TEXT-BODY OF "DC MADAM'S" APPEAL TO HOUSE & SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEES

CENTER FOR FORFEITURE LAW
1629 K Street, Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006

MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY 202-508-3699
202-478-0371 (E-FAX)
SIBLEY@CIVILFORFEITURE.COM ...

June 26, 2007

Via Fax (202) 224-9516
Honorable Patrick Leahy
Att: Kristine Lucius
Chair, Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510 ...


Via Fax 202-225-7680
Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Chair, Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives
2138 Rayburn House Off ice Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Deborah Jeane Palfrey, a/k/a “The D.C. Madam” & The Civil Asset

Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000

Greetings: I write to advise your committees of the flagrant disregard by federal Judge Gladys Kessler, and the D.C. District Court of Appeals of Public Law No: 106-185, which is popularly known as the “Civil Asset Reform Act of 2000” and is codified at 18 U.S.C. §983 et seq. In particular, by enacting 18 U.S.C. §983(f) “Release Of Seized Property”, Congress imposed upon a district court a duty – within 30 days of a motion to return property – to determine if a claimant’s seized property should be “immediately” returned to her.

In Jeane’s case, on October 4, 2006, all of her real and personal property was seized by the U.S. Government upon the allegations of a confidential informant. On November 24, 2006, she made a motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §983(f), demanding return of her seized property thereby triggering the Congressionally-imposed thirty (30) day deadline for Judge Kessler to resolve that motion. Remarkably, Judge Kessler denied as moot Jeane's motion to return property on January 8, 2007, apparently relying upon her standing order which rendered all motions moot whenever an amended complaint is filed.

Jeane promptly moved on January 10, 2007, to vacate the January 8, 2007, order as violating the Rules Enabling Act. Additionally, having received no response to the January 10th motion, Jeane filed a second motion to return property on February 27, 2007. To date, two hundred days (200) later, Judge Kessler has not ruled on the two motions to return property and has now stayed Jeane’s forfeiture matter for six (6) months.


Honorable Patrick Leahy
Honorable John Conyers, Jr. June 26, 2007

Page 2



When Jeane sought to appeal this failure of Judge Kessler to resolve the motion to return property as §983(f) contemplates, Judge Kessler held: “[Jeane] also makes a curious argument that ‘the Court does not have jurisdiction to refuse to rule on claimant’s pending motion [to return property].’ All that can be said of this argument is that it is wrong. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction and jurisdiction over the parties; of course it has jurisdiction to enter a stay of all proceedings in the case.” In other words, Judge Kessler has decided that she can ignore §983(f)’s thirty (30) day requirement as Congress’ expression of a right contained in §983(f) is nothing more than aspirational to her.

Additionally, seeking relief from Judge Kessler blatant refusal to rule as Congress has determined appropriate by enacting the thirty (30) day ruling requirement, Jeane sought relief from the D.C. Court of Appeals on April 9, 2007. To date, the Court has refused to rule upon Jeane’s petition. Finally, yesterday the United States Supreme Court refused to address this ignoring of the statute in their Case No.: 06A1110.

As a consequence, Jeane – who property was seized last October solely upon the allegations of unidentified confidential informants – has been rendered indigent, and declared such by the district court. While she now as very competent counsel appointed to represent her in her criminal matter, she still is at the mercy of Judge Kessler for disbursements to pursue her defense, rather than have her own assets available to that end.

Simply stated, Jeane’s case highlights the continued overreaching by the Department of Justice with the complicity of the Article III actors to permit the use of the civil forfeiture process to deny basic due process rights to citizens. Such concern caused your Committees and then Congress seven years ago to address this problem with legislation including §983(f).

Yet now, Jeane’s property has been seized for over seven months without the requisite review of the propriety of such a seizure.As an attorney who practices extensively in the civil forfeiture arena, I can state that Jeane’s predicament is not unusual. Accordingly, your Committees must revisit whether CAFRA is achieving the goals it was meant to reach, or whether it is simply a set of rights without a remedy, as Jeane’s case patently demonstrates.

I am of course available to answer any questions or concerns regarding this aspect – or any other aspect of Jeane’s case. signed, [Montgomery Blair Sibley]

TOP BUSH AND ROVE AIDE, DAN BARTLETT JUMPS SHIP

The White House, March 13th, 2007...

Q Dan, can you talk a little bit about, by the White House's own account, Senator Domenici at some point went to the President and urged him to fire the U.S. attorney in New Mexico, specifically? What did the President do with that information, after Senator Domenici asked him? And what did the President say to Attorney General Gonzales, when they did speak about this?

MR. BARTLETT:It's important to back up a bit. The issue of U.S. attorneys, as many of you know, these U.S. attorneys serve at the discretion of the President. Many of these U.S. attorneys have served four-year terms. There was a management review process and there was a determination made to remove seven U.S. attorneys for cause. And the members of the Justice Department have been sharing that information, the particulars on each of those cases, as to why those U.S. attorneys were removed, which is completely within the managerial discretion of the Attorney General and something that the President supported.

Particularly, as you can imagine, at the White House, when it comes to complaints, we receive a lot of complaints, whether it be from members of Congress, state leaders, local leaders. Oftentimes that is the job description of a White House employee, is to field complaints. That is not limited to U.S. attorneys. And over the course of several years we have received complaints about U.S. attorneys, particularly when it comes to election fraud cases -- not just New Mexico, but also Wisconsin and Pennsylvania...."

Washington D.C.--Long-term presidential adviser Dan Bartlett has announced he will no longer give counsel to the president after July 4th. His reasons are the same as those of convicted former-congressman Bob Ney (ex-R-Oh.): "I have to take-care of my family now." He didn't sound scared, not at all, and neither does Bartlett when he says it.

This is coming the day after congressman John Conyers (D-Mich.) asked the BBC for former U.S. Attorney (like the pattern here?) Tim Griffin's e-mails on "caging" techniques that caused thousands of Black Americans to be stricken from voting rolls, generally having their votes challenged and disqualified. What we could have here is a nationwide attempt that successfully stole the 2004 elections through disenfranchisement. There were serious questions in 2000 as well, though any serious investigations have yet to occur on that front. Greg Palast writes in a mass e-mail I received today that:

Tim Griffin, formerly right hand man to Karl Rove, resigned Thursday as US Attorney for Arkansas hours after BBC Television ‘Newsnight’ reported that Congressman John Conyers requested the network’s evidence on Griffin’s involvement in ‘caging voters.’ Greg Palast, reporting for BBC Newsnight, obtained a series of confidential emails from the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign. In these emails, Griffin, then the GOP Deputy Communications Director, transmitted so-called ‘caging lists’ of voters to state party leaders. ... [John]Conyers, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee investigating the firing of US Attorneys, met Thursday evening in New York with Palast. After reviewing key documents, Conyers stated that, despite Griffin’s resignation, “We’re not through with him by any means.” ('US Attorney Resigns Following Conyers’ Request for BBC Documents,' Greg Palast, 06.01.2007)

Yes, it's dueling e-mails on the internet these days, and Tim Griffin sent some of his own out containing general information on voter caging to a satirical website that had a similar Internet address as the Bush campaign's. The results are already explosive with two prominent Bush appointments dropping two days in-a-row, it being a new record for the administration and the GOP. The rest of the media in the United States don't want you to know this, and they're doing their best to white-out the caging scandal with Lindsay Lohan's drinking-binge, but it's not working.

Surely Bartlett is leaving because Karl Rove ordered these caging techniques--he was once employed by Rove's consulting firm, and joined the Bush inner-circle in 1993. He sees the writing on the wall. This man is only 36, but looks 47. I look younger than he does. Luckily, he has a family that prosecutors will be able to dangle over his head (like the fact that he won't see them for 20-30 years if he doesn't start talking). But it's going to be Tim Griffin who talks first, as House Judiciary Chairman Conyers will surely be issuing him a subpoena within the next two weeks.

Serving as counselor to the president, Bartlett also worked in Bush's first campaign as governor of Texas and two subsequent presidential races. Before joining Bush, Bartlett worked for presidential adviser Karl Rove's company back in Texas, an Austin-based political consulting firm. Bartlett graduated from the University of Texas with a bachelor's degree in political science. (FOX/AP, 06.01.2007)

You know, besides Charles Whitman, that's the worst strike against Austin yet, how sad. Bartlett and Rove are pretty close to the president--they're the keys to the kingdom of all the crimes committed under the authorization of George W. Bush. Bartlett's former boss Karl Rove will be following him shortly on the subpoena list, but you never know: he might precede him.

They'll all plead the Fifth amendment on numerous points in their testimony and all will claim ignorance as Attorney General Gonzales has. We'll be seeing a lot of people claiming memory-loss regarding specific incidents, conversations, and evidence contradicting previous statements. How do I know this? Because I'm psychic, of course.

Republican incumbents will have no basis to complain since the evidence is already ample to investigate, but they will anyway as we all know. Part of the reason is that this is familiar territory: Watergate, Iran-Contra, the war in Iraq, warrantless surveillance, the continued suspension of habeus corpus, and more. The RNC--and the GOP generally--act very much like Bolsheviks, and it's time they were collared by the rule of law.

Again, let's get back to Dan Bartlett and his family, who he seems to suddenly want to be with more:

Bartlett said he was leaving for no other reason than to get a job in the private sector and concentrate more on his family. He has retained Washington lawyer Robert Barnett to help him in his search. "I've had competing families. And unfortunately, the Bush family has prevailed too many times, and it's high time for the Bartlett family to finally prevail," Bartlett said. (Reuters, 06.01.2007)

Well, that's kind of mean. He decided this after 13 years and nine months? Surely, something prompted it. And you know, I always get a lawyer when I'm looking for a new job--especially if I thought I might be making license plates soon. Wouldn't you? Sure you would...

Reuters today: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSWBT00707320070601?src=060107_1507_DOUBLEFEATURE_

FOX/AP Today: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276998,00.html

Greg Palast, the last living American journalist spotted this year: www.gregpalast.com

Dan Bartlett, letting-on about more than he suspected on March 13th, 2007: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070313-4.html