Washington D.C.--Just two-days-ago, Judge Gladys Kessler ruled against Deborah Jeane Palfrey's several motions to dismiss racketeering charges (which would have cancelled any chance of a criminal trial) based-on government misconduct and the unconstitutional application of local prostitution laws, as well as a request of more "particulars" in the evidence the prosecution contends it has against her.
Also denied was the contention by the defendant that she was the victim of "selective prosecution"--Kessler stated in the ruling that the defendant "provided no evidence" to this claim. Meanwhile, literally hundreds of escort services operate unmolested in the D.C. area at the writing of this piece. Palfrey's civil attorney, Montgomery Blair Sibley had this to say about the rulings: The limited information that the Judge did order be turned over to Jeane reflects how un-level the playing field is that has been created by the DOJ-controlled Congress that passes any procedural rule DOJ suggests. Here, 11 months after seizing her property, Jeane has yet to receive the names of those who accuse her, let alone the sum and substance of their testimony. (correspondence with the author)
On the same day of the ruling, it appears that the DOJ leaked a tiny-morsel for an over-credulous press to seize-on (they did this in October and December of 2006 by providing http://www.thesmokinggun.com/ affidavits and other edited-samples of e-mail correspondence). This is standard procedure at DOJ, and especially at the FBI. It could very well be their fingerprints in the case, though it appears there is no participation by the Bureau (or that it's submerged).
The prosecution isn't telling anyone anything, not even the defendant. This should concern anyone who values our system of due process, and how it has eroded over time. Now, the appearance of guilt is enough, without the prosecution being required to provide adequate proof before a trial. The fact underscores the true relevance of the case: how awry the federal judicial process has gone in-favor of the government's prosecutorial powers (never mind the phone list). The recent e-mail(s): somebody at the DOJ leaked these heavily-edited tidbits. What's interesting is that while Jeffrey A. Taylor (D.C.'s U.S. attorney, providing obstruction for contempt charges in another high-profile case) is invoking "secrecy rules" through spokespeople when queried about the identities of Palfrey's accusers, he also allowed the leaking of information meant to damage Palfrey's standing as a defendant. This is highly improper behavior by the prosecution in any case, but that's the climate within our federal justice system, courtesy of an impaired and compromised Congress. For those in the press who don't understand, the foundation of our legal system is "innocent until proven guilty." Yet, WTOP appears to have taken-the-bait, just as The Smoking Gun did last year. Maybe they all want to believe so badly--a priori--that Ms. Palfrey is guilty, at least at TSG. This is the primary e-mail excerpt, and it echoes the vagueness of the ones published at The Smoking Gun last year: "Why did you do this to me? I never did anything to you." Did what? WTOP alleges it was sent to the former Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld legal secretary, "Jennifer." Another excerpt--again without much solid context--continues with, "It is plain 'foolish' to take a perfectly viable revenue stream (of any kind) and just throw it away, without solid justification." And...?
One might imagine that the prosecution isn't holding many cards--just women who want their liberty back in return for testimony against Ms. Palfrey. So far, that's the appearance from outside the prosecution's tent. They might consider that their cooperating witnesses could turn-on-them if the trial goes south. [Ed.-- Ms. Palfrey informs me that the statements made by "Jennifer's" attorney that his client never engaged in prostitution "...has created a legal opportunity for me to obtain heretofore unattainable information." Perhaps WTOP's Neal Augenstein isn't buying the prosecution's line after all, he and his editor published the comment, or we wouldn't even know about it!]
As we all know, you can get a lot out one-or-two-sentences with no context...unless one wants so badly to believe the worst. That's an a priori assumption, and it could be directed at the members of the federal grand jury, the people who will do the real deciding on this whole affair. But what's especially leading about the WTOP article is the headline: "E-Mails Expose Inner Workings of Palfrey's Escort Service." Do they? They're extremely vague and short-excerpts. The bulk of the article focuses on "Jennifer." Her attorney claims that she's not being pressured by the prosecution to testify, which could be true, but it appears she could be testifying against Palfrey.
If she's not being pressured as a "cooperating witness," it would likely make her one-of-the-few in this case. What should be reported is how little the government has to prove in virtually any case against an American citizen. Jennifer's motives? She could be angry she lost her job at Akin, Gump... , but it's doubtful a credulous press will be asking those questions. Even if they do, there's always an Editor over their shoulder, which we can assume is probably where the headline came from.
Revised 08.19.2007
J-7--In case you don't know already (see articles below), the law firm mentioned in the title of this piece is the one that employed the legal secretary who worked for D.C. madame, Deborah Jeane Palfrey. Hookergate is growing, and it doesn't appear anyone with the connections is willing to quash the investigations into her escort business that worked Washington D.C. from 1993 to August of 2006.
That covers the entirety of the GOP's hold on Congress, and we can see they wasted no time in getting-laid once they were in-power in 1994. Funny, they promised to clean Washington up, as though they weren't "insiders" themselves.
Question: did Ms. Palfrey's service extend to Bohemian Grove? She was headquartered in California, and I grant that I'm begging-the-question, but they created Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan there. Oh sure, they existed before that, just not as the cuddly-fellas we got to know later. Akin, Gump, ... must be very-very concerned about the Palfrey scandal, because they read my blog for 26 minutes, then later for about 5 minutes. It almost appears that they had a legal secretary (!) doing the blog-searches, then had one of the attorneys looking at my blog to confirm they read what they thought they read.
But Akin, Gump... aren't alone: I'm getting hits from the Naval Academy, Harvard (the Gonzales 82' reunion), congressional aides in the House and Senate, and I think even Mr. Randall Tobias' people are skimming the blogs. They should, since the media is no-longer a monologue and cultural and perception management is going to be very-very difficult these days.
It's interesting looking at the site meter, you can see what's really going on out there in web. China must have millions of web-bots searching for sites to ban access to, and I get a lot of hits from Turkey as well. Very interesting.
"Not God but a swastika, So black no sky could squeak through. Every woman adores a Fascist. The boot in the face, the brute, brute heart of a brute like you." --Sylvia Plath, "Daddy." From "Ariel", 1966.Washington D.C.--It's beginning to look like Christmas in May. Beginning Friday, we're going to see Deborah Jeane Palfrey month, starting at ABC. Tony Blair is leaving office this month. Also, a 20/20 segment has already been taped with Palfrey's interview--and more names of clients who used her prostitution service.
Now, more of these "Johns" are coming forward through their attorneys to quash them being named. Some, it is being reported, are offering Ms. Palfrey out of court deals and inducements. We can only guess what they would be. If they don't include immunity from prosecution or funds for her defense, she isn't going to be interested.Ms. Palfrey is a petite lady, and we all know what that means: hot-blooded, vindictive, with a knife gripped in her teeth. Big girls are friendlier. The unidentified John's attorney--Steven Salky--must have a lot to lose. One has to wonder if he's another Bush administration member, or if he is a she. Any hints at their identity are to be regarded as suspect. Forget the glass-ceiling...this is the ass-ceiling.One thing we do know is that there were many-many members of the Pentagon's officer class involved. A multi-part series on the scandal can be expected from ABC, based on the scope of the scandal. The Washington Post is reporting today that Palfrey's lawyer Montgomery Blair Sibley has estimated (before his replacement) 1,000 former-clients have been identified, with five to ten of them being slated to be "publicly identified" soon:ABC News spokesman Jeffrey W. Schneider said yesterday that such estimates are premature. Although the program is being promoted with excerpts on ABC's Web site, he said "20/20" has not finished its reporting. "I don't think anybody can tell you what we're going to do," Schneider said. He declined to comment on how ABC will determine whom to name, but he said it typically would consider the public interest and possible hypocrisy by public officials. (Washington Post, 05.03.2007)
It doesn't appear that there are any solid inducements coming from Palfrey's former clients, or any testimony from many of them that her business was legitimate--unless you count Randall Tobias who resigned from his State Department post last Friday.
His example is probably the reason why Deborah Jeane Palfrey is only being contacted through attorneys, but the D.C. madame illustrates a good understanding of the law. She should, she has a Bachelor's in pre-law and a nine month paralegal certification. She's done her homework on this, and she's not the type to go down quietly. Somehow, we all knew the GOP's reign would end like this, but that's because its all happened before in other eras. Human venality is timeless and unalterable. There are only so many ways to be corrupt. Knowing this, Palfrey kept a staggering 46 pounds of phone records, which she has put in the custody of ABC so as to avoid a court injunction against her releasing them. ABC gets the scoop while she gets the satisfaction of releasing the names anyway.
It's all her gambit to save herself by pressuring the former-clients into coming to her assistance. Palfrey's former lawyer--Sibley--has also alleged that a current-or-former-Naval Academy Instructor was an employee of the madame. Another one caught this writer's attention, but there are no specifics whether they are a standing Bush administration economist, or a former one: ABC plans to air a report about Palfrey on Friday night on its “20/20” newsmagazine. The network has said that the list of Palfrey’s customers also includes a Bush administration economist [Ed.-my emphasis], a prominent chief executive officer, the head of a conservative think tank, lobbyists and military officials. Also, Randall Tobias resigned last week from a senior State Department post after ABC confronted him about his use of the service. Tobias confirmed to ABC that he used the service but denied that he had sex with the escorts. (AP, 05.03.2007)
If the individual named as "A Bush administration economist" falls into the "former" category, his name could be current Indiana Governor, Mitch Daniels. I always wondered where he got that scar on his right-cheek. Maybe he got it as a mob enforcer collecting gambling debts. Watching "our man bitch" fall could be very satisfying to this native of Indiana. The state has been a proving-ground for neocon privatization, a model slated for the rest of the country; his downfall would aid the common good beyond the confines of the state. Many Hoosiers are more-than-ready for this to become a reality. It should also be noted that federal investigators moved on this case right before the 2006 midterms, with the U.S. Attorney firings in the backdrop. It could mean someone was trying to put out a lot of fires, though it's doubtful any of them were U.S. Attorneys. Palfrey has created a legal defense fund site for herself, and is posting a selection of her 1996 phone records. There aren't any names, but what she's listed is 124 phone numbers with the city-of-origin listed beside them, the times, the duration of each call, and the charge for each.
This is hard evidence, and allows the clients to peruse them for their own (previously unlisted?) number(s). Give them a call, it's easy. I'm sure several of them are defunct, but it's certain a few aren't. Several might get you a line at the Pentagon, or even the White House. Others will likely get you a lobbyist's office, while others will take one down the rabbit hole. I'm happily surprised by ABC's decision to do this story, it's real journalism, the juiciest kind. Your best bet is watching ABC's blotter online.
A new story surrounding the case today is the fact that a legal secretary who worked for the D.C. law firms Akin Gump Strauss Houer & Feld LLP also did some moonlighting for Palfrey's escort business, ostensibly manning phones and servicing the clients. It seems nobody pays decent wages anymore. It might behoove many such firms to do so, since loyalty is at-a-premium these days.
This is how influential Akin Gump is:
Considered one of the most powerful firms in Washington, Akin Gump partners make up a who's who of Washington insiders, including Vernon Jordan, former Speaker of the House Tom Foley, former Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson, former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman and co-founder Robert Strauss, an adviser to numerous presidents. (ABC, "The Blotter", 05.03.2007. Don't take the brown acid.)
One has to speculate if this is all a front for a system of rewards (prostitutes, money & boardroom ghost-jobs) to politicos who follow the agendas of lobbyists, the RNC, and the string-pullers behind them all. Carrots and sticks don't cut it anymore. Add-to-the-mix the fact that the FBI's enforcement of white-collar crime has plummeted, and you understand better why it's the IRS who initiated this whole case.
