"DC Madam" Palfrey in Status Conference With District Judge Kessler Today (And So Much More)

Washington D.C.--It appears that things are beginning to finally get moving with the dismissal of Preston Burton as "DC Madam" Deborah Jeane Palfrey's criminal representation. What's unclear is how it's all going to play-out. Will civil attorney Montgomery Blair Sibley take the proceedings into areas Burton was unwilling to? It appears so from this newsletter from Ms. Palfrey and counsel, and a status conference is probably occurring in DC while this is being written:

Subsequently, Judge Kessler entered an order indicating that she would take up Jeane's selective prosecution argument. In essence, Jeane is arguing that as the only one of some eighty-three (83) escort agencies operating in the metro-DC area, the government's decision to prosecute her was based upon political considerations arising before the November 2006 elections.To support this contention, Jeane will be offering a composite exhibit of statements, news articles and a memo from Monica Goodling which collectively detail the politicization of the Department of Justice in a manner which lends credence to Jeane's argument of selective prosecution. At the conclusion of the argument, Jeane will be asking the Court to issue subpoenas and conduct an evidentiary hearing into these allegations. (10.21.2007 newsletter, 'Palfrey Update #29-Hearing Tomorrow on Selective Prosecution')

It's unclear how District Judge Gladys Kessler--a Clinton appointee to the bench--is going to rule on these coming motions. If you've been reading this site, little of this is going to come as a surprise. There are ample signs of politicization of Palfrey's case, partly due to the timing, and partly due to who her prosecutors are or who they might actually be. The playing filed is extremely foggy in many areas.

Take the example of Ms. Goodling, a graduate of Regents Law School (formerly part of Oral Roberts University. Roberts is currently being accused of embezzlement), a phony institution used to train political-operatives to be inserted into the federal bureaucracy by sundry conservative elements--approximately one-sixth (at one count, 150 at Justice) of all graduates of Regents are serving as Bush appointees to the Justice Department, providing reasonable suspicions to support Palfrey's claims. Similar examples in her case are there, waiting to be reported by the media. As far as anyone can tell, these appointments are all still in-place at the Department of Justice.

But remember Monica Goodling? She was disgraced former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's top aide who resigned this Spring and pleaded the Fifth amendment at congressional hearings over her and the boss's role in the U.S. Attorney firings scandal. Monica is going to be back in the spotlight again, and likely to be subpoenaed for Palfrey's trial(s), if only in document form.

She won't be alone: so will employees of defense/intel contractor, SAIC (search this site for more). Again, remember that Regents is considered the lowest of the low for law schools, and that Goodling's 1999 class had a bar exam failure rate of 60%. Karma being what it is, we can rest assured that the GOP's Monica will deliver the goods Bionic Woman-style. Small wonder that they're all being caught at wrongdoing. But how did they all get in there? Thanks to leap-frogging appointments, naturally, a nineteenth century atavism

.Not long ago, it was rare for Regent graduates to join the federal government. But in 2001, the Bush administration picked the dean of Regent's government school, Kay Coles James , to be the director of the Office of Personnel Management -- essentially the head of human resources for the executive branch. The doors of opportunity for government jobs were thrown open to Regent alumni. (The Boston Globe, 04.08.2007,

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/04/08/scandal_puts_spotlight_on_christian_law_school/?page=full)

How else do you keep investigations of obvious criminal behavior at bay? There's nothing clever about it, the game is based more on audacity and the unwillingness of atrophied congressional incumbents to believe that an administration like that of George W. Bush is even possible. This is what they were banking on all-along: that the opposition in the political sector would become frozen and make half-hearted attempts at stopping them to preserve the power of the executive branch for themselves. Where does Palfrey figure-into all of this? Nobody is quite certain of this, but this author has some ideas.

First: the aforementioned "legal firewall" was created and maintained by political appointees like Goodling to keep the genuine, uncompromised forces of law and order in the bureaucracy (and the outlying society) at bay. This has played-out in numerous arenas, including the war in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay conditions, illegal rendition, torture--virtually every case of Bush and GOP wrongdoing and incompetence.

Second: Karl Rove's (and likely the vice president's, and many others in the RNC...) knowledge of numerous GOP incumbents' scandalous behaviors have allowed neoconservatives to continue a process of political blackmail of said incumbents throughout the Bush years--it's unlikely they invented the process, as the historical record is studded with examples thanks to J. Edgar Hoover. Someone, somewhere is keeping-tabs at all times of compromising behavior.

Third: while blackmailing these incumbents has meant that these congresspersons are de facto captives of the neoconservatives, some are being discovered through the incompetence of Bush appointees in the Justice Department, a failure in cloaking their behaviors. They're also being caught because they cannot control themselves. On top of this, there has also been whistle-blowing by long-term employees at Justice, many of whom have resigned since 2001. The bureaucracy has been fighting-back. Deborah Jeane Palfrey could be the person who could free these compromised incumbents from the clutches of the neoconservative plague. If you wonder why some in Congress continue to vote the way they do, you should wonder no more.

After all, American culture is still decidedly Puritan, and especially so when it comes to the GOP's voting base. With the promise that "we'll keep things quiet about your immoral behavior," the Bush administration has secured the voting behavior of an unknown segment of incumbents in Congress. Besides quashing investigations into the possible criminal behaviors of GOP incumbents, we know from Judiciary Committee hearings and solid investigative journalism that a push for partisan-based investigations of Democratic incumbents occurred as part of the U.S. attorney firing scandal.
This is evident in the firing of former U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias who was pressured by standing Senator Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson of New Mexico. Both incumbents attempted to pressure Iglesias into investigations of state Democrats before the 2006 elections, surely experiencing their own pressures from the White House and Karl Rove.

In back-to-back hearings in the Senate and House, former U.S. 8attorney David C. Iglesias of New Mexico and five other former prosecutors recounted specific instances in which some said they felt pressured by Republicans on corruption cases and one said a Justice Department official warned him to keep quiet or face retaliation. Iglesias's allegations of congressional interference have prompted a Senate ethics committee inquiry. Yesterday he offered new details about telephone calls he received in October from Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) and Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.), saying he felt "leaned on" and "sickened" by the contacts seeking information about an investigation of a local Democrat. (The Washington Post, 03.07.2007, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030600606.html )

It should also be remembered in this context that it was one Monica Goodling who helped pave the way for Rove protege Tim Griffin as a U.S. Attorney. Griffin is now aiding Fred Thompson in his campaign...nearly the only campaign whose offices will never be burglarized during the entire run-up to the 2008 elections, a prediction of this writer. San Diego is burning. Perhaps with some luck, it will take SAIC's headquarters with it.

HIRING PRACTICES AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT: WIDESPREAD PATRONAGE APPOINTMENTS UNDER BUSH ADMINSTRATION? (Repost of June 14th article)

"We anticipate that many of our graduates are going to go and be change agents in society." --Regent School of Law Dean, Jeffrey Brauch to the Boston Globe (04.08.2007)

Washington D.C.--While it's beyond the scope of this blog to fully-investigate this--something that only Congress can truly find-out--there could be connections between "Hookergate" and the U.S. Attorney firing scandal, and they could be legion. Take former senior counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Monica Goodling: she's now 33, but was in her late-twenties when she was tapped for Justice by...who?

That would be Alberto Gonzales, who answers to the president. Goodling--a graduate of lowest-tiered Regent School of Law--hired ex-U.S. Attorney (not fired) Tim Griffin in what could be a widespread game of appointment-leapfrog, and helped draw-up a list of prosecutors to fire. There is ample-evidence at this time to believe they were fired for political reasons. According to an April Boston Globe article on Regent, there is ample-evidence the Bush administration hires-and-fires for political reasons. Hey, that's fair:

But even in its darker days, Regent has had no better friend than the Bush administration. Graduates of the law school have been among the most influential of the more than 150 Regent University alumni hired to federal government positions since President Bush took office in 2001, according to a university website. One of those graduates is Monica Goodling , the former top aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who is at the center of the storm over the firing of US attorneys. Goodling, who resigned on Friday, has become the face of Regent overnight -- and drawn a harsh spotlight to the administration's hiring of officials educated at smaller, conservative schools with sometimes marginal academic reputations. (Boston Globe, 04.08.2007)

Hey, the president didn't have good grades either. He must have a soft-spot (his head) for them. It would seem it's the Bush administration and their appointments, once ensconced within the bureaucracy, who decide on the hiring now.

How widespread is this? Is it politically-based? It appears it could very well be. There have been rumblings about this for months-and-months, but we got an earful around May 7th regarding the Justice Department probe:

"We are highly disturbed by the emerging information, because it seems to repeat this pattern going on at the [Department of Justice] where people are chosen for their positions not for their experience and qualifications, but rather whether or not they match a certain political ideology," Sanchez said. Among those raising concerns is Joseph Rich, a 36-year veteran of the department, who left in 2005 after serving as head of the Civil Rights Division's section that deals with voting rights. "The whole hiring process had been changed to put the decision-making in political appointees' hands, and it was clear it was being politicized in that manner," Rich told CNN. (CNN, 05.07.2007)

Tim Griffin could tell us more about the problems at the Civil Rights Division. But is it just at Justice? This is the connection to Deborah Jeane Palfrey and her case. Palfrey's impressions of the postal agents who contacted her realtor on October 3rd of 2006 appeared to be in their "late-twenties."

Her mother Blanche was visited at her home in Florida on June 5th of this year by IRS agent Troy Burrus...and one of the postal investigators, Maria Couvillon [Ed.-Quite possibly the daughter of federal district court judge Irvin Couvillon who works out of Louisiana]. Her mother had the same impression, and Palfrey adds, "...my mother thought the “kids” appeared to be very young."

Is it a strange question to ask: are hiring practices throughout the rest of our government bureaucracy are the same as they are at Justice (under the Bush administration)? This is an administration that has made-it-plain that they're at war with the departments of our government--could politically-based hiring be of any surprise after warrantless wiretapping?

It's being alleged that Bradley Schlozman (former top official in the Civil Rights Division of Justice) had the party-affiliation of Ty Clevenger (a Republican) removed from his application for employment at the department. Again, the public isn't allowed to know these details under federal law, based on protecting investigative procedures and privacy. The public isn't allowed access to this information.

Is standard procedure a legitimate front (highlighted by legal counsel like Harriet Miers, or even someone like Goodling?), something that the Bush administration was counting on? What's strange is the multi-jurisdictional quality of Palfrey's case, it seems confused: the USPS, the Justice Department, and the IRS (more?). There could be other departments involved, but the question is: why? Was authorizing the use of postal investigators a way to federalize the case? Could the same be said about the involvement of the IRS? Is this how "Hookergate" began:

Lawmakers from both parties yesterday called for limits on antiterrorism laws in response to a Justice Department report that the FBI improperly obtained telephone logs, banking records and other personal information on thousands of Americans." It also found that the FBI had hatched an agreement with telephone companies allowing the agency to ask for information on more than 3,000 phone numbers -- often without a subpoena, without an emergency or even without an investigative case. (Washington Post, 03.10.2007)

This sounds very familiar, and might cover the predicament that Ms. Palfrey has found herself in. Were antiterrorism laws used--and abused--in her case? Many in Congress have been calling for a rollback on statutes within the Patriot Act. We could be finding-out soon whether Deborah Jeane Palfrey was caught-up in this net, but this aspect can only be covered by Congress--or by whistle-blowers.

CNN, 05.07.2007: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/07/justice.prosecutors/index.html

The Washington Post, 03.10.2007: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902356.html

The Boston Globe on Regent School of Law, 04.08.2007:http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/04/08/scandal_puts_spotlight_on_christian_law_school/?page=full

Ed.-Minor revisions added 08.27.2007. FOIAs were filed in July of this year by J-7 on all members of the investigation and prosecution team at Justice involved in the case of Ms. Palfrey. They are pending, but could aid in substantiating if others at DOJ were hired for ideological reasons. [Ed., 08.28.2008--The FOIAs were laughable with no detail on the prosecutors' backgrounds, merely their loyalty oaths.]

JEFFREY A. TAYLOR: U.S. ATTORNEY IN THE PALFREY CASE AT JUSTICE, MAN OF THE HOUR

"Here, you're much closer to the casework."
--Jeffrey Taylor, Oct. 16th, 2006 to the San Diego Union-Tribune [Ed., 09.13.2008--Making me feel better about my own diction.]

Washington D.C.--Jeffrey A. Taylor is an under reported part of the U.S. Attorney scandal, and in the "Hookergate" scandal. His political credentials are well-known, and like Monica Goodling, he's served as counsel for one Alberto Gonzales. Like Tim Griffin, he was appointed by Gonzales under what was then a little-known section of the Patriot Act, surreptitiously added during a renewal of the bill on March 20th of 2006. Here's a partial-list that Common Dreams compiled in January:

Since last March, the administration has named at least nine U.S. attorneys with administration ties. None would agree to an interview. They include:

-Tim Griffin, 37, the U.S. attorney for Arkansas, who was an aide to White House political adviser Karl Rove and a spokesman for the Republican National Committee.

-Rachel Paulose, 33, the U.S. attorney for Minnesota, who served briefly as a counselor to the deputy attorney general and who, according to a former boss, has been a member of the secretive, ideologically conservative Federalist Society.

-Jeff Taylor, 42, the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., who was an aide to Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch and worked as a counselor to Gonzales and to former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

-John Wood, U.S. attorney in Kansas City, who's the husband of Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Julie Myers and an ex-deputy general counsel of the White House Office of Management and Budget.

-Deborah Rhodes, 47, the U.S. attorney in Mobile, Ala., who was a Justice Department counselor.

-Alexander Acosta, 37, the U.S. attorney in Miami, who was an assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's civil rights division and a protege of conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

-John Richter, 43, the U.S. attorney in Oklahoma City, who was the chief of staff for the Justice Department's criminal division and acting assistant attorney general.

-Edward McNally, the U.S. attorney in southern Illinois, who was a senior associate counsel to President Bush.

-Matt Dummermuth, the U.S. attorney in Iowa, who was a Justice Department civil rights lawyer.

Some of these appointees have drawn praise from local skeptics and later won Senate confirmation for permanent appointments. (CommonDreams.org, 01.27.2007)

Again, just a partial-list. That's right: Taylor worked under Ashcroft and Gonzales in different capacities. He knows the ropes of policy--and he's right at the heart of the Palfrey case. What's amazing is that he was appointed the day that her case "went into hyper drive" by AG Gonzales. This is a stunning fact, and while it doesn't prove anything conclusive, it's smoke and should be investigated by the Judiciary committees.

There could have been extraordinary reasons--besides 9/11 and terrorism--to create the ability to appoint these interim U.S. Attorneys--damage control on all-fronts, including an already compromised GOP tanking thanks to massive exposure in "Hookergate." Elements of the bureaucracy probably already knew that Palfrey was arranging the purchase of the flat in Germany by August, with some major panic over her wiring-of-funds after September 28th. From Taylor's DOJ.gov profile, in toto:

Jeffrey A. Taylor was appointed interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales on September 22, 2006. He was sworn in and took office on September 29, 2006.

From 2002 to 2006, Mr. Taylor served as Counselor to Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Gonzales, where he handled a broad array of matters, including oversight of the Department’s national security, terrorism, and criminal litigation and policy, as well as the operations of the Department’s law enforcement components.

Mr. Taylor served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California from 1995–1999, where he prosecuted a variety of criminal matters, including international drug trafficking organizations. From 1999-2002, Mr. Taylor served as Counsel to the U.S. Senate’s Committee on the Judiciary, working on issues including criminal law, terrorism, and national security.

Mr. Taylor began his legal career as a law clerk to the Honorable John C. Mowbray, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nevada, from 1991–1992, and then worked for three years in private practice. He obtained his Juris Doctor degree from Harvard Law School and his Bachelor of Arts degree from Stanford University. Mr. Taylor, and his wife, Marcia Taylor, are residents of the District of Columbia. (usdoj.gov, "Biography of US Attorney")

But what makes Jeffrey A. Taylor a real powder keg, and a truly political appointee? He's the U.S. Attorney for Washington D.C., the man who will have to expedite the subpoenas issued by Senator Patrick Leahy and Rep. John Conyers in the U.S. Attorney firing scandal. This man is going to be at the center of everything after July 9th, you can bet your paycheck on it. He was appointed to put out a lot of fires.

Jeffrey A. Taylor is one of the Bush administration's insurance policies, a brake on the rule of law now that there is no GOP majority in Congress to protect and obstruct for them. They saw the wave coming at the White House. There's a good chance Mr. Taylor will be removed from his job or resign at some point during these hearings and investigations. It's just a matter of when. If he's wise, he'll recuse himself from all of the aforementioned, including Ms. Palfrey's case.

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

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

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

COURT UPDATE ON PALFREY CASE: "DC MADAM'S" CRIMINAL LAW ATTORNEY REQUESTS A DROPPING OF CHARGES

Washington D.C.--Again, credit goes to the Washington Post for continuing their coverage of the legal predicament of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, eschewing the credulous reaction most of the media (and prominent "liberal/progressive" blogs) to the killing of ABC's 20/20 segment (redacted to seven minutes).

Today's news brought us a little closer to what a settlement and resolution of the case might look like if the investigators considered the current political climate:

Deborah Jeane Palfrey was the victim of selective prosecution and was indicted only after she publicly criticized federal prosecutors and threatened to seek an independent investigation of them from the attorney general, her attorney wrote in court filings. "As can be verified by picking up the Yellow Pages, a Washingtonian magazine or The Washington Post, Ms. Palfrey owns and operates merely one of hundreds of escort services operating [in] the District of Columbia," lawyer Preston Burton wrote. "There is evidence . . . that demonstrate[s] the realistic possibility that Ms. Palfrey was singled out for prosecution on the basis of her petition to the government requesting the appointment of Special Counsel." (Washington Post, "District Briefing, Saturday, June 16 2007; B02. ESCORT SERVICE CASE. 'Attorney Asks Judge to Dismiss Charges. ")

This appears very likely, especially upon examination of the time-line, but it's also a well-known fact that Washington D.C. is literally teeming with sundry escort services--why aren't they in court too? Why is it just Deborah Jeane Palfrey? Where are her former employees, particularly the ones who constitute the "five confidential informants?" Surely, all of them feel "intimidated" as "witnesses," forget former clients (like Fred Thompson? [Ed., 08.28.2008-This name was confirmed to myself by Palfrey in a missive. Larry Flynt has the name, but it no-longer matters.]).

This leads into how informant programs and deals frequently work: the affiants are given legal immunity in-exchange for their testimony. This doesn't prevent someone from having engaged in prostitution--or any other crime--without Palfrey's knowledge to save themselves by accusing her in what would constitute perjured statements. That's a possible reason for this statement from the Justice Department's lead-prosecutor:

"Here's the pickle we're in, your honor," said federal prosecutor William Cowden [Ed.-assistant US Attorney]. "The information in government files in some cases relate to other individuals' possible criminal activity [Ed.--probably those of the informants, but could also include the criminal activities of former clients] . . . . My suspicion is the defense wants to make some of that information public." Palfrey and the government have been in a protracted dispute over whether she has used some of her phone records from her business, Pamela Martin and Associates, to try to publicly identify former customers and intimidate potential prosecution witnesses. (Washington Post, 05.22.2007)

Even a cursory examination of the government's past use of informants illustrates its usage is highly suspect--suspicion is right. Most informants have already broken a law (frequently, a heinous one with victims) before they reach a federal prosecutor, and their motives should always be questioned (as well as the truthfulness of their claims).

The "pickle" could be the mess that federal prosecutors have allowed themselves to be baited-into by certain former clients--prominent ones. Some of them could still be holding-office within the Justice Department as I write this, or even the White House. They wouldn't lie, would they?

What sets-off alarm bells is that Assistant U.S. Attorney Cowden is trying to quash any attention to these legitimate concerns, and they are real concerns in any criminal case brought by the federal government against any lone-individual (especially one they've impoverished through forfeiture laws). Cowden's probably being told to take this approach by his boss, Jeffrey A. Taylor. Is Taylor being told by Attorney General Gonzales on how to proceed in this case? Congress (the Judiciary Committees) and her own investigators might be interested to know. They should ask Ms. Monica Goodling, and under oath.

The use of confidential informants has been abused countless times by the FBI in the harassment of political, religious, and cultural minorities in the United States.

But consider this: should you trust the testimony of someone who has broken laws that are worse than what the defendant is being accused of? This is just another valid criticism of the use of confidential informants. This aside, Palfrey and her new criminal attorney Preston Burton are attacking the legal foundation of all five federal counts against her. Readers should also know that until Ms. Palfrey's case (not an issue of her guilt or innocence), prostitution wasn't a federal offense.

Somehow, it became so without the passage of any legislation...or did it? There's another side to Palfrey's former employees--the ones who didn't get caught-up in the Justice Department's net:

The escort says she never told Palfrey—"a great boss"—that she slept with clients several times a week. She says she misses the work—and the business and investing advice clients offered. [my emphasis]"It was all about role-playing and packaging yourself," she says. "It's exactly what they teach you in sales and marketing." ("D.C. Sex Scandal: An Escort's Perspective," Newsweek, 06.04.2007.)

Question: are the "confidential informants" lying? And what was that "business and investing advice" that former clients "offered"? It all seems to hinge on the affidavits, and these are being suppressed as evidence.

The whole case seems flimsy, yet, this is how the Justice Department is handling the case, and with no obvious jurisdiction. Maybe that's why the postal investigators were brought in. The only "evidence" they appear to have is the word of some very frightened former employees--who may have solicited prostitution without Palfrey's knowledge--of Pamela Martin & Associates.

Do Taylor and company have much of a case at all? Even looking from the outside, it doesn't appear so. Again, it's a pertinent question to ask about how Assistant U.S. Attorney Cowden, Assistant U.S. Attorney Catherine M. Connelly (Mass. Bar #649430), U.S. Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel P. Butler, (D.C. Bar #417718) came into their jobs. If it was under the Bush administration, the Senate Judiciary Committee needs to subpoena them as well for all the reasons one might suspect.

The Washington Post on "Hookergate" and trial proceedings (various): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/21/AR2007052100660.html

And: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/21/AR2007052100660.html

A directory of articles on Ms. Palfrey's predicament: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/related-topics.html/Deborah+Jeane+Palfrey?tid=informline

Newsweek, 06.04.2007: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18881818/site/newsweek/

MSNBC Today on the new court developments: http://www.nbc4.com/news/13515636/detail.html