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. ..."

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. ...

Obama invokes the late, great Wild Bill Hickok as an ancestor

Springfield, Missouri--Obama's claim of descent to James Butler "Wild Bill" Hickok (where he engaged in a duel, possibly during the Civil War) today is an interesting one.

The Democratic presidential candidate came to this town on the edge of the old West on Wednesday and laid down a challenge for his GOP rival.

"If Sen. McCain wants a debate on taxes in this campaign, I'm ready," Obama said, noting that Hickok is said to have fought a duel here. "I'm ready to duel John McCain on taxes right here, quick draw," Obama said before closing the loop with Hickok.

"The family legend is that he is a distant cousin of mine. I don't know if it's true but I'm going to research it." ("Political Play: Obama claims link to the Wild West," AP, 07.30.2008)

He doesn't need to, a noted genealogist named Chris Child has confirmed it. Never mind that-- 25% of everyone roaming the Wild West was Black (it's true). Obama went to the heart of the matter, to one of the legends, Wild Bill.

And he's correct: he is descended from Wild Bill, a distant cousin. But does he really want to make a comparison? Perhaps. But his challenge of a dueling debate over taxes in Springfield with John McCain doesn't bode well when you look at how Wild Bill ended his days, but people settle their differences in other ways nowadays. Nonetheless, there's an even more intriguing fact about the Hickok family that few will recognize:

Wild Bill Hickok James Butler Hickok in Troy Grove, Illinois on May 27, 1837 to was born William Alonzo Hickok and Polly Butler Hickok. Bill had four brothers and two sisters and his parents were God-fearing Baptists who expected Bill to keep up his chores on the farm and to attend church every Sunday. Bill's parents also operated a station along the Underground Railroad, where they smuggled slaves out of the South. It was during this time that the lean and wiry young man got his first taste of hostile gunfire when he and his father were chased by law officers who suspected them of carrying more than just hay in their wagon. ("Wild Bill Hickok and the dead man's hand," LegendsofAmerica.com)

And so, James Butler Hickok came from very upstanding Americans, from people who saw Black Americans as human beings when few bothered to care. On top of this, they risked their lives, and so did Bill. He was a real man. But then, we should remember that there's that other side of America, where Republicans and sell-out Democrats dwell. It's the domain of the Coward Jack McCall, the world of the back-stabbing scoundrel and the yellow-belly.

Not much is known about McCall except that he was stupid, cock-eyed, a braggart, and a drunk who had once run with some buffalo hunters, possibly in the Wyoming territory. Kind of sounds like the current president, doesn't it? McCall was from Kentucky while Hickok was from Illinois, but both men wrestled with the beast within. Hickok was a lawman with an itchy trigger-finger. We'll never know how many people Hickok killed, and it's positive we never will with McCall either.

But you know a man by his actions, and we only remember McCall because of one of his last ones when he shot Wild Bill Hickok in the back of the head for beating him at cards.

On August 1, 1876 Wild Bill was playing cards in Nuttall and Mann’s No. 10 Saloon when one of the players dropped out and bystander Jack McCall took his place. McCall kept losing and at the end of the evening was broke. Hickok gave him money with which to buy dinner. The next day, on August 2, Hickok returned to the No. 10 and joined in a game of cards. A few hours later Jack McCall entered the bar and stopped a few paces behind Hickok. He pointed his gun at Hickok’s head, pulled the trigger and shouted, “Damn you, take that!” The gunshot instantly killed Wild Bill. McCall ran out of the saloon and attempted to escape on a horse that was tethered nearby, but the saddle had been loosened, and he fell to the ground. McCall ran down the street and hid in a butcher’s shop where he was captured by a large crowd. ("Deadwood History-JackMcCall," AdamsMuseumandHouse.org)

How is this different from John McCain dropping bombs on innocent North Vietnamese civilians over forty-years-ago, then being captured? Can someone like Obama--coming from the Chicago political machine--embody the morality of what was good about James Butler Hickok and America, or will he unleash the spirit of Jack McCall, John Rockefeller Sr., the Vanderbilts, Andrew Carneige, and the Pinkertons on the world as Commander in Chief?

Will he be a backstabbing assassin like the man who murdered his distant cousin, or will he side with the robber barons, the mine owners, and railroad men of our times? The signs aren't good, but one can hope, since that's all we're left with voting within the two party system. Will Obama be the man from Illinois (Lincoln/Hickok) or the malcontent, booze-swilling long-knife from Kentucky (McCall)?

When a candidate evokes the memory of the Old West in America, it's an important event that carries the responsibility of getting the history right. Yes, it makes him look and sound "tough," but does it make him a hero (McCain isn't one either), a man who can enter his home justified? If Senator Obama decides to stand on the side of the law, he's going to have a lot of cleaning-up to do from the last president. This is mandatory. It should be a part and parcel of his own agenda, because no nation can survive lawlessness for very long.

Just 100-years-ago, Pat Garrett was murdered along a lonely road in New Mexico.

He'd been shot in the back of the head and in the chest. Long before we were arguing over which angle JFK was shot from in Dealy Plaza, parties were arguing the same over Pat's murder. They say a big time rancher named W.W. Cox wanted him dead, and that he wasn't alone. Rich "coyotes" smuggling Chinese immigrants across the Mexican-American border might have wanted to bring them through his Bear Canyon ranch. Had they murdered him for money and power? What side of history is Obama on? We already know about John McCain.

"Political Play: Obama claims link to the Wild West," AP, 07.30.2008: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gyXVIfZ2F2CTuuxH3_93vuTP-ywwD928D6QO0

"Wild Bill Hickok and the dead man's hand," LegendsofAmerica.com: http://www.legendsofamerica.com/WE-BillHickok.html

On the Coward Jack McCall:http://www.adamsmuseumandhouse.org/answers/jackmccall.html

"Surprising New Information on Pat Garrett's Death: Details from the Fornoff Report," by Chuck Hornung, WesternOutlaw.com: http://www.westernoutlaw.com/stories/files/NewInfoPatGarrett.pdf

Why Just Her, by Montgomery Blair Sibley (review)

A s anyone can imagine, it’s difficult reviewing a book about an event that one was a part of, and especially one in which the main protagonist has died, but fellow participant and former counsel Montgomery Blair Sibley’s book offers a certain degree of closure in the matter of one Deborah Jeane Palfrey (dubbed the “DC Madam” by the mainstream press). Finding a coherent narrative in this tangled-mess was a difficult task, as I can attest to it myself. Palfrey was an enigmatic figure on the national stage from roughly late March 2007 until her untimely death by suicide on May 1, 2008, less than a month after she was found guilty of racketeering charges related to running a prostitution ring in the Washington D.C area from her Vallejo home. This isn’t to say that Sibley’s book is the final word (no book can be that) on the subject, but it’s a good start. There are questions to this story that will never be answered, and not merely because Jeane is no longer with us.

Sibley was very close indeed to the flames and brings us all (myself included) a viable and constructive narrative of what he witnessed and his interpretation of it as the longest serving counsel to Deborah Jeane Palfrey, now forever branded by a puritan media as the “DC Madam.” A great deal has been written about Montgomery Blair Sibley’s behavior inside and outside of the DC Madam scandal and the courts, and while I’ve only corresponded with him via email and spoken with him on the phone a few times, I’ve never felt truly misled by him outside of an attorney’s duties to a defendant or that his behavior or tone were bizarre.

I became a part of this narrative from the first week of June 2007 until very shortly before Palfrey’s death, and was brought into it by the main protagonist herself. Like many historical events, most participants involved only experienced a small-part of the story; but for a few, there was more than just a sliver and they bore witness to more of an event than any other single player. Sibley is the latter. The fact of the matter is: Montgomery Blair Sibley was there from almost the very beginning from October 2006, shortly after Palfrey’s home was raided by USPS inspectors and investigators from the Treasury Department, until very close to the bitter end. To be sure, Palfrey was guilty-as-charged, and whether anyone likes it or not, Mr. Sibley has seized the narrative de facto by being the first to document it in book form. Only time will tell us how solid his version of events is, as with any historical accounting.

Many of Sibley’s detractors in the press and the legal profession are in for a bit of a surprise (outside of their own prejudices, possibly earned by Sibley and his late client for various reasons). Yet, by all appearances, this is a solid primary historical document containing what Sibley feels he experienced representing Palfrey; what the information in his possession means; and what the case itself means within our general and political culture. If he’s wrong anywhere in his version of the narrative, it’s likely that any mistakes or omissions were accidental or simply beyond Sibley’s control and were unintentional. It should be noted here that many materials related to the legal proceedings are still under seal, if not classified under national security statutes. Also worth noting is that this isn’t just about Palfrey, but about the author himself.

To be sure, there is an advantage that comes out of proximity, and the Sibley’s self-deprecation is both refreshing and forthcoming in ways that go well beyond most “what happened” books of this type.

From the point-of-view of this participant, he seems to “get” the hypocrisy of the charges leveled against Palfrey within a very large judicial context, and I applaud him for it. The DC Madam’s former legal counselor notes ably how little justice is to be had for just about any criminal defendant at the federal level and places Palfrey appropriately within that very context in fairly graphic detail. As he accurately states in the text, over 90% of federal criminal defendants plea out, which should tell you something about the prospects for victory for nearly anyone accused of violating federal statutes.

But Sibley had bigger problems than simply taking on the District of Columbia’s prosecution team under the Bush/Gonzalez interim-appointed U.S. Attorney, Jeffrey A. Taylor, an eleventh hour appointment at that. The “lawyer with a good name” had a client who was part of that 10% that would never, under any circumstances, capitulate to a plea deal.

Palfrey told this writer in our first telephone conversation in early June 2007 of two very good plea deals (reported in much less detail by ABC in their May 20/20 special featuring Palfrey for scant few minutes):

…I would not take their offers. …The best offer I think we had was about a year total of jail time—about maybe half of that in a halfway house, about half of that in a prison…maybe four months in a halfway house, maybe four months in a prison. They would take 2/3d’s of my—uh—life savings. That was the best offer possible. I basically told them to go screw themselves….to go to hell. Now, when that last offer came down, that’s when they indicted me. [i]

Ask anyone, and they’ll tell you (even Sibley, though we might disagree on this and several other points) that those were extremely generous plea deals, better than the average. What was she thinking? What else? She was thinking about the money—her overall assets--and the fact that she was going back to jail, and that’s about it.

This writer can attest to Palfrey having a tendency towards making irrational demands of others (I rejected my share of them) and acting in ways that could only have hurt her. In other words, it’s my humble opinion that she was disturbed and that it was a long-term condition of some sort that was exacerbated by her legal ordeal. When it began, I cannot say, but it appears to have been present as early as 1991-1992 in the aftermath of her first conviction and incarceration. There is little reason to think that either the Court or the prosecution were unaware of this fact at any stage in the proceedings. This begs-the-question as to why there was no intervention to assess whether the defendant was a threat to herself.

Why Just Her is generally silent on this issue for what we can assume are very serious legal reasons of procedure, and likely more.

The origins for Palfrey’s irrational behavior have been widely speculated on. Taking the overall picture that Sibley paints of the DC Madam’s state of mind during the legal proceedings for what they are and were, it’s hard not to conclude that the defendant Deborah Jeane Palfrey was not merely unhinged by the charges against her, but that she had ongoing mental problems that were probably with her for the entirety of her short life. This jibes perfectly with my contact with her, which was generally through a few telephone calls and a very long correspondence via-email. Sibley reveals some of this mental state to us through some rather extraordinary emails between others (including myself) and Palfrey, court filings, transcripts, anecdotes, and so on. He astutely notes from Palfrey’s autopsy report that she had high levels of Zolpidem in her bloodstream and corroborates this himself that he believes she was abusing it during her legal battle.

From the toxicological report done for the Pinellas County Forensic Laboratory:

2483B Zolpidem, Blood…

Analysis by Gas Chromatography (GC)

Zolpidem

Synonym(s): Ambien®

Peak plasma concentration following single oral 5 and 10 mg doses: 29 – 113 ng/mL (mean = 59 ng/mL) and 58 – 272 ng/mL (mean 121 ng/mL), respectively occurring at a mean time of 1.6 hours [before death]. [ii]

Sibley accurately states in his account that Palfrey took an overdose of generic Ambien roughly two hours before her death, so he’s not shaping the facts and his reading of this and other specific public documents appear to be on solid ground.

As a layman, I cannot comment to his interpretation of the laws and statutes invoked in Palfrey’s case. That’s what attorneys and judges are for. All that being said, I don’t think he was able to discuss the theme of suicide very expansively in Why Just Her because of court procedures regarding sealed documents as well as the Palfrey Estate’s invoking of attorney-client privilege over the last year. Some of these issues will probably be resolved before the end of 2009 (or not), but Sibley does drop a few bombshells:

Blanche subsequently told me that after writing the three notes on April 25, 2008, and taking an unknown quantity of [Z]olpidem, Jeane was unconscious for 30 hours. Upon waking up, she drove her [Jeane] to Blanche’s mobile home in Tarpon Springs, Florida. …Though conspiracy theories quickly populated the internet, the hard evidence was simply too overwhelming to permit any conclusion other than Jeane had taken her own life. [iii]

As evinced by the number of attorney firings (not including the then-recent U.S. Attorney firing scandal that brought Jeffrey A. Taylor into the equation) by Palfrey over the course of events, Montgomery Blair Sibley and the rest of her representation had their hands full. I don’t expect that either A.J. Kramer or Preston Burton will be writing their accounts anytime soon--if ever--and their reasons probably run-the-gamut. I can relate. They all had a nightmare client on their hands, possibly the worst kind one could represent in a criminal/civil case, and Sibley has represented some real “doosie” clients like Obama accuser Larry Sinclair in the aftermath, so it’s saying something. Sinclair was probably like a vacation compared to Jeane.

Palfrey was that impossible client who lied most of the time and kept her cards close-to-the-vest, as this book documents throughout, and therefore, there can never truly be a full portrait of who she was and what she did running Pamela Martin & Associates, generally unmolested for thirteen years within the greater Washington D.C. area. In many ways, she will remain an enigma. Such are the obstacles to all historical portraits, even when they’re coming from those who had a lot of contact with the subject, but Sibley does an exceptional job in reconstructing the timeline as well as his and Palfrey’s general state of mind over the course of her prolonged legal proceedings. People accused of criminal acts have their secrets and their reasons for harboring them, and Palfrey was no exception to this tendency.

Like everyone in this life, Palfrey took some of her secrets to the grave. But there are a few glaring mysteries including how much money she actually made over the years which contradict her and the government’s assertions, and there is smoke. For example, Sibley notes a very serious problem in the cross-examination by AUSA for the prosecution, Daniel Butler, at trial regarding the testimony of IRS agent Troy Burrus. Statements were made that pulled-back the veil, and the only explanation this writer can find is incredible incompetence. In short, they accidentally charged Palfrey with under-reporting her income at trial rather than beforehand. This is a major procedural error in any criminal trial.

But no worries, the presiding judge had their back in the end. A reasonable outcome would have been a mistrial, but Judge Robertson was no Judge Kessler (who was replaced in a predawn raid without explanation), and anything but reasonable. This exchange occurred during Palfrey’s trial on April 9, 2008:

…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?

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.

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

18 THE COURT: Yes.

19 (BENCH CONFERENCE ON THE RECORD.)

20 MR. BURTON [Palfrey’s criminal counsel at trial]: 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.

23 THE COURT [Former FISA Judge James Robertson who resigned from the Court in December 2005 when the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program was exposed]: You just saddled her with basically what is

24 false reporting.

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? [iv.]

Palfrey’s final criminal counsel merely went through the motions, and weakly called for a mistrial, which Robertson rejected immediately. Burton didn’t press the issue, which was typical of this defense strategy during the trial. It appears that his defense wasn’t especially zealous. Yet, critics of Sibley would be hard-pressed in saying he didn’t represent Palfrey zealously enough--if anything it might have bordered on the overzealous (whatever that means), and I believe he did his best to save her from herself, including attempts to bring her suicidal behavior to the attention of the Court, and possibly even that of the prosecution.

But, again, I believe that he and they are not legally able to discuss or write about such things for procedural reasons.

This is the first place to start for the average person in beginning to understand a very convoluted and chimerical scandal that was inherently political. It is an honest effort at understanding what happened from someone who was intimately involved in it and it offers about as sincere a perspective as you’re going to get from someone in such a position. The press’s coverage of this event was superficial, lacking in substance, and even went so far as to intentionally obscure very important issues, never mind the real ones at hand in it. In other words, they missed the real stories, the core issues. That’s not very hard to believe given the state of investigative journalism these days.

That the prosecution was engaged in gross misbehavior is a given. That the Court failed to administer reasonable due process at trial is open to interpretation, but why then was Judge Kessler so abruptly removed and replaced by former FISA court Judge James Robertson if there really were no national security issues to the case? They’re not telling, but Montgomery Blair Sibley is, and as much as he’s allowed to under the law. That speaks volumes, and resoundingly.

---

[i] Phone conversation with the author, June 10, 2007.

[ii] “Toxicology Report,” NMS Labs, Work order 08165556, Palfrey, Deborah Jeane, May 31, 2008.

[iii] Sibley, Montgomery Blair, Why Just Her. (Full Court Press, 2009) P.581.

[iv] United States v. Deborah Palfrey, “TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL RECORD VOLUME 3,” “Criminal No. 07-0046,” April 9, 2008.