article/phone interview on dc madam case & account at internet chronicle

This is the very first article on the case and the book, among other topics. I spoke with their correspondent Tyler Bass today, and it was a pretty fruitful discussion on the case and its known and unknown aspects and meanings. I feel my perspective on the case was honestly represented and that he made a number of interesting observations, a few I'd never considered before.

That's typical of the case: some aspects of it look one way to one observer, another to someone else, and what you have is a patchwork that frequently defies explanation. There are always going to be a lot of mysteries swirling around this case, because it involved the secret world of intelligence. To what extent, I don't know, but it did.

As I told Tyler, were I to summarize the DC Madam case simply, I'd say that it was a branch of Hookergate, most likely the Randy Cunningham/Brent Wilkes/Kyle Foggo "Poway mafia," all of whom were busted over activities surrounding influence peddling, getting that pork back to San Diego and into their pockets first. How big is all of this? I don't know. What I do know is that there was a strong motive in sensationalizing the case to divert away from the real corruption staring us all in the face.

"Matt Janovic Opens Up Hookergate," The Internet Chronicle, January 26th, 2013: http://www.chronicle.su/news/matt-janovic-opens-up-hookergate/

Alex Jones Featured Prominently in Upcoming DC Madam Account

There are no words to describe this scummy dirtbag and his audience, you'd have to grab some from other languages. I wasn't aware of it until last year, but Jones did a radio interview with Deborah Jeane Palfrey (aka "the DC Madam") in the spring of 2008, not long before her trial. It was her final interview with him for his moronic syndicated radio show. It's up on Youtube, check it out some time. If you want a good example of someone asking leading questions, look no further, Jones lets his ass hang out in the wind in it.

Worst of all: If you know most of the context of the case and how it played out, you can hear the ambulance chaser concocting his own conspiracy theory before her death. Suffice it to say this gets more elaboration in the text, but Jones is busted here, it's one more example of what a disgusting exploiter and a demagogue he truly is. His audience are way beyond sick and would make good redneck extras in Twain's Huckleberry Finn. I used to think this bastard and his ilk were lowly, but this one tops my worst assumptions about this asshole, this liar, this degenerate, who routinely abuses the First Amendment. He should in fact be taken off of the air for his alarmist comments as well as his pandering to what are very violent, extremist elements in American life.

Filmmaker Richard Linklater should be ashamed for putting this turd in not one, but two of his feature films, both animated. President Lincoln was in fact wrong to fight southern secession after all...

Be sure to check this link at Jay Beldo's site...

WWW--I love this guy. He's very positive in his thinking in a realistic way and has a real disdain for a lot of New Age culture, that it's more about the money, selling crap. This new post he's done is incredible, I'm floored: a fully-armed luxury cruise! You have to see this to believe it, I'm floored by its very open and obvious stupidity and male overcompensation, a hallmark of dying gender roles in a thankfully dying order.

I first came upon Jay's site through the street fight with conspiracy nut Alex Constantine over whether the DC Madam hanged herself or was "suicided" by "government operatives," a theory that has no evidence to support beyond a few comments that Palfrey made to the press and other outlets. What it tends to ignore are the obvious suicide-cues she was putting-out all over the place, but selective cut-n'-pasting is what the fringe right are all about.

To make an overlong story short, I submitted a comment on Constantine's site which he approved, opening a real Pandora's Box for himself, with all kinds of recriminations flying in both directions. At one point, Constantine wrote a three-part, two-part series on little old me that still befuddles (check the labels for more), so he must have viewed me as some kind of a mortal threat to an already dying career in paranoiac historical fiction. What was the deal? He didn't have to accept the first comment, that's what moderation is for, and that's why I knew his threats of a defamation suit were a bluff, more bullshit from an arch-conservative asshole with a trust fund.

So, I went to Jay's site and posted some comments asking about his threats, and Jay was very kind with his anecdotes about Constantine, that he smoked dope like a chimney, was paranoid, and that in-sum, his writing was probably drug-fueled, and this is by-way of his own former publisher, Adam Parfrey (Feral House). Ironically, just a week-or-so earlier, I'd approached Parfrey about possibly publishing my DC Madam account, but I'm no longer interested in that avenue anyway. Welcome to the world of writing. It's not safe, and it ain't pretty. Constantine must have made threats to Beldo--which is pretty lame on his part--and the comments were pulled, but I'm sure someone, somewhere have captured them. If you did, I'd love to obtain them for later reference, they're a hoot (pun intended).

Anyway, none of this is to impugn on Jay, I think he's right on, far-in, far-out, and a very insightful and interesting writer all around with an interesting take on the way things are right now. He also sings and plays a mean guitar, I like the guy. Visit his site, it's worth the look and the read.

http://blog.lavacocktail.com/2009/11/30/the-ultimate-adventure-cruise.aspx

Alex Constantine, where art thou?

WWW--Over a year ago, the other paranoid Alex threatened to sue me, and right after he had a near-miss with a civil suit of his own! After making some rather pointed remarks on one of his comments threads (moderated by himself, so he cannot complain, he let it pass) about the nature of Jeane's death (she was NOT murdered, wake up), he got pissed-off when I wrote that he was making these wild claims along with others to get attention and basically make money, sell merch, ad space, whatever.

That's my opinion and I have a right to it, but he didn't think so, so he went and wrote a 3-part, 2-part piece (ask him) about me that was rife with speculation and just more wild allegations and flat-out untruths. At least he finally noticed Jeffrey A. Taylor when he came to my site and read my Palfrey material, and he dutifully regurgitated it as I assume the rest of his ilk does. Then, dumbbells can go, "Look, see? He wrote against this like the lefty-guys!" when it's really just about more grist for his mill and his anti-government agenda, a right-wing agenda.

It should be said and written again and again: government isn't the problem, it's the people that get voted in--mostly by the right--who are the problem, they are corrupt. It's like blaming the hammer instead of the guy who hit you in the head with it, it's a moronic and dysfunctional argument that Jones, Constantine, Nimmo, Rense, and all the rest make, and too many on the so-called "progressive left" are buying into it because these nimrods simply know the right things to say to sway them.

Remember: genuine democracy is contentious, it is dirty and messy and ugly. People argue in a democracy. It can even get ugly. Never, ever, should it become violent when we disagree, not ever. But argue? We should be taking the gloves off all the time when it comes to our beliefs. You cannot be inert or neutral in any society, that's a myth, and I consider my writing a humble contribution to the dialog. Constantine and these parapoliticians, on the other hand, are trying very desperately to undermine our government.

We might ask them why, in seriousness, this is so, and why they don't suggest real reform and participation in the political process to fix things. It's my feeling that many of them are there to demoralize the left, the majority of Americans when it comes to issues of the role of government and social policy. I have no respect for these people and consider them wackos at best, provocateurs at worst. Government will always be the solution, and it's up to us to make it serve the public. To do nothing is just more self-fulfilled prophecy, more bullshit, like what these turds are selling in the form of t-shirts, books, and coffee mugs. It's a cottage industry.

Why Just Her, by Montgomery Blair Sibley (review)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2483B Zolpidem, Blood…

Analysis by Gas Chromatography (GC)

Zolpidem

Synonym(s): Ambien®

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23 receipts?

24 A. It shows gross receipts.

25 Q. And where does it show that?

450

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

2 gross receipts.

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

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

5 was received by the business during that year.

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

7 Is that correct?

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

9 received, that was sent to her.

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

11 Ms. Palfrey?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And what did that show?

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

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

16 reported on this line.

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

18 THE COURT: Yes.

19 (BENCH CONFERENCE ON THE RECORD.)

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

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

22 anything to that effect.

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

24 false reporting.

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

451

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

2 inquiry.

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

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

5 to do that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13 don't know anything more than that.

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

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

16 just have a moment, Your Honor?

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

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

19 I can have a moment.

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

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

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

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

24 admit through him, yes.

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Former DC Madam Montgomery Blair Sibley's account "Why Just Her" now available through internet

WWW--As a participant in some of what happened, this is going to take some recalibration, but having perused through Mr. Sibley's book today, I have to say that first impressions are everything and that my own is a good one.

Amazon.com began exclusive sales yesterday, the first anniversary of Jeane's untimely death, and it's a wait-and-see what the public and critical responses are going to be. Having been "burned" (some of this remains to be seen) by Palfrey on several occasions, it's hard to say if any of the mainstream media or press are going to bite. At 598 pages, it's a hefty tome, but definitely a page-turner, and the public shouldn't be dissuaded that it's going to be a litany of legal citations, it is not.

From what I'm seeing in the text based on my own experiences, they should find a very intriguing story that would rival most pulp detective stories for their twists-and-turns.

Sibley writes:

Jeane became an internationally known, heroic figure for living her life without excuses and standing up to the Bush Administration’s misogynist, right-wing pandering, political agenda. The book identifies the external and internal demons that drove Jeane from an initially defiant woman willing to fight the government to a woman so despairing as to take her own life prior to sentencing upon her conviction for Prostitution Racketeering and Money Laundering. (Homepage, www.whyjusther.com, 05.01.2009)

I don't entirely agree or disagree with Mr. Sibley's contentions of the first sentence of the paragraph, but there is a core truth to it. She really was up against a culture of institutionalized misogyny--a culture that will go to great lengths to protect itself in the courts. To his credit, Sibley doesn't pander to the contention that Palfrey was somehow murdered by the federal government.

If anyone might feel compelled to, it would be him. Good show, and an honorable thing.

But truly, one lone woman actually did have to stand up to the questionable Bush II Justice Department, it's just the truth of the matter. In a way, she was an unwilling reformer. In a Hermetic reversal, Palfrey handily took down the State Department's Randall L. Tobias, just another dubious appointee of a totally corrupt administration; she exposed former Clinton adviser Dick Morris (this is frequently forgotten), and exposed a standing Republican senator as a hypocrite and a liar. Her case made it plain what the legal disparities are in prostitution cases in America between the prostitutes and their clients. Most of the time, the "johns" walk and the women go to jail. Palfrey's case could be the final underscoring of this fact. But the book--by its nature as an account--is also about former counsel Montgomery Blair Sibley.

In keeping with this, there was there was another related action on the very same day of the release of Sibley's book: the upholding of the three year suspension of his law license in D.C. . In just another curiously timed decision in what can only be called a bizarre saga, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that Sibley cannot practice law in the District of Columbia for three years, but with a hitch that might be missed by the layman.

Sibley's suspension is partially retroactive, but the actual suspension will be three years upon its completion, ostensibly in the spring of 2011:

We subsequently appointed amicus curiae to assist the court and heard argument at Sibley’s request. The issues before the court are whether the procedures [PAGE BREAK] employed by the Florida Supreme Court and the Referee appointed by that court were so lacking in notice or the opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process and whether the Florida Supreme Court issued a sanction with such infirmity of proof as to require further review. We find that Sibley has failed to demonstrate that there was a lack of notice or infirmity of proof and thus suspend Sibley from practicing before this court for three years, nunc pro tunc to May 12, 2008, on the same conditions as imposed by the Florida Supreme Court. (U.S. Court of Appeals Docket case "No. 08-7121, IN RE: MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY, RESPONDENT," uscourts.gov, 05.01.2009)

"Nunc pro tunc" is a legal term meaning that the suspension is retroactive to May 12, 2008. In other words, he's already "served" the first year already, simple.

A review of Why Just Her will be forthcoming at this location. Expect more of the unexpected.

"Court Suspends License of D.C. Madam's Lawyer," The Blog of Legal Times, 05.01.2009: http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/05/dc-circuit-suspends-lawyer-for-three-years.html

U.S. Court of Appeals Docket case "No. 08-7121, IN RE: MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY, RESPONDENT ": http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200905/08-7121-1178624.pdf

The official site of Why Just Her:www.whyjusther.com

Former DC Madam Montgomery Blair Sibley: "Jeane and Psychics"

WWW--Beginning this week, former DC Madam attorney Montgomery Blair Sibley has begun a blog recounting some biographical details on himself and his erstwhile client, and some of them are pretty surprising, even to these eyes:

Starting in the 1980s – when Jeane was running her “Unique Club for Men”, an in-call massage parlor disguised as a barber shop in Orlando, Florida – Jeane regularly visited the community of Cassadaga, Florida. As the website for Cassadaga states: “Through the years, many psychics have enjoyed reading in Cassadaga due to the ethereal vibrations with Spirit and clients with utmost clarity. These special

etheric vibrations emanate from the earth itself, sometimes called Ley Lines or energy Hot Spots. Known as “The Psychic Center of the World”, Cassadaga continues today as the premiere psychic community and is home to some of America’s finest psychics.”

It was a psychic there in the mid 1980s who told Jeane that her business was under investigation by the Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation and she should leave town. In short order, Jeane sold the business and left Orlando for San Diego, California.("Jeane and Psychics," Amos Probos.blogspot, 04.17.2009)

This jibes with comments Jeane made to me, and a curious pen pal who came along during the proceedings through a third party email service who claimed to have been Jeane's personal astrologer. They used a pseudonym, but it wouldn't surprise me if Hazil Tomim, mentioned later in the blog post.

What's interesting is that I believe Tomim told Palfrey that the case would come out in her favor, just as the pseudonymous pen pal stated to me. Considering the issue of abatement, they could be right; Palfrey's family could very well get back most of her assets from the federal government thanks to the fact that she died before sentencing. For anyone foolish enough to believe Jeane was murdered by the federal government, there's your motive for suicide, she was adamant that they weren't getting her assets under any condition.

She meant what she said, contrary to the ravings of Alex Jones, Constantine, and Kurt Nimmo, and she said it to me and many others, including more than a few journalists. It's going to be interesting if I'll even be mentioned in Sibley's 600+ page tome on his experience of the Palfrey saga. At the very least, there will be some interesting primary material in addition to the attorney's take on his client, the government's prosecution, and whatnot.

It appears--contrary to my own earlier fears--that Mr. Sibley is going to go with the fairly obvious fact that Ms. Palfrey was guilty, to his credit. Be sure to check-out the conspiracy coffee mugs and t-shirts at Prisonplanet and Infowars, they're a hoot!

"Jeane and Psychics," Amos Probos.blogspot, 04.17.2009: http://amoprobos.blogspot.com/2009/04/jeane-and-psychics.html

More "she were suicided" fun at UK site Mathaba

Ed.--It never ends, and what a bunch of scared turds there are out there. She committed suicide. A jackape named "Sarah" points-out that I made an observation last May that Palfrey's suicide notes were legitimate and that some wild speculator named "J.J. Raymond" was completely wrong in his analysis of the handwriting.

As any fool knows--and aren't we all fools these days--handwriting analysis is entirely speculative and not a science but an art. Not that this little man was working from originals at any point, nor is likely to ever do so. He and the "she were suicided" crew have nothing.

Raymond and these morons know this, and they know that that's all they have regarding the death of Jeane Palfrey: speculations, and wild ones with wild leaps of logic found among those with just enough knowledge to be a problem to others. That's right, stupid people who can read a little. Below is my reply to "Sarah," I assume a fake identity of someone without a shred of credibility when it comes to the last year of Deborah Jeane Palfrey.

"The problem with your contention is that I'm saying the suicide notes were not forged, they were real. Therefore--based on my own ten month correspondence with her, my general defense research for her--I say none of you have a clue what you're talking/writing about here in any respect. I could care less about Mr. Raymond's opinions on the matter, or those found in the rest of the comments.

You were not part of the story, I was, and so were others. Ask Larisa Alexandrovna, go ask any of the journalists who interviewed her and they will tell you that she was unbalanced throughout the entire ordeal. That you cannot ascertain the obvious from the whole catastrophe is a mark of how unintelligent and irrational you all are.

Let me make it clear: she killed herself by her own hand. She was offered excellent plea deals that she refused again and again, she put out numerous suicidal cues throughout the affair, she had made similar threats/statements back in 1992, she emailed me, a co-researcher, and noted journalist Jason Leopold (hiding it, presumably) from her then-counsel, and she even expressed it to her civil counsel, Montgomery Blair Sibley. This is why he was removed from the case by her. There is more, and it is coming from me and from others who I assume are writing their own accounts for the record.

But again, I could really care less about the opinions of those who have no idea what they're talking about in this whole story. Why you wish to believe this--and it is a desire, obviously--is a matter of scared little people. Go ahead, believe the world is flat, there is a divine Jesus, there are aliens abducting rednecks (who else would they want to communicate with?), and that everything is under totalitarian rule. Believe the fiction, I don't really care, and neither do most intelligent adults with a clue."

I would also add that pointing-out earlier comments when the news was fresh is the oldest trick in the book on the part of the huckster conspiracy salesperson. Want fries with your book and conspiracy mug? I know, I know: t'was the gub'ment, even before there was one.

That's an arch-conservative argument, incidentally (not-so-incidentally, or coincidentally), part of the redneck problem. Congratulations Sarah, you learned how to cut-and-paste, you're a genius. Mr. Raymond? A funny little man with very little company on this topic.