Saturday, June 30, 2007


College Corner, O-hi-o
This is a band featuring my old friend Joe Duke (sorry girls, he's taken). Joe's on lead-vocals, does some of the writing and playing with his friends John, Rob, and someone else I'm forgetting. ;0) The sound is psychedelia, maybe infused with a little postpunk-ala'-mondo weirdo. I like it, and these guys have a sense of humor about themselves (and everything) that's to my liking, and the music itself is pretty solid.
Peculiar, but very funny and very good psyche with an edge.

If you stay in the Midwest, you only get weirder and more radicalized from the boredom. I'd say "Raise your fist and yell!" but someone else already did (Steve Wilson, eat your heart out you mere journalist). Their myspace page is a bourgeois-hoot! What a month
it has been, here at J-7. It just felt right ending it on this note: Put your hands on your head, and get out of the car, sir. That'll learn ya.'


"Here, you're much closer to the casework."
--Jeffrey Taylor, Oct. 16th, 2006 to the San Diego Union-Tribune [Ed., 09.13.2008--Making me feel better about my own diction.]

Washington D.C.--Jeffrey A. Taylor is an under reported part of the U.S. Attorney scandal, and in the "Hookergate" scandal. His political credentials are well-known, and like Monica Goodling, he's served as counsel for one Alberto Gonzales. Like Tim Griffin, he was appointed by Gonzales under what was then a little-known section of the Patriot Act, surreptitiously added during a renewal of the bill on March 20th of 2006. Here's a partial-list that Common Dreams compiled in January:
Since last March, the administration has named at least nine U.S. attorneys with administration ties. None would agree to an interview. They include:

-Tim Griffin, 37, the U.S. attorney for Arkansas, who was an aide to White House political adviser Karl Rove and a spokesman for the Republican National Committee.

-Rachel Paulose, 33, the U.S. attorney for Minnesota, who served briefly as a counselor to the deputy attorney general and who, according to a former boss, has been a member of the secretive, ideologically conservative Federalist Society.

-Jeff Taylor, 42, the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., who was an aide to Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch and worked as a counselor to Gonzales and to former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

-John Wood, U.S. attorney in Kansas City, who's the husband of Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Julie Myers and an ex-deputy general counsel of the White House Office of Management and Budget.

-Deborah Rhodes, 47, the U.S. attorney in Mobile, Ala., who was a Justice Department counselor.

-Alexander Acosta, 37, the U.S. attorney in Miami, who was an assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's civil rights division and a protege of conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

-John Richter, 43, the U.S. attorney in Oklahoma City, who was the chief of staff for the Justice Department's criminal division and acting assistant attorney general.

-Edward McNally, the U.S. attorney in southern Illinois, who was a senior associate counsel to President Bush.

-Matt Dummermuth, the U.S. attorney in Iowa, who was a Justice Department civil rights lawyer.

Some of these appointees have drawn praise from local skeptics and later won Senate confirmation for permanent appointments. (, 01.27.2007)
Again, just a partial-list. That's right: Taylor worked under Ashcroft and Gonzales in different capacities. He knows the ropes of policy--and he's right at the heart of the Palfrey case. What's amazing is that he was appointed the day that her case "went into hyper drive" by AG Gonzales. This is a stunning fact, and while it doesn't prove anything conclusive, it's smoke and should be investigated by the Judiciary committees.

There could have been extraordinary reasons--besides 9/11 and terrorism--to create the ability to appoint these interim U.S. Attorneys--damage control on all-fronts, including an already compromised GOP tanking thanks to massive exposure in "Hookergate." Elements of the bureaucracy probably already knew that Palfrey was arranging the purchase of the flat in Germany by August, with some major panic over her wiring-of-funds after September 28th. From Taylor's profile, in toto:
Jeffrey A. Taylor was appointed interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales on September 22, 2006. He was sworn in and took office on September 29, 2006.

From 2002 to 2006, Mr. Taylor served as Counselor to Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Gonzales, where he handled a broad array of matters, including oversight of the Department’s national security, terrorism, and criminal litigation and policy, as well as the operations of the Department’s law enforcement components.

Mr. Taylor served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California from 1995–1999, where he prosecuted a variety of criminal matters, including international drug trafficking organizations. From 1999-2002, Mr. Taylor served as Counsel to the U.S. Senate’s Committee on the Judiciary, working on issues including criminal law, terrorism, and national security.

Mr. Taylor began his legal career as a law clerk to the Honorable John C. Mowbray, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nevada, from 1991–1992, and then worked for three years in private practice. He obtained his Juris Doctor degree from Harvard Law School and his Bachelor of Arts degree from Stanford University. Mr. Taylor, and his wife, Marcia Taylor, are residents of the District of Columbia. (, "Biography of US Attorney")
But what makes Jeffrey A. Taylor a real powder keg, and a truly political appointee? He's the U.S. Attorney for Washington D.C., the man who will have to expedite the subpoenas issued by Senator Patrick Leahy and Rep. John Conyers in the U.S. Attorney firing scandal. This man is going to be at the center of everything after July 9th, you can bet your paycheck on it. He was appointed to put out a lot of fires.

Jeffrey A. Taylor is one of the Bush administration's insurance policies, a brake on the rule of law now that there is no GOP majority in Congress to protect and obstruct for them. They saw the wave coming at the White House. There's a good chance Mr. Taylor will be removed from his job or resign at some point during these hearings and investigations. It's just a matter of when. If he's wise, he'll recuse himself from all of the aforementioned, including Ms. Palfrey's case.

February 14th background on 14 US Attorneys serving without Senate approval:

Jeffrey A. Taylor's DOJ page:


'merica--As part of their deal, Lion's Gate handles the actual distribution of Moore's new documentary, with the Weinstein Company handling promotions. That's great, but someone at both companies decided to hedge-their-bets in case the feds seized the prints and we're only (not) seeing the film on a paltry 400 screens. If you go to Michael Moore's site, it claims the documentary is "everywhere." Well, it isn't, it's in 400 American theaters/screens. I e-mailed Kerasotes theaters chain and got the beef. It all reminded me of when Terry Gilliam's "Brazil" got similar distribution (saw it twice & got a press kit, suckers)--with no wider release as a follow-up. Anyway, the folks at Kerasotes have told J-7 "Sicko" should be in wide release next Friday.

Friday, June 29, 2007


Washington D.C
.--This is becoming very predictable. The pressure within the Bush administration and Justice must be becoming intolerable, with yet another at Justice jumping ship today, just hours ago:
Rachel Brand, the assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Policy, will step down July 9, the department said in a statement. The statement did not give a reason for her departure, but Brand is expecting a baby soon. Brand was a member of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' leadership team. When officials were planning to fire U.S. attorneys in San Diego, San Francisco, Michigan and Arkansas, Brand was named as a possible replacement for Margaret Chiari in Michigan, according to documents released as part of a congressional inquiry. (AP, 06.29.2007)
Is the date she's leaving important? Certainly. There's a very good reason, especially considering her role was in the Office of Legal Policy, and the fact that she's not very qualified to weather the storm coming after July 9th. Brand wisely rejected an offer of a U.S. Attorney post in mid-April, and now she's making even wiser career-moves in her resignation today.

The reason? The Senate and House Judiciary subpoenas into the U.S. Attorney firings and the fallout that will surely be crashing-down on Justice and the Attorney General, the president, the vice president, many of their staff, and Karl Rove:
The veil of secrecy you have attempted to pull over the White House by withholding documents and witnesses is unprecedented and damaging to the tradition of open government by and for the people that has been a hallmark of the republic," Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told [Bush administration legal counsel Fred] Fielding. They gave the White House until July 9 to furnish the factual and legal bases for the executive privilege claim and documentation that President Bush personally signed off on it. Whether or not the White House meets the deadline, "we will take the necessary steps to rule on your privilege claims and appropriately enforce our subpoenas backed by the full force of law," Leahy and Conyers wrote. (AP, 06.29.2007)
No, there's no connection, move along. Rachel Brand would have made an interesting Hester Prynne (I'm not telling which Scarlet letter). Brand has to be leaving over the imminent collapse of the current regime at Justice...and the White House.

On a related note, J-7 has filed an FOIA request with the Department of Justice's Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act staff on the backgrounds of U.S. Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor, Assistant U.S Attorney Catherine K. Connolly, Assistant U.S. Attorney William Rakestraw Cowden, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel P. Butler.

While this writer assumes privacy laws will be invoked, shouldn't we all know the credentials of our nation's prosecutors? Where was the concern over the privacy of all Americans when the Patriot Acts were passed and renewed with even more intrusive amendments? I believe Ms. Palfrey's case features incredible abuses of antiterrorism statutes and violation of her
Fourth Amendment rights--and that's for starters. A recent newsletter from her states:
Nonetheless, what was a languid and seemingly stagnant investigation went into warp mode on September 29, 2006, the day after I wired a little less than $70,000 to my attorney (escrow agent) in Germany, on September 28, 2006, in anticipation of the property purchase. At this stage, I must surmise that the innocuous wire was picked up by the Bush Administration’s ‘Terrorist Finance Tracking Program’ and relayed onto the applicable surveillance agencies, in my case By the following Tuesday, October 3, Postal Agents Joe Clark and Maria E. Couvillon, aka “Joe and Maria” were at my home in Vallejo, CA attempting to gain entry under false pretenses, as potential buyers.
That's incredible speed, to relay such information in such a short-time. They should just tell us at Justice, the IRS, and the USPS what Ms. Palfrey is really being charged with; the transparency would behoove an administration that has very little left to bargain with.

Time is running short for the Bush administration. Ms. Palfrey's case appears to be intimately linked to a number of Bush administration scandals in ways that have yet to be revealed. These revelations are likely to shock Americans to the core, with an attempt at the politicization of much of the federal bureaucracy at the heart of it all.

We might even be able to add another couple agencies to the list of Palfrey accusers [Ed.07.31.2009]-Or would there be another term, like "users"? Perhaps.]: the CIA and the Treasury Department.
The program, run out of the Central Intelligence Agency and overseen by the Treasury Department, "has provided us with a unique and powerful window into the operations of terrorist networks and is, without doubt, a legal and proper use of our authorities," Stuart Levey, an under secretary at the Treasury Department, said in an interview on Thursday. (New York Times, 06.23.2006)
This is the "Terrorist Finance Tracking Program" Palfrey notes in her newsletter. The revelation of this program is just around three-months before Deborah Jeane Palfrey made her wiring of less-than $70,000 USD to her attorney in Germany, and would have to be the reason why there was action in the investigation into her. Did SWIFT and the federal government have any part in monitoring the transaction?

A flurry of post-9/11 statutes have allowed government agencies to share information, and it raises the question of whether several other agencies were tracking Deborah Jeane Palfrey's movements and transactions, then passing-them-along thanks to new antiterror laws. The recent decision by a federal judge to allow the lawsuit against SWIFT to go forward could help answer a lot of questions for a lot of people out here.

So, is it: SWIFT/Treasury/CIA/IRS/Federal Grand Jury/etc. in the information-chain of Palfrey's September 28th wiring of funds? Or is this overarching chain the genesis of her predicament: Unknown accusers/Grand Jury/Justice Department/Treasury/IRS/and the Postal Inspector's Office? It's tantalizing to think what rests in the files of all of these agencies. Wouldn't you like to know? I would.

Rachel Brand bio @'s bio on Rachel Brand & her blatant right-wing credentials:

AP today on the Mexican-standoff over the US Attorney scandal subpoenas:

Thursday, June 28, 2007

Another fact you might want to know about the "DC Madam" case...

Washington D.C
.--There are so many twists-and-turns to this case, and no discovery process at all. We know virtually nothing about the accusers (the confidential informants, more probably "cooperating witnesses," therefore potentially impeachable), investigators, or the prosecutors.
But we know one thing: U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor was appointed by Alberto Gonzales, as are all of his Assistant U.S. Attorneys. [Ed., 09.30.2008--And Taylor was an interim appointment without the approval of the Senate.]

This is the connection to the U.S. Attorney scandal, and all cases populated by his appointments deserve more attention by the Judiciary committees and the public. Shouldn't we know the ages and credentials of federal prosecutors, or are we entering another era where "Star Chambers," unaccountable to public review or scrutiny, can exist again? The soil appears fertile:
3-2.200 Assistant United States Attorneys

Assistant United States Attorneys are appointed by the Attorney General and may be removed by that official. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 542. The Deputy Attorney General exercises the power and authority vested in the Attorney General to take final action in matters pertaining to the employment, separation, and general administration of Assistant United States Attorneys. See

28 C.F.R. Sec. 0.15. Such authority may be, and has been, delegated to the Director, Executive Office for United States Attorneys.

Authority to appoint Assistant United States Attorneys may be, and has been delegated to the Director, Office of Attorney Personnel Management. Authority to effect reprimands, suspensions, and/or removal for Assistant United States Attorneys may be, and has been, delegated to the Director, EOUSA.

Assistants must reside in the district of their appointment, or within 25 miles thereof. These provisions do not apply to an Assistant United States Attorney appointed for the Northern Mariana Islands who at the same time is serving in the same capacity in another district. See U.S.C. Sec. 545(a).

Assistants who are appointed on an interim basis under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 546, and who are not candidates for permanent appointment by the President as the United States Attorney pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 541, shall be offered, upon termination, reemployment to the last permanent position held. Reemployment is subject to all conditions of employment currently applicable to Assistants appointed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 542. Of special note: an Assistant who served as a supervisor before becoming the interim United States Attorney cannot be guaranteed a return to that slot. Supervisory positions are not permanent. Such decisions rest solely with the discretion of the new United States Attorney. That individual is guaranteed only of returning to a permanent AUSA position. (
None of this shields appointments made by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales from political tainting whatsoever, and there is ample smoke regarding other appointments already. This is particularly true of the appointments he made under the hidden provisions in the Patriot Act renewal in 2006 that gave him the power to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys indefinitely, without Senate approval. That is a clear act at politicizing the Justice Department and how our laws are enforced--all thanks to the "do-nothing" former-GOP majority of the 109th Congress.

PS: Assistant U.S. Attorney William R. Cowden's page at Findlaw/Westlaw is missing.

Wednesday, June 27, 2007


Washington D.C.--This is what we all voted for on November 6th, 2006. Not just to end this worthless war, designed to make oil companies, contractors, and all the other sundry war profiteers wealthier, but to end the wrong direction this nation has been headed towards for the last 27 years. Since the Reagan administration, we've seen unprecedented scandals, the rollback of our rights, the exportation of our jobs to countries under tyranny, plummeting wages, scant health coverage, shadow government activities (under Reagan & both Bush administrations, with some smoke during Clinton as well) and illegal wars that are destroying the lives of Americans and foreign nationals (people).

Voter apathy and cynicism in the wake of Watergate (along with rigging the polls & caging-lists after being caught in 1981 and 1986) allowed the GOP to sneak into office. How else were they going to get in, or ever have any majorities? Black Americans aren't so stupid with their interests, so their votes had to be disqualified and/or challenged.

Was it better before Reagan? Well, yes and no. We had a choice during the 1970s to go in the right direction in a number of problem areas, and that was thwarted, primarily by the GOP, but also with the complicity of certain Democratic Representatives and Senators over the years. Lobbyists also did their part, since they outnumber our representatives on Capitol Hill. As this subpoena today illustrates, neither the recommendations nor the legislation proposed and passed by the Church, Rockefeller, and Pike committees did much to curb the Executive branch's abuse of the intelligence community before, during, and after the Nixon years, including the FBI. If the Bush administration will be remembered for anything, it's the politicization of the federal bureaucracy, a cardinal sin in any self-respecting democracy (ahem).
In many respects, they have realized Nixon's own aspirations for Executive power:

The committee wants documents that might shed light on internal squabbles within the administration over the legality of the program, said a congressional official speaking on condition of anonymity because the subpoenas had not been made public. Leahy's committee authorized the subpoenas previously as part of its sweeping investigation into how much influence the White House exerts over the Justice Department and its chief, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The probe, in its sixth month, began with an investigation into whether administration officials ordered the firings of eight federal prosecutors, for political reasons. (AP, 06.27.2007)

Yes, but what of people who were hired for political reasons? As predicted, the US Attorney scandal has opened up a can of worms, a Pandora's box that cannot be closed. Consider that in this context, civil attorney Montgomery Blair Sibley has forwarded his own missive to Sen. Leahy in the Senate and Rep. John Conyers in the House, both in their respective seats as Judiciary chairs.

Was there any squabbling over the case of Deborah Jeane Palfrey? Does it originate from post-9/11 excesses? What caused the creation of the federal grand jury...really? It's possible only Congress will be able to answer most of the questions, but the occasional tidbit leaks out from other contexts. It's likely that "Hookergate" begins with a group of inexperienced new appointees in the Department of Justice, the IRS, and the Postal Inspector's office, possibly a bad-penny case that nobody wanted. But then there's the phone list that District Court Judge and assistant U.S. Attorney Cowden want suppressed. There are some commonalities that could be connected to the U.S. Attorney scandal that appear to be the inversion--individuals hired because of their affiliations with the GOP, and maybe even an evangelical one like Monica Goodling. What's clear is that Randall L. Tobias is no longer working for the Bush administration, another Bush appointee sunk. Then there's Paul Wolfowitz...

While this site hasn't yet been able to confirm the ages of the investigators in Palfrey's case yet, it's telling that many of them could be in their late-twenties or early-thirties--when most people in the bureaucracy are still working at reaching such lofty positions. Appointees of the Bush administration are everywhere these days in the federal government, reaching into the several-hundreds, peppering our bureaucracies, courts, and even in law enforcement positions. This subpoena is just a beginning, and perhaps we can get a real "discovery" process going in the warrantless surveillance, U.S. Attorney, and "Hookergate" scandals very soon. They may very well be one unified, overarching scandal. Still think the Iranian hostage crisis amounted to much? I'm sure you do.

AP today on the belated subpoenas:

Tuesday, June 26, 2007


Langley, Virginia--Very odd, the AP story is saying there are "693 pages," yet the National Security Archive stated 663--what's the story? Perhaps they're including the minutes of the meetings in the Ford administration as well, which gives some good context on them. Why not release more on former-CIA Director Schlesinger's reactions upon reading them? How about some more context? They should have shuttered the place back in 75.'




1629 K Street, Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006

202-478-0371 (E-FAX)

June 26, 2007

Via Fax (202) 224-9516
Honorable Patrick Leahy
Att: Kristine Lucius
Chair, Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510 ...

Via Fax 202-225-7680
Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Chair, Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives
2138 Rayburn House Off ice Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Deborah Jeane Palfrey, a/k/a “The D.C. Madam” & The Civil Asset
Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000

Greetings: I write to advise your committees of the flagrant disregard by federal Judge Gladys Kessler, and the D.C. District Court of Appeals of Public Law No: 106-185, which is popularly known as the “Civil Asset Reform Act of 2000” and is codified at 18 U.S.C. §983 et seq. In particular, by enacting 18 U.S.C. §983(f) “Release Of Seized Property”, Congress imposed upon a district court a duty – within 30 days of a motion to return property – to determine if a claimant’s seized property should be “immediately” returned to her.

In Jeane’s case, on October 4, 2006, all of her real and personal property was seized by the U.S. Government upon the allegations of a confidential informant. On November 24, 2006, she made a motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §983(f), demanding return of her seized property thereby triggering the Congressionally-imposed thirty (30) day deadline for Judge Kessler to resolve that motion. Remarkably, Judge Kessler denied as moot Jeane's motion to return property on January 8, 2007, apparently relying upon her standing order which rendered all motions moot whenever an amended complaint is filed.

Jeane promptly moved on January 10, 2007, to vacate the January 8, 2007, order as violating the Rules Enabling Act. Additionally, having received no response to the January 10th motion, Jeane filed a second motion to return property on February 27, 2007. To date, two hundred days (200) later, Judge Kessler has not ruled on the two motions to return property and has now stayed Jeane’s forfeiture matter for six (6) months.

Honorable Patrick Leahy
Honorable John Conyers, Jr. June 26, 2007

Page 2

When Jeane sought to appeal this failure of Judge Kessler to resolve the motion to return property as §983(f) contemplates, Judge Kessler held: “[Jeane] also makes a curious argument that ‘the Court does not have jurisdiction to refuse to rule on claimant’s pending motion [to return property].’ All that can be said of this argument is that it is wrong. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction and jurisdiction over the parties; of course it has jurisdiction to enter a stay of all proceedings in the case.” In other words, Judge Kessler has decided that she can ignore §983(f)’s thirty (30) day requirement as Congress’ expression of a right contained in §983(f) is nothing more than aspirational to her.

Additionally, seeking relief from Judge Kessler blatant refusal to rule as Congress has determined appropriate by enacting the thirty (30) day ruling requirement, Jeane sought relief from the D.C. Court of Appeals on April 9, 2007. To date, the Court has refused to rule upon Jeane’s petition. Finally, yesterday the United States Supreme Court refused to address this ignoring of the statute in their Case No.: 06A1110.

As a consequence, Jeane – who property was seized last October solely upon the allegations of unidentified confidential informants – has been rendered indigent, and declared such by the district court. While she now as very competent counsel appointed to represent her in her criminal matter, she still is at the mercy of Judge Kessler for disbursements to pursue her defense, rather than have her own assets available to that end.

Simply stated, Jeane’s case highlights the continued overreaching by the Department of Justice with the complicity of the Article III actors to permit the use of the civil forfeiture process to deny basic due process rights to citizens. Such concern caused your Committees and then Congress seven years ago to address this problem with legislation including §983(f).

Yet now, Jeane’s property has been seized for over seven months without the requisite review of the propriety of such a seizure.As an attorney who practices extensively in the civil forfeiture arena, I can state that Jeane’s predicament is not unusual. Accordingly, your Committees must revisit whether CAFRA is achieving the goals it was meant to reach, or whether it is simply a set of rights without a remedy, as Jeane’s case patently demonstrates.

I am of course available to answer any questions or concerns regarding this aspect – or any other aspect of Jeane’s case. signed, [Montgomery Blair Sibley]


If one takes a closer look at the counter, you'll also see that someone at the Senate
has visited in the last couple hours (didn't stay long). That was a long read. One has to ask if it was U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor or one of his assistants...

Domain Name ? (U.S. Government)

IP Address 149.101.1.#
(US Dept of Justice)

US Dept of Justice...

Continent: North America

Country: United States (Facts)

State: Maryland

City: Potomac

Lat/Long: 39.023, -77.1993

Language English (U.S.) en-us

Operating System Microsoft
Internet Explorer 6.0Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; DI60SP1001)
version 1.3
Monitor Resolution: 1024 x 768

Color Depth : 16 bits

Time of Visit
Jun 26 2007 11:22:22 pm
Last Page View
Jun 26 2007 11:32:17 pm
Visit Length
9 minutes 55 seconds

Out Click

Time Zone
Visitor's Time
Jun 26 2007 11:22:22 am
Visit Number

Monday, June 25, 2007


J-7--Today's newsletter from Ms. Palfrey has brought information on a setback in her case. Perhaps Justice Thomas's willingness to hear the motion was another CYA affair to hide some of his own partisanship (it didn't work). No, I don't think he covered himself, Scalia or even Roberts very well:
The United States Supreme Court denied my motion (Case #06A1110) to stay the criminal proceeding and return my case to the civil courts, this morning. The motion before the Supreme Court involved a time sensitive Congressional mandate, which clearly states that individuals who have had their property seized via the civil asset forfeiture process – as I have - are to receive a hearing within 30 days, once such a motion is made. In my situation, the motion was submitted twice to the lower District Court and ignored twice by the presiding judge, Judge Gladys Kessler. I now have gone well over 200 days, since last fall without any due process in the matter.

Based upon this morning’s decision, my civil attorney, Mr. Montgomery B. Sibley will be contacting post haste Senator Patrick Lehey, Chairperson of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
[Ed.-my emphasis]
The game is to keep the game going for as long as possible [Ed., 07.03.2008--particularly in Palfrey's case, but the govt. also had motives in this direction.] This all has the (ear)marks of the Bush administration's attempts at subjugating the federal bureaucracy in the aftermath of September 11th, 2001. It appears all those anti-terrorism laws have allowed for unparalleled excesses and corruption.

Part of controlling the bureaucracy--obviously--is
to remove "disloyal" elements, replacing them with one's own adherents. One could call it "seeding" the organs of government with your own agents (of change--thanks Regents!).

All roads appear to lead to Rome (the Bush administration). It's time that "journalists," bloggers, citizen journalists, and all interested media start asking Edward T. Norris and Thomas DiBiagio (the first U.S. Attorney fired in the ongoing-scandal) about what they think their place in all of this is. Ignore this at your peril.

This newest development can also be read @:

Postscript, 07.03.2008: Ultimately, the client and counsel would subpoena Sen. Leahy, a nutty move that was discouraged by myself and others. It would prove to be a disastrous approach that yielded nothing and cut-off any potential for redress from the legislative branch.


Site Meter
--I try to encourage my readers to view the details on our counter on-occasion, it's frequently an eye-popping affair: we've had the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate's office, several congressional offices, the Department of Education, the Department of Justice--you-name-it, they've been here, and probably even the CIA.

Hey, people get bored. Here's the one from the Social Security Baltimore.

Domain Name (Unknown)
IP Address
199.173.226.# (Social Security Administration)
UUNET Technologies

Continent: North America
Country: United States (Facts)
State: Maryland
City: Baltimore
Lat/Long: 39.2847, -76.6205 (Map)
Language English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System
Internet Explorer 6.0Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; IE6SP1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)

Time of Visit
Jun 25 2007 9:24:38 pm

Last Page View
Jun 25 2007 9:28:01 pm

Visit Length
3 minutes 23 seconds

Page Views
Referring URL,%20"dc%20madam"/

Search Engine

Search Words
"ed norris", "dc madam"
Out Click
Time Zone
Visitor's Time
Jun 25 2007 9:24:38 am
Visit Number

Sunday, June 24, 2007

If.... (1968) review

"If...." has to be one of my favorite films. Words do not describe the power of this movie to provoke, and its images stay with you for life. This is what Lindsay Anderson wanted--from us--the audience. I will try not to repeat BFI's incredible text on this film, it really does nail what the film is about, and how
and why it was made. Give it a read, it has a lot to offer.

As specific as the setting of this movie is, there is a universality to it that renders it eternal. This wasn't necessarily intentional. There are so few films that are this pure, and "If...." illustrates how unique the 1960s-1970s were for directors. It was a time when aspiring directors had an open window to leave their mark in ways they hadn't been able to since the 1920s. One can only hope that similar artistic freedoms are waiting around the corner....

Of course, the obvious parallel in life for this film--in 20/20 hindsight--would be the Columbine Massacre in Colorado, or even the events at Virginia Tech, but "If...." is a strange bird of a specific English context (though its themes of hierarchy and repression are universal). Nearly every Englishman I have ever met or spoken with confirms that Anderson basically nailed it, and that this is a pretty close portrayal of the public schools in Britain (which are anything but, they're private places where the leaders of tomorrow are traumatized into their current behaviors). It's the "English disease," but who said they're the only ones confronting the crisis of hierarchy?

Again, arbitrary pecking-orders are universal, which explains the wide acclaim for the film. It's very basic presentation of oppression and the inevitable reaction it creates in any era. It's realism and surrealism is sometimes expressed in the use of both black and white and color, making for a very dreamy experience.

One could be forgiven in thinking this film is social realism, and in many respects it is. However, there are many scenes where Anderson slips into pure fantasy--such as the ending--but these approaches are a part of cinema, and they are thematic. "If...." is rife with symbolism. This must have been one of the first British films to deal point-blank with homosexuality in-general, but "If...." is multi-faceted. Like Pasolini, Anderson was gay, and he makes some interesting observations about homosexual behavior (not necessarily homosexuals) that echo Pier Paolo's in "Salo"--that sex of any kind can become the inverse of liberation in the wrong hands.

Surely, this is an early postmodernist film in its ambiguity towards the rebels lead by Mick Travis (the "Crusaders," led by Malcolm MacDowell) and their oppressors (the "Whips" and the Headmaster, instructors, etc.) in the pecking-order of the English boarding school system. In a regular film, by a regular filmmaker, we the viewers would be prone to invest our loyalties squarely with Mick and his Crusaders. That is, "If...." it were merely a pandering to the radical left of its time, we probably wouldn't be interested in it today at all. Of interest is the fact that "the Whips" appear to be the real power at the school, not the adults, who appear to have abdicated their authority and power to them out of convenience. Was "If..." typical of its time?

There are countless films from the 1960s-70s that did this, and they aren't part of the public mind for a good reason: they were too topical, often too much of their time, and they aren't very good. Anderson never cops-out in this film, and offers no pat explanations. His film truly is "epic" in its thematic scope of the eternal human yearning for liberty, and also a big step for gay cinema in the UK, possibly a first in its depictions of homosexual relationships. It's also a great poetic work of cinema, and one of the greatest British films ever made.

The title of the film has perplexed a lot of people over the years, and is a reference to the Kipling poem of the same name ("If-"). "In the end, they all sign-on," states the protagonist of Derek Jarman's "Jubilee" (1977). Indeed, the ending of "If...." confirms that to violently-rebel (armed only with guns, an iconography and empty-slogans) is to become what one once condemned. This is no crass emulation of the student uprisings of May, 1968.

It is a Nietzschean parable, rife with existential angst, and so much more. Anderson's "crusaders" are not very different from their tormentors, and, as strange as it may seem, there was a similar uprising at the Tonbridge School in 19th century Kent. Kipling even wrote indirectly of the event, and so the tale is closer to reality than one might think.

The real public school "rebels" went on to become vanguards of the British Empire, underscoring how rebellion is often more than it seems. Often, it's merely a "will to power." Thematically--and in his own experiences--the context of "If...." was a subject close to Lindsay Anderson's own life and his heart. Other than Ken Russell and Michael Powell
, I cannot imagine a better British director.

See it, if you can! has written that the new Criterion edition is likely the best we'll ever see in the digital domain. Note: "If...."(1968), "O Lucky Man!" (1973) and "Britannia Hospital" (1982) are sometimes known as the "Mick Travis Trilogy." This came about because of the collaboration between McDowell and Anderson, and stands as one of the most important series of British films ever made. It should also be noted that Stanley Kubrick hired Malcolm McDowell on the basis of his performance in "If..." for his role as Alex in "A Clockwork Orange" (1971-72, due to a re-release and cuts over an initial X-rating).

After the student uprisings of May 1968, and the Chicago Democratic National Convention in August, the Tet offensive, the assassinations, the riots, the demonstrations, the divisions, the December release of this film in that explosive year must have been a real bombshell to Western audiences (and it definitely was in the UK). Adults should wish to be so scandalized again. This is the violence inherent in the system, expressed by a conservative. A movie can change one's life. Lindsay Anderson converted his dreams into celluloid.


Washington D.C.--Yes, they'll try to fiddle with them some more, but it's getting into the area of diminishing returns. You can only hide objective truth for so long, and the end of the road is approaching. But will it be this administration being driven from office, or will Congress continue to allow him to keep committing crimes until January of 2009? If they do, they have no political future whatsoever. 26% is Nixon territory, and it's lower than that of Jimmy Carter during the Iran hostage crisis. There isn't much to add after that, and Truman-levels of disapproval are imminent.

Saturday, June 23, 2007


pre·empt [prE-'em(p)t]

Function: verb ...

Etymology: back-formation from preemption
[;] transitive verb

1 : to acquire (as land) by preemption
2 : to seize upon to the exclusion of others : take for oneself
3 : to replace with something considered to be of greater value or priority : take precedence over (

Fox News--You knew it just had to be too good to be true: Geraldo (Jerry Rivers, that guy who was fired from 20/20--not mad dog)was to do a segment with Deborah Jeane Palfrey at 8PM Eastern tonight, but there was a breakthrough in the case of the missing Jessie Davis. J-7 extends condolences to the Davis family and everyone affected in Canton, Ohio, this is a horrible day.

All that said, I knew when I learned of the piece that it could never run tonight (don't ask me how, but I do watch David Cronenberg films a lot)--and they must be breathing easier at Fox, I couldn't understand why they of all news networks would want to run an interview on a scandal that appears to be heavily-populated with members of the GOP. [Ed., 06.24.2007--I'm beginning to see the light on this--cover your ass, or "CYA"]

You know, people known to Roger Aisles. It wouldn't surprise me if he made the call to yank everything else. There wasn't even a mention during the program of what was preempted, which was interesting.

This is not to take away from the suffering, the confusion, the anger, or the sense-of-hopelessness that must be pervasive in Canton right now, this is a horrible event. But to run the same footage of her body being wheeled-out from its dumping-ground--over-and-over--after the family of Jessie Davis asked Fox News to stop running this specific imagery, is unconscionable.

It also throws-into-question their preempting of the Palfrey interview (with her civil attorney Montgomery Blair Sibley), and why they would schedule it at all. Then there's the people who ignore me--Rawstory. Here's part of what I got in the e-mail announcing the Fox broadcast that might
yet drop:
Additionally, Mr. Sibley and I will be guests on “Geraldo”, Saturday, June 23rd. The interview will be my first in a nationwide setting, since the 20/20 piece aired on May 4th. I hope to discuss my displeasure with the ABC broadcast and why I believe the network held back names at the last moment. I hope to announce my decision to distribute the phone records (all years 1993 to 2006) to as many responsible media, press and bloggers as possible, once the current injunction prohibiting me from releasing the invoices is lifted [Ed.-my emphasis. This is where I think Rawstory's headline is misleading. 'If an eye offends thee...']– and my reasons for doing so. Furthermore, it is Mr. Sibley and my hope we will be able talk about the fact that the Government, with the intentioned/unintentional assistance of the Courts has been able to seize and hold my property for 9 months now, without a hearing on the matter.
Instead, we get a full 2hrs. of the same aspects of the murder of Jessie Davis in excruciating monotony, with the original program "thrown into the air." All for ratings. It's a sad statement on where American journalism is...or rather, where it isn't: where the real ones that have genuine national implications stories are. Oddly, Rawstory didn't include the article by myself that was enclosed by Jeane in the newsletter.

It's OK, I still recommend them and will continue to read their very informative journalism, and their great site. They're doing good work as far as I'm concerned. Nonetheless, they might check into some of the observations I made in the article here on Ed Norris, and it's just the beginning. Again, if anyone wants Postal Inspector Joe Clark's home phone number, it's here for-the-asking, laddies.

The motives were ratings, and that's fine if you're doing entertainment, but it becomes unseemly when you start chasing stories like the Davis ambulance to a point where it's just whiting-out everything else. Somehow, some way...I knew the interview couldn't run. I just hope it was taped and that Fox News can finally run it. If they never do, we know they may have never had any intentions, which is very curious. Oh yeah, a few-days-ago 17 American soldiers were killed in Iraq, then 7 just today, nothing special. Especially all the Afghani and Iraqis who have been killed by-the-dozens.

If only we had an Oracle of Delphi for our times...but missing white girls are all that matter, not runaways, prostitutes, Black women and children, Black men, the uninsured, Native Americans on the reservations, the unemployed, the homeless, our soldiers, our liberties, nada. Geraldo did have on a nice pin-striped suit, however, he looked sharp, even svelte. Where is the wisdom?

--those folks who like to ignore me--headline appeared a little misleading, as I also received the same e-mail they did, and I didn't notice much about the "DC madam says she may announce decision to distribute phone records." It makes you think that Jeane Palfrey would do it without an end to the injunction on her phone records, which isn't likely. To be fair and balanced, we'll just have to wait-and-see. Death to Videodrome, long live the new flesh.

Rawstory's take before the broadcast that didn't happen (watch them ignore me, it's amusing and at our mutual expense now! Hilarity ensues!):

Addendum: I'm told by sources that the show's producers (of the segment, which also wasn't so exciting) will be airing it tomorrow, and that "I'm sorry this came from above so we will put the interview as is on our show tomorrow. Again I'm sorry this was beyond our control but it will air tomorrow night at 8pm." Goodnight Gracie.

Friday, June 22, 2007


"It is [the] CIA’s history."
--Standing CIA Director, Michael Hayden

Langley, Virginia--Except that it's everyone's history too, it's not isolated to just the CIA when you affect the lives of millions. That's human history, and American history. This is pretty big news, but of course the release of this is pretty belated. The public learned about the existence of this dossier compiled by then CIA director James Schlesinger in 1973 (initiated by a May 9th memo), then suppressed by the late-William Colby and the Ford administration (you know, that "nice" old-guy who died last year--still dead, incidentally) in 1975, in-part for partisan reasons. The conventional wisdom is that Schlesinger's probe was in-response to Watergate, but one should remember there were many other revelations and outings that prompted such alarm with the bureaucracies of the intelligence community.

One of the most-significant is the 1971 break-in by unknown activists at Media, Pennsylvania of an FBI field office. For weeks, they leaked documents pertaining to the FBI's illegal domestic "counterintelligence programs" that spied on nearly every group in the country at that time (even Boy Scout dens and PTA boards). So,what's in these "Family Jewels"? We're getting some hints already, but most of them are already well-known.

Many appear to be operations that we've all read about (part of the popular culture), but now we'll have the confirmations on, like all the assassination attempts on Fidel Castro, the Bay of Pigs, spying on journalists like Jack Anderson (it didn't help them much, small wonder 9/11 happened), operations in Iran, Latin America, torture, murder, violent interrogations, illegal renditions, counterintelligence ops against the Soviets (and American citizens), spying on antiwar groups illegally during the Vietnam conflict, illegal domestic surveillance...wait, this has happened before? Aw, this is the nicer, cuddlier CIA, they've changed (not really)! They'll tell you so.

Much of the decades-old activities have been known for years. But Tom Blanton, head of the National Security Archive, said the 1975 summary memo prepared by Justice Department lawyers had never been publicly released. It sheds light on meetings in the top echelon of government that were little known by the public, he said. CIA Director Michael Hayden called the documents being released next week unflattering, but he added that "it is CIA's history." "The documents provide a glimpse of a very different time and a very different agency," Hayden told a conference of historians. Blanton pointed to more recent concerns, such as post-September 11 programs that included government wiretapping without warrants. "The resonance with today's controversies is just uncanny," he said. (Sidney Morning Herald/AP, 06.22.2007)

Of course it has, and it's continued into today. It appears the trail ends in 1973, with no-additions, just the dossier. Schlesinger wanted it compiled--ostensibly--for a listing of all the illegal operations conducted by the CIA since the mid-1950s. Frankly, the release of these records couldn't be more timely. They underscore the continuity of illegal practices by American intelligence agencies at-the-behest of the Executive branch, and the dossier will likely end a number of political myths, if not causing serious harm to them.

Oh, and by-the-way, Dick Cheney served in the Ford administration as Deputy Assistant to President Ford. Where does he fit-in here? He surely bore witness to most of the conversations or the themes discussed in them in the Oval Office at that time. It should be noted that Donald Rumsfeld advised Cheney not to write-down any opinions given to the president, a practice he has certainly continued into the present.Then CIA Director William Colby gave this list of illegalities to President Ford, that really "nice" guy who saved us from "division" and strife in-the-aftermath of Watergate and sundry other scandals and criminality under Nixon. The next man to be CIA Director was George H.W. Bush. It was all to cover themselves and preserve the GOP and the Executive's abilities to continue said activities. The list:

1. Confinement of a Russian defector that "might be regarded as a violation of the kidnapping laws."

2. Wiretapping of two syndicated columnists, Robert Allen and Paul Scott.

3. Physical surveillance of muckraker Jack Anderson and his associates, including current Fox News anchor Brit Hume.

4. Physical surveillance of then Washington Post reporter Michael Getler.

5. Break-in at the home of a former CIA employee [Ed.-My money is on Philip Agee, so pay-up].

6. Break-in at the office of a former defector.

7. Warrantless entry into the apartment of a former CIA employee.

8. Mail opening from 1953 to 1973 of letters to and from the Soviet Union.

9. Mail opening from 1969 to 1972 of letters to and from China.

10. Behavior modification experiments on "unwitting" U.S. citizens.

11. Assassination plots against Castro, Lumumba, and Trujillo (on the latter, "no active part" but a "faint connection" to the killers).

12. Surveillance of dissident groups between 1967 and 1971.

13. Surveillance of a particular Latin American female and U.S. citizens in Detroit.

14. Surveillance of a CIA critic and former officer, Victor Marchetti.

15. Amassing of files on 9,900-plus Americans related to the antiwar movement.

16. Polygraph experiments with the San Mateo, California, sheriff.

17. Fake CIA identification documents that might violate state laws.

18. Testing of electronic equipment on US telephone circuits. (National Security Archive, 06.21.2007)

The fact is, all presidential administrations utilize these illegal activities for their peculiar ends, and the ends of the highest unaccountable powers in our society. These are just the expediters, the CIA, and all her sundry relations in our intelligence community. Expect Congress--both parties--to do very little in curbing these activities. The Church Committee proves this assertion, since it's obvious they didn't end or solve most of these excess, which is putting-it-mildly. It's time to reduce the CIA to what it originally began as: an agency that gathers information, and nothing more. "The Family Jewels" will only confirm what most have suspected in this country all along. Hey, at least most all of the guilty parties are safely dead--except Henry Kissinger, so how about arresting him? He must have powerful all kind of sounds like terrorism, doesn't it?

The Guardian today on "The Family Jewels":,,2109335,00.html

AP today:

The 1975 six-page summary of the CIA's illegal activities:

The "Family Jewels" homepage where the documents will be posted next week:


Indiana's 2nd Congressional District/South Bend/Michiana--Joe, you're beginning to disappoint me, and so are the rest of the now not-so-new Democratic majority. Sure, you have greats like Dennis Kucinich, Patrick Leahy...not so many greats in the House, it seems. It was great that you voted to raise the minimum-wage, but why stop at $7.25 hr. ? You cannot live on that wage, it's criminal. Also, you seem confused over whether we should leave Iraq or not, and some of what you say reminds me of Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman--you just oppose the execution of the war, not the fact that it was patently illegal on any basis, equivalent to the German invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939.

Anyway, I shook your hand last year at the Cinco de Mayo fair (not so great this year, sadly), and hoped you would truly try to end this administration's death-grip on this country, but you appear afraid to. My question is: why? You are ensuring that you will lose in 2008, and you are ignoring the mandate of the American people--and most importantly--we, your direct constituents. Yes, we're happy about a number of bills you've supported, but you're completely wrong about impeaching Vice President Richard Cheney. You wrote me back in-reply to :

As Americans, we rightfully hold our government officials to high standards, and we deserve nothing less than dedicated and honorable public servants who put the best interests of the American people first. That is why I-like millions of Americans-was deeply concerned to learn that key pre-war intelligence used to justify our invasion of Iraq was inaccurate and not properly substantiated. Some believe that such questionable actions and other mistakes by the Bush Administration warrant the impeachment of Vice President Cheney or other government officials.

In response, Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio introduced H.Res. 333. If passed by the House of Representatives, this bill would begin impeachment proceedings against the vice president. H.Res. 333 is currently pending before the House Committee on the Judiciary.

While I share your concern that these mistakes have damaged the credibility of the current administration at home as well as the standing of the United States abroad, I believe impeaching the vice president would not be in the best interest of our country. Impeachment proceedings would divide Americans at a time when cooperation is crucial to solving our most pressing problems. However, as your representative, I will work to ensure that Congress performs its constitutional duty as a check on the executive branch, including investigating any alleged illegal activities by the federal government and its officials.

Hey Joe: we're not divided on the war, and we want to see real investigations. You're talking in a loop, and you're insulting my/our intelligence. Perhaps you want to help sink the Bush administration via criminal-proceedings, and I can understand any reluctance to just say it. The problem is, the longer the Bush administration remains-in-office, the more imperiled all of us are.

Are you baiting-and-switching for them, buying them time? You give the appearance that you want to keep the vice president in office. Why is that? Do you support an invasion of, or attacks on Iran? I don't know about you Joe, I really don't. Your positions on illegal immigration and punishing businesses who employ them illegally (thus blackmailing them into slave-wages, and undermining the bargaining-rights of American workers. Many factories in Elkhart employ such practices).

Why do you desire our scorn? At least Chocola made it to two-terms, but you're looking like someone destined for one. Look at the popularity of Congress and the president, Joe--approval ratings are in the twenties for both, which suggests that the public is lumping you with the Bush administration and a corrupt GOP. You aren't doing your job in nearly a timely enough manner, and you had better start changing now.

Yours-in-Christ, Matt Janovic

P.S.: You should know that Cinco de Mayo celebrates the famous battle between the French and a traitorous Mexican military force of 8,000 at Puebla, Mexico on May 5th, 1862. The Spanish and the English were involved as well, supplying troops. Our own General Philip Sheridan supplied rebel forces with ammunition and the weapons they needed. American soliders were even allowed to join the newly-reformed Mexican army to aid in Mexican independence against imperialist forces. Why do you support our own horrible acts of imperialism, Joe?