dc madam trial transcripts

Ed.--These files are not complete, although they're complete within themselves. There is no voir dire. I also believe the evidence was poorly documented, but it wasn't necessary to the documents. Insofar as I know, this will be the first time anyone, anywhere online has uploaded these for public consumption. Read 'em and weep, I did. The trial was a farce, hence why the transcripts aren't readily available, in my opinion. I don't give a shit who has a problem with it. The bottom document is related and covers a lien placed on Jeane's former residence over legal bills. Once again, you may not have fries with that.

 March 19, 2008 pretrial hearing (.txt file): https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3zDKjQ92CiyYXlpZVRHblduMmM/edit

April 8, 2008 (day two/ .txt file): https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3zDKjQ92CiyRXRveGY2c3ZzYUk/edit

April 9, 2008 (day three/ .txt file): https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3zDKjQ92Ciyd1pLc1oxbm9VakE/edit

April 10, 2008 (day four/ PDF): https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3zDKjQ92CiyXzVuMDA4Sm1UME0/edit

April 14, 2008 (final day/PDF): https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3zDKjQ92CiyRkJHWGFGSXk5VlU/edit

December 10, 2008 Court lien order over Palfrey estate legal debts to Montgomery Blair Sibley (PDF): https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3zDKjQ92CiyaWJCNlRTV0YyVFE/edit

Postscript, 12.22.2012:  Does any of this read like a real trial where Anglo-American principles of justice were being applied? If so, I have a bridge and swampland to sell you. What the hell was Preston Burton thinking beyond having to work with his peers again after this bullshit charade? This is where Sibley was at least genuinely adversarial. What did Burton do to convince Jeane to lay down and die, to agree to mounting no goddamned defense at all? 

To be fair, and I can only look at this as a layman, his cross-examinations of the witnesses were solid, appropriate, what you'd expect, but little more was done beyond that. Was he on the side of the defendant at all? This wasn't a trial, it was theater, the political kind, to cover for the GOP and various selfish interests. Shame. Pathetic. This is how not only democracy dies but the human race. You got it: no one gives a shit. RIP America.

And, for a better understanding of them:  
http://www.amazon.com/Let-Dead-Bury-Madam-account/dp/1480297437/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1353888194&sr=1-10&keywords=Let+the+Dead+Bury+the+Dead

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Let-Dead-Bury-Madam-account/dp/1480297437/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1355242478&sr=1-1  

http://www.amazon.fr/Let-Dead-Bury-Madam-account/dp/1480297437/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1355243316&sr=8-1

  http://www.amazon.de/Let-Dead-Bury-Madam-account/dp/1480297437/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1355243200&sr=1-1-catcorr

  http://www.amazon.it/Let-Dead-Bury-Madam-account/dp/1480297437/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1355243385&sr=8-1

 https://www.createspace.com/4056731

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.

A DC Madam missive: Palfrey was going to invoke the names of Cunningham and Wilkes at trial

Ed.--This is part of what the Court and the rest of the players unknown wanted suppressed and kept out of the record. Palfrey asked me about this, but I'm not an attorney and couldn't give her legal advice. Decide for yourself. I am 100% certain that her criminal counsel Preston Burton dissuaded her from this route or any other route that Montgomery Blair Sibley was going to invoke at trial.

I'm pretty sure she read the statement, and Judge Robertson, being the hoodwinking, biased jurist that he is, more-or-less ignored and/or neutralized the statement. Imagine that. As we all know, this other legal strategy--besides Sibley's, the one that got 86'd for reasons unknown--worked-out gangbusters, Ms. Palfrey was exonerated, and is currently living in an apartment on the outskirts of Eastern Berlin. Ms. Palfrey's family might want to consider such facts when considering any deals with the Devil...

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

From: Jeane Palfrey

To:

Cc:

Sent: 1/13/2008 12:51:03 AM

Judge Robertson has ordered me back to Washington for Wednesday's hearing. Completely expected. I will be reading a five or six page statement in open court (about 10 minutes) outlining events to date, as well as justifying my reasoning for terminating Blair (terminate is now the correct word since he won't leave of his own accord). In addition, I intend to invoke the names of the " D ukester" and Wilkes. In particular, I intend to describe the Smoking Gun incident and state how I remember Wilkes regular patronage of my former business. So, you two – just how much "holy hallelujah" (a favorite saying of my mother) and drama do you think will happen next Wednesday morning, in D .C. Federal Court? -Jeane

Postscript, 08.26.2009: I should add here for the sake of clarification that Ms. Palfrey ran her case pro se, meaning that she was in charge of it after the departure of Mr. Sibley, although one could argue she always had been and insisted on such.

The January 18, 2008 email below makes it pretty clear she wasn't coerced into taking Burton back on to assist her. It seems to me that he did much more than that and worked very hard at persuasion in several directions of their strategy, namely not calling any witnesses at all. They lost the case.

...FYI – Judge Robertson called this morning, to inform me that he has had second thoughts about appointing a CJA attorney to me. Correspondingly, he suggested I might want to reconsider Preston Burton; especially since, Mr. Burton is considered to be one of the finest attorneys in Washington . I agreed. I will continue in pro se, with Preston's assistance. In many ways, this is the best of both worlds. Realistically, he will do ALL of the work, but will not be able to act – even if well intended – without my full knowledge and consent. Best of all – unlike Blair – he can get the job done. This is the guy, who successfully argued to have the phone records injunction lifted, last June/July. –Best, Jeane

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/

Songs from the Site Meter: Three guesses, and you win...jack-shit!

Site Meter--My guess is that it's either LA attorney Sam Deskin, someone from Orrick, or the inimitable Monique Rawlings, my former co-researcher with the Palfrey defense. Take-your-pick. Mine would be Rawlings, though it could even be that boorish, incomprehensible turd, Michael C. Moynihan (fuck you, asshole). What's in your wallet?

Domain Name		verizon.net ? (Network)
IP Address		71.254.147.# (Verizon Internet Services)
ISP		Verizon Internet Services
Location		Continent : North America Country : United States (Facts) State : California City : Redlands Lat/Long : 34.0008, -117.1266 (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 : 1280 x 1024 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Sep 4 2008 9:41:29 pm
Last Page View		Sep 4 2008 10:09:37 pm
Visit Length		28 minutes 8 seconds
Page Views		3
Referring URL		http://www.google.co...ial&client=firefox-a
Search Engine		google.com
Search Words		matt janovic
Visit Entry Page		http://chickasawpick...esmell.blogspot.com/
Visit Exit Page		http://chickasawpick...esmell.blogspot.com/
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-8:00
Visitor's Time		Sep 4 2008 6:41:29 am
Visit Number		40,784

From the Palfrey trial transcript, April 9th, 2008: The testimony of Treasury agent Troy Burrus

Washington D.C.--There's an interesting passage in here where IRS agent Troy Burrus and AUSA (Assistant US Attorney) Daniel P. Butler "misspoke," down towards the bottom hinting accidentally that there could be issues of Palfrey misreporting her income, a tax issue, not one of simple "money-laundering."

No worries, Judge Roberston let them off-the-hook, but he appears to be covering his ass as well...like when he quit the FISA court.

It's a potentially telling exchange, and could mean something about what Palfrey actually made, and what the government was actually able to find regarding all of her assets/money.


...435

1 (TROY BURRUS, GOVERNMENT witness, having been duly sworn,

2 testified as follows:)

3 DIRECT EXAMINATION

4 BY MR. BUTLER:

5 Q. Would you state your name please, and spell your last name?

6 A. Troy Burrus, B-U-R-R-U-S.

7 Q. And Mr. Burrus, what's your occupation?

8 A. I'm a special agent with the Internal Revenue Service.

9 Q. How long have you been an agent with the IRS?

10 A. For almost nine years.

11 Q. And what is your back ground for that job?

12 A. I have a bachelor's of science degree in accounting from

13 Auburn University, and I spent 10 years working as a public

14 accountant, and I'm a certified public accountant.

15 Q. And did you work in the field as a public accountant?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. For you said how long?

18 A. Approximately 10 years.

19 Q. And after that you went to the IRS?

20 A. That's correct.

21 Q. As part of your duties with the IRS, were you involved in an

22 investigation of Pamela Martin & Associates?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And did there come a time when charges were brought in that

25 case?

436



1 A. Yes, they were.

2 Q. A case against Pamela Martin & Associates?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And were you involved in processing the defendant on that

5 case at that time?

6 A. Yes, I was.

7 Q. And the name of the defendant was what?

8 A. Deborah Jeanne Palfrey.

9 Q. And do you see Ms. Palfrey in the courtroom today?

10 A. Yes, I do.

11 Q. Would you identify --

12 MR. BURTON: We'll stipulate.

13 THE COURT: She's identified. Go ahead.

14 BY MR. BUTLER:

15 Q. How did you get involved in this case?

16 A. We received a call, my supervisor received a call from the

17 United States Postal Inspection Service in approximately March

18 of 2004. They said that they needed some assistance on an

19 investigation, some financial analysis assistance.

20 Q. After you became involved, what particularly did you do?

21 A. My role in this investigation was to analyze all the

22 financial records, whether they be bank records, brokerage

23 records, any records related to money and money transfers.

24 Q. And what financial records did you review, generally

25 speaking?

437



1 A. I reviewed bank records, I reviewed brokerage account

2 records, and all the different items that go into the bank

3 records themselves.

4 Q. And these were bank records for whom?

5 A. For Deborah Jeanne Palfrey.

6 Q. And what type of financial documents did you review?

7 A. We also reviewed the tax return information, plus the

8 brokerage account information with Charles Schwab.

9 Q. And that was whose account?

10 A. Deborah Jeanne Palfrey.

11 Q. This jury has heard about money orders. Were money orders

12 reviewed in this case?

13 A. Yes. Postal money orders, money orders from other sources,

14 whether they be 7-11, Western Union. Those were all reviewed.

15 Q. Bank records?

16 A. Bank records, and not only the bank statements but the

17 deposit items, whether they be the postal money orders, whether

18 they be personal checks or traveler's checks. All the check

19 items -- in other words, checks that she wrote to pay for bills

20 or expenses, any kind of money transfers between accounts or to

21 other accounts.

22 Q. And from where did you get the bank records?

23 A. The bank records were subpoenaed from Wells Fargo Bank.

24 Q. And any other financial institutions?

25 A. Charles Schwab was also subpoenaed, and records were

438



1 received from them.

2 Q. And why Charles Schwab and Wells Fargo?

3 A. The postal money orders that the U.S. Postal Inspection

4 Service had identified, we traced those as being deposited into

5 both the Wells Fargo account, and some were deposited into the

6 Charles Schwab account.

7 Q. And in terms of the financial documents you reviewed, are

8 those documents here in court?

9 A. Yes, they are. They're on the table.

10 Q. And that's the binders that are in front of the jury here?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Which have been marked as BNK-17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22.

13 Is that correct?

14 A. That's correct.

15 Q. Did you review tax returns?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. For which years?

18 A. We received tax returns from the Internal Revenue Service

19 through an ex parte order for the years 2000 through 2005.

20 We also reviewed tax returns from 1991 through 2005,

21 that were found at the defendant's home when we executed the

22 search warrant.

23 Q. Did you compare those two sets of tax returns in terms of

24 the ones that you obtained from the IRS versus the ones you

25 obtained from the search?

439



1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And what did the comparisons show?

3 A. The comparisons showed that for the years 2000 through 2005

4 they were exactly the same.

5 Q. And did you take steps for the years that were prior to

6 those years, take steps to compare the tax returns that you

7 obtained during the search warrants?

8 A. Yes, but we were unable to get those older tax returns.

9 Q. Why is that?

10 A. The Internal Revenue Service only keeps tax returns going

11 back for a certain amount of years.

12 Q. So you reviewed the ones you did have?

13 And in terms of the Wells Fargo records, for what years

14 did you have those?

15 A. I looked at records starting approximately January 1st of

16 2000 through June of 2006.

17 Q. And again, why not before or after that?

18 A. Banks only keep records going back so many years. And due

19 to the statute of limitations on the various charges we were

20 looking at, we didn't go back further than 2000.

21 Q. And in terms of the money orders, you reviewed those; did

22 you add up the dollar figures over the years that you had?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And how much money was involved there?

25 A. For the time period 2000 through 2005, it was approximately

440



1 $880,000 or somewhere around there.

2 Q. And did you prepare a chart of those amounts?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And I would like to at this time -- can you see that?

5 A. Yes, I can see it.

6 Q. That's a chart you prepared, and that's BNK-23. Is that

7 correct?

8 A. That's correct.

9 Q. And just walk the jury through that document, please.

10 A. This spreadsheet --

11 THE COURT: You want the jury to see it?

12 MR. BUTLER: I'm sorry.

13 BY MR. BUTLER:

14 Q. This is from the review of your bank records, the bank

15 records -- I'm sorry, the money orders you reviewed in this

16 matter. Is that correct?

17 A. This spreadsheet shows not only money orders, but also

18 personal checks that were received, and traveler's checks

19 relating to the business activity of Pamela Martin & Associates.

20 MR. BUTLER: I would move to admit BNK-23, Your Honor.

21 MR. BURTON: No objection.

22 THE COURT: Received, and you may show it to the jury.

23 (Government Exhibit BNK-23 was moved into evidence.)

24 BY MR. BUTLER:

25 Q. Could you walk the jury through what that document shows,

441



1 please?

2 A. The document shows in the columns the years 2000 through

3 2005, with the final column being the total. And then the

4 receipts per the bank records, and the asterisk indicating it

5 includes all money orders, checks, traveler's checks deposited

6 into the accounts related to the business activity of PMA,

7 including both Wells Fargo Bank and Charles Schwab.

8 And then you have the individual amounts per year, to

9 total up to the $882,649.48.

10 Q. And just for the record, would you read off the years, the

11 individual years in terms of what the amounts are, please?

12 A. For 2000, it is $185,265.25; for 2001, it's $177,098.17;

13 2002, $124,605; 2003, $142,341.06; 2004, $158,835; and 2005,

14 $94,505.

15 Q. And in lay terms, what does this diagram show? What is the

16 purpose of this diagram?

17 A. This diagram just shows only the business receipts that were

18 deposited into her account. So it's an analysis of seeing how

19 much income she was receiving for the business over this period

20 of time.

21 Q. And when you say she, to whom are you referring?

22 A. Deborah Jeanne Palfrey.

23 Q. Did you do another diagram or another graph of that same

24 information, to show it in a different format?

25 A. Yes, I did a graphical column bar chart to show the same

442



1 amounts.

2 MR. BUTLER: I need to show this to the witness but not

3 the jury for one moment.

4 THE COURT: All right.

5 BY MR. BUTLER:

6 Q. This is BNK-24.

7 THE COURT: It's just the same numbers in a bar chart?

8 MR. BURTON: Yeah, it's just cumulative.

9 THE COURT: It's not very edifying. Why don't we move

10 on? I think the jury can handle those numbers.

11 MR. BUTLER: Is there any objection to its admission?

12 MR. BURTON: Objection.

13 THE COURT: It's been objected to as cumulative. The

14 objection is sustained.

15 BY MR. BUTLER:

16 Q. Would the chart that you already talked about show all

17 postal money orders, or just those that were deposited?

18 A. It would only show those that were deposited. If the postal

19 money order had been cashed, it would not be included on that

20 chart.

21 Q. You mentioned earlier a search warrant that was done at the

22 residence of Deborah Jeanne Palfrey?

23 A. That is correct. A search warrant was done on the 4th of

24 October 2006.

25 Q. And was there a search warrant obtained for that search?

443



1 A. Yes.

2 Q. From where?

3 A. It was obtained from the magistrate judge in Sacramento,

4 California.

5 Q. And when was that search?

6 A. The search was actually on October 4th, 2006.

7 Q. Were you involved in that search?

8 A. Yes, I was.

9 Q. What was recovered during that search generally,

10 category-wise?

11 A. The search of the defendant's residence in Vallejo, we

12 uncovered all types of financial records: Binders containing

13 information on the individuals who were working for the

14 organization, phone records, utility records, tax returns,

15 checks, appointment books. Just a lot of different

16 correspondence information.

17 Q. And those are the tax returns that you already testified

18 about, that went beyond the ones the IRS had. Is that correct?

19 A. That's correct. We found tax returns from 1991 through

20 2005.

21 Q. And did you review those earlier returns as well?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And did they show how far back Pamela Martin & Associates

24 went?

25 A. Yes. The 1993 tax return indicates that that is the

444



1 beginning year for Pamela Martin & Associates.

2 Q. I'm sorry, you said which year?

3 A. 1993.

4 Q. Let me also have you take a look at -- not to the jury at

5 the moment, but the --

6 I would like you to take a look at what's been marked

7 as TAX-310 through 334. You've reviewed these documents before.

8 Is that correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. These are the ones you talked about?

11 A. Yes. I'm waiting for it to come up on the screen.

12 Q. And what is the first page of TAX-310? What is that?

13 A. It is a copy of Deborah Jeanne Palfrey's form 1040, page

14 one, for 1993.

15 Q. And in terms of the -- if we flip through the pages of that,

16 would the entire tax return be there?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And I would like to take a look at TAX-285 through 309.

19 What is that?

20 A. 285 is a copy of Deborah Jeanne Palfrey's form 1040 for

21 1994, page one.

22 Q. And if we flip through the pages, would we have the rest of

23 the tax return?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. I would like to review TAX-271 through 284.

445



1 A. 271 --

2 THE COURT: I think I know where we're going with this,

3 counsel. Is there a stipulation?

4 MR. BURTON: That's why I'm taking a look at the hard

5 copy, judge. I think we'll be able to arrive at one pretty

6 quickly.

7 MR. BUTLER: That's fine, Your Honor.

8 THE COURT: Why don't you take a second and see if you

9 can? Because nobody can really see these things as they go by,

10 anyway.

11 (OFF THE RECORD.)

12 MR. BURTON: We don't object to these returns coming

13 in. We can expedite this.

14 THE COURT: Just give us the TAX numbers of the

15 earliest and latest, tell us briefly what they are, and they'll

16 all be offered in a lump.

17 Don't take this personally, Mr. Burrus.

18 MR. BURTON: I'm sure he gets it all the time.

19 MR. BUTLER: Your Honor, you want just the first number

20 of the different years of returns?

21 THE COURT: Just do it the fastest way you can.

22 MR. BUTLER: Okay. The numbers are all -- the first

23 number, it's in sort of a reverse order. Well, let me start it

24 this way, Your Honor:

25 TAX-9 through TAX-334 are the tax returns in reverse

446



1 order of the years; in other words, going 2005, 2004, 2003,

2 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999 --

3 THE COURT: All the way back to 1993?

4 MR. BUTLER: Yes, Your Honor.

5 THE COURT: Offered into evidence?

6 MR. BUTLER: Yes, Your Honor.

7 THE COURT: Received. Thank you.

8 (Government Exhibits TAX-009 to TAX-334 were moved into

9 evidence.)

10 MR. BUTLER: And I would also like to offer the binders

11 as well, Your Honor, the ones I previously referred to.

12 THE COURT: 17 through 22?

13 MR. BUTLER: BNK-17 through 22, yes.

14 THE COURT: Now, are these going to be the subject of a

15 Rule 1006 summary?

16 MR. BURTON: Yes, Your Honor.

17 MS. CONNELLY: I have a stipulation.

18 THE COURT: I don't think all those documents have to

19 be in evidence if they're made available under Rule 1006.

20 There's no point in sending all that back to the jury room and

21 letting the jury think they have to go through all that if

22 they're just getting a summary.

23 MR. BUTLER: That's fine, Your Honor. I believe we

24 have a stipulation that will cover it.

25 MR. BURTON: We entered a stipulation that these are

447



1 financial documents, so...

2 THE COURT: Okay. Moving right on.

3 MR. BURTON: Your Honor, could I read this stipulation

4 at this time?

5 THE COURT: Yes.

6 MR. BUTLER: Thank you. "The United States and

7 defendant Deborah Jeanne Palfrey, after consultation with her

8 counsel, stipulate and agree that: The government has

9 established the authenticity and admissibility of the financial

10 business records, documents, records, reports, and data

11 compilation under Federal Rules of Evidence 803.6; and has

12 produced declarations conforming to Federal Rules of

13 Evidence 902.11 from a custodian of records for business records

14 relating to accounts maintained on behalf of the defendant by

15 the following businesses:

16 Wells Fargo & Company, and Charles Schwab & Company

17 Incorporated, a subsidiary of the Charles Schwab Corporation.

18 The parties agree that the defendant may still object

19 to such records on the basis of relevancy, Federal Rules of

20 Evidence 402, and any improper prejudice, Federal Rules of

21 Evidence 403."

22 THE COURT: Very well.

23 BY MR. BUTLER:

24 Q. If I could just pull out the -- and this might be easier,

25 Agent Burrus. I'll hand you TAX-0096 through 138. What is

448



1 that?

2 A. This is a copy of the 2002 form 1040 filed by Deborah Jeanne

3 Palfrey.

4 Q. And would you go to the Schedule C -- I'm sorry, the line C

5 on that document? Is that for an individual or for a business?

6 A. Form 1040 is for an individual filing.

7 Q. For what? I'm sorry --

8 A. The form 1040 is a U.S. individual income tax return.

9 Q. Would you go to line C on that document?

10 A. Line C of -- you mean Schedule C?

11 Q. I mean Schedule C. Thank you.

12 A. (Witness complies.) All right.

13 Q. What is a Schedule C in a tax return?

14 A. A Schedule C that's attached to the form 1040 is to report

15 profit or loss from a business of a sole proprietorship or a

16 single-member L.L.C.

17 Q. And was that Schedule C filed by Ms. Palfrey in this matter?

18 A. Yes, she did file a Schedule C.

19 Q. For what business?

20 A. For the business listed as Pamela Martin & Associates.

21 Q. And is there a Schedule A in there, too?

22 A. Yes, there is a Schedule A.

23 Q. And what is a Schedule A?

24 A. A Schedule A is where you report your itemized deductions,

25 which includes taxes you may have paid, interest on your home,

449



1 gifts to charity, casualty/theft losses, and other miscellaneous

2 expenses.

3 Q. And does the tax return say what type of business Pamela

4 Martin & Associates was?

5 A. It lists it as a "Service/Personal business."

6 Q. And what document within the tax return is that?

7 A. That is listed on Schedule C, line A.

8 Q. And does the tax return say the accounting method that was

9 used for that business?

10 A. Yes. On line F she selected or chose accounting method as

11 "cash."

12 Q. On the Schedule C?

13 A. That's correct.

14 Q. And what does that mean?

15 A. A cash basis method of accounting means that when you

16 receive income, you report it in the year that you actually

17 receive it. And when you incur expenses or actually pay the

18 expenses, you can take those as expenses.

19 Q. And is that on a gross receipt, net receipt? How was that

20 done?

21 A. I'm not sure I understand the question.

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? [Ed.--Emphasis added.]

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. [Ed.--Emphasis added.]

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

18 THE COURT: Yes.

19 (BENCH CONFERENCE ON THE RECORD.)

20 MR. BURTON: 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. [Ed.--Emphasis added.]

23 THE COURT: You just saddled her with basically what is

24 false reporting. [Ed.--Emphasis added.]

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?

452



1 MR. BUTLER: We can do that, Your Honor.

2 THE COURT: I think I want to instruct the jury that

3 there was no tax charge, no tax claim in this case.

4 MR. BUTLER: That's fine, Your Honor.

5 THE COURT: Maybe I'll even instruct them they are to

6 disregard that last answer because it's not relevant to your

7 case. ...