An open letter to Attorney General Eric Holder

Dear Mr. Holder,

I understand that you have concluded that there were instances of prosecutorial misconduct in the case of former Senator Ted Stevens and that you have concluded it would be wise to drop the case and the conviction. This is good.

But I would enjoin you to look into other cases of what could very well be other instances of misconduct by U.S. Attorneys working under the influence of the Bush II administration. There are the cases of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and Mississippi attorney Paul Minor--both Democrats--and there's every indication that they were targets of selective politically motivated prosecutions by the Bush II DOJ. Serious probes are in order here.

It is my hope that a wider-ranging commission into the mismanagement and politicization of the Justice Department will be proposed by yourself and President Obama and the OLC. If we wish to restore the credibility of the DOJ, there must be transparency and accountability, even once someone has left public service.

I would bring to your attention the fact that the late Deborah Jeane Palfrey (aka the "DC Madam") was definitely a victim of similar misconduct when federal investigators or prosecutors extralegally leaked an unsigned federal search warrant to journalist and editor Bill Bastone, editor of the Tru TV website, "The Smoking Gun."

It's my opinion that Mr. Bastone needs to be compelled before a federal grand jury to discuss the conditions of the transfer of this information to his person, who did so in officialdom, and whatever else might have transpired between them. There was more than one case of misconduct beyond the Stevens case, and the rule of law must be respected and preserved. I hope that you feel the same.

yours, Matt Janovic, writer and researcher

An open letter to Brent Wilkes, convicted briber of former GOP Rep. Randy Cunningham

Mr. Wilkes,

Now that you're out on appeal, it struck me that it was time to write this: I was told on several occasions by Deborah Jeane Palfrey (aka "The DC Madam") that you called her escort service, Pamela Martin & Associates. Ms. Palfrey informed me that you utilized Shirlington Limousine, owned by a shady individual named Christopher D. Baker to pick-up her escorts.

One of these escorts attempted to contact journalist Ken Silverstein to confirm this and other things, but Mr. Silverstein either lost his courage and fell on his sword, or he's telling the truth and his secretary lost the phone number. Had he bothered to isolate the day and time of the original call, he might have discovered who this former Pamela Martin escort was, but I assume like the rest of the media and our flabby journalistic class, he didn't want to know. Shame on him and you.

Ms. Palfrey probably wasn't able to establish your calls, although presumably they still exist, submerged, in her voluminous phone records that are still available online at this writing. I don't expect you to do the right thing--one would assume you wouldn't know what that is or what it entails, but a woman is dead, and you own a small piece of that.

Surely, it's a lost cause to ask or demand that you come forward to confirm these contentions of the deceased, but you should. It would behoove you and redeem you to help uncover a system of bribes-for-contracts in our nation. The short time you're going to serve--inside or outside, it doesn't matter in the end--is less important than the American people and the common good.

Journalist and editor of The Smoking Gun.com, Bill Bastone, grilled Ms. Palfrey in early October of 2006, accusing her of having connections to you and Randy Cunningham, the former-and-convicted GOP congressman whom you bribed--he was utterly convinced of it at that time and kept pushing the late Ms. Palfrey on this issue.

How would Bill Bastone have known this? It could have been leaked to him by federal prosecutors. I leave it to you and your counsel to weigh-out this information, because it could be an example of prosecutorial misconduct in your case and in the case of the deceased Ms. Palfrey. It's food for thought, and I'd consider its weight. You aren't the only one suffering under prosecutorial misconduct these days. The former governor of Alabama and Ms. Palfrey were recent victims.

regards, Matt Janovic, private researcher and writer

The Smoking Gun's Bill Bastone: "Bottom Feeder," according to late DC Madam

WWW--Below is an excerpt of correspondence between Jeane Palfrey and nefarious cop/prosecutor lover Bill Bastone, ostensible editor of The Smoking Gun. What a piece-of-shit he is: Palfrey's trial was almost a year away. The world first learned of this story from his website, and it wasn't on-accident.

Posting Palfrey's early-1990s mugshot mirrors the prosecution's strategy, and "bad-jacketed" the defendant as a felon.

It begs-the-question: how many times has Bastone engaged in this behavior before? Who is he? Really? What is he? What is the real role of The Smoking Gun site?

Someone within the government's investigation and prosecution provided him--illegally--with an unsigned search warrant (it's dated Oct. 4th, 2006, and still online), and more. In the opinion of this writer, at-minimum, Bill Bastone is that most despicable of so-called journalists--the "friendly asset." Guilty, or innocent, how can anyone have a fair trial under such circumstances?

What Bastone did was to taint virtually every potential jury member out there, by colluding with the prosecution--there is no other conclusion to be made from this. My take. Prove me wrong. What I do pledge is that I will be filing FOIAs on this matter until the end of my life. Bastone appears to have no concept of due process or the time honored American tradition that one is presumed innocent until found guilty in a fair trial. He ensured that this wasn't going to happen by his actions.

Mr. Bastone… I can assure you that sooner or later, I will get to the bottom of this mess. In particular, I am going to find out who leaked the unsigned search warrant to you, last October and who you really are and/or represent. –Jeane Palfrey

-----Original Message-----
From: william bastone [mailto:wbastone@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 9:29 AM
To: jeanepalfrey@sprynet.com
Subject: Re: D.C. Madam Can Peddle "Call" List - July 5, 2007

jeane:

let's see, you've turned women out for almost 20

years [Ed.--Told to you by whom?], which seems to make the "veteran pimp" moniker

pretty accurate. as for the bottom feeder crack, well, i'm not going to

challenge your particular ability to identify that

species.[Ed.--Correct, she knew scum when she saw it.]

finally, does this mean you won't be e-mailing us your phone logs? because i had cleared my calendar for the

rest of the month... [Ed.--Here, Bastone makes-it-plain which

camp he's in and that he's not interested in the phone logs, which is curious considering the nature of his site. Amazing.]

regards,bill bastone

--- Jeane Palfrey wrote:

>

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0705072palfrey1.html?link=rs

> sfeed

>

> Mr. Bastone... "the veteran pimp" - you continue to

> be nothing, but a bottom

> feeder. Jeane Palfrey

>

>

William Bastone

thesmokinggun.com

600 Third Avenue

16th Floor

New York, N.Y. 10016

(212) 692-7849

The Smoking Gun's May 2008 request for the death photos (and other materials) of late DC Madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey

Tarpon Springs, Florida/New York City--Sometime in May, The Smoking Gun requested all records pertinent to the May 1st death of DC Madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey. It appears they were the only ones, though the floodgates would have been opened had they secured the death photos for publication. The St. Petersburg Times requested the records verbally, according to the City Clerk's Office of Tarpon Springs (by way of Frazer Hubbard Brandt Trask & Yacavone, LLP).

Luckily, this won't ever happen. The public and the press can look at the images at the records department in Tarpon Springs, take their notes, but they cannot duplicate them for commercial purposes. They won't be making their coffee-table books, or their tell-all portrayals of the deceased. They won't be putting her image on anything.

But they tried, and it necessitated legal action by Palfrey's estate--namely, costing her 76-year-old mother Blanche valuable time, money, and emotional distress. The simplest and most economical way to suppress the death photos was to take legal action against the Tarpon Springs Police Department to achieve this.

They say that Truman Capote drank, drugged, and partied himself to death after the publication of "In Cold Blood." in the New Yorker in 1965 (the book version came in 1966). Capote had already shown signs of chronic depression and mental imbalance well-before the execution of murderer Perry Smith and the book's publication.

But he felt guilty for what he perceived as a betrayal of the confidences of the two murderers, particularly Smith. His betrayals of them were just one in a string of many. Truman Capote was a pathological liar and manipulator, but he had a conscience that haunted him. Capote got too close to his subject, and paid for his sins against them through the last years of his dissipated life.

The Palfrey story illustrates how far we have all fallen since then as a culture and a nation. Below are two letters: The Smoking Gun's request for all records on the death of the DC Madam, and the response from the Tarpon Springs PD. Far from being content in their abetting the federal government in running Palfrey to her death, they wanted a look at some of their handiwork--and that uncontrollable urge to turn a buck at the expense of the wretched.

Official: Pinellas County Judge rules DC Madam "death photos" cannot be published

"Please, this is the last thing I can do for my daughter. Please don't let these pictures get out in public. Please." --Blanche Palfrey, mother of the deceased Deborah Jeane Palfrey, yesterday.

Pinellas County, Florida--Judge Linda Allen has found that the 288 photographs of the deceased Deborah Jeane Palfrey (dubbed the "DC Madam" by a voracious media) are part of the public record that can be viewed by the press and other interested parties.

In other words, members of the public can look at the photographs, but they cannot make copies of them for publication by order of the court.

Some parties--the worst ones--are likely to file an appeal, but it's unlikely to go anywhere. That's good. Blanche Palfrey can have some much needed peace in this story, and the dead can rest in peace. And those with the big book deals in the works won't get their photographs for a depraved centerpiece. My heart bleeds to the acolytes of the money god.

This should also help finally quash the rumor-mongering of the likes of a Larry Flynt (there are no words) or an Alex Jones, that Palfrey was murdered and that it was made to look like a suicide. Perhaps we should mourn the fact that there won't be any t-shirts, posters, mugs, and of course, or books adorned with the images of death.

After all, we don't really care how someone turns-a-buck in this country, and all this death-merchandise could have been manufactured with cheap forced labor in China. That would have meant a real windfall for some, and as we all know, that's inhibiting the rights of the individual. Yes, life is just "unfair," I know.

This hypothesis of murder has no evidence whatsoever to support it at this time, and this writer predicts that there won't be any once the investigation by the Tarpon Springs Police Department is completed and made public. The article at 620 WDAE is rife with typos. Welcome to America, but we have a victory for dignity, and a blow to the runaway scandal entrepreneur.

"D.C. Madam Suicide Photos Are Public Record, but they can't be published," 620 WDAE.com, 08.15.2008: http://www.620wdae.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=124415&article=4105670

Late DC Madam's mother Blanche Palfrey breaks down in court

"Up the close and down the stair,
In the house with Burke and Hare.
Burke’s the butcher, Hare’s the thief
Knox, the man who buys the beef."

--An Edinburgh children's song about Burke and Hare,
both 19th century grave robbers, murderers,
and all around exploiters of the dead.

Pinellas County, Florida--It's all about money, not about the truth, but the press are expending more effort on obtaining access to 288 death photos of Jeane Palfrey than they ever were at getting to the bottom of her story when she was alive. That's what they do.

Additionally, you have various "players" like former counsel Montgomery Blair Sibley, Preston Burton and Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe [Ed., 08.29.2008--In the spirit of fairness, it should be conveyed that counsel Sibley has written to myself via e-mail that the photos will not be published and that he's only looking to confirm the cause of death.], and bottom feeders like Alex Jones and Jeff Rense who are jockeying for a view of the goods. They don't care how they affect the 76-year-old mother of the deceased. What you have are a lot of agendas, and as Jean Renoir and Alexander Sesonske wrote in the screenplay for "Rules of the Game," "people have their reasons. They sure do.

There are no words for the craven attitudes of these people who had no genuine respect or concern for this late, troubled woman. They forgot their and her humanity a long time ago. Today, they caused the woman who gave birth to Palfrey to break down emotionally:

"This is the last thing I can do for my daughter," Palfrey said. "Please don't let these pictures get out in public."
News organizations have asked under Florida's public records law to inspect the photographs, a request opposed by Palfrey as a violation of her privacy. She filed a lawsuit against Tarpon Springs to prevent release of the photos.
Circuit Judge Linda R. Allen declared a break just before 11:30 a.m. so she could review the 288 photos in private.
The photos would not be released until after the investigation of the death. (" 'DC Madam's' Mom Breaks Down During Suicide Photo Hearing," The Suncoast News, 08.15.2008)

We might have a decision later today. My feelings are that they will be released to very hungry media and lawyers, and a gaggle of other opportunists who never cared to help Palfrey in any substantial sense. I lay no claim to a right to see these photographs, and would prefer not to ever see them.

It doesn't strike me that they'll offer anything new to the record or any understanding. What they will offer is the opportunity for those with book deals to have some nifty images for their tomes, and Blanche will just have to "accept" it "in the service of the truth." But the truth isn't what they're interested in, just the aforementioned money. Then, there are other issues at-play.

It was known by a number of individuals that Palfrey was threatening suicide during her proceedings, and nothing appears to have been done about it. This, then, could be one of the reasons Judge Gladys Kessler was removed from the case. If the judiciary knew of Palfrey's suicidal tendencies, they didn't act on it and never ordered a competency evaluation to see if she really was fit to stand trial. Various counsel at all points in the proceedings might have considered calling for one as well. Also, sources are saying that Blanche Palfrey is becoming "forgetful," which raises a number of legal issues regarding the Estate of Jeane Palfrey if it's true.

At-minimum, if the judges and the Justice Department knew about it, you have an incredible example of gross negligence. There was no call for a competency evaluation. A number of sealed records generated during pretrial legal proceedings could clarify this. The issue of competency over-complicates an already complex case, and it wasn't merely Palfrey who dragged-out her legal ordeal. She had a lot of help along the way from counsel and the prosecution.

Now, some of them outside of the prosecution (primarily in the media) want to continue exploiting Palfrey, even in death. What do you call exploiting the troubled life of a dead woman who might have been mentally unbalanced?

It can't be good, so let's call it "paying the mortgage" or the "bills." Granted that it's usually to pay for future investigations, but then, there's that lifestyle to pay for, or the fact that the bathroom needs retiling.

This writer wishes author William Keisling all the best of luck in his association with Montgomery Blair Sibley [Ed., 08.29.2008--They might both need that luck.]. He's going to need it. Burke's the butcher, and Hare's thief, and the publishers (and the public) are the ones who will buy the beef.

Revised, with comments, 08.29.2008

" 'DC Madam's' Mom Breaks Down During Suicide Photo Hearing," The Suncoast News, 08.15.2008: http://suncoastpinellas.tbo.com/content/2008/aug/15/mother-dc-madam-wants-suicide-photos-kept-private/?news

Geraldo/Fox News prompts another DC Madam story (tonight)

Mr. Welch: ...And if I did, I beg your pardon. Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator.

Senator McCarthy: Let's, let's --

Mr. Welch: You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

Senator McCarthy: I know this hurts you, Mr. Welch.

Mr. Welch: I'll say it hurts!

Senator McCarthy: Mr. Chairman, as point of personal privilege, I'd like to finish this.

Mr. Welch: Senator, I think it hurts you, too, sir. ...

--From the HUAC Army hearings, June 9th, 1954.

Fox News--They did this several months back before Palfrey's trial. Tonight, Alex Jones was going to try peddling his cock-and-bull theory that Jeane was murdered again, but it got shelved and Geraldo gave no reasons.

Geraldo verbally expressed the crux of what would have been the Jones appearance: Palfrey had voiced concerns that she might be murdered and that it would be made to look like a suicide. It's nothing new as a claim, and there appears to be no indication of anything new.

Peruse the internet's search engines, and there's nothing breaking, just the Blanche Palfrey lawsuit to keep her daughter's death photos suppressed. Who can blame her? The Tarpon Springs Police haven't released any new information on their investigation into the death today either, though they have previously announced that the end of the investigation into the death will be within "days." No new evidence.

Since when has no new evidence has never stopped Alex Jones from smelling the money? He's hardly alone, Fox and Geraldo smelled it tonight too. Why did they get cold feet? My own theory is that they killed it because there was no new information whatsoever...kind of like every story tonight on Geraldo's "Crime Time" segment. It was a lousy show, thank your gods you didn't have to sit through it...

We saw the Enquirer reporter who caught John Edwards with his mistress in a Beverley Hills hotel show us how he "ambushed" the former presidential candidate and senator--possibly with his mistresses' child! It was as underwhelming as "Al Capone's Vault," but that's Geraldo!

We saw to two smokin' hotties--a judge and a former D.A.--voice their opinions on John Edwards' tryst, a lot of speculation over whether he made "hush" payments, and a lot of other drivel in-between the dozen technical errors that plagued the entire show. We saw a lot of bullshit, and no Palfrey segment, and somehow we knew that they would never show it. We saw a lot of advertisements.

Why would someone want the death photos? I never want to see them. We're hearing claims that they should be examined by "experts," whatever that means. That's what a coroner is for. Oh, right, he's probably part of some kind of "conspiracy," sorry.

We know that at-minimum, Montgomery Blair Sibley and Bill Bastone have requested these photographs. There could be others, but the story that only the Smoking Gun requested the them sounds bogus, or a case of misquoting or misreporting. Whether it's a lag in a posting of the full docket or sloppy journalism, there are a number of individuals who want the Palfrey death photos for publication. Why? It's doubtful any of them care about the truth. Heartwarming, isn't it?

Alex Jones is also likely--likely?--to have requested the photographs. From the Pinellas County Circuit Court's website's docket of Blanche Palfrey vs. The Tarpon Springs Police Department:

Pages	Date	P/D	Docket Entry	Ver
	08/08/08	CLERK	REQUEST FOR COPIES EMAILED ON 8/8/08	N
	08/07/08	PLAINTIFF	AMENDED EMERGENCY MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF	F
	08/07/08	PLAINTIFF	AMENDED COMPLAINT	F
	08/05/08	CLERK	SUMMONS TO PROCESS SERVER JONES(1)	N
	08/05/08	PLAINTIFF	AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR INJ RELIEF	F
	08/05/08	PLAINTIFF	MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF	F
	08/05/08	PLAINTIFF	COMPLAINT	F
	08/05/08	PLAINTIFF	SUMMONS FEE PAID $10.00	N
	08/05/08	PLAINTIFF	CIRCUIT CIVIL FILING FEE PAID $300.00	N
	08/05/08	PLAINTIFF	CIVIL COVER SHEET	F

And so there you have a "Server Jones" on August 5th, which might have been Alex. Jones was probably going to have photos from the crime scene for Geraldo, or was expecting to obtain them or some other flimsy details from the investigation files to support his a priori assumptions that Deborah Jeane Palfrey was murdered. Things fell-through. Maybe he was taken to Syria to be tortured by CIA operatives.

Like Obama accuser Larry Sinclair (time to play 8 degress of Montgomery Blair Sibley), Jones and others have yet to produce even a shred of evidence to support their claim that Palfrey was murdered and that the crime scene was made to look like a suicide had taken place.

Evidence to support this contention has yet to surface. It's not likely that it ever will, but stirring-up speculation should help Jones sell some more merchandise on his websites. Snake oil, pure drivel.

Considering clown Alex and some of his misguided fans were thrown-out of Geraldo's show almost a year ago, with Jones and others being arrested, it's not hard to believe he wasn't on tonight. But does Geraldo ever shrink from a fight? Hardly, and I'll give him that. T-shirts, programs, and mugs will be available after the show. Forget your mind, there's a war for your wallet.

The Pinellas County Circuit Court's docket on Blanche Palfrey vs. The Tarpon Springs Police Department: http://pubtitlet.co.pinellas.fl.us/servlet/civil.docket.KEAD?CS__CASE=08011467CI&CS__RESULTS__KNT=10

D.C. Madam's mother sues to keep autopsy and suicide photos sealed

Tarpon Springs, Florida--The mother of the deceased DC Madam, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, is suing to keep crime scene photographs sealed. Blanche Palfrey has requested that photographs of Palfrey's corpse at the scene of discovery as well as autopsy photos be permanently kept from publication.

But who would want to publish them? Not this writer, but someone Jeane Palfrey referred to frequently to this writer as a "bastard," one Bill Bastone, editor of The Smoking Gun website.

"The only media or public interest in said photographs flows from a morbid exploitation by some members of the public and the pursuit of sensationalism by some members of the media," the lawsuit states.
As of today the only entity that has requested the photographs is SmokingGun.com, said Capt. Jeff Young of the Tarpon Springs Police Department.
The department has not released any photographs or police reports on Deborah Palfrey's suicide because the investigation isn't finished, but it should be in a matter of days, authorities say.

When that day comes, the agency is expected to release whatever documentation it is obligated to under Florida public records laws, said Jim Yacavone, the attorney for Tarpon Springs. ("D.C. Madam's Mother Sues to Stop Release of Photos," TBO.com/Tampa Bay Online, 08.07.2008)

I cannot disagree with Mrs. Palfrey's and her counsel's reasoning, and she wouldn't be the only one upset by their release. The photographs won't add to any knowledge of the case for the record, and nothing will be learned from them. It's just a move by gawkers and exploiters to make money (like Alex Jones, and others...).

The DC Madam's relationship with The Smoking Gun and Bastone is a peculiar one. They were the very first media outlet to pick-up on the story. Palfrey informed this writer on several occasions that she felt Bastone had been illegally "tipped-off" by federal investigators and prosecutors on her case in order to taint her and her ability to receive a fair trial through articles containing selective leaks.

Bastone's first article appeared on October 9th (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1009061hook1.html)
. Palfrey claimed that The Smoking Gun editor contacted her on her cell phone while she was in Germany on October 6th, just two days after her home was being searched by federal agents. How did Bastone have her private cell phone number at that time?

More importantly: how was he made aware of the investigation and pertinent details of it? Palfrey thought it was leaks by the prosecution until her untimely end. The articles contain the theme of an assumption of guilt on the part of Bastone.

From December 1st, 2006:

As we first reported, federal investigators are probing the operator of a Washington, D.C. escort service that sent college-educated prostitutes to the homes and hotel rooms of well-heeled clients. In a new court filing, federal prosecutors offer an amusing glimpse into how madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey ran her escort business, which she started in 1993 and ran until about three months ago. When Internal Revenue Service agents raided Palfrey's California home, they recovered newsletters that Palfrey distributed to her stable of whores at Pamela Martin & Associates. (' "Pro-fessional Tips, Feds: Alleged D.C. madam sent newsletters to her stable of whores," The Smoking Gun, 12.01.2006)

Indeed, Palfrey was guilty, but this was over a year before her belated trial. It was before she ever charged officially with racketeering, which came in March of 2007. There are no federal laws against prostitution.

The Smoking Gun's editor wrote in his first piece from October, 2006:

But Palfrey did speculate that she may have come to the attention of federal agents because her operation had somehow intersected with a more high profile case, like that of convicted ex-congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Investigators are reportedly examining charges that a defense contractor provided hookers to Cunningham as part of an influence-peddling scheme. Palfrey did not claim a nexis between her escort service and Cunningham, but invoked the disgraced pol's name while saying that she would wager that the basis for the federal probe of her business "had solely to do with some Duke Cunningham-type bigwig client that got caught up in something and started to say, 'Do you know this?' and 'Do you know that?' And that he might have been able to lead them to somebody." ("New D.C. Sex Scandal Looming?" The Smoking Gun, 10.09.2006)

Yet Palfrey claimed that it was Bastone who first dropped the name of now convicted former GOP congressman Randall "Duke" Cunningham, not the opposite. J-7 invites Mr. Bastone to produce the interview tape to clear up this issue, and others, though it's doubtful that he ever will.

Ironically, my own research for the defense focused on the "Cunningham angle," one that Palfrey summarily dropped towards the end of the run-up to trial in March of this year. Bastone's--and Tru TV's--site is the only outlet to have requested the death photos of Palfrey, a curious move by those with a potentially unscrupulous relationship with her prosecutors.

If it's true that Bastone had a "relationship" with the IRS, Postal Inspectors, the FBI, or the Justice Department (take your pick), then his credibility is seriously in question (nothing new). Palfrey sent this to myself and her then-attorney, the inimitable Montgomery Blair Sibley on December 23rd, 2007:

Blair… if you ever doubt that my case is politically motivated OR simply “can’t go there” with the mounting circumstantial evidence of selective prosecution, I would ask that you read the highlighted portion below in particular, from Bil earlier today. Never forgot that son-of-a bitch, Bill Bastone’s first question to me in Germany, just days after the warrant was executed on my property had to do with Cunningham and Bastone’s insistence that I professionally knew the “Dukester”; this, despite my continued statements to the contrary. -Jeane

Mr. Bastone was questioned for this piece on how he had obtained Palfrey's cell phone number and whether she'd dropped Cunningham's name first in the impromptu interview from Germany (there might have been multiple-contacts, one possibly during an in-transit flight) in early-October of 2006. Bastone refused to comment in any detail stating in an email, "Thanks for your note. However, we don't discuss our interviews or reporting process."

Considering that the information might have been leaked illegally by a federal agent or official, that's understandable. At least his response was prompt.

"D.C. Madam's Mother Sues to Stop Release of Photos," TBO.com/Tampa Bay Online, 08.07.2008: http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/aug/07/dc-madams-mother-sues-stop-release-photos/

"New D.C. Sex Scandal Looming?" The Smoking Gun, 10.09.2006: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1009061hook1.html

' "Pro-fessional Tips, Feds: Alleged D.C. madam sent newsletters to her stable of whores," The Smoking Gun, 12.01.2006: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1201061palfrey1.html

Added-value Postscript, 08.09.2008: Here's an exchange with Bill Bastone, ostensible editor of The Smoking Gun. Isn't he charming? Yeah, I'm not either, but that's how it goes. Eat and enjoy!


On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Matt Janovic <myboigie@earthlink.net> wrote:

Dear Mr. Bastone:

On October 9th, you penned a piece on Ms. Palfrey where you alleged that she dropped the name of Randy Cunningham during your talk with her.

I would like to know the following: 1.) How did you obtain her private cell phone number, and 2.) do you still contend that she dropped the name of Mr. Cunningham first--she contended otherwise, that you said it first.

kind regards, Matt Janovic, private researcher

Then... (isn't our cause-and-effect universe thrilling?):

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

From: The Smoking Gun

To: myboigie@earthlink.net

Sent: 8/8/2008 4:36:55 PM

Subject: Re: Jeane Palfrey

Matt:

Thanks for your note. However, we don't discuss our interviews or reporting process.
Bill BastoneEditor

TSG

But...

On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Matt Janovic <myboigie@earthlink.net> wrote:

Dear Mr. Bastone:

So the prosecution never briefed you on Ms. Palfrey's case in October of 2006? Are you a "friendly asset" of federal investigators?

kind regards, Matt Janovic

Yet...

Matt:

Seriously, what part of "we don't discuss our interviews or reporting process" did not register?No need for another response. [Ed.--Awwwwww, sure there is...]Bill BastoneTSG


Ed.--I won't bore you with the rest, and I certainly won't be writing Bastone again anytime soon, but suffice it to say that he was told for the several thousandth time that he was a jerk and an exploiter (in sharper words). Gotham City is not safer with this man on the beat. He sure doesn't like it when the mic is pointed in the other direction.

Our Wonderful Mainstream Media and the Guy Who Made it With a Chicken

"Yeah, I found his name and assumed it was the SAIC guy--though I did not confirm that. My question was, how significant is the fact that he called Jeane's service? I'm not out to out people for the sake of outing them. Why do you think he's important?" --David Corn, Editor of 'The Nation,' in an August 13th correspondence with the author. Mr. Corn has yet to get-back with the author after being e-mailed several articles on Col. Roughead.

"An editor should have a pimp for a brother, so he'd have someone to look up to." --The late old school journalist Gene Fowler (sometimes attributed to Herman J. Mankiewicz, co-author of Citizen Kane)

MEDIAUNIVERSE--Even if you only casually watch the news on television, or scan the dreck that editors allow to be published in our dying newspapers (dying for a good reason), most Americans understand that they're being fed a smidgen of what's really going on out there. This writer used to believe that it was bad--until he started researching and writing about the Palfrey case and numerous threads attached to it.

My conclusion? It's far worse than you can even begin to imagine. Our media--professionalized journalism--is utterly corrupt and hamstrung by careerism and ethical problems that would make Twain, Nietzsche, or H.L. Mencken alarmed. It's a scary realization to find that things are far worse than your wildest, most cynical suspicions, but it's true. But like Mencken, I can find some amusement in all of it too, the futility of...futility.

My evidence for the contention that the press is asleep, bought-off, lazy, lying, and corrupt are all contained within the articles found within this site. J-7 is no longer a "blog," that pejorative term the media loves to ascribe to all of us with an opinion and the ability to write adequately. It's an effective scimitar poised at-the-heart of the monied press, the corrupt politicians, and all the dubious individuals who protect privilege and unaccountable power. Real journalism isn't nice, isn't always friendly, and it's not supposed to be well-mannered towards the powerful, the corrupt. What's interesting is how afraid all of these professional journalists and McProgressive types are about the democratization of information and the media-in-general. What buffoons, those "booboises," but durned if they aren't entertaining.

The "Roughead" story is a perfect example of the media's complicity in covering-up for corrupt politicians and their handlers (like Ed Norris and Thomas DiBiagio, and that guy in the black hat, Jack Abramoff). Ed Norris is entertaining, he got a show, fancy that. Perhaps Mr. DiBiagio can have his own "Judge Judy" show in the future. Why not?

This site has contacted a stunning array of the mainstream press throughout the Western world, including Al-Jazeera, with virtually no replies on the Roughead lead. Only the Smoking Gun and Inside Edition replied ("Nice work on the records, by the way. Keep it up." from IE's producer, Ned Berkowitz. Thanks, Ned.), while news outlets like the Guardian have been curiously silent, as well as so-called "progressive" blogs like Huffington Post and Rawstory. They won't touch it. Nonetheless, Inside Edition doesn't appear to have done anything with the information at this writing.

Besides the standard stonewalling, the excuses I've gotten aren't valid--they don't want to cover this story for what appears to be selfish reasons. I'd love to be proven wrong, but that's the impression that's being projected. Many of the upper-tiers of the media are, after all, of the same classes as those found in the records. In some cases, they're the same people, and have no class. Perhaps many of them are scared to lose their jobs if they cover Ronald Roughead.The Washington Post is one of them, as is ABC--Col. Roughead's name was posted on one of their boards early-on at 'The Blotter,' though the author is unsure if it 'took.' A Google search will yield all of the posts on other sites by this writer. Get to work. The Roughead story is not new, and this writer has been attempting to get the word out since July 16th of 2007.

The Nation's David Corn informed this writer that he was already aware of the retired Colonel Roughead's name in the phone records of Deborah Jeane Palfrey (see above quote). His comments defy explanation at this point: a quick search of SAIC at a search engine (and a visit to their site, http://www.saic.com/) would have told him that many employee-shareholders retain high level security clearances as a reason for hiring them for a specific job (SAIC employs around 44,000 worldwide--almost sounds like a front company!). It doesn't take that much work to discover these things. SAIC was e-mailed to confirm if the Ron Roughead at 703-836-0522 in Alexandria, Virginia, was the same person. There were no-replies, but it is most certainly the same man. I'm not trying to out anyone for the sake of outing people either, Mr. Corn. That's why I've ignored the numbers of private individuals who are simply-put: doctors, landscapers, and a bunch of other little guys who aren't the Ron Rougheads of this world. They populate the records too, and you won't find them here. Mark Capansky is here because he interned for Pennysylvania Rep. Bob Goodlatte.

Security clearances would apply to Col. Roughead, as he was a Defense Attache during the 1990s and ran IMN (Iraqi Media Network) in Iraq during 2004-2005. He also investigated the embassy bombing in Kenya. What he sounds like is a propaganda/intel chief of some sort, though he could have been in some area of counterintelligence at certain points. He currently works for SAIC, the ninth largest defense contractor in the United States, with their snouts in many government troughs, spending our money.

When he testified before an intelligence committee on May 4th of 2006, he almost wasn't identified due to "security concerns." This alone should have told Corn what the significance of Ronald Roughead's name in the records means: at-minimum, people with such clearances are likely violating the terms of holding them by visiting an escort service. It's an illegal act, or it's not, and was committed while under the terms of a security clearance. That's just one significant fact, the meaning of the Roughead number in the records of Pamela Martin & Associates.

Someone in Col. Roughead's position isn't supposed to have sex with an escort where a transaction has occurred (the illegal act, if it did occur), and especially so when they're someone who has intelligence connections and clearances. What's unknown is whether Jeane Palfrey knew these illegal acts were being committed. Defendants are supposed to be coy, that's the point of our system of due process, but it should be noted that both sides--the government's prosecutors and the defense--are making discovery a "glacial" process. The public should consider the fact that Mr. Roughead called the number of Pamela Martin & Associates three-times on December 17th of 2005, since it's not impossible that he was procuring for someone else. Who were they? Was it himself? Was it for SAIC? Or was it a routine part of his position throughout his time in Washington D.C.? What was going on with these calls? If Mr. Roughead was on the government payroll when the calls were made, the problems (and questions) compound for him. The prosecution has said that "We're not concerned with the clients." Yet they are.

Then there is the issue of the Annapolis officer who worked for Palfrey--she's still working at the Naval Academy. Why? Did she discharge duties while working for Pamela Martin & Associates that were considered part of her work? I'm told she's a "supply officer." Was Ron Roughead procuring for his brother Gary, CNO of the United States Navy, the branch of the military that would be crucial to any attacks on Iran from the Persian Gulf and the rest of the region.

Annapolis football player, Mark Capansky (or his father who has the exact same name) is in the records for September 2005. Did any of these people ever encounter one another, or have any association with each other? Can't a person be discharged from the Navy for as little as having a sexual-relationship with a superior officer? If the "supply officer" engaged in prostitution--as she alleges she did--why then is the she still at Annapolis holding her job? This leads us to...

The "Honey Pot" (generally called "Honey Trap") thesis is only that--a theory, but a pregnant one. It could be true, but will it be found in the discovery process, and will Judge Kessler grant the ability for the declassification of documents involving Ms. Palfrey if they do in-fact exist? It's likely that some answers will be found at SAIC. There is smoke in the case of Shaha Ali Riza (also employee of SAIC, and possible MI6/SIS operative, she's a British national who had a State Dept. clearance) and Paul Wolfowitz, the scorned and humiliated former World Bank president--another one the press is standing down on--but it remains to be seen if an analog exists within Ms. Palfrey's legal predicament.

But the blackmail of national level politicians (possibly by the White House and the RNC) is almost certainly part of these continuum, if not the crucial aspect of what has to be the worst era of political corruption in the history of the United States. History--as they say--will not be kind in her judgement of those who allowed it to continue and fester for whatever selfish reasons they might have had.

The media is hoping the story of "Hookergate" will just go away, but rest assured it won't for years. It threatens too many privileged individuals, and the stakes are very high. What began as a routine case of destroying another woman in the nation's Capitol has begun a life-and-death struggle for those involved--Ms. Palfrey faces 55 years in a federal prison. Guilty or innocent, she will assuredly talk about things she has seen that will be extremely damaging to certain parties. Where are all the journalists investigating this? Sitting beside David Vitter, being ponderous and sad, one would assume. Remember that this is the same press that stood down and allowed the Bush administration to sell their war on a lie. Do you think they're going to aid in the cover-up of lobbyists and Congressmen procuring women for groping--maybe even sex? Let's be honest for a change: Washington D.C. is a whore monger's paradise, and the press is likely in an ongoing-relationship with the powerful to look-away. But enough about Fred Thompson and the press, let's look at Larry Flynt's place in this mess.

Besides the current Congress and the Bush administration, our press are a horrible embarrassment. Larry Flynt underscores this fact perfectly in his "outing" of sundry congressional types like David Vitter, Dan Burton--and coming soon--two presidential candidates, two major news anchors, and a whole gaggle of other politico morons and functionaries who will not walk-the-walk of what they preach for everyone else. If I had Mr. Moldea's resources, the job would be finished already, but perhaps Chicken Larry is waiting to strike at the right moment with the information. Looking at the approval ratings of Congress, one can safely assume that the public is pretty disgusted and hates the current political generation for what they are: hypocritical scumbags, keeping good company with our established press, our consolidated corporate media reality.

Because the media refuses to do any solid investigation into "Hookergate," they lose the de facto ability to control it, and because journalists and their editors refuse to investigate the story, and stories of the same nature that are always floating-around, we're left with Larry Flynt, a pornographer, to do the job. That should tell you everything about established media at this historical moment. It doesn't make Larry Flynt a "great American," he's just incidental to all of the corruption and the uncovering of it--and he's nearly alone in doing so with the kind of resources he's investing in the search for those misbehaving politicians. It's almost like something out the Threepenny Opera, and our human reality has begun to mock itself. Is satire dead?

It's a sign of how corrupt and weakened our national press have allowed themselves to become, but that would never have been possible without congressional approval of media consolidation. Why would they sell us all out? My guess is the bathroom needed new tiling, and certain needs in the bedroom weren't being met by the political marriage wives. It's a thought.Then, there's your usual crass careerism--or did I mention that already? Sometimes, Maslow's pyramid is just Maslow's pyramid, and everyone has some gaps in theirs. For some, it's unbearable, and they have their "moments of weakness," over-and-over again. Meanwhile, while our troops are dying in the dust along with Iraqis and Afghanis, the media is covering-up for this class of scum. What we get are more stories on O.J. and Anna Nicole Smith, just more shibboleths of distraction.

J-7, and sites like her, are doing the job of keeping such stories as "Hookergate" alive, just as others are keeping the stories behind 9/11, the fratricide of Patrick Tillman (a philosophical acolyte of Noam Chomsky), the run-up to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Abramoff scandal, the stolen elections of 2000 & 2004, Enron, and so much more. I salute you all. As for those in the press who have done their best to do the same: I salute you.
When crooks have squeezed all they can from journalism, bleeding the established outlets of all their integrity, WE will be out here waiting patiently to take it all back. That could all be much sooner than you think. We're after the big Puritan fish, alright, and the witch trials and the dunking-stools are back. This time, we have a good chance of trumping them before they get completely out of hand. People have already died, like Brandy Britton, a victim of scarlet womanhood and an ancient patriarchy. She wasn't the first, and she won't be the last. The only reason anyone cares is because she was once a "somebody." Shame.

KESSLER RULES AGAINST PALFREY ON SEVERAL MOTIONS, BUT FAVORS RELEASE OF SOME INFORMATION FROM PROSECUTION

Washington D.C.--Just two-days-ago, Judge Gladys Kessler ruled against Deborah Jeane Palfrey's several motions to dismiss racketeering charges (which would have cancelled any chance of a criminal trial) based-on government misconduct and the unconstitutional application of local prostitution laws, as well as a request of more "particulars" in the evidence the prosecution contends it has against her.

Also denied was the contention by the defendant that she was the victim of "selective prosecution"--Kessler stated in the ruling that the defendant "provided no evidence" to this claim. Meanwhile, literally hundreds of escort services operate unmolested in the D.C. area at the writing of this piece. Palfrey's civil attorney, Montgomery Blair Sibley had this to say about the rulings:

The limited information that the Judge did order be turned over to Jeane reflects how un-level the playing field is that has been created by the DOJ-controlled Congress that passes any procedural rule DOJ suggests. Here, 11 months after seizing her property, Jeane has yet to receive the names of those who accuse her, let alone the sum and substance of their testimony. (correspondence with the author)

On the same day of the ruling, it appears that the DOJ leaked a tiny-morsel for an over-credulous press to seize-on (they did this in October and December of 2006 by providing http://www.thesmokinggun.com/ affidavits and other edited-samples of e-mail correspondence). This is standard procedure at DOJ, and especially at the FBI. It could very well be their fingerprints in the case, though it appears there is no participation by the Bureau (or that it's submerged).

The prosecution isn't telling anyone anything, not even the defendant. This should concern anyone who values our system of due process, and how it has eroded over time. Now, the appearance of guilt is enough, without the prosecution being required to provide adequate proof before a trial. The fact underscores the true relevance of the case: how awry the federal judicial process has gone in-favor of the government's prosecutorial powers (never mind the phone list).

The recent e-mail(s): somebody at the DOJ leaked these heavily-edited tidbits. What's interesting is that while Jeffrey A. Taylor (D.C.'s U.S. attorney, providing obstruction for contempt charges in another high-profile case) is invoking "secrecy rules" through spokespeople when queried about the identities of Palfrey's accusers, he also allowed the leaking of information meant to damage Palfrey's standing as a defendant. This is highly improper behavior by the prosecution in any case, but that's the climate within our federal justice system, courtesy of an impaired and compromised Congress. For those in the press who don't understand, the foundation of our legal system is "innocent until proven guilty."

Yet, WTOP appears to have taken-the-bait, just as The Smoking Gun did last year. Maybe they all want to believe so badly--a priori--that Ms. Palfrey is guilty, at least at TSG. This is the primary e-mail excerpt, and it echoes the vagueness of the ones published at The Smoking Gun last year: "Why did you do this to me? I never did anything to you." Did what? WTOP alleges it was sent to the former Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld legal secretary, "Jennifer." Another excerpt--again without much solid context--continues with, "It is plain 'foolish' to take a perfectly viable revenue stream (of any kind) and just throw it away, without solid justification." And...?

One might imagine that the prosecution isn't holding many cards--just women who want their liberty back in return for testimony against Ms. Palfrey. So far, that's the appearance from outside the prosecution's tent. They might consider that their cooperating witnesses could turn-on-them if the trial goes south. [Ed.-- Ms. Palfrey informs me that the statements made by "Jennifer's" attorney that his client never engaged in prostitution "...has created a legal opportunity for me to obtain heretofore unattainable information." Perhaps WTOP's Neal Augenstein isn't buying the prosecution's line after all, he and his editor published the comment, or we wouldn't even know about it!]

As we all know, you can get a lot out one-or-two-sentences with no context...unless one wants so badly to believe the worst. That's an a priori assumption, and it could be directed at the members of the federal grand jury, the people who will do the real deciding on this whole affair. But what's especially leading about the WTOP article is the headline: "E-Mails Expose Inner Workings of Palfrey's Escort Service." Do they? They're extremely vague and short-excerpts. The bulk of the article focuses on "Jennifer." Her attorney claims that she's not being pressured by the prosecution to testify, which could be true, but it appears she could be testifying against Palfrey.

If she's not being pressured as a "cooperating witness," it would likely make her one-of-the-few in this case. What should be reported is how little the government has to prove in virtually any case against an American citizen. Jennifer's motives? She could be angry she lost her job at Akin, Gump... , but it's doubtful a credulous press will be asking those questions. Even if they do, there's always an Editor over their shoulder, which we can assume is probably where the headline came from.

The WTOP article from 08.16.2007: http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=25&pid=0&sid=1222089&page=2

Revised 08.19.2007

DC MADAM MISCELLANY FOR AUGUST 2ND

Washington D.C./Vallejo,California--Today we have...well, not a lot that hasn't been said or alleged before. But we have something new from the long-silent U.S. postal inspector, one Maria Couvillion who has filed a "new" affidavit in federal court against Deborah Jeane Palfrey.

Why do I think http://www.thesmokinggun.com/ was tipped on this again? There are no primary-documents from this filing at their site yet, so it seems the Hill scooped them. [Ed.-Except they didn't scoop anybody--the information is months-old.] They have posted documents on a Hoosier couple who had sex in-front of a day care center in Indianapolis this week (Republicans? Dan Burton? Mark Foley?). The Smoking Gun seems to get-along a little too well with the cops and the courts, carrying their water and whatnot--or even unknowingly helping in a misinformation/disinformation campaign to smear Ms. Palfrey? I know, it's never happened to writers and news sources, not ever. TSG could use a dose of healthy adversarialism in their relationships with law enforcement and our broken criminal justice system.

Perhaps TSG's editor should be grilling the prosecution as much as he did Palfrey back in October of last year, it might add some more balance. What happened after they outed Bill "Mr. Loofah" O'Reilly? Where's the edge? J-7 would love to have these suspicions allayed, particularly since thesmokinggun.com leaped at the throat of Ms. Palfrey last October. Their editor's presumption-of-guilt was dripping off of my computer-screen as I read it (which hasn't dried at this writing-a bit like drool). She hasn't even had a trial yet in almost a year's time. That's not due process.

Oh, but back to Maria, the quiet and coy Maria Couvillon (and Joe Clark). It's interesting, but there's a federal Judge in Louisiana named Irvin Couvillion. When I think of French last-names, I think of Quebec and Louisiana (even Mississippi). Irvin was appointed by the Maoist Saint Ronald Reagan when he occupied the Oval Office. Is this Maria's father? Also, there's a "Maria T. Couvillion" who appears to be employed in Phoenix, Arizona as a "private bookkeeper." Same woman? Palfrey claims that both U.S. postal inspectors lied to her realtor in a phone message on October 3rd, 2006, at 2 PM, claiming they were a couple who were moving to the area of her home ("transferred" is the term this writer keeps tripping-over), and wanted a look-around inside the house.

In short, Palfrey claims they were attempting entry into her home without a warrant (old ground, I know, but it's wise to retrace one's step occasionally). It's not hard to believe. Does any of this sound familiar? No warrants? Lies? Obfuscations? It should, but the mainstream media are dragging-their-feet in investigating the investigators (and the babysitters).

A new court filing in the criminal case against Palfrey reveals some of the details of what prosecutors believe are the “sins” of both Palfrey’s employees and clients. Maria Couvillon, a U.S. postal inspector involved in the investigation of Palfrey (it’s a crime to distribute the proceeds of an illegal business through the mail), offered gritty details in an affidavit supporting a search of Palfrey’s California home. The testimony accompanied a motion that Palfrey’s lawyers filed Friday to suppress evidence seized in the search. (thehill.com, 08.02.2007)

As with the original affidavits back in October of 2006, it's all information from "confidential informants," and we're all just supposed to suspend any disbelief we might harbor (like watching a Michael Bay movie) and believe everything the government is telling us, as well as what said informants are saying. For those of us who aren't familiar with legalese, it usually means they're someone who was popped doing something illegal (frequently unrelated to the defendant), and are in-fact "cooperating witnesses."

There is a genuine distinction here, as some juries reject the claims of cooperating witnesses, because they're likely to be under coercion by the prosecution in a given case. They're tainted. This is why you would want to cloud the distinction if you were a government prosecutor like Jeffrey A. Taylor or assistant U.S. attorney William Cowden.

According to previous court documents, there are a total of five "confidential informants" accusing Ms. Palfrey of running a prostitution ring. But the overriding-pattern appears to defame and slander the defendant before trial, and the FBI is usually known for leaks that accomplish this, though the IRS also has experience in this area:

On June 4, 2007, at approximately 8:30 p.m., two people knocked on Blanche’s residence door and identified themselves as Maria Couvillion of the U.S. Postal Service and Troy Burrus of the Internal Revenue Service and asked if they could speak with her. Having a weak heart and given the late hour, Blanche agreed, as she didn’t want to get into an argument. (Blanche PalfreyAffidavit,¶2)

The two agents came into Blanche’s house and questioned her for 30-45 minutes. During that questioning, Blanche told them that they should speak to the undersigned counsel, Mr. Sibley. In response, both agents indicated that they already had spoken with Mr. Sibley and that she should speak with them. (Blanche Palfrey Affidavit, ¶3)

Thereafter, they asked Blanche questions and she answered, regarding her daughter’s escort services and Blanche’s finances. They did not tape record the interview to Blanche’s knowledge, but were making written notes. (Blanche Palfrey Affidavit, ¶4).

Two additional facts are significant. First, Claimant was with her mother for the three days preceding this visit by Federal Agents to Blanche Palfrey and had left only minutes before the Federal Agents appeared at her door raising the specter that the Agents waited until Claimant had left in order to confront Claimant’s mother when she was along. Second, this Court must take judicial notice that it was scheduled to hold a hearing on the temporary restraining orders on June 5, 2007, the following day. ...Page 2 of 8... ('CLAIMANT'S MOTION TO LIFT STAY, DISMISS FOR OUTRAGEOUS GOVERNMENT CONDUCT AND FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING,' filed to United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 06.14.2007)

The press hasn't caught-on much regarding these allegations against Couvillion, IRS agent Troy Burrus, or even the other U.S. postal inspector Joe Clark. Why wasn't he in Florida visiting Ms. Palfrey's ailing mother? As far as this writer can tell, only Alex Jones (and this writer) has written much about it. It would behoove the media to look into these areas a little more deeply...if they dare.

Then, there's the story at the Motley Fool that Ms. Palfrey's skills on the stock market are pretty solid. This goes back to early-May when the defendant moved to have her Dolby stocks sold as she felt that they'd matured, could depreciate, and that she wanted to use them to pay-down legal expenses in the civil arena. If it reveals anything at all, it's how daunting a civil forfeiture case can be for the accused in the United States. The difference in this case, according to Ms. Palfrey and her civil attorney Montgomery Blair Sibley, is that most defendants capitulate very early-on, which is accurate, hence the subsequent scrambling of the prosecution in the case. They thought this was going to be easy like all the others. Federal prosecutors aren't used to someone refusing to take a deal and fighting-back. The Motley Fool article doesn't say much, but it does show that Jeane Palfrey is a wise investor. They also make some snide remarks that paint her badly in other related articles, but that's their opinion and their right.

Don't choose a life of prostitution [Ed.-original emphasis]
Now, I know what you're thinking: The madam was right! (Ah-ah-ah! Remember -- alleged madam.) You're thinking that with a current price-to-earnings ratio of 34, against analysts' projected 19% growth in profits, Dolby is woefully overpriced, and it's sure to waste away, just as my debate's Palfrey predicted. But that's not necessarily so. [?!] Remember that the business often generates significantly greater cash profits than it reports as net income under generally accepted accounting principles [Ed.-or the exact opposite!]. That hasn't been the case so far this year -- the two numbers are almost precisely equal. (motley fool, 08.02.2007)

Yes, I was thinking this because she was right. She's been right about virtually everything this writer has looked into, and she wasn't lying about names on her phone records either. Remember that the same media that got us into the war in Iraq is still trying not to report on this story when they can get away with it. It's unfortunate, because one can imagine that many professional journalists are just itching to have their stories run on the Palfrey beat. Why wouldn't they? Because there are editors (pimps) and owners (expletive deleted), perhaps eliciting a Pavlovian response to save one's chances for: a raise, a promotion, or simply staying-on. Nobody said journalism was easy.

"Maria. I just met a girl named Maria."( and more on the same page): http://thehill.com/under-the-dome/nice-try-sen.-2007-08-02.html

Jeane Palfrey's Motions from June 14th, 2007 (w. affidavit of Blanche Palfrey): http://deborahjeanepalfrey.com/download/conduct.pdf

On Jeane Palfrey's Dolby stocks: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2007/08/02/dolby-wins-the-debate.aspx

"No Red Light District for Dolby" (pretty coy, eh?), 05.03.2007: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2007/05/03/no-red-light-district-for-dolby.aspx

"Is Your Broker a Prostitute?," 05.02.2007, where the debate over Dolby stock began: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2007/05/02/is-your-broker-a-prostitute.aspx

Ed. Update, 08.06.2007: Ms. Palfrey has assured me that the Hill article isn't news--the information in the filing by Couvillion is months-old, probably dating-back to October of 2006. A quick look at the original court filings by the prosecution confirms this. It reflects the lack-of-quality in reporting at thehill.com, as well as their cage-lining rag. Dick Morris writes for it, and he's been linked to being a client with Pamela Martin & Associates, though it is unconfirmed. Ever get the feeling you're being cheated? ;0)