Songs from the Site Meter: All roads lead to San Diego...

Site Meter--Some very curious hits recently, a kind of a "cluster"-effect. In my research into the Palfrey/DC Madam scandal, most all roads led to San Diego. The other area it went back to again and again wasn't exclusively geographical, but thematic and behavioral: lobbying in Washington D.C. by defense and intelligence contractors, and other lesser lights.

One recurrent theme in the research pointed to the abuse of minority-owned govt. contractors and laws created to favor them in the bidding process so as to facilitate business and economic activity within those communities. Instead, what sometimes happens is that a large contractor creates a dummy corporation masquerading as a minority-owned contractor and uses it to acquire more contracts than it's qualified to under federal law. That's right, it's illegal, especially when you're not rich and connected.


Suspect-A: Christopher D. Baker and his Shirlington Limo service which fits this model, although it could just as easily be a CIA front company, or even a hybrid of both. Baker's criminal rap-sheet is a whopping 61 pages long according to most sources, yet he continues to acquire multi-million dollar contracts from DHS, again and again, and even when someone like Rep. Louise Slaughter is openly questioning it during hearings and calling for investigations. Somehow, I think Baker's still doing fine under the new boss in the White House.

Suspect-B: ASRC Constructors, Inc., based in Alaska, and Inuit-owned...or at least that's what their paperworks states. This firm was mentioned-in-passing during the investigation and trial of former Alaskan Senator, Ted Stevens, for accepting gifts from--what else?--govt. contractors. Some are now claiming that Stevens was railroaded and that there was "prosecutorial misconduct." That's not out of the question, but that doesn't mean he's innocent either. Take it from someone who watched a guilty woman railroaded. "So what?" some might say. Ever heard of due process? What if you were being accused and you were innocent? Give that some thought...

There are other examples, other "suspects" in materials that I've seen from the DC Madam scandal, and there are probably others waiting to be found. The most stunning name I found in Palfrey's phone records cannot be named at this date and will only be familiar to a few: a war on terror suspect arrested shortly after the 9/11 attacks in the nation's capital. He was later released since the charges against him were dubious-at-best. Most bizarre--if this is the same individual--is that they were a Verizon engineer.

Domain Name		rr.com ? (Commercial)
IP Address		66.91.242.# (Road Runner)
ISP		Road Runner
Location		Continent : North America Country : United States (Facts) State : California City : San Diego Lat/Long : 32.8897, -117.1336 (Map)
Language		English en
Operating System		Macintosh MacOSX
Browser		Safari 1.3 Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10_4_11; en) AppleWebKit/531.21.8 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.4 Safari/531.21.10
Javascript		version 1.5
Monitor		Resolution : 1440 x 900 Color Depth : 24 bits
Time of Visit		Dec 8 2009 4:51:39 am
Last Page View		Dec 8 2009 5:17:24 am
Visit Length		25 minutes 45 seconds
Page Views		2
Referring URL
Visit Entry Page		http://chickasawpick...7_05_01_archive.html
Visit Exit Page		http://chickasawpick...7_05_01_archive.html
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-8:00
Visitor's Time		Dec 7 2009 1:51:39 pm
Visit Number		65,004

My best guess is that someone at Qualcomm saw the site and a few articles and went home to read more in the above hit. I began writing about the DC Madam in late April and early May of 2007. By the first week of June, she'd noticed these observations and contacted me.

Domain Name		(Unknown)
IP Address		65.214.169.# (Qualcomm)
ISP		Verizon Business
Location		Continent : North America Country : United States (Facts) State : California City : San Diego Lat/Long : 32.7191, -117.1607 (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 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution : 1024 x 768 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Dec 7 2009 11:45:11 pm
Last Page View		Dec 7 2009 11:45:11 pm
Visit Length		0 seconds
Page Views		1
Referring URL		http://www.google.co...r of 7&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
Search Engine		google.com
Search Words		j to the power of 7
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		Dec 7 2009 11:45:11 am
Visit Number		64,990

And the return of the protectors of David Vitter...

Domain Name		wrfvi.com ? (Commercial)
IP Address		208.162.162.# (WILEY, REIN & FIELDING)
ISP		SAVVIS Communications Corporation
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; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution : 1024 x 768 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Dec 7 2009 11:14:59 pm
Last Page View		Dec 7 2009 11:14:59 pm
Visit Length		0 seconds
Page Views		1
Referring URL		http://www.google.co...ausa wife&hl=en&sa=2
Search Engine		google.com
Search Words		jeff taylor ausa wife
Visit Entry Page		http://chickasawpick...y-in-palfrey_30.html
Visit Exit Page		http://chickasawpick...y-in-palfrey_30.html
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time		Dec 7 2009 11:14:59 am
Visit Number		64,985

What exactly would Wiley Rein want to know from this specific search? They seem to be concerned about the affairs and path of JeffreyA. Taylor. Hit the labels, and you'll see the connections run very deep indeed.

Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter has another ethics complaint filed against him, this time by Louisiana Democrats Part II

Louisiana--Yet another FEC complaint has been filed by Louisiana Democrats against him, so it's time for Davey to retain Wiley, Rein and Fielding once again (no, not for hookers this time), a high powered law firm populated by his own peers in the GOP, many past incumbents in Congress. Will he get out of it this time? Of course he will, the fix is always on for Davey, the law doesn't apply to people like him who service the wealthy and government contractor-fed districts (also known as "welfare").

Stupid is as stupid does, and the rule of law be damned.

The political committees of Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and former Rep. Chip Pickering (R-Miss.) have been accused of scheming to conceal a contribution from Pickering to Vitter in violation of federal campaign finance laws.

The Louisiana Democratic Party plans to file a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission today, charging that Barbour's PAC essentially filtered a $5,000 campaign donation from Pickering's PAC to Louisiana Vitter's 2010 reelection committee to make it look like the contribution didn't come directly from Pickering.

Louisiana Democrats allege that Pickering didn't want it to look like one Republican embroiled in a sex scandal was giving to another Republican involved in a sex scandal.

Pickering says the charges simply aren't true. ...

Here's the evidence Louisiana Democrats are presenting to the FEC:

In August, Barbour's low-dollar political action committee, Haley's PAC, collected just one check and made just one contribution, each for $5,000. The outgoing donation was to Vitter's campaign, and it was recorded four days before the receipt, which was from CHIP PAC. That is CHIP PAC's only activity since Pickering retired in January, and Haley's PAC has made only one other donation this year. ("Louisiana Democrats file complaint against Vitter," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10.06.2009)

And so, therefore, since Pickering says it isn't true, it's isn't true, especially to the eternal children who were abused by their parents and mutated into authoritarians. Can we just lower the age for the eligibility to run for public office? Any ten-year-olds out there? Hmm?

Do Pickering and Barbour have intimate ties with Wiley Rein? You bet, in legislative actions and consulting, and they've even given to his own campaign fund, in 2002, $1,000 (as far as we know). For example, Pickering received $1,500 from Haley Barbour's own law firm in the 2004 election cycle through two of their employees, and $500 from one at Akin Gump. You think they had to be told to? Me either. I could on (and on, and on...), but I leave it to the reader to make more connections that are a good indicator of impropriety.

Do a Google search on "Charles Pickering Wiley Rein and Fielding," and permutations on the other players. It's going to raise your hackles. What you see on the net is just the surface level, and that's bad enough. Now--and we can assume they're doing this most of the time--they're trying to do it under the wire. When the rules you made no longer work, you break them. You cannot get more perverse than this, breaking one's own rules.

"Contributions from Wiley Rein and Fielding to Charles Pickering," Watchdog.net: http://watchdog.net/contrib/?from=wiley%20rein%20and%20fielding"Louisiana Democrats file complaint against Vitter," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10.06.2009: &to=chip_pickering

Charles W. Pickering - $873,579 raised, '04 election cycle, Mississippi (MS, Republican Party, Congress," Campaignmoney.com: http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/campaigns/charles_w_pickering.asp?cycle=04

"Louisiana Democrats file complaint against Vitter," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10.06.2009: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09279/1003295-473.stm

July 3, 2008 - Vitter's (ultimately successful) attempt at skirting campaign finance laws: http://chickasawpicklesmell.blogspot.com/2008/07/louisiana-sen-david-vitter-attempting.html

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

Songs from the Site Meter: The return of the Sergeant at arms of the Senate over Sen. David Vitter!

Site Meter-You know, I and all the other watchdogs should be getting paid for this shit, just sayin'. So, they're still watching Vitter--as well they should, corrupt assholes like Davey are running amok these days. Meanwhile, Congress is shoving their own collective-thumbs up their own asses and doing barely anything-at-all, especially when it comes to cunts like Vitter.

I'm getting tired of this lack-of-accountability. If it continues I'm going to have to drag some of you fuckers into the streets with me to shout until these fuckers are tarred-n'-feathered, it's long overdue, we haven't had a good one in ages in America. With luck, Davey's still retaining Wiley, Rein and Fielding because he knows he's a dirty, greasy piece-of-shit and that he and his scumfuck counsel likely contributed to pushing the late DC Madam closer to suicide when they filed for attorney fees against her--that she'd have to pay for them once the smoke had cleared.

Here's to Vitter's continued legal expenses and him living in fear for the rest of his life because he cannot control himself, his member. It also wouldn't surprise me if his "peers" in the GOP knew he was a skirt-chaser and blackmailed him like many others in Congress and have forced him into servicing their nefarious agendas, really those of the ruling class at the end of the day. Sound like a system built on mud? It should.

These are the people YOU vote for, not me. So quit doing it, get smart, wise-up, use your dome. That's what it's there for. These dirty high powered law firms make a lot of this possible, with their revolving-doors in-and-out of the the corporate world and government. The time for radical reform has come. Demand it. Now. Quit waiting for someone else to do it, do it now, the time for waiting is over.

Domain Name		senate.gov ? (U.S. Government)
IP Address		156.33.35.# (U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms)
ISP		U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms
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 WinNT
Browser		Internet Explorer 7.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; InfoPath.2; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30618)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution : 1920 x 1200 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Sep 11 2009 5:32:41 am
Last Page View		Sep 11 2009 5:32:41 am
Visit Length		0 seconds
Page Views		1
Referring URL		http://blogsearch.go...2&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d
Search Engine		blogsearch.google.com
Search Words		"david vitter"
Visit Entry Page		http://chickasawpick...ilson-douchebag.html
Visit Exit Page		http://chickasawpick...ilson-douchebag.html
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time		Sep 10 2009 5:32:41 pm
Visit Number		59,666

Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter has another ethics complaint filed against him, this time by Louisiana Democrats

Baton Rouge, Louisiana--And it's about time. It seems that Davey is still unaware of or doesn't care about campaigning laws. In recent months, he attempted to and was allowed to used campaign funds to pay for his legal expenses surrounding the fact that he used the prostitution service of the late Deborah Jeane Palfrey (aka "The DC Madam"), but it helps to have friends in the right places--put their through crony political appointments.

Now, it seems that Davey is going around on the taxpayer's buck (wouldn't you?) campaigning against Democratic U.S. Representative Charlie Melancon throughout Louisiana, very openly uttering the man's name in-the-pejorative. 

That's campaigning.

Louisiana Democratic Party Chairman Chris Whittington filed a sworn complaint with the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics Thursday accusing U.S. Sen. David Vitter of using taxpayer-funded town hall meetings to engage in campaign activity.

Whittington’s complaint is based on Vitter’s statements at several taxpayer-funded town hall meetings criticizing U.S. Rep. Charlie Melancon, a potential re-election opponent. At one town hall meeting, Vitter encouraged the audience to “keep up the pressure on” Melancon.

Vitter has said that Melancon supported the health care revamp legislation proposed by the Obama administration when he actually voted with Vitter against the measure. ("La. Democrats file ethics complaint against Vitter," The Advertiser, 08.21.2009)

This is similar to the rules surrounding "franking." Sorry, you can only lie on the taxpayer's dime when you're in the nation's capital.
 
While they're at it, they might want to drag a dead madam into the picture. It seems that the Senator's counsel threatened Palfrey with legal costs around February 25th, 2008. Three days later, she sent this email to journalist Jason Leopold, cc'd to me and a co-researcher in the defense:

Jason… let’s put it like this, the bastards aren’t going to take me alive. Of course, anytime that you want to do an interview – I will make myself available. However, I doubt that I will be doing any interviews once I am in D.C., for the trial. –Best, Jeane

Did the threats from Vitter's counsel at Wiley, Rein & Fielding finally push Palfrey over the edge and onto a firm course leading to suicide? Don't ask Alex Jones, Geraldo, or even Alex Constantine, you won't get a rational answer anyway--not that that should be any surprise. Yet, it's all about the big, bad "government," that boorish catch-all, when it's really about morons like Vitter abusing their office and the bureaucracy. Like any tool, government is amoral. How it's used or abused is the real issue. Abusing power is what it's all about for morons like Davey.

I'd ask Vitter and his counsel about whether they think they pushed Palfrey too far, but I don't expect an answer that wouldn't insult my intelligence. Life is too short. Never let it be said that David Vitter is unwilling to crush anyone who gets in his way. Lying is fine, obfuscation is fine, and a general tone of ruthlessness runs through his political career as one would expect it to be in American poltics. I'm sure that if the people of Louisiana really knew the man for who he truly is, they'd recoil in terror and chastise themselves for being so delusional as to have ever voted for him. Nah...

Revised 08.23.2009

"La. Democrats file ethics complaint against Vitter," The Advertiser, 08.21.2009: http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20090821/NEWS01/90821020

Senator Vitter's counsel Wiley, Rein, & Fielding visit J to the Power of 7

Site Meter--It appears Senator Vitter is still racking-up those legal expenses. Works for me. I'd say "that'll learn ya," but this guy's penis never does...

Domain Name		wrfvi.com ? (Commercial)
IP Address		208.162.162.# (WILEY, REIN & FIELDING)
ISP		SAVVIS Communications Corporation
Location		Continent : North America Country : United States (Facts) State : District of Columbia City : Washington Lat/Long : 38.9097, -77.0231 (Map)
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinXP
Browser		Internet Explorer 6.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution : 800 x 600 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Aug 22 2008 3:19:28 am
Last Page View		Aug 22 2008 3:19:28 am
Visit Length		0 seconds
Page Views		1
Referring URL		http://search.cnn.co...rtBy=date&intl=false
Search Engine		search.cnn.com
Search Words		fec ruling on senator vitter
Visit Entry Page		http://chickasawpick...-must-pay-legal.html
Visit Exit Page		http://chickasawpick...-must-pay-legal.html
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time		Aug 21 2008 3:19:28 pm
Visit Number		40,13

CBS's 2004 obscenity fine for Janet Jackson nipple-shot reversed, and other yucks

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania--In the city that began the persecution of the late Lenny Bruce, we have a victory. Also headquartered in the city is the telecommunications giant Comcast,™ a "teleconglomerate" who's had difficulties with the current FCC chair from the GOP dominion of North Carolina.

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the FCC deviated from a longstanding policy of 30+ years regarding obscenity without giving any cause or explanation.

Therefore, the fine is moot:

"Like any agency, the FCC may change its policies without judicial second-guessing," the court said. "But it cannot change a well-established course of action without supplying notice of and a reasoned explanation for its policy departure."

The 3rd Circuit judges - Chief Judge Anthony J. Scirica, Judge Marjorie O. Rendell and Judge Julio M. Fuentes - also ruled that the FCC deviated from its long-held approach of applying identical standards to words and images when reviewing complaints of indecency.("Federal appeals court tosses out fine against CBS for Jackson 'wardrobe malfunction,' " AP, 07.21.2008)

This shores-up the First amendment protections for freedom of expression. In other words, it's possible that the original ruling by the FCC will have inadvertently expanded artistic and expressive freedoms on the airwaves. It probably won't be a lot, but that's not the point.

The point is that those who want to rollback these and other rights aren't getting their way. But the corporations almost always do, ideology-be-damned, and Martin has serviced them well. Servicing concentrated capital and "free markets" is all that matters, not the religious right. They never really did, except when it was convenient in dividing-up the fickle and apathetic electorate.

We know it's not going to end here--it never does--but for those who value one of the most exceptional aspects of American democracy, it's a victory.

Remember back to early-2004: it was a time when the Bush administration and the GOP still retained some reasonably high approval ratings, though they were in-decline thanks to the beginnings of the Plame scandal, the subsequent ongoing investigation (which still is "ongoing"), and troubling signs in Iraq as we all witnessed the rise of the insurgency.

Katrina and the revelations of the existence of numerous other White House scandals hadn't even happened yet.

At that time, the congressional GOP and the White House were still running almost completely amok, and the FCC appointee wasn't going to miss out on all the fun. Orders are orders, but things don't always go according to plans.

A federal appeals court has tossed out the Federal Communications Commission’s $550,000 indecency fine against CBS for the infamous Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction” at the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show.

The decision - the second recent blow to FCC chairman Kevin J. Martin’s crackdown on broadcast indecency - said the agency acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” in levying the fine. ("Court tosses FCC Super Bowl fine-Says org acted 'arbitrarily and capriciously,' " Variety, 07.21.2008)

No, it didn't work out like they thought it would, even after dragging the process out for an excruciating four years. One has to ponder if CBS will qualify for a reimbursement of court costs from the federal government. Heckuva job, Marty, you clean up those airwaves. Just remember that the public still technically owns them and that we're watching you hand-out all kinds of perks to telecommunications companies and conglomerates.

That's "special interests" in the jargon of the politicians who appoint people like Martin. Yet, he's also been a mixed-bag for his handlers.

Martin has done some interesting things for a partisan hack, and made some attempts at deregulation of the cable industry in some peculiar directions, though namely to curb access to violent and sexual programming. Martin's approach is interesting, and could have some unforeseen consequences:

Martin says the nation's cable problems could be solved by requiring Comcast and other providers to sell cable channels individually, or a la carte. This form of sales could reduce cable bills by allowing customers to buy just the channels they truly like and watch.

Customers who found some cable entertainment distasteful would not have to subsidize the offensive channels that come in 200-channel packages.

Cable companies say the pay-per-channel model actually would cost more and would hurt small entertainment programmers. ("FCC chief Martin: The nation's indecency czar," The Philadelphia Enquirer, 07.03.2008)

But rather than servicing moral and cultural conservatives of the religious right, Martin has obtained a result in the CBS case that goes in another, more liberal direction. What's also strange is that if cable channels were prorated/a la carte for consumers, many of them would opt-out on such right-wing outlets as Fox News, which was actually forced on most cable systems in previous packaging formats.

If Martin has proven anything, it's that crusading FCC chairs face serious limitations not only from the public, but from the political environment and the telecommunications industry. An evangelical agenda is likely to get lost in the details and rival agendas. Business trumps religion, in other words, and promises for a conservative social agenda aren't likely to materialize.

Or is there a difference between business and religious orthodoxy? Martin has argued for "more competition," but that's not traditionally what regulators do in the reflexively protectionist Washington. Confused? The FCC chairman has felt and acted the same. Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it, and the modern world is a labyrinth.

One thing's certain: Martin's time is running out at the FCC under the essentially lame duck Bush administration--well, "lame duck" if you leave-out funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and immunity for the warrantless surveillance program.

"Unbundling" cable channels into an a la carte system isn't likely to happen under his stewardship as the youngest FCC chair with just over five months left to the one of the most unpopular presidencies in American history. The most unpopular Congress has even less time left, and November is coming sooner rather than later.

It should be remembered that Martin was a mere 35-years-old at his swearing as FCC commissioner on July 3, 2001.

He was reappointed in 2006 by the current president, and his term is set to expire in June of 2011, though it's expected that he'll be replaced with a Democratic appointee by Barack Obama if he's victorious in his bid for the White House. It's likely that he would be retained by a McCain administration. GOP candidate John McCain has come out in support of the a la carte/unbundling agenda.

That's not the real issue, however--Martin has been running agendas through the FCC's decision-making process, namely in deregulating ownership of various forms of media by telecommunications corporations, and easing their ability to work with municipal governments.

The investigation comes on the heels of a previous inquiry by the committee regarding what Dingell called "a breakdown of proper procedure at the FCC." The inquiry was sent in regards to the FCC's Dec. 18th vote on relaxing restrictions on media consolidation in individual markets.

Consumer advocates, media watchdogs, and even several of Martin's fellow commissioners criticized him for rushing the vote, limiting public discussion and comment, and scheduling meetings with little notice or warning.

The speed with which Martin pushed to pass the vote led members of the Senate to introduce legislation specifically to block the new rules until more examination of their effects could be made. ("House Committee To Probe FCC," Consumer Affairs, 01.08.2008)

Yes, even the "bought" Senate had misgivings over Martin's bureaucratic behaviors. It should be noted that Martin worked under special partisan prosecutor Kenneth Starr, who investigated allegations into the affair between former President Bill Clinton and White House staffer Monica Lewinsky. This directly benefited the Bush campaign in the 2000 elections.

Chairman Martin was also a former staffer at Wiley, Rein, and Fielding, the law and lobbying firm currently representing Senator David Vitter in his bid to pay for legal costs in the DC Madam scandal from campaign funds. It's good having friends like this considering that Martin is being investigated by the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee on several serious issues. And this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

FCC chairman Kevin J. Martin's loss in court this week is just one-of-many problems he's facing, and his days of agenda-making are coming to an end. Whomever takes the chair, it's all about business and the rights of so-called "corporate citizens." This was never about a woman's nipples. Strange, that.

"Federal appeals court tosses out fine against CBS for Jackson 'wardrobe malfunction,' " AP, 07.21.2008: http://enews.earthlink.net/article/bus?guid=20080721/488409c0_3421_1334520080721-1071313454

"Court tosses FCC Super Bowl fine-Says org acted 'arbitrarily and capriciously,' " Variety, 07.21.2008: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117989249.html?categoryid=16&cs=1

"FCC chief Martin: The nation's indecency czar," The Philadelphia Enquirer, 07.03.2008: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/20080703_FCC_chief_Martin__The_nation_s_indecency_czar.html

"House Committee To Probe FCC," Consumer Affairs, 01.08.2008: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008/01/fcc_house.html

Louisiana Sen. David Vitter attempting to use campaign donations to pay for legal fees related to Palfrey case

Washington D.C./Metarie, Louisiana--Is it redundant to refer to the donors of Sen. Vitter's campaign as suckers? Never mind, the Advocate is reporting today that the senator from Louisiana has sent a letter to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) trying to recoup over $70,000 in legal fees he incurred, assessing and watching the Palfrey scandal through counsel.

This pleases myself--the editor of this site--to no end. The total amount is somewhere in the neighborhood of $137,000, a tidy sum for someone who never set-foot in a courtroom. Why just $70,000? Perhaps the senator doesn't want the public to know what all of the money was spent on, but much of it was probably expended on private investigators and legal research.

Vitter's present counsel, Jan Witold Baran--whom he's now incurring even more legal debts with--has made some striking admissions to the Advocate, but the message is coming from Vitter. Will anyone notice? The Advocate missed spelling-out who Baran is: one of the "top elections and campaign lawyers who was an "Executive Assistant" to the FEC, 1977-79, according to his own firm profile. He's an insider who even represented the RNC and the Bush Sr. campaign in 1988. (http://www.wileyrein.com/directory.cfm?attorney_id=399)

Vitter has paid $70,000 of the legal fees personally and is asking that the money be re-imbursed through the campaign funds, the letter says.

FEC officials could not be reached late Wednesday afternoon for comment. Through his spokesman, Vitter declined to comment on the letter. The latest FEC campaign contributions report for Vitter, filed March 31, shows he has $1.6 million in his campaign coffers.

Baran, in the letter, says Vitter had been monitoring the Palfrey case three months before the senator acknowledged what he called a serious sin in his past. A review of the Palfrey records shows Vitter’s number on the list five times between 1999 and 2001 when he was in the House. ("Vitter to seek help with fees," The Advocate, 07.03.2008)

Why should the campaign contributors have to pay for Vitter's continual lies and obfuscations? Baran conveying Vitter's acknowledgment that he was "monitoring" the case from as early as late-March makes it plain that the senator was well aware of his guilt, and moved heaven and earth to avoid responsibility.

But now, a woman is dead by her own hand, and for some perverse reason, he's still holding office, though not if Louisiana state Republicans can help it. Eight GOP incumbents in the Senate still appear to support the errant-genitals of Sen. Vitter and Larry Craig--and the rest of their bodies--when they co-sponsored yet another round in the feeble-attempt at a gay marriage amendment to the Constitution, banning it.

Will the FEC reimburse the senator for his legal expenses? It depends on how much of a liability he's become to the national GOP, how much control the party itself exerts over the bureaucracy, and whether Louisianans have any self-respect left. After Katrina, it's time to muster some.

Yet, it appears that some of them still do, particularly Nate Monroe of The Daily Reveille, and he's hardly alone in the Southern state. Monroe's observations on Vitter's proposal of another stab at a national ban on gay marriage and his behavior related to the Palfrey case are astute:

The self-righteous hubris that Vitter revealed during his scandal - that it happened a long time ago, that he was "sorry," that he allegedly apologized to God and that, finally, he will not resign because he is still the best man to save Louisiana from itself - is the same hubris that motivated him to cosponsor this ridiculous piece of legislation. And of course, this bill is coming at a time when Congress ought to be paying attention to more dire events. ("Senator Vitter is married to arrogance," The Daily Reveille, 07.03.2008)

Technically, he's married to Wendy...for now. It should go without saying that the FEC would vote "no" to Vitter's absurd request, particularly with the April 15th conviction of the deceased Deborah Jeane Palfrey. This means that Vitter committed at least five criminal acts of soliciting prostitutes, and that he did likewise in his own home state. There is a possibility that he violated federal white slave laws and the Traveling Act, since Palfrey's service crossed state lines in the D.C. region.

At-minimum, it would be a grotesque act of favoritism and injustice for him to be reimbursed even a penny. Taking responsibility means just that, and Vitter's just illustrating that he's never going to unless he's forced to by society, by the courts. It sounds familiar doesn't it? It sounds a lot like the Bush administration, but then, it should. We're talking about the national GOP here.

This story and the career of the senator should have ended when Vitter's name was found in Palfrey's escort service records on July 9th of last year by researcher Dan Moldea. But up is down and down is up when the Republicans control the bureaucracy in Washington. They're right: government doesn't work...when they're in power.

It's the hope of this writer that Sen. Vitter's private investigators and attorneys were paid very well indeed when they came to J-7, as they most assuredly did. Several high powered law firms visited this site during the period before Vitter's semi-admission of guilt in July of 2007, and afterwards. There's another thing he's wrong about: others in the phone records were retaining counsel, just as he did, and they certainly incurred legal expenses of several thousand dollars.

How do I know this? Because many of them came through this site, leaving a record of it on the third party site meter. It's all about David, naturally. The other Johns are their own concern, they don't even exist to Vitter--and cannot, if he's going to succeed in painting himself as some kind of martyr. Absurd, and he's failing.

Sen. Vitter's attempt at evading even more responsibility for his actions, 07.03.2008: http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/22850554.html

The day after we learned Sen. David Vitter was a sinner, 07.10.2007: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/09/AR2007070902030.html

"Senator Vitter is married to arrogance," The Daily Reveille, 07.03.2008: http://media.www.lsureveille.com/media/storage/paper868/news/2008/07/03/Opinion/Senator.Vitter.Is.Married.To.Arrogance-3387766.shtml