Definite September release of DC Madam account

Ed.--This has been a long time coming. The book is ready. There will be a standalone site for it. There will be a brief except, some background, a bio, and various links.

A Few Words on Writing a Non-Fiction Book: expect to lose at least a few years of your life if it's going to be worth a shit on any level. When artists in a variety of mediums refer to their works as their children, they aren't fucking around. It's accurate, the unvarnished truth. Never envy writers, not even the wildly successful ones, because most of them are doing it to keep the Devil from biting their ass. I share that with them now, and life certainly won't ever be the same.

You ask yourself, "Am I telling too much about myself, or too little?" and because of how personal it all is, no one can tell you the answers, you're it, you're on your own.

This kind of an undertaking requires incredible care, more time than you ever imagined possible, keeping you up nights, bringing worry, even illness, it's terrible. But, if you've been involved in an event of significance, invested so much of yourself in it that it hurt, there's no other option but to get it out of your system, and that's why this book was going to be written and slaved over until it reached a state that brings with it closure. That was the main reason to write this account.

On the Title and Cover Art: I'm only giving you part of the title. It's Let the Dead Bury the Dead, with a subtitle to be revealed later on, for security reasons. The title comes right from Palfrey's, yes, the little horse's mouth (look up the origin of her surname) and from a comment by my former co-researcher when we were working for Jeane's defense. Both were stated in a context that rendered it incredibly callous, cold, just more of the joys that involvement in the case inflicted on me, I'm Mark Twain now.

The cover will be posted on the book's website. It's based on a medieval woodcut of a hanged woman being tormented by demons. In the original, the expression is dour, slack in the mouth a little. I gave the woman a bit of a grin to underscore the very real perversity of the case and its conclusion. I've had to include significant social, cultural, and historical context so that my involvement makes some kind of sense. This was an international story with many different players, too many. Insofar as I've been able to ascertain, no one has established meaningful contact with any of the former escorts from Pamela Martin & Associates, not even Ken Silverstein last time I asked him within the last couple years. Someone posting her claiming to be Andrea Detty asked why I wasn't talking to any of the girls, which is a loaded question if ever there was one. You tell me. See how that works, or rather doesn't? I've posted comments and statements on here several times asking some of the former escorts to come forward, but we're talking hookers here folks, so what do you expect? A lot of bullshit yammering, nothing constructive.

None of these women have much motivation to talk. If they do, they're going to find themselves in a world of shit, that is, if they're not there already. The new and old fixers, the appointees wrecking our government and negating the rule of law, these AUSAs, these scum at the DOJ, would nail their asses to the floor on some trumped up charges. Then again, they might just harass them until they cry uncle, make their lives hell, like Brandy Britton's.

They're not talking, get over it and yourself, whoever the commenter was. I don't believe it was Detty, but if it was, her question was calculated in a way that's very suspicious. Was she Jeane's Judas? I have no idea. But I think there was one, it wasn't just the stupidity of mailing USPS Money Orders at a Postal Station--laundering it that way, through the mails, and using all their services. They ever hear of Western Union or 7-11s? Jesus, people, I'd be a better criminal than that shit, you gotta be kidding me, but that's the truth, from the trial transcripts. These girls should have bypassed Jeane's instructions to buy and send like that, gone and gotten a Slurpee, a Playgirl, and mailed it from anywhere else. You can't tell me that Palfrey wasn't protected in DC, no way, she wasn't even a good criminal. You see, USPS Inspectors busted her ass in San Diego that first time around, in the early 1990s. Get the drift? You will after reading my book.

I don't say this about my writing often and am my own worst critic. But I have to say that this is a good book, a solid account done with incredible effort to get things right. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I have to lay all my cards on the table. After I got involved, there was no other choice, it was always waiting at the end. No one can be 100% correct about these kinds of things, the criminal underworld and the secret world of spycraft.

Songs from the Site Meter: Another very interesting visit over Senator David Vitter and former DC Madam counsel Montgomery Blair Sibley

Site Meter--This makes me wonder if this is the DNC in Louisiana, a whole lot. Of course, it could literally be anybody. But they're mining. They mined Mr. Sibley's blog, then mined my own a little, and they're not alone. Little known fact about the investigation into the DC Madam: it began as a USPS one, and one month before 9/11.

Domain Name		bellsouth.net ? (Network)
IP Address		72.155.239.# (BellSouth.net)
ISP		BellSouth.net
Location		Continent : North America Country : United States (Facts) State : Louisiana City : Archibald Lat/Long : 32.3494, -91.7757 (Map)
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinNT
Browser		Internet Explorer 7.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; GTB6; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30618; WinNT-PAI 20.08.2009)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution : 1360 x 768 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Nov 5 2009 4:54:36 am
Last Page View		Nov 5 2009 5:25:36 am
Visit Length		31 minutes
Page Views		17
Referring URL		http://amoprobos.blo...rch/label/DC%20Madam
Visit Entry Page		http://chickasawpick...qualcomm-of-san.html
Visit Exit Page		http://chickasawpick...search/label/Palfrey
Out Click		http://www.google.co... hines&aq=f&oq=&aqi= http://www.google.co...0hines&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
Time Zone		UTC-6:00
Visitor's Time		Nov 4 2009 3:54:36 pm
Visit Number		63,071

If you're new to this site...

WWW--You might want to hit some of the labels below on my coverage and analysis of the DC Madam case, from June 2007 to now. Happy reading, there's a ton! Our secret history? Is it all really about "getting people laid" in the nation's capital? The sad truth is that, yes, it's partly true.

...And yet, there's even more songs from the Site Meter: Bloomberg on Vitter

Site Meter--I sometimes post comments on Rawstory and yesterday was one of those days. David Vitter has been leading the charge on attacking ACORN. Yes, that detestable activist group that successfully registers the poor and disenfranchised (meaning many of them are probably VETERANS) so that they--brace yourselves--can vote in elections. I know, what an obvious threat to democracy.

But Davey's having problems with being able to trumpet over the "fake pimp and whore" who entrapped an incompetent ACORN employee since he undeniably called a prostitution service on multiple occasions over multiple years. It's unknow whether there were any multiple orgasms, but we can safely assume that none were experienced by Pamela Martin & Associates employees. Vitter's going to have a dead prostitute and madam to drag around for the rest of his life. He and the scumbags in D.C. used her up and threw her away and even threatened her with civil actions for defending herself in court against them and their dogs.

Her prosecution was politically motivated, period, to coverup for their sins. It had nothing to do with enforcing the law. Are you listening Postal Inspector Hines? You were used too, to hide the misbehavior of a corrupt moron like David Vitter, someone with their lips permanently-attached to the Devil's ass. Mr. Hines, you were actually used to protect a frat boy who couldn't--and we can presume nothing has changed here--control his dick. Things are heating up in Washington alright, even with autumn coming.

When I saw that Vitter didn't even vote on defunding ACORN, hadn't even shown up for it, I knew it was pretty telling and that this whole issue of a dead madam really does instill fear in him for his prospects next year. I'm not so sure he should worry considering the redneck idiots who keep electing him and twits like Bobby Jindal. Someone had sex with a prostitute? So long as Davey keeps bringing in the money to Louisiana for his rich, often pseudo-evangelical constituents who are so bad at business that they need to feed at the public trough, yet yell about people on welfare, so mote it be. The pirogue paddlers will come, and so will Davey. Send the fuckers to Angola State.

Domain Name		bloomberg.com ? (Commercial)
IP Address		199.172.169.# (Bloomberg Financial Market)
ISP		Verizon Business
Location		Continent : North America Country : United States (Facts) State : New York City : New York Lat/Long : 40.7619, -73.9763 (Map)
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinXP
Browser		Internet Explorer 7.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution : 1152 x 864 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Sep 18 2009 1:31:13 am
Last Page View		Sep 18 2009 1:31:13 am
Visit Length		0 seconds
Page Views		1
Referring URL		http://rawstory.com/...senators-madam-woes/
Visit Entry Page		http://chickasawpick...esmell.blogspot.com/
Visit Exit Page		http://chickasawpick...esmell.blogspot.com/
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time		Sep 17 2009 1:31:13 pm
Visit Number		60,069

Even more songs from the Site Meter: visits over USPS inspector Mark Hines & Democratic counsel Diana Oo, and much more...

Site Meter--This first site hit is an interesting one! Mark Hines was the alleged beginning--the "genesis" if you will--of the investigation into the DC Madam.

Hines was (is?) the U.S. Postal inspector who allegedly first noticed Deborah Jeane Palfrey and her escort service, Pamela Martin & Associates, a seldom told part of the story. According to court documents, the investigation began in August of 2001 when Hines "noticed" a pattern with Palfrey's mail--there were a disproportionate number of money orders coming to her mailbox, or so the story goes. I don't take it at face value. You know, there is such a thing as hierarchy, and God knows that there are forces in this country (and in Palfrey's phone records) who love reminding us of this fact. I'm here to do the same today.

So, was it just little old Mark Hines finding Palfrey and keeping the investigation alive? That's impossible, but we're all supposed to believe it. Somehow, I don't think that's exactly how it went down. Law enforcement in San Diego and around the beltway (the D.C. area) knew her history and at least in Alexandria, Virginia, the cops knew she was operating her escort service in the nation's capital as early as 1994, that she was running a prostitution operation. When you look at her newsletters, you might get the impression that the fix was on in her favor at the time. She seems to feel pretty self-assured that it was all going to go away, and by 1997 it did. Interestingly, Senator Vitter's calls (some of them from the floor of the House) to obtain sex from prostitutes overlaps the beginning of the investigation into Palfrey and PMM, he made some calls beginning in 1999 and apparently ending in 2001.

Honestly, I cannot prove it right now, but it wouldn't surprise me if this site hit was Mr. Hines-- inspector Hines--but it most definitely has to do with the Palfrey case, they went right to a specific part of my archives. He should know that I'm going to be including him in my own account of my experiences surrounding the Palfrey scandal and that he doesn't look so upstanding or honest so far, but that's my opinion. In other words, inspector Hines might want to contact me some time for a chat, clear things up. Surely, he never will. I am very close to 100% certain that USPS inspector Hines was ordered onto the the Palfrey investigation and that others up the chain-of-command--coming directly from the Bush II White House--were pushing them at the USPS to protect their own in the GOP.

Someone alerted Hines to Palfrey's operations, and someone helped him keep the investigation alive from 2001 until the fall of 2006, that's 100% certain. Who were they? Did it come from the White House under George W. Bush, from the Justice Department? To coordinate so many governmental institutions would require going fairly high up the chain.

To Senator Vitter: figuratively speaking, I am coming for you. I will never rest until the real blame you and your counsel deserve is affixed to your backs, your foreheads, for how things ended with Jeane. "Hate" isn't a strong enough word for what I feel for you and I would hope that the Palfreys understand that any deals they make in closing the book on their end (I refuse to be silenced) is making a deal with the very people who not only could have prevented her death, but pushed her to it to protect corrupt, privileged fucktards like Davey. The morons in Louisiana might be dumb enough to vote for you Senator Vitter, but I and many others are the corrective measure, the reformist impulse that's going to help you take yourself down faster--besides the uncontrollable, politically and legally unaccountable, and likely very tiny, "Mr. Winkie."

And as I write this, I've just received this newsletter from Montgomery Blair Sibley, former civil counsel to the late Ms. Palfrey:

I make the "Watch List" Posted: 15 Sep 2009 10:30 AM PDT I was stopped at the door of the U.S. Courthouse in Washington, D.C. today by the U.S. Marshal's Service. They indicated that I was on their "Watch and Escort List" and needed an armed escort to go to the Clerk's office in order to file some legal papers. What fun! I stand in good company. My family was so proud when then-President Nixon put my grandmother, Mrs. Harper Sibley on his enemies list. She was on Nixon's enemies list we later learned because she was president of that radical group --the United Council of Church Women. Anyway, here is my letter to the Marshal's Service in response . . . United States Marshal George B. Walsh U.S. Courthouse 333 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Re: Inclusion on United States Marshal’s “Watch & Escort List” I write to inquire upon what basis I have been placed on the United States Marshal’s “Watch & Escort List” at the U.S. Courthouse at 333 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Today, for the second time in the last two months, I was stopped at the security checkpoint at the 3rd Street, N.W. entrance immediately upon entering and before I presented any identification. The United States Marshal on duty informed me that he was required to have me escorted in the building and immediately called someone to escort me to the Clerk’s office where I had a matter to file. I was escorted to and from that office and then left the building. While at all times all members of the United States Marshal’s Service treated me with dignity and respect, I nonetheless must write and inquire – pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act – upon what basis I have been accorded this special – and chilling – treatment in pursuit of my First Amendment right to petition the government. I do not believe that my suspension from the practice of law by this Court – without hearing I might add – merits such treatment. Nor does the fact that as counsel for the D.C. Madam, Jeane Palfrey, I am in possession of heretofore not publically released telephone records which contain the telephone numbers of individuals who work in the U.S. Courthouse and identify them as customers of the escort service, merit such treatment. Accordingly, please either provide promptly the basis for the inclusion of my name on the United States Marshal’s “Watch & Escort List” at the U.S. Courthouse at 333 Constitution Avenue, N.W., so that I may challenge such defamation of my character or confirm in writing that I am not on such a list so that I may have such letter with me whenever I desire to enter the Courthouse.

Counselor Sibely could perhaps be viewed as "eccentric" by some, but there's no indication that he's ever shown a propensity for violence, I've seen no indication of this whatsoever. Who ordered this and why? Why isn't the House Judiciary Committee looking into this? Why the special treatment?

But one thing's for sure: they're still shitting themselves in D.C. over a dead woman and the root- system of corruption her case inadvertently began to uncover until potential inquiries into it were shut down. Whoever said that this story was over has no idea, none. Were it over, this situation with counselor Sibley wouldn't be happening, they're afraid of him to do something like this. When Federal Marshals are briefed (presumably with photographs) to know someone at first-glance, something's up, and it's not simply a man's reputation but the very real threat he presents to what I believe is unaccountable power quaking in its boots.

They should quake.

What do we want? I know what I want: an independent investigation into the real roots of the prosecution of the late Deborah Jeane Palfrey, and that's just for starters. As to someone at Georgetown University (where the law is taught) looking for information on Ms. Oo, I leave it to you, the readers, to decide. They can keep trying to quarantine this story, but I refuse to be silenced.

Domain Name		verizon.net ? (Network)
IP Address		71.191.4.# (Verizon Internet Services)
ISP		Verizon Internet Services
Location		Continent : North America Country : United States (Facts) State : District of Columbia City : Washington Lat/Long : 38.9097, -77.0231 (Map)
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinXP
Browser		Internet Explorer 7.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution : 1280 x 1024 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Sep 15 2009 11:31:49 pm
Last Page View		Sep 15 2009 11:49:52 pm
Visit Length		18 minutes 3 seconds
Page Views		4
Referring URL		http://www.google.co... hines&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
Search Engine		google.com
Search Words		deborah palfrey mark hines
Visit Entry Page		http://chickasawpick...8_11_01_archive.html
Visit Exit Page		http://chickasawpick...8_11_01_archive.html
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time		Sep 15 2009 11:31:49 am
Visit Number		59,940

Domain Name		(Unknown)
IP Address		161.253.47.# (The George Washington University)
ISP		The George Washington University
Location		Continent : North America Country : United States (Facts) State : District of Columbia City : Washington Lat/Long : 38.9376, -77.0928 (Map)
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinNT
Browser		Internet Explorer 7.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; GoogleT5; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; .NET CLR 3.0.30618; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution : 1680 x 1050 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Sep 15 2009 7:53:42 am
Last Page View		Sep 15 2009 7:53:42 am
Visit Length		0 seconds
Page Views		1
Referring URL		http://search.yahoo....qyEMP6A--,1253058706
Search Engine		search.yahoo.com
Search Words		"diana oo"
Visit Entry Page		http://chickasawpick...tees-democratic.html
Visit Exit Page		http://chickasawpick...tees-democratic.html
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time		Sep 14 2009 7:53:42 pm
Visit Number		59,906

From the Palfrey trial transcripts: April 7th, 2008 excerpt

Ed.--This excerpt comes from the opening day of the trial of Deborah Jeane Palfrey. The witness for the government being questioned is Mark Hines, beginning at the bottom of page 12 and ending on the bottom of page 20. Palfrey always contended to me and others on the defense team that she thought the investigation into her began around May/June of 2004 in the Baltimore IRS office, apparently brought to their attention by USPS investigators.

I'm unaware of the entire extent of discovery materials she was given by the prosecution, but basically rang true at the time, and in a way it still does. Except for one thing. The real inquiry into the "DC Madam" began in August, 2001. Until reading the trial transcript, I was completely unaware of this fact, partly because press coverage of the trial was almost non-existent, and what little there was lacked any substance or detail.

Eventually, either I, the government, or someone else will post it online in toto, and the public can finally judge for themselves how fair her trial proceedings were, and all of the roads the government didn't go down.

For example: why couldn't they have gotten her for underreporting her income? A source informs me that this would have been the easiest of charges to prosecute.

Why didn't they do it? I have my suspicions, and it includes Palfrey and the government both lying about how much money she earned, and that she hid a lot of it. My guess is that they're either still investigating to find it, or they've already located most of it. She made a lot more money than anyone's reporting. The text has been broken-up for easier reading. Page breaks are noted. It appears that the investigation into Palfrey actually did originate in Washington D.C. and not in Baltimore, but in Linthicum, Maryland as Palfrey and author Bill Keisling once contended...

... "DIRECT EXAMINATION

22 BY MS. BUTLER [Ed.--Nice typo, Butler is a "Mr."]:

23 Q Good afternoon.

24 A Good afternoon.

25 Q State your full name and spell your last name, please. [Page Break]

13

1 A My name is Mark Hines. Last name is spelled H-i-n-e-s.

2 Q Mr. Hines, where do you work?

3 A I'm employed as a Assistant Special Agent in Charge with
4 the Postal Service Office of Inspector General.

5 Q And just briefly, what does the Inspector General's
6 office do?

7 A The Postal Service AIG is the internal law enforcement
8 arm of the postal service, and we investigate fraud, waste,
9 and abuse within the postal system and also employment conduct
10 issues.

11 Q And how long have you been with that office?

12 A I started work with them in 2005.

13 Q Okay. Where were you before that?

14 A Prior to that I was employed as a U.S. Postal Inspector
15 in New Orleans, Louisiana.

16 Q Okay. And how long were you there?

17 A I was there from 2003 to 2005.

18 Q Okay. And before that, where were you?

19 A I was employed as a postal inspector in the Washington
20 Division, the Washington Metro area.

21 Q And how long were you there?

22 A I was employed as a postal inspector in Washington
23 between 1994 and 2003.

24 Q Okay. And just briefly, describe what the Postal
25 Inspection Service does. [Page Break]

14

1 A Postal Inspection Service is the external law enforcement
2 branch of the postal service. They investigate violations of
3 postal law and external attacks on the postal system.
4 Examples of that would be robbery of a post-office,
5 a burglary of a post-office, dangerous mailings or illicit
6 mailings going through the postal system and mail fraud.

7 Q Okay. In about 2000, what was your assignment within the
8 Postal Inspection Service at that time?

9 A In 2000, I was assigned to the Prohibited Mailings Team.
10 That was a team that investigated illicit items and contraband
11 being mailed through the postal system.

12 Q Okay. And was there a specific place or location where
13 you were -- primarily would do that?

14 A Yes, sir. I was assigned -- my last duty station was the
15 incoming mail facility at BWI Airport.

16 Q Baltimore/Washington International Airport?

17 A Yes, sir.

18 Q Okay. And what was your -- what was your assignment at
19 that time? What was your job description?

20 A It had two functions. One function was to profile
21 express mail system for illicit mailings containing
22 contraband; that would be narcotics and also illicit funds.

23 Q Okay. And you said two functions.

24 A Yes, sir.

25 Q What's the second function? [Page Break]

15

1 A The other function was to investigate violations
2 involving postal money orders.

3 Q Okay. Now, let's sort of make sure everyone's operating
4 from the same place in terms of knowledge. Express mail, what
5 is that, just briefly?

6 A Express mail is the service provided by the U.S. Postal
7 Service, an overnight delivery service. You can go to the
8 counter at a post-office, pay a larger fee than you would
9 normally, to mail a first-class envelope, and then that item
10 has a control number assigned to it and it's delivered in a --
11 in an expedited fashion, overnight typically.
12 The other aspect of express mail is that you can
13 track its process through the postal system by the use of that
14 assigned control number.

15 Q And you mentioned money orders. What -- just, again,
16 just briefly, what is a money order?

17 A Postal service money order is a financial instrument
18 that's available to postal customers. You can go into a
19 post-office and with currency purchase a negotiable instrument
20 similar to a check or a money order you might get at a
21 7-Eleven or another outlet.
22 In turn, that document, you can convey to somebody
23 else and it can be cashed at a post-office or it can be
24 deposited like a check at a bank.

25 Q And a money order, does it show who purchased the money [Page Break]

16

1 order on the face of the document?

2 A There is a portion on the face of the document for the
3 person remitting it to write the purchaser of the money order
4 and the sender of the money order, although it's not always
5 completed.

6 Q Okay. And in your assignment at BWI, what were you
7 looking for in terms of express mail labeling and in terms of
8 money orders?

9 A During the course of my assignment, we would look for
10 patterns of suspicious mailing activity; we would look at that
11 through the paperwork which would be the express mail labels
12 from these postal mailings. We would also look at live mail
13 that would go out to the postal service facility, the
14 processed incoming express mail for the D.C. Metro area and
15 also outbound express mail coming from the D.C. Metro area,
16 again, for suspicious mailings.

17 Q What were you looking for? What, in particular, were you
18 looking for? What were you trying to find?

19 A In particular, what we were looking for was in the
20 mornings, we were looking for inbound mailings that typically
21 contained drugs, illegal controlled substances, and then in
22 the evening, at the outbound mail, outbound express mail, we
23 were looking for illicit funds, currency, and also postal
24 money orders and other negotiable instruments.

25 Q And did there come a time when you focused on a business [Page Break]

17

1 called Pamela Martin & Associates?

2 A We did, yes, sir.

3 Q And how did that come about?

4 A In August of 2001 [Ed--My emphasis.], I had been profiling for outbound
5 express mailings and came across an express mail piece going
6 to Venetia, California, which had also come to my attention
7 during our review of Postal Service Express Mail labels.

8 Q Okay. And based on that, what did you do?

9 A With that particular piece, I tried to investigate what I
10 could about the sender, the recipient, and the goal was to
11 obtain a federal search warrant to open the mail piece and
12 determine whether contraband, in other words, illicit funds
13 were within that mail piece.

14 Q Did you have sufficient information at that time to
15 obtain a warrant for that piece of information?

16 A I had sufficient information to seek one.

17 Q Okay. Did you actually obtain one, though, at that time?

18 A I did not.

19 Q Okay. So what did you do with that package then?

20 A The package was returned to the mail stream for delivery.

21 Q And did you follow up on that at all?

22 A I did. That mail piece and the information that I found
23 out, which I attempted to get a search warrant on the basis
24 of, developed further through a longer term investigation and
25 became the first mail piece of a series of suspicious [Page Break]

18

1 mailings.

2 Q Okay. And did you look at patterns or other -- you say
3 other mailings. What did you do to look at other mailings
4 that were going to that post-office box? What did you do?

5 A There were a couple of initial investigative steps. We
6 reviewed the mailing history for express mailings going to
7 this particular address in Venetia, which was P.O. Box 1211 in
8 Venetia, 94510 is the ZIP code, Venetia, California.
9 Over an extended period of time, we developed about
10 247 mailings emanating from the Washington Metro area going to
11 this P.O. box.
12 We also did a mail cover tracking to --

13 Q Describe -- before you go too far, what is a mail cover?

14 A Mail cover is an investigative tool available to law
15 enforcement where law enforcement is authorized to review
16 incoming mail, the face of incoming mail going to a given
17 delivery address based on a criminal investigation. So, for a
18 period of 30 days or 60 days, we can review who is sending
19 mail to a given subject of an investigation.

20 Q And as part of that, what information did you develop
21 through that mail cover?

22 A What it developed was that the box holder of P.O. Box
23 1211 in Venetia was a Deborah Jeane Palfrey and that this
24 individual was associated with an out-call escort service
25 named Pamela Martin & Associates. [Page Break]

19

1 Mail directed to that P.O. box came in the name of
2 Deborah Jeane Palfrey, Pamela Martin, Pamela Martin &
3 Associates and combinations thereof. The mail cover that we
4 did illustrated a quantity of express mailings similar to the
5 ones that we had already tracked through our historical
6 documents, and those documents and the mail cover results
7 indicated that about 25 female senders were mailing express
8 mails and the grand total was 247 of them to this P.O. box in
9 Venetia.

10 Q And for what period of time are you talking about?

11 A The records that I reviewed were between the year 2000
12 and 2002.

13 Q Okay. And did you take steps in the local area to
14 determine if you could identify the women who were sending
15 those documents to Venetia, California?

16 A Yes, I did.

17 Q What steps did you take?

18 A We used address checks checking through the postal system
19 to see who receives mail at a given address; in this case, the
20 return address on the mailings. We have also used Department
21 of Motor Vehicle checks and Auto Track, which is a
22 commercially available address check system to try to identify
23 the mailers such as they appeared on the return address
24 portion of these express mails.

25 Q Okay. Were you able to identify any individuals who were [Page Break]

20

1 actually sending documents to Venetia, California?

2 A Yeah, approximately 25 of them.

3 Q Okay. And did you identify specifically by name any
4 individuals? Without giving their names, were you able to --
5 not just get the names of the persons but to identify -- to
6 figure out who they were, where they lived, that type of
7 thing?

8 A Yes, we were able to figure out many aspects of their
9 background.

10 Q Okay. And did you take steps at the post-offices
11 themselves to see if you could track those individuals'
12 actions relative to sending those express mail packages?

13 A Yeah. During the course of the investigation, I dealt
14 with many different postal employees, from window clerks who
15 sold the express mail service, to delivery employees who
16 delivered the express mailing in California and other
17 locations, and those individuals did provide me with
18 information.

19 Q And did you also take steps on the California end of
20 things to see if you could identify further who Deborah
21 Palfrey was and that type of thing?

22 A Yes, I did. The steps on the California end were to
23 determine whether or not, first of all, Ms. Palfrey held this
24 P.O. box, and in review of our postal records is each P.O. box
25 is a P.O. box application, a Form 1093." ...

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

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

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

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


...435

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

2 testified as follows:)

3 DIRECT EXAMINATION

4 BY MR. BUTLER:

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

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

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

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

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

10 A. For almost nine years.

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

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

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

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

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

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. For you said how long?

18 A. Approximately 10 years.

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

20 A. That's correct.

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

22 investigation of Pamela Martin & Associates?

23 A. Yes.

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

25 case?

436



1 A. Yes, they were.

2 Q. A case against Pamela Martin & Associates?

3 A. Yes.

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

5 case at that time?

6 A. Yes, I was.

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

8 A. Deborah Jeanne Palfrey.

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

10 A. Yes, I do.

11 Q. Would you identify --

12 MR. BURTON: We'll stipulate.

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

14 BY MR. BUTLER:

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

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

17 United States Postal Inspection Service in approximately March

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

19 investigation, some financial analysis assistance.

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

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

22 financial records, whether they be bank records, brokerage

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

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

25 speaking?

437



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

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

3 records themselves.

4 Q. And these were bank records for whom?

5 A. For Deborah Jeanne Palfrey.

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

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

8 brokerage account information with Charles Schwab.

9 Q. And that was whose account?

10 A. Deborah Jeanne Palfrey.

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

12 reviewed in this case?

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

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

15 Q. Bank records?

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

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

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

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

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

21 other accounts.

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

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

24 Q. And any other financial institutions?

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

438



1 received from them.

2 Q. And why Charles Schwab and Wells Fargo?

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

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

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

6 Charles Schwab account.

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

8 those documents here in court?

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

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

11 A. Yes.

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

13 Is that correct?

14 A. That's correct.

15 Q. Did you review tax returns?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. For which years?

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

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

20 We also reviewed tax returns from 1991 through 2005,

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

22 search warrant.

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

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

25 obtained from the search?

439



1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And what did the comparisons show?

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

4 they were exactly the same.

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

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

7 obtained during the search warrants?

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

9 Q. Why is that?

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

11 back for a certain amount of years.

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

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

14 did you have those?

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

16 2000 through June of 2006.

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

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

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

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

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

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

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And how much money was involved there?

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

440



1 $880,000 or somewhere around there.

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

3 A. Yes.

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

5 A. Yes, I can see it.

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

7 correct?

8 A. That's correct.

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

10 A. This spreadsheet --

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

12 MR. BUTLER: I'm sorry.

13 BY MR. BUTLER:

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

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

16 matter. Is that correct?

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

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

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

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

21 MR. BURTON: No objection.

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

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

24 BY MR. BUTLER:

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

441



1 please?

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

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

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

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

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

7 including both Wells Fargo Bank and Charles Schwab.

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

9 total up to the $882,649.48.

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

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

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

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

14 $94,505.

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

16 purpose of this diagram?

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

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

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

20 of time.

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

22 A. Deborah Jeanne Palfrey.

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

24 information, to show it in a different format?

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

442



1 amounts.

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

3 the jury for one moment.

4 THE COURT: All right.

5 BY MR. BUTLER:

6 Q. This is BNK-24.

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

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

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

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

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

12 MR. BURTON: Objection.

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

14 objection is sustained.

15 BY MR. BUTLER:

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

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

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

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

20 chart.

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

22 residence of Deborah Jeanne Palfrey?

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

24 October 2006.

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

443



1 A. Yes.

2 Q. From where?

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

4 California.

5 Q. And when was that search?

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

7 Q. Were you involved in that search?

8 A. Yes, I was.

9 Q. What was recovered during that search generally,

10 category-wise?

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

12 uncovered all types of financial records: Binders containing

13 information on the individuals who were working for the

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

15 checks, appointment books. Just a lot of different

16 correspondence information.

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

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

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

20 2005.

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

22 A. Yes.

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

24 went?

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

444



1 beginning year for Pamela Martin & Associates.

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

3 A. 1993.

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

5 the moment, but the --

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

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

8 Is that correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. These are the ones you talked about?

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

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

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

14 one, for 1993.

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

16 would the entire tax return be there?

17 A. Yes.

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

19 What is that?

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

21 1994, page one.

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

23 the tax return?

24 A. Yes.

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

445



1 A. 271 --

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

3 counsel. Is there a stipulation?

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

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

6 quickly.

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

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

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

10 anyway.

11 (OFF THE RECORD.)

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

13 in. We can expedite this.

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

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

16 all be offered in a lump.

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

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

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

20 of the different years of returns?

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

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

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

24 this way, Your Honor:

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

446



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

2 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999 --

3 THE COURT: All the way back to 1993?

4 MR. BUTLER: Yes, Your Honor.

5 THE COURT: Offered into evidence?

6 MR. BUTLER: Yes, Your Honor.

7 THE COURT: Received. Thank you.

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

9 evidence.)

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

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

12 THE COURT: 17 through 22?

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

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

15 Rule 1006 summary?

16 MR. BURTON: Yes, Your Honor.

17 MS. CONNELLY: I have a stipulation.

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

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

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

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

22 they're just getting a summary.

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

24 have a stipulation that will cover it.

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

447



1 financial documents, so...

2 THE COURT: Okay. Moving right on.

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

4 at this time?

5 THE COURT: Yes.

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

7 defendant Deborah Jeanne Palfrey, after consultation with her

8 counsel, stipulate and agree that: The government has

9 established the authenticity and admissibility of the financial

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

11 compilation under Federal Rules of Evidence 803.6; and has

12 produced declarations conforming to Federal Rules of

13 Evidence 902.11 from a custodian of records for business records

14 relating to accounts maintained on behalf of the defendant by

15 the following businesses:

16 Wells Fargo & Company, and Charles Schwab & Company

17 Incorporated, a subsidiary of the Charles Schwab Corporation.

18 The parties agree that the defendant may still object

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

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

21 Evidence 403."

22 THE COURT: Very well.

23 BY MR. BUTLER:

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

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

448



1 that?

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

3 Palfrey.

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

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

6 A. Form 1040 is for an individual filing.

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

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

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

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

11 Q. I mean Schedule C. Thank you.

12 A. (Witness complies.) All right.

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

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

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

16 single-member L.L.C.

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

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

19 Q. For what business?

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

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

22 A. Yes, there is a Schedule A.

23 Q. And what is a Schedule A?

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

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

449



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

2 expenses.

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

4 Martin & Associates was?

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

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

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

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

9 used for that business?

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

11 "cash."

12 Q. On the Schedule C?

13 A. That's correct.

14 Q. And what does that mean?

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

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

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

18 expenses, you can take those as expenses.

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

20 done?

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

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

23 receipts?

24 A. It shows gross receipts.

25 Q. And where does it show that?

450



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

2 gross receipts.

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

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

5 was received by the business during that year.

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

7 Is that correct?

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

9 received, that was sent to her.

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

11 Ms. Palfrey? [Ed.--Emphasis added.]

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And what did that show?

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

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

16 reported on this line. [Ed.--Emphasis added.]

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

18 THE COURT: Yes.

19 (BENCH CONFERENCE ON THE RECORD.)

20 MR. BURTON: I don't know where this is going.

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

22 anything to that effect. [Ed.--Emphasis added.]

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

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

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

451



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

2 inquiry.

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

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

5 to do that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13 don't know anything more than that.

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

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

16 just have a moment, Your Honor?

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

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

19 I can have a moment.

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

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

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

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

24 admit through him, yes.

25 THE COURT: Can he come back in the morning?

452



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

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

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

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

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

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

7 case. ...