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

From the Palfrey trial transcripts: April 14th, 2008 excerpt

Ed.--This comes from the closing arguments of the trial of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, from trial proceedings on the day of April 14th, 2008. The comments below come from Palfrey's final criminal counsel, Preston Burton, a partner in the law firm Orrick, Herrington, and Sutcliff.

A number of his statements strike me as blatantly insincere, especially considering that Orrick is a massive firm with offices in at least a dozen countries (even in Russia and China), doing a lot of contract work for...the federal government. Can we say "conflict-of-interest"?

Not when you want to put a lid on a very embarrassing case that could "out" an awful lot of well-positioned clients, and perhaps a lot more that would be very inconvenient to moneyed-interests. Mr. Burton refuses to talk or correspond with me as he did during the legal proceedings. Was he saying things to Ms. Palfrey to dissuade her from testifying on her own behalf? If he did, I can guess why, but why not clear-up things if I'm wrong for the record? No, that would make sense, it would mean transparency, and there's a deal on with the government over a settlement regarding the forfeited properties of Palfrey.

Money figures highly in the entire saga.

..."Mr. Burton: ...The money. This business certainly generated money. You
heard that over 13 years it grossed around $2 million. You also
heard that the escorts got half of that. So that means that over
13 years, my client made, according to Special Agent Burrus's
summary chart, a little under a million dollars.
Now, a million dollars is a lot of money, still is to me,
anyway. But over 13 years, that's not a lot of money. It's not
peanuts, but it's not some lavish life-style." ...

Yet, she did lead a pretty "lavish life-style," owning two very expensive homes in Vallejo and Poway (where convicted former-Rep. Randy Cunningham owned one), and even a condominium in Florida for when she visited her mother--sound like a "lavish life-style"? I thought so too, it was.

There are other factors involved that have come to my attention from sources close to the whole affair, such as money that was hidden-away by Palfrey, and it wasn't exactly chump-change to this writer.

I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the contentions that were conveyed to me, albeit accidentally.

I'm sure that it's a "lot of money" to Mr. Burton, but he's likely to be making significantly more than that as a partner of the firm, if not in one year, in two-or-three. Of course, we all make money like that, right? Get real. He was attempting to make himself appear like some kind of "average Joe (not the plumber)" to the jury. One has to wonder why. If I had Burton's dough, I'm sure it would just get pissed-away on beer, being the malcontent that I am.

The lady made a lot more money than what Burton, Palfrey, or the prosecution, contended. They aren't alone, but I'm not within their ranks. I strenuously disagree. I'm waiting with bated breath for Mr. Burton, the prosecution, and others, to clarify these obvious discrepancies in the record.

Mr. Burton stands to make a very real windfall out of all of this as a member of the firm who will be administrating the Estate of Deborah Jeane Palfrey for her family, a group of people whom I believe to have been heartlessly and tragically misled--but by whom? Not me.

One final--and peculiar-- fact: Palfrey was running a "blown-glass importation business" out of the Czech Republic before the charges were levelled against her. Take from that what you will, and I know you will.

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.

Songs from the Site Meter: A Cluster of Visits Over the Deskin-Palfrey E-mails and Commentary Over Their Meaning

Site Meter--This is an interesting cluster from a few different geographical locations, mainly on L.A. attorney Sam Deskin, as well as related issues surrounding the DC Madam saga. The San Rafael address is interesting--is it a member of the Palfrey family? Could be.

It could be "Bobbie" Palfrey, Palfrey's younger sister. The location fits, but then, it could be a positive-hit for another Orrick office (they were founded in San Francisco with a major office there), or associate who lives in nearby San Rafael.

Question: why did the government erroneously claim that the late Jeane Palfrey had assets totaling over $2 million. It doesn't fit, the math doesn't work. Palfrey told this writer she was extremely "well-traveled," which her voluminous phone records attest to. There are many calls to various embassies of various nations.

Was she creating offshore accounts? It's a pregnant contention that deserves greater attention. With offices in over 18 major nations, I'm sure that Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe are up for the job of recovering what could be several million unreported dollars that federal investigators couldn't peg on Palfrey. Who's going to get it? Is their relationship with the federal government a conflict-of-interest? Is that a foregone conclusion? What's going on here?

As it stands, the federal government is claiming that the "investigation is ongoing." Offshore accounts could be the reason why, and who knows what Preston Burton is up to, apparently expediting the Estate of Deborah Jeane Palfrey for her surviving family members. Curiouser and curiouser (softly, softly, catchee monkey).

Domain Name		covad.net ? (Network)
IP Address		68.166.144.# (Covad Communications)
ISP		Covad Communications
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 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)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution : 1344 x 840 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Aug 29 2008 3:31:44 am
Last Page View		Aug 29 2008 3:31:44 am
Visit Length		0 seconds
Page Views		1
Referring URL		http://blogsearch.go...&tab=nb&q=dc%20madam
Search Engine		blogsearch.google.com
Search Words		dc madam
Visit Entry Page		http://chickasawpick...sit-over-deskin.html
Visit Exit Page		http://chickasawpick...sit-over-deskin.html
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time		Aug 28 2008 3:31:44 pm
Visit Number		40,457

Domain Name		covad.net ? (Network)
IP Address		68.166.144.# (Covad Communications)
ISP		Covad Communications
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 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)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution : 1344 x 840 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Aug 29 2008 4:21:10 am
Last Page View		Aug 29 2008 4:21:55 am
Visit Length		45 seconds
Page Views		2
Referring URL		http://blogsearch.go...&ie=UTF-8&q=dc madam
Search Engine		blogsearch.google.com
Search Words		dc madam
Visit Entry Page		http://chickasawpick...sit-over-deskin.html
Visit Exit Page		http://chickasawpick...esmell.blogspot.com/
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time		Aug 28 2008 4:21:10 pm
Visit Number		40,459

Domain Name		covad.net ? (Network)
IP Address		72.244.52.# (Covad Communications)
ISP		Covad Communications
Location		Continent : North America Country : United States (Facts) State : California City : San Rafael Lat/Long : 37.9719, -122.5023 (Map)
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinXP
Browser		Firefox Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1
Javascript		version 1.5
Monitor		Resolution : 1024 x 768 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Aug 29 2008 4:42:56 am
Last Page View		Aug 29 2008 4:51:23 am
Visit Length		8 minutes 27 seconds
Page Views		3
Referring URL
Visit Entry Page		http://chickasawpick...sit-over-deskin.html
Visit Exit Page		http://chickasawpick...esmell.blogspot.com/
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-8:00
Visitor's Time		Aug 28 2008 1:42:56 pm
Visit Number		40,462

Domain Name		(Unknown)
IP Address		12.170.159.# (ORRICK, HERRINGTON SUTCLIFFE)
ISP		AT&T WorldNet Services
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 WinXP
Browser		Internet Explorer 6.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; MS-RTC LM 8)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution : 1024 x 768 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Aug 29 2008 5:20:47 am
Last Page View		Aug 29 2008 5:20:47 am
Visit Length		0 seconds
Page Views		1
Referring URL
Visit Entry Page		http://chickasawpick...sit-over-deskin.html
Visit Exit Page		http://chickasawpick...sit-over-deskin.html
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time		Aug 28 2008 5:20:47 pm
Visit Number		40,467

Domain Name		(Unknown)
IP Address		12.170.159.# (ORRICK, HERRINGTON SUTCLIFFE)
ISP		AT&T WorldNet Services
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 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)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution : 1024 x 768 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Aug 29 2008 5:20:49 am
Last Page View		Aug 29 2008 5:22:42 am
Visit Length		1 minute 53 seconds
Page Views		3
Referring URL
Visit Entry Page		http://chickasawpick...sit-over-deskin.html
Visit Exit Page		http://chickasawpick...label/Preston Burton
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time		Aug 28 2008 5:20:49 pm
Visit Number		40,468

202-861-0737: The Vietnamese Embassy

The call originates from Ms. Palfrey's old Vallejo number (707-648-1500). It's a good example of a lady who liked to travel a lot (and a "miss"), but that's likely to be it. [Ed.01.03.2010--But it could be an indication that she was laundering money while abroad, maybe even looking at places to flee to.] I only include it to EXCLUDE it.

HOOKERGATE: AMERICAN MEDIA RELUCTANT TO ISSUE FULL LIST, THOUGH ABC IS IN POSESSION OF 10,000-NAME MASTER

"Had he done so earlier along with the many, many others who have used my company's services throughout the years, I most likely would not be in my current predicament." --Deborah Jeane Palfrey today. (Reuters UK, 05.01.2007)

Washington D.C. (party town!)--She's still talking and Heidi Fleiss is chiming-in that she shouldn't be telling who her clients were. Yeah. Then, the wires are reporting that Deborah Jeane Palfrey "is sorry" for outing Randall Tobias, a Bush administration appointee in the State Department who resigned on Friday after ABC released his name from her list on Thursday. Now, she's asked a federal judge if she can sell-off shares in Dolby laboratories since they've peaked in value:

The woman accused of running a prostitution ring serving Washington's elite, including at least one U.S. government official, also appears to be something of a stock picker. The woman, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, asked a federal judge on Monday for permission to sell almost 5,000 shares of Dolby Laboratories that were in an account frozen by the government because she believed the stock had reached its high point. (Reuters UK, 05.01.2007)

The judge isn't going to do it, which could suggest there's also an SEC investigation here. One has to question why ABC is sitting-on that 9,997-strong list. We've only heard about three names so far. Let's hear some more, please. America's at least a partially Puritanical nation of serial voters, and those folks are waiting in rapt attention. So am I. ABC: what gives?

We should all be asking ourselves where Ms. Palfrey gets her stock tips. Could it come from people with access to data being mined in the warrantless surveillance programs being expedited by the Pentagon and the NSA? Certain Bush administration officials have such security clearances and could do it. This could take insider trading to a new level. Their access to such information must be unprecedented, skirting numerous federal regulations that are routinely enforced by entities like the SEC (and also investigated by the FBI under white-collar crime laws). Except...
Interestingly, the FBI's investigations into white-collar crimes have literally plummeted under the Bush administration, though this should be no surprise to even the most casual observer on the political scene.

Thousands of white-collar criminals across the country are no longer being prosecuted in federal court -- and, in many cases, not at all -- leaving a trail of frustrated victims and potentially billions of dollars in fraud and theft losses. It is the untold story of the Bush administration's massive restructuring of the FBI after the terrorism attacks of 9/11. Five-and-a-half years later, the White House and the Justice Department have failed to replace at least 2,400 agents transferred to counterterrorism squads, leaving far fewer agents on the trail of identity thieves, con artists, hatemongers and other criminals. Two successive attorneys general have rejected the FBI's pleas for reinforcements behind closed doors. (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 04.11.2007)

And so, we have to assume that this was part of the whole design of the Bush agenda, perhaps before 1999. Surely, it didn't occur on-accident. There has been a bum rush on the system by a horde of criminals occupying our seat of government. It's as simple as that.

With the vast funds that have been appropriated for the failed war on terror, surely, these Special Agents could have been replaced by now. But if you're a criminal who's seized the levers of power, you would also defund the people who are supposed to guard the public from you and your accomplices.Why mention white collar crimes in all of this? There is smoke here, and Ms. Palfrey needs to be questioned about the particulars of her stocks and how she decided on their purchase (who, if anyone, advised her on the purchases?), the timing of the purchases, and a lot more. Maybe if we're lucky, we can find an FBI agent who isn't busy listening-in on our phone calls, watering Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff's lawn, or doing...who knows under this war on terrorism? Of course, there could even be a connection here with the U.S. Attorney firings, but that's a wait and see.

It's hard to imagine what federal statutes cover a government employee working for Palfrey as a prostitute. Send in the paralegals and legal scholars, they're going to have to dust-off some very-very old laws here.

Assuredly, there is some element of criminal conspiracy here, with the possibility that Ms. Palfrey was given preferential treatment in a number of arenas such as the stock trading. It would be interesting to learn whether the federal prosecutor leading the investigation into Palfrey's case was on the Bush/Rove/Cheney/Gonzales hit-list in the U.S. Attorney firings scandal.

Sibley said he did not know whether ABC would name other customers in the "20/20" segment. Jeffrey Schneider, executive vice president at ABC News, said the network is pursuing a legitimate news story, not performing legal work for Palfrey. Palfrey has described her business as a "legal, high-end erotic fantasy service." Prosecutors say Palfrey knew that her escorts were having sex with clients and that Palfrey generated more than $2 million in revenue over 13 years, with more than 130 women employed at various times to serve thousands of clients. (AP, 05.01.2007)

$2 million seems a conservative estimate (pun-intended), especially considering the hourly-rate ($300-per-hour), and the duration (13 years). Let's face it, with 10,000 customers, it doesn't fit, and one has to wonder if the former-madame was given access to offshore accounts through various clients.

This writer wagers there was a great deal of bartering going-on in Palfrey's firm. At this point, only Palfrey, ABC, her customers, and the rest of the media knows the story. It's the public that should know every sordid detail, no matter where the trails leads. So far, it leads directly to the Oval Office...again (and again-and-again-and-again). Today, she says she's sorry that she outed State Department official, Randall Tobias. What a Palfrey excuse.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 04.11.2007: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/311046_fbiterror11.html

Reuters UK: http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKN3043095920070501

AP Today: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003687865_madam01.html