Fictional Newsflash: Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems" execs belatedly found in DC Madam's phone records, questions rage on

Grover's Mill, New Jersey--According to new findings from Blah-blah-blog--a watchdog website--a Mr. "John Bigbootay," "John Ya-Ya," and several other individuals curiously named "John," have been identified, tagged, and bagged by Blue Blazer regulars, Pinkie Carothers, and Buckaroo Banzai himself. CBN (Chemical-Biological-Nuclear) methodologies have been observed throughout the entire process without incident.

The Republican Party was evasive about the raid whose genesis came from small-time internet researchers, then forwarded to the federal government who tapped Team Banzai for the raid. The phone numbers were previously overlooked and disguised through unknown technological or biotechnological methods.

The Obama administration's Robert Gibbs has also offered no explanations in the matter, and it's unknown if the new president personally tapped Team Banzai as private contractors in the extraction operation, ostensibly within the purview of the INS. Sources close to the case affirm that President Obama was in direct contact with the president during the entire operation, and at every stage.

In recent years, there has been controversy surrounding the use of private contractors by the federal government in military and law enforcement operations, but constitutional experts are at a loss currently regarding jurisdiction. The illegal aliens will be housed at Guantanamo Bay until further scientific tests and a torture regimen have been conducted. Journalists have been unable to get a comment from President Obama on the matter.

Team Banzai is referring all questions about the raid of Yoyodyne's facilities to the Justice Department for further review by Attorney General Eric Holder. Red Lectroids are known to engage in torture, an act which is illegal under international and intergalactic law, as well as covered by the once secret interplanetary treaty at Trieste in 1949.

Yoyodyne has been the subject of numerous congressional committee and subcommittee investigations over the years covering anti-trust law, corruption, falsifying contract information, and allegations of treason and the ferrying of illegal aliens from one planet system to another without proper documentation.

Obama Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel releases more Bush II administration war on terror documents

Washington D.C.--You wanted change? You're getting it, today. This is a switch--even for the incoming administration: the release of more key Justice Department legal documents from the immediate aftermath of the events of September 11th, 2001, and they're eye-openers.

The Obama Justice Department has made available a series of key legal memos crafted byt eh Bush II administration that cover the power of the office of president to declare war, "Congressional Authority over Captured Enemy Combatants," the legality of torture, "Interpreting FISA and its Applicability to Presidential Authority," "Presidential Authority to Suspend Treaties" (curiously, ABM ones in one case), " 'National Self-Defense' as a Justification for Warrantless Searches," and so on.

The Obama Justice Department has made their stance on these questionable legal opinions of the Bush II Justice Department crystal clear:

For all the foregoing reasons, the propositions highlighted in the nine opinions identified above do not reflect the current views of the Office of Legal Counsel and should not be treated as authoritative for any purpose. A number of the opinions that contained these propositions have been withdrawn or superseded and do not constitute precedents of this Office; caution should be exercised before relying in other respects on the remaining opinions.

We have advised the Attorney General, the Counsel to the President, the Legal Adviser to the National Security Council, the Principal Deputy General Counsel of the Department of Defense, and appropriate offices in the Department of Justice of these conclusions. ("Office of Legal Counsel Memoranda," DOJ.gov, 0303.2009)

Here's what this writer finds most interesting: the opinions by the OLC were made just five days before the Obama administration came into office on January 20, 2009! In short, these decisions were likely being withheld from release by the outgoing Bush II administration and this week's release indicates the decisions were all but predetermined by the incoming administration for potential release. In other words, the Bush II administration was doing some back-peddling in their legal assertions at the tail-end.

That it took a little over a month for the Obama administration's Attorney General to releases them is a very tangible change considering these memos were suppressed by the Bush II administration for years. Say what you want--that it's "not enough," that it's "belated" (for whom?), and that we "won't be seeing much more of this," but it doesn't matter. It's real, and it happened, and more is coming. So far, it doesn't appear that the Obama administration have ruled on the findings of the OLC, but it's likely that they will concur with them in their own decisions.

Maybe it's just a start, but it's one of the best starts we've seen in at least three decades (if not more), and it's happening almost overnight. Patience has its own rewards, but keep demanding more of this, don't ask, and do tell.

"Office of Legal Counsel Memoranda," DOJ.gov, 0303.2009:

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/olc-memos.htm

Songs from the Site Meter: Day of Reckoning for U.S. Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor Coming Soon?

Ed.--I wouldn't be surprised if this is the "man" himself, the guy who probably authorized the leaking of the unsigned search warrant to Bill Bastone and The Smoking Gun, single-handedly creating the "DC Madam" scandal, and depriving the defendant of her rights. How many times did he do this (if he did)? How often does this occur on our behalf by U.S. Attorneys? There is the off chance that he's finally being investigated, but why fix something when it's broken in a way that benefits you?

Domain Name		uscourts.gov ? (U.S. Government)
IP Address		208.27.111.# (US COURTS)
ISP		Sprint
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 WinXP
Browser		Internet Explorer 7.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; InfoPath.2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution : 1024 x 768 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Feb 28 2009 5:49:01 am
Last Page View		Feb 28 2009 5:52:58 am
Visit Length		3 minutes 57 seconds
Page Views		2
Referring URL		http://www.google.co...rtIndex=&startPage=1
Search Engine		google.com
Search Words		jeff taylor washington dc
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-5:00
Visitor's Time		Feb 27 2009 5:49:01 pm
Visit Number		50,113

Obama Justice Department ends raids on medical marijuana facilities

Washington D.C.--There's a new sheriff in town. Once again, we're seeing valid and significant change that we would never have seen under a Republican president and/or a Congress dominated by them. As Attorney General Eric Holder stated yesterday, it's "now policy."

For those who are cynical about the incoming administration (only in office now a little over a month, a bit premature and telling of the cynics), this is good news and a real change as well as a move away from wasteful government spending for law enforcement programs that do more harm to our society than good.

Marijuana drug pigs had their "last hurrah" at the end of January before the Obama administration could do anything to stop it, just three days after the new president's inauguration. Thirteen states have now legalized the licensing of production, distribution, and use of medical marijuana. It's not going to stop there, and the ranks of the police are turning against past drug interdiction policies.

The last two states to recently legalize medical marijuana were Michigan and Massachusetts in November of last year during the national and state elections. In Massachusetts, the police union initially lobbied against the legislation but have been coming around to the new reality. Nobody said change was easy to adjust to, but they're doing it in Massachusetts right now, and in several other states.

As part of Drug War policy, appointed "Drug Czars" who run the ONDCP (Office of National Drug Control Policy) are supposed to lie--yes lie--about the properties, medical uses and beneficial or benign attributes of marijuana. From Section 704 of the Reauthorization Act of 1998:

...[The Director of Drug Control Policy] ...(11) may serve as spokesperson of the Administration on drug issues; (12) shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that-- (A) is listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812); and
(B) has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration;...

Incredibly, federal drug control agents and officials can even use government funds to meddle in local and state elections to effect the outcomes of any marijuana legalisation proposition up for vote during elections, a clear violation of the Hatch Act, but we don't need no stinkin' badges anyway.

Remember that this was passed under a Republican controlled Congress at the time back in their salad days of 1998. The Clinton administration did little to oppose it, but they were trying to save themselves over a lie told under oath about a blowjob, it being a national priority and obsession of the GOP at the time. If you don't like the government meddling in your lives, and you want a government that does less of it in general, hitting rightist and reactionary advocates of these drug policies is a good place to start. The time is ripe since they're losing on all fronts.

Sitting on our laurels isn't going to be a smart move for anti-prohibition forces and the point will be to keep pushing (back) until significant victory and precedent are achieved. All this aside, this is a state's rights issue, period. The incoming Obama administration supports this contention and the legitimacy of medical marijuana for those with terminal illnesses who need it desperately, and this isn't even mentioning all the green uses (including the production of needed biomass, food, and energy) from the cannabis plant. The Drug War is the finest and most obvious example of wasteful spending outside of the F-22 fighter and the failed "Star Wars" program, but in America, if it's broken, don't fix it.

But it really is a state rights issue. This is where I agree with Libertarians...but that's about it, and I'm hardly alone. For those who want to live in a police state, I advise relocation to Colombia or Russia, their authoritarian digs should be to your tastes. Our drug laws were originally crafted to legally harass people of color--Blacks and Hispanics in-particular. The support was bipartisan, but as is their wont, and when there are rights to be rolled back, the Republican Party tends to be leading the charge.

It's fitting that when we finally got a president of color, the walls began to fall regarding drug prohibition, ultimately race and class-based laws primarily for the purpose of arbitrary antidemocratic social control. Just over 75 years ago, the walls came down with alcohol prohibition in the face of an unprecedented economic crisis and sustained calls for its end. We live in similar times and in a much less "racialist" culture. There are other problems to address. Bluntly-put, we need the revenue. It's time to legalize and regulate (including taxation) of all psychoactive drugs, and a time to move towards treatment and away from the militarization of our police departments.

Cops Against Prohibition:

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

The Reauthorization Act of 1998:

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/about/98reauthorization.html

AG Holder's statement yesterday in a Q&A:

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-15821

UK's Mathaba (who are they?) parrots "Palfrey was murdered" theory

Ed.--Never content to take things as they really are, Mathaba has joined the list of the over-credulous who contend that Deborah Jeane Palfrey (dubbed the "DC Madam" by the mainstream American press) was "murdered." Facts don't matter when holding this theory, and lots of other exculpatory evidence must be ignored when contending something as baseless as this.

Paranoia has gone from a form of consciousness to an almost mainstream subculture, also making it a consumer phenomena. Worthless. The link at the bottom leads to the original offender, the comments above it are my reply. I am uncertain whether it will be posted there or not.

Writer Diana Lee might be a great person, I have no idea, but her article isn't "great," "good," or even well researched. It's part of a new form of literature, sadly taken for fact. Put it on the shelf next to books on UFOs, Atlantis, and the Piltdown man being "real." Ten months of correspondence means something. Ten minutes on Google does not.

Two well known journalists I have had the pleasure of contacting have assured me that they also felt Palfrey was disturbed. Others are likely to concur. But didn't we all fail her? Yes, we did. We should have helped her, and I tried in my own way, but there was nothing to be done. She was intent on acquittal...or death.

"I would question the research in this piece, specifically on the point that the deceased Ms. Palfrey was "murdered," or "died under suspicious circumstances." For this to be possible, one has to very selectively assemble a conglomeration of statements she made to the press, sans context.

For example: some of these quotes of her fear dying suspiciously was usually found in the context of her going to prison and being found dead there. This is rarely ever reported, and I suspect, parsed out of the original interviews for being inconvenient and dissonant to the baseless theory that she was murdered. There's no evidence of this whatsoever.

As a matter of fact, having had a ten month correspondence with Ms. Palfrey until March 20, 2008, and having been a general defense researcher for her at her own request, I can say with reasonable authority that she was incredibly unbalanced mentally and that I held fears from my involvement with her from June 2007 until it ended in the spring of 2008. There was a real bombshell that she kept from her counsel, but sent to myself, a co-researcher, and journalist Jason Leopold on February 28th, 2008. I reprint it here, in-full:

'Jason… let’s put it like this, the bastards aren’t going to take me alive. Of course, anytime that you want to do an interview – I will make myself available. However, I doubt that I will be doing any interviews once I am in D.C., for the trial. –Best, Jeane'

There is other information that supports this, including statements she made to the mainstream American press. From spring of 2007 until the end, she was frequently making absolute statements that, "I'm not going back to prison, not one day," and, "The government isn't taking anything away from me."

Taken together with her 1992 conviction affidavit where she expressed suicidal wishes, the conditions under which her counsel Montgomery Blair Sibley was discharged (at the time, Jeane told me, "Things were said that cannot be taken back."), prosecutorial misconduct that could include not calling for a competency hearing when they knew they had a suicidal defendant, and other comments she made to me and others. This article is speculative-at-best in this area, and I would suggest in others by-implication. Do your research, look around.

Palfrey's greatest motive in killing herself was the abatement issue that also gets ignored by holders of this stupid theory that, "She were murdered." There is no solid evidence at this writing of this being the case, and I would suggest that Gary Webb was a career journalist who was dumb enough to care what his peers in his field thought of him, one of the main causes of his suicide."

Suspicious Deaths of Those Who Knew Too Much Under Bush's Watch: http://mathaba.net/news/index.shtml?AA_SL_Session=9e0f6d58b026cededc2fff62a2eb6e50&nocache=invalidate&sh_itm=e2180bbf199e454a54fab122f4a7301e&rXn=1#disc

Songs from the Site Meter: The Beginning of a New Era?

Site Meter--Investigate U.S. Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor and the rest of the Bush II appointments. Just do it.

Domain Name		comcast.net ? (Network)
IP Address		68.48.0.# (Comcast Cable)
ISP		Comcast Cable
Location		Continent : North America Country : United States (Facts) State : District of Columbia City : Washington Lat/Long : 38.9097, -77.0231 (Map)
Language		English en
Operating System		Macintosh MacOSX
Browser		Safari 1.3 Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_4_11; en) AppleWebKit/525.27.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.2.1 Safari/525.27.1
Javascript		version 1.5
Monitor		Resolution : 1440 x 900 Color Depth : 24 bits
Time of Visit		Jan 20 2009 2:56:33 am
Last Page View		Jan 20 2009 3:02:13 am
Visit Length		5 minutes 40 seconds
Page Views		2
Referring URL		http://www.google.co...or&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Search Engine		google.com
Search Words		us attorney jeffrey taylor
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-5:00
Visitor's Time		Jan 19 2009 2:56:33 pm
Visit Number		48,346

A February 2007 email between Deborah Jeane Palfrey and AUSA William Cowden

Ed.--I've held-back on publishing this particular email, and it's overdue. Here, Jeane is practically begging AUSA (Assistant U.S. Attorney) William R. Cowden to look into his heart and consider the nature of her prosecution. It was a pointless action to take, and probably the reason A.J. Kramer left as her counsel, among other reasons related to the core issue of a suicidal client.

In case Mr. Constantine--if I may deign to refer to a parnoiac and spastic twit in such a manner--is wondering, this is just one more piece of primary material that underscores the fact that Deborah Jeane Palfrey committed suicide, that her prosecutors were acutely aware of the possibility that she would carry-out doing the same as Britton had, and that the fight would be a long one. She was good for her word, it was bond. Alex Constantine and several others of his ilk made some very broad statements regarding the issue of Ms. Palfrey's suicide without presenting any tangible evidence. Go figure in parapolitical land. I present some more evidence here, now.

Contacting AUSA Cowden was certainly a naive move on Palfrey's part, and not appropriate for a defendant. But it's what desperate people who are being viciously prosecuted sometimes do, especially when the basis for it is lacking and prosecutorial misconduct is present.

Jeane all-but implies a very dramatic intent by enclosing the February 1, 2007 Baltimore Sun article on the suicide of Brandy Britton, and delivers here, another major suicidal cue. There is a subtext to what she's writing here, doing so without spelling-it-out. What was the public benefit of running Britton and Palfrey to their respective deaths? To protect swinging-dicks like David Vitter from themselves so that they can continue servicing power, naturally. Why did a counterterrorism unit crash into Britton's home during her legal proceedings?

Why did they keep bugging her phones and entering her home without a warrant? Not even Palfrey wanted to know these things; she spoke of Britton dismissively to me, stating, "Let the dead bury the dead."

That we're a "sick society" is a given. All hail patriarchy, burn the witches, ruin the scarlet women, and never allow them to sell their bodies without express and written permission. There were no paragraph-breaks in this email of Jeane's--it's being published as it was originally written and sent...to a dessicated finger on a crumbling, dead hand. The timing of this email is crucial, context being everything. It was "murder," alright. It was murder, facilitated through the misuse of federal law enforcement, a federal prosecution team, illegal-leaks, and the misuse of the federal courts.

This was all done publicly, no "conspiracy" here.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeanne Palfrey
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 10:25 AM
To: 'William.Cowden@usdoj.gov'
Subject: Jeane Palfrey (US vs. 803 Capitol Street)...

Dear Mr. Cowden… attached please find an article published in this Tuesday’s Baltimore Sun. The parallels although not completely on-point with my case, are nonetheless sufficiently salient. The piece here was forwarded to me by a concerned individual NOT to cheer me up (obviously), but to underscore via the attorney’s remarks the senselessness of my current dilemma, i.e. the tragic destruction/waste of a viable human being. Of course, I cannot and will not expand upon my position/defense in this correspondence without benefit of counsel. I understand theinappropriate nature of such an act. In fact, I fully appreciate the inappropriateness of this communiqué and equally comprehend your ethical duty to “report me” to both Mr. Sibley and Mr. Kramer (I am braced to deal with their wrath). However, before matters compound even more and perhaps irrevocably so, I must take this opportunity to ask that you and your colleagues take a very hard look from a moral stance, if none other at the matter at hand. I know for a reality others certainly will question the justification for this effort to prosecute me. The publicity generated from the unsigned search warrant posted on the online tabloid rag www.thesmokinggun.com alone last October, gives testament to the interest and subsequent scrutiny a high-profile case like mine spawns. When Googled, the coverage at its height was seven plus pages. And the only reason the publicity online (exclusive of other media at the time– ‘Inside Edition’, ‘Hard Copy’, local news – here and there - and a myriad of news organizations and newspapers, nationally AND internationally all in hot pursuit of me) was kept to a mere seven pages was because I evaded everyone/anyone after being apprised initially of the situation (ironically from The Smoking Gun) while in Germany. It also should be noted the initial coverage last fall was based solely upon one side of the story and correspondingly did not bode well for me. As we all know though from life’s adventures, there is always a flip side to every coin and surely in time, this other side will be reported in the more legitimate press. Again, I realize the anomalous nature of writing to you. And I apologize for any discomfort this may cause you. Regardless, I simply cannot emphasize to you the terrible and quite unnecessary ramifications this case (civil and/or criminal) will set off, if permitted to advance for both sides. The press will have a field day at each of our expense. Despite my aforementioned disclaimer not to comment upon my case, let me say this. The attached item rings more true than false when juxtaposed to my situation. Unlike Ms. Britton however, I am ferocious fighter when need be. Knowing my intense makeup as I do, far more than even my attorneys comprehend at this juncture and my belief in the solidness of my case, I can state with unequivocal certainty this situation will be a very long and unpleasant one; this despite, the sickening and humiliating additional lambasting I expect to receive in the media. Please reflect soberly upon my various thoughts, here. This is all I ask. –Sincerely, Jeane Palfrey

The February 1, 2007 Baltimore Sun article on the suicide of Brandy Britton: http://www.scapa-lv.org/news/Former_professor%27s_tumultuous_life_ends_with_suicide.htm

WTOP Radio: DC US Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor claims prosectuors "quite anguished" over Palfrey suicide

"Prosecutors in the office who handled the case were quite anguished about how that turned out. Nobody was happy with that result." --Outgoing U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeffrey A. Taylor.

Washington D.C.--This is something else: soon-to-be ex-U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeffrey A. Taylor is saying that the suicide of Deborah Jeane Palfrey upset members of the prosecution and that it was a "shock" when she committed suicide on May 1st, 2008.

Funny that they suddenly get all teary-eyed after their absurd zealousness in prosecuting her to the point of death.

This is a lie and Taylor is a black liar who's hiding something along with his associates. That something is that he and the prosecution had ample reason to think that Palfrey was unstable, might kill herself and did nothing about it.

Even as a low-level member of her defense team, I knew for certain by February 28th, 2008 that the defendant was unstable when she forwarded me and the rest of the defense team an exchange between herself and journalist Jason Leopold. Would it have mattered had I forwarded it to the prosecution or the Court? Doubtful, and I wasn't going to violate attorney-client privilege when my contact with her was only via email. There wasn't enough to go on, and others missed the import of the email entirely.

Jason… let’s put it like this, the bastards aren’t going to take me alive. Of course, anytime that you want to do an interview – I will make myself available. However, I doubt that I will be doing any interviews once I am in D.C., for the trial. –Best, Jeane

Yet Taylor is stating that he wasn't aware of how unstable Palfrey was. This is going to be found to be a lie, a fabrication to protect the members of the prosecution from gross negligence in their mishandling of the case, their over-zealousness, and the fact that a competency hearing should have been convened. Why wasn't this done? Ask Taylor and ask Federal District Judges Gladys Kessler and James Robertson.

Is this one of the reasons why Judge Kessler was removed from the case? Did she have an awareness that Palfrey was in fact suicidal? I haven't listened to the entire WTOP radio broadcast, but I assume that their own Neil Augenstein interviewed Jeffrey Taylor and D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier who was on-hand for gender backup so that the prosecution of the deceased didn't look too much like a victory for entrenched patriarchy (it was). Where were the other prosecutors like Catherine Connelley, William R. Cowden, and Daniel Butler? They must have been busy getting ready for the wave of firings with the new president coming into office in January 2009.

This comment by Taylor was illuminating:"That's not to say we're not uncomfortable with the havoc that [we] can wreak on the lives of these individuals. We are careful, but at the same time have an obligation having brought the charges to prove that case." ("Prosecutors 'quite anguished over D.C. Madam's suicide," WTOP, 12.04.2008) He omits "we" in the sentence, so I reinserted it for his (and our) edification.

The Palfrey prosecutors should be "anguished" over it alright, they destroyed her life, humiliated over a dozen former escorts on the stand for a few days, and did their best to ensure that the defendant wouldn't receive a fair trial. They have a lot to feel "bad" about and it's this writer's humble curse that it haunts them until the day each of them die. I don't imagine that hey were asked by WTOP who leaked the unsigned warrant to The Smoking Gun's Bill Bastone, it being just another elephant in the room that they must ignore to get out of office safely, unscathed by civil suits from Palfrey's estate. Did they know Palfrey was suicidal?

They knew. They knew Palfrey was unstable and suicidal when she stated she wouldn't serve even one more day in prison several times in the mainstream media. When I decided to help her, I knew "this isn't going to end well. " It was obvious over time. They knew full-well that their case was political, but they lie because they got themselves into "quite" a mess. They knew they were doing their best to hide the identities of the "Johns" because many of them were either part of or had connections to the GOP in Washington D.C. Appointments have a way of working-out like this.

The WTOP article also contains a glaring mistake of its own. "Most of the former escorts subpoenaed to bolster the prosecution's claim that Palfrey ran a prostitution service managed to keep their identities secret before her federal racketeering and money laundering trial. " (ibid) This is factually incorrect, it wasn't "most," but a few of the girls did manage to stay hidden. Discovery documents contain a list of well over one hundred former escorts of Pamela Martin & Associates which was in-the-possession of the prosecution; they knew who almost all of them were. They settled on around fifteen of them to testify against Palfrey under immunity, meaning that they were busted at some point and forced to turn on her.

If USA Taylor wants to clear his and the rest of the prosecution's names, they should make the vast majority of documents related to the investigation and the prosecution available to the press, researchers, and historians. Transparency is key. With Ms. Palfrey now dead, there's no specific reason to keep these materials classified any longer...unless it was part of a larger investigation, which there have been indications of in the past. There is one thing that USA Jeffrey A. Taylor was honest about in the interview--Palfrey was offered several very good plea deals and she turned them all down.

In the fall of 2007, she conveyed to me that she almost took one of them, but by that point the prosecution wasn't offering much. For every reason, they should have seen very clearly that as an indicator of instability, she was not acting rationally in her own best interests. As a matter of fact, they most certainly did notice having reasonable proximity with her during negotiations. In addition, when she fired a couple members of her counsel at various points in the legal proceedings the papers were sealed by the Court. This is because they also knew she was unstable, maybe even suicidal. This could implicate the Court, the prosecution, and perhaps at least one of Palfrey's former counsels in the matter. One of them tried to do something about it, but for more on that one, you'll just have to wait...

"Prosecutors 'quite anguished over D.C. Madam's suicide," WTOP, 12.04.2008: http://www.wtop.com/?sid=1537593&nid=25

The Smoking Gun's Bill Bastone: "Bottom Feeder," according to late DC Madam

WWW--Below is an excerpt of correspondence between Jeane Palfrey and nefarious cop/prosecutor lover Bill Bastone, ostensible editor of The Smoking Gun. What a piece-of-shit he is: Palfrey's trial was almost a year away. The world first learned of this story from his website, and it wasn't on-accident.

Posting Palfrey's early-1990s mugshot mirrors the prosecution's strategy, and "bad-jacketed" the defendant as a felon.

It begs-the-question: how many times has Bastone engaged in this behavior before? Who is he? Really? What is he? What is the real role of The Smoking Gun site?

Someone within the government's investigation and prosecution provided him--illegally--with an unsigned search warrant (it's dated Oct. 4th, 2006, and still online), and more. In the opinion of this writer, at-minimum, Bill Bastone is that most despicable of so-called journalists--the "friendly asset." Guilty, or innocent, how can anyone have a fair trial under such circumstances?

What Bastone did was to taint virtually every potential jury member out there, by colluding with the prosecution--there is no other conclusion to be made from this. My take. Prove me wrong. What I do pledge is that I will be filing FOIAs on this matter until the end of my life. Bastone appears to have no concept of due process or the time honored American tradition that one is presumed innocent until found guilty in a fair trial. He ensured that this wasn't going to happen by his actions.

Mr. Bastone… I can assure you that sooner or later, I will get to the bottom of this mess. In particular, I am going to find out who leaked the unsigned search warrant to you, last October and who you really are and/or represent. –Jeane Palfrey

-----Original Message-----
From: william bastone [mailto:wbastone@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 9:29 AM
To: jeanepalfrey@sprynet.com
Subject: Re: D.C. Madam Can Peddle "Call" List - July 5, 2007

jeane:

let's see, you've turned women out for almost 20

years [Ed.--Told to you by whom?], which seems to make the "veteran pimp" moniker

pretty accurate. as for the bottom feeder crack, well, i'm not going to

challenge your particular ability to identify that

species.[Ed.--Correct, she knew scum when she saw it.]

finally, does this mean you won't be e-mailing us your phone logs? because i had cleared my calendar for the

rest of the month... [Ed.--Here, Bastone makes-it-plain which

camp he's in and that he's not interested in the phone logs, which is curious considering the nature of his site. Amazing.]

regards,bill bastone

--- Jeane Palfrey wrote:

>

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0705072palfrey1.html?link=rs

> sfeed

>

> Mr. Bastone... "the veteran pimp" - you continue to

> be nothing, but a bottom

> feeder. Jeane Palfrey

>

>

William Bastone

thesmokinggun.com

600 Third Avenue

16th Floor

New York, N.Y. 10016

(212) 692-7849

From the Palfrey trial transcript, April 9th, 2008: The testimony of Treasury agent Troy Burrus

Washington D.C.--There's an interesting passage in here where IRS agent Troy Burrus and AUSA (Assistant US Attorney) Daniel P. Butler "misspoke," down towards the bottom hinting accidentally that there could be issues of Palfrey misreporting her income, a tax issue, not one of simple "money-laundering."

No worries, Judge Roberston let them off-the-hook, but he appears to be covering his ass as well...like when he quit the FISA court.

It's a potentially telling exchange, and could mean something about what Palfrey actually made, and what the government was actually able to find regarding all of her assets/money.


...435

1 (TROY BURRUS, GOVERNMENT witness, having been duly sworn,

2 testified as follows:)

3 DIRECT EXAMINATION

4 BY MR. BUTLER:

5 Q. Would you state your name please, and spell your last name?

6 A. Troy Burrus, B-U-R-R-U-S.

7 Q. And Mr. Burrus, what's your occupation?

8 A. I'm a special agent with the Internal Revenue Service.

9 Q. How long have you been an agent with the IRS?

10 A. For almost nine years.

11 Q. And what is your back ground for that job?

12 A. I have a bachelor's of science degree in accounting from

13 Auburn University, and I spent 10 years working as a public

14 accountant, and I'm a certified public accountant.

15 Q. And did you work in the field as a public accountant?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. For you said how long?

18 A. Approximately 10 years.

19 Q. And after that you went to the IRS?

20 A. That's correct.

21 Q. As part of your duties with the IRS, were you involved in an

22 investigation of Pamela Martin & Associates?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And did there come a time when charges were brought in that

25 case?

436



1 A. Yes, they were.

2 Q. A case against Pamela Martin & Associates?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And were you involved in processing the defendant on that

5 case at that time?

6 A. Yes, I was.

7 Q. And the name of the defendant was what?

8 A. Deborah Jeanne Palfrey.

9 Q. And do you see Ms. Palfrey in the courtroom today?

10 A. Yes, I do.

11 Q. Would you identify --

12 MR. BURTON: We'll stipulate.

13 THE COURT: She's identified. Go ahead.

14 BY MR. BUTLER:

15 Q. How did you get involved in this case?

16 A. We received a call, my supervisor received a call from the

17 United States Postal Inspection Service in approximately March

18 of 2004. They said that they needed some assistance on an

19 investigation, some financial analysis assistance.

20 Q. After you became involved, what particularly did you do?

21 A. My role in this investigation was to analyze all the

22 financial records, whether they be bank records, brokerage

23 records, any records related to money and money transfers.

24 Q. And what financial records did you review, generally

25 speaking?

437



1 A. I reviewed bank records, I reviewed brokerage account

2 records, and all the different items that go into the bank

3 records themselves.

4 Q. And these were bank records for whom?

5 A. For Deborah Jeanne Palfrey.

6 Q. And what type of financial documents did you review?

7 A. We also reviewed the tax return information, plus the

8 brokerage account information with Charles Schwab.

9 Q. And that was whose account?

10 A. Deborah Jeanne Palfrey.

11 Q. This jury has heard about money orders. Were money orders

12 reviewed in this case?

13 A. Yes. Postal money orders, money orders from other sources,

14 whether they be 7-11, Western Union. Those were all reviewed.

15 Q. Bank records?

16 A. Bank records, and not only the bank statements but the

17 deposit items, whether they be the postal money orders, whether

18 they be personal checks or traveler's checks. All the check

19 items -- in other words, checks that she wrote to pay for bills

20 or expenses, any kind of money transfers between accounts or to

21 other accounts.

22 Q. And from where did you get the bank records?

23 A. The bank records were subpoenaed from Wells Fargo Bank.

24 Q. And any other financial institutions?

25 A. Charles Schwab was also subpoenaed, and records were

438



1 received from them.

2 Q. And why Charles Schwab and Wells Fargo?

3 A. The postal money orders that the U.S. Postal Inspection

4 Service had identified, we traced those as being deposited into

5 both the Wells Fargo account, and some were deposited into the

6 Charles Schwab account.

7 Q. And in terms of the financial documents you reviewed, are

8 those documents here in court?

9 A. Yes, they are. They're on the table.

10 Q. And that's the binders that are in front of the jury here?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Which have been marked as BNK-17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22.

13 Is that correct?

14 A. That's correct.

15 Q. Did you review tax returns?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. For which years?

18 A. We received tax returns from the Internal Revenue Service

19 through an ex parte order for the years 2000 through 2005.

20 We also reviewed tax returns from 1991 through 2005,

21 that were found at the defendant's home when we executed the

22 search warrant.

23 Q. Did you compare those two sets of tax returns in terms of

24 the ones that you obtained from the IRS versus the ones you

25 obtained from the search?

439



1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And what did the comparisons show?

3 A. The comparisons showed that for the years 2000 through 2005

4 they were exactly the same.

5 Q. And did you take steps for the years that were prior to

6 those years, take steps to compare the tax returns that you

7 obtained during the search warrants?

8 A. Yes, but we were unable to get those older tax returns.

9 Q. Why is that?

10 A. The Internal Revenue Service only keeps tax returns going

11 back for a certain amount of years.

12 Q. So you reviewed the ones you did have?

13 And in terms of the Wells Fargo records, for what years

14 did you have those?

15 A. I looked at records starting approximately January 1st of

16 2000 through June of 2006.

17 Q. And again, why not before or after that?

18 A. Banks only keep records going back so many years. And due

19 to the statute of limitations on the various charges we were

20 looking at, we didn't go back further than 2000.

21 Q. And in terms of the money orders, you reviewed those; did

22 you add up the dollar figures over the years that you had?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And how much money was involved there?

25 A. For the time period 2000 through 2005, it was approximately

440



1 $880,000 or somewhere around there.

2 Q. And did you prepare a chart of those amounts?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And I would like to at this time -- can you see that?

5 A. Yes, I can see it.

6 Q. That's a chart you prepared, and that's BNK-23. Is that

7 correct?

8 A. That's correct.

9 Q. And just walk the jury through that document, please.

10 A. This spreadsheet --

11 THE COURT: You want the jury to see it?

12 MR. BUTLER: I'm sorry.

13 BY MR. BUTLER:

14 Q. This is from the review of your bank records, the bank

15 records -- I'm sorry, the money orders you reviewed in this

16 matter. Is that correct?

17 A. This spreadsheet shows not only money orders, but also

18 personal checks that were received, and traveler's checks

19 relating to the business activity of Pamela Martin & Associates.

20 MR. BUTLER: I would move to admit BNK-23, Your Honor.

21 MR. BURTON: No objection.

22 THE COURT: Received, and you may show it to the jury.

23 (Government Exhibit BNK-23 was moved into evidence.)

24 BY MR. BUTLER:

25 Q. Could you walk the jury through what that document shows,

441



1 please?

2 A. The document shows in the columns the years 2000 through

3 2005, with the final column being the total. And then the

4 receipts per the bank records, and the asterisk indicating it

5 includes all money orders, checks, traveler's checks deposited

6 into the accounts related to the business activity of PMA,

7 including both Wells Fargo Bank and Charles Schwab.

8 And then you have the individual amounts per year, to

9 total up to the $882,649.48.

10 Q. And just for the record, would you read off the years, the

11 individual years in terms of what the amounts are, please?

12 A. For 2000, it is $185,265.25; for 2001, it's $177,098.17;

13 2002, $124,605; 2003, $142,341.06; 2004, $158,835; and 2005,

14 $94,505.

15 Q. And in lay terms, what does this diagram show? What is the

16 purpose of this diagram?

17 A. This diagram just shows only the business receipts that were

18 deposited into her account. So it's an analysis of seeing how

19 much income she was receiving for the business over this period

20 of time.

21 Q. And when you say she, to whom are you referring?

22 A. Deborah Jeanne Palfrey.

23 Q. Did you do another diagram or another graph of that same

24 information, to show it in a different format?

25 A. Yes, I did a graphical column bar chart to show the same

442



1 amounts.

2 MR. BUTLER: I need to show this to the witness but not

3 the jury for one moment.

4 THE COURT: All right.

5 BY MR. BUTLER:

6 Q. This is BNK-24.

7 THE COURT: It's just the same numbers in a bar chart?

8 MR. BURTON: Yeah, it's just cumulative.

9 THE COURT: It's not very edifying. Why don't we move

10 on? I think the jury can handle those numbers.

11 MR. BUTLER: Is there any objection to its admission?

12 MR. BURTON: Objection.

13 THE COURT: It's been objected to as cumulative. The

14 objection is sustained.

15 BY MR. BUTLER:

16 Q. Would the chart that you already talked about show all

17 postal money orders, or just those that were deposited?

18 A. It would only show those that were deposited. If the postal

19 money order had been cashed, it would not be included on that

20 chart.

21 Q. You mentioned earlier a search warrant that was done at the

22 residence of Deborah Jeanne Palfrey?

23 A. That is correct. A search warrant was done on the 4th of

24 October 2006.

25 Q. And was there a search warrant obtained for that search?

443



1 A. Yes.

2 Q. From where?

3 A. It was obtained from the magistrate judge in Sacramento,

4 California.

5 Q. And when was that search?

6 A. The search was actually on October 4th, 2006.

7 Q. Were you involved in that search?

8 A. Yes, I was.

9 Q. What was recovered during that search generally,

10 category-wise?

11 A. The search of the defendant's residence in Vallejo, we

12 uncovered all types of financial records: Binders containing

13 information on the individuals who were working for the

14 organization, phone records, utility records, tax returns,

15 checks, appointment books. Just a lot of different

16 correspondence information.

17 Q. And those are the tax returns that you already testified

18 about, that went beyond the ones the IRS had. Is that correct?

19 A. That's correct. We found tax returns from 1991 through

20 2005.

21 Q. And did you review those earlier returns as well?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And did they show how far back Pamela Martin & Associates

24 went?

25 A. Yes. The 1993 tax return indicates that that is the

444



1 beginning year for Pamela Martin & Associates.

2 Q. I'm sorry, you said which year?

3 A. 1993.

4 Q. Let me also have you take a look at -- not to the jury at

5 the moment, but the --

6 I would like you to take a look at what's been marked

7 as TAX-310 through 334. You've reviewed these documents before.

8 Is that correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. These are the ones you talked about?

11 A. Yes. I'm waiting for it to come up on the screen.

12 Q. And what is the first page of TAX-310? What is that?

13 A. It is a copy of Deborah Jeanne Palfrey's form 1040, page

14 one, for 1993.

15 Q. And in terms of the -- if we flip through the pages of that,

16 would the entire tax return be there?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And I would like to take a look at TAX-285 through 309.

19 What is that?

20 A. 285 is a copy of Deborah Jeanne Palfrey's form 1040 for

21 1994, page one.

22 Q. And if we flip through the pages, would we have the rest of

23 the tax return?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. I would like to review TAX-271 through 284.

445



1 A. 271 --

2 THE COURT: I think I know where we're going with this,

3 counsel. Is there a stipulation?

4 MR. BURTON: That's why I'm taking a look at the hard

5 copy, judge. I think we'll be able to arrive at one pretty

6 quickly.

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

8 THE COURT: Why don't you take a second and see if you

9 can? Because nobody can really see these things as they go by,

10 anyway.

11 (OFF THE RECORD.)

12 MR. BURTON: We don't object to these returns coming

13 in. We can expedite this.

14 THE COURT: Just give us the TAX numbers of the

15 earliest and latest, tell us briefly what they are, and they'll

16 all be offered in a lump.

17 Don't take this personally, Mr. Burrus.

18 MR. BURTON: I'm sure he gets it all the time.

19 MR. BUTLER: Your Honor, you want just the first number

20 of the different years of returns?

21 THE COURT: Just do it the fastest way you can.

22 MR. BUTLER: Okay. The numbers are all -- the first

23 number, it's in sort of a reverse order. Well, let me start it

24 this way, Your Honor:

25 TAX-9 through TAX-334 are the tax returns in reverse

446



1 order of the years; in other words, going 2005, 2004, 2003,

2 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999 --

3 THE COURT: All the way back to 1993?

4 MR. BUTLER: Yes, Your Honor.

5 THE COURT: Offered into evidence?

6 MR. BUTLER: Yes, Your Honor.

7 THE COURT: Received. Thank you.

8 (Government Exhibits TAX-009 to TAX-334 were moved into

9 evidence.)

10 MR. BUTLER: And I would also like to offer the binders

11 as well, Your Honor, the ones I previously referred to.

12 THE COURT: 17 through 22?

13 MR. BUTLER: BNK-17 through 22, yes.

14 THE COURT: Now, are these going to be the subject of a

15 Rule 1006 summary?

16 MR. BURTON: Yes, Your Honor.

17 MS. CONNELLY: I have a stipulation.

18 THE COURT: I don't think all those documents have to

19 be in evidence if they're made available under Rule 1006.

20 There's no point in sending all that back to the jury room and

21 letting the jury think they have to go through all that if

22 they're just getting a summary.

23 MR. BUTLER: That's fine, Your Honor. I believe we

24 have a stipulation that will cover it.

25 MR. BURTON: We entered a stipulation that these are

447



1 financial documents, so...

2 THE COURT: Okay. Moving right on.

3 MR. BURTON: Your Honor, could I read this stipulation

4 at this time?

5 THE COURT: Yes.

6 MR. BUTLER: Thank you. "The United States and

7 defendant Deborah Jeanne Palfrey, after consultation with her

8 counsel, stipulate and agree that: The government has

9 established the authenticity and admissibility of the financial

10 business records, documents, records, reports, and data

11 compilation under Federal Rules of Evidence 803.6; and has

12 produced declarations conforming to Federal Rules of

13 Evidence 902.11 from a custodian of records for business records

14 relating to accounts maintained on behalf of the defendant by

15 the following businesses:

16 Wells Fargo & Company, and Charles Schwab & Company

17 Incorporated, a subsidiary of the Charles Schwab Corporation.

18 The parties agree that the defendant may still object

19 to such records on the basis of relevancy, Federal Rules of

20 Evidence 402, and any improper prejudice, Federal Rules of

21 Evidence 403."

22 THE COURT: Very well.

23 BY MR. BUTLER:

24 Q. If I could just pull out the -- and this might be easier,

25 Agent Burrus. I'll hand you TAX-0096 through 138. What is

448



1 that?

2 A. This is a copy of the 2002 form 1040 filed by Deborah Jeanne

3 Palfrey.

4 Q. And would you go to the Schedule C -- I'm sorry, the line C

5 on that document? Is that for an individual or for a business?

6 A. Form 1040 is for an individual filing.

7 Q. For what? I'm sorry --

8 A. The form 1040 is a U.S. individual income tax return.

9 Q. Would you go to line C on that document?

10 A. Line C of -- you mean Schedule C?

11 Q. I mean Schedule C. Thank you.

12 A. (Witness complies.) All right.

13 Q. What is a Schedule C in a tax return?

14 A. A Schedule C that's attached to the form 1040 is to report

15 profit or loss from a business of a sole proprietorship or a

16 single-member L.L.C.

17 Q. And was that Schedule C filed by Ms. Palfrey in this matter?

18 A. Yes, she did file a Schedule C.

19 Q. For what business?

20 A. For the business listed as Pamela Martin & Associates.

21 Q. And is there a Schedule A in there, too?

22 A. Yes, there is a Schedule A.

23 Q. And what is a Schedule A?

24 A. A Schedule A is where you report your itemized deductions,

25 which includes taxes you may have paid, interest on your home,

449



1 gifts to charity, casualty/theft losses, and other miscellaneous

2 expenses.

3 Q. And does the tax return say what type of business Pamela

4 Martin & Associates was?

5 A. It lists it as a "Service/Personal business."

6 Q. And what document within the tax return is that?

7 A. That is listed on Schedule C, line A.

8 Q. And does the tax return say the accounting method that was

9 used for that business?

10 A. Yes. On line F she selected or chose accounting method as

11 "cash."

12 Q. On the Schedule C?

13 A. That's correct.

14 Q. And what does that mean?

15 A. A cash basis method of accounting means that when you

16 receive income, you report it in the year that you actually

17 receive it. And when you incur expenses or actually pay the

18 expenses, you can take those as expenses.

19 Q. And is that on a gross receipt, net receipt? How was that

20 done?

21 A. I'm not sure I understand the question.

22 Q. Does Ms. Palfrey's return show gross receipts or net

23 receipts?

24 A. It shows gross receipts.

25 Q. And where does it show that?

450



1 A. On line one, under part one for the income, it shows the

2 gross receipts.

3 Q. And what is gross receipts, just to make sure?

4 A. Gross receipts in this instance would be all the income that

5 was received by the business during that year.

6 Q. So that would include Ms. Palfrey as well as her employees.

7 Is that correct?

8 A. Actually, it should include the monies that she actually

9 received, that was sent to her.

10 Q. And did you compare the tax returns to the bank records for

11 Ms. Palfrey? [Ed.--Emphasis added.]

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And what did that show?

14 A. The comparison of the bank records for this year, 2002, show

15 that there was a greater amount of gross receipts than was

16 reported on this line. [Ed.--Emphasis added.]

17 MR. BURTON: Can we approach, Your Honor?

18 THE COURT: Yes.

19 (BENCH CONFERENCE ON THE RECORD.)

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

21 MR. BUTLER: I'm not going to any tax discrepancy, or

22 anything to that effect. [Ed.--Emphasis added.]

23 THE COURT: You just saddled her with basically what is

24 false reporting. [Ed.--Emphasis added.]

25 MR. BUTLER: Well, I don't think it's gone that far

451



1 yet, Your Honor. I'm not going any further with this line of

2 inquiry.

3 THE COURT: Well, now you've put the defense in the

4 position where they have to respond to this. How are they going

5 to do that?

6 MR. BUTLER: Well, Your Honor, that was not the intent

7 of my question, but I appreciate what the Court is saying.

8 THE COURT: What was the intent of the question?

9 MR. BUTLER: My intent of the question, Your Honor, was

10 directed at the gross receipts that were deposited into this and

11 comparing it with the bank records that we have. It was a

12 poorly phrased question. That's all I can say about it. I

13 don't know anything more than that.

14 THE COURT: Well, where are you going next?

15 MR. BUTLER: Your Honor, I'm going next with -- can I

16 just have a moment, Your Honor?

17 Your Honor, there's another chart in terms of -- I just

18 need to grab it, just to answer the question more explicitly, if

19 I can have a moment.

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

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

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

23 MR. BUTLER: Well, there's other documents we need to

24 admit through him, yes.

25 THE COURT: Can he come back in the morning?

452



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

2 THE COURT: I think I want to instruct the jury that

3 there was no tax charge, no tax claim in this case.

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

5 THE COURT: Maybe I'll even instruct them they are to

6 disregard that last answer because it's not relevant to your

7 case. ...