2016 election stimulates new interest in DC Madam case

Former DC Madam civil and criminal counselor Montgomery Blair Sibley has been doing some filings recently, all covered in the press, and he wants to release the subpoenaed Verizon phone records for reasons I won't go into based on confidentiality, a promise I have made to a source. The development comes at an interesting time and I cannot fault the man for doing what he's doing and even wish him well, I hope he's successful.

His claim that there are 815 names in the subpoenaed phone records is correct, however, I never noticed any major political names and have not gone back to them or Dan Moldea's searches of her phone records that Jeane herself entrusted to myself and others for the purposes of research for her case.

I would add that since 2008, I haven't had anyone request or tell me either telephonically, via email, or served through the postal service, to return any of those materials, not that I could if I tried since they've been so thoroughly disseminated as to render that impossible. That being stated, and I say this as a layman, I seriously doubt that anyone could even claim jurisdiction over me and them. In fact, I've published some of them on here, the raw information, but only specific names.

Here's the thing: Nearly all of the names we were able to dig deeper on are published online anyway. The Chief U.S. Courts judge, a fellow named Roberts, God help us, really just seems to hate Sibley along with the rest of the legal establishment in DC and won't let him release and publish (the most important aspect, I believe, that right) them, hoping, Sibley said, to affect the outcome of the political elections. Can he? Will he? Should he?

It's possible that the names are of people who rose since I last looked at them, I don't know, frankly, there were so many.

Where does that leave me? Yes, stuck in the middle, again, somewhere in Dante's limbo, on the outskirts of mortality.

Jeane never told me or Mr. Sibley to return that information, the files, the phone numbers, the scans of her phone bills, or anything at all. Neither has the Palfrey Estate in all of eight years. I believe their time is well up seeing that the phone records were probably released online at Jeane's bequest by Citizens for Legitimate Government, hence by Lori Price. It was never a great idea to put those phone bills online for the defense, but, I must add that the above parts of this paragraph are simply my conclusions and opinions, albeit very informed ones.

Are there more names of importance in the phone records? Why wouldn't they have been found already? I'm skeptical but might be induced to take another look, maybe, just maybe, if I cared enough to. It's mostly a closed door for me.

I have communicated with Mr. Sibley recently. That being said, no, I'm staying mum out of respect.

An open call for information regarding GOP pundit, lobbyist, and attorney Jack Burkman

WWW--I am looking for a very specific piece of information: what was the phone number of J.M. Burkman & Associates in 2006? I already know what the address is but have been unable to locate the number from that time. It could very well be correct, but I get the impression that Mr. Burkman has been going around making threats all over the blogosphere.

Just in case you don't recall, Burkman was very closely involved in the witch-hunt to take down former President Bill Clinton for lying about getting some since painting him with the corruption brush just wasn't going to work when everyone's having the same fun in that arena, what with many of the same fingers in the same pots. Ironically, Palfrey and I argued over Clinton's innocence in the realm of corruption--I never agreed with her or conceded to her on it. Oddly, she would finally end up with Monica Lewinski's lawyer who I don't believe did a very good job defending her.

Around June 16, 2006, the website Wonkette reported on Burkman's alleged attempts at offering to pay two lesbians to have sex with him at a gay pride parade in DC. The two ladies "outed" Mr. Burkman on one of their Myspace pages, even putting a scan of the business card he allegedly gave to them and a partial account of the whole night:

...afterward, we got a snazzy hotel room at the mayflower downtown. on the way over there, this really hot business man in a pinstriped suit walked past me, said hello, and doubled back. he asked me my name and introduced himself (jack burkman, government relations strategies), asked where i went to school, etc, gave me his card, and asked me to call him. i later texted him and never could get rid of him again. he thought he talked to me on the phone several times, but he never did. i always made kat or kristin be me. he told kristin about how he really enjoyed my outfit (TITS GALORE) and that i was beautiful, etc. by the end of the night (5 am or so), he was offering to pay for our room and give us a thousand dollars if two of us would fuck him. oh, jack burkman. his card is my DC souvenir.

Burkman has been a strong advocate for the Family Research Council, one of those wacky family values organizations and was founded by the televangelist James Dobson.

Less than a month later, Citizens for Legitimate Government (who are they?) was claiming that Burkman was in the phone records of the DC Madam. Now, both articles at Wonkette (and many other progressive sites) on these two incidents of what might have been solicitation are gone, taken down, possibly since 2008. Other sites have pulled their articles on Burkman and one or the other of these two alleged scenarios. Wonkette and several of these sites have refused to reply to my questions on this issue. But Palfrey all-but-confirmed it was real at the time, as she recounted to blogger Margie Burns just a couple days after CLG released the name:

“Ms. Burns… FYI, this and any calls to the Washington area were business, i.e. escort service related.

–Sincerely, Jeane Palfrey” ("Ms. Palfrey confirms that Mr. Burkman's business with her was escort service related, 07.13.2007)

I was pretty close to the story and had never heard of his number being in the phone records and neither have several others close to the Palfrey case. What gives? What is this? There isn't one article that resoundingly impeaches the contention that Burkman was in Palfrey's phone records and not one mainstream press outlet picked it up at the time. What do you think?

Burkman responded clumsily in the third person--as megalomaniacs do--and included a double-negative in his statement that's not exactly reassuring regarding his innocence. A more toned down 2008 version of the statement is still on his personal website:

“BURKMAN RESPONDS:

Web allegations are simply and completely false, driven by a group of left-wing people seeking to intimidate conservatives and independants [sic].

As my viewers and readers know, I usually do not respond to silliness on the internet. But in this case--given the national and international coverage--I feel I must. The recent allegations concerning sollicitation [sic] are false lies. They have been printed and reprinted by websites with a long and intense history of harrassing [sic] me and trying to stop my commentary.

None of the sites even so much as contacted me for comment. But I can assure you that they will not succeed. My family and I have been through this before. During impeachment in the 90's, every form of illegitimate pressure that could be brought to bear was brought to bear in an attempt to silence me. But they failed and seven years later, my commentary continues unabated and unphased [sic]. And it always will.

Thank you for watching and reading.
- Jack Burkman”

Yeah, he's a real martyr for freedom alright, a regular Patrick Henry. He sure never was a speech writer, and he can barely write at all. I could be wrong, but wasn't Henry famous for saying, "Show me your tits, I'll pay"? Maybe this whole Burkman story was overshadowed by the Vitter revelation, but if it's true, what gives? Surely, Larry Flynt would have released his name had his PI Dan Moldea found it, but then, that doesn't fit their criteria at the time: they were looking for hypocritical office holders and Burkman is a lobbyist and talking neck with close ties to the GOP and sundry corporations due to his line of business.

So: if you have any letterhead or copies of J.M. & Associates, LLC business cards, I'd love to see them. Any information related to the aforementioned issue is being sought, and I can only offer you my thanks, that's it. What an arrogant little man.

"Ms. Palfrey confirms that Mr. Burkman's business with her was escort service related, Margie Burns.com, 07.13.2007: http://www.margieburns.com/blog/_archives/2007/7/13/3090733.html

Songs from the Site Meter: Dan Moldea? Press?

Ed.--Dan Moldea was rumored to have been writing a book with the late "DC Madam," Deborah Jeane Palfrey. Sometime in the summer of last year, both the Palfrey Estate and Montogmery Blair Sibley laid-claim to the 150 page manuscript that I presume is the book that her and Moldea were working on.

At no point did Moldea communicate with me, even at Palfrey's urging, which I didn't mind since he believes that RFK actually was shot by Sirhan Sirhan. I won't dwell on the obvious problems with his take on the assassination, but suffice it to say that Dr. Thomas Noguchi's autopsy report, all the irregularities, and the misbehavior and incompetence of the L.A.P.D. point to the handling of the event as problematic. I couldn't disagree more with anyone.

Moldea's also known as Larry Flynt's sometime investigator, he also does it freelance, and has had some success as a writer/researcher.

This new visit is interesting: is it him? Is it someone in the D.C. press corps looking for a connection between me and Mr. Moldea? I can save them the time by stating emphatically that I've never spoken with or corresponded with Mr. Moldea. There it is. However, what I did do was bring to the late Ms. Palfrey's attention the fact that he had a controversial background as a writer and that he was involved in a lawsuit over a book about pro football and the mafia. It's all common knowledge, and I believe that the court transcripts are available online to anyone looking for them.

I have no opinion regarding his abilities beyond the RFK book. A Feb. 23rd hearing over some issues regarding the Palfrey Estate are coming, in Washington D.C. with Federal District Judge James Robertson presiding. I would imagine most parties involved want to shut the door on the whole affair, which is curious and questionable.

Domain Name		rcn.com ? (Commercial)
IP Address		208.59.126.# (RCN Corporation)
ISP		RCN Corporation
Location		Continent : North America Country : United States (Facts) State : District of Columbia City : Washington Lat/Long : 38.9097, -77.0231 (Map)
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinNT
Browser		Internet Explorer 7.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506; InfoPath.2)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution : 1280 x 1024 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Jan 21 2009 4:47:17 pm
Last Page View		Jan 21 2009 4:52:40 pm
Visit Length		5 minutes 23 seconds
Page Views		3
Referring URL		http://www.google.co...2 Moldea&btnG=Search
Search Engine		google.com
Search Words		"matt janovic" moldea
Visit Entry Page		http://74.125.95.132...n&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us
Visit Exit Page		http://74.125.95.132...n&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time		Jan 21 2009 4:47:17 am
Visit Number		48,425

Larry Flynt, Dan Moldea, & Fred Thompson

St. Paul, Minnesota--In one of the final e-mails I received from the late DC Madam, she conveyed to me that Larry Flynt's private investigator (and author) Dan Moldea had found calls from Fred Thompson (who, like Richard Nixon appears to be fashioned out of mud), John McCain, and Vice President Dick Cheney (allegedly a 1999 call to her escort service when he was CEO of Halliburton).

I don't have context for the rest, though if she was telling myself and my defense co-researcher Monique Rawlings the truth (and conversely, if Moldea and Flynt had told her the truth), that Larry Flynt is sitting-on these names.

Why? You--the press--need to ask Larry Flynt "why," but I guess you're preoccupied chasing stories about bigfoot. Why isn't Flynt naming names? I have my suspicions, but in my opinion, it comes-down-to the fact that he's a thoroughly establishmentarian chicken-lover. If only I were jesting, if only, if only. The other option is Palfrey was desperate and lying about it. Take that, Wayne Madsen.

So: what are you waiting for with Fred Thomspon, Larry? Was it a lie on-her-part, or yours? I don't know, and I'm sure the rest of America wants to. I've heard you're trying to rehabilitate your legacy. Some transparency would be a good start. So start now, today, and expose Fred Thompson for what he really is on the day he speaks before the GOP National convention.

If it's not true, that settles it. Looking at Thompson's wife, I suspect that it's true. Coupled together with the late Richard Nixon's assessment of Thompson ("dumb"), and it makes a lot of sense. Trophy wife, hooker--what's the difference? Nice tits (Fred's). You know where to stick those Cuban cigars.

On the John Edwards sinning scandal

A'murka--Is this underwhelming or what? He didn't break-the-law like Sen. David Vitter when he engaged in his serial-solicitation of WHORES, and he didn't violate any security clearances, but the GOP is just itching to get some hits in somewhere, anywhere.

Yet nobody really gives-a-shit with the price of gasoline (our temporary reprieve isn't going to last), a worthless war in the Middle East, the Republic of Georgia being (re)invaded by Russia, and everything else that's actually of importance.

The fact stands: it's nobody's business, but somebody found out and blabbed. He broke no laws, and if he violated anyone's trust that matters (comments to the press and others don't count), it was his wife's. That's where it ends. The rest is utter bullshit.

Would I have ever voted for Edwards as a presidential candidate? Nope. He had problems in his platform and he voted to authorize the Bush administration's use of force in Iraq. That's unforgivable, though his voting record on social spending isn't as bad as most in the Senate. Then, there's the other guy: Obama's just lucky he wasn't in the Senate at the time (2002), that's it. Otherwise, he would have voted likewise and allowed the Bush administration a free-hand. Well, OK, he already has in continually voting for war funding, but that's another story altogether.

John Edwards' tryst: a non-story, I could care less (OK, I lied).

If you can say anything at all with any certainty, it's that filmmaker Rille Hunter got too close to her subject, an "Edwards fetish" if-you-will. It's doubtful that her documentary is worth watching.

I'm not a Democrat, incidentally. Oh sure, I'm registered as one, and I've only voted GOP once in a local election in Muncie, Indiana, but Nader has my vote. The Democratic political machine there was well known for being totally corrupt and their candidate--a former sheriff--had been cold busted embezzling from public funds. The Republican wasn't attached to the establishment there in any respect.

Some asshole told me at the time: "He won't accomplish anything, he doesn't know anybody downtown." And? So they don't accomplish their usual agendas--this is bad because...of what? I will decline to vote for any candidate running for Indiana's 2nd District seat in the House, they all have to go.

The paternity test: it's likely that the child is his. Do I care? Ask the GOP's Dan Burton, he had a love child going back to the 1980s when he issued 1,000 subpoenas against former President Bill Clinton about ten-years-ago. Another Midwestern slimeball named Larry Flynt outed him, thanks-in-part to the maverick investigator, Dan Moldea (he thinks Sirhan Sirhan alone, murdered RFK, a laugh riot).

Somehow, some way (because of money, natch), the very corrupt, stupid, and ugly Burton's still in office. I doubt this is going to hurt John Edwards that much, and he and others need to be pointing-out all the other offenders who are still in (and out of, like Mark Foley) office. And that's exactly what you're reading right now...

Louisiana Sen. David Vitter attempting to use campaign donations to pay for legal fees related to Palfrey case

Washington D.C./Metarie, Louisiana--Is it redundant to refer to the donors of Sen. Vitter's campaign as suckers? Never mind, the Advocate is reporting today that the senator from Louisiana has sent a letter to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) trying to recoup over $70,000 in legal fees he incurred, assessing and watching the Palfrey scandal through counsel.

This pleases myself--the editor of this site--to no end. The total amount is somewhere in the neighborhood of $137,000, a tidy sum for someone who never set-foot in a courtroom. Why just $70,000? Perhaps the senator doesn't want the public to know what all of the money was spent on, but much of it was probably expended on private investigators and legal research.

Vitter's present counsel, Jan Witold Baran--whom he's now incurring even more legal debts with--has made some striking admissions to the Advocate, but the message is coming from Vitter. Will anyone notice? The Advocate missed spelling-out who Baran is: one of the "top elections and campaign lawyers who was an "Executive Assistant" to the FEC, 1977-79, according to his own firm profile. He's an insider who even represented the RNC and the Bush Sr. campaign in 1988. (http://www.wileyrein.com/directory.cfm?attorney_id=399)

Vitter has paid $70,000 of the legal fees personally and is asking that the money be re-imbursed through the campaign funds, the letter says.

FEC officials could not be reached late Wednesday afternoon for comment. Through his spokesman, Vitter declined to comment on the letter. The latest FEC campaign contributions report for Vitter, filed March 31, shows he has $1.6 million in his campaign coffers.

Baran, in the letter, says Vitter had been monitoring the Palfrey case three months before the senator acknowledged what he called a serious sin in his past. A review of the Palfrey records shows Vitter’s number on the list five times between 1999 and 2001 when he was in the House. ("Vitter to seek help with fees," The Advocate, 07.03.2008)

Why should the campaign contributors have to pay for Vitter's continual lies and obfuscations? Baran conveying Vitter's acknowledgment that he was "monitoring" the case from as early as late-March makes it plain that the senator was well aware of his guilt, and moved heaven and earth to avoid responsibility.

But now, a woman is dead by her own hand, and for some perverse reason, he's still holding office, though not if Louisiana state Republicans can help it. Eight GOP incumbents in the Senate still appear to support the errant-genitals of Sen. Vitter and Larry Craig--and the rest of their bodies--when they co-sponsored yet another round in the feeble-attempt at a gay marriage amendment to the Constitution, banning it.

Will the FEC reimburse the senator for his legal expenses? It depends on how much of a liability he's become to the national GOP, how much control the party itself exerts over the bureaucracy, and whether Louisianans have any self-respect left. After Katrina, it's time to muster some.

Yet, it appears that some of them still do, particularly Nate Monroe of The Daily Reveille, and he's hardly alone in the Southern state. Monroe's observations on Vitter's proposal of another stab at a national ban on gay marriage and his behavior related to the Palfrey case are astute:

The self-righteous hubris that Vitter revealed during his scandal - that it happened a long time ago, that he was "sorry," that he allegedly apologized to God and that, finally, he will not resign because he is still the best man to save Louisiana from itself - is the same hubris that motivated him to cosponsor this ridiculous piece of legislation. And of course, this bill is coming at a time when Congress ought to be paying attention to more dire events. ("Senator Vitter is married to arrogance," The Daily Reveille, 07.03.2008)

Technically, he's married to Wendy...for now. It should go without saying that the FEC would vote "no" to Vitter's absurd request, particularly with the April 15th conviction of the deceased Deborah Jeane Palfrey. This means that Vitter committed at least five criminal acts of soliciting prostitutes, and that he did likewise in his own home state. There is a possibility that he violated federal white slave laws and the Traveling Act, since Palfrey's service crossed state lines in the D.C. region.

At-minimum, it would be a grotesque act of favoritism and injustice for him to be reimbursed even a penny. Taking responsibility means just that, and Vitter's just illustrating that he's never going to unless he's forced to by society, by the courts. It sounds familiar doesn't it? It sounds a lot like the Bush administration, but then, it should. We're talking about the national GOP here.

This story and the career of the senator should have ended when Vitter's name was found in Palfrey's escort service records on July 9th of last year by researcher Dan Moldea. But up is down and down is up when the Republicans control the bureaucracy in Washington. They're right: government doesn't work...when they're in power.

It's the hope of this writer that Sen. Vitter's private investigators and attorneys were paid very well indeed when they came to J-7, as they most assuredly did. Several high powered law firms visited this site during the period before Vitter's semi-admission of guilt in July of 2007, and afterwards. There's another thing he's wrong about: others in the phone records were retaining counsel, just as he did, and they certainly incurred legal expenses of several thousand dollars.

How do I know this? Because many of them came through this site, leaving a record of it on the third party site meter. It's all about David, naturally. The other Johns are their own concern, they don't even exist to Vitter--and cannot, if he's going to succeed in painting himself as some kind of martyr. Absurd, and he's failing.

Sen. Vitter's attempt at evading even more responsibility for his actions, 07.03.2008: http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/22850554.html

The day after we learned Sen. David Vitter was a sinner, 07.10.2007: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/09/AR2007070902030.html

"Senator Vitter is married to arrogance," The Daily Reveille, 07.03.2008: http://media.www.lsureveille.com/media/storage/paper868/news/2008/07/03/Opinion/Senator.Vitter.Is.Married.To.Arrogance-3387766.shtml

Larry Flynt, AP, and the meaning of "several"

AP Universe, domain of the flunky careerist--I've written it several times before, but it's rare that the name of the author of a wire piece ever gets named here...unless they lie, distort, or just act too-credulous (a problem with most mainstream journalists). OK, we all know that Larry Flynt posted a bounty of $1 million USD for any solid-leads that expose hypocritical national politicians, mostly in the GOP. But Larry isn't stopping there, and he doesn't seem to care if any of the guilty are Democrat or Republican, which speaks well for him. [Ed., 09.13.2008-Except that he was and is still Larry Flynt.]

We've got 20-some investigations that all look good," Flynt said during a news conference at his Beverly Hills office."We have got some high-ranking Republican and Democratic members of the Senate and the House," he told reporters. "If I get just a couple of those phonies out of there, maybe it will be a step forward."Flynt provided no names or details about the investigations. His comments conflicted with a press release issued by the magazine that put the number of investigations at "several." (AP, 07.12.2007)

The name! The name! One Michael R. Blood[money]. It's hard to say how he was trying to spin this one. Most dictionaries cite "several" as meaning "three or more, but not many." So, is he saying the Flynt cited fewer-or-greater numbers of good leads? Is 20 several? I would say yes. One can assume that Blood was told by an editor to insert that particular angle into the story. Why? We can only speculate, but AP's inviting it.

It's just a strange article with a weird subtext--that Larry Flynt cannot be trusted on this, even though he's been right on this before, back in 1998. What they're saying is that Larry Flynt is contradicting himself. Why? We can guess why, but meditate on this: who does it serve? Is it several?

AP spoke earlier this week with Jeane Palfrey's civil attorney, Montgomery Blair Sibley and Flynt's primary investigator, Dan Moldea:

Sibley confirmed that author Dan Moldea, who is writing a book with Palfrey, discovered Vitter's number in Palfrey's phone records, which she has publicly released. In an interview Tuesday, Moldea said he called Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt, for whom Moldea has done consulting work. Moldea said a Hustler editor called Vitter's office late Monday afternoon. Moldea was the lead investigator on Flynt's probe in 1998-99 of lawmakers who were investigating President Bill Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. They included Rep. Robert Livingston, a Louisiana Republican, who stepped aside days before he was expected to become House speaker replacing Newt Gingrich. Livingston, whose House seat was later filled by Vitter, revealed that he, too, had an extramarital affair. (AP, 07.10.2007)

So what gives AP? I've caught you reporting rumors as fact before, such as the case of AG Gonzales's Law School Reunion where you claimed most of the alumni gathered for a group photo didn't see law school students dressed as Guantanamo inmates.

Insofar as the fact that Hustler is a porn magazine, they have a good batting-average--several--in downing corrupt politicians. Perhaps even better than you, AP. They've nailed several people who were hypocritical and corrupt before, and they're now poised to do it again-and-again. For some reason, you don't appear to like this fact on several-points.

The passage that stated "comments conflicted" is a journalist's weapon, just like "refused to comment." They love the latter the most, it implies a source is hiding something...whether they are-or-not. Journalistic objectivity? Don't be silly, editors nullify that every day. I've had a journalist tell me, "Sometimes a journalism degree comes-in-handy." Cheers go to those journalists who don't care anymore and run the truth (sometimes hidden within a news release) anyway. Without them, I and several others, wouldn't have much to analyze.

AP-AP-AP: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/11/america/NA-GEN-US-Senator-DC-Madam.php

Michael R. Blood doing career gymnastics?:http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/12/ap3907393.html

[Ed., 09.13.2008-They're dead, they're all messed-up. Al Goldestein claims that Flynt used to brag about having-sex with a chicken, something I told Palfrey once. Maybe, it wouldn't surprise me. Moldea's reputation precedes him too.]