Wayne Madsen & Me

Where to begin with this guy? OK, I'm not going to, but at some point this well known crank got involved with the DC Madam case doing--I have no idea what the hell he did for Jeane, frankly, but it couldn't have been much since he wasn't hired by her to do general research for her defense. For several months I did this work for Jeane at her request (I had a co-researcher who had also been tapped for this work). 

Initially, we looked into what was then known as the "Poway Mafia," that is, former-and-convicted California congressman Randy Cunningham, convicted-and-former defense contractor Brent Wilkes, the convicted-and-former "number three" guy at the CIA, Kyle Foggo, and a few other players who Jeane felt were related to he case. There was a lot smoke there, but we were only able to go so far with limited resources and time. At the end of the project, we, that is me and my co-researcher, made reports as to the aforementioned--how these players related to her and the escort service and why she was being prosecuted in such a manner. Also, we looked deeply into subpoenaed Verizon phone records that went far deeper than the scanned copies that were and still are online, basically who had a specific phone number, and when, numbers that were in her records as potential client-callers. I was paid by the federal defender's office, normal for indigent defendants, then did the rest pro bono.

Jump to two weeks ago: the UK's paper the Guardian/Globe, without vetting his wacky, rumpled self mistakenly quoted Wayner in an article about an EU deal with the NSA allowing them to conduct massive surveillance. I don't even care about the details, because, yes, he was an NSA analyst at once time, ages ago, claims to still have "sources" inside, or in the intelligence community, writes crappy, baseless articles about it, and is generally ignored as a nut in DC and the rest of the sane, civilized world, and for good reason. If you're a normal, well-balanced human being, go read his writing and tell me he's not nutty as hell. I don't see it happening.

The Globe had to pull a front page article quoting Wayner. Of course, it being the UK, the rest of the press there swarmed around the publication and wrote about it, gleefully. I was a little shocked, but unsurprised, when Damian Thomspon wrote a pretty scathing blog piece at the Telegraph about Madsen and the Globe. I won't recount it and leave it to the reader to check it out and decide for themselves, but in my humble opinion, it's spot-on. 

I left this comment two weeks ago after reading it: 

Madsen tried to attach himself to the DC Madam case for a time as well. Where do I think he got the "Obama is gay" theory? From Larry Sinclair. Ironic that you have Moynihan's Twitter quote on here since he quoted me out of context in one of his inane editorials back in 2008 when Ms. Palfrey was still a name in the news.

I did general research for her on the case & was told by a few sources about a "big party" that Larry Flynt was holding for Jeane, to assist her in some way, and who was there but Wayne Madsen. One of my sources (author Bill Keisling) remarked at how slovenly & disheveled he was, wearing a rumpled suit and sounding like the nut described in this story. He also said it kept him awake at night thinking that someone like Madsen had been working for the NSA, ostensibly competent people hired to "protect" the security of the United States, scary.

Indeed, Mr. Madsen once wrote an article claiming that a "shadowy source (it's almost always that way, hence why no one credible listens to him) that the DC Madam had a CIA controller, something of that nature, but so inane and absurd it doesn't warrant further mention.

Then there's Montgomery Blair Sibley, who, as is generally known in DC, is an unhinged scion of old Beltway aristocracy, the Blairs & the Sibleys--they once owned and inhabited the Blair House before Truman's renovation of the White House, it was expropriated. That, I think, created some long-term crusade by Sibley and his late father to be a thorn in the side of the US Courts, one reason why he's currently disbarred.

But just over five years ago, he was representing the DC Madam, who abruptly fired him in January 2008. Not long after that, he was representing Larry Sinclair, the Obama accuser who claims that he & the now-president had sex and imbibed in cocaine in the back of a limo in Chicago in 1999, all a patent lie by a career-liar of another stripe.

I assume that Sibley and Madsen struck up a relationship during the DC Madam proceedings and that the connection between Sinclair probably emanates from that relationship, however, Sinclair got a lot of ink back in 2008 and is still trotted out by uninformed GOP occasionally to smear the current president, to no avail. 

And there it is, my opinion.Whatever this guy gets involved with loses its credibility. He has a negative-Midas touch--everything he touches turns to shit.
 Luckily, none of this wiped-off onto Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden.

And so, here we are, two weeks later, and the Wayner responds with a predictably feeble "I know you are, but what am I?":

It would seem that it was Mr Janovic, who lives in Indiana far from the DC environs, who interjected himself on the Palfrey story and my investigation. The late Palfrey contacted me and this guy Janovic, who apparently blogs from a basement, decided to involve himself from afar and tried to obtain my sources and records as the following email will attest:

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Janovic [mailto:myboigie@earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 6:56 PM
To: jeanepalfrey@sprynet.com
Subject: RE: Today's piece

Jeane:

They would have to tell us this, definitely, but that's about all they would tell us. Perhaps I can just ask them ourselves? Perhaps Mr. Madsen could direct me to the resources, links, directories. There are those who would know, it could accelerate this particular research.

warm regards, Matt Janovic

The email is real, by the way. His take on it is not. His take on my life is also inaccurate and childish, but that's Wayner for you.

I responded, and this piece will be my final one on this:

Mr. Madsen's reputation speaks for itself, however, besides his poor grammar, he's wrong: the late Ms. Palfrey approached me and the email there--which is one I sent to her--is being re-contextualized. This is how he works normally, to take information and to recast it as something else. He's a laughingstock in DC and rarely, if ever, reveals his sources because they're as bogus as he is.

As for me "trying to obtain" his sources, read the last sentence, I wouldn't want them. Also, I assume that Montgomery Blair Sibley supplied him with the email, fine, but Google his name for what he's been up to recently and you'll understand the sheer nuttiness I experienced having just nominal contact with these people. Right now, the disbarred Mr. Sibley is still trying to wrong-headedly obtain another fifteen minutes of fame doing more pointless court filings to "prove" that President Obama's birth certificate is fake. I wish I could make this up. Mr. Madsen is a conspiracy nut's conspiracy nut, I doubt he was especially good at his NSA analysis job, and what he writes is paranoiac drivel.

The fact is, Jeane approached me first, not the opposite, a week earlier. The above email wasn't an especially relevant one and I believe it was about her prosecutors--doesn't matter, it was a minor issue and isn't even remotely what he's saying it is. I would never want his research materials because he's not good at it, not good at analysis, and as this article makes plain, he has a roundly bad reputation as a crank.

Again, his contention that I "interjected" myself into the case is a bald misrepresentation of fact. His inaccurate personal attack is also a misrepresentation of what really happened, something he's well known for as this article makes plain. Most of his audience is mentally unwell. Frankly, this guy is making me laugh at such an incompetent response, but that's Wayner for you. 

I could go on about what a pain in the ass he's been over the years. In one case, he poisoned the well with Siegelman case in Alabama and maybe even sent other cranks my way to cause me problems, like Andrew Krieg, but it's not worth my or your time, rest assured.

Where it all ends:  http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100224022/guardianobserver-pulls-front-page-nsa-story-after-source-turns-out-to-be-a-fruitloop-who-thinks-obama-is-gay/#comment-966678938

Trying to Get the Word out on the DC Madam case: Am I Being Hacked?

Ed.--This has been going on for more than a few months: I attempt to send an email to a journalist at one of their articles, say at The Telegraph, Disnfo.com, Huffington Post, Mother Jones, Talking Points Memo (this one took, no response--did it ever make it?), and numerous other progressive web sites and news publications. Either I cannot successfully send the filled-out form/message, or I get no replies, having no idea if they ever got the national security information about the DC Madam case I was apprising them of. I'm sure a few of them got it and reflected on their mortgages, sure. I've even had a semi-retired journalist who covered the intelligence beat who told me they contacted some of their other colleagues who are still working with no responses, no apparent interest. This, of course, is going on their word, a person I've never even spoken to on the phone, so there it is, I have only their word, and in these times, that ain't enough.

Do I know that I'm being hacked, can I prove it? No, but I was during the case and was surveilled, unquestionably, and it followed me onto Facebook and maybe now onto to Twitter, although it seems far more blunted. Now that we know Facebook was giving the NSA direct access, some of the harassment I was subjected to on there could be viewed in a new light. But like the victims of COINTELPRO and all the other government/private harassment programs targeting dissent in the US, I cannot prove it without herculean effort. We're talking numerous filings of FOIAs (Freedom of Information Act requests for documents on myself, whether I was being watched), but anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of this knows the Government isn't going to cough it up without one hell of a fight.

What I'm asking my readers is this: I need your help in sending out this form email that I'll paste-in below. I just attempted to send it to the journalist James Fallows at The Atlantic without any luck. It could be nothing, it could be a glitch on their part, there could be a cookie in my browser doing it, but I cannot get to the bottom of it, there seems to be no other solution then to have others send these emails on my behalf. There's nothing in this email message that I haven't written or published here on this blog, it's generalized. If you know a serious journalist covering national security issues, or you simply read on the subject a lot and have a reasonably secure email account, I need you to submit this letter to news sites, blogs, journalists, progressive web sites, and so on, I need your help and would appreciate it greatly. Thank you.

And without being too prolix, here's the text of the letter. Anyone who sends it off in my name, unredacted and unaltered has my full permission:  

Good day, I was a member of the DC Madam's defense team back in late 2007, early 2008. We were granted wide-ranging subpoena powers over the telecoms as well as the intelligence community by Federal District Judge Gladys Kessler, who, I might add, was shortly after that replaced without any explanation by a board of judges (a board she was on!) by former FISA Court judge James Robertson. He quashed all of that once on board for reasons that I think were obvious: the case involved surveillance, most likely of her escort service which had a large percentage of defense/intelligence contractors, military and intelligence officers, and a whole lot more. No one seems to want to touch this element of what was erroneously defined by the MSM as a simple sex scandal--it was not, it was far more. I don't expect you to answer because I'm always meeting a wall of silence on this.

I was hired as a general researcher by the late Ms. Palfrey in December 2007 and paid by the federal defender's office for my work, but I did far more pro bono after that month. Indeed, we were going through the subpoenaed phone records that had been provided by one of her carriers, Verizon, but AT&T and Sprint had yet to comply when Judge Kessler was abruptly replaced in the middle of the night in late November. But, we had the records that went much deeper into who had a phone number and a cell or landline--the whens and wheres--and came up with a stunning array that represented the national security state and their contractors and employees on both fronts. One of them was Ret. Col. Ron Roughead, brother to now-retired CNO Gary Roughead. The former worked for SAIC the last I knew and that firm came up in materials and outside of them so many times as not to be coincidental. I could go on and on with the very solid connections between players, but I will leave you with one example: there was one call, and one call only, from a former Verizon engineer with a Muslim name who was also an early war on terror arrest, in the DC area. I won't name him here, but his story was in the press and articles can be found online.

I should also add that we found some indications of intelligence activities in a hack of her email account going back to fall of 1998--yes, it could have been anyone, but they were being forwarded all of the ingoing and outgoing items in it, beyond the sophistication of the average internet user that year. It was a Yahoo.uk account. We got bounce-backs that I identified when the surveillance account was closed. Oddly, the bounce-backs contained the text of a 419 scam, a Nigerian one that's well-known, a fake barrister's note. This wasn't directed at us and was a clear glitch. It has been written that--and I cannot speak to the veracity of it--419 scams have been known to be used as covers for intelligence operations. And there is more, much more. I wrote an account on the case that's heavily-detailed and contains literally hundreds of emails between the late Ms. Palfrey, myself, and others, primary documents, court filings, etc., down to her autopsy report. The story's not cold, incidentally, since no one ever got to the real dynamics of it, other than myself and a few others. The press was ill-equipped to do so, or unwilling, but I cannot say decisively.

This NSA story, I believe, has a direct relation to what happened to Ms. Palfrey and her escort service. I've experienced strange online harassment, visits from contractors to my blog (http://chickasawpicklesmell.blogspot.com), hacking of accounts--you name it, outside of physical confrontation and/or shadowing. I implore you to at least consider this story in light of recent events, to look deeper, or to pass some of this along, and this is just the tip of the iceberg here.

Regards, Matt Janovic, writer and private researcher

Qualcomm being sued by NY State Comptroller over political donations

Without any prompting, Qualcomm came around my blog J to the Power of 7 on a word search over Montgomery Blair Sibley. This was around three years ago. I had no idea why they came around, but when I did a little research, I found that they also do intelligence and defense contracting…and they have a revolving door policy between their executives and those at Ernst & Young, a major corporate services firm that specializes in corporate audits, and yes, the books that get cooked.

The latter firm is involved in uncovering such things in corporate institutions, but also have had allegations thrown at them on several occasions that they helped to cover it up. What does that have to do with the DC Madam? It might not be anything specific beyond the fact that her former prosecutor, Jeffrey A. Taylor, a Bush II interim appointee who was never fired by incoming president-elect, Barack Obama, and went on to a cushy legalistic job at Ernst & Young. Now, why would someone at Qualcomm do that word search on Mr. Sibley? I have no idea and have never expected a straight answer out of them–don’t have the resources, or the inclination to bother looking into it, life’s too short. But the fact remains that both firms are very closely-linked, Taylor works for Ernst, and someone felt compelled at the sister firm of Qualcomm to do research over Mr. Sibley. When I brought it to his attention, he seemed pretty interested–as interested as I was. It was just one more bizarre “coincidence” from the case. I don’t know if Taylor is still working at Ernst & Young these days, but I would assume so. What’s of interest to me is the connection not only to computer chips and CPUs made by Qualcomm, but their relationship with the Pentagon and American intelligence community, perhaps one similar to SAIC’s, another major league contractor. Qualcomm was never in Jeane’s phone records, but I believe someone fucked up here and showed their hand, for which I thank them!

And now, the Comptroller of NY State, Thomas P. DiNapoli, a Democrat, is suing Qualcomm over political donations to force transparency. NY State is one of the biggest shareholders in the corporation, and is asserting her interest in the firm. This is reasonable since the risks are very high to public investors, especially when so many were burned in the banking crisis of 2008 thanks to widespread securities fraud. This is a major reason for the economic crisis in countries like Greece, for example, just one of many. Consider that when politicians in DC start screaming for austerity measures because of the deficit. Hundreds of billions were spent to keep a lot of crooks afloat. That's called being robbed twice.

Here’s more at the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/nyregion/new-york-comptroller-sues-qualcomm-for-data-on-political-giving.html?hpw&_r=1&

And my observations on them in relation to the DC Madam case (the earliest are most pertinent): http://chickasawpicklesmell.blogspot.com/search?q=Qualcomm

awright assholes (on trolls and eternal kiddies)

Here's the deal: I know some of you fuckers in the book are going to screw with me once the book is out on the DC Madam. Oh yes, you're in it, Sunshine, and nope, I'm not the first, or the last, to publish on it. I know from experience now that you're dumb enough to keep hitting me with fake cease and desists, all kinds of threats to intimidate. None of that's going to work, save it, that is, unless you want me to be able to accumulate enough evidence for a legal counterattack that will surely decimate you, because I'll go for damages, bank on it.

This site gets no more than one hundred hits-per-day, we're talking page views. No judge in the continental United States would even hear a libel/defamation case on that one alone, because it would then be virtually impossible to establish that I was even remotely capable of inflicting any harm on anyone's reputation or their ability to make a living, just the opposite, it would be a laughable endeavor. Take me to court simply to inflict financial harm on me? Civil court procedure would allow me to yank even more information about you and drag into the public record, and mark these words: I would in a way that would be perfectly germane to the suit filed against me, so, better not have any skeletons lying around. Also, I have enough paralegal experience and general researching ability to do the vast majority of that side of the process, and so, once again, you'd better have a damned reason to come at me, because I'll back at you like the Soviets routing the Wermacht, I'll eat your ass alive.

I play for keeps. I'm not fucking around. This book is serious, your behavior is your fault, and you have to pay the consequences for it, not I. If that's hard for you to comprehend or to accept, ask me the chasms of space, of the depths of I-don't-give-a-fuck on my end of the equation, it's infinite and unbending as death. If you were in public office, if you were playing football for Annapolis and posting things about yourself online to promote your ugly visage, if you were a government contractor written and spoken of endlessly in the media, if you're a federal jurist, a former AUSA or USA, military adviser, an employee of a government contractor with a public presence, you have no recourse over my book. I don't make allegations when I know the facts. I don't speculate and not tell the reader when I'm doing so, it's made clear.

I believe the primary evidence in the book speaks for itself. However, with few exceptions, none of you were involved in the case the way I was, even others who were. My association with Jeane was unique, because we were both outsiders in this rotten society, her witch to my warlock, call it what you will, but I am in general opposition to the overarching culture in the United States and always will be. Nothing will ever change this. America was a criminal nation from its inception. These goofy incidents of online harassment, these nebbish, lying, scummy, pathetic attempts to intimidate and silence me are eternal examples of how privileged people with no values, no character, and no just cause, undermine themselves and solidify opposition. This is how scoundrels go down, and how empires blow their balls off and accelerate the process of their disempowerment. If you want to be one more animal like that, great, jerk yourself off on that one. History is littered with this shit, and I know human history very well, better than you by miles, because I understand its nature.

Know this: if you come at me, you just promoted the book better than I ever could.

Also, anyone making the comment, "Be careful, you might end up like Gary Webb," even in jest, will be exiled permanently, you will no longer communicate with me, there will be no more replies. My rules. Don't like them, go whimper to someone who gives a shit.

If there's even one comment that Jeane was "suicided," you will be exiled, never to return, access gone forever, no reprieves. No one is wasting my time, your ego is overrated, and you have small dick, because the majority of you are males, not men., not adults, but mooks, even you boomer males who needed gelding a long way back. I don't care about your fucking opinions, so save it. This was my experience, not yours. You don't know as much as you think you do. In fact, you're pretty fucking stupid and your ass is hanging-out...to the right. You look stupid. Tuck that shirt in. Polish those boots, and Jesus fucking Christ, remake that goddamned bed right now, until I can bounce a quarter off of if it, you lazy, incompetent asshole, you mook. You will not talk. You will not write. You will not. You will, however, shut up.

Yes, there are some stupid out there who also run to conspiracy theories--there are a variety of reasons for this, but the main one is cowardice and conformist tendencies. But men are far stupider in this culture and make up the vast majority of conspiracy kooks, just as men commit around 90% of all rapes in the US.

The fact that this book exists is enough--take your consumer pea-brains and fuck yourselves about sales figures. If that was the case, the Velvet Underground wouldn't have been so influential, they sold jack and shit for ages, but changed music forever. This book contains that kind of archetypal power. I believe it is the truth of the case and its place in the firmament of American history. This is a account. There are no rules to a historical account, regardless of what anyone might say. When you're part of a historical event, it's as personal as it gets. I know for a fact that I've already left my mark. I'm very satisfied, and expect to gain more satisfaction, the kind you're thinking, the kind that inspired duels. I'm an ant, but at least a minor historical player. Are you? Then go do something of value for society and the common good, put your ass on the line, or shut the fuck up, your comments are unimportant and empty, like you.

I refer anyone who I detect with a right-wing anti-government agenda to the above text. I'll shut you down right away, and you'll either be booted, or the interview will end, non-negotiable, it will be over.

I don't kiss people's asses to curry favor, to get something, as so many creeps in this settler state do. This doesn't make me morally superior, it makes me functional amongst the dysfunctional mass of unwanted children. Small wonder they hate abortion. Your god won't save. Save yourself, change. Don't change? Then you will die by your own hand, the law of the jungle, and how nations and empires crumble, like flesh. You are not gods, you are risen apes, we are, but evolution also has a spiritual dimension, and you're failing the audition miserably. Give up, come out with your hands up, it's over, you lost, long ago. The Shibboleths and Priests you've placed on a pedestal will die, and like you, will only be remembered in their infamy, their lack, and the fact that they were the wretchedness of the human race, the murderers of humanity, the darkness enveloping this world. You are nothing, you never were, and Pluto is your god, so small wonder that you long for death and why you sow it, why you worship war criminals and ignore what's going on around you. There's nothing lower than this.

Truth comes to collect one day, and that day is coming  very, very soon. Better dig in those pockets--but they're empty thanks to your lies and your love of them. You are nothing, and never were. That's punishment enough, but in the meantime, you still need to be subdued by the rest of us. Now, nature has come to collect, and more lies will fall away, and the truth, crushed to earth, will rise again, like resurrection day. Jeane will haunt you bastards for the rest of your natural lives. It doesn't matter what some jaded asshole like you thinks, that because you "have no conscience," it won't ever touch you. Even Ted Bundy was haunted by some of the women he murdered and was unable to face the fact that he was made a monster by his abusive grandfather. The architecture of the human mind will come for you. If it comes right at the end, so be it, even better. You cannot escape a sun that never sets.You're not fooling anyone with your pathetic, sarcastic laughter either, that's theater. You're scared because you know you're busted and that I can see right through you, into to you, your empty, black heart.

DC Madam account: "Why don't you...?"

Ed.--I was recently contacted by one of Jeane's former escorts, a first I might add, since most of them have kept a low-profile for years now. I know all of their names, every single one, because several lists are in my possession from defense materials. That doesn't matter to me. Many of those names came out in the research of the phone records from numerous writers and sites, no one really gives a shit from what I can gather.  A French documentary team might be speaking with some of them, but I seriously doubt that they're being that thorough.

Also, this being America, there seems to be some confusion/conflation over what a historical account or a chronicle is, and what a book about an event by a non-participant constitutes. Because of the nature of the case, you would have to be God and been everywhere at once to have truly experienced, maybe possible at the NSA, not possible for the rest of us mortals. Hey, not everybody had a course in historiography, so let me make it clearer for those who haven't: the book is an account by someone who was a participant in other areas of the story. At one point there was only Jeane, me, and my co-researcher. After the firing of Montgomery Blair Sibley there was no one for a time, then she proceeded pro se with Preston Burton, her court appointed counsel who came back for seconds (he won out and got to travel to the estate salad bar for limitless trips in the end).

Around five days ago I got this comment from the someone claiming to be one of Palfrey's former escorts (see my responses):

Andrea Detty said...

I very much hope that your book is not filled with conspiracy theories. I worked for her and was in the trial. I'm so sick of people that know nothing, come to these "of[f] the wall" ideas. I was not the biggest fan of her. The only thing I agree with everyone, is that the trial was a complete waste of time, money, and resources. But if you were writing a book about her and the trial, shouldn't you have contacted people that were actually involved with it?

Friday, May 4, 2012 3:11:00 AM EDT

Yeah, you don't have to hope, there won't be any of that bullshit in it and do your homework some time. And really, that's all great Andrea...so why not drop me a line and fill me in on what you know? All of it, for truth, for the historical record, for the future. 

Or is setting the record straight unimportant here? Detty testified at Palfrey's trial in her favor, that Jeane was unaware of her soliciting, but to be blunt, the defendant was "guilty as shit" as one inarticulate Los Angeles attorney put it, the fact. The truth is, I have no idea if this is Detty at all. If they want to contact me, go through TOR, some third party service, encrypt it, do it, or forever hold your peace. Were they serious I'd have gotten an email from them and that's yet to happen, will almost certainly never happen. This is possibly someone trying to cause confusion about a book they've never read, that's not even out. Angela, I never heard of you either until I read the trial transcript. There was no need for me to spend good money to have someone lie to me, they can do that via cell phones, Blackberrys, iPads, email, etc., the upside of the technology and common sense. Yes, the trial was a "complete waste of time, money, and resources," and so was going to speak with her in person for reasons I'm sure you're familiar with if you are who you claim to be.

Put up, or shut up, spread 'em, now, not later. No? I thought so.

As I told this person in my responses in comments, I've put appeals out to the former escorts of PMA years ago with no response whatsoever. Am I alone? Are you fucking kidding me? No one has gotten to speak with any of them outside of a handful like Abby Cather ("Jennifer"), Detty, but nothing tangible. One escort attempted to contact journalist Ken Silverstein back in the spring of 2007 about Shirlington Limo that she'd been taken to appointments by them, information that could have linked Jeane and Pamela Martin & Associates to Chris Baker, maybe Mitchell Wade and Brent Wilkes, then to Hookergate itself. 

If any of the former escorts had anything to say to me or to others they would have by now (serious inquiries only). They haven't because most of them are scared shitless from legal harassment. You could write twenty books on this case and never get close to describing it fully. That's how writing about an event goes. Additionally, the public isn't going to sit through thousands of pages. The account contains literally hundreds of pages of primary information from the case. Beyond that, I suppose I need to write about who the attending janitorial staff was during the trial. 

I repeat: this book isn't like Tom Wolfe where he wasn't a part of the story, where everything was second-hand. There is that--a lot of that--because so much of this case took place in cyberspace, where an information war was fought against the defendant, for starters. Have you noticed that almost everything is mediated these days, indirect, because of the technology? No, of course not, that would be to understand the nature of the historical moment we live in. You know, I'm sorry, it's true, I was unable during the proceedings to go post-human and have my mind encoded on a microchip, then uploaded onto the web, sorry, my mistake there. Put up, or shut up, don't fuck me around. I'm absolutely sure it's going to be the latter. "I would have talked with you, but you got up in my shit"--bullshit, you have no serious intention of setting the record straight, none of you former PMA escorts have but a small handful. I'm very serious, as a heart attack, as the club of a riot cop crashing down on a dissident's skull. No one needs to remind me that I learned the true meaning of "lying whore" from all of this.

 "Why don't you blah-blah-blah?" Kiss my ass? Why yes, yes you should.

Is Wikileaks under serious online attack lately?

At 2:06 PM EST, this was posted on Wikileaks' Twitter account: "Please bittorrent Wikileaks Insurance release 2012-02-22 (65GB) wlstorage.net/torrent/wikile…

A comment below it from a French Twitter member ("m4de") states: "torrent file is offline..."

The link is code, computer language. Have fun.

 02-23-2012 Addendum: I've been told that the link now contains the 65GB file without a key. What did I download within the first six hours the above Twitter post (w. link) was up? This must be a backup archive. There doesn't seem to be any definitive answer here. The main site's been under cyberattack for some time. 65 GB sounds like everything from the Wikileaks site, the State Dept. cable inclusive.

Down to the last updates on the DC Madam book...

Work is about done: the final touches to the index--yes, index--have been expedited, it's finished and makes the book searchable. I don't understand why more non-fiction texts omit this feature. Perhaps the authors don't want anyone being able to fact check them easily? Yes, it requires some very detailed and time consuming work, no question, but it should go without saying that not to have one undermines the credibility of the work, the research, and if there is any, the analysis within it.

On proofing, revision and suffering: this has been a learning experience in every aspect. The book is an account. It's not going to be perfect. Yet, enough effort has been expended to make it something approaching a very polished text and it will be an easy reading experience for the curious. This is a work on true crime, an historical event the author was a party to, and it contains the author's take and analysis. It makes no claims at being the last word on the DC Madam event which was a branch of the "Hookergate" scandal, of that I'm adamant about. I am hardly alone in this assertion.

The amount of effort involved can never be justified economically. Even were this book to make well over $100,000 USD, it would only begin to pay for the time, resources and actual labor involved. This has always been about servicing the historical record and setting things straight from the point of view of the author. The assertions are my own and it's my right to publish on them, primary materials inclusive. I've interacted and analyzed the data for five years now. I know it better than almost anyone else, and I have access to materials that individuals like Alex Jones never had, never will, not merely the public record. This has been a kind of a labor of love, my love of the truth, however painful it may be to express it.

No one will ever know the pain this project brought to my life, it has been an ordeal. I haven't experienced overt harassment, albeit there has been some online incidents that weren't accidental or my paranoia--that's now legal, what was once necessary to hide, the harassment of dissidents in the United States. None of it has been significant or impaired this text or its writing. In fact, it's only added to the richness of it and confirmed many of my own hunches, going so far as to prove them outright. Draft after draft has come, and in the interim, I have to assume that government contractors within the text have come around to cause problems. Occasionally, they've succeeded, but in the end all they did was expose themselves and their methodology.

There has never been and will never be a book like this one. I wish that was comforting, but it's not. Take the DC Madam narrative as a kind of a "canary in the coalmine," an indicator of where we're heading as a nation. From my conclusions, the future doesn't look bright at all. The only prognosis I can in fact see as hopeful is collapse of the current system. As my account makes plain, we're looking an awful lot like the former Soviet Union these days, and not in the sense that those on the far right are constantly contending. You can learn a lot from a microcosmic event like the DC Madam saga. The macrocosm, the bigger picture, becomes apparent in the details that form an overall mosaic. 

As weak as their beginnings have been, I think the Occupy Wall Street crowd in NYC have shown us part of the way out. We have a new context without all the past effectiveness of red-baiting. Along with the Occupy movement we have an opening to renew the growth of labor unions. Americans seem to thrive best when their backs are up against the wall. Let the Dead Bury the Dead will speak to all of this, the dark political moment we're in right now, poised for disaster as the irrelevant 2012 elections come, then pass. The DC Madam narrative unfolded publicly right before the 2006 midterms. The GOP appointed prosecution team worked overtime to limit the damage to Republican incumbents when they moved on Deborah Jeane Palfrey. The charges were always political, let's be frank for a change. Expect nothing but brutal frankness in my account of a political travesty that played out before our eyes. The reality-bending machine known as the mainstream media worked overtime to make sure we couldn't see what was right in front of our faces: solid evidence of widespread influence peddling in Washington D.C. with all three branches of government involved in papering over it, defending it, preserving it.

On media inquiries: I expect this book to be ignored all across the media landscape, in nearly all mediums. Why? It's not digestible, it cannot be explained away and absorbed. It stands factually in defiance of the assertions of "conventional wisdom," the standard lines, the empty memes, the safe talk mistake for actual discourse in American life.

I will speak with independent media. You will not be allowed to service your own agendas. I will not expend resources or effort in this endeavor besides my time. The rest is up to you if you want a story or content emanating from me as a subject and a source. Rest assured that I know when someone's serious and when they're pulling my leg or out of their depth. You'll be dealt with accordingly and kicked to the curb. I will not communicate with right wing media without very definite conditions. All that written, I don't expect to be approached by almost anyone. I have in the past, perhaps there will be follow-up, but I am not concerned about this in the end other than getting the primary information within the text out to the public.As a student of history I always wanted to one day be a chronicler to a major event. Be careful what you wish for.

I will not do a speaking tour. Who am I? I'm not known to the public which ends that question before it's put out there. What I do expect is a certain level of interest, but of the level I cannot predict, it's impossible to. There is no literary agent. There is no big house publisher. There is me and CreateSpace and the book. One of my hopes is that it will be seen online by university library acquisitions across the United States and made a part of those collections for the historical record. I never thought that I'd finally write a book, but there it is, I have. I never in my wildest imagination thought it would be on this subject matter. Some of this was experienced reluctantly, but once you open a door...you know. Wish us all luck. We're going to need it in the intervening years before the big event.

Addendum: There has been talk coming from some quarters requesting signed copies of the text. This would be costly to the author. In that case, if there is enough demand, I'll attempt to make this possible. However, there will be an additional charge as this will require having copies printed, shipped to me, then the recipient, and so on, more cost involved. If the demand is there I'll make some signed copies available.

The book will be trade paper, no illustrations, no photographs. It clocks in at 505 pages at this point including blank pages, the title page, the preface and the index. At this point I don't expect the price to exceed $27.95 USD.The book is 99% finished. For those interested in the scandal it won't disappoint and could well be the first accessible, free-standing work on the subject. This isn't a book filled with legalese. It's present, but explained, and doesn't dominate the text. It tells a narrative, a story, from the perspective of a participant. It's not the last word, but it does reach some conclusions that the author feels will endure.

Virginia Hoge and Topix

I've been informed by Virginia that she's being harassed by right wing trolls on Topix. She's written some very good research and observations on the NSA's infiltration of social networks and commenting services such as a Topix, but them in particular.With the release of the Wikileaks "spyfiles" this is all but proven now, we know that the American intelligence establishment and their contractors are running an information war on commenting threads and social networks like Facebook. These sites and services are too willing to hand over private information to the national security state to the point that we need to ask who some of them really are.

From 2010: http://open.salon.com/blog/virginia888/2011/11/15/is_topix_giving_out_users_personal_data_to_the_nsa

Same as the old bawss: Obama continues to cling to Bush II intelligence policies, while The Times contradicts itself ad infinitum

Washington D.C.--The New York Times did an editorial on Sunday condemning President Obama for invoking the very same kinds of claims to national security as the administration of George W. Bush. On the face of it, they're right, but we're not a proactive culture, so they were nowhere to be seen in 2004. While the criticism is deserved, one should remember exactly who's stating it: The New York Times, the same people who bent over backwards for the Bush II administration's claims on national security again and again, depriving the American public of vital information, and they sat on this NSA wiretapping story for over a year that had been uncovered by journalists Eric Lichtblau and James Risen. We can assume there were others besides it and the Judith Miller doing the reverse for the same administration in the Plame scandal!

On Sunday, Sunday, Sunday, we got this anonymous editorial--so it can be assumed that the institution itself backs it--sternly titled "The Cover-up Continues," something that they're practiced hands at at the Times and would therefore know when they saw it:

...In that case [of the renditioned Ethiopian national Binyah Mohamed], the Obama administration has repeated a disreputable Bush-era argument that the executive branch is entitled to have lawsuits shut down whenever it makes a blanket claim of national security. The ruling rejected that argument and noted that the government’s theory would “effectively cordon off all secret actions from judicial scrutiny, immunizing the C.I.A. and its partners from the demands and limits of the law.” The Obama administration has aggressively pursued such immunity in numerous other cases beyond the ones involving Mr. Mohamed. We do not take seriously the government’s claim that it is trying to protect intelligence or avoid harm to national security.

Great, and again, they're right, but thanks to their practices surrounding the warrantless wiretapping program and other areas, they definitely affected existing lawsuits; it would be impossible for the suppression not to have. No, in 2004, the New York Times did just that--they took seriously the government's claim that it was trying to protect intelligence and that if they published, it would harm national security. Or, it's just their excuse and they conspired criminally or abetted or enabled them, or any number of unpleasant permutations.

Like most mainstream journalists, Risen and Lichtblau valued their careers and bank accounts over the common good when they should have held a press conference once it became clear that their editors were going to sit on the very explosive information of high crimes, and they kept quiet. The program itself was illegal under the 1978 FISA. The role of the Times couldn't be more crucial in this story since they bought criminals over a year to cover things up and to ready the legal obstacles to slow things even further. They say the wheels of justice grind slowly, especially when you put a wrench in the gears. There has been very little support in Congress to rein-in these practices or to hold anyone accountable for them, quite the opposite. Years passed as weak calls for investigations ensued and predictably went nowhere. Dueling court lawsuits went back-and-forth, and...

Then-Senator Barack Obama voted (as did the majority of the Senate) in the fall of 2008 in favor of granting the telecommunications corporations who aided-and-abetted the Bush II administration for a bill that granted them all retroactive immunity, a kind of oxymoron of the law. He was hardly alone in his "yes" vote, and it could be said with genuine shame that a Rockefeller was leading the charge. Lichtblau mischaracterized the behind-the-scenes negotiations with the Bush II administration last year at the expense of Salon, thankfully not me:

For 13 long months, we'd held off on publicizing one of the Bush administration's biggest secrets. Finally, one afternoon in December 2005, as my editors and I waited anxiously in an elegantly appointed sitting room at the White House, we were again about to let President Bush's top aides plead their case: why our newspaper shouldn't let the public know that the president had authorized the National Security Agency, in apparent contravention of federal wiretapping law, to eavesdrop on Americans without court warrants. ("The inside drama behind the Times warrantless wiretapping story, Salon, 03.28.2008)

Remember the wonderful national elections of 2004 and all the irregularities? No, not just the pandering to those who fear homosexuals and African-Americans, the problems at the polling places. Do I think that NYT journalist Eric Lichtblau is telling the whole truth here? Oh sure, I'd sit on a story for over a year, sit on the knowledge that high crimes had been committed by people under the color of authority. It's what all good apparatchiki do, both Lichtblau, Risen, and most of all, their editor, Bill Keller. The Times, Risen, and Lichtblau continue to be vague as to when exactly that first meeting occurred in 2004, but we can rest assured it was before the elections.

History isn't going to be kind to any of them in the intervening years, regardless of their lame attempts to paper over the pertinent questions of why exactly they sat on it. Another terrorist attack? A book deal? Give me a break, they were terrified in the editorial board that James Risen's book, State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration, was going to expose that they decided to sit on the story for political purposes and ran it before it was published. They would have continued sitting on it had it not been the case. How much else of our history are they sitting on? We could be in real danger, and they wouldn't tell us. As a matter of fact, that's the case, and one has to assume that "the newspaper of record" is becoming about as reliable a source of information as a Wall Street banker. Somehow, I think they do lunch occasionally.

Licthblau's statements about the illegal program and his actions and attitudes surrounding it are a lie, a fabrication, and he's not a real journalist, and more like a stenographer. So is the Times' recent concern about being a government watchdog. It's a double-think like no other, as though they never sat on the story for over a year to help the Bush and the GOP through a tough election. That's what friends are for. Executive Bill Keller and the NYT showed considerably less concern about Bush over-reaching on national security than he does over Obama, and sat on the story for an incredible thirteen months.

But he's very careful in not being too specific as to how early they knew:

"A year ago, when this information first became known to Times reporters, the Administration argued strongly that writing about this eavesdropping program would give terrorists clues about the vulnerability of their communications and would deprive the government of an effective tool for the protection of the country's security.

"Officials also assured senior editors of The Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions.

"As we have done before in rare instances when faced with a convincing national security argument, we agreed not to publish at that time.

"We also continued reporting, and in the ensuing months two things happened that changed our thinking.

"First, we developed a fuller picture of the concerns and misgivings that had been expressed during the life of the program. ("N.Y. Times statement defends NSA reporting," CNN.com, 12.16.2005)

Right, it's the job of a free press to take elected officials and their appointees at their word. This is the behind-the-scenes line held by the New York Times during the administration of George W. Bush, but oddly, not so in the case under Barack Obama, even though he's essentially doing the very same things that Bush did and is attempting with considerable effort to continue these expansions of power in the executive branch in the areas of national security. What's it going to be, eh? Who are you guys? Really. Small wonder that neither Keller, Risen, or Lichtblau will speak with any specifics about 2004.

"The inside drama behind the Times warrantless wiretapping story, Salon, 03.28.2008: http://www.slate.com/id/2187498/

"N.Y. Times statement defends NSA reporting," CNN.com, 12.16.2005: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/12/16/nytimes.statement/

"The Scoop That Got Spiked-Times delay on wiretap story leaves questions unanswered," FAIR, 01.11.2006: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2798

The Cover-up Continues," New York Times, 10.25.2009: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/26mon1.html?_r=2

Why Just Her, by Montgomery Blair Sibley (review)

A s anyone can imagine, it’s difficult reviewing a book about an event that one was a part of, and especially one in which the main protagonist has died, but fellow participant and former counsel Montgomery Blair Sibley’s book offers a certain degree of closure in the matter of one Deborah Jeane Palfrey (dubbed the “DC Madam” by the mainstream press). Finding a coherent narrative in this tangled-mess was a difficult task, as I can attest to it myself. Palfrey was an enigmatic figure on the national stage from roughly late March 2007 until her untimely death by suicide on May 1, 2008, less than a month after she was found guilty of racketeering charges related to running a prostitution ring in the Washington D.C area from her Vallejo home. This isn’t to say that Sibley’s book is the final word (no book can be that) on the subject, but it’s a good start. There are questions to this story that will never be answered, and not merely because Jeane is no longer with us.

Sibley was very close indeed to the flames and brings us all (myself included) a viable and constructive narrative of what he witnessed and his interpretation of it as the longest serving counsel to Deborah Jeane Palfrey, now forever branded by a puritan media as the “DC Madam.” A great deal has been written about Montgomery Blair Sibley’s behavior inside and outside of the DC Madam scandal and the courts, and while I’ve only corresponded with him via email and spoken with him on the phone a few times, I’ve never felt truly misled by him outside of an attorney’s duties to a defendant or that his behavior or tone were bizarre.

I became a part of this narrative from the first week of June 2007 until very shortly before Palfrey’s death, and was brought into it by the main protagonist herself. Like many historical events, most participants involved only experienced a small-part of the story; but for a few, there was more than just a sliver and they bore witness to more of an event than any other single player. Sibley is the latter. The fact of the matter is: Montgomery Blair Sibley was there from almost the very beginning from October 2006, shortly after Palfrey’s home was raided by USPS inspectors and investigators from the Treasury Department, until very close to the bitter end. To be sure, Palfrey was guilty-as-charged, and whether anyone likes it or not, Mr. Sibley has seized the narrative de facto by being the first to document it in book form. Only time will tell us how solid his version of events is, as with any historical accounting.

Many of Sibley’s detractors in the press and the legal profession are in for a bit of a surprise (outside of their own prejudices, possibly earned by Sibley and his late client for various reasons). Yet, by all appearances, this is a solid primary historical document containing what Sibley feels he experienced representing Palfrey; what the information in his possession means; and what the case itself means within our general and political culture. If he’s wrong anywhere in his version of the narrative, it’s likely that any mistakes or omissions were accidental or simply beyond Sibley’s control and were unintentional. It should be noted here that many materials related to the legal proceedings are still under seal, if not classified under national security statutes. Also worth noting is that this isn’t just about Palfrey, but about the author himself.

To be sure, there is an advantage that comes out of proximity, and the Sibley’s self-deprecation is both refreshing and forthcoming in ways that go well beyond most “what happened” books of this type.

From the point-of-view of this participant, he seems to “get” the hypocrisy of the charges leveled against Palfrey within a very large judicial context, and I applaud him for it. The DC Madam’s former legal counselor notes ably how little justice is to be had for just about any criminal defendant at the federal level and places Palfrey appropriately within that very context in fairly graphic detail. As he accurately states in the text, over 90% of federal criminal defendants plea out, which should tell you something about the prospects for victory for nearly anyone accused of violating federal statutes.

But Sibley had bigger problems than simply taking on the District of Columbia’s prosecution team under the Bush/Gonzalez interim-appointed U.S. Attorney, Jeffrey A. Taylor, an eleventh hour appointment at that. The “lawyer with a good name” had a client who was part of that 10% that would never, under any circumstances, capitulate to a plea deal.

Palfrey told this writer in our first telephone conversation in early June 2007 of two very good plea deals (reported in much less detail by ABC in their May 20/20 special featuring Palfrey for scant few minutes):

…I would not take their offers. …The best offer I think we had was about a year total of jail time—about maybe half of that in a halfway house, about half of that in a prison…maybe four months in a halfway house, maybe four months in a prison. They would take 2/3d’s of my—uh—life savings. That was the best offer possible. I basically told them to go screw themselves….to go to hell. Now, when that last offer came down, that’s when they indicted me. [i]

Ask anyone, and they’ll tell you (even Sibley, though we might disagree on this and several other points) that those were extremely generous plea deals, better than the average. What was she thinking? What else? She was thinking about the money—her overall assets--and the fact that she was going back to jail, and that’s about it.

This writer can attest to Palfrey having a tendency towards making irrational demands of others (I rejected my share of them) and acting in ways that could only have hurt her. In other words, it’s my humble opinion that she was disturbed and that it was a long-term condition of some sort that was exacerbated by her legal ordeal. When it began, I cannot say, but it appears to have been present as early as 1991-1992 in the aftermath of her first conviction and incarceration. There is little reason to think that either the Court or the prosecution were unaware of this fact at any stage in the proceedings. This begs-the-question as to why there was no intervention to assess whether the defendant was a threat to herself.

Why Just Her is generally silent on this issue for what we can assume are very serious legal reasons of procedure, and likely more.

The origins for Palfrey’s irrational behavior have been widely speculated on. Taking the overall picture that Sibley paints of the DC Madam’s state of mind during the legal proceedings for what they are and were, it’s hard not to conclude that the defendant Deborah Jeane Palfrey was not merely unhinged by the charges against her, but that she had ongoing mental problems that were probably with her for the entirety of her short life. This jibes perfectly with my contact with her, which was generally through a few telephone calls and a very long correspondence via-email. Sibley reveals some of this mental state to us through some rather extraordinary emails between others (including myself) and Palfrey, court filings, transcripts, anecdotes, and so on. He astutely notes from Palfrey’s autopsy report that she had high levels of Zolpidem in her bloodstream and corroborates this himself that he believes she was abusing it during her legal battle.

From the toxicological report done for the Pinellas County Forensic Laboratory:

2483B Zolpidem, Blood…

Analysis by Gas Chromatography (GC)

Zolpidem

Synonym(s): Ambien®

Peak plasma concentration following single oral 5 and 10 mg doses: 29 – 113 ng/mL (mean = 59 ng/mL) and 58 – 272 ng/mL (mean 121 ng/mL), respectively occurring at a mean time of 1.6 hours [before death]. [ii]

Sibley accurately states in his account that Palfrey took an overdose of generic Ambien roughly two hours before her death, so he’s not shaping the facts and his reading of this and other specific public documents appear to be on solid ground.

As a layman, I cannot comment to his interpretation of the laws and statutes invoked in Palfrey’s case. That’s what attorneys and judges are for. All that being said, I don’t think he was able to discuss the theme of suicide very expansively in Why Just Her because of court procedures regarding sealed documents as well as the Palfrey Estate’s invoking of attorney-client privilege over the last year. Some of these issues will probably be resolved before the end of 2009 (or not), but Sibley does drop a few bombshells:

Blanche subsequently told me that after writing the three notes on April 25, 2008, and taking an unknown quantity of [Z]olpidem, Jeane was unconscious for 30 hours. Upon waking up, she drove her [Jeane] to Blanche’s mobile home in Tarpon Springs, Florida. …Though conspiracy theories quickly populated the internet, the hard evidence was simply too overwhelming to permit any conclusion other than Jeane had taken her own life. [iii]

As evinced by the number of attorney firings (not including the then-recent U.S. Attorney firing scandal that brought Jeffrey A. Taylor into the equation) by Palfrey over the course of events, Montgomery Blair Sibley and the rest of her representation had their hands full. I don’t expect that either A.J. Kramer or Preston Burton will be writing their accounts anytime soon--if ever--and their reasons probably run-the-gamut. I can relate. They all had a nightmare client on their hands, possibly the worst kind one could represent in a criminal/civil case, and Sibley has represented some real “doosie” clients like Obama accuser Larry Sinclair in the aftermath, so it’s saying something. Sinclair was probably like a vacation compared to Jeane.

Palfrey was that impossible client who lied most of the time and kept her cards close-to-the-vest, as this book documents throughout, and therefore, there can never truly be a full portrait of who she was and what she did running Pamela Martin & Associates, generally unmolested for thirteen years within the greater Washington D.C. area. In many ways, she will remain an enigma. Such are the obstacles to all historical portraits, even when they’re coming from those who had a lot of contact with the subject, but Sibley does an exceptional job in reconstructing the timeline as well as his and Palfrey’s general state of mind over the course of her prolonged legal proceedings. People accused of criminal acts have their secrets and their reasons for harboring them, and Palfrey was no exception to this tendency.

Like everyone in this life, Palfrey took some of her secrets to the grave. But there are a few glaring mysteries including how much money she actually made over the years which contradict her and the government’s assertions, and there is smoke. For example, Sibley notes a very serious problem in the cross-examination by AUSA for the prosecution, Daniel Butler, at trial regarding the testimony of IRS agent Troy Burrus. Statements were made that pulled-back the veil, and the only explanation this writer can find is incredible incompetence. In short, they accidentally charged Palfrey with under-reporting her income at trial rather than beforehand. This is a major procedural error in any criminal trial.

But no worries, the presiding judge had their back in the end. A reasonable outcome would have been a mistrial, but Judge Robertson was no Judge Kessler (who was replaced in a predawn raid without explanation), and anything but reasonable. This exchange occurred during Palfrey’s trial on April 9, 2008:

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

23 receipts?

24 A. It shows gross receipts.

25 Q. And where does it show that?

450

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

2 gross receipts.

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

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

5 was received by the business during that year.

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

7 Is that correct?

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

9 received, that was sent to her.

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

11 Ms. Palfrey?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And what did that show?

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

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

16 reported on this line.

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

18 THE COURT: Yes.

19 (BENCH CONFERENCE ON THE RECORD.)

20 MR. BURTON [Palfrey’s criminal counsel at trial]: I don't know where this is going.

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

22 anything to that effect.

23 THE COURT [Former FISA Judge James Robertson who resigned from the Court in December 2005 when the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program was exposed]: You just saddled her with basically what is

24 false reporting.

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

451

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

2 inquiry.

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

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

5 to do that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13 don't know anything more than that.

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

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

16 just have a moment, Your Honor?

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

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

19 I can have a moment.

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

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

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

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

24 admit through him, yes.

25 THE COURT: Can he come back in the morning? [iv.]

Palfrey’s final criminal counsel merely went through the motions, and weakly called for a mistrial, which Robertson rejected immediately. Burton didn’t press the issue, which was typical of this defense strategy during the trial. It appears that his defense wasn’t especially zealous. Yet, critics of Sibley would be hard-pressed in saying he didn’t represent Palfrey zealously enough--if anything it might have bordered on the overzealous (whatever that means), and I believe he did his best to save her from herself, including attempts to bring her suicidal behavior to the attention of the Court, and possibly even that of the prosecution.

But, again, I believe that he and they are not legally able to discuss or write about such things for procedural reasons.

This is the first place to start for the average person in beginning to understand a very convoluted and chimerical scandal that was inherently political. It is an honest effort at understanding what happened from someone who was intimately involved in it and it offers about as sincere a perspective as you’re going to get from someone in such a position. The press’s coverage of this event was superficial, lacking in substance, and even went so far as to intentionally obscure very important issues, never mind the real ones at hand in it. In other words, they missed the real stories, the core issues. That’s not very hard to believe given the state of investigative journalism these days.

That the prosecution was engaged in gross misbehavior is a given. That the Court failed to administer reasonable due process at trial is open to interpretation, but why then was Judge Kessler so abruptly removed and replaced by former FISA court Judge James Robertson if there really were no national security issues to the case? They’re not telling, but Montgomery Blair Sibley is, and as much as he’s allowed to under the law. That speaks volumes, and resoundingly.

---

[i] Phone conversation with the author, June 10, 2007.

[ii] “Toxicology Report,” NMS Labs, Work order 08165556, Palfrey, Deborah Jeane, May 31, 2008.

[iii] Sibley, Montgomery Blair, Why Just Her. (Full Court Press, 2009) P.581.

[iv] United States v. Deborah Palfrey, “TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL RECORD VOLUME 3,” “Criminal No. 07-0046,” April 9, 2008.