Songs from the Site Meter: D.C.M.A. follow-up with more reflections on the DC Madam

Site Meter--Someone in a California town that I never heard of had a long read on DCMA, curious. Yes, a burb of Los Angeles, the fine city of Corona. Friends of Deskin? Sammala hisself? He should explain to me why he acted so strange when I encountered him on the phone and the Internet.

One fine day in the spring of 2008, Jeane Palfrey (the DC Madam) told me, "You have a conference call with Monique [Rawlings] and attorney Sam Deskin." Who? I'd never even had the displeasure of having one before, so I was puzzled.

And who the hell was this Sam Deskin and why was I supposed to talk to him? No context was given, so as you can imagine I was apprehensive about it and didn't want to talk to them, my normal, natural reaction to bullshit. But it was a jolly old time: we talked for a couple hours about the case for no obvious reason or goal, so I have to assume that he was pumping us for information, which he proceeded to do. You'd have to ask him why. Yes, everyone has an angle, a reason, "the rules of the game" we call life.

At one point in the conversation, my co-researcher got up on her soapbox (did I mention that she writes under the dorky pseudonym "SP Biloxi" or just "Biloxi"?) when I had the temerity to answer a question Deskin asked us, a rather bold one in-retrospect: "What do you guys expect to get out of this?" I had no idea how to answer him, it's the truth, but I said, "Dinner and an explanation from Jeane."

Keep-in-mind that this is regarding someone who's clearly guilty of pimping and who was laundering money left-and-right, probably all over the globe. Did I want her to pay for me to fly out to meet her and all the rest? Certainly, wouldn't you? Newsflash to Monique and the rest who haven't figured it out: She was guilty. But no, no, my co-researcher kept insisting that I tow-the-line that Jeane was "innocent," which wasn't necessary within the confines of the defense. By the time Deskin came along in February for this call, I was about done with the whole scene, I didn't particularly give a shit anymore.

I'm paraphrasing my co-researcher's reply, but this is its substance: "Matt, that's wrong. You cannot expect anything when you help someone." You'll excuse me, but it's impossible for me to write the English-language quite the way she manages to mangle it, pardon.

"Not even a criminal who laundered millions of dollars?" I thought--and laughed--to myself.

Rawlings and Deskin both agreed to agree with themselves--because it's convenient--and each other, and "took me to task." I didn't really care what they thought and still don't. Keep-in-mind that Deskin slithered into the picture wanting to buy all of Palfrey's phone records (hit his label for more detail) and to split any profits from his research into them 50/50. This kept going on until February 2008! The irony of all of this was that Palfrey came to me--not so in their respective cases.

I only wanted to chronicle the story, to be that fly on the wall. Dinner and an explanation from a female pimp doesn't strike me as a high crime, and I have to wonder what the hell was in both of their minds besides empty space. By the way, that space is now available for weddings, Barmitzvahs, and public receptions at $2,000-per-night, without security or any catering.

Domain Name		rr.com ? (Commercial)
IP Address		76.169.197.# (Road Runner)
ISP		Road Runner
Location		Continent : North America Country : United States (Facts) State : California City : Corona Lat/Long : 33.8424, -117.5486 (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:1.9.1.2) Gecko/20090729 Firefox/3.5.2 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)
Javascript		version 1.5
Monitor		Resolution : 1680 x 1050 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Sep 4 2009 6:19:53 am
Last Page View		Sep 4 2009 6:36:13 am
Visit Length		16 minutes 20 seconds
Page Views		3
Referring URL
Visit Entry Page		http://chickasawpick...er-dcma-someone.html
Visit Exit Page		http://chickasawpick...esmell.blogspot.com/
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-8:00
Visitor's Time		Sep 3 2009 3:19:53 pm
Visit Number		59,300

Then, there's this one about the guy who I found in Palfrey's records and was the first to corroborate, Ret. Col. Ron Roughead, possibly still working for SAIC:

Domain Name		kinkos.com ? (Commercial)
IP Address		170.170.59.# (Kinko's Service Corporation)
ISP		Kinko's Service Corporation
Location		Continent : North America Country : United States (Facts) State : California City : Ventura Lat/Long : 34.2807, -119.2868 (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; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution : 1280 x 1024 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Sep 4 2009 6:34:44 am
Last Page View		Sep 4 2009 6:34:44 am
Visit Length		0 seconds
Page Views		1
Referring URL		http://www.google.co...ttache&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
Search Engine		google.com
Search Words		ron roughead army colonel defense attache
Visit Entry Page		http://chickasawpick...ald-roughead_16.html
Visit Exit Page		http://chickasawpick...ald-roughead_16.html
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time		Sep 3 2009 6:34:44 pm
Visit Number		59,302

Question: Are Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe working with the Palfrey Estate (and others) to recover additional DC Madam "assets"?

Jeane Palfrey: "Matt, nobody has a monopoly on the truth."

The Shadow World--In a conference call that occurred between myself, Los Angeles attorney Sam Deskin, and my co-researcher Monique Rawlings ("Bil"/"SP Biloxi"), Deskin began talking about how Palfrey couldn't have made the $2.2 million that she and the government were claiming from 1993-2006.

From looking at the phone lists covering 13 years in-detail, it seems mathematically impossible that that was all that she accrued from her escort service. This unprompted topic from Deskin wasn't news to my ears--I'd considered it as early as May of 2007. The conference call was around late-February of this year. Just two-days-later, Palfrey would forward everyone connected to or on the defense team itself an e-mail stating she wasn't going to be taken alive.

I agreed with Deskin, guilt or innocence aside. Rawlings was non-plussed, and I assume that she and journalist Jason Leopold still wrong-headedly cling to the assertion that Palfrey was somehow "innocent." Well yes--until proven guilty, and I believed by the end that she was, and I still do. That's their mistake to make, and I have no problem with them continuing down that road.

But "guilt" wasn't the central issue to me anyway, rather that the defendant wasn't receiving due process and needed help. At the time of the teleconference call (my first ever!), I was only tangentially-connected to the defense, was unpaid, and I was tiring of all the back-stabbing that most assuredly went on without my direct knowledge. In addition, the "client" was acting very erratically, and I'd had enough. By March 18th, it was over, and I never heard from her again. By May 1st, she had committed suicide. It was a crushing-blow that I assumed was coming in some form since last summer.

Palfrey told me herself on a few occasions that she was very well-traveled, and recommended it to me. Yeah, sure. Always the Sphinx, she seemed to be telling me more than she was on the surface. That's what was so unique about our correspondence--she communicated things to me that I don't believe she did with anyone else, though it was often coded by an indirectness and euphemism. And this all brings me to the nexus of why she approached me for aid: I had written in a couple of observational pieces on her case that both she and the government were lying. But what about? Why would the prosecution and the defense lie in a case like hers? The money, and where the rest of it was.

I believe it's out there in offshore accounts, waiting, like pirate treasure, like booty. I believe that the government is trying to recover the money for nefarious purposes, probably through Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe. Why? Because they offices in over 18 nations, including Russia, China--you-name-it. Orrick does business with the United States Government routinely, and one of their attorneys--Preston Burton--now works with and administers the estate of the deceased DC Madam with other Orrick sub-firms. This is extremely convenient, and together with the government, they'll probably find that money...if it's in-fact out there. Like Poe's "The Gold Bug," and the late Jeane Palfrey, it's an encrypted riddle. Which narrative will hold? Which narrative is correct? Nobody seems to know.

Even though it's likely that Jeane would have kicked myself and others to the curb had she won her case, I cannot escape the strong desire that she had survived all of this. The government ensured that this would not occur, and they did their best to hide and to protect her influential clients as well as the putrid picture of American politics and economy that will eventually emerge from the primary materials. Truth crushed to earth rises again.

Statement of intellectual ownership: This article and all other writings generated by the proprietor of this website are the property of said proprietor (Matt Janovic) and may not be republished, transmitted, or quoted past four lines of content without written permission.

Palfrey Defense emails: Late-December, 2007

Ed.--These are more missives from the Palfrey defense, between Jeane, myself, and my co-researcher Monique Rawlings. I asked Palfrey whether certain things she conveyed to us could be published. Rawlings jumped on it--as she did on another occasion on another topic--for reasons I still don't entirely understand.

She was stating the obvious, and there was no "leak" by me. I had been looking for clarification only. In my opinion, Rawlings has an overstated sense of importance, like many I've encountered in this whole saga. In case you didn't notice, Palfrey was jumping from one theory to another as to the genesis of her case. She would shift-gears and go from theory-to-theory, which I assume was desperation on her part.

She fostered an atmosphere of paranoia and conspiricism, though the speculations were coming from numerous directions, myself included. Other than standardized-fonts and my added comments, these are unedited and pasted directly from the original e-mails. This is primary historical material, enjoy it if you can. I can't, but I did what I could to help. Looking back, it could never have been enough. Lost causes are for gentlemen.

From: Jeane Palfrey
To: Justice League
Cc: myboigie@earthlink.net; Montgomery Sibley
Sent: 12/28/2007 7:17:56 AM
Subject: RE: Anderson


Bil I just emailed my other contact and told him that he is the first outlet to have the Anderson tip; however, I informed him that I would be passing along the same information to another, on Friday. Please inform Jason of Andersons former patronage. The connection of Anderson, to the phone records is very simple  he is in them, complete with social security number. Remember, this is the Verizon Wireless list. The numbers here are all cell numbers. And lets face it. There would be no reason in the world why I would have the private cell number of a high-level Treasury Department official; especially, in my geographically disenfranchised existence in California, unless Anderson gave it to me in the course of my escort business dealings. He is a sure bet, as are the others. Bottom line - if my first guy doesnt do it, then Jason has a fantastic story, tomorrow (today). Jeane


Matt Anderson goes to the heart of the selective prosecution case; even more so than the average client. Incredibly, this man is part and parcel of the very institution, which has seized and frozen my lifes savings, for the past 15 months. More unbelievably, he is a very senior official, who acts in the capacity of Treasurys mouthpiece. He spins and justifies their junk on a daily basis. How absolutely mind-boggling it is for him to be found in the records. It is almost as delicious as Tobias and his ban regarding third world countries and prostitution. Consequently, it is imperative something like this gets a big boost at the onset. I cannot afford for it to get lost in cyberspace. [Ed.--I'm wondering how she felt any of this would do anything but taint a jury, but Anderson was a "false positive" that was subsequently dropped anyway, along with counsel at that time, Montgomery Blair Sibley.] -Jeane


-----Original Message-----
From: Justice League [mailto:spbiloxi00@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 9:47 PM
To: jeanepalfrey; Matt Janovic; Montgomery Sibley
Subject: Anderson

Jeane:

I tried to call Jason [Leopold] tonight. I left him a message on his voicemail. I just told him that I have a tip for him regarding your case. I told him that I will email him. I didn't leave the info on voicemail to him without talking to him live over the phone. I know he will ask the connection of Anderson to the phone records. I will dig into imfo om Anderson. Knowing Jason, he will email me or call me. This is good to tip Jason as well as your other source. [Ed.--...and would benefit yourself and Jason.] This will spread like wildflower. [Ed.--That would be "wildfire."]


Matt:


We are part of the legal team. So certain aspects of this case can't be leaked to blogsites first. Only the trustworthy media such as Truthout and others that Jeane and Blair wish to leak should get first dibbs. I was the first person that Jason had allowed to see his video interviews of Joe Wilson and four fired USAs before that was released.



Bil [Monique Rawlings]

Matt… just gotta love it! -Jeane PS if Bil’s suggestion that I was being used as the “fall gal” in the hope, Representative Slaughter’s persistent questioning would stop; thus driving attention away from the likely panorama of corruption the bad actors surely must have been trying to keep hidden – why then would they assume such a strategy would work? Unless of course, they thought I quickly would capitulate and not fight as I have. Nonetheless, I don’t understand why the ‘gift’ (Pamela Martin’s services) could be seen by Slaughter, as some sort of answer to her investigation into the shenanigans of K Street and the CIA and God only knows who else at this point. After all, I/we were not in cohots with Wilkes & Company. I was never part of any sort of influence peddling conspiracy. I absolutely had no knowledge whatsoever, of such happenings. And frankly, I suspect neither did any of the women in my employ. Was it perhaps proferred – by ??? - that I indeed was part of the conspiracy? -Jeane

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Janovic [mailto:myboigie@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 1:13 PM
To: Jeane Palfrey
Cc: Justice League
Subject: From Verizon records, a DHS member...

Dear Jeane and Bil:

You're going to love this. I normally do just some random fishing and got a twinge to check the recently conveyed Verizon recs--found a man who's in DHS: Merrick Krause, looks like he's in "National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center" (NISAC). Here's a link to a document, but there are a few things that come up on a google search. http://www.sandia.gov/nisac/docs/Portal_factsheet.pdf He's involved in infrastructure protection. He's a retired USAF Colonel.

kind regards, Matt Janovic

[Ed.--Also a false positive, but why did Verizon provide a list containing the "uninvolved"? What they gave the defense was a messy conglomeration of information that had to be sifted-through. We even found a war on terror internee. Did it fulfill the subpoena? It shouldn't have. We were given no substantial directions--just "find big names." I'd say this should lay to rest the notion that Palfrey consciously "had more names," but it won't.]

Why the Suicide of Deborah Jeane Palfrey Was Not Unexpected

J-7/Tarpon Springs, Florida--I would like to express my deepest condolences to the family of the deceased Ms. Palfrey. This writer never met Jeane--as she liked to be called by friends--and I only spoke with her a few times telephonically--our correspondence occurred through the Internet. That doesn't make this any easier to write.

Jeane claimed--she claimed a lot of things, most-of-which were accurate--that James Grady, author of "Three Days of the Condor" told her (paraphrased), "They've handed you a gun to blow their heads off with." He wasn't wrong, and this story opened a door into things that most of us assumed were going on in Washington D.C. It confirmed our suspicions. Expect it to keep delivering.

What's disturbing is what Jeane told myself and others on the defense team: that she had had contact with Brent Wilkes, the convicted Poway defense contractor who bribed GOP Rep. Randall Cunningham, and likely many-many other congressmen, primarily Republican ones.

Predictably, the comment boards are already flowing with a lot of ignorant speculation that Jeane was somehow "murdered" by a "conspiracy." Larry Flynt has told this to Fox News, but what do expect from Larry Flynt? This is not only disrespectful to the memory of a human being who felt compelled to kill herself by hanging, it's cracked and has no basis in reality whatsoever. It's all about patriarchy-run-amok. There were other names that Jeane told me. Ironically, she had conveyed them to Wayne Madsen very early-on in this story. One of them is Vice President Richard Cheney, though Jeane claimed that it was during the late-1990s when he was CEO of Halliburton. Whenever I asked if she could prove this and other things, I got silence. Take from that what you will.

Here's why: being a researcher on her defense team gave me an inside-view of things. Just weeks before the trial, Jeane sent this e-mail out to Jason Leopold--formerly of Talkout, whose editors forced him from covering the story this year--and forwarded it to the rest of us on the legal defense team. It contains an entire exchange in it for context. From February 28th, 2008 (paragraph-breaks added):

Jason… let’s put it like this, the bastards aren’t going to take me alive. Of course, anytime that you want to do an interview – I will make myself available. However, I doubt that I will be doing any interviews once I am in D.C., for the trial. –Best, Jeane

-----Original Message-----
From: jasonleopold@hotmail.com [mailto:jasonleopold@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:40 AM
To: jeanepalfrey@sprynet.com; 'Justice League'
Cc: myboigie@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: "D.C. Madam trial scheduled for April 7th" (Jeane Palfrey)...

Jeane

I have no doubt that you will prevail. Your fighting spirit is infectious. I am in the process of setting up my own shop. I will actually be in DC for your trial and would love to get you on camera theb for the new nesit if possible.

Best

Jason

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

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

From: "Jeane Palfrey"

Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:25:30

To:"'Justice League'"

Cc:,

Subject: RE: "D.C. Madam trial scheduled for April 7th" (Jeane Palfrey)...

Bil… thanks for the kinds words. If USA’s can’t file racketeering charges, then who can? More specifically, who filed them in my case? -Jeane

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

From: Justice League [mailto:spbiloxi00@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:11 AM

To: jeanepalfrey@sprynet.com

Cc: jason leopold

Subject: Re: "D.C. Madam trial scheduled for April 7th" (Jeane Palfrey)...

Good Morning Jeane:

Thanks for your update and concerns in your case. I am copying Jason. I will post your email on my blog and on the Newsinkling.org. Jason and I know that you are innocent. Just remember. This is a battle of a much corrupted justice system. And we are with you on the long haul no matter what happen. Keep in mind that your case is in the hands of 12 jurors. You are innocent until proven guilty.

Also, I wanted to bring this to you and Jason. I was watching a webcast of the House Judiciary Committee hearing that was held on Tuesday about the matter of the procedures of a Special Prosecutor. There were two panels of attorneys that were experinced attorneys that dealt with a Special Prosecutor or was a Special Prosecutor or Independent counsel. I watched carefully to the last person to testify in the second panel: USA and Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. One the committee asked this question to Fitzgerald that was interesting:


Cannon: Distinction between special counsel and normal prosecutor.

Patrick Fitzgerald: One common misunderstanding is that we didn't follow DOJ guidelines. I was bound by those guidelines. Many of the procedures I was the decision maker. When you prosecute as USA, you have to follow the guidelines. In an ordinary case, USA has an awful lot of power. In many cases, the volume of our cases, we can bring charges that will imprison people with out possibility of parole. No wiretap without DOJ, no immunity for witnesses, no govt appeal or attorney or member of the media. USAs can't file racketeering charges.

I found the last part of Fitzgerald's statement about racketeering charges interesting. And I appreciate him explaining what the role of as an USA. His statement is a very clear indication on why certain USAs were fired, why certain USAs were selected as interims, and what role within the WH and AG played in allowing certain charges to stick on certain individuals for political and personal means, and finally the handpicking of certain judges in certain cases. It would be interesting on how much power [especially USA Taylor] the selected USA interims with the DOJ by the WH. Here is the link of the webcast. Fitzgerald's testimony is about 15 minutes toward the end: 2:20.52

http://judiciary.edgeboss.net/real/judiciary/commercial/comm022608.smi

Bil

On 2/28/08, Jeane Palfrey > wrote:

My and defense counsel's various efforts the past 17 months to resolve the charges levied against me by the Department of Justice have been unsuccessful. Therefore, a full-jury trial is scheduled to take place on April 7th, in Federal District Court, in Washington, D.C.

I intend to defend myself vigorously against the charges of racketeering, money laundering and conspiracy. I will call witnesses to testify on my behalf about the legal, sexual nature of my former business – Pamela Martin & Associates. These witnesses likely will be culled from the existing research – conducted over the past 8 months - by a variety of press/media, bloggers and interested third parties.

It should be noted ALL charges are predicated upon the seldom utilized Travel Act, which allows the Government to claim jurisdiction for ANY crime – including misdemeanor offenses such as prostitution – when state lines are crossed. In the course of regular business operation in the Washington, D.C. area, state lines are crossed routinely by any number of businesses, including escort services. In fact, all one has to do is quite literally cross the street in hundreds, if not thousands of locations in the vicinity to cross a state line.

The Travel Act is important here because – unlike the state misdemeanor crime of prostitution – the Travel Act can be used to satisfy the requirement of an SUA (specified unlawful activity), which must be in place in order for the Government, not only to claim jurisdiction, but to be able to charge racketeering, money laundering and conspiracy. Federal law recognizes dozens of SUAs. Normally, such activities involve murder, treason, rape, kidnapping, drug trafficking, white slavery, extortion, embezzlement, etc and subsequently are utilized to support broader crimes like racketeering and conspiracy.

Perhaps, it also should be stated (and clarified) the racketeering charge is based in part upon the belief my previous business – to this day - is an ongoing criminal enterprise. Pamela Martin & Associates ceased to exist the day phone service was disconnected by me, in August of 2006. Any/all affiliated parties went their separate ways, at this time. The money laundering charge has been built upon the fact that payment transaction was done through the U.S. Mail.

Since I did not live in the Washington, D.C. area, during the 13 year period, PM&A was a viable concern – there realistically was no other logistical way for the women in my employ to send agency revenue onto me. Lastly, conspiracy – from what I have been able to ascertain – ostensibly occurs when two minds agree to commit a crime. Strangely, a person also can conspire with himself/herself, without the inclusion of a second individual.

Without doubt, I am in the fight of my life.Unfortunately, the Government will not capitulate, nor will I in this extremely bizarre case; one,where no person other than myself–including all former clients and escorts-is being charged with any crime here. Technically the Government has been successful in making the charges against me work on paper.

As a result, I have no choice- nor have I ever had any alternative - but to fight on and clear my name via the facts of the case, particularly since - if convicted, federal sentencing guidelines allow for a maximum sentence of 55 years imprisonment. Realistically, it has been calculated I would receive 8 to 10 to 15 years. Nonetheless for me at age 51, such a harsh penalty would be tantamount to a virtual life sentence – stripping me of some of the most productive years remaining in my life.

Jeane Palfrey

There's an image I have of Blanche Palfrey finding her daughter's body, hanging in the shed outside of her residential trailer. It's an image that should stick in the minds of all the "Johns," the privileged ones, forever. This is the real face of our elected (and appointed) representatives, and Republican Senator David Vitter is hardly alone in all of this. It's also the face of privileged businessmen, most of them whom would be nothing without a prostitute-facilitated government handout. Just ask Brent Wilkes. This is the face of lawlessness, a profoundly sexist patriarchy...it is the face of a homegrown American Fascism that so closely resembles a 19th century mining town.

I once told Jeane that she resembled the femme fatale movie star Joan Bennett (of Fritz Lang's "Scarlet Street"). Her response made sense: she she seemed to convey that she was both flattered and taken off-guard. It's horrible to see how accurate the statement was. This political and economic system uses women like Deborah Jeane Palfrey and her former escorts to facilitate government contracts. 

When things get uncovered, the press acts as the gatekeepers that they are (including people like David Corn), and they throw them away through prosecution. Jeane, I hardly knew you, but you didn't deserve this ending. I have to wonder what the dirty political prosecutors told you about sentencing, and whether it contributed to your decision to kill yourself. Your story will be told, and what I've learned in all of this will become public. This I vow.

Some Reflections on Judge Kessler's Ruling, Ending Prosecution's Injunction in "DC Madam" Case

Washinton D.C.--The ruling is an interesting read, albeit rife with legalisms that would make anyone outside of the legal profession's head spin. But it's fairly to-the-point: the temporary injunction barring Deborah Jeane Palfrey from distributing copies of her phone records to investigative journalists, bloggers, citizen journalists, and those like myself who do a mix of news analysis, opinion, & investigative journalism, has begun.

Ms. Palfrey is going to tell her story, and nobody is going to stop it; whatever the truth is, some of it is going to begin leaking-out in the intervening months. As Palfrey has stated in a recent newsletter:

Deciphering the voluminous amount of data – some of which is well over a decade old – will not be an easy task. Frankly, this likely is understating matters. It will take a small army of people skilled in computer and phone technology, investigation as well as factual knowledge regarding the significance OR non-significance of identified persons. No one individual or entity will be able to connect all of the dots. The overall endeavor easily could take many months, if not years to research and report conscientiously. [Ed., 09.01.2008--From a Palfrey Defense newsletter.]

Indeed, this is going to be a very arduous task, but a worthy one. The public trust has been violated again-and-again under this administration, and it's time to get to the bottom of things. If Congress intervened to accelerate the process--even better. In 46 lbs. of phone records, it's statistically inevitable that there are at least a dozen more prominent individuals still holding public office in them. We already know this from early-results, and ABC's producers told Palfrey of other names--names they would not make public. A very Special thanks go to Maria Cuvillion (phonetic) and Joe Clark, the postal inspectors who walked-past the phone records several times in their search of Ms. Palfrey's home. You missed the most important evidence in the case--the evidence that could exonerate Ms. Palfrey, and maybe cage some of you abusers of our federal bureaucracy.

Why they sent you, and not the FBI is hard to understand, Joe and Maria, but it worked-out OK for everyone. At the Justice Department, they have even bigger-problems besides the U.S. Attorney firings scandal--Assistant U.S. Attorneys William R. Cowden, Catherine K. Connelly, Daniel Butler, and their interim appointed boss Jeffrey A. Taylor are in for quite a ride. Judge Kessler was paying attention during the hearings:

At oral argument, the Government was asked whether the List contained the telephone numbers of unindicted co-conspirators. After a significant silence, Government counsel agreed that the answer to the Court's question was "yes." One cannot help wondering why the Government has exhibited such a strong interest in protecting a list containing the telephone numbers of unindicted co-conspirators, i.e., the women who the Government alleges provided the illegal sexual services and the men who the Government alleges sought and obtained such illegal sexual services. (US vs Palfrey, July 5th, 2007 'Memorandum Order,' pg. 7)

In short, there's no good legal reason to let the temporary injunctions on release of the phone records stand. "Unindicted co-conspirators" don't get to hide behind legalisms trotted-out by the federal prosecution, and the five "confidential informants" (really "co-operating witnesses," which fits the Government's contentions more accurately) are going to be unmasked for the purposes of the defense.

This doesn't bode well for the Government's case at all. That observation of a prolonged silence in the above quotation is Judge Kessler noting her doubts in the Government's contention over the injunctions. This was just one of a number of reasons and observations given by Federal District Judge Kessler, but the observation is perhaps her way of hinting she's not buying all of the prosecution's story.

This saga of the injunctions began in mid-March, with a lot of peculiar legal maneuvering by the prosecution. The phone records themselves have been defined and redefined a number of times, which is also peculiar and resembles obstructionism. To be sure, that's the case regarding the 46 lbs. of Pamela Martin & Associates phone records that range from 1993-2006.

If there are "unindicted co-conspirators" within the records, they should be revealed, correct? We have to know if Ms. Palfrey's accusers are impeachable, otherwise there's no real discovery or due process. To only indict Ms. Palfrey and nobody else would appear strange to just about any sitting judge. You can only be so credulous for so long.

The floodgates have been opened, but it's going to take a good deal of careful research on-the-part of investigative journalists and researchers. What's most important, however, is the beginning of carefully released primary documents that are essential in understanding such a twisted example of our Justice system run amok. Now--hopefully--it's time to understand how far it has gone outside-the-bounds of the rule of law (if it has, but there is smoke). Never mind Scooter Libby, this could be it. Patience is a virtue.