Final order in the Palfrey/DC Madam case on abatement and disbursement of her seized assets

Ed.--When Deborah Jeane Palfrey (aka "the DC Madam") took her life on May 1st, 2008, it left open the legal issue of abatement regarding her property and assets that had been seized by the federal government through forfeiture. I believe that Jeane knew this would be the case and that it was a deciding factor in the taking of her own life. I have no regard for the opinions of cranks and conspiracy buffs and other nuts who make the claim that she was murdered by shadowy government operatives.

There is no evidence to support this wild contention, it is at this point inarguable. I'm surprised at how little a fight was put up by the Estate, but then, Preston Burton is the fiduciary of it, and considering how little a fight he put up for the deceased madam, no one important, just a defendant, I guess the concessions made here aren't especially surprising. Why the Palfreys would consider him for running the estate probably has more to do with his own moves to gain it and their desire for a convenient and relatively painless conclusion to things. I can't blame them for this desire.

Note that the margins, page breaks of and formatting of the filing have been altered through transfer to blogger's wonderful layout software. Ahem.

Both Palfrey and the DOJ's prosecutors claimed what I believe was then, and is now, a bald lie: that she only made $2.5 million from her prostitution ring/escort service from 1993-2006. Even figuring-in depreciation/appreciation (lowering or raising of their base value) of the assets--and I haven't done any real number crunching here, though I invite others to do the work for me--the contention is obvious bullshit. The line reading, [my emphasis] "The Parties enter into this Agreement solely for the purpose of compromising potential claims and avoiding the expenses and risks of litigation." seems to bar future civil/wrongful death suits that the Palfreys might have mounted against members of the former federal prosecution team (like Jeffrey A. Taylor) and the federal government itself, maybe even other players.

This is also of interest, though I haven't be able to do a line-by-line reading yet: "...5. The United States agrees to release, settle, cancel, discharge and acknowledge to be fully satisfied, any and all claims, liens, demands, obligations, rights, and causes of action of whatever kind, nature, or description whatsoever, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, reported or unreported, which they might have against...," which I think means that they think there's more money out there (as do I), but it's OK for Burton and Orrick to go globetrotting to look for them if they're out there and to keep and/or disburse them. Burton is a partner of the firm, an international one that employs thousands globally, a "megafirm" in fact.

Below is the entire twelve-page ruling from yesterday by the questionable former FISA court Judge, James Robertson...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 1:06-cv-01710-JR
)
803 CAPITOL STREET, etc., et al., )
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)
)
DEBORAH JEANE PALFREY (ESTATE OF), )
and )
BLANCHE PALFREY, )
Claimants. )

CONCLUDING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

COMES NOW, plaintiff, the United States of America, by the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, and claimants Deborah Jeane Palfrey (through the Estate of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, hereinafter the “Palfrey Estate”) and Ms. Blanche Palfrey (acting both individually and on behalf of the Palfrey Estate), by their attorney, Mr. Preston Burton, Esq. (collectively, hereinafter, “the parties”), respectfully to notify this Court that the parties have made a Concluding Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”). This agreement disposes of all remaining claims, issues, and litigation in this civil forfeiture action in rem, case number 1:06-cv-01710-JR. In summary, the parties have agreed to settle this action without further litigation by dividing equally the net proceeds from the liquidation and sale of the defendant properties, after accounting for certain earlier Court-authorized payments. With this Concluding Settlement Agreement, the parties respectfully submit a proposed Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal, which they ask the Court to issue. Doing so will conclude this action in its entirety so that the Court may dismiss it. In support whereof, the parties
respectfully state as follows:

WHEREAS, Plaintiff seized certain assets that had been controlled by Deborah Jeane Palfrey

Case 1:06-cv-01710-JR Document 113 Filed 03/12/10 Page 1 of 12
-2-

before her demise, which the government asserted were subject to forfeiture under federal law;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff thereafter brought this civil forfeiture action in rem in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States v. 803 Capitol Street, etc., et al., No. 1:06-cv-01710-JR, against the seized properties (the “defendant properties”);

WHEREAS, Ms. Deborah Jeane Palfrey (and after her demise, the Estate of Deborah Jeane (“the Palfrey Estate”)) and Ms. Blanche Palfrey (acting both individually and on behalf of the Palfrey Estate), have filed claims in this case (“claimants”) and have asserted, inter alia, that certain of the seized properties are not subject to forfeiture;

WHEREAS, pursuant to an Order dated June 22, 2007, which issued in a related and now abated criminal case in this Court, United States v. Deborah Jeane Palfrey, etc., No. 1:07-cr-00046- JR, the defendant property 1441 Vaquero Glen, Escondido, California 92026, was sold, and the net proceeds totaled $316,296.16;

WHEREAS, pursuant to an Order dated March 13, 2009, in this case, No. 1:06-cv-01710-JR, the defendant property 803 Capital Street, Vallejo California 94590, was sold, and the net proceeds totaled $161,006.86;

WHEREAS, pursuant to an Order dated September 21, 2009, in this case, No. 1:06-cv- 01710-JR, the defendant property of funds held in Charles Schwab investment accounts XXXX-318, XXXX-3186 and XXXX-3192, was liquidated, and the net proceeds totaled $582,097.93; WHEREAS, defendant assets held in Wells Fargo accounts 005-XXXXXXX and 6952- XXXXXX totaled $11,396.35;

WHEREAS, pursuant to an Order dated September 21, 2009, in this case, No. 1:06-cv- 01710-JR, the defendant property described as 413 Gold Krugerrands and Other Gold and Silver Coins (the “defendant coins”) was sold at auction on January 13, 2010, and the net proceeds totaled

Case 1:06-cv-01710-JR Document 113 Filed 03/12/10 Page 2 of 12
-3-

$586,133.08

WHEREAS, pursuant to an Order dated October 1, 2009, in this case, No. 1:06-cv-01710-JR, approving a Partial Settlement Agreement with Montgomery Blair Sibley, Mr. Sibley received a payment of $66,224.00 from funds derived from the defendant properties in exchange for a full settlement of any and all of his claims, known or unknown, against the defendant properties, the Palfrey Estate, and Blanche Palfrey (both individually and in her capacity as Executor of the Palfrey Estate);

WHEREAS, pursuant to an Order dated November 19, 2009, in this case, No. 1:06-cv- 01710-JR, approving a Partial Settlement Agreement with The Innocence Project, Inc., The Innocence Project, Inc., received a payment of $89,000.00 from funds derived from the defendant properties in exchange for a full settlement of any potential claims against the defendant properties, the Palfrey Estate, Blanche Palfrey (both individually and in her capacity as Executor of the Palfrey Estate), and any other property or asset formerly owned by Deborah Jeane Palfrey; and

WHEREAS, the parties desire to enter into this Agreement in order to resolve this matter and thereby avoid the expense of litigation, the parties therefore agree and stipulate as follows. First, the parties agree that, after the sales and payments to The Innocence Project, Inc., and to Montgomery Blair Sibley recounted above, the net proceeds from the sale or liquidation of the defendant properties is $1,501,706.38.

Second, the parties have agreed to divide equally the net proceeds from the sale or
liquidation of the defendant properties Therefore, to resolve this litigation completely, the parties agree to the following:

I. Payment to the Estate of Deborah Jeane Palfrey and Blanche Palfrey, as an individual and in her capacity as Executor of the Estate of Deborah Jeane Palfrey:

Case 1:06-cv-01710-JR Document 113 Filed 03/12/10 Page 3 of 12
-4-

1. The United States consents to entry of the proposed Final Order Of Forfeiture And
Dismissal directing the United States Internal Revenue Service to release to Blanche Palfrey, in her individual capacity, a total of $75,000.00 (seventy-five thousand dollars and no cents), by electronic funds transfer to Account Number XXXXXXXX2849 at Bank of America, Tarpon Springs, Florida (ABA Route XXXXXXXXX) within thirty-five (35) days of the Court’s issuance of the Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal. Blanche Palfrey understands that she will assume full responsibility for any and all tax consequences of receipt of this payment.

2. The United States consents to entry of the proposed Final Order Of Forfeiture And
Dismissal directing the United States Internal Revenue Service to release to the Estate of Deborah Jeane Palfrey a total of $675,853.19 (six hundred seventy-five thousand, eighthundred fifty-three dollars and nineteen cents), by electronic funds transfer to Sideman & Bancroft LLP IOLTA Account, Account Number XXXXXXXXXX, held at Union Bank of California, Los Angeles, California (ABA Route 122000496), for credit to client-matter number 10936 within seventy (70) days of the Court’s issuance of the Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal. It is agreed by the parties that the payment to the Palfrey Estate is funded by the proceeds of the sale of the defendant properties at 803 Capitol Street and 1441 Vaquero Glen and the sale of the defendant coins. The Palfrey Estate understands that it will assume full responsibility for any and all tax consequences of receipt of this payment.

II. Forfeiture to the United States:

3. The parties agree that a basis for the defendant properties’ forfeiture has been
established in the record as a matter of fact and of law. The Palfrey claimants consent to the entry of the proposed Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal, which adjudges and decrees the forfeiture to the plaintiff United States of the balance of the net proceeds from the sale or liquidation of defendant properties as reduced by the payments of $75,000 and $675,853.19 to Blanche Palfrey. Thus, the parties ask the Court to issue the proposed Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal declaring forfeit to the United States $750,853.19 (seven hundred fifty thousand, eight hundred fifty-three dollars and nineteen cents), plus any interest or other such funds attributable to their deposit in any account during the pendency
of this civil forfeiture action in rem.

III. The Palfrey Parties Consent to Release of All Claims Against the United States:

4. Upon payment of the amounts stated in Paragraphs 1-2 above, the Palfrey Estate and Blanche Palfrey (both individually and in her capacity as Executor of the Palfrey Estate (“Palfrey Parties”), agree to release, settle, cancel, discharge, and acknowledge to be fully satisfied, any and all claims, liens, demands, obligations, rights, and causes of action of whatever kind, nature, or description whatsoever, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, reported or unreported, which they might have against the United States arising from the assets currently subject to forfeiture in this matter; now or hereafter, arising out of, or by reason of, or in any manner connected with the allegations set forth in this case, 06-cv-1710-JR, and in the related and now abated criminal case, United States v. Deborah

Case 1:06-cv-01710-JR Document 113 Filed 03/12/10 Page 4 of 12
-5-

Jeane Palfrey, etc., Case No. 1:07-cr-0046-JR, also in this Court.

IV. The United States Consents to Release of All Claims Against the Defendant Properties and Against the Palfrey Parties:

5. The United States agrees to release, settle, cancel, discharge and acknowledge to be fully satisfied, any and all claims, liens, demands, obligations, rights, and causes of action of whatever kind, nature, or description whatsoever, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, reported or unreported, which they might have against:

(a) the assets currently subject to forfeiture in this matter;

(b) the Palfrey Estate;

(c) Blanche Palfrey (both individually and in her capacity as Executor of the Palfrey
Estate, including, with respect to the Palfrey parties, their Executors or
Administrators and any successors, assigns, agents, or attorneys acting on their
behalf); and,

(d) any other property or asset formerly owned or controlled by Deborah Jeane
Palfrey,

now or hereafter, arising out of, or by reason of, or in any manner connected with the
allegations set forth in this case number 06-cv-1710-JR, or in the related and now abated Criminal Action, United States v. Deborah Jeane Palfrey, etc., No. 1:07-cr-0046-JR, or giving rise to such actions, and not to assert, or if asserted to withdraw, claims or challenges in this forfeiture action, No. 06-cv-1710-JR, and claims or challenges in any court and concerning properties acquired by Deborah Jeane Palfrey, including, but not limited to, Case No. P43192, pending in Solano County, California, and case number 2008-CP-001782-O, pending in Orange County, Florida.

General Provisions

6. This Agreement shall not constitute an admission of liability or fault on the part of the Parties or their past or present agents, employees, representatives, or officers. The Parties enter into this Agreement solely for the purpose of compromising potential claims and avoiding the expenses and risks of litigation.

7. The Parties agree that each shall bear its own court costs, legal expenses, and attorney’s fees incurred in relation to this litigation and related to the facts underlying it.

8. Each of the Parties to this Agreement has participated in the drafting and negotiation of this Agreement. For all purposes, this Agreement shall be deemed to have been drafted jointly by the

Case 1:06-cv-01710-JR Document 113 Filed 03/12/10 Page 5 of 12
-6-

Parties.

9. Each of the Parties to this Agreement has carefully read this Agreement and, after
consultation with their respective legal counsel, as applicable, the Parties to this Agreement fully understand this Agreement and sign it as a voluntary act.

10. The persons signing this Agreement represent and warrant by their signatures that they have authority to sign this Agreement on behalf of the individuals or entities for whom they are
purporting to sign.

11. It is contemplated that this Agreement may be executed in several counterparts. This Agreement may be executed on facsimile copies and in counterparts, each of which shall be provided to counsel for the United States. Facsimiles of signatures, should they be provided to the United States, shall constitute acceptable, binding signatures for purposes of this Agreement. Upon its receipt of executed counterpart signature pages, the United States may treat the executed counterparts as one merged document that the United States may execute, and may then file, along with a consistent proposed order, electronically with the Court.

12. No term or provision of this Agreement may be varied, changed, modified, waived, or terminated, except by an instrument in writing signed by the party against whom the enforcement of such alteration is sought.

13. This Agreement shall be governed and construed by the laws of the District of Columbia.
* * *

WHEREFORE, as set forth in the thirteen (13) enumerated paragraphs above, the Parties to this Concluding Settlement Agreement stipulate that this civil forfeiture action should be resolved fully as to the United States, the Estate of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, and Blanche Palfrey (both individually and in her capacity as Executor of the Estate of Deborah Jeane Palfrey), as set forth

Case 1:06-cv-01710-JR Document 113 Filed 03/12/10 Page 6 of 12
-7-

herein, and the parties request the Court to enter the attached proposed FINAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE AND DISMISSAL approving this Concluding Settlement Agreement and authorizing the disbursement agreed to herein.

CONCLUDING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ACCEPTED AND ORDER REQUESTED:

1. For Plaintiff (the United States) in District of DC Action 06-cv-1710-JR:

Date: March 11, 2010 /s/ Ronald C. Machen Jr
RONALD C. MACHEN Jr, D.C. Bar No. 447889
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
/s/ Deborah L. Connor

DEBORAH L. CONNOR, D.C. Bar No. 452414
Assistant United States Attorney
/s/ Barry Wiegand

BARRY WIEGAND, D.C. Bar No. 424288
Assistant United States Attorney
Criminal Division, Asset Forfeiture Unit
555 Fourth Street, N.W., Fourth Floor
Washington, D.C. 20530
(202) 307-0299
William.B.Wiegand@U SDoJ.Gov

2. For claimants Deborah Jeane Palfrey’s Estate and Blanche Palfrey (the Palfrey parties):

/s/Blanche Palfrey
BLANCHE PALFREY

Date: March 11, 2010 /s/ Preston Burton
PRESTON BURTON, D.C. Bar No. 426378
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Columbia Center
1152 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-1706

Copies bearing the individual signatures of the persons listed above are in plaintiff’s possession.

Case 1:06-cv-01710-JR Document 113 Filed 03/12/10 Page 7 of 12




UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 1:06-cv-01710-JR
)
803 CAPITOL STREET, etc., et al., )
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)
)
DEBORAH JEANE PALFREY’S ESTATE, )
and )
BLANCHE PALFREY, )
Claimants. )

FINAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE AND DISMISSAL

On October 3, 2006, a Verified Complaint For Forfeiture In Rem was filed by plaintiff, the United States of America. Plaintiff filed an Amended Verified Complaint on November 22, 2006, seeking to forfeit various defendant properties, including: real property, funds, and precious metal coins. Plaintiff sought to enforce the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A), which provides for the forfeiture of any property involved in a transaction or attempted transaction in violation of 18. U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1960, or any property traceable to such property. Plaintiff also sought to enforce the provisions of 18. U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), which provides for the forfeiture of property which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to a violation of any offense constituting “specified unlawful activity” or a conspiracy to commit such offense. Based upon a full review of the record and upon the stipulation of the parties, the Court finds:

(1) the Amended Complaint alleges a proper basis in fact and in law for forfeiture;

(2) on about November 19, 2006, claimant Deborah Jeane Palfrey filed a verified claim to the defendant properties, which claim is now maintained by her Estate;

(3) on about June 12, 2008, claimant Blanche Palfrey filed a verified claim to the defendant

Case 1:06-cv-01710-JR Document 113 Filed 03/12/10 Page 8 of 12
-2-

properties;

(4) no other person has submitted a claim with respect to the defendant properties within the time permitted by 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(4)(a) and Rule G of the Supplemental Rules For Admiralty Or Maritime Claims And Asset Forfeiture Actions;

(5) on March 4, 2010, plaintiff and claimants settled the contested issues among them, and submitted to the Court a written Concluding Settlement Agreement, in which the parties requested the Court to approve and accept the Concluding Settlement Agreement and to issue this Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal; and,

(6) pursuant to the terms of the Concluding Settlement Agreement, the parties have agreed, inter alia, as follows:

1. The United States consents to entry of the proposed Final Order Of Forfeiture And
Dismissal directing the United States Internal Revenue Service to release to Blanche Palfrey, in her individual capacity, a total of $75,000.00 (seventy-five thousand dollars and no cents), by electronic funds transfer to Account Number XXXXXXXXXXXX at Bank of America, Tarpon Springs, Florida (ABA Route XXXXXXXXX) within thirty-five (35) days of the Court’s issuance of the Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal. Blanche Palfrey understands that she will assume full responsibility for any and all tax consequences of receipt of this payment.

2. The United States consents to entry of the proposed Final Order Of Forfeiture And
Dismissal directing the United States Internal Revenue Service to release to the Estate of Deborah Jeane Palfrey a total of $675,853.19 (six hundred seventy-five thousand, eight hundred fifty-three dollars and nineteen cents), by electronic funds transfer to Sideman & Bancroft LLP IOLTA Account, Account Number XXXXXXXXXX, held at Union Bank of California, Los Angeles, California (ABA Route XXXXXXXXX), for credit to client-matter number XXXXX within seventy (70) days of the Court’s issuance of the Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal. It is agreed by the parties that the payment to the Palfrey Estate is funded by the proceeds of the sale of the defendant properties at 803 Capitol Street and 1441 Vaquero Glen and the sale of the defendant coins. The Palfrey Estate understands that it will assume full responsibility for any and all tax consequences of receipt of this payment.

II. Forfeiture to the United States:

3. The parties agree that a basis for the defendant properties’ forfeiture has been
established in the record as a matter of fact and of law. The Palfrey claimants consent to

Case 1:06-cv-01710-JR Document 113 Filed 03/12/10 Page 9 of 12
-3-

the entry of the proposed Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal, which adjudges and decrees the forfeiture to the plaintiff United States of the balance of the net proceeds from the sale or liquidation of defendant properties as reduced by the payments of $75,000 and $675,853.19 to Blanche Palfrey. Thus, the parties ask the Court to issue the proposed Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal declaring forfeit to the United States $750,853.19 (seven hundred fifty thousand, eight hundred fifty-three dollars and nineteen cents), plus any interest or other such funds attributable to their deposit in any account during the pendency of this civil forfeiture action in rem.

III. The Palfrey Parties Consent to Release of All Claims Against the United States:

4. Upon payment of the amounts stated in Paragraphs 1-2 above, the Palfrey Estate and Blanche Palfrey (both individually and in her capacity as Executor of the Palfrey Estate (“Palfrey Parties”), agree to release, settle, cancel, discharge, and acknowledge to be fully satisfied, any and all claims, liens, demands, obligations, rights, and causes of action of whatever kind, nature, or description whatsoever, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, reported or unreported, which they might have against the United States arising from the assets currently subject to forfeiture in this matter; now or hereafter, arising out of, or by reason of, or in any manner connected with the allegations set forth in this case, 06-cv-1710-JR, and in the related and now abated criminal case, United States v. Deborah Jeane Palfrey, etc., Case No. 1:07-cr-0046-JR, also in this Court.

IV. The United States Consents to Release of All Claims Against the Defendant Properties and Against the Palfrey Parties:

5. The United States agrees to release, settle, cancel, discharge and acknowledge to be fully satisfied, any and all claims, liens, demands, obligations, rights, and causes of action of whatever kind, nature, or description whatsoever, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, reported or unreported, which they might have against:

(a) the assets currently subject to forfeiture in this matter;

(b) the Palfrey Estate;

(c) Blanche Palfrey (both individually and in her capacity as Executor of the Palfrey
Estate, including, with respect to the Palfrey parties, their Executors or
Administrators and any successors, assigns, agents, or attorneys acting on their
behalf); and,

(d) any other property or asset formerly owned or controlled by Deborah Jeane
Palfrey,

now or hereafter, arising out of, or by reason of, or in any manner connected with the
allegations set forth in this case number 06-cv-1710-JR, or in the related and now abated Criminal Action, United States v. Deborah Jeane Palfrey, etc., No. 1:07-cr-0046-JR, or giving rise to such actions, and not to assert, or if asserted to withdraw, claims or challenges in this forfeiture action, No. 06-cv-1710-JR, and claims or challenges in any court and concerning properties acquired by Deborah Jeane Palfrey, including, but not limited to, Case

Case 1:06-cv-01710-JR Document 113 Filed 03/12/10 Page 10 of 12
-4-

No. P43192, pending in Solano County, California, and case number 2008-CP-001782-O, pending in Orange County, Florida.

General Provisions

6. This Agreement shall not constitute an admission of liability or fault on the part of the Parties or their past or present agents, employees, representatives, or officers. The Parties enter into this Agreement solely for the purpose of compromising potential claims and avoiding the expenses and risks of litigation.

7. The Parties agree that each shall bear its own court costs, legal expenses, and attorney’s fees incurred in relation to this litigation and related to the facts underlying it.

NOW, THEREFORE, on the filing by the parties of the Concluding Settlement Agreement, which the Court hereby approves and orders to be carried out, and upon the request of the parties for the issuance of this Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal, it is hereby

ORDERED, that, within thirty-five (35) days of the issuance of this Final Order Of
Forfeiture And Dismissal, the United States Internal Revenue Service shall release to Blanche Palfrey, in her individual capacity, a total of $75,000.00 (seventy-five thousand dollars and no cents), by electronic funds transfer to Account Number XXXXXXXXXXXX at Bank of America, Tarpon Springs, Florida (ABA Route XXXXXXXXX); and it is

FURTHER ORDERED, that within seventy (70) days from the entry of this Final Order Of Forfeiture And Dismissal, the United States Internal Revenue Service shall release to release to the Estate of Deborah Jeane Palfrey a total of $675,853.19 (six hundred seventy-five thousand, eight hundred

fifty-three dollars and nineteen cents), by electronic funds transfer to Sideman & Bancroft LLP IOLTA Account, Account Number XXXXXXXXXX, held at Union Bank of California, Los Angeles, California (ABA Route XXXXXXXXX), for credit to client-matter number XXXXX. The

Case 1:06-cv-01710-JR Document 113 Filed 03/12/10 Page 11 of 12
-5-

parties have agreed that the payment to the Palfrey Estate is funded by the proceeds of the sale of the defendant properties at 803 Capitol Street and 1441 Vaquero Glen and the sale of the defendant coins; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED, that the balance of the defendant properties, $750,853.19 (seven hundred fifty thousand, eight hundred fifty-three dollars and nineteen cents), including any interest or other such funds attributable to them, is hereby adjudged and decreed forfeited to plaintiff United States of America, and title to the balance of the defendant properties hereby is vested in the United States of America, and no other, to be disposed of in accordance with law; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED, that the above-captioned case is DISMISSED, except that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of the Stipulated Settlement; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED, that the Clerk is hereby directed to send three (4) certified copies of this Order to plaintiff’s counsel of record.


______________________________________________
JAMES ROBERTSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
________________
Date

Songs from the Site Meter: Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich LLP come snooping over former US Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor Pt. II, the plot thickens...

Site meter--All that this probably says is that Orrick's an unofficial follower of this blog. But it's interesting nonetheless. I'm not especially surprised since Preston Burton and Orrick are running the late DC Madam's estate for her mother, ostensibly "pro bono," a curious act of charity if ever I saw one. Perhaps they're watching out for the interests of other clients?

Everyone's a poker player these days...

Domain Name		(Unknown)
IP Address		199.108.76.# (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliff)
ISP		CERFnet
Location		Continent : North America Country : United States (Facts) State : California City : San Francisco Lat/Long : 37.7645, -122.4294 (Map)
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Macintosh WinXP
Browser		Safari 1.3 Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/530.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/2.0.172.39 Safari/530.5
Javascript		version 1.5
Monitor		Resolution : 1024 x 1280 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Aug 21 2009 3:26:16 am
Last Page View		Aug 21 2009 3:26:16 am
Visit Length		0 seconds
Page Views		1
Referring URL
Visit Entry Page		http://chickasawpick...-gray-cary-ware.html
Visit Exit Page		http://chickasawpick...-gray-cary-ware.html
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-8:00
Visitor's Time		Aug 20 2009 12:26:16 pm
Visit Number		58,480

Songs from the Site Meter: Gray, Cary, Ware & Freidenrich LLP come snooping over former US Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor

Site Meter--You'd think that Deborah Jeane Palfrey (aka "the DC Madam") was still alive. I have to wonder if Mr. Taylor is worried about his reputation after a recent article at Rawstory by Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane exposed his plea deal shenanigans with Chiquita bribing paramilitaries in Colombia not to disrupt their banana plantations. This is something I find funny since he offered Palfrey a very good plea deal, so he has a strange habit of offering criminals good ones!

Surely, Taylor was breaking the law as much as he could for the people who appointed him while he was at the DOJ (under Bush II, the DOH!). And while I'm on it, why hasn't President Obama fired all the Bush II appointments? One would think he's no different from the last guy, contrary to stupid comments coming from Michael Moore (who's looking more and more like Father Coughlin these days).

Naturally, I googled the name of this firm, and what did I get? First entry: DLA Piper, who "Represents emerging growth and high technology companies, with offices throughout Asia, Europe, the Middle East and the US." A global firm that originates out of the UK. Sounds familiar, like Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. You think they've done busiess with each other, know each other? DLA Piper has "acquired" Gray, Cary, Ware & Freidman recently, in 2005. Oh sure, they didn't read, but they're searching on Jeffrey A. Taylor. Why? Does he need help? Are they investigating him for someone? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure he needs help, and he should get it. There are literally hundreds of mental health professionals in most directories...

Domain Name		(Unknown)
IP Address		66.54.170.# (Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich LLP)
ISP		Yipes Communications
Location		Continent : North America Country : United States (Facts) State : California City : Los Angeles Lat/Long : 34.0416, -118.2988 (Map)
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinXP
Browser		Internet Explorer 6.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution : 1024 x 768 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Aug 20 2009 2:06:55 am
Last Page View		Aug 20 2009 2:06:55 am
Visit Length		0 seconds
Page Views		1
Referring URL		http://www.google.co...ffrey taylor&aqi=g10
Search Engine		google.com
Search Words		jeffrey taylor us attorney
Visit Entry Page		http://chickasawpick...y-in-palfrey_30.html
Visit Exit Page		http://chickasawpick...y-in-palfrey_30.html
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-8:00
Visitor's Time		Aug 19 2009 11:06:55 am
Visit Number		58,396

http://www.dlapiper.com/

The Department of Justice, Corporations, Buying the Law – Part II: Strange Bargains, by Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane

2008 Roundup

J-7--It's been one hell of a year, hasn't it? From my work for the Palfrey defense, to my paralegal classes, to the inevitable collapse of world capitalism, to incredible revelations of Bush II administration wrong-doing and the resultant inaction from Congress and the Judicial branch, there's every reason to feel hopeful. What kind of a year did you have? Not one like mine, I can state with complete certainty.

I even had the well known Libertarian "Reason magazine" quoting me next to Val Kilmer, and conspiracy-theorist Alex Constantine has threatened to sue me for having negative opinions about him. This isn't even counting the hacking of my email account (I have my suspicions here), the phony "cease and desist" emails regarding the Palfrey information on my site about two noteworthy former clients, or the other harassing ones that came my way.

Wha? Hopeful?

Yes, there's every reason to feel hopeful about reasonable change. That doesn't mean we just sit back and let it happen, because then, it won't. Demand, demand, and demand again what you need to survive. Band together, make friends with people you might never have, and organize and act for change.

I've written on quite-a-few subjects this year, from attempts to desecrate the memory of Edgar Allan Poe, to issues of the geopolitical and of illegal surveillance. What's been most alarming is the inaction of Congress and the courts against Bush II crimes, but I have a newer take on this: they only did it to save a dying system, it was never really about protecting Bush and Cheney, and it's not working. With every revelation...nothing, no action to hold anyone truly accountable. That's desperation, kids.

American Empire is ending and history cannot be fought or denied when the currents are as strong as they are against established power in North America. It's over, now it just has to play-out, and all the king's horses and all the king's men aren't going to fix it. As a matter of fact, the more they keep doing what they always have to preserve their power, the faster they're going to lose it. Empires fall and things are moving faster than they have in decades, and can be counted on to move faster than in the past thanks to widespread access to telecommunications technology.

This decline is affecting everyone. There's nowhere to run for the jaded and the apathetic anymore. Yes, things will become ugly at times, but if you have it in-mind to help others, we can avoid a catastrophe as we have in the past. Use your head and have a safe and happy 2009. Understand that this won't always be the case, have realistic expectations, and stay honest if you can. And remember that the children are counting on us not to blow it, we owe them a better world where people look out for each other. Helping others is the most important thing.

On Jeane Palfrey: Watching a woman die from a distance after being driven to it by federal prosecutors was horrible, but I did help her as much as I could and she told me that she appreciated it, she even told went as far as to ask me if anyone had ever told me I was smart. God knows that I wish she had survived her ordeal and that her suicide will haunt me until the day I die. One can only hope it does that and much more to her tormentors. I intend to keep digging into these matters regarding everything that happened to Deborah Jeane Palfrey, and will continue to publish primary materials on this site since it's still my right as an American to do so. The vast majority of my contact with the deceased "DC Madam" was off-the-books, it wasn't under attorney-client privilege, and the public has a right to know what happened. Eventually, everything I have will be online in one form or another.

There must be accountability in this matter, and eventually, there will be. If that means people like Federal District Judge James Robertson looks like the goon and lackey that I suspect he is in the history books after his death, then so be it. The same goes for Jeffrey A. Taylor, a most unusual U.S. Attorney for the fact that he's an interim appointment that was never approved of by the Senate, as the Bush II administration sneaked him in when they were on recess in 2006...during the U.S. Attorney firing scandal. He prosecuted Palfrey. At the very least, future generations of Americans are going to view her trial as the abomination it was, a fraud that was a matter of selective prosecution in a time when there were more than would be statistically normal. Had Palfrey lived, we might know more about what happened, although she wasn't the last word as some are painting it to my mind.

At this writing, the Palfrey Estate is working against disclosure, and it's understandable. They want things to rest and for their loved one to rest in peace. They've had enough of the circus, the press, the media, and the lawyers. So have I. They're tired of others (starting with Bill Bastone, an individual they should take to court for defaming their loved one) dragging the name of their loved one and their family through-the-mud. I concur. But that doesn't mean every revelation is going to make Jeane look bad--that's not even the point. From what I know, she's beginning to look more and more heroic, or at least edging beyond being an "antihero," which in this society isn't a bad thing to be either. She was that and a whole lot more, and she was very complicated, just like the rest of life itself.

I enjoin the Palfrey Estate to move towards transparency in the matter and to realize that the government isn't going to give them what's theirs (Palfrey's remaining assets) without a major fight. Having counsel that does contract work for the government in other capacities isn't going to help them towards this reasonable goal which their loved on died for in-part. My opinion.

Astonishingly, Palfrey's will wasn't discovered until September 2008--what took so long? Why is Orrick going around and threatening various players in the Palfrey saga with lawsuits and invoking attorney-client privilege? One could imagine it has a lot to do with brokering a deal with the government, and one still hasn't been completed in the arena of asset seizure and forfeiture The abatement issue created by Palfrey when she killed herself before sentencing created problems for the State, and a semi-secret Trust created by Palfrey is causing problems for the Estate itself. She knew what she was doing. I have to wonder if her family does, but I wish them well and empathize with their suffering. There are so many unanswered questions in the Palfrey scandal, but I don't think Jeane's death closes-the-door entirely: there were many things she simply didn't know about her predicament, things that should have been included in discovery (sharing of information, what they have on you) from the prosecution. Eventually, some of these documents are going to surface, and we'll have at least a little clearer picture. I do not believe that she was innocent, I believe that she was denied due process.

The House Judiciary committee contacted Palfrey in the spring of 2008 through a "Ms. Oo," then didn't appear for a face-to-face meeting or respond to further calls and emails. Oo wouldn't do. Why? Who or what put-the-skids to their inquiry into the effect that forfeiture had on her rights to due process? They--and others--might tell me and the public, but I'm not holding my breath on that one, it's going to take years, and it's going to take persistent demands. It was quite a year, 2008. I don't expect any miracles from President-elect Barack Obama, but it's on him and Congress to initiate lengthy and serious probes into every crime committed by the Bush II administration, to rollback the precedents, and to allow justice to be served in the matter rather than in the obstruction of it. Palfrey is a part of all of this. There's reason to be hopeful, but not without demands.


Postscript, 12.29.2008: Add to the list that Larisa Alexandrovna gave me a good review on a satire about her marrying Yakov Smirnoff, which surprised the bejeezus out of me.

Constantine vs. Janovic

WWW--Alex is on his third-installment of a two-part piece (don't ask) about me. You know, what's so unfortunate about all of this is that I probably agree with him on numerous points on far-ranging topics.

But there's one point I doubt I'll ever agree with over--barring credible, tangible new evidence--and that's the suicide of Deborah Jeane Palfrey.

Perhaps I've been wrong about his motives and he's just writing about it on some kind of tangent, I don't know or care. [Ed., 12.22.2008--Call it a "retraction," or whatever you like, but I no longer think his motive was for money.] He has his issues and I have mine. But I believe that he and others couldn't be more wrong. [Ed., 12.22.2008--On this I'll never waver unless some solid evidence is forthcoming.] I got to know this woman over the period of ten months, mainly through emails and less than a handful of phone calls, and I pitied her, I empathized with her.

Mr. Constantine can make all the defamatory allegations he wants to--they're baseless, and he should watch what his hands are typing a little more closely. These kinds of half-assed theories won't help us get any closer to the truth of this story, but that's not what I think they're designed to do. What are they designed to do? To feed someone's ego.

At this writing, I have yet to be presented with any solid proof that Jeane was murdered, zero.

That hasn't stopped several of these "conspiracy researchers"from clutching-at-straws. For example, I'm aware of Blanche Palfrey's inconsistent comments early on that she didn't notice any desperation or suicidal behavior in her daughter prior to her death. I have it on good word that Mrs. Palfrey's health and memory are in decline. Since May of this year she's corrected herself on this in the press, probably with the assistance of her remaining family members and counsel. She's 76 and has a long-term heart condition. I wish her and her family well.

Also at this writing, I have good reason to believe Mrs. Palfrey is no longer the executrix of her daughter's estate and that it's now being administered by Orrick, Herrington, and Sutcliffe's Preston Burton, the late DC Madam's former and final criminal defense counsel. Burton was appointed (imposed might be a better term, but Palfrey accepted him) at the end by the Court with the removal of Montgomery Blair Sibley as civil/criminal counsel by the defendant.

After that, Burton did some furious jockeying to run the Palfrey Estate, even causing a commotion at her funeral, something I have on good word from a reliable source.

Why was Sibley removed? Palfrey told me she wanted it and that "things were said that cannot be taken back." It was our final telephone call, in January 2008. As much as she tried to paint the split as acrimonious, she didn't sound convincing. There are other factors: who was whispering in Palfrey's ear that his defense strategy was imperiled? In the case of why Sibley was removed--a matter of sealed court records--I also have good reason to believe this is related to her suicidal behavior and a specific utterance she made in the presence of counsel that created a legal situation. It's unknown if she made similar utterances in the presence of Preston Burton at any point.

A suggestion to Mr. Constantine and other researchers: look into the period that Sibley was replaced as counsel, it's crucial and it was unusual as most of the entire legal proceedings and trial were. There's another narrative here, and it's not the accepted one that was swept under the rug by the press, prosecution, and the Court. You might want to look into the strong possibility that Palfrey under-reported her earnings in a major way, perhaps the easiest thing to prove in a case with charges of money laundering, misuse of the mails, and the presence of the IRS in the investigation.

Why wasn't she charged with under-reporting her income? Her properties and assets don't jibe with the accepted narrative that she made $2 million from 1993-2006, it doesn't fit. There are reasons to believe she might have had offshore accounts and that the government was and is aware of them.

Why not take a look at what we do know? Why not look at the smoke rather than concocting something unprovable--blank hearsay--out of whole cloth? Because it's easy. That's all I have to say about Alex Constantine and his dubious theories regarding the suicide of Deborah Jeane Palfrey.


Postscript, 12.22.2008: Alex is now writing on his site that I've "defamed" him, even while he's called me a "liar" over and over again, which could easily fit into that category. My personal take? He has no more basis than anyone to claim injury, I could just as easily claim it from him. But I won't, because I respect the right of others to their opinions and that speech is free and protected under the First amendment. Nothing I wrote about Constantine was done with knowing intent--I never wrote anything I knew for a fact to be wrong, the blank truth.

All this said, I would be happy to share various pieces of information from the Palfrey case itself with Mr. Constantine, he might be able to offer his own insights. I'm willing to admit that they could be very valuable. It's his call. Again, it wasn't a murder, he and others have it wrong, he and others have nothing solid to prove the assertion with, and yes, there are issues of real importance that should be dealt with like having a rudimentary knowledge of the Palfrey saga. I don't believe Alex Constantine does by a long shot, and that's OK.

But, hey, at least Constantine has written recently about Jeffrey A. Taylor. That's what bothers me so much about all this--we probably agree on a lot more than we don't. In fairness, we have both been wrong in our approach to all things Palfrey. But it hasn't just been about him, and I no longer think his motives were necessarily "bad," just wrong-headed and reactionary.

The majority of my comments have been directed at multiple-theorists, including Alex Jones, Kurt Nimmo, and Jeff Rense, so Constantine shouldn't feel left out, I've written on them as well and in even starker terms. I am not out to get him, but the theory is flat-out wrong. That's my opinion. I'm entitled to it like anyone else. What kind of message he's trying to send by threatening to sue someone for disagreeing strenuously with him on specific points about the death of someone is beyond me.

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

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

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

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

Money figures highly in the entire saga.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Palfrey trial transcripts: April 10th, 2008 excerpt

Editor's note: Below is a brief exchange from the trial transcript for April 10th, 2008. It was striking how poor and lacking-in-detail coverage from Palfrey's trial was. Reading the transcripts themselves, it's not difficult to understand why--it was little more than a formality to hold it, and Palfrey's criminal defense attorney--Preston Burton--didn't fight very hard for his client.

There's the real possibility that it's because he's rumored to covet a Federal Judgeship, but then there's the fact that he's also a partner in a law firm that does extensive contract work for the government internationally. You never know.

But that's my opinion, decide for yourselves. I wasn't aware of how informal and shoddy these affairs were conducted until recently, being unable to attend the trial itself. A real eye-opener, that. It must have been excruciating for any defendant to have had to sit there and watch the kangaroo court unfold before them as it surely did this April in Washington D.C.

Reading the transcript, you get the very obvious impression that the Court and the prosecution were working hard to rush the proceedings and that Burton barely mounted a defense at all. At some point, this site will be publishing the entire transcripts in-full.

From Pg. 20-21 of the April 10th, 2008 trial transcript of Deborah Jeane Palfrey

..."MS. CONNELLY: Your Honor, we have nothing further for
this witness.

THE COURT: All right, Ms. Couvillon. You may step
down. (The witness steps down.)
May I see counsel at the bench?
(Bench conference on the record.)

THE COURT: Okay. Where do we stand? Is that it?

MS. CONNELLY: For today, yes.

THE COURT: And what about these other two people?

MS. CONNELLY: Well, one of them is flying back into
town tomorrow, so she'll be here Monday. The other one we spoke
to -- well, the agent spoke yesterday to her in the hospital,
and they've diagnosed diverticulitis and they were just debating
when they're going to release her. They think possibly this
weekend.

THE COURT: Do we need either one of these people? [Page Break]

MR. BUTLER: The one that's in the hospital is

racketeering, so the answer is yes.

MS. CONNELLY: I think they both are.

THE COURT: You need all 14 acts, but you've got 15
now.

MR. BUTLER: We do have the burden of proof, and we
need sufficient evidence to meet that burden.

THE COURT: Yeah, but so what? There's only 13 in
baseball. Thirteen out of 14 isn't bad.

MS. CONNELLY: We're at 10 out of 14 now.

MR. BUTLER: Well, I would request, Your Honor,
that (inaudible) the last day for court proceedings.

THE COURT: What can you tell us about what you're
going to do?

MR. BURTON: My inclination is to not put on any
defense.

THE COURT: Okay. So we're looking at one, maybe two
witnesses first thing Monday morning, and then we're going to
argue and charge.

MR. BURTON: But we do have a rule 29.

THE COURT: Yeah, we have a rule 29. That'll be a
lengthy argument.

MS. CONNELLY: Your Honor, do you charge first or do
we argue first?

THE COURT: I charge first." ... [Page Break]

Postcript, 11.13.2008: Talking about baseball gives one the impression that the "wall of professionalism" was basically nonexistent between the prosecution and Judge Robertson, a real convivial and friendly atmosphere between them all. You think they went out and had a drink at trial's conclusion? I mean, really, if I was one of the AUSAs or USAs, I would've went out and gotten the judge laid, frankly. They had a good list of escort services in-hand, so...what scum. Yes, worse than a female pimp. The public was denied coverage of the trial because it was not only handled poorly, the proceedings were rigged from-inception.

Songs from the Site Meter: Severna, Maryland...who are you?

Site Meter--Throughout the whole Palfrey affair, they were there. Who? Someone hitting this site from Severna, Maryland, over-and-over again. This has gone on for over one year.

Any guesses? One guess of mine is that it's the indefatigable Montgomery Blair Sibley, currently writing his account of his own extensive contact with the Palfrey case.

There's also the possibility that it's someone from Orrick, Herrington, and Sutcliffe, one of the largest law firms in the world, a major government contractor...like most of the over 800 names found in the subpoenaed Verizon phone records of the late Jeane Palfrey. Like who?

As a matter of fact, kids, like ASRC Constructors Inc., connected to Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens, now on trial for corruption charges, the subject that was searched on google by the visitor below. That's why it's probably Sibely, but could be other interested parties close to the Palfrey scandal. An added-note to this theme: I found other minority-owned contractors in the research we did for Ms. Palfrey, a pattern of it, and more, much more.

Current Palfrey Estate attorney Preston Burton is a partner in the firm, meaning he's virtually a co-owner, if not entirely so. But when is that ever enough? Some sources say that Mr. Burton wants to be appointed as a federal judge in the near future. Now, this wouldn't have affected his demeanor during the legal proceedings and trial of the late Ms. Palfrey, would it? I don't know, you tell me. Then, there's the fact that a number of Orrick's behind-the-scenes legal maneuvering does nothing less than to protect former clients of the deceased DC Madam. Why is that? Ah, but Mr. Burton's not very forthcoming or talkative. My own hunch is that that's a wise move on his part.

Domain Name		verizon.net ? (Network)
IP Address		71.179.98.# (Verizon Internet Services)
ISP		Verizon Internet Services
Location		Continent : North America Country : United States (Facts) State : Maryland City : Severna Park Lat/Long : 39.0735, -76.5654 (Map)
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinXP
Browser		Internet Explorer 7.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; Media Center PC 3.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution : 1024 x 768 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Sep 25 2008 3:27:37 am
Last Page View		Sep 25 2008 3:29:04 am
Visit Length		1 minute 27 seconds
Page Views		2
Referring URL		http://www.google.co...l ASRC&start=70&sa=N
Search Engine		google.com
Search Words		illegal asrc
Visit Entry Page		http://chickasawpick...8_07_01_archive.html
Visit Exit Page		http://chickasawpick...RC Constructors Inc.
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time		Sep 24 2008 3:27:37 pm
Visit Number		41,657

10 Zen Monkeys Tastless Article on DC Madam: Who's "Daniel"?

WWW--I found this September 5th piece in a quick Google search of a fellow who has tastelessly claimed to have "spoken" with her in the afterlife. Bollocks. This is in poor-taste, and I think the whole thing was probably fabricated by the author of the article, Lou Cabron, a journalist (other than "politician," a bad word these days).

In the article, we get presented with a fellow ostensibly named "Daniel 'Trinity' Jackson," who apparently "lives" just ten miles from Tarpon Springs, Florida, the town in which Palfrey committed suicide. I'm not even quoting from what I consider to be a ridiculous article that stinks of a smear of the deceased, and which throws 10 Zen Monkeys and Cabron's motives--if not their sense of ethics--into question.

So what's the significance? Last Fall I began receiving e-mails from someone who called themselves "Daniel," and who claimed to be Palfrey's personal astrologer. They communicated with me briefly through an encrypted third party email service, which I found odd. That's not all that was odd: "Daniel" claimed to be a Catholic missionary living in China, and some kind of "magic Christian." Right, utterly bizarre and flaky.

What I got from "Daniel" was a lot of astrological predictions that were not only strange, but one that was actually correct, if only partially. "Daniel" wrote that he thought Palfrey would be found innocent--he was right. At that time, I didn't agree at all and thought she would be convicted--we were both correct. When Deborah Jeane Palfrey committed suicide before her sentencing, the charges were swept-clean, and it's likely that her family (and Preston Burton and the monstrous Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe, who stand to get a lot!) will receive the majority of her assets--at least the ones we know about.

But what Cabron has written is a worthless article that adds nothing to our knowledge of the event. I have my suspicions, but it's probably just a case of bad taste on his part and Daniel's--if the so-called astrologer exists at all. All attempts at mailing him from his site cause bounce-backs, so one has to wonder if the site was created by Cabron himself as some sort of sick joke. Hey, at least they got a few more hits! Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out of this life.

FYI to Daniel: Spiritualism is long-dead, get over it, the rest of us have. Do I think you made your claims up? No. I don't think you exist anymore than the event that was described (possession by the deceased).

"10 Zen Monkeys": And I thought "J to the Power of 7" was a dumb name for a site. I was wrong, and I found one that's easily worse. They haven't responded to any inquiries so far. Presumably because they're hacks.

"The Ghost of the DC Madam," 10 Zen Monkeys, 09.05.2008: http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2008/09/05/the-ghost-of-the-dc-madam/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Domain Name		covad.net ? (Network)
IP Address		68.166.144.# (Covad Communications)
ISP		Covad Communications
Location		Continent : North America Country : United States (Facts) State : District of Columbia City : Washington Lat/Long : 38.9097, -77.0231 (Map)
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinXP
Browser		Internet Explorer 6.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution : 1344 x 840 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Aug 29 2008 3:31:44 am
Last Page View		Aug 29 2008 3:31:44 am
Visit Length		0 seconds
Page Views		1
Referring URL		http://blogsearch.go...&tab=nb&q=dc%20madam
Search Engine		blogsearch.google.com
Search Words		dc madam
Visit Entry Page		http://chickasawpick...sit-over-deskin.html
Visit Exit Page		http://chickasawpick...sit-over-deskin.html
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time		Aug 28 2008 3:31:44 pm
Visit Number		40,457

Domain Name		covad.net ? (Network)
IP Address		68.166.144.# (Covad Communications)
ISP		Covad Communications
Location		Continent : North America Country : United States (Facts) State : District of Columbia City : Washington Lat/Long : 38.9097, -77.0231 (Map)
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinXP
Browser		Internet Explorer 6.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution : 1344 x 840 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Aug 29 2008 4:21:10 am
Last Page View		Aug 29 2008 4:21:55 am
Visit Length		45 seconds
Page Views		2
Referring URL		http://blogsearch.go...&ie=UTF-8&q=dc madam
Search Engine		blogsearch.google.com
Search Words		dc madam
Visit Entry Page		http://chickasawpick...sit-over-deskin.html
Visit Exit Page		http://chickasawpick...esmell.blogspot.com/
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time		Aug 28 2008 4:21:10 pm
Visit Number		40,459

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

Domain Name		(Unknown)
IP Address		12.170.159.# (ORRICK, HERRINGTON SUTCLIFFE)
ISP		AT&T WorldNet Services
Location		Continent : North America Country : United States (Facts) State : District of Columbia City : Washington Lat/Long : 38.9097, -77.0231 (Map)
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinXP
Browser		Internet Explorer 6.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; MS-RTC LM 8)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution : 1024 x 768 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Aug 29 2008 5:20:47 am
Last Page View		Aug 29 2008 5:20:47 am
Visit Length		0 seconds
Page Views		1
Referring URL
Visit Entry Page		http://chickasawpick...sit-over-deskin.html
Visit Exit Page		http://chickasawpick...sit-over-deskin.html
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time		Aug 28 2008 5:20:47 pm
Visit Number		40,467

Domain Name		(Unknown)
IP Address		12.170.159.# (ORRICK, HERRINGTON SUTCLIFFE)
ISP		AT&T WorldNet Services
Location		Continent : North America Country : United States (Facts) State : District of Columbia City : Washington Lat/Long : 38.9097, -77.0231 (Map)
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinXP
Browser		Internet Explorer 6.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution : 1024 x 768 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Aug 29 2008 5:20:49 am
Last Page View		Aug 29 2008 5:22:42 am
Visit Length		1 minute 53 seconds
Page Views		3
Referring URL
Visit Entry Page		http://chickasawpick...sit-over-deskin.html
Visit Exit Page		http://chickasawpick...label/Preston Burton
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time		Aug 28 2008 5:20:49 pm
Visit Number		40,468