dc madam trial transcripts

Ed.--These files are not complete, although they're complete within themselves. There is no voir dire. I also believe the evidence was poorly documented, but it wasn't necessary to the documents. Insofar as I know, this will be the first time anyone, anywhere online has uploaded these for public consumption. Read 'em and weep, I did. The trial was a farce, hence why the transcripts aren't readily available, in my opinion. I don't give a shit who has a problem with it. The bottom document is related and covers a lien placed on Jeane's former residence over legal bills. Once again, you may not have fries with that.

 March 19, 2008 pretrial hearing (.txt file): https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3zDKjQ92CiyYXlpZVRHblduMmM/edit

April 8, 2008 (day two/ .txt file): https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3zDKjQ92CiyRXRveGY2c3ZzYUk/edit

April 9, 2008 (day three/ .txt file): https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3zDKjQ92Ciyd1pLc1oxbm9VakE/edit

April 10, 2008 (day four/ PDF): https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3zDKjQ92CiyXzVuMDA4Sm1UME0/edit

April 14, 2008 (final day/PDF): https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3zDKjQ92CiyRkJHWGFGSXk5VlU/edit

December 10, 2008 Court lien order over Palfrey estate legal debts to Montgomery Blair Sibley (PDF): https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3zDKjQ92CiyaWJCNlRTV0YyVFE/edit

Postscript, 12.22.2012:  Does any of this read like a real trial where Anglo-American principles of justice were being applied? If so, I have a bridge and swampland to sell you. What the hell was Preston Burton thinking beyond having to work with his peers again after this bullshit charade? This is where Sibley was at least genuinely adversarial. What did Burton do to convince Jeane to lay down and die, to agree to mounting no goddamned defense at all? 

To be fair, and I can only look at this as a layman, his cross-examinations of the witnesses were solid, appropriate, what you'd expect, but little more was done beyond that. Was he on the side of the defendant at all? This wasn't a trial, it was theater, the political kind, to cover for the GOP and various selfish interests. Shame. Pathetic. This is how not only democracy dies but the human race. You got it: no one gives a shit. RIP America.

And, for a better understanding of them:  
http://www.amazon.com/Let-Dead-Bury-Madam-account/dp/1480297437/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1353888194&sr=1-10&keywords=Let+the+Dead+Bury+the+Dead

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Let-Dead-Bury-Madam-account/dp/1480297437/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1355242478&sr=1-1  

http://www.amazon.fr/Let-Dead-Bury-Madam-account/dp/1480297437/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1355243316&sr=8-1

  http://www.amazon.de/Let-Dead-Bury-Madam-account/dp/1480297437/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1355243200&sr=1-1-catcorr

  http://www.amazon.it/Let-Dead-Bury-Madam-account/dp/1480297437/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1355243385&sr=8-1

 https://www.createspace.com/4056731

Former AUSA Allison Leotta writes a novel including elements of the DC Madam narrative

Not so very long ago, I signed up for Google news updates on Deborah Jeane Palfrey. Most of the updates have been articles simply invoking her name so that the site posting it got more hits, but nothing of any substance. Mission accomplished on both counts. This is just one more example of suited turds making a living off of air. The National Law Journal published an interview with former DC AUSA (Asst. US Attorney) Allison Leotta on June 11th. 

Leotta's a professional woman (it's unclear to me at this stage whether she's married or not) who left her secure, good paying job (benes too) of over a decade as a federal prosecutor of sex crimes and domestic violence cases in the District of Columbia to pursue a career...in literature. Hell, I'm sure I write better than her, but never would I have the temerity to refer to what I write as that. And, sure, right, we all do that in the middle of the biggest economic crises in American history, we do an abrupt career change that would wreck the average working person's life--and believe me, I know the dynamics of this, I cannot be shitted about it. But no, there were no silver spoons there whatsoever--not even her getting into Harvard, all bootstraps, a Horatio Alger wet dream fantasy--and even if it's not true, it sounds good on an author's bio and resume. Did I mention that her very first novel was with a subsidiary of Simon & Schuster? Keep in mind here that on average it takes two years simply to get the chance to speak with a genuine literary agent, so forget it mom and pop, self-publish if you ever want that pet project to see the light of day, or to ever get paid.

Somehow, I don't think Leotta's ever going to have worry about either. Fixers get that assistance, and that's a huge part of the job being a federal prosecutor in DC.

What's the point of all of this? She worked in the same offices as the DC Madam's prosecutors and considers one of them a "good friend," which says it all for me at least.  I'll get to who that friend is in a moment. OK, so former minor Inquisitor writes a first thriller for Simon & Scheister, must have sold well, or she still knows the right people, and she's got another one being made from shattered forests somewhere. I've never read her writing, but it's unlikely that a cop lover or a prosecutor is going to write something as good as a Hammett short or novel, ain't gonna happen, wrong side of the tracks. I don't see Leotta ever making the hard choices he made, ever, not really. That, after all, would require genuine conviction that doesn't come easy, no pats on the back, much of a wrong-headed society disagreeing with you--doing the right thing is rarely ever rewarded. Luckily, her bank account will never have to worry about this. Do I have to point out to the reader that she's part of a monstrous criminal justice system that's used to solve social problems mainly through punishment, the wrong way, not proactively? Maybe in her next incarnation she can drive the trains to the new death camps, maybe sell whiskey to the next unfortunates who get their land stolen from them...

So, she's writing a novel that contains some elements of the DC Madam case, because she was "following it closely," which would have been pretty easy working in the same offices with the AUSAs that were on the case, like Daniel Butler, Catherine Connelly, William Cowden, other delusional assholes, yadda-yadda, and their interim appointed boss, Jeffrey A. Taylor. Her novel drops on July 3rd, so rush out and get it before the system she protected in her job takes a crap and dies, finally, belatedly, out of all of the contradictions created by power relationships and an abundance of cowards in these here U-nited States. The novel is going to be titled Discretion, which at least makes sense when you're covering a prostitution ring. Someone's going to have to remind me about this book an hour from now, I'm already forgetting it. Yes folks, ascendant police states produce writing outside of the standard government forms, it's true, behold it yourself on July 3rd.

Leotta has created an alter-ego of a prosecutor in the character Anna Curtis...oh, never mind, here's what they said about the DC Madam in the interview that garnered a solid plug for the upcoming membrane of cellulose:

The remarks below have been edited for length and clarity.

The National Law Journal: This is your second novel, both involving a fictional federal prosecutor of sex crimes in D.C. Your first book, Law of Attraction, focused on a domestic-violence case. This novel delves more into the uniquely political world of D.C. Why did you decide to center your second book in this part of D.C.?

Allison Leotta: Part of it was I'd seen this really interesting case that happened around the time I was writing Law of Attraction. It was the D.C. Madam case — a woman in D.C. running a large-scale, high-end escort agency, and there were all these reporters speculating that her black book held names of powerful men in D.C. I was fascinated by it — by both the woman running the organization and the women who chose to work for her. They came from all different walks of life and did it for different reasons.

I was fascinated as to why they would take these risks and the effect it would have on their lives going forward. In the D.C. Madam case, she was convicted but before she was sentenced, she committed suicide. There was a lot of speculation that it wasn't suicide, but murder. That got the crime novelist side of my head thinking, "What if? How would somebody do it? Who would do it if it was really a murder?"

[The body of the accused madam, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, and a suicide note reportedly were found in Tarpon Springs, Fla., in 2008.]

NLJ: Did you work on the D.C. Madam case?

A.L.: Someone in the office did. She was a good friend of mine, so I was following it pretty closely. ...

That friend was Catherine Connelly, an AUSA on the case. It could be no one else. Why she didn't bother mentioning her is odd since it's in the public record and press coverage, but whatever.

Question: when is Leotta going to grab a shovel and dig Jeane up to pose for photographs? I wrote the author of the piece--Amanda Bronstad--a letter voicing my concerns, I don't expect a response, so here it is, and long to annoy the lazy reader:

 

 to: abronstad@alm.com
date: Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:39 PM

subject: Leotta interviewmailed-by: gmail.com

Dear Ms. Bronstad, you may publish this as a comment if you wish,



Wow, where to begin about Mrs., Leotta and her recent change in occupation.

My first question is, do accountants and plumbers write novels too, and wouldn't we also think it strange when they got a contract to release a novel through Simon & Schuster?

I haven't read her first novel; the new one isn't available as of yet, but this second novel raises some questions of ethics for me: like her AUSA friend, I was a part of the DC Madam case. That friend of hers, incidentally, is AUSA Catherine K. Connelly, and from what I read in the article she saw quite a bit firsthand. Is this why she resigned, to be able to use more of that in the novel? I don't know.  These former cops and prosecutors becoming "legal experts," talking heads more generally, media figures, celebrities, novelists, is nutty.  This mining social problems for writing fodder by people who prosecute and investigate the subjects verges on cannibalism at times, we can do better than this. We incarcerate more human beings than any nation on the earth, more even than the worst known human rights offenders like China, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, etc.  Law enforcement is key to this social engineering, so to take it further into the realm of entertainment seems pretty depraved to me. Certainly this true crime mill has been running since colonial times--people are fascinated by the depravity of others. But what we're seeing here with these criminal justice professionals is unacceptable and unethical, made worse by the fact that 95% of federal criminal defendants plea out because the odds are stacked so highly against them. What you have is the society of the spectacle where anything to turn a buck is OK in the US, the only thing that matters, and the forces of production (and those who use force to keep it in place) start talking about themselves in the culture, they become foregrounded. We solve so many social problems not by proactive policy, but through our crazy lock-'em-up conveyor-belt CJ system that's based around the profit motive, like our private prison complex. Crime writing by cops and prosecutors has always been suspect in the United States. Dashielle Hammett may have worked for the Pinkertons (he quit over being tapped to assassinate a communist labor organizer in Montana), but you rarely saw him empathizing with cops, prosecutors, or corrupt politicians, and he's the top of the heap with Jim Thompson in the annals of crime writing. Poe comes first in American literature, he invented the detective story. This is a populist form--where's the populism in this? I'll have to wait and find out. However, great artistic works elicit artistic truths, highlighting the meaning of something. My expectations are low here based on some comments in the interview with Leotta.

Decades ago, it was bad enough when cops and prosecutors who were on high profile cases (like, say, John Wayne Gacy, Bundy--take your pick, but you could say this all begins with Vincent Bugliosi and his prosecution of  the Manson Family) began to resign when the cases were over, signing book deals (Palfrey herself did this, another depravity), movie & media deals, etc. This was considered beyond the pale, but now, in these crazed, depraved times, it floats without much comment if any. That's appalling. What you have is a class of law enforcement and criminal justice professionals making their little cottage industries, Leotta less so, but close.  Some of us are simply lucky enough to be on the other side of the badge in bad times. Or is it luck at all? Leotta has taken it to a new place, for me at least: someone who knows someone who was close to a big sex scandal case (DC Madam, it was far more than a mere sex scandal) is writing a novel based partly upon it, a thriller. Great. So, how did you get the writing gig? Who pulled that string, and when is Connelly doing a novel? What's her next plum position? Qualcomm/Ernst & Young with Jeffrey A. Taylor? This is careerism run completely amok, my opinion, and what's really underneath the veneer of civilization.

As you can tell, my perspective is different and adversarial to government prosecutors, hence with at least a slightly better chance at balance here! I was a researcher for the defendant, the late Deborah Jeane Palfrey. The fact that Leotta is going for the "she were suicided" theory in the novel is her right, and a curious choice that I assume has commercial considerations. At least she makes it plain that Palfrey committed suicide in the interview. As a writer of fiction, she can fuse characters, change dates, all kinds of things, but what's the angle when they're not supposed to be telling us sensitive information from a case? I assume that won't be the case in the novel at all, we won't be learning new information. You can't have it several ways: you either take some information from inside the prosecution and investigation, which is profoundly illegal, or you make it all up, maybe indirectly extrapolating on some facts. She seems to be melding other cases she did with the DC Madam narrative, or some permutation of it, since it has yet to be told coherently by anyone, fine, but when you consider what went down in the case it's distasteful. Figuring in the fact that she was close to it, if not directly involved, doesn't ring well when she refers to the member of a prosecution team that broke the law as a "friend." I applaud Mrs. Leotta for debunking CSI shows when they're wrong about procedure, glad to the point of admiration that she was working sex crime and domestic abuse cases, but I doubt that she's going to add anything of any significance to our understanding of the DC Madam scandal (which was really part of Hookergate).

I find her comment that Connelly (it couldn't be anyone else) is a good friend and that she was "following it very closely" troubling because of the clear prosecutorial misconduct that occurred in the case during the proceedings (this leaves out a procedural error made at trial by AUSA Butler that staggers.  Robertson let it slide). The most egregious of all was when they leaked an unsigned warrant-affidavit to Bill Bastone, editor of The Smoking Gun, no more than five days of the search of Palfrey's home, a felony under federal law. Where's the discussion on that? There was virtually none. I want to make it plain that I consider Palfrey's death a suicide--she was not murdered. But who benefits from that kind of a conspiracy theory? It isn't just the conspiracy theory mills, it's federal law enforcement who create the impression of an ubiquitous State that could very well resort to murder of American citizens in the confines of the Continental United States, an absurd contention in the context of the charges against her, what happened during the proceedings, and the kangaroo court trial that was conducted after some very open judge shopping was done with the replacement of Federal District Judge Gladys Kessler by FISA Court Judge James Robertson. Kessler had ruled that, indeed, this case had national security issues to it, granting the defendant broad subpoena powers over essentially the entire intelligence community. Where was the National Law Journal on this one? Excuse if I'm wrong, but I could literally research the background on this into next month and have writing my own account of what I witnessed in the case, my unique vantage.  Leotta is too coy. Why yes, you can "follow" a case "closely" when you're working in the same offices, sure, a tad cagey there, which raises questions about propriety.

As to who would have a motive to murder Palfrey in a hypothetical, that would have been former clients or even CIA assets, defense contractors, intelligence contractors (like SAIC), and so on. But that's not what happened. There were two suicide notes, one to her mother, and one to her sister.

This undignified mess is of former CJ professionals [sic] becoming part of the entertainments world is all about class: not just anyone snags a contract for a novel from Simon & Schuster, these are more revolving doors that are improper in my opinion. You have to obtain a major league literary agent, and that gets into connections. How are AUSAs appointed? Often by other appointees, all of it politicized. I don't know if that's the case with Mrs. Leotta, but you have to factor these things in, because again, this is all about class. Not everybody gets to go to Harvard, for example, and so, you know where I'm going with this. Are many of the people she's writing about from the lower depths of society? Now I'm going to have to find out and get around to reading her first novel, but it sounds like it would predominate when you're dealing with domestic violence. While she wasn't on the case with Palfrey, she would be of a higher class than the madam's background as the daughter of a grocer from the dying industrial city of Charleroi, Pennsylvania was never going to make Harvard. That's about opportunity and being part of the club. We can kid ourselves and insult everyone's intelligence, or we could admit that it really is about who you know, and always has been. I could go on and on--and have--about these issues surrounding Palfrey's case, but we'll leave it at that.

Regards, Matt Janovic, writer, private researcher

And that's that.

 http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202559060068&This_prosecutor_turned_to_a_life_of_literature&slreturn=1

A very tiny except from my impending DC Madam account

Ed.--I've posted some of this before, but it bears repeating.

This is taken directly from the text of my account and can also be taken as an assertion of intellectual property (the bracketing text and the edit of the transcript). You do not own it. Any copying requires a request as well as citation, no exceptions, and I will come after major offenders in a court of law, bank on it. This applies to everything I have ever generated on this site as well as outside of it.

This exchange was never reported by the mainstream press for doctrinal purposes.

"From day three (April 9, 2008) in the racketeering trial of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, an exchange for the ages that would serve as a fine example for law school students in the Anglo-American sphere, and which came towards the end of a long day of endlessly banal testimony:

 Q [AUSA Daniel P. Butler]. And did you compare the tax returns to the bank records for Ms. Palfrey?

A. Yes.

Q. And what did that show?

A. The comparison of the bank records for this year, 2002, show that there was a greater amount of gross receipts than was reported on this line.

MR. BURTON: Can we approach, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

(BENCH CONFERENCE ON THE RECORD.)

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

MR. BUTLER: I'm not going to any tax discrepancy, or anything to that effect.

THE COURT: You just saddled her with basically what is false reporting.

MR. BUTLER: Well, I don't think it's gone that far [Page break] yet, Your Honor. I'm not going any further with this line of inquiry.

THE COURT: Well, now you've put the defense in the position where they have to respond to this. How are they going to do that?

MR. BUTLER: Well, Your Honor, that was not the intent of my question, but I appreciate what the Court is saying.

THE COURT: What was the intent of the question?

MR. BUTLER: My intent of the question, Your Honor, was directed at the gross receipts that were deposited into this and comparing it with the bank records that we have. It was a poorly phrased question. That's all I can say about it. I don't know anything more than that.

THE COURT: Well, where are you going next?

MR. BUTLER: Your Honor, I'm going next with -- can I just have a moment, Your Honor? Your Honor, there's another chart in terms of -- I just need to grab it, just to answer the question more explicitly, if I can have a moment.

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

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

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

MR. BUTLER: Well, there's other documents we need to admit through him, yes.

THE COURT: Can he come back in the morning? [Page break]

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

THE COURT: I think I want to instruct the jury that there was no tax charge, no tax claim in this case.

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

THE COURT: Maybe I'll even instruct them they are to disregard that last answer because it's not relevant to your case.

MR. BUTLER: What I would ask is -- I'll defer to the Court on that, but I think there's no -- that the answer did not say that she has cheated on her taxes. [Even though it actually did say that, but...]

MR. BURTON: I think I have to move for a mistrial because of it, because she's not charged with tax evasion.

THE COURT: I know you have to file that motion, and the motion is denied. But I will give a corrective instruction right now.

MS. CONNELLY: Your Honor, in terms of scheduling, we do have some more civilian witnesses. He may not come back on until tomorrow afternoon, but he'll be available all day tomorrow. We just might put the other witnesses on first.

THE COURT: You've made satisfactory progress today.

(END BENCH CONFERENCE.) ...

I was expecting “Robertson pats AUSA” in brackets in the transcript next. ..."

From the Palfrey trial transcripts: April 14th, 2008 excerpt

Ed.--This comes from the closing arguments of the trial of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, from trial proceedings on the day of April 14th, 2008. The comments below come from Palfrey's final criminal counsel, Preston Burton, a partner in the law firm Orrick, Herrington, and Sutcliff.

A number of his statements strike me as blatantly insincere, especially considering that Orrick is a massive firm with offices in at least a dozen countries (even in Russia and China), doing a lot of contract work for...the federal government. Can we say "conflict-of-interest"?

Not when you want to put a lid on a very embarrassing case that could "out" an awful lot of well-positioned clients, and perhaps a lot more that would be very inconvenient to moneyed-interests. Mr. Burton refuses to talk or correspond with me as he did during the legal proceedings. Was he saying things to Ms. Palfrey to dissuade her from testifying on her own behalf? If he did, I can guess why, but why not clear-up things if I'm wrong for the record? No, that would make sense, it would mean transparency, and there's a deal on with the government over a settlement regarding the forfeited properties of Palfrey.

Money figures highly in the entire saga.

..."Mr. Burton: ...The money. This business certainly generated money. You
heard that over 13 years it grossed around $2 million. You also
heard that the escorts got half of that. So that means that over
13 years, my client made, according to Special Agent Burrus's
summary chart, a little under a million dollars.
Now, a million dollars is a lot of money, still is to me,
anyway. But over 13 years, that's not a lot of money. It's not
peanuts, but it's not some lavish life-style." ...

Yet, she did lead a pretty "lavish life-style," owning two very expensive homes in Vallejo and Poway (where convicted former-Rep. Randy Cunningham owned one), and even a condominium in Florida for when she visited her mother--sound like a "lavish life-style"? I thought so too, it was.

There are other factors involved that have come to my attention from sources close to the whole affair, such as money that was hidden-away by Palfrey, and it wasn't exactly chump-change to this writer.

I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the contentions that were conveyed to me, albeit accidentally.

I'm sure that it's a "lot of money" to Mr. Burton, but he's likely to be making significantly more than that as a partner of the firm, if not in one year, in two-or-three. Of course, we all make money like that, right? Get real. He was attempting to make himself appear like some kind of "average Joe (not the plumber)" to the jury. One has to wonder why. If I had Burton's dough, I'm sure it would just get pissed-away on beer, being the malcontent that I am.

The lady made a lot more money than what Burton, Palfrey, or the prosecution, contended. They aren't alone, but I'm not within their ranks. I strenuously disagree. I'm waiting with bated breath for Mr. Burton, the prosecution, and others, to clarify these obvious discrepancies in the record.

Mr. Burton stands to make a very real windfall out of all of this as a member of the firm who will be administrating the Estate of Deborah Jeane Palfrey for her family, a group of people whom I believe to have been heartlessly and tragically misled--but by whom? Not me.

One final--and peculiar-- fact: Palfrey was running a "blown-glass importation business" out of the Czech Republic before the charges were levelled against her. Take from that what you will, and I know you will.

SEVENTH JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL UNDER GONZALES RESIGNS: J-7 FILES FOIA REQUEST IN PALFREY CASE

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 http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Judge_gives_goahead_to_lawsuit_against_0619.html. 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 @ Whitehouse.gov:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/rbrand-bio.html

Abovethelaw.com's bio on Rachel Brand & her blatant right-wing credentials: http://www.abovethelaw.com/rachel_brand/

AP today: http://www.theolympian.com/national/story/149476.html

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

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070630/ap_on_go_co/congress_subpoenas;_ylt=As5Vd_ULH88txD3OrdNoipYb.3QA

New York Times on the SWIFT program with the CIA and Justice Dept. (06.23.2006): http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23intel.html?ex=1308715200%26en=168d69d26685c26c%26ei=5088%26partner=rssnyt%26emc=rss

J-7 CALL FOR INFORMATION ON THESE PALFREY INVESTIGATORS AND PROSECUTORS

Maria E. Couvillon or Cuvillion U.S. Postal Inspector [Ed.--Palfrey contends that she to be in her late-twenties, early-thirties. 6/27-name is phonetic. Wayne Madsen Report has it as "Cuvio."]
Joe Clark, U.S. Postal Inspector (want his home phone number? Get it before he changes it!) [Ed.-Palfrey also contends that Clark is the same age-range.]
Catherine K. Connelly, Assistant U.S. Attorney (MA Bar #649430) [Ed.-Ms. Palfrey contends in our interview that Ms. Connelly appears to be in the same age-range as the aforementioned investigators.]
William Rakestraw Cowden, Assistant U.S. Attorney (D.C. Bar #426301)
Jeffrey A. Taylor, U.S. Attorney [Ed.-Appointed interim by Alberto Gonzales under the Patriot Act provision that was that was repealed by recent legislation--Taylor has 109 days left in his term as of June 26th, 2007, less than the president]
Daniel P. Butler, Assistant U.S. Attorney (D.C. Bar #417718)
Troy Burrus, Agent Internal Revenue Service [Ed. Ms. Palfrey and her mother contend that Burrus appeared to be around the same ages as Connelly, Clark & Cuvillon. Palfrey's mother only met Burrus and Cuvillon on the night of June 5th of this year.]
Is there a doctor in the house? J-7 would like to know the ages and hiring-circumstances of these folks, the accusers of one Deborah Jeane Palfrey. I believe that Mr. Taylor was appointed by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, so we already know his appointment as an U.S. Attorney was questionable.

Is he a Republican? I'm sure we'll all be finding-out very soon. While J-7 cannot fully substantiate the ages of the others yet, it's even money that Cuvillon, Clark, and Burrus are in their late-20s, or early-30s.

This is very strange--how does one become a Postal investigator/inspector at 22-24? This writer contends that it would take some serious juice, a benefactor either already ensconced above within the bureaucracy, or someone who was appointed by the president. I'm trying to get through to a number of these public servants, and without any luck so far. This is what we need to know, then, in-sum:

--What are the exact ages of these public servants?
--How did they attain their positions within the federal bureaus that they're working for? Were they appointed? We know that Jeffrey A. Taylor, lead prosecutor, was appointed by the embattled Alberto Gonzales. He actually appears to be in his 30s, but Al scotched his credibility already. Taylor is a "positive" example, but then, all of them could be considered such. Assistant U.S. Attorneys are appointed. All Justice Department lawyers on Palfrey's case were appointed by Alberto Gonzales.
--Are any or all of these individuals evangelical Christians with an activist background?
--Did any of them attend colleges like Regents School of Law?
--What are their real world qualifications? Court documents appear to be saying that Ms. Cuvillon has almost none whatsoever.
--Do they have any incidents in their professional records that would call their credibility into question as prosecutors or investigators?

--What's their educational background? Taylor's appears to be pretty solid, and so is Troy Burrus's--he went to Auburn University.

These are a few things we all need to know as citizens, but it's a rare commodity. It's beginning to look like FOIA-time here at J-7. We need to know if our prosecutors are credible and untainted politically. Credible submissions only, it has to be solid primary evidence, legally-obtained. I welcome these public servants to contact me through my blog profile, my e-mail address is available there.

Ed.--revised, June 26th & 29th, 2007.

COURT UPDATE ON PALFREY CASE: "DC MADAM'S" CRIMINAL LAW ATTORNEY REQUESTS A DROPPING OF CHARGES

Washington D.C.--Again, credit goes to the Washington Post for continuing their coverage of the legal predicament of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, eschewing the credulous reaction most of the media (and prominent "liberal/progressive" blogs) to the killing of ABC's 20/20 segment (redacted to seven minutes).

Today's news brought us a little closer to what a settlement and resolution of the case might look like if the investigators considered the current political climate:

Deborah Jeane Palfrey was the victim of selective prosecution and was indicted only after she publicly criticized federal prosecutors and threatened to seek an independent investigation of them from the attorney general, her attorney wrote in court filings. "As can be verified by picking up the Yellow Pages, a Washingtonian magazine or The Washington Post, Ms. Palfrey owns and operates merely one of hundreds of escort services operating [in] the District of Columbia," lawyer Preston Burton wrote. "There is evidence . . . that demonstrate[s] the realistic possibility that Ms. Palfrey was singled out for prosecution on the basis of her petition to the government requesting the appointment of Special Counsel." (Washington Post, "District Briefing, Saturday, June 16 2007; B02. ESCORT SERVICE CASE. 'Attorney Asks Judge to Dismiss Charges. ")

This appears very likely, especially upon examination of the time-line, but it's also a well-known fact that Washington D.C. is literally teeming with sundry escort services--why aren't they in court too? Why is it just Deborah Jeane Palfrey? Where are her former employees, particularly the ones who constitute the "five confidential informants?" Surely, all of them feel "intimidated" as "witnesses," forget former clients (like Fred Thompson? [Ed., 08.28.2008-This name was confirmed to myself by Palfrey in a missive. Larry Flynt has the name, but it no-longer matters.]).

This leads into how informant programs and deals frequently work: the affiants are given legal immunity in-exchange for their testimony. This doesn't prevent someone from having engaged in prostitution--or any other crime--without Palfrey's knowledge to save themselves by accusing her in what would constitute perjured statements. That's a possible reason for this statement from the Justice Department's lead-prosecutor:

"Here's the pickle we're in, your honor," said federal prosecutor William Cowden [Ed.-assistant US Attorney]. "The information in government files in some cases relate to other individuals' possible criminal activity [Ed.--probably those of the informants, but could also include the criminal activities of former clients] . . . . My suspicion is the defense wants to make some of that information public." Palfrey and the government have been in a protracted dispute over whether she has used some of her phone records from her business, Pamela Martin and Associates, to try to publicly identify former customers and intimidate potential prosecution witnesses. (Washington Post, 05.22.2007)

Even a cursory examination of the government's past use of informants illustrates its usage is highly suspect--suspicion is right. Most informants have already broken a law (frequently, a heinous one with victims) before they reach a federal prosecutor, and their motives should always be questioned (as well as the truthfulness of their claims).

The "pickle" could be the mess that federal prosecutors have allowed themselves to be baited-into by certain former clients--prominent ones. Some of them could still be holding-office within the Justice Department as I write this, or even the White House. They wouldn't lie, would they?

What sets-off alarm bells is that Assistant U.S. Attorney Cowden is trying to quash any attention to these legitimate concerns, and they are real concerns in any criminal case brought by the federal government against any lone-individual (especially one they've impoverished through forfeiture laws). Cowden's probably being told to take this approach by his boss, Jeffrey A. Taylor. Is Taylor being told by Attorney General Gonzales on how to proceed in this case? Congress (the Judiciary Committees) and her own investigators might be interested to know. They should ask Ms. Monica Goodling, and under oath.

The use of confidential informants has been abused countless times by the FBI in the harassment of political, religious, and cultural minorities in the United States.

But consider this: should you trust the testimony of someone who has broken laws that are worse than what the defendant is being accused of? This is just another valid criticism of the use of confidential informants. This aside, Palfrey and her new criminal attorney Preston Burton are attacking the legal foundation of all five federal counts against her. Readers should also know that until Ms. Palfrey's case (not an issue of her guilt or innocence), prostitution wasn't a federal offense.

Somehow, it became so without the passage of any legislation...or did it? There's another side to Palfrey's former employees--the ones who didn't get caught-up in the Justice Department's net:

The escort says she never told Palfrey—"a great boss"—that she slept with clients several times a week. She says she misses the work—and the business and investing advice clients offered. [my emphasis]"It was all about role-playing and packaging yourself," she says. "It's exactly what they teach you in sales and marketing." ("D.C. Sex Scandal: An Escort's Perspective," Newsweek, 06.04.2007.)

Question: are the "confidential informants" lying? And what was that "business and investing advice" that former clients "offered"? It all seems to hinge on the affidavits, and these are being suppressed as evidence.

The whole case seems flimsy, yet, this is how the Justice Department is handling the case, and with no obvious jurisdiction. Maybe that's why the postal investigators were brought in. The only "evidence" they appear to have is the word of some very frightened former employees--who may have solicited prostitution without Palfrey's knowledge--of Pamela Martin & Associates.

Do Taylor and company have much of a case at all? Even looking from the outside, it doesn't appear so. Again, it's a pertinent question to ask about how Assistant U.S. Attorney Cowden, Assistant U.S. Attorney Catherine M. Connelly (Mass. Bar #649430), U.S. Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel P. Butler, (D.C. Bar #417718) came into their jobs. If it was under the Bush administration, the Senate Judiciary Committee needs to subpoena them as well for all the reasons one might suspect.

The Washington Post on "Hookergate" and trial proceedings (various): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/21/AR2007052100660.html

And: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/21/AR2007052100660.html

A directory of articles on Ms. Palfrey's predicament: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/related-topics.html/Deborah+Jeane+Palfrey?tid=informline

Newsweek, 06.04.2007: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18881818/site/newsweek/

MSNBC Today on the new court developments: http://www.nbc4.com/news/13515636/detail.html