-elect Barack Obama to renounce these policies in no uncertain terms and it should be part of his first 100 days in office, making the top of the list of Bush II executive orders that must be rolled back with his pen. This is where the wildcard factor comes into play with the new president: for a past constitutional law scholar he's shown peculiar voting behaviors, made especially obvious in his "yea" vote for retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies in the Bush II administration's warrantless surveillance program. This is just one of many troubling signs, but it begs-the-question of whether they were votes predicated on every occasion with a hint of a political calculus. He wanted to be president, after all.

But if ever there was a clear violation of the precepts of the Constitution of the United States, it was this NSA program whose entire scope we still don't know, but assuredly violated the Fourth amendment rights of tens of thousands of American citizens. What did the Bush II administration tell Obama and others in classified briefings about the program and the necessity for it? Did they lie to him and other members of Congress to intimidate them into an agreement to extend it and grant unprecedented legislative immunity? What is President-elect Obama's current knowledge of the program now that he's been given intelligence briefings?

With just 19 days left for the sordid Bush II administration, it's time to breathe a little easier. After taking those long, deep breaths, it's going to be time to roll-up our sleeves again and to begin demanding a Truth Commission. Democracy in North America depends on it. Our rights are non-negotiable and it's time to start acting like it for a chage.

President-elect Obama has said that Abraham Lincoln is his favorite American president, and as flawed as Lincoln was, I concur with him. He's always been my second favorite after FDR. But both men did things that caused significant damage to the rights of Americans at the same time they were adding to them. FDR and Lincoln began systematic extralegal surveillance through technological means of their perceived political enemies through the us of wiretaps.

So many presidents have engaged in this kind of behavior that it's a bipartisan tradition, and one that needed to die with the twentieth century, but has its convenient place when power feels threatened. It's the gun that all would-be presidents want to keep in the vest-pocket of the executive branch, as Noam Chomsky has pointed-out.

Time for some real gun control. The late President Lincoln's name is being bandied about a lot these days without much substance to it. We should change this, we should be sincere--we should say what we mean, and mean what we say. Without that, the future looks anything but bright.

Michael Mukasey - Will You Help Me?, by Deborah Jeane Palfrey

Michael Mukasey – will you help me?

The dubbed D.C. Madam Deborah J. Palfrey seeks fairness in a sea of injustice.

55 years imprisonment and my entire life’s savings – this is what they want to take from me, in my real life ‘David and Goliath’ struggle with the United States Department of Justice.

For the past year, I have discovered myself immersed in the world of the Justice Department; a world, replete with on-the-record faulty memories, omissions of fact and out-and-out lies; one where political motive and groupthink usurp integrity and the rule of law and where as hard as one might try, justice is nowhere to be found. This is the setting I have been placed in to do battle with a bureaucratic behemoth.

As I fight for my very life ostensibly on a daily basis, I have experienced a legal and financial pounding– a premeditative orchestration created to best the most resolute among us, by the Department of Justice or the Department of Injustice, as it more widely regarded these days.

On October 4^th of last year, a dozen plus federal agents descended upon my sedate, restored Victorian home in Northern California armed with a search warrant and arrested - of all things - my property (my turn came later in March). The process known as civil asset forfeiture allows the government to seize a person’s property and assets, without due process often leaving them destitute, when there is suspicion – not actual proof, but merely a suggestion of wrong doing.

In my case, the Federales claimed I had proffered the unthinkable – pleasures of the flesh - for financial gain, to the male denizens and visitors in our nation’s capitol. Accordingly, I found myself – besides instantaneously broke - charged with over-the-top and obscene federal crimes. My job description was elevated exponentially from retired escort service operator to the powerful, to money launderer and conspirator over night and later to racketeer.

What particularly made and continues to make my case so unusual, actually bizarre is no one ever has been charged similarly to me, in the metropolitan Washington, D.C. area. Over time, I have come to understand my case is truly one of a kind. Considering there are more adult service businesses than McDonald’s restaurants in operation in the overall vicinity, a virtual array of rich targets for the Feds to pursue – I and I alone appear to be the only subject of their interest. Furthermore, none of the estimated 10,000 or so clients, who patronized my agency or the almost 150 subcontracted women, who worked for me over the years have been charged.

The question begs. Why me and why only me? In part, the answer may lie in the fact I operated a high-end, erotic outcall service continuously (a bit of an anomaly) for a thirteen year period, from 1993 through 2006, in a part of the world laden with politically influential men; many with high level security clearances. Although, my firm routinely was patronized by the typical, garden-variety doctor, lawyer and perchance even, Indian chief; it nonetheless saw more than its share of the high and the mighty.

As flattering as it might be – albeit in a rather perverse way – for me to think I was ever the real object of the DOJ’s attention, it would be sheer folly to believe such. The clientele base, specifically the more notable customers were the true persons of interest and the reason I believe I was surveilled personally and professionally, for at least a five year period, before I decided to close shop and retire to Europe, in August of 2006. Ironically, it was this very decision to shut down the business and disrupt the status quo, in conjunction with my desire to move out of the country, which I feel ignited the raid on my home, in early October.

The combination of selective prosecution, a politically sensitive clientele and an extended surveillance period points to a matter, which has less to do with the goings-on of an alleged prostitution ring than it does with spying activities involving a constitutionally protected, American citizen. As I often have stated, my case has something to do with something, but it sure as heck has very little, if anything to do with a small-time escort business. My case - had it been more customary in nature - would have been under the sole purview of the state courts and never entered the federal realm.

But then the culture at the Justice Department, under former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has been revealed – particularly of late with the suspect attorney firings - as one more concerned with the inclinations of the White House, i.e. the GOP than with those of truthfulness and fair dealing toward a society at large; a society, which most assuredly includes me and my idiosyncratic case. The founding fathers desire for a wide divide to exist between the Executive Branch of government and the Judiciary appears to have been profanely abused by former AG Gonzales and his cohorts outside Justice.

I rather suspect that as time marches on, with it will come a multitude of eye-opening disclosures, which will call into question further the practices of the DOJ, the past several years. I believe my case is part and parcel of any such coming revelations. That is of course, if the newly appointed Attorney General – be it Bush nominee, Judge Michael Mukasey or another – chooses to do right by us, the American people; to ally with us and not the current administration. For me in my politically charged case, such a decision by the future Attorney General holds particular weight; quite possibly, whether or not I will spend the remainder of my natural life behind bars or as a free person.

Nonetheless as I begin my second year combating the beast, I do so with significant hope. After a full twelve months of being stonewalled at every twist and turn along the way, including access to discovery materials, by the assigned Assistant U.S. Attorneys - my counsel, Mr. Montgomery B. Sibley, a small band of interested third parties and I have pieced together sufficient reason to believe my case - simply put - is rotten to the core. Since the Government for all intents and purposes has run out of tactical maneuvers to prohibit me from uncovering the truth any longer, I anticipate exposure of considerable wrongdoing by the DOJ, in short order. Additionally, the fact Alberto Gonzales, perhaps one of the most dishonest and politically aligned attorney generals in U.S. history, the very one who has reigned over my specific case this last year has resigned – leaves open the hope that his predecessor may correct the direction of a wayward and seemingly corrupt Justice Department and in its wake my increasingly frightening tale of woe.

However, time will tell. In the interim, I only can remain determined and trust in the final analysis, I indeed will find justice in this dark and terrifying sea of injustice I have been thrust.

[Ed., 08.28.2008--Why she felt a shill and an apparatchiki like Mukasey would help her is beyond my ken.]