2016 election stimulates new interest in DC Madam case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DC Madam trial transcript links

Ed.-I posted these not long ago, it's just down the page a few posts, but to newer readers (?), this should make things easier: http://chickasawpicklesmell.blogspot.com/2012/12/dc-madam-trial-transcripts.html

 For reasons unknown, I was the first to post these online in their totality. Insofar as I can tell, no one else has followed suit. 

Songs from the Site Meter: All roads lead to San Diego II...

Site Meter--Now, why would a government defense contractor be wondering about Judge Gladys Kessler, a woman I would love to talk to one day, preferably sooner rather than later. Hit the labels for "Qualcomm" and "Jeffrey A. Taylor" for more...

Domain Name		(Unknown)
IP Address		65.214.169.# (Qualcomm)
ISP		Verizon Business
Location		Continent : North America Country : United States (Facts) State : California City : San Diego Lat/Long : 32.7191, -117.1607 (Map)
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinXP
Browser		Internet Explorer 7.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution : 1024 x 768 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Dec 11 2009 9:12:43 pm
Last Page View		Dec 11 2009 9:12:43 pm
Visit Length		0 seconds
Page Views		1
Referring URL		http://search.yahoo....XqDdfeQ--,1260626988
Search Engine		search.yahoo.com
Search Words		judge gladys kessler
Visit Entry Page		http://chickasawpick...-district-judge.html
Visit Exit Page		http://chickasawpick...-district-judge.html
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time		Dec 11 2009 9:12:43 am
Visit Number		65,186

Update for December 12, 2009:

Domain Name		comcast.net ? (Network)
IP Address		98.207.252.# (Comcast Cable)
ISP		Comcast Cable
Location		Continent : North America Country : United States (Facts) Lat/Long : 38, -97 (Map)
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinNT
Browser		Firefox Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091102 Firefox/3.5.5 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)
Javascript		version 1.5
Monitor		Resolution : 1280 x 800 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Dec 13 2009 3:43:25 am
Last Page View		Dec 13 2009 3:46:14 am
Visit Length		2 minutes 49 seconds
Page Views		7
Referring URL		http://www.google.co...essler&start=10&sa=N
Search Engine		google.com
Search Words		2009-10 law clerk for judge gladys kessler
Visit Entry Page		http://chickasawpick...esmell.blogspot.com/
Visit Exit Page		http://chickasawpick...-district-judge.html
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-8:00
Visitor's Time		Dec 12 2009 12:43:25 pm
Visit Number		65,231

I think if Judge Kessler truly loves her country and wants to preserve the rule of law and our democratic traditions that it would behoove her to speak with me and trustworthy elements of the journalism profession about her replacement during the Palfrey/DC Madam proceedings. I would direct her to speak with Ken Silverstein if she hasn't done so already. Your country needs you Judge Kessler.

Late DC Madam's mother Blanche Palfrey breaks down in court

"Up the close and down the stair,
In the house with Burke and Hare.
Burke’s the butcher, Hare’s the thief
Knox, the man who buys the beef."

--An Edinburgh children's song about Burke and Hare,
both 19th century grave robbers, murderers,
and all around exploiters of the dead.

Pinellas County, Florida--It's all about money, not about the truth, but the press are expending more effort on obtaining access to 288 death photos of Jeane Palfrey than they ever were at getting to the bottom of her story when she was alive. That's what they do.

Additionally, you have various "players" like former counsel Montgomery Blair Sibley, Preston Burton and Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe [Ed., 08.29.2008--In the spirit of fairness, it should be conveyed that counsel Sibley has written to myself via e-mail that the photos will not be published and that he's only looking to confirm the cause of death.], and bottom feeders like Alex Jones and Jeff Rense who are jockeying for a view of the goods. They don't care how they affect the 76-year-old mother of the deceased. What you have are a lot of agendas, and as Jean Renoir and Alexander Sesonske wrote in the screenplay for "Rules of the Game," "people have their reasons. They sure do.

There are no words for the craven attitudes of these people who had no genuine respect or concern for this late, troubled woman. They forgot their and her humanity a long time ago. Today, they caused the woman who gave birth to Palfrey to break down emotionally:

"This is the last thing I can do for my daughter," Palfrey said. "Please don't let these pictures get out in public."
News organizations have asked under Florida's public records law to inspect the photographs, a request opposed by Palfrey as a violation of her privacy. She filed a lawsuit against Tarpon Springs to prevent release of the photos.
Circuit Judge Linda R. Allen declared a break just before 11:30 a.m. so she could review the 288 photos in private.
The photos would not be released until after the investigation of the death. (" 'DC Madam's' Mom Breaks Down During Suicide Photo Hearing," The Suncoast News, 08.15.2008)

We might have a decision later today. My feelings are that they will be released to very hungry media and lawyers, and a gaggle of other opportunists who never cared to help Palfrey in any substantial sense. I lay no claim to a right to see these photographs, and would prefer not to ever see them.

It doesn't strike me that they'll offer anything new to the record or any understanding. What they will offer is the opportunity for those with book deals to have some nifty images for their tomes, and Blanche will just have to "accept" it "in the service of the truth." But the truth isn't what they're interested in, just the aforementioned money. Then, there are other issues at-play.

It was known by a number of individuals that Palfrey was threatening suicide during her proceedings, and nothing appears to have been done about it. This, then, could be one of the reasons Judge Gladys Kessler was removed from the case. If the judiciary knew of Palfrey's suicidal tendencies, they didn't act on it and never ordered a competency evaluation to see if she really was fit to stand trial. Various counsel at all points in the proceedings might have considered calling for one as well. Also, sources are saying that Blanche Palfrey is becoming "forgetful," which raises a number of legal issues regarding the Estate of Jeane Palfrey if it's true.

At-minimum, if the judges and the Justice Department knew about it, you have an incredible example of gross negligence. There was no call for a competency evaluation. A number of sealed records generated during pretrial legal proceedings could clarify this. The issue of competency over-complicates an already complex case, and it wasn't merely Palfrey who dragged-out her legal ordeal. She had a lot of help along the way from counsel and the prosecution.

Now, some of them outside of the prosecution (primarily in the media) want to continue exploiting Palfrey, even in death. What do you call exploiting the troubled life of a dead woman who might have been mentally unbalanced?

It can't be good, so let's call it "paying the mortgage" or the "bills." Granted that it's usually to pay for future investigations, but then, there's that lifestyle to pay for, or the fact that the bathroom needs retiling.

This writer wishes author William Keisling all the best of luck in his association with Montgomery Blair Sibley [Ed., 08.29.2008--They might both need that luck.]. He's going to need it. Burke's the butcher, and Hare's thief, and the publishers (and the public) are the ones who will buy the beef.

Revised, with comments, 08.29.2008

" 'DC Madam's' Mom Breaks Down During Suicide Photo Hearing," The Suncoast News, 08.15.2008: http://suncoastpinellas.tbo.com/content/2008/aug/15/mother-dc-madam-wants-suicide-photos-kept-private/?news

Breaking News: Federal District Judge Gladys Kessler Removed from Palfrey Case

SIXTH AMENDMENT - "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Washington D.C.--In an extremely belated administrative move, Judge Gladys Kessler has been removed from hearing the case of the accused Deborah Jeane Palfrey. This is likely due to a recent order by the jurist that was not only improper, but out-of-character based on the previous arc of the case. Also contingent is the fact that Judge Kessler was contributing greatly to an overlong pretrial process, while placing the blame almost solely on the defendant.

This would be a peculiar denial of due process (as guaranteed under section 1 of the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution) if it weren't for the obstructionism and shenanigans of the prosecution and Palfrey's previous court appointed criminal counsel that has been damaging to the defendant. What's interesting is that many of the rulings of Kessler and the behaviors of her former criminal counsel played-into-the-hands of the prosecution. Presumably, the removal and replacement ('transferred') of Kessler with fellow District of Columbia Federal Judge James Robertson is from a motion by the defendant and her counsel regarding both the criminal and civil cases.

A new trial date will be set at a scheduled December 14th hearing by Judge Robertson, and will also cover other aspects of the proceedings. These could include motions for removing injunctions by Kessler and the prosecution regarding public release of information on former clients of Pamela Martin & Associates. The action begins at 10:00 am EST in federal courtroom 23A in the District of Columbia. Unlike Judge Kessler, Judge Robertson ruled that the Guantanamo Bay tribunals were illegal as constituted back in November 8th of 2004 in 'Salim Ahmed Hamdan v. Donald H. Rumsfeld.'

What's been implicitly clear in the previous pretrial proceedings is an unwillingness to address the defendant's Fourteenth (and by inclusion) Sixth amendment rights to due process and the basic American right to confront one's accusers. Poorly-intentioned federal trial procedures-be-damned. It should be noted that Judge Roberston was also a FISA court judge, resigning from it in late-2005 once the New York Times ended its year-long suppression of the warrantless surveillance story. Some commenters believe that Judge Robertson is one of the primary leakers in the story of the Bush administration bypassing the FISA courts through a secret NSA program. [Ed., 08.28.2008--I now believe Judge Robertson to be a Trojan Horse who was brought in to crush the defense, and that he's just another "star chamber" freak. Sorry Jeane, he was a fascist clown.]

The leak concerning the illegal surveillance of the American public under the umbrella of the NSA by the White House is interesting as nobody knows who unmasked it, though the Justice Department began an investigation that appears to have gone nowhere. All of this is interesting since Palfrey's case could have begun under such illegal surveillance programs, possibly in-conjunction with SWIFT in Europe.

December could be that month where a number of gifts to the American public are exchanged: a return of several of our embattled liberties. Kessler had scheduled the criminal trial of Palfrey for February 19th. It's unclear until the scheduled hearing this month when that date will be, and even then we may not know.

On Judge Robertson's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/politics/08cnd-gitm.html?ex=1257656400&en=c00930119f53c9ab&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

Federal District Judge Gladys Kessler: Unwilling Unitary Executrix?

"I know it's a sad day when a federal judge has to ask a DOJ attorney this, but I'm asking you -- why should I believe them?" --Federal District Judge Gladys Kessler, March 2nd, 2006. (Washington Post, March 3rd, 2006)

Washington D.C.--With the recent shuttering of any due process in the pretrial proceedings of Deborah Jeane Palfrey (labeled the 'DC Madam' by a preemptively biased press), a brief overview of Judge Kessler's past rulings and judicial behaviors is in order. It should be remembered that Kessler was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1994.

In all fairness, her rulings run-the-gamut, but she shows a great deal of deference towards the executive branch in general in a number of key decisions. Her most questionable rulings relate to the release of sensitive government documents, and Palfrey's case is no exception. Ironically, Kessler has repeatedly argued for disclosure in the Bush administration's execution of arrests and detentions in the storied 'war on terror, virtually from its inception.

The Bush administration contends that it cannot protect national security and also meet a judge's deadline to reveal names of those held in the investigation of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ruled Aug. 2 that the Justice Department has not proven the need for a blanket policy of secrecy about more than 1,000 people picked up since the jetliner attacks. She gave the government 15 days to provide the names. ('Bush administration condemns order to release detainee names,' AP, 08.05.2002)

Judge Kessler applied no enforcement 'teeth' in the ruling to 'allow for appeal' by the government (the DOJ). But by June 17th of 2003, the Bush administration successfully appealed the limp ruling, and even utilized an aspect of its original logic by homing-in on FOIA-provisions that pushed the appeals decision in their favor. By all appearances, Kessler showed them the way through the FOIA-loophole door. In early-April 2003, she ruled predictably to quash a request to allow the release of documents surrounding Clinton's 177 pardons his last day as president:

Then, Tuesday the Bush Justice Department won a victory in federal court. It persuaded U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler to stymie a request from the watchdog group Judicial Watch to release a batch of documents relating to former President Clinton's 177 "midnight pardons" issued on his last day in office. The fact that the Bush administration would go to court to protect the secrecy of the Clinton administration seems to validate the charge by Judicial Watch chairman Larry Klayman that the action was politically motivated - to keep the Bush administration from having potentially embarrassing documents made public after the current president leaves office. ('Obsessive Secrecy/Bush Administration Plays Politics With,' The Colorado Springs Gazette, 04.07.2003)

But Kessler has also ruled in favor of America's unions, forcing an injunction against new financial filing rules that would have cost all of them $1 billion-per-year due to new filing regulations pushed by Bush's then Labor Secretary Elaine Chao. Kessler's ruling is likely due to her time during the 1970s as a low-level employee of the National Labor Relations Board, and she appears to understand the concept of the public interest, which is commendable. But she has a strange way of applying it in other areas of law, and in other cases.

District Judge Kessler has displayed a consistency in this area of the common good, and could be applying this understanding to her rulings over Palfrey's motions for discovery and the calling of particular individuals for testimony: 'Is the public being served by this?' appears to be her primary concern in the majority of her rulings. But Kessler has also been known for backtracking on some of her decisions and her about-face and credulity towards the prosecution in the Palfrey case is not entirely in-character for her. Night is day when it comes to the case of the so-called 'DC Madam.' Nonetheless, the Wednesday ruling's language canceling the November 28th hearing over whether to end the temporary restraining order in Palfrey's civil case against Paula Neble is instructive--Kessler's contends that she's showing judicial independence and also applying the federal trial procedures (presumably dictated by Congress).

The answers might be related to the particulars of the case--facts not allowed to be presented to the defendant at any point of pretrial proceedings--and there is the appearance that Judge Kessler may have already formulated opinions of her own on Palfrey's innocence or guilt a priori. [Ed., 08.28.2008-I no longer believe most of this. I think that Judge Kessler knew Palfrey was suicidal and was removed for this and other, darker reasons.] What's potentially disturbing is that Kessler has made statements condemning the treatment of Guantanamo Bay Naval Base prisoners, and even quashed motions by the government to continue stays (delays) on their motions for complaint hearings...but little resulted from any these criticisms coming from the bench in any substantial sense up to late-2006 and 2007.

Opinions are fine, but they don't accomplish much without enforcement teeth. The wheels of justice turn slowly in the chambers of Judge Kessler, yet she's facilitated this slowness in Palfrey's case while simultaneously complaining about it. There are other problems in her legal logic. The November 21st cancellation of the hearing that would have brought Senator David Vitter, Paula Neble, and others into the sunlight (being that best disinfectant) rests on some shaky contentions:

7. In granting the original request for a Temporary Restraining Order, the Court found that "it is apparent that Defendant is pursuing the Neble [underlined] case in order to obtain from those civil defendants discovery to which she would not be entitled in her criminal case." [Dkt. #12]. ('United States of America v. Deborah Jeane Palfrey, Defendant. Memorandum Order,' November 21st, 2007)

Yet Kessler allowed the hearing earlier this month, irregardless of this previous observation that she's selectively trotted-out in a new, but substantially similar context. There is no detailed summary of what evidence is and is not allowable under federal criminal trial procedure anywhere in the new order. According to what has already occurred in proceedings, it must mean that virtually no discovery is necessary under current federal law in a criminal trial. How can this be constitutional? Where was the assertiveness required for a genuine flexing of constitutional checks-and-balances?

In another case, we have a surprise turn: on October 9th of this year, her unsealed decision to block the transfer of Mohammed Rahman to his home country of Tunisia came in the form of an injunction--it was unprecedented. A week earlier, she blocked the transfer of an Afghani-detainee without a 30-day notice to the individual's lawyer. That's fairly aggressive, but there's no sign of this in Palfrey's proceedings. The Afghani detainee opinion seems to be a more important ruling than the one over Rahman, as it injects direct judicial supervision in a more substantial sense over the processing of foreign detainees and their access to legal representation in the so-called war on terror. ' “It is the only time a court has said the government does not have the unfettered right to do what they will with these people,” ' said an attorney for Rahman, Joshua W. Denbeaux. ('Judge Halts Transfer of Guantanamo Detainee,' New York Times, 10.10.2007) So why all the acquiescence in the pretrial proceedings of Ms. Palfrey?

You can't say Judge Kessler hasn't acted with reasonable independence against the Bush administration as she is directed to under the Constitution of the United States of America, but has it been aggressive enough overall, or has it all just been window-dressing? There are a gamut-of-opinions on this issue which cannot begin to be covered by the space and format of this site (and also thanks to Google's glitchy layout software), but this writer believes Kessler's constitutional vigilance simply lacks enough teeth. Federal Judges are only allowed to overrule the decisions and behavior (law or statutes, and administrative code and actions) of the other branches of our government (the legislative and executive) when there is a constitutional issue, but what could be more obvious than the lack of due process in Ms. Palfrey's pretrial proceedings?

An aside in Kessler's cancellation of the November 28th hearing: she doesn't contend at any point that she believes prosecution's witnesses are being 'harassed,' yet claims the right to continue what is now deemed a 'protective order.' It's just one example of many in the November 21st court order that contradicts other areas of the document, making for a painful read. Judge Kessler isn't wrong that the defendant is attempting to achieve discovery (the exchange of evidence and information between the plaintiff/prosecution and defendant), because she isn't getting any in either her civil or criminal proceedings. Kessler's take on it, however, is selective and appears forced. The fact is: Palfrey's not getting any discovery process, and Judge Kessler originally allowed the hearing to proceed.

She has now abruptly canceled it with a statement that is rife with legal gymnastics that would make anyone's head spin. According to my first year law textbook, Federal District Judge Gladys Kessler has more leverage in her interpretation of federal criminal trial procedure than she's letting-on. What happened before Wednesday of this week? Was it a dramatic ex parte (a decision where not all of the parties need be present) confrontation by the prosecution? What's going on here? Defendants are supposed to be able to avoid a legal ambush in court through genuine due process. By all appearances, this is not America.

Well duh: Sam Donaldson Not "IN" Phone Records of Jeane Palfrey's Pamela Martin & Associates

The Generally Crappy Mainstream Media/Washington D.C.--This is a good one-- Rob Capriccioso, "sometime" blogger for Radaronline.com and founder and proprietor of Bigheaddc.com has been let go from Radar for screwing-up and stating that Sam Donaldson's phone number is in the phone records of the so-called "DC Madam's" (Deborah Jeane Palfrey) former escort service, casting it in a light that Palfrey alleges never existed.

It's likely that Larry Flynt's investigator Dan Moldea has also chimed in that the number means nothing of any significance. Does anyone do thorough fact-checking anymore? Nah, that's not cost-effective. I think they're giving away Press Club credentials with a pack of Chicklets (TM) nowadays, right? Ask Larisa Alexadrovna, she might know. But right, he wasn't a REAL journalist, whatever that means these days.

Why would someone like Bigheaddc.com's Capriccioso do something like this? Who's telling the truth? In this case, my money is on Palfrey. Cook has called her story "bullshit," and probably because it didn't deliver the salacious material they wanted. Why not look at all the other aspects of the story, the political ones? Nope, it's the easy fix for Radaronline and Bigheaddc, the "hooker" story.

They're willfully ignoring what's important to the story, just like the rest of the media, and to their shame. It's possible that because the blogs are starved for resources, Rob Capriccioso and John Cook saw an opportunity to get some of those funds through a big scoop (more advertisers). Something went wrong--it wasn't the big story they thought it should or would be. An exchange between Radar's Editor, John Cook and Capriccioso has been going on since yesterday evening, here's some of it:

[Ed.-Posted by John Cook, November 13th, 2007...]

On Nov 12, 2007 11:34 AM, John Cook wrote:
Rob-

I need to talk to you about Donaldson. Can you call me or e-mail me a
number?

John

***

On 11/12/07 12:28 PM, "Rob Capriccioso" wrote:

John,

The update you posted containing much off the record information
between me and Tyler has nothing to do with new information Big Head
DC received and reported regarding Donaldson. I don't understand what
you are doing. Can you clarify ASAP via e-mail?

Rob
--
Rob Capriccioso | Publisher & Founding Editor | Big Head DC |
bigheadDC.com | rob@bigheadDC.com | AIM: bigheadrob007

***

On Nov 12, 2007 12:29 PM, John Cook wrote:

I called you and left a msg

You have my phone number. If you want to talk, call me. ...

[Ed.--Capriccioso responds with a correspondence from a reader who also happens to be a blogger...]


To how many different Radar writers did you expect me to give quotes, John:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: S. Huff
Date: Nov 12, 2007 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: About the Donaldson story...
To: Rob Capriccioso

Thank you, Rob. I appreciate it.

Steve...

On Nov 12, 2007 12:09 PM, Rob Capriccioso wrote:

Hey Steve,

Heading out of pocket right now -- have to run. But here are a couple
of quick quotes. ..."I'm extremely confident in our story. And - let me be clear - how ABC
has maneuvered its reporting of the 'DC Madam' case is the real story
here." ..."We're currently researching another high-profile national anchor, who
has been especially critical of political hypocrisy in the past."

Sincerely, Rob

Rob Capriccioso | Publisher & Founding Editor | Big Head DC |
bigheadDC.com | rob@bigheadDC.com | AIM: bigheadrob007

On Nov 12, 2007 11:50 AM, wrote:

Rob,

Don't know if you authored the post on Sam Donaldson possibly being in the
DC Madam's phone records , but it looks like you're the guy to contact in
general for BigheadDC. I wrote a short entry for Radar's "Fresh
Intelligence" last night linking the BigHeadDC post. They've posted it but
they've asked to me seek comment/confirmation on the story. I'm not going to
ask for source info or anything, of course, but a comment on the story --
how solidly do you stand by it, that sort of thing -- would be helpful. I can be reached at
678-778-2849 or call you -- I couldn't find a number quickly for you or I would have gone that route.

Thanks, Steve Huff

Rob Capriccioso | Publisher & Founding Editor | Big Head DC |
bigheadDC.com | rob@bigheadDC.com | AIM: bigheadrob007 ...

It comes-off as being like a flame war by a couple of teens in a chat room, doesn't it? Ownership of outlets is the key to our current problem with the media, and we should be subsidizing independent outlets so these outbursts are minimized.

The government should be funding independent outlets so people like Cook and Capriccioso spend their time productively for the good of our society, becoming a strengthening force for our democracy in a time when it's badly needed. The Founding Fathers thought this was an exceptional idea...you know, if you want a democracy at all. It seems some of us don't, especially the more money we have and make. Where are these "independent outlets, Matt," you might be asking?

You're on the most important one right now, the internet. Whoops! That would be logical in a democracy--giving money to people with opinions we don't like--but it doesn't serve the unbridled interests of unaccountable power, so down the memory hole it goes, bloop! Making that same silly mistake of actual independent thought again, I always assumed that in our legal system when one is accused of something that there's an exchange of information between the plaintiff (the accuser/prosecution) and the defendant. In a trial, this is called the "discovery process."

From today's missive from Ms. Palfrey and her attorney, Montgomery Blair Sibley:

One has to ask:

-Why has and is the Department of Justice going to such lengths to keep me from having access to materials I rightly am entitled?

-Why does Mr. Sibley have to seek assistance from the Court, to obtain this mandatory discovery?

-As importantly, why have the Government’s lawyers made numerous efforts to keep this very same information from coming to light via the use of injunctions and protective orders?

-What exactly is the Government hiding? [Ed.-I can hazard a guess...no case, and their own very real crimes under the umbrella of officialdom.]

('Government AUSA's Refuse to Disclose Mandatory Discovery in D.C. Madam Case...,' 11.13.2007)

Where's the discovery process? This--to belabor the point again-and-again--is what we all assume occurs at the federal level, just like in state and local trial courts. We would be wrong, particularly in drug and/or forfeiture cases...or the case of Ms. Palfrey. Today, Jeane has filed a motion once again (is Judge Kessler napping a lot these days?) to obtain information, since assistant U.S. Attorney William Rakestraw [Ed.--Perhaps we know what some of his ancestors did...] Cowden won't even respond to any of these motions for discovery.

Of course, Cowden's doing so under the orders of his superiors, U.S. Attorneys Kathleen Connolly and Jeffrey A. Taylor. Taylor is currently the man helping the White House obstruct subpoenas on Karl Rove and Harriet Miers from the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. This writer believes Mrs. Connolly and her hubbie have visited this site numerous times. Hello. You know this already Mrs. Connolly: You and Mr. Taylor don't represent the interests of the average American. Please resign before it's too late.

If Miers or Karl Rove are dragged into court, it's likely that Mr. Taylor--as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia--will begin the real obstructions he was appointed to expedite, hence the reason for his extraordinary appointment under the Patriot Act provision. This is the man prosecuting Deborah Jeane Palfrey, a man very close to the U.S. Attorney firing scandal, and a man who never would have been appointed at all had it not been for said scandal. Surely, Judge Kessler has noted this as a very real possibility, and that the case against Palfrey is decidedly political.

To deny such is to deny what everyone can see as plain as the nose on their own face every morning. Her rulings and statements in several areas are not only disingenuous, but are a denial of objective reality. Bluntly-put, she is lying in her rulings in these areas, particularly in her bold assertion that there's no political element to the prosecution of Palfrey.

Judge Kessler shows all the poker-faced impassivity of a Mandarin, which is appropriate in some ways. But is she missing something in her attempts at impartiality, or hiding behind the image of acting impartial? Will justice prevail, and will there at least be reasonable due process? We're still waiting. As Mr. Taylor was appointed as an interim U.S. Attorney by the former, disgraced Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (in that hidden provision of the Patriot Act renewal in 2006, now repealed), and it could be a very long wait. Whether the new attorney general will be significantly different is an unknown. What will Michael Mukasey be any different than Gonzales? This writer thinks it's doubtful, but there's always hope!

Nonetheless, all the media can--or is allowed to--talk and write about is this absurd, pseudo-titillating blurb of a blogger who thought he had a "big fish." He should go track-down Ronald Roughead--but then, so should the rest of the discredited mainstream press. If Huffington Post wants to rescue its sagging credibility, it would behoove them to look into the less salacious (sexy) aspects of Ms. Palfrey's legal predicament.

Perhaps Judge Kessler and all these other clowns just want to help preserve a rickety, corrupt, and ailing order that doesn't deserve saving (for the sake of their own petty privileges). That would be a lousy epitaph for anybody, including John Cook, Rob Capriccioso, and even Sam Donaldson. "Bullshit" indeed. (Revised 11.14.2007)

Common Dreams, 01.27.2007: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0127-01.htm

February 14th background on 14 US Attorneys serving without Senate approval: http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2007/2/14/9546/72609

Jeffrey A. Taylor's DOJ page: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/dc/US_Attorney/index.html

Have You Seen This Cookie Dough Eating Woman? Editor Ponders Whether He's Gotten a Visit from 'Dr.' Paula Neble

SITE METER--A curious gaggle of visitors have been clustering to this site from almost the very moment of its coverage about the legal predicament of Deborah Jeane Palfrey. So far, it's been a truly stunning-array.

It could be presumed that many of these visitors are professionals, individuals in officialdom, corporate executives and functionaries, members of think-tanks, former presidential advisers (and/or their agents), agents of the federal government, private military and intelligence contractors (SAIC & MITRE have visited--the 'mitre' being the fish-shaped hat the Nazi Pope wears, originally coming from the Cult of Dagon), our generally poor mainstream media, some officeholders, possible intelligence offices of several nations, NATO's offices, numerous federal departments and administrations, Congress, the Navy (one of the most frequent of 'official' guests), the United States Army--even the unholy five-sided Pentagon itself has been here, that archetype of evil and death.

Washington D.C. isn't just 'Hollywood for ugly people,' it's that strangest-of-places where there are so many professional conventions, minus the normal conventionalism of the little people. It's academic to say that many of these site hits are individuals in the phone records of Pamela Martin & Associates. It's certain.

But even early-on, there were some visitors who just kept coming back, popping-up on the site meter periodically, and that was especially curious to this writer. The National Institutes of Health is one, while one from Severna, Maryland just returns over-and-over. The one with Warl.org is plainly peculiar. While Palfrey's client-base extends into Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and even New York City, there have been a number of hits to this site from Maryland that just keep returning, and they too revisit over-and-over again.

NIH seemed out-of-place at first, but then, you have to realize that some of Ms. Palfrey's escorts were extremely professional individuals, and so were the clients--especially so in some cases. Those professional clients and small businessmen aren't the ones the public wants and needs to know about--we need to know what officials in (and out) of the phone records and contractors of the government are doing on our dollar and in our name. Are any of these site hits 'Dr.' Paula Neble? Yes, I'm being sarcastic, but I'm saying she has visited here. We know her handlers have.

Paula Neble has claimed to many people that she was a doctor--she isn't a real doctor (doctor of lunacy perhaps), or even a college graduate, and it's likely that the government has probably helped her to go 'underground' (a hint to journalists: stakeout her mother's house if you haven't been already).

Neble is that strange case: she isn't really the kind of woman Palfrey appears to have hired normally, so perhaps she tried to have all the appearance of being like the others. Why? Surely, it could have just been a ploy to get hired, and Neble may have been extremely out of her depth. It would explain a lot.

Being the same age as many of her government handlers at Justice, she's probably felt a kind of camaraderie with some of them, since they also appear to be overextended themselves. Or maybe it's just a case of the Stockholm syndrome on her part. Who ever said playtime ended after childhood? Life is like the movies. Would they all be more well-behaved in a better world? Nah. Playtime's over, and Hollywood's on-strike. This is about affecting a real defendant's life with real world consequences for all involved. Justice isn't being served, and that's serious. This writer believes Judge Kessler suspects this as well.

Remember the late Dr. Brandy Britton, a doctor of Sociology? Dead. That's serious, and so is 55 years in prison. That's one's natural life. Equally serious is the threat posed by a case like this to due process. If the government has had such a great case all-along with such heavy, punitive charges against the defendant, why then do they keep claiming secrecy rules because there's 'an ongoing investigation' that could be compromised? That's a lame excuse, it's as flaccid as a politician's penis.

Palfrey named Neble in a civil suit for a breach of contract back in the Spring of this year (for engaging in prostitution against her express wishes), and Neble has been that one lone name we all learned early-on in this story. She's the first of the government's witnesses/informants to be made public. We probably wouldn't even know her name had the defendant not filed the civil suit against her. Where is she hiding, and why is she being afforded the kind of anonymity that the defendant hasn't?

At this point, it should be obvious that the prosecution knows full-well that Palfrey has a good idea of the names of her accusers and some of their backgrounds...but the public doesn't, and the prosecution wants to prevent this for some reason. Conversely, they have selectively released edited evidence to specific media outlets such as the Smoking Gun.

We--the public--know virtually nothing about Paula Neble...and neither does her mother. What she appears to be is a pathological liar being harbored and used as a 'cooperating witness' against Deborah Jeane Palfrey in a government case gone very wrong. We just don't know much of anything except that she had Senator David Vitter and Harlan Ullman as clients and a few anecdotes. Paula's poor mother must be appalled.

Until May, she had no idea what her daughter was up to, and it seems very few others did either. This is troubling in a criminal case with an impending trial set for February 19th, but Judge Kessler could open the doors to a real discovery process after the end of this month. But it should be remembered that Palfrey has filed the suit against as many as 15 other 'Jane Does,' probably being her last crew of escorts.

Research by the New York Daily News (by journalist James Meek back in early-May) and WTOP has uncovered the fact that Neble never earned a doctorate, or any degree at all. According to Meek's questioning of her mother, she only took a few biology classes at the college level. Why would she go around claiming she had a doctorate when she didn't? Again, she was presenting a picture of a different person to Palfrey and others, and the reasons could be very banal. But, amazingly, that's it--we know nothing more about her, and she changed her name in 2001.

She really seems like a mixed-up hustler who got into something much bigger than she could handle. This has some interesting echoes with the Naval Academy 'supply officer' who is--astonishingly enough--still employed at Annapolis! It might be assumed that she must have served some overarching purpose, and that they know some pretty compromising information on (self-) 'important' people. People like Harlan Ullman and Vitter. This writer's money is on a connection to the Cunningham scandal, and Palfrey has dropped the name in the past. The involvement of SAIC-employee tends towards this thesis as well.

Neble didn't have much of an education when she worked for Pamela Martin & Associates, so it's strange that anyone would have believed that a cookie-dough eating, sleazy romance novel reading Texan could be anything other than what she really was: a pathological liar and a loser with little-or-no grasp of the truth. Did she have some gift for the gab? How did she pull-it-off? At least that's what acquaintances of Neble have been saying. This site enjoins anyone with direct information about Ms. Neble to come forward with it, we're all interested to know what kind of individuals the government uses as witnesses/informants under the Bush administration's (or any other) Justice Department. Neble's old apartment was catty corner to the Pentagon, and like many of the current administration's ranks and supporters, she's from Houston, Texas.

The government had better hope she's not their star witness. She's out there, somewhere, eating cookie-dough on the taxpayer's dime, lying to her government babysitters who likely tired of her boorishness long-ago. Funny, she sounds like my ex. My guess is the feds are keeping Ms. Plump in a safe house--not from criminal danger of any kind, but from public scrutiny since she's already displayed all the traits of a bad witness for any case. Where? Probably within the Washington D.C. area, and that she and her handlers have been poring-over the internet since they have a lot of time on their hands. They should, they might be in a lot of trouble. You can probably bank on that one too.

And it would also be interesting to know specifically if Ms. Neble ever had any contact (physical) with Ret. Colonel Ronald Roughead of SAIC, and Brent Wilkes. SAIC could be linked to the Cunningham scandal by-way of 'Hookergate.' We could be finding-out a whole lot more of the narrative after the TRO (temporary restraining order) hearing on November 28th, the other turkey day with the accusers playing the bird. Here's to a good carving-up.

With luck, federal District Judge Gladys Kessler will allow Palfrey's civil suit to go forward, and the accuser will finally be forced out into the sunlight. Neble won't be the only name released after a lifting of the restraining order on Palfrey's suit against Neble, we'll know more about her accusers and why the government prosecution didn't want us to. What a Strange Brew. (Revised, 11.08.2007)

Domain Name		nih.gov ? (U.S. Government)
IP Address		128.231.88.# (National Institutes of Health)
ISP		National Institutes of Health
Location		Continent : North America Country : United States (Facts) State : Maryland City : Bethesda Lat/Long : 38.9878, -77.1262 (Map)
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinXP
Browser		Internet Explorer 6.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution : 1024 x 768 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Nov 7 2007 5:41:14 am
Last Page View		Nov 7 2007 5:41:56 am
Visit Length		42 seconds
Page Views		2
Referring URL		http://www.google.co...la neble&btnG=Search
Search Engine		google.com
Search Words		subpoena paula neble
Visit Entry Page		http://chickasawpick...esmell.blogspot.com/
Visit Exit Page		http://chickasawpick...oenaing-senator.html
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time		Nov 6 2007 5:41:14 pm
Visit Number		23,060

'DC MADAM' PALFREY SUBPOENAING SENATOR DAVID VITTER AND HARLAN K. ULLMAN: STATES VITTER AND ULLMAN CLIENTS OF DR. PAULA NEBLE

Washington D.C.--It appears the actions and motions have begun, and that the public and Deborah Jeane Palfrey are going to see an actual pretrial process. In all fairness, both sides have caused the process to become prolonged.

However, it should be noted that these recent motions planned for her November 29th civil action hearing against former employee Paula Neble (aka "Paula Mactavish") have the element of trying to achieve some due process through discovery, the stage of the legal process when the plaintiffs and defendants exchange information, namely, the evidence against them. Well, at least in-theory.

The government simply isn't letting the defendant see any of the evidence, or to question her accusers. This hasn't changed for several months on the government's side of the table. And of course, Palfrey has moved to suppress what one must presume is the very same evidence, or at least in-part. Where's Professor Moriarty and Colonel Mustard (Ron Roughead), or Dr. Van Helsing ? Rest assured: more subpoenas will be requested, and Kessler's going to have to approve some of them. Doctor! Doctor! You know--there are lots of Doctors and pedigree in all of this. Physician: heal thyself. Curiously, a WTOP article states that their research uncovered Neble has no doctorate.

Yet, all this said, Palfrey has been significantly more forthcoming than the government in the discovery process, as site meter readings since as early as June at this site will demonstrate.The prosecution has certainly been getting their side of discovery, that's certain. Palfrey is not. Also, it has to be said that the government has likely leaked documents to the media from the inception of the public-side of this case. Indeed, the government made the case public through the leaking of e-mail excerpts published at www.thesmokinggun.com

, which most certainly came from employees of the United States Government (the plaintiff). This would mean the troubled Justice Department.

These improper leaks, and other similar examples of pretrial tainting, are what Judge Kessler should be paying attention to. She quite possibly has, however, as there have been several hits from the US Courts over the months. They have hardly been alone. There have been numerous hits from the Senate, the House, and even one from Senator David Vitter's home town of Metarie, Louisiana. From today's newsletter from Palfrey and her civil attorney, Montogmery Blair Sibley:

As a result of Judge Kessler order of yesteday which set a hearing for Wednesday, November 28, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 26A of the federal courthouse in Washington D.C. on whether the injunction prohibiting Jeane's suit against a former escort should be dissolved, Jeane has this day sought from the Clerk of Court subpoenas for Senator David Vitter and Harlan Ullman, former customers of Paula Neble, an independant-contractor escort of Jeane's escort service. (Palfrey Update #31 - Jeane seeks subpoena for Senator Vitter, 11.02.2007)

Why Kessler is erring on-the-side of the government's prosecution is likely a sad example of congressionally mandated federal district court procedures that were simply wrong-headed. Again, the question emerges: who are Deborah Jeane Palfrey's accusers? Paula Neble appears to be that lone name until trial, a fact which hasn't changed for almost a year now. Remember that the complaint filed by Palfrey towards the end of April against Neble and 15 other 'Jane Does?' Assistant U.S. Attorney William R. Cowden has done his best to quash all motions on this count, namely exposing the identies of her accusers. What are they hiding?

In March, Judge Gladys Kessler put a stay on Palfrey's aforementioned civil action (formally, a complaint against Neble), which was at the request of the prosecution. Since Neble's what you might be called a 'cooperating witness,' it might be safe to assume that she has to testify against the defendant under some form of legal duress. A subpoena can answer the question of who Neble really is, as well as all the others unknown who are testifying against Palfrey. It can also provide specific evidence that the government is holding, such as the possibility that Sen. David Vitter and Harlan K. Ullman had illegal sex with "Dr." Neble (the Doctor is in, indeed) without Palfrey's knowledge, and even government misconduct in the proceedings.

The government is curiously guarded about its informants, many of whom have committed greater crimes than the people they testify against. It's a dishonest law enforcement and prosecutorial tool in-place of competence and good investigatory skills. No, subpoenas are going to have to be granted somewhere in all of this legal mess for the satisfaction of the public's right to know. This is a good part of why trials of this sort occur at all, for the sake of the public. The excuse that it would 'hamper investigations' sounds lame, as though the case is flimsy-at-best. Yet, Kessler continues to believe them. A discovery process would be logical, but are there things Kessler just doesn't want to know?

One would expect some form of an evidentiary hearing. At least, that's how normal trials are supposed to work, but this whole affair is anything but. Whether it's going to be present in this case and all its proceedings remains to be seen. We have a name as to whom David Vitter 'sinned' with, whatever that may mean, and her name is Paula Neble. This has been known since July, thanks to the aforementioned research of WTOP. Wendy? Are you listening? Lorena Bobbitt time has come.

Somehow, I think Vitter's "sinning" was more involved than Larry Craig's incident in a Minneapolis airport restroom. The public certainly deserves to know whether Senator Vitter violated prostitution laws along with Neble, and considering people like Ullman, Vitter, and Roughead are also involved, this can only be a political trial in the most obvious sense. At least Vitter's going to hear more nagging at home, and we should hope it's a little slice of hell.

Judge Kessler appears stuck-in-the-middle of this case with Palfrey in some regards. Interestingly, Harlan K. Ullman has vowed to testify against Palfrey in her criminal trial, and it's certain that Neble will too. In case after case, the use of informants has shown that they are often just criminals--frequently the ones who started the whole mess being presented to the courts--and that they're running the show more than their so-called 'masters,' the prosecution.

Note today's comment in the scuttled trial of former FBI Supervisor Lindley DeVecchio:

In a four-page decision that brought the trial of ex-agent Lindley DeVecchio to a stunning end Thursday, state Supreme Court Justice Gustin Reichbach said the FBI violated its own rules by allowing DeVecchio to court a known killer as an informant for well over a decade. "In the face of the obvious menace posed by organized crime, the FBI was willing ... to make a deal with the devil," Reichbach said in a hushed Brooklyn courtroom. "At best, the FBI engaged in a policy of self-deception, not wanting to know the true facts about this informant-murderer whom they chose to employ."

(AP, 11.02.2007, http://www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071102/APA/711020609&template=apart)

Just note author Bill Keisling's work on the murder of Jonathan Luna for a good example of informant misconduct and the FBI's incompetence in handling them. The recent statement by Judge Reichenbach should be viewed as a warning.

If we allow such criminals too much credibility in our legal system, it could seriously wreck the public's faith in the rule of law, never mind our social peace. Considering that much of this is under the Bush Justice Department, and none of this should be a surprise. But the informant programs have been around a long-time. It's time to end them, they're endangering all of us.

Revised 11.07.2007