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. 

dc madam trial transcripts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 https://www.createspace.com/4056731

Bank of America should still worry about Wikileaks...

I've been reading more than a few of the Stratfor emails that were published by Wikileaks beginning February 27th, and in going through them I noticed something of minor interest. In fact, it's something everyone expected. One of the earliest batches of the 5 million emails from the private intelligence firm contains a couple of client lists. I was pretty excited--it's not a big deal in itself--and immediately wondered "Is BoA in there somewhere?" and in fact they were, right up at the top of a client list, prioritized.

This isn't news of course--we know about this association between Stratfor and BoA from the December hacks by the Anonymous group and other sources. While the private intelligence firm hasn't confirmed it in the past it seems that BoA did contract Stratfor to investigate and disrupt Wikileaks. Five million emails is a lot of correspondence, so we shall see how deep the association goes, maybe eve evidence of criminal activities.

Assange has said that there are approximately 4,000 internal emails about or related to Wikileaks out of the entire batch.  Karl Domscheit-Berg destroyed the 5GB BoA file on an unknown date (this is assuming he did since his stories vary), but we might learn far more about the biggest American bank just yet. The Stratfor files seem to amount to 65GB, mentioned in an earlier post on here, without a key. This could get interesting.

Postscript: When you look in the internal emails at how Stratfor was also sponging one set of clients for inside information, then selling it to another set of clients ("Robbing Peter to pay Paul"), what you have is an intelligence/information brokering version of a Ponzi scheme. Boy, are they in trouble.

A very tiny except from my impending DC Madam account

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

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

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

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

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

A. Yes.

Q. And what did that show?

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

MR. BURTON: Can we approach, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

(BENCH CONFERENCE ON THE RECORD.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: What was the intent of the question?

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

THE COURT: Well, where are you going next?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: You've made satisfactory progress today.

(END BENCH CONFERENCE.) ...

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

Final order in the Palfrey/DC Madam case on abatement and disbursement of her seized assets

Ed.--When Deborah Jeane Palfrey (aka "the DC Madam") took her life on May 1st, 2008, it left open the legal issue of abatement regarding her property and assets that had been seized by the federal government through forfeiture. I believe that Jeane knew this would be the case and that it was a deciding factor in the taking of her own life. I have no regard for the opinions of cranks and conspiracy buffs and other nuts who make the claim that she was murdered by shadowy government operatives.

There is no evidence to support this wild contention, it is at this point inarguable. I'm surprised at how little a fight was put up by the Estate, but then, Preston Burton is the fiduciary of it, and considering how little a fight he put up for the deceased madam, no one important, just a defendant, I guess the concessions made here aren't especially surprising. Why the Palfreys would consider him for running the estate probably has more to do with his own moves to gain it and their desire for a convenient and relatively painless conclusion to things. I can't blame them for this desire.

Note that the margins, page breaks of and formatting of the filing have been altered through transfer to blogger's wonderful layout software. Ahem.

Both Palfrey and the DOJ's prosecutors claimed what I believe was then, and is now, a bald lie: that she only made $2.5 million from her prostitution ring/escort service from 1993-2006. Even figuring-in depreciation/appreciation (lowering or raising of their base value) of the assets--and I haven't done any real number crunching here, though I invite others to do the work for me--the contention is obvious bullshit. The line reading, [my emphasis] "The Parties enter into this Agreement solely for the purpose of compromising potential claims and avoiding the expenses and risks of litigation." seems to bar future civil/wrongful death suits that the Palfreys might have mounted against members of the former federal prosecution team (like Jeffrey A. Taylor) and the federal government itself, maybe even other players.

This is also of interest, though I haven't be able to do a line-by-line reading yet: "...5. The United States agrees to release, settle, cancel, discharge and acknowledge to be fully satisfied, any and all claims, liens, demands, obligations, rights, and causes of action of whatever kind, nature, or description whatsoever, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, reported or unreported, which they might have against...," which I think means that they think there's more money out there (as do I), but it's OK for Burton and Orrick to go globetrotting to look for them if they're out there and to keep and/or disburse them. Burton is a partner of the firm, an international one that employs thousands globally, a "megafirm" in fact.

Below is the entire twelve-page ruling from yesterday by the questionable former FISA court Judge, James Robertson...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 1:06-cv-01710-JR
)
803 CAPITOL STREET, etc., et al., )
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)
)
DEBORAH JEANE PALFREY (ESTATE OF), )
and )
BLANCHE PALFREY, )
Claimants. )

CONCLUDING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

COMES NOW, plaintiff, the United States of America, by the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, and claimants Deborah Jeane Palfrey (through the Estate of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, hereinafter the “Palfrey Estate”) and Ms. Blanche Palfrey (acting both individually and on behalf of the Palfrey Estate), by their attorney, Mr. Preston Burton, Esq. (collectively, hereinafter, “the parties”), respectfully to notify this Court that the parties have made a Concluding Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”). This agreement disposes of all remaining claims, issues, and litigation in this civil forfeiture action in rem, case number 1:06-cv-01710-JR. In summary, the parties have agreed to settle this action without further litigation by dividing equally the net proceeds from the liquidation and sale of the defendant properties, after accounting for certain earlier Court-authorized payments. With this Concluding Settlement Agreement, the parties respectfully submit a proposed Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal, which they ask the Court to issue. Doing so will conclude this action in its entirety so that the Court may dismiss it. In support whereof, the parties
respectfully state as follows:

WHEREAS, Plaintiff seized certain assets that had been controlled by Deborah Jeane Palfrey

Case 1:06-cv-01710-JR Document 113 Filed 03/12/10 Page 1 of 12
-2-

before her demise, which the government asserted were subject to forfeiture under federal law;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff thereafter brought this civil forfeiture action in rem in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States v. 803 Capitol Street, etc., et al., No. 1:06-cv-01710-JR, against the seized properties (the “defendant properties”);

WHEREAS, Ms. Deborah Jeane Palfrey (and after her demise, the Estate of Deborah Jeane (“the Palfrey Estate”)) and Ms. Blanche Palfrey (acting both individually and on behalf of the Palfrey Estate), have filed claims in this case (“claimants”) and have asserted, inter alia, that certain of the seized properties are not subject to forfeiture;

WHEREAS, pursuant to an Order dated June 22, 2007, which issued in a related and now abated criminal case in this Court, United States v. Deborah Jeane Palfrey, etc., No. 1:07-cr-00046- JR, the defendant property 1441 Vaquero Glen, Escondido, California 92026, was sold, and the net proceeds totaled $316,296.16;

WHEREAS, pursuant to an Order dated March 13, 2009, in this case, No. 1:06-cv-01710-JR, the defendant property 803 Capital Street, Vallejo California 94590, was sold, and the net proceeds totaled $161,006.86;

WHEREAS, pursuant to an Order dated September 21, 2009, in this case, No. 1:06-cv- 01710-JR, the defendant property of funds held in Charles Schwab investment accounts XXXX-318, XXXX-3186 and XXXX-3192, was liquidated, and the net proceeds totaled $582,097.93; WHEREAS, defendant assets held in Wells Fargo accounts 005-XXXXXXX and 6952- XXXXXX totaled $11,396.35;

WHEREAS, pursuant to an Order dated September 21, 2009, in this case, No. 1:06-cv- 01710-JR, the defendant property described as 413 Gold Krugerrands and Other Gold and Silver Coins (the “defendant coins”) was sold at auction on January 13, 2010, and the net proceeds totaled

Case 1:06-cv-01710-JR Document 113 Filed 03/12/10 Page 2 of 12
-3-

$586,133.08

WHEREAS, pursuant to an Order dated October 1, 2009, in this case, No. 1:06-cv-01710-JR, approving a Partial Settlement Agreement with Montgomery Blair Sibley, Mr. Sibley received a payment of $66,224.00 from funds derived from the defendant properties in exchange for a full settlement of any and all of his claims, known or unknown, against the defendant properties, the Palfrey Estate, and Blanche Palfrey (both individually and in her capacity as Executor of the Palfrey Estate);

WHEREAS, pursuant to an Order dated November 19, 2009, in this case, No. 1:06-cv- 01710-JR, approving a Partial Settlement Agreement with The Innocence Project, Inc., The Innocence Project, Inc., received a payment of $89,000.00 from funds derived from the defendant properties in exchange for a full settlement of any potential claims against the defendant properties, the Palfrey Estate, Blanche Palfrey (both individually and in her capacity as Executor of the Palfrey Estate), and any other property or asset formerly owned by Deborah Jeane Palfrey; and

WHEREAS, the parties desire to enter into this Agreement in order to resolve this matter and thereby avoid the expense of litigation, the parties therefore agree and stipulate as follows. First, the parties agree that, after the sales and payments to The Innocence Project, Inc., and to Montgomery Blair Sibley recounted above, the net proceeds from the sale or liquidation of the defendant properties is $1,501,706.38.

Second, the parties have agreed to divide equally the net proceeds from the sale or
liquidation of the defendant properties Therefore, to resolve this litigation completely, the parties agree to the following:

I. Payment to the Estate of Deborah Jeane Palfrey and Blanche Palfrey, as an individual and in her capacity as Executor of the Estate of Deborah Jeane Palfrey:

Case 1:06-cv-01710-JR Document 113 Filed 03/12/10 Page 3 of 12
-4-

1. The United States consents to entry of the proposed Final Order Of Forfeiture And
Dismissal directing the United States Internal Revenue Service to release to Blanche Palfrey, in her individual capacity, a total of $75,000.00 (seventy-five thousand dollars and no cents), by electronic funds transfer to Account Number XXXXXXXX2849 at Bank of America, Tarpon Springs, Florida (ABA Route XXXXXXXXX) within thirty-five (35) days of the Court’s issuance of the Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal. Blanche Palfrey understands that she will assume full responsibility for any and all tax consequences of receipt of this payment.

2. The United States consents to entry of the proposed Final Order Of Forfeiture And
Dismissal directing the United States Internal Revenue Service to release to the Estate of Deborah Jeane Palfrey a total of $675,853.19 (six hundred seventy-five thousand, eighthundred fifty-three dollars and nineteen cents), by electronic funds transfer to Sideman & Bancroft LLP IOLTA Account, Account Number XXXXXXXXXX, held at Union Bank of California, Los Angeles, California (ABA Route 122000496), for credit to client-matter number 10936 within seventy (70) days of the Court’s issuance of the Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal. It is agreed by the parties that the payment to the Palfrey Estate is funded by the proceeds of the sale of the defendant properties at 803 Capitol Street and 1441 Vaquero Glen and the sale of the defendant coins. The Palfrey Estate understands that it will assume full responsibility for any and all tax consequences of receipt of this payment.

II. Forfeiture to the United States:

3. The parties agree that a basis for the defendant properties’ forfeiture has been
established in the record as a matter of fact and of law. The Palfrey claimants consent to the entry of the proposed Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal, which adjudges and decrees the forfeiture to the plaintiff United States of the balance of the net proceeds from the sale or liquidation of defendant properties as reduced by the payments of $75,000 and $675,853.19 to Blanche Palfrey. Thus, the parties ask the Court to issue the proposed Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal declaring forfeit to the United States $750,853.19 (seven hundred fifty thousand, eight hundred fifty-three dollars and nineteen cents), plus any interest or other such funds attributable to their deposit in any account during the pendency
of this civil forfeiture action in rem.

III. The Palfrey Parties Consent to Release of All Claims Against the United States:

4. Upon payment of the amounts stated in Paragraphs 1-2 above, the Palfrey Estate and Blanche Palfrey (both individually and in her capacity as Executor of the Palfrey Estate (“Palfrey Parties”), agree to release, settle, cancel, discharge, and acknowledge to be fully satisfied, any and all claims, liens, demands, obligations, rights, and causes of action of whatever kind, nature, or description whatsoever, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, reported or unreported, which they might have against the United States arising from the assets currently subject to forfeiture in this matter; now or hereafter, arising out of, or by reason of, or in any manner connected with the allegations set forth in this case, 06-cv-1710-JR, and in the related and now abated criminal case, United States v. Deborah

Case 1:06-cv-01710-JR Document 113 Filed 03/12/10 Page 4 of 12
-5-

Jeane Palfrey, etc., Case No. 1:07-cr-0046-JR, also in this Court.

IV. The United States Consents to Release of All Claims Against the Defendant Properties and Against the Palfrey Parties:

5. The United States agrees to release, settle, cancel, discharge and acknowledge to be fully satisfied, any and all claims, liens, demands, obligations, rights, and causes of action of whatever kind, nature, or description whatsoever, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, reported or unreported, which they might have against:

(a) the assets currently subject to forfeiture in this matter;

(b) the Palfrey Estate;

(c) Blanche Palfrey (both individually and in her capacity as Executor of the Palfrey
Estate, including, with respect to the Palfrey parties, their Executors or
Administrators and any successors, assigns, agents, or attorneys acting on their
behalf); and,

(d) any other property or asset formerly owned or controlled by Deborah Jeane
Palfrey,

now or hereafter, arising out of, or by reason of, or in any manner connected with the
allegations set forth in this case number 06-cv-1710-JR, or in the related and now abated Criminal Action, United States v. Deborah Jeane Palfrey, etc., No. 1:07-cr-0046-JR, or giving rise to such actions, and not to assert, or if asserted to withdraw, claims or challenges in this forfeiture action, No. 06-cv-1710-JR, and claims or challenges in any court and concerning properties acquired by Deborah Jeane Palfrey, including, but not limited to, Case No. P43192, pending in Solano County, California, and case number 2008-CP-001782-O, pending in Orange County, Florida.

General Provisions

6. This Agreement shall not constitute an admission of liability or fault on the part of the Parties or their past or present agents, employees, representatives, or officers. The Parties enter into this Agreement solely for the purpose of compromising potential claims and avoiding the expenses and risks of litigation.

7. The Parties agree that each shall bear its own court costs, legal expenses, and attorney’s fees incurred in relation to this litigation and related to the facts underlying it.

8. Each of the Parties to this Agreement has participated in the drafting and negotiation of this Agreement. For all purposes, this Agreement shall be deemed to have been drafted jointly by the

Case 1:06-cv-01710-JR Document 113 Filed 03/12/10 Page 5 of 12
-6-

Parties.

9. Each of the Parties to this Agreement has carefully read this Agreement and, after
consultation with their respective legal counsel, as applicable, the Parties to this Agreement fully understand this Agreement and sign it as a voluntary act.

10. The persons signing this Agreement represent and warrant by their signatures that they have authority to sign this Agreement on behalf of the individuals or entities for whom they are
purporting to sign.

11. It is contemplated that this Agreement may be executed in several counterparts. This Agreement may be executed on facsimile copies and in counterparts, each of which shall be provided to counsel for the United States. Facsimiles of signatures, should they be provided to the United States, shall constitute acceptable, binding signatures for purposes of this Agreement. Upon its receipt of executed counterpart signature pages, the United States may treat the executed counterparts as one merged document that the United States may execute, and may then file, along with a consistent proposed order, electronically with the Court.

12. No term or provision of this Agreement may be varied, changed, modified, waived, or terminated, except by an instrument in writing signed by the party against whom the enforcement of such alteration is sought.

13. This Agreement shall be governed and construed by the laws of the District of Columbia.
* * *

WHEREFORE, as set forth in the thirteen (13) enumerated paragraphs above, the Parties to this Concluding Settlement Agreement stipulate that this civil forfeiture action should be resolved fully as to the United States, the Estate of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, and Blanche Palfrey (both individually and in her capacity as Executor of the Estate of Deborah Jeane Palfrey), as set forth

Case 1:06-cv-01710-JR Document 113 Filed 03/12/10 Page 6 of 12
-7-

herein, and the parties request the Court to enter the attached proposed FINAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE AND DISMISSAL approving this Concluding Settlement Agreement and authorizing the disbursement agreed to herein.

CONCLUDING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ACCEPTED AND ORDER REQUESTED:

1. For Plaintiff (the United States) in District of DC Action 06-cv-1710-JR:

Date: March 11, 2010 /s/ Ronald C. Machen Jr
RONALD C. MACHEN Jr, D.C. Bar No. 447889
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
/s/ Deborah L. Connor

DEBORAH L. CONNOR, D.C. Bar No. 452414
Assistant United States Attorney
/s/ Barry Wiegand

BARRY WIEGAND, D.C. Bar No. 424288
Assistant United States Attorney
Criminal Division, Asset Forfeiture Unit
555 Fourth Street, N.W., Fourth Floor
Washington, D.C. 20530
(202) 307-0299
William.B.Wiegand@U SDoJ.Gov

2. For claimants Deborah Jeane Palfrey’s Estate and Blanche Palfrey (the Palfrey parties):

/s/Blanche Palfrey
BLANCHE PALFREY

Date: March 11, 2010 /s/ Preston Burton
PRESTON BURTON, D.C. Bar No. 426378
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Columbia Center
1152 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-1706

Copies bearing the individual signatures of the persons listed above are in plaintiff’s possession.

Case 1:06-cv-01710-JR Document 113 Filed 03/12/10 Page 7 of 12




UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 1:06-cv-01710-JR
)
803 CAPITOL STREET, etc., et al., )
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)
)
DEBORAH JEANE PALFREY’S ESTATE, )
and )
BLANCHE PALFREY, )
Claimants. )

FINAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE AND DISMISSAL

On October 3, 2006, a Verified Complaint For Forfeiture In Rem was filed by plaintiff, the United States of America. Plaintiff filed an Amended Verified Complaint on November 22, 2006, seeking to forfeit various defendant properties, including: real property, funds, and precious metal coins. Plaintiff sought to enforce the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A), which provides for the forfeiture of any property involved in a transaction or attempted transaction in violation of 18. U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1960, or any property traceable to such property. Plaintiff also sought to enforce the provisions of 18. U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), which provides for the forfeiture of property which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to a violation of any offense constituting “specified unlawful activity” or a conspiracy to commit such offense. Based upon a full review of the record and upon the stipulation of the parties, the Court finds:

(1) the Amended Complaint alleges a proper basis in fact and in law for forfeiture;

(2) on about November 19, 2006, claimant Deborah Jeane Palfrey filed a verified claim to the defendant properties, which claim is now maintained by her Estate;

(3) on about June 12, 2008, claimant Blanche Palfrey filed a verified claim to the defendant

Case 1:06-cv-01710-JR Document 113 Filed 03/12/10 Page 8 of 12
-2-

properties;

(4) no other person has submitted a claim with respect to the defendant properties within the time permitted by 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(4)(a) and Rule G of the Supplemental Rules For Admiralty Or Maritime Claims And Asset Forfeiture Actions;

(5) on March 4, 2010, plaintiff and claimants settled the contested issues among them, and submitted to the Court a written Concluding Settlement Agreement, in which the parties requested the Court to approve and accept the Concluding Settlement Agreement and to issue this Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal; and,

(6) pursuant to the terms of the Concluding Settlement Agreement, the parties have agreed, inter alia, as follows:

1. The United States consents to entry of the proposed Final Order Of Forfeiture And
Dismissal directing the United States Internal Revenue Service to release to Blanche Palfrey, in her individual capacity, a total of $75,000.00 (seventy-five thousand dollars and no cents), by electronic funds transfer to Account Number XXXXXXXXXXXX at Bank of America, Tarpon Springs, Florida (ABA Route XXXXXXXXX) within thirty-five (35) days of the Court’s issuance of the Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal. Blanche Palfrey understands that she will assume full responsibility for any and all tax consequences of receipt of this payment.

2. The United States consents to entry of the proposed Final Order Of Forfeiture And
Dismissal directing the United States Internal Revenue Service to release to the Estate of Deborah Jeane Palfrey a total of $675,853.19 (six hundred seventy-five thousand, eight hundred fifty-three dollars and nineteen cents), by electronic funds transfer to Sideman & Bancroft LLP IOLTA Account, Account Number XXXXXXXXXX, held at Union Bank of California, Los Angeles, California (ABA Route XXXXXXXXX), for credit to client-matter number XXXXX within seventy (70) days of the Court’s issuance of the Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal. It is agreed by the parties that the payment to the Palfrey Estate is funded by the proceeds of the sale of the defendant properties at 803 Capitol Street and 1441 Vaquero Glen and the sale of the defendant coins. The Palfrey Estate understands that it will assume full responsibility for any and all tax consequences of receipt of this payment.

II. Forfeiture to the United States:

3. The parties agree that a basis for the defendant properties’ forfeiture has been
established in the record as a matter of fact and of law. The Palfrey claimants consent to

Case 1:06-cv-01710-JR Document 113 Filed 03/12/10 Page 9 of 12
-3-

the entry of the proposed Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal, which adjudges and decrees the forfeiture to the plaintiff United States of the balance of the net proceeds from the sale or liquidation of defendant properties as reduced by the payments of $75,000 and $675,853.19 to Blanche Palfrey. Thus, the parties ask the Court to issue the proposed Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal declaring forfeit to the United States $750,853.19 (seven hundred fifty thousand, eight hundred fifty-three dollars and nineteen cents), plus any interest or other such funds attributable to their deposit in any account during the pendency of this civil forfeiture action in rem.

III. The Palfrey Parties Consent to Release of All Claims Against the United States:

4. Upon payment of the amounts stated in Paragraphs 1-2 above, the Palfrey Estate and Blanche Palfrey (both individually and in her capacity as Executor of the Palfrey Estate (“Palfrey Parties”), agree to release, settle, cancel, discharge, and acknowledge to be fully satisfied, any and all claims, liens, demands, obligations, rights, and causes of action of whatever kind, nature, or description whatsoever, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, reported or unreported, which they might have against the United States arising from the assets currently subject to forfeiture in this matter; now or hereafter, arising out of, or by reason of, or in any manner connected with the allegations set forth in this case, 06-cv-1710-JR, and in the related and now abated criminal case, United States v. Deborah Jeane Palfrey, etc., Case No. 1:07-cr-0046-JR, also in this Court.

IV. The United States Consents to Release of All Claims Against the Defendant Properties and Against the Palfrey Parties:

5. The United States agrees to release, settle, cancel, discharge and acknowledge to be fully satisfied, any and all claims, liens, demands, obligations, rights, and causes of action of whatever kind, nature, or description whatsoever, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, reported or unreported, which they might have against:

(a) the assets currently subject to forfeiture in this matter;

(b) the Palfrey Estate;

(c) Blanche Palfrey (both individually and in her capacity as Executor of the Palfrey
Estate, including, with respect to the Palfrey parties, their Executors or
Administrators and any successors, assigns, agents, or attorneys acting on their
behalf); and,

(d) any other property or asset formerly owned or controlled by Deborah Jeane
Palfrey,

now or hereafter, arising out of, or by reason of, or in any manner connected with the
allegations set forth in this case number 06-cv-1710-JR, or in the related and now abated Criminal Action, United States v. Deborah Jeane Palfrey, etc., No. 1:07-cr-0046-JR, or giving rise to such actions, and not to assert, or if asserted to withdraw, claims or challenges in this forfeiture action, No. 06-cv-1710-JR, and claims or challenges in any court and concerning properties acquired by Deborah Jeane Palfrey, including, but not limited to, Case

Case 1:06-cv-01710-JR Document 113 Filed 03/12/10 Page 10 of 12
-4-

No. P43192, pending in Solano County, California, and case number 2008-CP-001782-O, pending in Orange County, Florida.

General Provisions

6. This Agreement shall not constitute an admission of liability or fault on the part of the Parties or their past or present agents, employees, representatives, or officers. The Parties enter into this Agreement solely for the purpose of compromising potential claims and avoiding the expenses and risks of litigation.

7. The Parties agree that each shall bear its own court costs, legal expenses, and attorney’s fees incurred in relation to this litigation and related to the facts underlying it.

NOW, THEREFORE, on the filing by the parties of the Concluding Settlement Agreement, which the Court hereby approves and orders to be carried out, and upon the request of the parties for the issuance of this Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal, it is hereby

ORDERED, that, within thirty-five (35) days of the issuance of this Final Order Of
Forfeiture And Dismissal, the United States Internal Revenue Service shall release to Blanche Palfrey, in her individual capacity, a total of $75,000.00 (seventy-five thousand dollars and no cents), by electronic funds transfer to Account Number XXXXXXXXXXXX at Bank of America, Tarpon Springs, Florida (ABA Route XXXXXXXXX); and it is

FURTHER ORDERED, that within seventy (70) days from the entry of this Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal, the United States Internal Revenue Service shall release to release to the Estate of Deborah Jeane Palfrey a total of $675,853.19 (six hundred seventy-five thousand, eight hundred

fifty-three dollars and nineteen cents), by electronic funds transfer to Sideman & Bancroft LLP IOLTA Account, Account Number XXXXXXXXXX, held at Union Bank of California, Los Angeles, California (ABA Route XXXXXXXXX), for credit to client-matter number XXXXX. The

Case 1:06-cv-01710-JR Document 113 Filed 03/12/10 Page 11 of 12
-5-

parties have agreed that the payment to the Palfrey Estate is funded by the proceeds of the sale of the defendant properties at 803 Capitol Street and 1441 Vaquero Glen and the sale of the defendant coins; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED, that the balance of the defendant properties, $750,853.19 (seven hundred fifty thousand, eight hundred fifty-three dollars and nineteen cents), including any interest or other such funds attributable to them, is hereby adjudged and decreed forfeited to plaintiff United States of America, and title to the balance of the defendant properties hereby is vested in the United States of America, and no other, to be disposed of in accordance with law; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED, that the above-captioned case is DISMISSED, except that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of the Stipulated Settlement; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED, that the Clerk is hereby directed to send three (4) certified copies of this Order to plaintiff’s counsel of record.


______________________________________________
JAMES ROBERTSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
________________
Date

DLA Piper and Sibel Edmonds' revelations about Dennis Hastert

WWW--It's been several weeks now since the sworn deposition of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, and she's been doing a lot of talking. About whom, you might ask? About former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Indiana Rep. Dan Burton (can't control the...you know), an unidentified Democratic Rep. who's been compromised and blackmailed in a lesbian affair to aid the Turkish government, and a whole lot more.

Most of the players are Republicans, but this time we're going to get some Democratic fish in the barrel. In one case--it looks like Burton and a few others involved--nuclear secrets were being sold to Turkey, Pakistan, and a few others that are on terror-lists as "renegade nations." They were also listed by the last president as being part of an "axis of evil." You do the math.

Burton's office and someone representing him has been around, but there have been other players. This exchange from the deposition transcript before Congress is pretty extraordinary and raised some flags for me on DLA Piper's recent visit to the site:

... Q: Now, are you --- has it come to your attention that some members of Congress once they've left Congress like Dennis Hastert engaged in lobbying for the Turkish government?

A: Dennis Hastert is known publicly. Stephen Solarz is known publicly. He used to be a Congressman, and then he became lobbyist as soon as he left both for Israel and Turkey.

Bob Livingston, he within a year after he left Congress, he became lobbyist for the government of Turkey, and he is registered under Foreign Agent's Registration Act. But then there are people who work for these lobbying firms who are not the top, but they have received their share while they were working, whether they are in Pentagon.

One person was Defense Intelligence Agency person, Dana Bauer, and now she works for Bob Livingston, but this individual, Ms. Bauer, did a lot of favors and illegal favors to --- for government of Turkey and others, and then was hired by Livingston and put on a big salary to represent Turkish government.

So it's not only top tier of the lobbying firm, but then the people who work for them later and the various layers of those people.

Q: How about Richard Gephardt? You know, who he is, right?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: And do you have any information about whether or not he took money from Turkish organizations?

A: No, I just have (unintelligible) information based on what I read that he joined the lobby firm for --- that represents Turkey, the lobby that Mr. Hastert got hired, but I don't have any information.

Q: For the firm called DLA Piper?

A: Yes.

Q: Law firm. Are you aware of them lobbying for the Turkish government?

A: Yes.

Q: Let me give you a hypothetical and just get your understanding of what might be going on because it's particularly relevant to our case.

You have a hypothetical Congresswoman from State X. Her district has no Turkish population to speak of or Armenian population to speak of. She's the largest recipient of Turkish PAC money in the 2008 election cycle. All right?

She meets with Livingston and Rogers or Livingston Group when they're escorting members of the Turkish parliament to a reception. She receives fact sheets from the Livingston Group talking about Turkish relations; goes to luncheons in honor of the Turkish Foreign Minister, and she opposes Armenian genocide resolution and, in fact, refuses to even recognize the genocide as a historical fact. ...

Curiouser and curiouser, that. The soon-to-be-identified congresswoman is done, toast. Once her identity is out there and it's known that she's being blackmailed by the Turkish intelligence community and their government, that's it, she can no longer discharge her duties. This is coming very soon, and she's not going to be the only one marching out of Congress and into a courtroom.

Did I mention that it appears Indiana Rep. Dan Burton has been caught screwing around on his wife again, this time getting his dick caught in the gears of the Turkish government? Yes, he did. That's right folks, elected officials are taking bribes, being proffered a piece-of-ass, and even promised all kinds of things like a kingdom in hell, but most of all, they're being blackmailed and turned to spy on the rest of us, against our common interests.

That's treason, and it's not a joke or a laughing matter. Ask your local news outlet, paper, CNN, Fox, and all the rest of the mainstream media, why they're not covering the Sibel Edmonds story. Is there a connection to the DC Madam scandal? Could be. She and her defense counsel--Montgomery Blair Sibley--issued subpoenas to the DIA and the CIA, both institutions refused to accept them. It's a good thing they had Federal District (and former FISA court) Judge James Robertson looking out for their interests. It seems protecting reputations of criminals in high office is more important than national security, which makes it more than a little ironic when they invoke it in court to avoid exposure. That's not merely corruption, it's a dysfunctional political culture, a system in free fall.

Sibel Edmonds' August 8, 2009 sworn testimony before Congress: http://www.bradblog.com/Docs/SibelEdmondsDeposition_Transcript_080809.pdf

A DC Madam missive: Palfrey was going to invoke the names of Cunningham and Wilkes at trial

Ed.--This is part of what the Court and the rest of the players unknown wanted suppressed and kept out of the record. Palfrey asked me about this, but I'm not an attorney and couldn't give her legal advice. Decide for yourself. I am 100% certain that her criminal counsel Preston Burton dissuaded her from this route or any other route that Montgomery Blair Sibley was going to invoke at trial.

I'm pretty sure she read the statement, and Judge Robertson, being the hoodwinking, biased jurist that he is, more-or-less ignored and/or neutralized the statement. Imagine that. As we all know, this other legal strategy--besides Sibley's, the one that got 86'd for reasons unknown--worked-out gangbusters, Ms. Palfrey was exonerated, and is currently living in an apartment on the outskirts of Eastern Berlin. Ms. Palfrey's family might want to consider such facts when considering any deals with the Devil...

----- Original Message -----

From: Jeane Palfrey

To:

Cc:

Sent: 1/13/2008 12:51:03 AM

Judge Robertson has ordered me back to Washington for Wednesday's hearing. Completely expected. I will be reading a five or six page statement in open court (about 10 minutes) outlining events to date, as well as justifying my reasoning for terminating Blair (terminate is now the correct word since he won't leave of his own accord). In addition, I intend to invoke the names of the " D ukester" and Wilkes. In particular, I intend to describe the Smoking Gun incident and state how I remember Wilkes regular patronage of my former business. So, you two – just how much "holy hallelujah" (a favorite saying of my mother) and drama do you think will happen next Wednesday morning, in D .C. Federal Court? -Jeane

Postscript, 08.26.2009: I should add here for the sake of clarification that Ms. Palfrey ran her case pro se, meaning that she was in charge of it after the departure of Mr. Sibley, although one could argue she always had been and insisted on such.

The January 18, 2008 email below makes it pretty clear she wasn't coerced into taking Burton back on to assist her. It seems to me that he did much more than that and worked very hard at persuasion in several directions of their strategy, namely not calling any witnesses at all. They lost the case.

...FYI – Judge Robertson called this morning, to inform me that he has had second thoughts about appointing a CJA attorney to me. Correspondingly, he suggested I might want to reconsider Preston Burton; especially since, Mr. Burton is considered to be one of the finest attorneys in Washington . I agreed. I will continue in pro se, with Preston's assistance. In many ways, this is the best of both worlds. Realistically, he will do ALL of the work, but will not be able to act – even if well intended – without my full knowledge and consent. Best of all – unlike Blair – he can get the job done. This is the guy, who successfully argued to have the phone records injunction lifted, last June/July. –Best, Jeane

Songs from the Site Meter: Dan Moldea? Press?

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Palfrey trial transcripts: April 10th, 2008 excerpt

Editor's note: Below is a brief exchange from the trial transcript for April 10th, 2008. It was striking how poor and lacking-in-detail coverage from Palfrey's trial was. Reading the transcripts themselves, it's not difficult to understand why--it was little more than a formality to hold it, and Palfrey's criminal defense attorney--Preston Burton--didn't fight very hard for his client.

There's the real possibility that it's because he's rumored to covet a Federal Judgeship, but then there's the fact that he's also a partner in a law firm that does extensive contract work for the government internationally. You never know.

But that's my opinion, decide for yourselves. I wasn't aware of how informal and shoddy these affairs were conducted until recently, being unable to attend the trial itself. A real eye-opener, that. It must have been excruciating for any defendant to have had to sit there and watch the kangaroo court unfold before them as it surely did this April in Washington D.C.

Reading the transcript, you get the very obvious impression that the Court and the prosecution were working hard to rush the proceedings and that Burton barely mounted a defense at all. At some point, this site will be publishing the entire transcripts in-full.

From Pg. 20-21 of the April 10th, 2008 trial transcript of Deborah Jeane Palfrey

..."MS. CONNELLY: Your Honor, we have nothing further for
this witness.

THE COURT: All right, Ms. Couvillon. You may step
down. (The witness steps down.)
May I see counsel at the bench?
(Bench conference on the record.)

THE COURT: Okay. Where do we stand? Is that it?

MS. CONNELLY: For today, yes.

THE COURT: And what about these other two people?

MS. CONNELLY: Well, one of them is flying back into
town tomorrow, so she'll be here Monday. The other one we spoke
to -- well, the agent spoke yesterday to her in the hospital,
and they've diagnosed diverticulitis and they were just debating
when they're going to release her. They think possibly this
weekend.

THE COURT: Do we need either one of these people? [Page Break]

MR. BUTLER: The one that's in the hospital is

racketeering, so the answer is yes.

MS. CONNELLY: I think they both are.

THE COURT: You need all 14 acts, but you've got 15
now.

MR. BUTLER: We do have the burden of proof, and we
need sufficient evidence to meet that burden.

THE COURT: Yeah, but so what? There's only 13 in
baseball. Thirteen out of 14 isn't bad.

MS. CONNELLY: We're at 10 out of 14 now.

MR. BUTLER: Well, I would request, Your Honor,
that (inaudible) the last day for court proceedings.

THE COURT: What can you tell us about what you're
going to do?

MR. BURTON: My inclination is to not put on any
defense.

THE COURT: Okay. So we're looking at one, maybe two
witnesses first thing Monday morning, and then we're going to
argue and charge.

MR. BURTON: But we do have a rule 29.

THE COURT: Yeah, we have a rule 29. That'll be a
lengthy argument.

MS. CONNELLY: Your Honor, do you charge first or do
we argue first?

THE COURT: I charge first." ... [Page Break]

Postcript, 11.13.2008: Talking about baseball gives one the impression that the "wall of professionalism" was basically nonexistent between the prosecution and Judge Robertson, a real convivial and friendly atmosphere between them all. You think they went out and had a drink at trial's conclusion? I mean, really, if I was one of the AUSAs or USAs, I would've went out and gotten the judge laid, frankly. They had a good list of escort services in-hand, so...what scum. Yes, worse than a female pimp. The public was denied coverage of the trial because it was not only handled poorly, the proceedings were rigged from-inception.

From the Palfrey trial transcript, April 9th, 2008: The testimony of Treasury agent Troy Burrus

Washington D.C.--There's an interesting passage in here where IRS agent Troy Burrus and AUSA (Assistant US Attorney) Daniel P. Butler "misspoke," down towards the bottom hinting accidentally that there could be issues of Palfrey misreporting her income, a tax issue, not one of simple "money-laundering."

No worries, Judge Roberston let them off-the-hook, but he appears to be covering his ass as well...like when he quit the FISA court.

It's a potentially telling exchange, and could mean something about what Palfrey actually made, and what the government was actually able to find regarding all of her assets/money.


...435

1 (TROY BURRUS, GOVERNMENT witness, having been duly sworn,

2 testified as follows:)

3 DIRECT EXAMINATION

4 BY MR. BUTLER:

5 Q. Would you state your name please, and spell your last name?

6 A. Troy Burrus, B-U-R-R-U-S.

7 Q. And Mr. Burrus, what's your occupation?

8 A. I'm a special agent with the Internal Revenue Service.

9 Q. How long have you been an agent with the IRS?

10 A. For almost nine years.

11 Q. And what is your back ground for that job?

12 A. I have a bachelor's of science degree in accounting from

13 Auburn University, and I spent 10 years working as a public

14 accountant, and I'm a certified public accountant.

15 Q. And did you work in the field as a public accountant?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. For you said how long?

18 A. Approximately 10 years.

19 Q. And after that you went to the IRS?

20 A. That's correct.

21 Q. As part of your duties with the IRS, were you involved in an

22 investigation of Pamela Martin & Associates?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And did there come a time when charges were brought in that

25 case?

436



1 A. Yes, they were.

2 Q. A case against Pamela Martin & Associates?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And were you involved in processing the defendant on that

5 case at that time?

6 A. Yes, I was.

7 Q. And the name of the defendant was what?

8 A. Deborah Jeanne Palfrey.

9 Q. And do you see Ms. Palfrey in the courtroom today?

10 A. Yes, I do.

11 Q. Would you identify --

12 MR. BURTON: We'll stipulate.

13 THE COURT: She's identified. Go ahead.

14 BY MR. BUTLER:

15 Q. How did you get involved in this case?

16 A. We received a call, my supervisor received a call from the

17 United States Postal Inspection Service in approximately March

18 of 2004. They said that they needed some assistance on an

19 investigation, some financial analysis assistance.

20 Q. After you became involved, what particularly did you do?

21 A. My role in this investigation was to analyze all the

22 financial records, whether they be bank records, brokerage

23 records, any records related to money and money transfers.

24 Q. And what financial records did you review, generally

25 speaking?

437



1 A. I reviewed bank records, I reviewed brokerage account

2 records, and all the different items that go into the bank

3 records themselves.

4 Q. And these were bank records for whom?

5 A. For Deborah Jeanne Palfrey.

6 Q. And what type of financial documents did you review?

7 A. We also reviewed the tax return information, plus the

8 brokerage account information with Charles Schwab.

9 Q. And that was whose account?

10 A. Deborah Jeanne Palfrey.

11 Q. This jury has heard about money orders. Were money orders

12 reviewed in this case?

13 A. Yes. Postal money orders, money orders from other sources,

14 whether they be 7-11, Western Union. Those were all reviewed.

15 Q. Bank records?

16 A. Bank records, and not only the bank statements but the

17 deposit items, whether they be the postal money orders, whether

18 they be personal checks or traveler's checks. All the check

19 items -- in other words, checks that she wrote to pay for bills

20 or expenses, any kind of money transfers between accounts or to

21 other accounts.

22 Q. And from where did you get the bank records?

23 A. The bank records were subpoenaed from Wells Fargo Bank.

24 Q. And any other financial institutions?

25 A. Charles Schwab was also subpoenaed, and records were

438



1 received from them.

2 Q. And why Charles Schwab and Wells Fargo?

3 A. The postal money orders that the U.S. Postal Inspection

4 Service had identified, we traced those as being deposited into

5 both the Wells Fargo account, and some were deposited into the

6 Charles Schwab account.

7 Q. And in terms of the financial documents you reviewed, are

8 those documents here in court?

9 A. Yes, they are. They're on the table.

10 Q. And that's the binders that are in front of the jury here?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Which have been marked as BNK-17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22.

13 Is that correct?

14 A. That's correct.

15 Q. Did you review tax returns?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. For which years?

18 A. We received tax returns from the Internal Revenue Service

19 through an ex parte order for the years 2000 through 2005.

20 We also reviewed tax returns from 1991 through 2005,

21 that were found at the defendant's home when we executed the

22 search warrant.

23 Q. Did you compare those two sets of tax returns in terms of

24 the ones that you obtained from the IRS versus the ones you

25 obtained from the search?

439



1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And what did the comparisons show?

3 A. The comparisons showed that for the years 2000 through 2005

4 they were exactly the same.

5 Q. And did you take steps for the years that were prior to

6 those years, take steps to compare the tax returns that you

7 obtained during the search warrants?

8 A. Yes, but we were unable to get those older tax returns.

9 Q. Why is that?

10 A. The Internal Revenue Service only keeps tax returns going

11 back for a certain amount of years.

12 Q. So you reviewed the ones you did have?

13 And in terms of the Wells Fargo records, for what years

14 did you have those?

15 A. I looked at records starting approximately January 1st of

16 2000 through June of 2006.

17 Q. And again, why not before or after that?

18 A. Banks only keep records going back so many years. And due

19 to the statute of limitations on the various charges we were

20 looking at, we didn't go back further than 2000.

21 Q. And in terms of the money orders, you reviewed those; did

22 you add up the dollar figures over the years that you had?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And how much money was involved there?

25 A. For the time period 2000 through 2005, it was approximately

440



1 $880,000 or somewhere around there.

2 Q. And did you prepare a chart of those amounts?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And I would like to at this time -- can you see that?

5 A. Yes, I can see it.

6 Q. That's a chart you prepared, and that's BNK-23. Is that

7 correct?

8 A. That's correct.

9 Q. And just walk the jury through that document, please.

10 A. This spreadsheet --

11 THE COURT: You want the jury to see it?

12 MR. BUTLER: I'm sorry.

13 BY MR. BUTLER:

14 Q. This is from the review of your bank records, the bank

15 records -- I'm sorry, the money orders you reviewed in this

16 matter. Is that correct?

17 A. This spreadsheet shows not only money orders, but also

18 personal checks that were received, and traveler's checks

19 relating to the business activity of Pamela Martin & Associates.

20 MR. BUTLER: I would move to admit BNK-23, Your Honor.

21 MR. BURTON: No objection.

22 THE COURT: Received, and you may show it to the jury.

23 (Government Exhibit BNK-23 was moved into evidence.)

24 BY MR. BUTLER:

25 Q. Could you walk the jury through what that document shows,

441



1 please?

2 A. The document shows in the columns the years 2000 through

3 2005, with the final column being the total. And then the

4 receipts per the bank records, and the asterisk indicating it

5 includes all money orders, checks, traveler's checks deposited

6 into the accounts related to the business activity of PMA,

7 including both Wells Fargo Bank and Charles Schwab.

8 And then you have the individual amounts per year, to

9 total up to the $882,649.48.

10 Q. And just for the record, would you read off the years, the

11 individual years in terms of what the amounts are, please?

12 A. For 2000, it is $185,265.25; for 2001, it's $177,098.17;

13 2002, $124,605; 2003, $142,341.06; 2004, $158,835; and 2005,

14 $94,505.

15 Q. And in lay terms, what does this diagram show? What is the

16 purpose of this diagram?

17 A. This diagram just shows only the business receipts that were

18 deposited into her account. So it's an analysis of seeing how

19 much income she was receiving for the business over this period

20 of time.

21 Q. And when you say she, to whom are you referring?

22 A. Deborah Jeanne Palfrey.

23 Q. Did you do another diagram or another graph of that same

24 information, to show it in a different format?

25 A. Yes, I did a graphical column bar chart to show the same

442



1 amounts.

2 MR. BUTLER: I need to show this to the witness but not

3 the jury for one moment.

4 THE COURT: All right.

5 BY MR. BUTLER:

6 Q. This is BNK-24.

7 THE COURT: It's just the same numbers in a bar chart?

8 MR. BURTON: Yeah, it's just cumulative.

9 THE COURT: It's not very edifying. Why don't we move

10 on? I think the jury can handle those numbers.

11 MR. BUTLER: Is there any objection to its admission?

12 MR. BURTON: Objection.

13 THE COURT: It's been objected to as cumulative. The

14 objection is sustained.

15 BY MR. BUTLER:

16 Q. Would the chart that you already talked about show all

17 postal money orders, or just those that were deposited?

18 A. It would only show those that were deposited. If the postal

19 money order had been cashed, it would not be included on that

20 chart.

21 Q. You mentioned earlier a search warrant that was done at the

22 residence of Deborah Jeanne Palfrey?

23 A. That is correct. A search warrant was done on the 4th of

24 October 2006.

25 Q. And was there a search warrant obtained for that search?

443



1 A. Yes.

2 Q. From where?

3 A. It was obtained from the magistrate judge in Sacramento,

4 California.

5 Q. And when was that search?

6 A. The search was actually on October 4th, 2006.

7 Q. Were you involved in that search?

8 A. Yes, I was.

9 Q. What was recovered during that search generally,

10 category-wise?

11 A. The search of the defendant's residence in Vallejo, we

12 uncovered all types of financial records: Binders containing

13 information on the individuals who were working for the

14 organization, phone records, utility records, tax returns,

15 checks, appointment books. Just a lot of different

16 correspondence information.

17 Q. And those are the tax returns that you already testified

18 about, that went beyond the ones the IRS had. Is that correct?

19 A. That's correct. We found tax returns from 1991 through

20 2005.

21 Q. And did you review those earlier returns as well?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And did they show how far back Pamela Martin & Associates

24 went?

25 A. Yes. The 1993 tax return indicates that that is the

444



1 beginning year for Pamela Martin & Associates.

2 Q. I'm sorry, you said which year?

3 A. 1993.

4 Q. Let me also have you take a look at -- not to the jury at

5 the moment, but the --

6 I would like you to take a look at what's been marked

7 as TAX-310 through 334. You've reviewed these documents before.

8 Is that correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. These are the ones you talked about?

11 A. Yes. I'm waiting for it to come up on the screen.

12 Q. And what is the first page of TAX-310? What is that?

13 A. It is a copy of Deborah Jeanne Palfrey's form 1040, page

14 one, for 1993.

15 Q. And in terms of the -- if we flip through the pages of that,

16 would the entire tax return be there?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And I would like to take a look at TAX-285 through 309.

19 What is that?

20 A. 285 is a copy of Deborah Jeanne Palfrey's form 1040 for

21 1994, page one.

22 Q. And if we flip through the pages, would we have the rest of

23 the tax return?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. I would like to review TAX-271 through 284.

445



1 A. 271 --

2 THE COURT: I think I know where we're going with this,

3 counsel. Is there a stipulation?

4 MR. BURTON: That's why I'm taking a look at the hard

5 copy, judge. I think we'll be able to arrive at one pretty

6 quickly.

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

8 THE COURT: Why don't you take a second and see if you

9 can? Because nobody can really see these things as they go by,

10 anyway.

11 (OFF THE RECORD.)

12 MR. BURTON: We don't object to these returns coming

13 in. We can expedite this.

14 THE COURT: Just give us the TAX numbers of the

15 earliest and latest, tell us briefly what they are, and they'll

16 all be offered in a lump.

17 Don't take this personally, Mr. Burrus.

18 MR. BURTON: I'm sure he gets it all the time.

19 MR. BUTLER: Your Honor, you want just the first number

20 of the different years of returns?

21 THE COURT: Just do it the fastest way you can.

22 MR. BUTLER: Okay. The numbers are all -- the first

23 number, it's in sort of a reverse order. Well, let me start it

24 this way, Your Honor:

25 TAX-9 through TAX-334 are the tax returns in reverse

446



1 order of the years; in other words, going 2005, 2004, 2003,

2 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999 --

3 THE COURT: All the way back to 1993?

4 MR. BUTLER: Yes, Your Honor.

5 THE COURT: Offered into evidence?

6 MR. BUTLER: Yes, Your Honor.

7 THE COURT: Received. Thank you.

8 (Government Exhibits TAX-009 to TAX-334 were moved into

9 evidence.)

10 MR. BUTLER: And I would also like to offer the binders

11 as well, Your Honor, the ones I previously referred to.

12 THE COURT: 17 through 22?

13 MR. BUTLER: BNK-17 through 22, yes.

14 THE COURT: Now, are these going to be the subject of a

15 Rule 1006 summary?

16 MR. BURTON: Yes, Your Honor.

17 MS. CONNELLY: I have a stipulation.

18 THE COURT: I don't think all those documents have to

19 be in evidence if they're made available under Rule 1006.

20 There's no point in sending all that back to the jury room and

21 letting the jury think they have to go through all that if

22 they're just getting a summary.

23 MR. BUTLER: That's fine, Your Honor. I believe we

24 have a stipulation that will cover it.

25 MR. BURTON: We entered a stipulation that these are

447



1 financial documents, so...

2 THE COURT: Okay. Moving right on.

3 MR. BURTON: Your Honor, could I read this stipulation

4 at this time?

5 THE COURT: Yes.

6 MR. BUTLER: Thank you. "The United States and

7 defendant Deborah Jeanne Palfrey, after consultation with her

8 counsel, stipulate and agree that: The government has

9 established the authenticity and admissibility of the financial

10 business records, documents, records, reports, and data

11 compilation under Federal Rules of Evidence 803.6; and has

12 produced declarations conforming to Federal Rules of

13 Evidence 902.11 from a custodian of records for business records

14 relating to accounts maintained on behalf of the defendant by

15 the following businesses:

16 Wells Fargo & Company, and Charles Schwab & Company

17 Incorporated, a subsidiary of the Charles Schwab Corporation.

18 The parties agree that the defendant may still object

19 to such records on the basis of relevancy, Federal Rules of

20 Evidence 402, and any improper prejudice, Federal Rules of

21 Evidence 403."

22 THE COURT: Very well.

23 BY MR. BUTLER:

24 Q. If I could just pull out the -- and this might be easier,

25 Agent Burrus. I'll hand you TAX-0096 through 138. What is

448



1 that?

2 A. This is a copy of the 2002 form 1040 filed by Deborah Jeanne

3 Palfrey.

4 Q. And would you go to the Schedule C -- I'm sorry, the line C

5 on that document? Is that for an individual or for a business?

6 A. Form 1040 is for an individual filing.

7 Q. For what? I'm sorry --

8 A. The form 1040 is a U.S. individual income tax return.

9 Q. Would you go to line C on that document?

10 A. Line C of -- you mean Schedule C?

11 Q. I mean Schedule C. Thank you.

12 A. (Witness complies.) All right.

13 Q. What is a Schedule C in a tax return?

14 A. A Schedule C that's attached to the form 1040 is to report

15 profit or loss from a business of a sole proprietorship or a

16 single-member L.L.C.

17 Q. And was that Schedule C filed by Ms. Palfrey in this matter?

18 A. Yes, she did file a Schedule C.

19 Q. For what business?

20 A. For the business listed as Pamela Martin & Associates.

21 Q. And is there a Schedule A in there, too?

22 A. Yes, there is a Schedule A.

23 Q. And what is a Schedule A?

24 A. A Schedule A is where you report your itemized deductions,

25 which includes taxes you may have paid, interest on your home,

449



1 gifts to charity, casualty/theft losses, and other miscellaneous

2 expenses.

3 Q. And does the tax return say what type of business Pamela

4 Martin & Associates was?

5 A. It lists it as a "Service/Personal business."

6 Q. And what document within the tax return is that?

7 A. That is listed on Schedule C, line A.

8 Q. And does the tax return say the accounting method that was

9 used for that business?

10 A. Yes. On line F she selected or chose accounting method as

11 "cash."

12 Q. On the Schedule C?

13 A. That's correct.

14 Q. And what does that mean?

15 A. A cash basis method of accounting means that when you

16 receive income, you report it in the year that you actually

17 receive it. And when you incur expenses or actually pay the

18 expenses, you can take those as expenses.

19 Q. And is that on a gross receipt, net receipt? How was that

20 done?

21 A. I'm not sure I understand the question.

22 Q. Does Ms. Palfrey's return show gross receipts or net

23 receipts?

24 A. It shows gross receipts.

25 Q. And where does it show that?

450



1 A. On line one, under part one for the income, it shows the

2 gross receipts.

3 Q. And what is gross receipts, just to make sure?

4 A. Gross receipts in this instance would be all the income that

5 was received by the business during that year.

6 Q. So that would include Ms. Palfrey as well as her employees.

7 Is that correct?

8 A. Actually, it should include the monies that she actually

9 received, that was sent to her.

10 Q. And did you compare the tax returns to the bank records for

11 Ms. Palfrey? [Ed.--Emphasis added.]

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And what did that show?

14 A. The comparison of the bank records for this year, 2002, show

15 that there was a greater amount of gross receipts than was

16 reported on this line. [Ed.--Emphasis added.]

17 MR. BURTON: Can we approach, Your Honor?

18 THE COURT: Yes.

19 (BENCH CONFERENCE ON THE RECORD.)

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

21 MR. BUTLER: I'm not going to any tax discrepancy, or

22 anything to that effect. [Ed.--Emphasis added.]

23 THE COURT: You just saddled her with basically what is

24 false reporting. [Ed.--Emphasis added.]

25 MR. BUTLER: Well, I don't think it's gone that far

451



1 yet, Your Honor. I'm not going any further with this line of

2 inquiry.

3 THE COURT: Well, now you've put the defense in the

4 position where they have to respond to this. How are they going

5 to do that?

6 MR. BUTLER: Well, Your Honor, that was not the intent

7 of my question, but I appreciate what the Court is saying.

8 THE COURT: What was the intent of the question?

9 MR. BUTLER: My intent of the question, Your Honor, was

10 directed at the gross receipts that were deposited into this and

11 comparing it with the bank records that we have. It was a

12 poorly phrased question. That's all I can say about it. I

13 don't know anything more than that.

14 THE COURT: Well, where are you going next?

15 MR. BUTLER: Your Honor, I'm going next with -- can I

16 just have a moment, Your Honor?

17 Your Honor, there's another chart in terms of -- I just

18 need to grab it, just to answer the question more explicitly, if

19 I can have a moment.

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

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

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

23 MR. BUTLER: Well, there's other documents we need to

24 admit through him, yes.

25 THE COURT: Can he come back in the morning?

452



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

2 THE COURT: I think I want to instruct the jury that

3 there was no tax charge, no tax claim in this case.

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

5 THE COURT: Maybe I'll even instruct them they are to

6 disregard that last answer because it's not relevant to your

7 case. ...