James Dobson, Jack Burkman & the DC Madam

The Rev. James Dobson, former founder of Focus on the Family, former human being, has been telling evangelicals that if they don't vote to the right that God's going to be angry at them, some such bullshit flowing from his sewer-shaped orifice. Normal people don't take to this swill, but then, there's Republicans, evangelicals, the Aryan Nations crowd, the Tea Party demographic (a very tiny one comprised mostly of middle-aged small business owners), and the Klan. In the backdrop of all this are the lobbyists, war profiteers, criminal banks, criminal management subcultures, speculators, lawyers--the criminals who have hijacked the system--doing their do while the rubes think they're accomplishing something. OK, they are: the dismemberment of their own rights, so there.

I've written on Jack Burkman more than I cared to. He's a good argument for sterilization. What I have concluded is that as a golden tiered lobbyist, media pundit for the right, and whatever hat he's wearing this week attached to his utility-belt, this guy is no good for America or the world. He's not just typical folks, he's up there at the summit, part of the problem, a threat to the Republic. We're all entitled to freedom of association, but these fuckers take it to the breaking point into organized crime. I don't really give a shit if it gets a free pass from all the other criminals in office, it's a subversion of the rule of law. Dobson is telling his flock and anyone foolish enough to listen to him seriously that if they don't vote Republican, forget it, God's going to be angry, watch out, eek, oh, aw. Does this shit ever get tired for these jackapes? Do they think with the primeval part of the brain underneath the cerebellum more often than not? Hey, were it not affecting the rest of the world, fuck if I care, but it is. Burkman is just one more cheerleader on the runaway train called Western capitalism. These clowns have taken us to the edge of the cliff now, whatever's coming is coming sooner rather than later, and it will be big, nothing will ever be the same again. Their reaction? To try to clamp down on the rest of us because they know intuitively that they're the problem, a source of dysfunction, and that this dysfunction is going to wash them out of power soon. They send out the usual clods like Burkamn to distract, divide, to demoralize.

Nothing he or they have to say is going to wash with the majority, however, so they wrap it in religion and patriotism, nationalist iconography, so the rank tasting pill will go down for the slack-jawed crowd. Rawstory had a recent blurb on Dobson, his recent utterances on how we're all supposed to be voting. I posted a comment relating to the cynicism of the Burkman/Dobson relationship since the former has spoken as a representative to the phony preacher man, the founder of Focus on the Family, which in turn created the Family Research Council. It's more right wing attacks on the separation of church and state, but also to get evangelicals to vote stupidly, to vote Republican.

Burkman is a well-known pussyhound who loves fucking almost anything in sight. He's not exactly the model of behavior that Dobson's advocating either. Why would he care? Burkman has promoted him and his agenda, a mutually beneficial one with the GOP, he gets results. Caring about the behavior of others is for the flock--with exceptions like these. Dobson has never come out criticizing Burkman for this behavior.

To believe in nothing is nihilism:

Dobson only cares about temporal power, he's ashen inside. His mouthpiece Jack Burkman was found by multiple researchers in the DC Madam's phone bills--he did a callback to her escort service, so it wasn't a mistake, especially with each instance years apart.

Burkman was given incredible cover by the mainstream press, it was extraordinary, suggesting a media campaign to contain the scandal generally, to contain the damage to the GOP. They couldn't keep a lid on Larry Flynt with Senator Vitter, but they could with Jack. Burkman goes out spouting the same family values garbage as Dobson--for Dobsons in fact. Vitter got an award from the FRC for his work in promoting family values in the Senate, in hotels, with hookers, you know...

Bill Maher had him on his shows so often I question whether they might be friends, something over two dozen. He's not just spouting GOP swill on Fox, hardly. He's all over the place as a "voice of the right." He was a high level campaign adviser to the 2004 Bush/Cheney campaign. The media ignored his presence in the phone records because of his other job, a pattern you will find in the phone records: lots of lobbying related entities, individuals, most in defense/intelligence or related contracting, like SAIC or Qualcomm. SAIC is all over the phone records. I think the whole scandal was about influence peddling being uncovered in Hookergate with investigations turning up a lot of stones with the escort services in DC., finally accelerating the investigation in Palfrey. It didn't help that the November 2006 midterms were coming, so someone interim appointed (for other reasons too) Jeffrey Taylor...now at Ernst & Young, who have a revolving door relationship with their executives and those at Qualcomm. There's something major there with Burkman for almost all of the press to uniformly go silent on it. That's because they could with him, not Vitter, not Tobias, etc.

There are more phone records out there, she didn't release all of them. It's possible I have everything, however, as I was a member of the defense as a general researcher, hired at Palfrey's request. I've seen Dan Moldea's findings. There are quite a few more names in them of significance, but patterns are what matter most. That doesn't really fit Flynt's format, he wants hypocritical office holders, they're the ones in his sights. Burkman isn't an elected official, he wouldn't stand up to the scrutiny--probably wouldn't know he was doing something wrong, heh. Word in the Beltway is that he's chasing women all of the time. Then there was the anecdote about him walking around DC (he's a gimp) coming to a Gay Pride parade and propositioning a lesbian couple for sex. The girl put story up on her Myspace page with a scan of his business card, but it was yanked. Wonkette's story on it was also taken down, or at least one or two of them, and so on.

I've communicated with a few of the girls that Jack has...well, fucked. He's not remotely in the Dobson mold in his real life, a very sexual one at that, and he has purchased birth control for at least one of them, the morning after pill. Does James Dobson give a shit? Of course not, Burkman is his hire, his media mercenary, his spokesman, his lobbyist. Burkman cut his teeth working as a congressional staffer during the GOP's endless assault on the also corrupt Bill Clinton, another political operative. Now he's a golden tiered lobbyist. Results. Those are what Dobson wants, gets, and so, he would never admit Burkman was this way unless he had no choice. These people are the lowest form of life on the planet, below the amoeba, lethal mutations. There's a presidency on the cancer...

Expect more on Mr. Burkman in my upcoming account on the DC Madam.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/08/dobson-we-are-in-serious-trouble-with-god-if-we-vote-wrong-in-2012/

Next week: A brief psychological profile of GOP pundit/lobbyist Jack Burkman, Jr. and his gimp-leg/soul

WWW--The site meter's going to light-up for this one! Jack has one leg shorter than the other, some weird literary analog to his damaged soul, a modern day "Tartuffe," or perhaps Tartuffe's enigmatic assistant who never talks and just acts sinister, a good fit. I can see him dragging his leg down the streets of Georgetown and Arlington, even right around Capitol Hill, as he and others work to screw the rest of us. There's an anger to this man that speaks of incredible emotional pain, and he's not alone in the political/economic/media establishment. He has polluted himself and our culture, spreading his disease like a kind of contemporary "Typhoid Mary" of the soul. But someone had to teach him this, he was created.

The problem with turds like Burkman is that some of them once had ideals and know somewhere in their poisoned hearts that they're trapped and that they're not as invincible as they'd like to think. They know someone owns their ass. Overcompensation is part of the mindset, just watch him on television sometime--if you can stand more than a few moments like me. I can say unequivocally that Burkman is lying in his denial that he was a client of the DC Madam's escort service. He called at least four times between 2003 and 2006, and that's no accident at that point, just like it wasn't with Ret. Col. Ronald Roughead, David Vitter, Dick Morris, Randall Tobias, and a yet-to-be-revealed cast of dozens of the privileged who also weren't misdialing when they called Pamela Martin & Associates.

I should also add that Jack and/or some of his associates might have sent a simulacrum ex-girlfriend around as a way of baiting me into a kind of an ambush. I could be wrong, but when someone offers to meet him again and then suggests getting him to say something "incriminating" on tape, flags go up, car alarms go off, and you know as a researcher and an investigator not to pull that particular trigger. It's entirely possible I'm wrong about this, but there have been other incidents during the entire DC Madam saga that keep begging-the-question regarding illegal surveillance and even subtle harassment, maybe even "dirty tricks."

Yes, they're out there, watching, just look at the visits I keep documenting. Of course, the skeptical can and probably will claim that these are "routine," which is half-true. Their problem is that unless they were part of the story in the same way I was, they simply don't know what they're talking about--not that that's going to stop them from having a baseless opinion. The other problem in their argument (and again, sometimes they're right) is the low-level of traffic at this site. It stops being accidental, and yes, I'm fully aware they send webots around.

Expect fireworks, and ask Wonkette sometime why they pulled literally EVERY article or post they ever did on Jack Burkman, Jr. They won't tell me. Funny considering that he's a public figure and the allegations that he walks around DC handing-out his card to women he wants to have sex with are true, including the fact that he's definitely a whore-monger like most of the scum in DC and has offered several women money for sex. What a waste of a man and his talents. What a waste of a life and an Ivy League education, better put-to-use in making the world a better place and helping one's fellow man. I'm sure he's laughing at this final paragraph, but that's the curse of the low-grade psychotic...

PS to faux-progressives: Thanks for nothing.

Former DC Madam Montgomery Blair Sibley's account "Why Just Her" now available through internet

WWW--As a participant in some of what happened, this is going to take some recalibration, but having perused through Mr. Sibley's book today, I have to say that first impressions are everything and that my own is a good one.

Amazon.com began exclusive sales yesterday, the first anniversary of Jeane's untimely death, and it's a wait-and-see what the public and critical responses are going to be. Having been "burned" (some of this remains to be seen) by Palfrey on several occasions, it's hard to say if any of the mainstream media or press are going to bite. At 598 pages, it's a hefty tome, but definitely a page-turner, and the public shouldn't be dissuaded that it's going to be a litany of legal citations, it is not.

From what I'm seeing in the text based on my own experiences, they should find a very intriguing story that would rival most pulp detective stories for their twists-and-turns.

Sibley writes:

Jeane became an internationally known, heroic figure for living her life without excuses and standing up to the Bush Administration’s misogynist, right-wing pandering, political agenda. The book identifies the external and internal demons that drove Jeane from an initially defiant woman willing to fight the government to a woman so despairing as to take her own life prior to sentencing upon her conviction for Prostitution Racketeering and Money Laundering. (Homepage, www.whyjusther.com, 05.01.2009)

I don't entirely agree or disagree with Mr. Sibley's contentions of the first sentence of the paragraph, but there is a core truth to it. She really was up against a culture of institutionalized misogyny--a culture that will go to great lengths to protect itself in the courts. To his credit, Sibley doesn't pander to the contention that Palfrey was somehow murdered by the federal government.

If anyone might feel compelled to, it would be him. Good show, and an honorable thing.

But truly, one lone woman actually did have to stand up to the questionable Bush II Justice Department, it's just the truth of the matter. In a way, she was an unwilling reformer. In a Hermetic reversal, Palfrey handily took down the State Department's Randall L. Tobias, just another dubious appointee of a totally corrupt administration; she exposed former Clinton adviser Dick Morris (this is frequently forgotten), and exposed a standing Republican senator as a hypocrite and a liar. Her case made it plain what the legal disparities are in prostitution cases in America between the prostitutes and their clients. Most of the time, the "johns" walk and the women go to jail. Palfrey's case could be the final underscoring of this fact. But the book--by its nature as an account--is also about former counsel Montgomery Blair Sibley.

In keeping with this, there was there was another related action on the very same day of the release of Sibley's book: the upholding of the three year suspension of his law license in D.C. . In just another curiously timed decision in what can only be called a bizarre saga, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that Sibley cannot practice law in the District of Columbia for three years, but with a hitch that might be missed by the layman.

Sibley's suspension is partially retroactive, but the actual suspension will be three years upon its completion, ostensibly in the spring of 2011:

We subsequently appointed amicus curiae to assist the court and heard argument at Sibley’s request. The issues before the court are whether the procedures [PAGE BREAK] employed by the Florida Supreme Court and the Referee appointed by that court were so lacking in notice or the opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process and whether the Florida Supreme Court issued a sanction with such infirmity of proof as to require further review. We find that Sibley has failed to demonstrate that there was a lack of notice or infirmity of proof and thus suspend Sibley from practicing before this court for three years, nunc pro tunc to May 12, 2008, on the same conditions as imposed by the Florida Supreme Court. (U.S. Court of Appeals Docket case "No. 08-7121, IN RE: MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY, RESPONDENT," uscourts.gov, 05.01.2009)

"Nunc pro tunc" is a legal term meaning that the suspension is retroactive to May 12, 2008. In other words, he's already "served" the first year already, simple.

A review of Why Just Her will be forthcoming at this location. Expect more of the unexpected.

"Court Suspends License of D.C. Madam's Lawyer," The Blog of Legal Times, 05.01.2009: http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/05/dc-circuit-suspends-lawyer-for-three-years.html

U.S. Court of Appeals Docket case "No. 08-7121, IN RE: MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY, RESPONDENT ": http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200905/08-7121-1178624.pdf

The official site of Why Just Her:www.whyjusther.com

Was Tim Russert a Divinely Inspired Hack?

Our Generally Crappy Mainstream Media--Perhaps eclipsing the death of the last Pope, Rudolph Valentino, JFK, RFK, and Gerald Ford (still dead), we got an earful about the allegedly wonderful Meet the Press host over the last several days. The litany was endless over what a "great guy" Russert was, and just what an incredible journalist he'd been...except that he wasn't, and expect them to keep braying. And where's Russert's Oswald? It was his heart, it betrayed him after he betrayed all of us.

Granted, he cast a charming Irish spell on those of us who want to feel reassured by a journalist who doesn't ask the "hard" questions of public officials--something he rarely ever did, if ever. I never noticed any substantial questions. For those of us who don't want things to change for the better, and for those of us who are afraid of a truly dynamic democracy where there's supposed to be acrimony and disagreement, Tim Russert was Jesus.

There is one thing, and one thing only that the late Tim Russert should be remembered for: he and his counsel resisted testifying over his involvement in the Plame scandal, an incident that needs no explaining to anyone paying attention. Russert had crucial information on the outing of a CIA officer by members of the executive branch as part of a disinformation campaign surrounding the pretext for the war in Iraq, and he withheld it. So much for patriotism or principles, Russert was a crusader-in-disguise for creeping authoritarianism:

Russert was aware that a special prosecutor probing the leak of a CIA operative's name knew of his summer 2003 telephone conversation with Libby, and that Libby had released him from any promise of confidentiality. [Ed.-My emphasis.] But Russert, the Washington bureau chief for NBC News and host of "Meet the Press," and his attorneys argued in previously sealed court filings in June 2004 that he should not have to tell a grand jury about that conversation, because it would harm Russert's relationship with other sources. ("Russert Resisted Testifying On Leak," the Washington Post, 01.10.2006)

As this site has always contended, the livelihoods and careers of these so-called journalists are their main priority, and they believe in nothing. The "Fourth Estate" aren't concerned or worried about our rights, and therefore feel no connection to the social contract or the common good. What they care about is themselves only, but orders are orders. But man, the coverage of his death! Oh, the coverage! Wall-to-wall, just breathtaking.

CNN and other major television news outlets even told us that there was a rainbow shining during Russert's funeral, strangely begging the question that he--like El Presidente--was somehow touched by God (more like in the head).

Mark this, and mark it well: whenever this system props-up a supplicant like Tim Russert for public deification, something is amiss, and the lies are flying. Court jesters had more courage than this clown ever did. Mediacrit.com sums-it-up best:

Being favored by Dick Cheney’s handlers doesn’t sound like a case for the journalism hall of fame, though.

In the case of Russert, we should consider what small impact “public affairs” journalism like Meet the Press has in these days of The Daily Show, social networking on the Internet, and Obama’s nontraditional campaign. I think the New York Times’ Media Equation columnist David Carr got it right when he observed that the mourning seemed not only for Russert, but an attempt to celebrate and shore up the increasingly irrelevant establishment political journalism. ("Mourning in America," Mediacrit.com, 06.19.2008)

All hail the death of establishment journalism. No, there's no reason at all to think of Tim Russert as anything but an American version of a commentator for Pravda under the Soviet regime, or a voice-over from a creaky old Nazi propaganda film. He was a stooge, a lapdog, and a moral coward without a shred of credibility.

Not that that makes him any different from his peers who attended his funeral this week, endlessly expounding on his (and their) fictitious merits as a journalist. His passing really is only relevant in relation to the Plame scandal.

Like most working within the world of the mainstream news media, he was not a man, but he was a traitor to himself, his family, and his nation. He will not be missed by those of us with the ability to reason, and history will judge him harshly. We're all born, and we all die. Tim Russert was no exception to this rule, and therefore, not special. Mourn the people he could have saved, save it. See you in the Emerald City, the Populists are off to meet the Wizard!The only problem is, they're shelling the Emerald City.

"Russert Resisted Testifying On Leak," the Washington Post, 01.10.2006: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/09/AR2006010901745.html

Mediacrit knocks it out of the park, June 19th, 2008:

http://mediacrit.com/mourning-in-america

Deborah Jeane Palfrey filing pro se "Motion for "Pretrial Conference to Consider Matters Relating to Classified Information"

"[N]o one of course ID’d them self as a member of the House of Saud, in such a situation. Folks from this part of the world [the Middle East]–unlike the Dick Morris’s in this country–do not brag or draw attention to their true identities. With this said, we had many, many clients from the Middle East; especially, prior to 9/11." --Jeane Palfrey (personal correspondence with the author, 09.02.2007)

Washington D.C.--This is a major-step in the legal predicament of the so-called "DC Madam," and one that could yield a significantly different version of the last fourteen years of American political and diplomatic history. Under "The Classified Information Procedures Act," it's possible that Ms. Palfrey and her civil attorney Montogmery Sibley Blair will be able to finally gain the right of discovery process in her case (the evidence for-or-against her). In a recent interview with Lori Price of Citizens for Legitimate Government, Palfrey dropped a real bombshell (though not to readers of this site):

My attorney, Mr. Sibley, and I, have very good reason to believe my case involves matters relating to national security and intelligence gathering operations. One has to remember I was in business in a city, which is home and host to some of the most powerful and connected men - not only in this country, but to foreign officials, dignitaries and businessmen from abroad for almost 13 years, from 1993 to 2006. Particularly, my firm was patronized by a significant number of Middle-Eastern clients over the years; most especially, prior to 9/11. I have contended from the onset and have stated accordingly on numerous occasions, that my situation has absolutely nothing to do with prostitution related issues. (www.legitgov.org, 09.01.2007)

This is a large part of why this case interested this writer from the start--it's possibly part of the nexus of a submerged war between the United States and Saudi Arabia, and could involve illegal warrantless surveillance of Ms. Palfrey under the questionable stewardship of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at various points (though it extends-back to the tenure of AG Ashcroft).

But we all know that all roads lead to the White House in these matters, where the responsibility for all of this resides. Like most Americans who watched the airliners slamming-into the World Trade Center towers on that fateful day six-years-ago, I had to wonder "why"? "Who did it?" All these years, we've known: it was the Saudi government, utilizing middle-class nationals (a number with backgrounds as career professionals, presumably with access to power), religious fanatics.

Why is Saudi Arabia one of the most religiously fanatical Muslim nations? The answer is fairly simple. It's a form of social control in-lieu of a legitimate system of government, and the regime can be counted as a high-tech version of Medieval theocratic tyranny. There is domestic opposition within the Saudi state, and not all of it is Al-Qaeda-like groups and cells. As Dr. Noam Chomsky stated in an interview this May, ..."people don't give up." That's correct--they join Madrases and terrorists cells.

The individuals joining some of these groups are trying to take down the Saudi Royal family
and the ruling clans of Saudi Arabia in order to achieve their liberty in some fashion. They're keenly aware that without the support of the United States and other Western and international powers, this ruling system wouldn't exist. Thus begins a terrible and fateful dance, because this also plays-into how Middle Eastern politics has traditionally worked for ages: blaming the outsider rather than extending reform to the people of Saudi Arabia and the region.

For the House of Saud to continue their rule, they must both seek the support of the State Department, while simultaneously casting the United States as "the Great Satan." American intrusion into Iraq and Afghanistan is a legitimate concern for nation who has traditionally been crucial to keeping global oil prices lower. One should also reexamine the issue of American military bases in the region, one of the prime catalysts in the creation of Al-Qaeda, a rallying-call to extremism.

The Saudi hierarchy must also correctly view the invasions as a gambit by Western petrochemical interests to control oil in the region. But all this aside, when domestic problems in a Middle Eastern nation reach an apex through obvious misrule, you blame the outsider, and in our case, the guilt is certainly earned. It's not just plausible--Saudis understand better than most Americans that the regime of the Sauds wouldn't exist without the support of the State Department, Congress, and sundry other Western corporate interests. Added to this mix is that all nations have natural competing interests.

This author believes that Jeane Palfrey's legal predicament could play-into this nexus of international criminality and misrule. Particular intelligence entities are likely involved. It remains to be seen exactly how it does, but we could be seeing something akin to the unfolding of an American Profumo scandal...ora Dreyfus affair. Treason could be part of the equation. America could be having a full-on identity crisis very soon, perhaps much sooner than you think. And how much of it would we know about were it not for bumbling old George W. Bush?

The American public has a right to know its history--it's crucial to the continuance and functioning of any democracy. At-minimum, the declassification of information in the case of Ms. Palfrey will protect due process in this nation, as well as maintaining the real world security of the public with various disclosures. This new motion in her case could be a beginning into what 9/11 really means to all of us, not the spoon-fed versions. Nothing less will do. This is not about prostitution, it never was. Senator Leahy, are you listening?
 

Citizens for Legitimate Government, 09.01.2007: http://www.legitgov.org/dc_madam_update_010907.html

DC MADAM MISCELLANY FOR AUGUST 2ND

Washington D.C./Vallejo,California--Today we have...well, not a lot that hasn't been said or alleged before. But we have something new from the long-silent U.S. postal inspector, one Maria Couvillion who has filed a "new" affidavit in federal court against Deborah Jeane Palfrey.

Why do I think http://www.thesmokinggun.com/ was tipped on this again? There are no primary-documents from this filing at their site yet, so it seems the Hill scooped them. [Ed.-Except they didn't scoop anybody--the information is months-old.] They have posted documents on a Hoosier couple who had sex in-front of a day care center in Indianapolis this week (Republicans? Dan Burton? Mark Foley?). The Smoking Gun seems to get-along a little too well with the cops and the courts, carrying their water and whatnot--or even unknowingly helping in a misinformation/disinformation campaign to smear Ms. Palfrey? I know, it's never happened to writers and news sources, not ever. TSG could use a dose of healthy adversarialism in their relationships with law enforcement and our broken criminal justice system.

Perhaps TSG's editor should be grilling the prosecution as much as he did Palfrey back in October of last year, it might add some more balance. What happened after they outed Bill "Mr. Loofah" O'Reilly? Where's the edge? J-7 would love to have these suspicions allayed, particularly since thesmokinggun.com leaped at the throat of Ms. Palfrey last October. Their editor's presumption-of-guilt was dripping off of my computer-screen as I read it (which hasn't dried at this writing-a bit like drool). She hasn't even had a trial yet in almost a year's time. That's not due process.

Oh, but back to Maria, the quiet and coy Maria Couvillon (and Joe Clark). It's interesting, but there's a federal Judge in Louisiana named Irvin Couvillion. When I think of French last-names, I think of Quebec and Louisiana (even Mississippi). Irvin was appointed by the Maoist Saint Ronald Reagan when he occupied the Oval Office. Is this Maria's father? Also, there's a "Maria T. Couvillion" who appears to be employed in Phoenix, Arizona as a "private bookkeeper." Same woman? Palfrey claims that both U.S. postal inspectors lied to her realtor in a phone message on October 3rd, 2006, at 2 PM, claiming they were a couple who were moving to the area of her home ("transferred" is the term this writer keeps tripping-over), and wanted a look-around inside the house.

In short, Palfrey claims they were attempting entry into her home without a warrant (old ground, I know, but it's wise to retrace one's step occasionally). It's not hard to believe. Does any of this sound familiar? No warrants? Lies? Obfuscations? It should, but the mainstream media are dragging-their-feet in investigating the investigators (and the babysitters).

A new court filing in the criminal case against Palfrey reveals some of the details of what prosecutors believe are the “sins” of both Palfrey’s employees and clients. Maria Couvillon, a U.S. postal inspector involved in the investigation of Palfrey (it’s a crime to distribute the proceeds of an illegal business through the mail), offered gritty details in an affidavit supporting a search of Palfrey’s California home. The testimony accompanied a motion that Palfrey’s lawyers filed Friday to suppress evidence seized in the search. (thehill.com, 08.02.2007)

As with the original affidavits back in October of 2006, it's all information from "confidential informants," and we're all just supposed to suspend any disbelief we might harbor (like watching a Michael Bay movie) and believe everything the government is telling us, as well as what said informants are saying. For those of us who aren't familiar with legalese, it usually means they're someone who was popped doing something illegal (frequently unrelated to the defendant), and are in-fact "cooperating witnesses."

There is a genuine distinction here, as some juries reject the claims of cooperating witnesses, because they're likely to be under coercion by the prosecution in a given case. They're tainted. This is why you would want to cloud the distinction if you were a government prosecutor like Jeffrey A. Taylor or assistant U.S. attorney William Cowden.

According to previous court documents, there are a total of five "confidential informants" accusing Ms. Palfrey of running a prostitution ring. But the overriding-pattern appears to defame and slander the defendant before trial, and the FBI is usually known for leaks that accomplish this, though the IRS also has experience in this area:

On June 4, 2007, at approximately 8:30 p.m., two people knocked on Blanche’s residence door and identified themselves as Maria Couvillion of the U.S. Postal Service and Troy Burrus of the Internal Revenue Service and asked if they could speak with her. Having a weak heart and given the late hour, Blanche agreed, as she didn’t want to get into an argument. (Blanche PalfreyAffidavit,¶2)

The two agents came into Blanche’s house and questioned her for 30-45 minutes. During that questioning, Blanche told them that they should speak to the undersigned counsel, Mr. Sibley. In response, both agents indicated that they already had spoken with Mr. Sibley and that she should speak with them. (Blanche Palfrey Affidavit, ¶3)

Thereafter, they asked Blanche questions and she answered, regarding her daughter’s escort services and Blanche’s finances. They did not tape record the interview to Blanche’s knowledge, but were making written notes. (Blanche Palfrey Affidavit, ¶4).

Two additional facts are significant. First, Claimant was with her mother for the three days preceding this visit by Federal Agents to Blanche Palfrey and had left only minutes before the Federal Agents appeared at her door raising the specter that the Agents waited until Claimant had left in order to confront Claimant’s mother when she was along. Second, this Court must take judicial notice that it was scheduled to hold a hearing on the temporary restraining orders on June 5, 2007, the following day. ...Page 2 of 8... ('CLAIMANT'S MOTION TO LIFT STAY, DISMISS FOR OUTRAGEOUS GOVERNMENT CONDUCT AND FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING,' filed to United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 06.14.2007)

The press hasn't caught-on much regarding these allegations against Couvillion, IRS agent Troy Burrus, or even the other U.S. postal inspector Joe Clark. Why wasn't he in Florida visiting Ms. Palfrey's ailing mother? As far as this writer can tell, only Alex Jones (and this writer) has written much about it. It would behoove the media to look into these areas a little more deeply...if they dare.

Then, there's the story at the Motley Fool that Ms. Palfrey's skills on the stock market are pretty solid. This goes back to early-May when the defendant moved to have her Dolby stocks sold as she felt that they'd matured, could depreciate, and that she wanted to use them to pay-down legal expenses in the civil arena. If it reveals anything at all, it's how daunting a civil forfeiture case can be for the accused in the United States. The difference in this case, according to Ms. Palfrey and her civil attorney Montgomery Blair Sibley, is that most defendants capitulate very early-on, which is accurate, hence the subsequent scrambling of the prosecution in the case. They thought this was going to be easy like all the others. Federal prosecutors aren't used to someone refusing to take a deal and fighting-back. The Motley Fool article doesn't say much, but it does show that Jeane Palfrey is a wise investor. They also make some snide remarks that paint her badly in other related articles, but that's their opinion and their right.

Don't choose a life of prostitution [Ed.-original emphasis]
Now, I know what you're thinking: The madam was right! (Ah-ah-ah! Remember -- alleged madam.) You're thinking that with a current price-to-earnings ratio of 34, against analysts' projected 19% growth in profits, Dolby is woefully overpriced, and it's sure to waste away, just as my debate's Palfrey predicted. But that's not necessarily so. [?!] Remember that the business often generates significantly greater cash profits than it reports as net income under generally accepted accounting principles [Ed.-or the exact opposite!]. That hasn't been the case so far this year -- the two numbers are almost precisely equal. (motley fool, 08.02.2007)

Yes, I was thinking this because she was right. She's been right about virtually everything this writer has looked into, and she wasn't lying about names on her phone records either. Remember that the same media that got us into the war in Iraq is still trying not to report on this story when they can get away with it. It's unfortunate, because one can imagine that many professional journalists are just itching to have their stories run on the Palfrey beat. Why wouldn't they? Because there are editors (pimps) and owners (expletive deleted), perhaps eliciting a Pavlovian response to save one's chances for: a raise, a promotion, or simply staying-on. Nobody said journalism was easy.

"Maria. I just met a girl named Maria."( and more on the same page): http://thehill.com/under-the-dome/nice-try-sen.-2007-08-02.html

Jeane Palfrey's Motions from June 14th, 2007 (w. affidavit of Blanche Palfrey): http://deborahjeanepalfrey.com/download/conduct.pdf

On Jeane Palfrey's Dolby stocks: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2007/08/02/dolby-wins-the-debate.aspx

"No Red Light District for Dolby" (pretty coy, eh?), 05.03.2007: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2007/05/03/no-red-light-district-for-dolby.aspx

"Is Your Broker a Prostitute?," 05.02.2007, where the debate over Dolby stock began: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2007/05/02/is-your-broker-a-prostitute.aspx

Ed. Update, 08.06.2007: Ms. Palfrey has assured me that the Hill article isn't news--the information in the filing by Couvillion is months-old, probably dating-back to October of 2006. A quick look at the original court filings by the prosecution confirms this. It reflects the lack-of-quality in reporting at thehill.com, as well as their cage-lining rag. Dick Morris writes for it, and he's been linked to being a client with Pamela Martin & Associates, though it is unconfirmed. Ever get the feeling you're being cheated? ;0)

ABC AND HOOKERGATE: WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW

"Their names won't mean anything to our audience. They just weren't newsworthy enough." --ABC journalist, Brian Ross last week.

Washington D.C.--ABC has quashed the story for-the-moment, but it isn't going to go-away anytime soon. It's been going on since October of 2006. What most of the public doesn't know is: D.C. madame Deborah Jeane Palfrey only gave them four years of her phone records, covering 2002-2006.

This leaves 9 years of records that cover 1993-2001, the Clinton years, and the years of increased GOP control in Congress. Remember how they said they were "going to clean-up Washington"? Palfrey, the Bush administration, and Mark Foley are putting that myth to bed forever. "The D.C. madame" also has the potential to do serious damage to Sen. Hillary Clinton's bid for the White House, and there are certainly interested parties.What's galling about the ABC piece is the assertion that because we don't know the names of everyone involved through instant name-recognition, that it "isn't newsworthy," and so we're supposed to trust the judgments of journalist Brian Ross and his producers at the network.

This writer doesn't buy it, but it's possible that Ross and ABC have decided to release the information slowly. They should be given some credit, however, since they've released the names of at least four prominent-individuals from the records, Randall Tobias and Dick Morris being the biggest fish so far. Ross hinted at some of the strategy, and it's certainly a smart one:

Instead, he said, "what we really wanted to do is demonstrate the range of official Washington" involved with the escort service. Their positions, as described by Ross, made them important, at least by the capital's standards: A federal prosecutor, who recently died. A handful of military officers, including the head of an Air Force intelligence squadron. A senior official at the World Bank [Ed.-my emphasis.]. But their relative anonymity spared them exposure as a result of the decision by Ross, "20/ 20" Executive Producer David Sloan and Senior Vice President Kerry Smith. Ever since Deborah Jeane Palfrey, who is fighting federal prostitution-related charges, gave ABC the last four years of her phone records on March 15 (Washington Post, 05.05.2007)

No word on whether there were any ABC execs on the list. A "senior official at the world bank" is extremely significant, and begs-the-question of whether there are numerous other faceless "insiders" we should know about. Considering the behavior of the press in the last six years, ABC cannot be taken at their word on this one.

It's likely that Ms. Palfrey is shopping her information around, including outlets on the internet, and she's not concerned about money for the other nine years of phone records. Considering her actions so far, it's very likely that the D.C. madame has a lot more documentation. If she doesn't, she's basically sunk. On the ABC interview, she made-it-plain she has no intentions of serving time without a swath of revelations coming as retribution. Today, Palfrey's defense fund site wouldn't load any of its text present there before Friday's broadcast [Ed.-It could easily be my great dial-up connection!].

Also on this day, Palfrey has been granted a new attorney, after her request to replace federal public defender A.J. Kramer (her court appointed lawyer) with other court appointed representation.

A federal judge has appointed Preston Burton to represent Deborah Jeane Palfrey in her federal racketeering and money laundering case. Burton tells WTOP, "I've just been on the case for 20 minutes so I don't have much to say yet." Burton represented Monica Lewinsky during the President Clinton impeachment, and he's represented the FBI's Robert Hanssen and former CIA agent Aldrich Ames in their spying cases. (WTOP Radio, 05.07.2007)

Palfrey probably knew that it wasn't going to be easy releasing the names of her prominent clients, and that class loyalties and careerism were going to be her greatest obstacles in disseminating their identities to aid in her defense. This is definitely the reason she only gave ABC just four years of those records--their assertion that "the revelations are dull" only covers four of thirteen years of her "Pamela Martin & Associates" escort business.

It should be noted that identifying lobbyists (covering both parties), World Bank & IMF executives, and military officers is hardly "dull." It's damage control to cover-up for a system of rewards in Washington, and Palfrey continues to be a threat. It would be unsurprising if she met a convenient "accident," and that anything is possible with this scandal when the stakes are this high. [Ed., 08.24.2008--A contention I no longer stand by, barring the release of new evidence.] Ms. Palfrey is that loose-cannon that Washington insiders have always feared would come along. It doesn't matter if the public knows who these people are (instant name-recognition). The fact is that they're going to slink-away while the prostitutes take the legal bullets, just as they always do under our absurd laws surrounding the profession.

Those on the lists and records should be afraid, she's ruthless about her survival and isn't going to be a victim, as she asserted on last-Friday's 20/20 segment. Consider that her statements almost totally contradict those of Brian Ross and ABC, and you begin to understand that both-sides are lying and telling the truth. [Ed., 08.24.2008--This has proven to be true.] The trick is figuring-out when and where they're doing it, and context is everything in this game of chess.

In case you thought Friday's 20/20 piece was the end of this story, check http://www.wsradio.com/ in the intervening-weeks for new interviews with Ms. Palfrey:

Palfrey and the Internet radio station wsRadio.com will auction tapes of five one-hour interviews with her next week, The Washington Post reported for Friday's editions. The bids will start at $5,000 (euro3,700). The station's president, Chris Murch, would not disclose details of the contract to the newspaper but said Palfrey will donate 10 percent of the proceeds to charity. (AP, 05.03.2007)

So, there's more to come. It's entertaining watching prominent individuals sweat in this iniquitous system, and Palfrey seems to understand that the public wants blood at this particular historical moment. It might just be a female "pimp" that brings the behaviors of certain sectors of American public life into-line, making them accountable under the same rules as the rest of us. It would certainly be a bourgeois-hoot (thanks Shawn).

For reasons of Alpha male accountability, feminists should be coming to her aid. Certainly, there are feminists who support her, but it needs to become substantial and visible. Or do they really admire the uberdaddies? ABC isn't telling the whole story, and there has been some very genuine back-peddling. http://www.loftydonkey.com/ are claiming that Grover Norquist is on Deborah Jeane Palfrey's list, and they might be correct. Whatever the case, one should be suspicious of any claims that the story is over, and should be viewed as attempts at shifting-the-focus away from the scandal to keep it from widening as it naturally should.

It should also be noted that in teasers, public statements, and promotion for the 20/20, Brian Ross and ABC have stated "the White House is involved." Of course it is, we just saw Randall Tobias--a Bush appointee--fall over a week ago. Surely, most politicians and lobbyists in Washington D.C. knew of Ms. Palfrey's escort service, and many of them were returning customers. It's hardly over, and neither is the public's hunger for accountability and blood. I can sense the tar and feathers being prepared now...

The Washington Post, 05.05.2007: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070505/LOCAL19/705050521/-1/ZONES04

WTOP on Palfrey's new legal representation: http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=25&sid=1134534

AP, 05.03.2007: http://www.nwfdailynews.com/article/4197

DEBORAH JEANE PALFREY'S HOOKERGATE: WHORES SEEING WHORES, AND WHAT THE WIRES AREN'T REPORTING TODAY

"...the tentacles of this matter reach far, wide and high into the echelons of power in the United States.'' --Former D.C. Madame Deborah Jeane Palfrey in recent court-filings. (Bloomberg, 04.30.2007)

wArSHINtUhN--She's about to spill-the-beans, so someone at the GOP (and DNC) had better get some of those CIA contractors ready to ice her--ohhh, too late. She's going to reveal her list this week if she doesn't get some favors, since the federal prosecutors don't want to play nice with her by allowing specific evidence into the record. The Feds have also confiscated virtually everything she owns, including her assets (no, not those, silly, she's 50).

I'd imagine we'll all be very surprised--and not--by who's on her list of clients who needed to pay for sex--at least what wifey wouldn't do at home to/for them. This has been brewing since before the November 2006 midterms, and it didn't help putting them off as we all know.

It's interesting that nearly all of Ms. Palfrey's prostitutes were college educated and that her clients preferred their sapphic qualities. I'm honestly wondering if Condizzi frequented the D.C. madame's service. There's smoke, so let's blow some up her ass. Back in October of 2006, Palfrey claimed:

"I never kept records," she claimed. "I protected the client's confidentiality...they trusted me." But Palfrey did speculate that she may have come to the attention of federal agents because her operation had somehow intersected with a more high profile case, like that of convicted ex-congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Investigators are reportedly examining charges that a defense contractor provided hookers to Cunningham as part of an influence-peddling scheme. (thesmokinggun.com, 10.09.2006)

Yet, it appears that she did keep some records for later. The above quote gives us the motive for why she kept records of the names of all of her clients--they might snitch on her. Since Palfrey was busted running a similar operation in California in 1990 (serving 18 months, then turning-around and starting a new service immediately upon-release), it's assured this is the same deal--prostitution.

No, I don't mean they were politicians, but they're related through fluids. Question: did anyone use cigars, and how many of the accused will claim "it wasn't sex"? Tobias already has, slinking-back to that cesspool known as Indianapolis.

Considering "Miz Julia" had 132 women working for her, the net covering Washington D.C. insiders is going to be extremely wide. This writer wagers that several senior politicians, federal department bureaucrats, and an army of Bush appointees will be caught-up in all of this, and even a few Democrats will populate their ranks.

On Friday, Randall L. Tobias resigned as deputy secretary of state one day after confirming to Brian Ross of ABC that he had patronized the Pamela Martin firm. Speaking yesterday on "Good Morning America," Ross said Tobias told him Tobias's number was on Palfrey's phone records because he had called "to have gals come over to the condo to give me a massage." There had been "no sex," Ross quoted Tobias as saying, and that recently he has used another service, "with Central American gals," for massages. Tobias, who is 65 and married, was director of U.S. Foreign Assistance and administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development. He previously held a top job in the Bush administration overseeing AIDS relief, in which he promoted abstinence and a policy requiring grant recipients to swear they oppose prostitution.
(Washington Post, 04.29.2007)

Correct, there are rules for you, but not for those of us in the GOP and other ruling-circles. Except if you get caught, which in America, makes you an asshole. Tobias is married, incidentally, so he's got some explaining to do. If his wife doesn't divorce him she's an imbecile. According to Palfrey's attorney (a man named Sibley), no less than five of her former clients' lawyers have called asking if they're on her list.
But back to Condaleeza Rice: "More revelations are in the offing. Ross said the list includes the names of some "very prominent people," as well as a number of women with "important and serious jobs" who had worked as escorts for the firm." (ibid) My-my-my. A few other names already released: Dick Morris, and Dr. Harlan K. Ullman (a university professor who wrote on military strategy--couldn't he just have sex with his students?).

Isn't power wonderful? These are the rewards of power, these are the things that all good men and women work for, these goals of power (besides murder). The Rev. Jim Jones knew this well when he demanded sex from his followers, and noting the basic inequalities (primarily economic) in our society, the People's Temple was merely a microcosm of what we see here in Whoregate.

The options for young men and women are narrowing as the concentration of capital commences. You get the picture (I hope). Criminalizing prostitution was always wrong-headed, and it was rich American women who pushed hardest to make it a reality. It wasn't out of kindness, that would be a statistical anomaly.

This scandal just underscores the reasons for why it should be legal: the lost tax-revenue, no regulating of sexually-transmitted diseases, and a misuse of law enforcement when they could be pursuing violent criminals (like Cheney).

More on Randall Tobias:

Tobias, formerly the chief executive of Eli Lilly & Co., assumed leadership of the U.S. government's overseas aid agency on March 31, 2006. He also served as the coordinator of all U.S. foreign assistance, a position created last year by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The suddenness of Tobias's departure caught officials by surprise. Two days before his resignation, at an event to mark the U.S. commitment to battling malaria, Bush lauded Tobias's work at USAID and at his previous job where "he led America's monumental effort to confront and deal with the HIV epidemic on the continent of Africa.'' (Bloomberg, 04.30.2007)

Just not in his own pants or those of his colleagues. One should note that the Bush and Quayle families have controlling-shares in Eli Lily, so it appears they reward their underlings with jobs and hookers, and perhaps even narcotics. It would be a supreme irony if many of the clients contracted HIV/AIDS, or perhaps, syphilis.
Speaking of syphilis, it should be noted that when George H.W. Bush was president, he was ordered by the Supreme Court to cease-and-desist from illegal lobbying for Eli Lily while he was president twice. He did not comply. There are similar tales from the annals of Rome, but I won't bore you with them. However, Suetonius' "The Twelve Caesars" is a good-place to start. Legalize prostitution, you're only hurting poor women, not the pimps and the Johns.

Bloomberg, 04.30.2007: http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20070430/pl_bloomberg/a5vamd2nyt_s

The Smoking Gun, 10.09.2006: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1009061hook1.html

"I abhor injustice." So do I, dearie. (The Washington Post, 04.29.2007): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/28/AR2007042801192.html?hpid=topnews

Suetonius', "The Lives of the Twelve Caesars": http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/home.html