For Lazy Readers, from 2012: When Fixers Get Book Deals that Flop

Ed.-Not even that long after Deborah Jeane Palfrey's body had cooled, the very class of people (who had worked in the same office as the scum who ran her to her death), Allison Leotta, who left her job to write her "big book," penned a fictionalization of the DC Madam case. Regardless of what she'd probably say about the case, one would have to assume it would always be fiction. But, hey, these are flush times for the people who serve the people who serve power. Or are they? And regardless of what most of them will say, they're not protecting you, unless of course it's an unforeseen side-effect. Then, they'll take all the credit in the world for it at the DOJ.

I don't serve anybody's fucking agenda.

This, presumably, being the Land of Opportunity for professional fixers--the people who wipe the congressional asses of eternal children with impulse control problems for a living--Leotta scored what I would never want or accept: a book deal with the rapidly sinking (good) publishing powerhouse Simon & Schuster. 

Thankfully, the book didn't go anywhere, so I hope she's saddled with all that debt I assume was in her standard contract under "recoupable losses," or whatever guarded language they & their attorneys hid it under. You see, the public, contrary to whatever they might say, hates the truth, so the lack of sales on her part was a little hard for me to fathom. However, being human, or facsimiles thereof, the American public will do anything they can to run away from stories with a bad ending--in Jeane's case, her death. This doesn't keep some of them from speculating about the case along flat-earther lines. How could it when our toxic culture produces concentrated radioactive irrationality as its greatest export?

When I found out about this stupid woman's piece of crap novel, I was outraged. Indeed, as in other cases, I found it important to counter her comments. So, as you can imagine, I posted comments online at some of the sites that were opening their doors to her (hey, don't they for everyone?) as though it were coordinated from the start since she wasn't giving away any secrets on endemic corruption anyway, just bullshit wrapped in...don't know, don't care.

And so, here's where it went: http://chickasawpicklesmell.blogspot.com/2012/06/former-ausa-allison-leotta-writes-novel.html

PS: There are no pictures in my book either, fuck you very much.

A very tiny except from my impending DC Madam account

Ed.--I've posted some of this before, but it bears repeating.

This is taken directly from the text of my account and can also be taken as an assertion of intellectual property (the bracketing text and the edit of the transcript). You do not own it. Any copying requires a request as well as citation, no exceptions, and I will come after major offenders in a court of law, bank on it. This applies to everything I have ever generated on this site as well as outside of it.

This exchange was never reported by the mainstream press for doctrinal purposes.

"From day three (April 9, 2008) in the racketeering trial of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, an exchange for the ages that would serve as a fine example for law school students in the Anglo-American sphere, and which came towards the end of a long day of endlessly banal testimony:

 Q [AUSA Daniel P. Butler]. And did you compare the tax returns to the bank records for Ms. Palfrey?

A. Yes.

Q. And what did that show?

A. The comparison of the bank records for this year, 2002, show that there was a greater amount of gross receipts than was reported on this line.

MR. BURTON: Can we approach, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

(BENCH CONFERENCE ON THE RECORD.)

MR. BURTON: I don't know where this is going.

MR. BUTLER: I'm not going to any tax discrepancy, or anything to that effect.

THE COURT: You just saddled her with basically what is false reporting.

MR. BUTLER: Well, I don't think it's gone that far [Page break] yet, Your Honor. I'm not going any further with this line of inquiry.

THE COURT: Well, now you've put the defense in the position where they have to respond to this. How are they going to do that?

MR. BUTLER: Well, Your Honor, that was not the intent of my question, but I appreciate what the Court is saying.

THE COURT: What was the intent of the question?

MR. BUTLER: My intent of the question, Your Honor, was directed at the gross receipts that were deposited into this and comparing it with the bank records that we have. It was a poorly phrased question. That's all I can say about it. I don't know anything more than that.

THE COURT: Well, where are you going next?

MR. BUTLER: Your Honor, I'm going next with -- can I just have a moment, Your Honor? Your Honor, there's another chart in terms of -- I just need to grab it, just to answer the question more explicitly, if I can have a moment.

THE COURT: How much more do you have with this guy?

MR. BUTLER: Not very much at all, Your Honor.

MS. CONNELLY: I think there's a bunch more documents.

MR. BUTLER: Well, there's other documents we need to admit through him, yes.

THE COURT: Can he come back in the morning? [Page break]

MR. BUTLER: We can do that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I think I want to instruct the jury that there was no tax charge, no tax claim in this case.

MR. BUTLER: That's fine, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Maybe I'll even instruct them they are to disregard that last answer because it's not relevant to your case.

MR. BUTLER: What I would ask is -- I'll defer to the Court on that, but I think there's no -- that the answer did not say that she has cheated on her taxes. [Even though it actually did say that, but...]

MR. BURTON: I think I have to move for a mistrial because of it, because she's not charged with tax evasion.

THE COURT: I know you have to file that motion, and the motion is denied. But I will give a corrective instruction right now.

MS. CONNELLY: Your Honor, in terms of scheduling, we do have some more civilian witnesses. He may not come back on until tomorrow afternoon, but he'll be available all day tomorrow. We just might put the other witnesses on first.

THE COURT: You've made satisfactory progress today.

(END BENCH CONFERENCE.) ...

I was expecting “Robertson pats AUSA” in brackets in the transcript next. ..."

Final order in the Palfrey/DC Madam case on abatement and disbursement of her seized assets

Ed.--When Deborah Jeane Palfrey (aka "the DC Madam") took her life on May 1st, 2008, it left open the legal issue of abatement regarding her property and assets that had been seized by the federal government through forfeiture. I believe that Jeane knew this would be the case and that it was a deciding factor in the taking of her own life. I have no regard for the opinions of cranks and conspiracy buffs and other nuts who make the claim that she was murdered by shadowy government operatives.

There is no evidence to support this wild contention, it is at this point inarguable. I'm surprised at how little a fight was put up by the Estate, but then, Preston Burton is the fiduciary of it, and considering how little a fight he put up for the deceased madam, no one important, just a defendant, I guess the concessions made here aren't especially surprising. Why the Palfreys would consider him for running the estate probably has more to do with his own moves to gain it and their desire for a convenient and relatively painless conclusion to things. I can't blame them for this desire.

Note that the margins, page breaks of and formatting of the filing have been altered through transfer to blogger's wonderful layout software. Ahem.

Both Palfrey and the DOJ's prosecutors claimed what I believe was then, and is now, a bald lie: that she only made $2.5 million from her prostitution ring/escort service from 1993-2006. Even figuring-in depreciation/appreciation (lowering or raising of their base value) of the assets--and I haven't done any real number crunching here, though I invite others to do the work for me--the contention is obvious bullshit. The line reading, [my emphasis] "The Parties enter into this Agreement solely for the purpose of compromising potential claims and avoiding the expenses and risks of litigation." seems to bar future civil/wrongful death suits that the Palfreys might have mounted against members of the former federal prosecution team (like Jeffrey A. Taylor) and the federal government itself, maybe even other players.

This is also of interest, though I haven't be able to do a line-by-line reading yet: "...5. The United States agrees to release, settle, cancel, discharge and acknowledge to be fully satisfied, any and all claims, liens, demands, obligations, rights, and causes of action of whatever kind, nature, or description whatsoever, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, reported or unreported, which they might have against...," which I think means that they think there's more money out there (as do I), but it's OK for Burton and Orrick to go globetrotting to look for them if they're out there and to keep and/or disburse them. Burton is a partner of the firm, an international one that employs thousands globally, a "megafirm" in fact.

Below is the entire twelve-page ruling from yesterday by the questionable former FISA court Judge, James Robertson...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 1:06-cv-01710-JR
)
803 CAPITOL STREET, etc., et al., )
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)
)
DEBORAH JEANE PALFREY (ESTATE OF), )
and )
BLANCHE PALFREY, )
Claimants. )

CONCLUDING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

COMES NOW, plaintiff, the United States of America, by the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, and claimants Deborah Jeane Palfrey (through the Estate of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, hereinafter the “Palfrey Estate”) and Ms. Blanche Palfrey (acting both individually and on behalf of the Palfrey Estate), by their attorney, Mr. Preston Burton, Esq. (collectively, hereinafter, “the parties”), respectfully to notify this Court that the parties have made a Concluding Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”). This agreement disposes of all remaining claims, issues, and litigation in this civil forfeiture action in rem, case number 1:06-cv-01710-JR. In summary, the parties have agreed to settle this action without further litigation by dividing equally the net proceeds from the liquidation and sale of the defendant properties, after accounting for certain earlier Court-authorized payments. With this Concluding Settlement Agreement, the parties respectfully submit a proposed Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal, which they ask the Court to issue. Doing so will conclude this action in its entirety so that the Court may dismiss it. In support whereof, the parties
respectfully state as follows:

WHEREAS, Plaintiff seized certain assets that had been controlled by Deborah Jeane Palfrey

Case 1:06-cv-01710-JR Document 113 Filed 03/12/10 Page 1 of 12
-2-

before her demise, which the government asserted were subject to forfeiture under federal law;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff thereafter brought this civil forfeiture action in rem in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States v. 803 Capitol Street, etc., et al., No. 1:06-cv-01710-JR, against the seized properties (the “defendant properties”);

WHEREAS, Ms. Deborah Jeane Palfrey (and after her demise, the Estate of Deborah Jeane (“the Palfrey Estate”)) and Ms. Blanche Palfrey (acting both individually and on behalf of the Palfrey Estate), have filed claims in this case (“claimants”) and have asserted, inter alia, that certain of the seized properties are not subject to forfeiture;

WHEREAS, pursuant to an Order dated June 22, 2007, which issued in a related and now abated criminal case in this Court, United States v. Deborah Jeane Palfrey, etc., No. 1:07-cr-00046- JR, the defendant property 1441 Vaquero Glen, Escondido, California 92026, was sold, and the net proceeds totaled $316,296.16;

WHEREAS, pursuant to an Order dated March 13, 2009, in this case, No. 1:06-cv-01710-JR, the defendant property 803 Capital Street, Vallejo California 94590, was sold, and the net proceeds totaled $161,006.86;

WHEREAS, pursuant to an Order dated September 21, 2009, in this case, No. 1:06-cv- 01710-JR, the defendant property of funds held in Charles Schwab investment accounts XXXX-318, XXXX-3186 and XXXX-3192, was liquidated, and the net proceeds totaled $582,097.93; WHEREAS, defendant assets held in Wells Fargo accounts 005-XXXXXXX and 6952- XXXXXX totaled $11,396.35;

WHEREAS, pursuant to an Order dated September 21, 2009, in this case, No. 1:06-cv- 01710-JR, the defendant property described as 413 Gold Krugerrands and Other Gold and Silver Coins (the “defendant coins”) was sold at auction on January 13, 2010, and the net proceeds totaled

Case 1:06-cv-01710-JR Document 113 Filed 03/12/10 Page 2 of 12
-3-

$586,133.08

WHEREAS, pursuant to an Order dated October 1, 2009, in this case, No. 1:06-cv-01710-JR, approving a Partial Settlement Agreement with Montgomery Blair Sibley, Mr. Sibley received a payment of $66,224.00 from funds derived from the defendant properties in exchange for a full settlement of any and all of his claims, known or unknown, against the defendant properties, the Palfrey Estate, and Blanche Palfrey (both individually and in her capacity as Executor of the Palfrey Estate);

WHEREAS, pursuant to an Order dated November 19, 2009, in this case, No. 1:06-cv- 01710-JR, approving a Partial Settlement Agreement with The Innocence Project, Inc., The Innocence Project, Inc., received a payment of $89,000.00 from funds derived from the defendant properties in exchange for a full settlement of any potential claims against the defendant properties, the Palfrey Estate, Blanche Palfrey (both individually and in her capacity as Executor of the Palfrey Estate), and any other property or asset formerly owned by Deborah Jeane Palfrey; and

WHEREAS, the parties desire to enter into this Agreement in order to resolve this matter and thereby avoid the expense of litigation, the parties therefore agree and stipulate as follows. First, the parties agree that, after the sales and payments to The Innocence Project, Inc., and to Montgomery Blair Sibley recounted above, the net proceeds from the sale or liquidation of the defendant properties is $1,501,706.38.

Second, the parties have agreed to divide equally the net proceeds from the sale or
liquidation of the defendant properties Therefore, to resolve this litigation completely, the parties agree to the following:

I. Payment to the Estate of Deborah Jeane Palfrey and Blanche Palfrey, as an individual and in her capacity as Executor of the Estate of Deborah Jeane Palfrey:

Case 1:06-cv-01710-JR Document 113 Filed 03/12/10 Page 3 of 12
-4-

1. The United States consents to entry of the proposed Final Order Of Forfeiture And
Dismissal directing the United States Internal Revenue Service to release to Blanche Palfrey, in her individual capacity, a total of $75,000.00 (seventy-five thousand dollars and no cents), by electronic funds transfer to Account Number XXXXXXXX2849 at Bank of America, Tarpon Springs, Florida (ABA Route XXXXXXXXX) within thirty-five (35) days of the Court’s issuance of the Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal. Blanche Palfrey understands that she will assume full responsibility for any and all tax consequences of receipt of this payment.

2. The United States consents to entry of the proposed Final Order Of Forfeiture And
Dismissal directing the United States Internal Revenue Service to release to the Estate of Deborah Jeane Palfrey a total of $675,853.19 (six hundred seventy-five thousand, eighthundred fifty-three dollars and nineteen cents), by electronic funds transfer to Sideman & Bancroft LLP IOLTA Account, Account Number XXXXXXXXXX, held at Union Bank of California, Los Angeles, California (ABA Route 122000496), for credit to client-matter number 10936 within seventy (70) days of the Court’s issuance of the Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal. It is agreed by the parties that the payment to the Palfrey Estate is funded by the proceeds of the sale of the defendant properties at 803 Capitol Street and 1441 Vaquero Glen and the sale of the defendant coins. The Palfrey Estate understands that it will assume full responsibility for any and all tax consequences of receipt of this payment.

II. Forfeiture to the United States:

3. The parties agree that a basis for the defendant properties’ forfeiture has been
established in the record as a matter of fact and of law. The Palfrey claimants consent to the entry of the proposed Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal, which adjudges and decrees the forfeiture to the plaintiff United States of the balance of the net proceeds from the sale or liquidation of defendant properties as reduced by the payments of $75,000 and $675,853.19 to Blanche Palfrey. Thus, the parties ask the Court to issue the proposed Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal declaring forfeit to the United States $750,853.19 (seven hundred fifty thousand, eight hundred fifty-three dollars and nineteen cents), plus any interest or other such funds attributable to their deposit in any account during the pendency
of this civil forfeiture action in rem.

III. The Palfrey Parties Consent to Release of All Claims Against the United States:

4. Upon payment of the amounts stated in Paragraphs 1-2 above, the Palfrey Estate and Blanche Palfrey (both individually and in her capacity as Executor of the Palfrey Estate (“Palfrey Parties”), agree to release, settle, cancel, discharge, and acknowledge to be fully satisfied, any and all claims, liens, demands, obligations, rights, and causes of action of whatever kind, nature, or description whatsoever, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, reported or unreported, which they might have against the United States arising from the assets currently subject to forfeiture in this matter; now or hereafter, arising out of, or by reason of, or in any manner connected with the allegations set forth in this case, 06-cv-1710-JR, and in the related and now abated criminal case, United States v. Deborah

Case 1:06-cv-01710-JR Document 113 Filed 03/12/10 Page 4 of 12
-5-

Jeane Palfrey, etc., Case No. 1:07-cr-0046-JR, also in this Court.

IV. The United States Consents to Release of All Claims Against the Defendant Properties and Against the Palfrey Parties:

5. The United States agrees to release, settle, cancel, discharge and acknowledge to be fully satisfied, any and all claims, liens, demands, obligations, rights, and causes of action of whatever kind, nature, or description whatsoever, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, reported or unreported, which they might have against:

(a) the assets currently subject to forfeiture in this matter;

(b) the Palfrey Estate;

(c) Blanche Palfrey (both individually and in her capacity as Executor of the Palfrey
Estate, including, with respect to the Palfrey parties, their Executors or
Administrators and any successors, assigns, agents, or attorneys acting on their
behalf); and,

(d) any other property or asset formerly owned or controlled by Deborah Jeane
Palfrey,

now or hereafter, arising out of, or by reason of, or in any manner connected with the
allegations set forth in this case number 06-cv-1710-JR, or in the related and now abated Criminal Action, United States v. Deborah Jeane Palfrey, etc., No. 1:07-cr-0046-JR, or giving rise to such actions, and not to assert, or if asserted to withdraw, claims or challenges in this forfeiture action, No. 06-cv-1710-JR, and claims or challenges in any court and concerning properties acquired by Deborah Jeane Palfrey, including, but not limited to, Case No. P43192, pending in Solano County, California, and case number 2008-CP-001782-O, pending in Orange County, Florida.

General Provisions

6. This Agreement shall not constitute an admission of liability or fault on the part of the Parties or their past or present agents, employees, representatives, or officers. The Parties enter into this Agreement solely for the purpose of compromising potential claims and avoiding the expenses and risks of litigation.

7. The Parties agree that each shall bear its own court costs, legal expenses, and attorney’s fees incurred in relation to this litigation and related to the facts underlying it.

8. Each of the Parties to this Agreement has participated in the drafting and negotiation of this Agreement. For all purposes, this Agreement shall be deemed to have been drafted jointly by the

Case 1:06-cv-01710-JR Document 113 Filed 03/12/10 Page 5 of 12
-6-

Parties.

9. Each of the Parties to this Agreement has carefully read this Agreement and, after
consultation with their respective legal counsel, as applicable, the Parties to this Agreement fully understand this Agreement and sign it as a voluntary act.

10. The persons signing this Agreement represent and warrant by their signatures that they have authority to sign this Agreement on behalf of the individuals or entities for whom they are
purporting to sign.

11. It is contemplated that this Agreement may be executed in several counterparts. This Agreement may be executed on facsimile copies and in counterparts, each of which shall be provided to counsel for the United States. Facsimiles of signatures, should they be provided to the United States, shall constitute acceptable, binding signatures for purposes of this Agreement. Upon its receipt of executed counterpart signature pages, the United States may treat the executed counterparts as one merged document that the United States may execute, and may then file, along with a consistent proposed order, electronically with the Court.

12. No term or provision of this Agreement may be varied, changed, modified, waived, or terminated, except by an instrument in writing signed by the party against whom the enforcement of such alteration is sought.

13. This Agreement shall be governed and construed by the laws of the District of Columbia.
* * *

WHEREFORE, as set forth in the thirteen (13) enumerated paragraphs above, the Parties to this Concluding Settlement Agreement stipulate that this civil forfeiture action should be resolved fully as to the United States, the Estate of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, and Blanche Palfrey (both individually and in her capacity as Executor of the Estate of Deborah Jeane Palfrey), as set forth

Case 1:06-cv-01710-JR Document 113 Filed 03/12/10 Page 6 of 12
-7-

herein, and the parties request the Court to enter the attached proposed FINAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE AND DISMISSAL approving this Concluding Settlement Agreement and authorizing the disbursement agreed to herein.

CONCLUDING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ACCEPTED AND ORDER REQUESTED:

1. For Plaintiff (the United States) in District of DC Action 06-cv-1710-JR:

Date: March 11, 2010 /s/ Ronald C. Machen Jr
RONALD C. MACHEN Jr, D.C. Bar No. 447889
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
/s/ Deborah L. Connor

DEBORAH L. CONNOR, D.C. Bar No. 452414
Assistant United States Attorney
/s/ Barry Wiegand

BARRY WIEGAND, D.C. Bar No. 424288
Assistant United States Attorney
Criminal Division, Asset Forfeiture Unit
555 Fourth Street, N.W., Fourth Floor
Washington, D.C. 20530
(202) 307-0299
William.B.Wiegand@U SDoJ.Gov

2. For claimants Deborah Jeane Palfrey’s Estate and Blanche Palfrey (the Palfrey parties):

/s/Blanche Palfrey
BLANCHE PALFREY

Date: March 11, 2010 /s/ Preston Burton
PRESTON BURTON, D.C. Bar No. 426378
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Columbia Center
1152 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-1706

Copies bearing the individual signatures of the persons listed above are in plaintiff’s possession.

Case 1:06-cv-01710-JR Document 113 Filed 03/12/10 Page 7 of 12




UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 1:06-cv-01710-JR
)
803 CAPITOL STREET, etc., et al., )
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)
)
DEBORAH JEANE PALFREY’S ESTATE, )
and )
BLANCHE PALFREY, )
Claimants. )

FINAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE AND DISMISSAL

On October 3, 2006, a Verified Complaint For Forfeiture In Rem was filed by plaintiff, the United States of America. Plaintiff filed an Amended Verified Complaint on November 22, 2006, seeking to forfeit various defendant properties, including: real property, funds, and precious metal coins. Plaintiff sought to enforce the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A), which provides for the forfeiture of any property involved in a transaction or attempted transaction in violation of 18. U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1960, or any property traceable to such property. Plaintiff also sought to enforce the provisions of 18. U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), which provides for the forfeiture of property which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to a violation of any offense constituting “specified unlawful activity” or a conspiracy to commit such offense. Based upon a full review of the record and upon the stipulation of the parties, the Court finds:

(1) the Amended Complaint alleges a proper basis in fact and in law for forfeiture;

(2) on about November 19, 2006, claimant Deborah Jeane Palfrey filed a verified claim to the defendant properties, which claim is now maintained by her Estate;

(3) on about June 12, 2008, claimant Blanche Palfrey filed a verified claim to the defendant

Case 1:06-cv-01710-JR Document 113 Filed 03/12/10 Page 8 of 12
-2-

properties;

(4) no other person has submitted a claim with respect to the defendant properties within the time permitted by 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(4)(a) and Rule G of the Supplemental Rules For Admiralty Or Maritime Claims And Asset Forfeiture Actions;

(5) on March 4, 2010, plaintiff and claimants settled the contested issues among them, and submitted to the Court a written Concluding Settlement Agreement, in which the parties requested the Court to approve and accept the Concluding Settlement Agreement and to issue this Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal; and,

(6) pursuant to the terms of the Concluding Settlement Agreement, the parties have agreed, inter alia, as follows:

1. The United States consents to entry of the proposed Final Order Of Forfeiture And
Dismissal directing the United States Internal Revenue Service to release to Blanche Palfrey, in her individual capacity, a total of $75,000.00 (seventy-five thousand dollars and no cents), by electronic funds transfer to Account Number XXXXXXXXXXXX at Bank of America, Tarpon Springs, Florida (ABA Route XXXXXXXXX) within thirty-five (35) days of the Court’s issuance of the Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal. Blanche Palfrey understands that she will assume full responsibility for any and all tax consequences of receipt of this payment.

2. The United States consents to entry of the proposed Final Order Of Forfeiture And
Dismissal directing the United States Internal Revenue Service to release to the Estate of Deborah Jeane Palfrey a total of $675,853.19 (six hundred seventy-five thousand, eight hundred fifty-three dollars and nineteen cents), by electronic funds transfer to Sideman & Bancroft LLP IOLTA Account, Account Number XXXXXXXXXX, held at Union Bank of California, Los Angeles, California (ABA Route XXXXXXXXX), for credit to client-matter number XXXXX within seventy (70) days of the Court’s issuance of the Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal. It is agreed by the parties that the payment to the Palfrey Estate is funded by the proceeds of the sale of the defendant properties at 803 Capitol Street and 1441 Vaquero Glen and the sale of the defendant coins. The Palfrey Estate understands that it will assume full responsibility for any and all tax consequences of receipt of this payment.

II. Forfeiture to the United States:

3. The parties agree that a basis for the defendant properties’ forfeiture has been
established in the record as a matter of fact and of law. The Palfrey claimants consent to

Case 1:06-cv-01710-JR Document 113 Filed 03/12/10 Page 9 of 12
-3-

the entry of the proposed Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal, which adjudges and decrees the forfeiture to the plaintiff United States of the balance of the net proceeds from the sale or liquidation of defendant properties as reduced by the payments of $75,000 and $675,853.19 to Blanche Palfrey. Thus, the parties ask the Court to issue the proposed Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal declaring forfeit to the United States $750,853.19 (seven hundred fifty thousand, eight hundred fifty-three dollars and nineteen cents), plus any interest or other such funds attributable to their deposit in any account during the pendency of this civil forfeiture action in rem.

III. The Palfrey Parties Consent to Release of All Claims Against the United States:

4. Upon payment of the amounts stated in Paragraphs 1-2 above, the Palfrey Estate and Blanche Palfrey (both individually and in her capacity as Executor of the Palfrey Estate (“Palfrey Parties”), agree to release, settle, cancel, discharge, and acknowledge to be fully satisfied, any and all claims, liens, demands, obligations, rights, and causes of action of whatever kind, nature, or description whatsoever, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, reported or unreported, which they might have against the United States arising from the assets currently subject to forfeiture in this matter; now or hereafter, arising out of, or by reason of, or in any manner connected with the allegations set forth in this case, 06-cv-1710-JR, and in the related and now abated criminal case, United States v. Deborah Jeane Palfrey, etc., Case No. 1:07-cr-0046-JR, also in this Court.

IV. The United States Consents to Release of All Claims Against the Defendant Properties and Against the Palfrey Parties:

5. The United States agrees to release, settle, cancel, discharge and acknowledge to be fully satisfied, any and all claims, liens, demands, obligations, rights, and causes of action of whatever kind, nature, or description whatsoever, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, reported or unreported, which they might have against:

(a) the assets currently subject to forfeiture in this matter;

(b) the Palfrey Estate;

(c) Blanche Palfrey (both individually and in her capacity as Executor of the Palfrey
Estate, including, with respect to the Palfrey parties, their Executors or
Administrators and any successors, assigns, agents, or attorneys acting on their
behalf); and,

(d) any other property or asset formerly owned or controlled by Deborah Jeane
Palfrey,

now or hereafter, arising out of, or by reason of, or in any manner connected with the
allegations set forth in this case number 06-cv-1710-JR, or in the related and now abated Criminal Action, United States v. Deborah Jeane Palfrey, etc., No. 1:07-cr-0046-JR, or giving rise to such actions, and not to assert, or if asserted to withdraw, claims or challenges in this forfeiture action, No. 06-cv-1710-JR, and claims or challenges in any court and concerning properties acquired by Deborah Jeane Palfrey, including, but not limited to, Case

Case 1:06-cv-01710-JR Document 113 Filed 03/12/10 Page 10 of 12
-4-

No. P43192, pending in Solano County, California, and case number 2008-CP-001782-O, pending in Orange County, Florida.

General Provisions

6. This Agreement shall not constitute an admission of liability or fault on the part of the Parties or their past or present agents, employees, representatives, or officers. The Parties enter into this Agreement solely for the purpose of compromising potential claims and avoiding the expenses and risks of litigation.

7. The Parties agree that each shall bear its own court costs, legal expenses, and attorney’s fees incurred in relation to this litigation and related to the facts underlying it.

NOW, THEREFORE, on the filing by the parties of the Concluding Settlement Agreement, which the Court hereby approves and orders to be carried out, and upon the request of the parties for the issuance of this Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal, it is hereby

ORDERED, that, within thirty-five (35) days of the issuance of this Final Order Of
Forfeiture And Dismissal, the United States Internal Revenue Service shall release to Blanche Palfrey, in her individual capacity, a total of $75,000.00 (seventy-five thousand dollars and no cents), by electronic funds transfer to Account Number XXXXXXXXXXXX at Bank of America, Tarpon Springs, Florida (ABA Route XXXXXXXXX); and it is

FURTHER ORDERED, that within seventy (70) days from the entry of this Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal, the United States Internal Revenue Service shall release to release to the Estate of Deborah Jeane Palfrey a total of $675,853.19 (six hundred seventy-five thousand, eight hundred

fifty-three dollars and nineteen cents), by electronic funds transfer to Sideman & Bancroft LLP IOLTA Account, Account Number XXXXXXXXXX, held at Union Bank of California, Los Angeles, California (ABA Route XXXXXXXXX), for credit to client-matter number XXXXX. The

Case 1:06-cv-01710-JR Document 113 Filed 03/12/10 Page 11 of 12
-5-

parties have agreed that the payment to the Palfrey Estate is funded by the proceeds of the sale of the defendant properties at 803 Capitol Street and 1441 Vaquero Glen and the sale of the defendant coins; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED, that the balance of the defendant properties, $750,853.19 (seven hundred fifty thousand, eight hundred fifty-three dollars and nineteen cents), including any interest or other such funds attributable to them, is hereby adjudged and decreed forfeited to plaintiff United States of America, and title to the balance of the defendant properties hereby is vested in the United States of America, and no other, to be disposed of in accordance with law; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED, that the above-captioned case is DISMISSED, except that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of the Stipulated Settlement; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED, that the Clerk is hereby directed to send three (4) certified copies of this Order to plaintiff’s counsel of record.


______________________________________________
JAMES ROBERTSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
________________
Date

Songs from the Site Meter: DOJ returns over the West Memphis Three

WWW--This is pretty funny. These clowns kept coming around during the DC Madam scandal all the time, now they seem to have noticed the WM3 case for the first time. Check the link they read or bookmarked, I think I'm onto something with the fact that Terry Hobbs and Mark Byers (fathers of the murdered children dumped at what was Robin Hood Hills at the time in the early 1990s).

My take is that the kids were likely slaughtered because their parents were drug-addicts who turned informants, snitched on the wrong crowd, and the resulting murders became inevitable. There is more than smoke hovering around this thesis. Why the DOJ is reading it after having a few years is a matter of priority and competence. The war on drugs creates secondary crimes that are far more destructive than the original ones they're going after. Pathetic.

Domain Name		usdoj.gov ? (U.S. Government)
IP Address		149.101.1.# (US Dept of Justice)
ISP		US Dept of Justice
Location		Continent : North America Country : United States (Facts) State : District of Columbia City : Washington Lat/Long : 38.9097, -77.0231 (Map)
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinNT
Browser		Internet Explorer 7.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; GTB5; (R1 1.1); SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; InfoPath.2; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30618; DOJ3jx7bf; DOJ3jx7bf)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution : 2048 x 1152 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Feb 25 2010 2:39:43 am
Last Page View		Feb 25 2010 2:39:43 am
Visit Length		0 seconds
Page Views		1
Referring URL		http://www.google.co...bbs and david jacoby
Search Engine		google.com
Search Words		terry hobbs and david jacoby
Visit Entry Page		http://chickasawpick...rry-wayne-hobbs.html
Visit Exit Page		http://chickasawpick...rry-wayne-hobbs.html
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-7:00
Visitor's Time		Feb 24 2010 12:39:43 pm
Visit Number		69,860

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.

House Committee on Oversight and Reform Chair Henry A. Waxman was looking into selective prosecution in Palfrey case in 2007

Washington D.C.--They say the wheels of justice are slow...especially when you're on the short-list. In 2007, California Rep. Henry A. Waxman was chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and was apparently showing some interest in the DC Madam's legal plight and whether it might be politically motivated, even possibly having a connection to the U.S. Attorney firings. Why show interest, then drop it? Sure, perhaps there were other fish to fry, or he didn't think that there was much there--fine-and-well--but that doesn't appear to be the case and sounds more like another Democratic cop-out.

Waxman was presented with materials sometime in December, possibly January, by counsel regarding Palfrey's case. Apparently, he and his staff did look into it, but short-listed her, and even confirmed it did appear that her case was politically motivated, but then it went nowhere as it often does in the nation's capital. So much for oversight and due process, get in line, lady. Did I mention that Democratic Rep. Louise Slaughter was also pushing for a probe into the procurement of prostitutes by a DHS contractor, Christopher D. Baker (who has a 60+ page rap sheet), "proprietor" of Shirlington Limo?

DHS rebuffed Slaughter entirely, imagine that. They weren't alone: the CIA and DIA were stonewalling in such matters. And surprise-surprise, Baker kept getting multi-million dollar contracts from Congress to unnecessarily ferry appointed turds around DC on our dollar. One has to ponder if I and many others were correct in assuming that Palfrey's problems were directly related to "hookergate," a scandal involving cigar-and-hooker parties with CIA staffers, GOP congressmen, and government contractors such as Brent Wilkes at the Westin and Watergate Hotels. It sure looks like there was more than smoke...

On 2/4/08, Jeane Palfrey <jeanepalfrey@> wrote:

Bil… isn’t it realistic to think the Feds were looking at me in the same way, they viewed Michael? Perhaps, they thought I too was “in cohoots” with the Poway Mafia. Gotta admit – lots of connections (San Diego, Wells Fargo Bank, Shirlington Limo, Wilkes’s ongoing patronage of my business, Smoking Gun’s bizarre phone call to me in Germany). After several years of investigation though, they honestly had gotten ‘no where’ from what I have been able to ascertain. It is only my abnormal actions, in the summer of 2006, i.e. abrupt business closure, move to Europe, etc which I believe caused alarm and the rationale for the subsequent and sudden California trip. All this discussion about being a diversion is a little out there. Don’t you think? A bit too conspiratorial. I have found most things in life are rather simple, when you get right down to it. Yet, both Jason’s investigation and contacts and Waxman’s investigation and contacts are leading in the direction, that my case was part and parcel of the DOJ’s efforts, to prosecute selective targets verses any sort of garden variety screw up here. -Jeane

This relates back thematically (politically motivated prosecution) to a 12/23/2007 email, posted below for the public record, a primary historical document. My personal opinion is that Smoking Gun editor Bill Bastone was told by federal prosecutors--illegally, mind you--that Palfrey was somehow connected to a very specific corruption scandal emanating out of San Diego and Poway, California from just a few years ago. She had a property in Poway, Vallejo, and a condo in Florida. It sounds like she made more than the $2 million she and the government were claiming in court filings. Why would they all lie? In her case, exoneration, but what of the prosecutors? Perhaps it was the same for them.

They also leaked an unsigned warrant to him, also illegal, but nothing's illegal for some of us it seems. From the December 23, 2007 email:

Blair… if you ever doubt that my case is politically motivated OR simply “can’t go there” with the mounting circumstantial evidence of selective prosecution, I would ask that you read the highlighted portion below in particular, from Bil earlier today. Never forgot that son-of-a bitch, Bill Bastone’s first question to me in Germany, just days after the warrant was executed on my property had to do with Cunningham and Bastone’s insistence that I professionally knew the “Dukester”; this, despite my continued statements to the contrary. -Jeane

I have no reason to think that Palfrey was lying about the Smoking Gun's editor Bill Bastone and his statements directed at her that she was part of the scandal surrounding convicted GOP Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, now residing in a federal penitentiary for taking bribes, gifts, and sexual favors. Someone told him this, and that someone was probably part of the investigation and the prosecution, probably the someone who was directing the whole puppet show.

These bribes were given to former representative Cunningham for his votes on specific legislation and appropriations that went directly to convicted government contractor, Brent R. Wilkes and others like former number three man at the CIA, Kyle "Dusty" Foggo. With nicknames like these, you'd think you were dealing with the mafia, but what's the difference? Do you think Cunningham's alone in this, taking bribes, bedding prostitutes for his vote? Nah, me either.

By the way: ever see that crappy 80s movie, "Top Gun"? That was "based" on Cunningham's experiences as a combat fighter pilot during the Vietnam War. You can get it in blow-out at Walmart now for around $5. Cunningham wasn't exactly a hero in Vietnam either, but that's another story altogether. What he is now is a convicted felon who even has other more pressing problems. From some of the public statements made during his criminal proceedings, it sounds like he couldn't always get-it-up, but that's politics for you. Cunningham's a good metaphor for American-style politics and capitalism, meaning corrupt, embarrassing, delusional, and impotent. Except that it's not a metaphor.

Songs from the Site Meter: Gray, Cary, Ware & Freidenrich LLP come snooping over former US Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor

Site Meter--You'd think that Deborah Jeane Palfrey (aka "the DC Madam") was still alive. I have to wonder if Mr. Taylor is worried about his reputation after a recent article at Rawstory by Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane exposed his plea deal shenanigans with Chiquita bribing paramilitaries in Colombia not to disrupt their banana plantations. This is something I find funny since he offered Palfrey a very good plea deal, so he has a strange habit of offering criminals good ones!

Surely, Taylor was breaking the law as much as he could for the people who appointed him while he was at the DOJ (under Bush II, the DOH!). And while I'm on it, why hasn't President Obama fired all the Bush II appointments? One would think he's no different from the last guy, contrary to stupid comments coming from Michael Moore (who's looking more and more like Father Coughlin these days).

Naturally, I googled the name of this firm, and what did I get? First entry: DLA Piper, who "Represents emerging growth and high technology companies, with offices throughout Asia, Europe, the Middle East and the US." A global firm that originates out of the UK. Sounds familiar, like Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. You think they've done busiess with each other, know each other? DLA Piper has "acquired" Gray, Cary, Ware & Freidman recently, in 2005. Oh sure, they didn't read, but they're searching on Jeffrey A. Taylor. Why? Does he need help? Are they investigating him for someone? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure he needs help, and he should get it. There are literally hundreds of mental health professionals in most directories...

Domain Name		(Unknown)
IP Address		66.54.170.# (Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich LLP)
ISP		Yipes Communications
Location		Continent : North America Country : United States (Facts) State : California City : Los Angeles Lat/Long : 34.0416, -118.2988 (Map)
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinXP
Browser		Internet Explorer 6.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution : 1024 x 768 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Aug 20 2009 2:06:55 am
Last Page View		Aug 20 2009 2:06:55 am
Visit Length		0 seconds
Page Views		1
Referring URL		http://www.google.co...ffrey taylor&aqi=g10
Search Engine		google.com
Search Words		jeffrey taylor us attorney
Visit Entry Page		http://chickasawpick...y-in-palfrey_30.html
Visit Exit Page		http://chickasawpick...y-in-palfrey_30.html
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-8:00
Visitor's Time		Aug 19 2009 11:06:55 am
Visit Number		58,396

http://www.dlapiper.com/

The Department of Justice, Corporations, Buying the Law – Part II: Strange Bargains, by Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane

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