ED NORRIS: THE GENESIS OF DEBORAH JEANE PALFREY'S LEGAL PREDICAMENT?

Washington D.C./Baltimore, Maryland--"The criminal charges in this indictment are the result of a joint investigation by the United States Postal Inspection Service, the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation Division and the United States Attorney's Office.

This case was prosecuted by Steven H. Levin and Jason M. Weinstein," states the June 21st, 2004 press release from the U.S. Attorney's office for the District of Maryland. This was the summation into the embezzlement from "the Supplemental Account" by former Baltimore police commissioner Edward T. Norris and his former Chief of Staff, John Stendrini. At this same time, the investigation into "DC Madam" Deborah Jeane Palfrey had begun, according to court documents.

The money that Norris and Stendrini embezzled was--ostensibly--used to spend on "girlfriends" (probably prostitutes he was simply ferrying to prominent clients), nights out at fine restaurants, and vacations. The case was brought forward by U.S. Attorney Thomas DiBiagio. What's interesting here is that you have a joint investigation by these three departments of government in a fashion that strongly resembles their (with different players) investigation into Deborah Jeane Palfrey.

Question: does Ms. Palfrey get her own radio show in Vallejo after her trial? Sure, that happens to everyone after serving time in a federal prison. Like Ollie North, Ed Norris has his own talk radio show out of the town he disgraced, through WHFS (owned by the very right-leaning Viacom/CBS). How does this happen? You have to have powerful friends in the right places--like then (2004) Baltimore mayor Martin O'Malley, and even former GOP governor Bob Ehrlichman, Jr. You couldn't have a better friend than one who does this:

For some observers, O'Malley hasn't been quick enough to switch commissioners. The mayor didn't waste any time getting rid of Daniel. But O'Malley stuck by Norris when The Sun first questioned his use of a departmental expense account, calling the commissioner a good cop but a poor accountant. The mayor resisted calls for an independent investigation and narrowly limited the scope of the audit eventually conducted for the city. [my emphasis] O'Malley seemed heartbroken when Norris left the Baltimore job of his own accord to lead the Maryland State Police. Only later, when Norris was indicted on federal corruption charges, did O'Malley say he felt "betrayed" by Norris' behavior. (Baltimore Sun, 11.11.2004)

And O'Malley's poor-judgement would continue, until he was rewarded with the office of Governor on January 17th of 2007. O'Malley's still making poor decisions on who should lead the Maryland Police as superintendent, just as he did in choosing Ed Norris as police commissioner. Running parallel with O'Malley's rise--and former GOP Governor Bob Ehrlich's and Norris's descent--is the case of Ms. Palfrey.

Limiting the scope of any investigation should raise some alarms, and it most certainly has in the state of Maryland with Norris, while somehow O'Malley has survived unscathed. When then mayor Martin O'Malley fired police commissioner Kevin P. Clark in November of 2004 (after Norris's departure as a convict), Baltimore had had four commissioners in five years. Martin O'Malley doesn't have a good record overseeing his responsibilities governing local law enforcement (or the federal ones operating in his state).

There's always something missing in the picture: "Thomas DiBiagio, who was the U.S. Attorney back in 2004, up in Baltimore, was trying to bring down [Robert] Ehrlich who was the Republican governor of Maryland, and tie him in with all of Jack Abramoff's shenanigans, the mob, and the whole push for [legal] gambling," states Jeane Palfrey. She tells me it has taken "many months" for her to come upon these tendrils. "Is this partisan?" I ask her.

The story that unfolds isn't unfamiliar, and she continues in more detail: "Now, I think what happened here is that Thomas DiBagio--who I have been told is no angel--was out to get Bob Ehrlich[, Jr.], Ed Norris, Jack Abramoff--[to stop] all these corrupt players out to push gambling in Maryland. We all know what Jack Abramoff was about. ...He was playing with the mob, he was playing with the governor [Ehrlich], and I think Thomas DiBiagio was out to get him. ...It's well-documented." Indeed, it is, and DiBiagio has been very vocal about his firing in recent months, tying his "departure" directly to the current U.S. Attorney scandal.

As in those cases, there are conflicting accounts of the circumstances that led to Mr. DiBiagio’s ouster. The Justice Department disputes his version. His office had been looking into whether associates of Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. had improperly funneled money from gambling interests to promote legalized slot machines in Maryland. Mr. DiBiagio said that several prominent Maryland Republicans had pressed him to back away from the inquiries and that one conversation had so troubled him that he reported it to an F.B.I. official as a threat. But he said that the Justice Department had offered little support and that that made it “impossible for me to stay.” (New York Times, 03.06.2007)

Palfrey continues onto Edward T. Norris, the aforementioned former police commissioner of Baltimore, citing some important similarities in investigatory procedure between their cases--it seems federal investigators were paying visits to Norris's father (he signed a mortgage on Norris's home, making him technically culpable), and hanging a 30 year sentence over his head. IRS investigator Troy Burrus and Postal Inspector Maria Cuvillon (phonetic) visited Ms. Palfrey's mother at her Florida home, perhaps wanting to entrap her into making similar admissions that Jeane had bought her...anything.

The New York Times makes an interesting assertion in the DiBiagio article, that "[the] investigation appears to have ended after Mr. DiBiagio left office in January 2005." (ibid) Has it? How would anyone in the public know this without an FOIA request?

"In May of 2004, Ed Norris pleas out to six months. That's a mighty big drop from 30 years to six months.This is what I think happened: I think that Thomas DiBiagio took Ed Norris's plea deal..., and part of the plea agreement was to offer up people on the platter. I believe I was one of those people, and possibly Brandy Britton was one of those people." Palfrey contends that she could be "queen for the day" in a case where DiBiagio was attempting all these things, as well as catching "bad actor" agents within Baltimore's U.S. Attorney's office, specifically FBI agents gone criminal.

This might be where the Jonathan Luna connection comes in. She believes she could be the "lead witness" in what's a submerged conflict between political elements, the mob, the FBI (both "good" and "bad" actors), and sundry other elements that could be on her remaining phone records (like the other nine years). [Ed.-'AS WELL AS 2002 TO 2006 – THE YEARS ABC INVESTIGATED, BUT CHOSE NOT TO REPORT,' states Palfrey in a June 21st e-mail to myself].

Did DiBiagio tip off IRS agent Troy Burrus about Palfrey via Norris? Mr. Burrus should answer this question in a court room, and soon. www.crippledchimp.com has some interesting observations dating-back to May 12th:

The murder of [assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan] Luna and the firing of DiBiagio eliminated the threat that the well-heeled customers of the DC/Baltimore prostitution ring, many of them GOP stalwarts, would be exposed prior to the December 2004 presidential election [Ed.-'AND THE 2006 ELECTION – HENCE THE RATIONALE FOR THE VISIT TO CALIFORNIA, LAST OCTOBER,' writes Ms. Palfrey in the same e-mail]. The attempt by Justice prosecutors and Judge Kessler to limit the criminal case to Palfrey continues the effort to punish the DC Madam and her employees and divert attention away from the customers. In May 2004, at the same time Norris and his chief of staff agreed to a plea deal in the prostitution case and received light semtences, Palfrey came under intense federal investigation.

Throwing in Jack Abramoff to this mix broadens its scope, with potential leads to the Justice Department under one Alberto Gonzales, a man appointed by one George W. Bush. But then, the very investigators into the case provide a route to the embattled Gonzales and Bush administration anyway. Their backgrounds seem to portend an outing as "Bushies," totally obedient to the GOP and the Bush administration's agendas.

Without any doubt, this case is patently political--it's not about prostitution, a tangential-link in an almost overwhelming web of corruption, deceit, bribery/graft, and even the murder of an assistant U.S. Attorney. Another feature of the Ehrlich investigation that resembles the so-called investigation into Ms. Palfrey: the use of grand jury subpoenas. Regardless of the killing of ABC's 20/20 segment, Deborah Jeane Palfrey is caught in the middle of a political war. More later.

The US DOJ's June 21st, 2004 press release on their plea deal with the convicted ex-Baltimore City police commissioner, Edward T. Norris: http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/usaopress/2004/txdv04Norris-StendriniSentencePR.pdf

The Baltimore Sun on Ed Norris & Martin O'Malley, 11.11.2004: http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/news/hits/041111bs.htm

An article on the love between former Gov. Bob Ehrlich and current Gov. Martin O'Malley (Washington Post, 10.25.2006): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/24/AR2006102401699.html

"Former Prosecutor Says Departure Was Pressured, The New York Times, 03.06.2007: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/washington/06prosecutor.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=04ae190ec7fb2b8e&ex=1330837200&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1182455116-nRQnUB7SLtixwsgWS8SCzg

Crippled Chimp, May 12th, 2007: http://www.crippledchimp.com/Hookergate-Expands-to-Cheney-Fired-US-Attorney-and-Former-MD-Gov-Ehrlich-Staff
Ed Norris's website (but does he have a CD?): http://ednorris.com/

Ed.--Revised on Ed. notes June 25th, 2007.

"BUSH VETOES STEM CELL RESEARCH BILL: ASK TONY SNOW...NOTHING.

wArSHINtuHn--Why didn't someone in the White House press corps ask Tony Snow if he thought the president's veto was signing his own death warrant? He looks terrible, and one could assume he's barely beating his cancer--that the remission is only temporary. I've lost two loved-ones to cancer, I know these things. Couldn't stem cell research be applied to certain forms of cancer? Tony won't ever live to see that, so I guess he's decided on the brown-lipstick to the grave...as well as the so-called "journalists" that were in-attendance today.

Nobody looks good with brown-lipstick. What incredible stupidity, what gall, to preserve what one has left of a base in a presidency that is--for-all-intents--dead. But death is all this administration has been about. Pathetic is the only word for George W. Bush and virtually all of the people he's appointed (except Patrick Fitzgerald & David Iglesias, it seems). This will easily be seen as the most criminal administration in American history. Forget the Teapot Dome scandal, this is David O. Selznick or Cecil B. Demille in its epic quality (and vulgarity and gaudiness). Insane.

An interview with Dr. Noam Chomsky, from "Interpol Magazine," February 1995 (Part 2 of 2)

This was an interview conducted through the mail with Dr. Chomsky while I was finishing my degree in American History at Ball State University. Just two-months after I received his answers in the mail, we all witnessed the Oklahoma City bombing, and the first stirrings of the war on terror (really a domestic one against all of us). It's been a long road from the Spring of 1995. At that time, the internet was just starting to become accessible, and its impact on the political and cultural discourse is only now being realized. 1995 was a year when the "zine revolution" was occurring, and it was quickly-supplanted by the high-price of paper and the internet.

This interview was done for one of those little zines--my own--called "Interpol." I actually got copies of it in zine-central, the legendary Quimby's Queer Store in Chicago. It was pretty surreal going up to the Windy City and seeing those copies in the store (I never got paid, incidentally), it felt pretty good.

All that said, I would never trade the blog format, it's superior in every respect to that old digest format, and it's getting better all the time. Dr. Chomsky is a very friendly and encouraging person, and when he passes from this world, we will have lost a wonderful human being. Appreciate the flowers in life, they are fleeting. Try to be that person you admire, and strive to make a better world for all. That's the meaning of life.


Matt Janovic: Is "Leftism", as defined by the mainstream culture, more a problem of semantics, rather than a cohesive movement? It seems that throughout much of the 20th century, when groups worked and protested and acted for honest political change, the press and various "populist" elements resorted to labeling them "anarchists," "reds," "communists/commies," "pinkos," etc. . Do you agree with the analysis that often mob actions are stimulated from above, or are there complex social and economic reasons behind scapegoating and vigilantism?

Noam Chomsky: If I were a PR specialist trying to indoctrinate and marginalize people(as they do, quite consciously), I'd try to deprive all words of meaning, so that it's impossible even to think and talk coherently about things that matter (the powerful will continue in their own ways). To a large extent, that's happened. Personally, I keep away from words like "left," "liberal," "conservative," etc.

They have been so deprived of meaning as to become useless. Take "conservatism." The Reaganites were called "conservative." In fact, they were statist reactionaries; a genuine conservative would have turned over in his grave to hear the way the term is used today. There's also been a massive falsification of the "sacred texts." Take Adam Smith. We are supposed to worship at his shrine, but if anyone takes the trouble to read him, they'll find a very different picture from the official version handed down in the doctrinal system.

As for "mob action," it has so many different causes and sources that one can't generalize. CIO organizing and the civil rights movement were "mob action" from one point of view; the rampages of Hitler's organizations were too. Usually, when destructive mob action is stimulated from above, as it often is, it appeals to genuine social and economic concerns, manipulated for that purpose. Those are the tools in trade of demagogues, of every stripe. We've got plenty of experience with it throughout US history, dramatically right now.

Matt Janovic: What can the average person learn from the fall of the Soviet Union?

Noam Chomsky: The simplest lesson is a familiar one: in a conflict, the more powerful adversary tends to win. Europe began to separate into two parts in the 15th century, the West beginning to develop, the East becoming its "third world." That continued right to the early years of this century--for much of Eastern Europe, until 1945. There are some rules of the international game: (!) service areas have to fulfill their function, not get uppity about following an independent path; (2) if they do take off on their own and turn out to be successful in terms that appeal to others in the same boat, they really have to be crushed--in official rhetoric, they are a "virus" that might "infect others," a "rotten apple" that might "spoil the barrel."

If it's a speck in the Caribbean, it takes a weekend. If it's 1/6 of the world, it takes 70 years. But the logic is rather similar; and not surprisingly, much of Eastern Europe is returning to its earlier origins. Sectors that were part of the industrial West, like the Czech Republic, are returning to that status; parts that were basically service areas are returning to the typical third world model. There are all sorts of nuances and complications, but that's a fair approximation.

It's worth stressing that despite much pretense, Western leaders had no serious objections to Stalin's awesome crimes, any more than they had fundamental objections to Hitler or Mussolini, or to Saddam Hussein, or to a host of similar and lesser monsters. On that, the documentary record is very clear, and one can learn about it in arcane monographs (or the marginalised dissident literature). In a really free society, it would be on the front pages and in the school texts, along with much else that is consigned to the memory hole, as Politically Incorrect (in the operative sense of this ridiculous term).

Matt Janovic: Dr. Chomsky, what kind of direct improvements would you envision for the American worker in the workplace, if there was more democracy in most institutions of our society? How do you think that could be brought about?

Noam Chomsky: Right now [1995] one can't look for any improvements; the immediate problem is to preserve the rights that were finally achieved at least in part in the 1930s, after a century of bitter struggle, and have been eroding ever since. They are now under very sever and cruel assault, not just for working people: the same is true of family values, as I mentioned. A traditional stance within the US labor movement and intellectual life, as American as apple pie, is that industrial democracy must be a central component of operative democracy.

If the central decision-making institutions of a society--in production, commerce, finance, ideology, etc.--are in the hands of unaccountable private power, then democracy is a thin reed at best. That's traditional and mainstream. Today it sounds exotic, but that's because the American tradition has largely been demolished, also being "Politically Incorrect." How can democratic practices be extended to the central institutions of the society? There's only one answer, always: the same way they were slowly extended to governmental functions. That was never a gift; it was the result of committed popular organization and action.

Matt Janovic: In a truly democratic society, what do you think our educational system would be like?

Noam Chomsky: Education in a democratic society would try to encourage the natural curiosity and independence of mind of children, instead of suppressing it and channelling them into obedience and conformity. It would celebrate the traditional values of the Enlightenment and classical liberalism, which held that teaching should not be like filling a vessel with water, but helping a plant grow in its own way by allowing it to have proper food and light. These traditional conservative values are, of course, anathema to contemporary statist reactionaries.

Matt Janovic: Lastly, what is your idea of international humanism, and do you believe that to impose Western democratic and humanistic ideals (as the Chinese communists/nationalists loyal to the party argue) on non-Western nations is cultural imperialism?

Noam Chomsky: The idea that the West tries to impose "western democratic and humanistic ideals" on the rest of the world is one of the most ridiculous scams that the commissar class has indulged in. Western leaders, including intellectual elites, are dedicated to undermining these professed ideals at home, and centuries of brutal history show how they have "fostered" them elsewhere. Take simply the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UD).

The official line is that we courageously defend its universality, fighting off the "cultural relativists" of backward countries who say it doesn't fully extend to them. As even a moment's attention will show, the US flatly rejects about half of the UD even in principle, and grossly violates the rest. That's not controversial; the documentation is readily available. But for the doctrinal managers, it doesn't matter: what is important is ideological warfare, not truth or honesty--in fact, those are the values that have to be undermined.

Link to Part 1: http://chickasawpicklesmell.blogspot.com/2007/05/interview-with-dr-noam-chomsky-from.html#links

End of Part 2 of 2 (and statement of intellectual ownership): This interview is the intellectual property of Dr. Noam Chomsky and Matt Janovic, in toto. Permission to reprint, quote, or reproduce can be obtained through written permission from the authors. Quotes of up-to four lines are acceptable without permission. All rights reserved as of 2007, Noam Chomsky and Matt Janovic.

J-7 CALL FOR INFORMATION ON THESE PALFREY INVESTIGATORS AND PROSECUTORS

Maria E. Couvillon or Cuvillion U.S. Postal Inspector [Ed.--Palfrey contends that she to be in her late-twenties, early-thirties. 6/27-name is phonetic. Wayne Madsen Report has it as "Cuvio."]
Joe Clark, U.S. Postal Inspector (want his home phone number? Get it before he changes it!) [Ed.-Palfrey also contends that Clark is the same age-range.]
Catherine K. Connelly, Assistant U.S. Attorney (MA Bar #649430) [Ed.-Ms. Palfrey contends in our interview that Ms. Connelly appears to be in the same age-range as the aforementioned investigators.]
William Rakestraw Cowden, Assistant U.S. Attorney (D.C. Bar #426301)
Jeffrey A. Taylor, U.S. Attorney [Ed.-Appointed interim by Alberto Gonzales under the Patriot Act provision that was that was repealed by recent legislation--Taylor has 109 days left in his term as of June 26th, 2007, less than the president]
Daniel P. Butler, Assistant U.S. Attorney (D.C. Bar #417718)
Troy Burrus, Agent Internal Revenue Service [Ed. Ms. Palfrey and her mother contend that Burrus appeared to be around the same ages as Connelly, Clark & Cuvillon. Palfrey's mother only met Burrus and Cuvillon on the night of June 5th of this year.]
Is there a doctor in the house? J-7 would like to know the ages and hiring-circumstances of these folks, the accusers of one Deborah Jeane Palfrey. I believe that Mr. Taylor was appointed by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, so we already know his appointment as an U.S. Attorney was questionable.

Is he a Republican? I'm sure we'll all be finding-out very soon. While J-7 cannot fully substantiate the ages of the others yet, it's even money that Cuvillon, Clark, and Burrus are in their late-20s, or early-30s.

This is very strange--how does one become a Postal investigator/inspector at 22-24? This writer contends that it would take some serious juice, a benefactor either already ensconced above within the bureaucracy, or someone who was appointed by the president. I'm trying to get through to a number of these public servants, and without any luck so far. This is what we need to know, then, in-sum:

--What are the exact ages of these public servants?
--How did they attain their positions within the federal bureaus that they're working for? Were they appointed? We know that Jeffrey A. Taylor, lead prosecutor, was appointed by the embattled Alberto Gonzales. He actually appears to be in his 30s, but Al scotched his credibility already. Taylor is a "positive" example, but then, all of them could be considered such. Assistant U.S. Attorneys are appointed. All Justice Department lawyers on Palfrey's case were appointed by Alberto Gonzales.
--Are any or all of these individuals evangelical Christians with an activist background?
--Did any of them attend colleges like Regents School of Law?
--What are their real world qualifications? Court documents appear to be saying that Ms. Cuvillon has almost none whatsoever.
--Do they have any incidents in their professional records that would call their credibility into question as prosecutors or investigators?

--What's their educational background? Taylor's appears to be pretty solid, and so is Troy Burrus's--he went to Auburn University.

These are a few things we all need to know as citizens, but it's a rare commodity. It's beginning to look like FOIA-time here at J-7. We need to know if our prosecutors are credible and untainted politically. Credible submissions only, it has to be solid primary evidence, legally-obtained. I welcome these public servants to contact me through my blog profile, my e-mail address is available there.

Ed.--revised, June 26th & 29th, 2007.

"HOOKERGATE," RANDALL L. TOBIAS, & PAUL WOLFOWITZ: THE AMERICAN PROFUMO SCANDAL?

Washington D.C.--In e-mails and in our interview, Ms. Palfrey compared her situation as being very much like the "Profumo" scandal, and that it might involve a government official divulging information to a sex worker who was an operative for a foreign intelligence agency (though many operatives frequently work all sides).

It's an incredible assertion, and Palfrey has yet to provide evidence of it. However, this writer tends in that direction as well. The evidence could very well be in her phone records, and she's currently waiting for a decision on the gag ruling by Federal District Judge Gladys Kessler.

She's been correct about the majority of her public assertions so far: just ask Randall L. Tobias. Then, there's Harlan K. Ullman, military strategist and think tank advisor, professor, author, and-then-some. He's refused to talk at all, despite the defendant's attempts to subpoena him. An examination of the Profumo affair is instructive here:

What brought Profumo down even more than his deceit of the [House of] Commons, was the startling revelation that Keeler had also slept with Eugene Ivanov, the naval attache at the Soviet embassy. It was that detail which captured world attention, notably in the United States, where the FBI compiled a detailed report called Operation Bowtie [Ed.-the FOIA link to the files is now dead]. In Britain, Profumo's downfall naturally caused a huge sensation, inflated by the establishment's crude and cruel attempts to find scapegoats for its own embarrassment. As usual, official wrath was turned on those least able to defend themselves. Stephen Ward was prosecuted for living on immoral earnings. On the last day of his trial, he killed himself with an overdose of sleeping tablets. Keeler was also tried and imprisoned on related charges. (Guardian, 04.10.2001)

Tory War Minister John Dennis Profumo slept with Keeler, who slept with a Soviet spy. He might have said things to Keeler that he shouldn't have, and she may have conveyed it (accidentally?) to the Soviet Eugene Ivanov. Do we have a similar scenario here?

Were federal investigators looking for something else entirely when they searched Deborah Jeane Palfrey's Vallejo home? What were 12 SWAT-equipped ("assault-riles and masks," says one source) Howard county police doing at Brandy Britton's (former employee of Palfrey's) home when she was first arrested?

She says the authorities have unfairly singled her out, made up lies, mistreated, stalked and harassed her since Jan. 17, when a team of Howard County officers burst into her quiet suburban home and ransacked the place, breaking her belongings, upsetting her pets and arresting Britton on prostitution charges. “It sounds paranoid, but they did really serious criminal stuff,” Britton says. “They’ve broken into my house 10 or 15 times. They’ve tapped my phones. They put a tail on me and follow me everywhere.” (examiner.com, 10.26.2006)

That sounds like overkill for a woman who was anonymously accused of soliciting sex.What were they looking for? Was it an e-mail or document(s) relating to a scenario much like that between War Minister Profumo and Christine Keeler? Who is the Christine Keeler in this case? Who is/are the Profumo(s)? This leads us to...

Paul Wolfowitz's recent scandal could very well be connected to all of this: was his "girlfriend" really his beau? What is the entire background of Shaha Ali Riza? Could she be a deep cover agent for a Middle Eastern nation? There appears to be some smoke here, and it behooves us to ask the question of whether Wolfowitz compromised himself by uttering national security secrets in the presence of Ali Riza, and maybe others--could this be the real heart of this whole scandal?

Is there a connection between Wolfowitz and Tobias in all of this? Is there a connection between them and their "concerns" over the international sex trade and human trafficking? Gulf state nations like Saudi Arabia are notorious violators of such international agreements, importing sex-slaves from the region, including Southeast Asia, South Korea, and Africa. Read on.

Amazingly, the world press and everyone but the American public knew that Wolfowitz's girlfriend already worked at the World Bank before his appointment, and were reporting it widely:

There is Republican pressure to reform the World Bank so that it becomes more of a facilitator for private-sector involvement and less of a direct intervener. Mr Wolfowitz’s girlfriend, Shaha Ali Riza, works at the World Bank. Ms Riza, who was born in Tunis and grew up in Saudi Arabia, is an ardent proponent of spreading democratic rights throughout the Arabic world. Her low-key presence in Mr Wolfowitz’s life surprises critics, who assert that he masterminds a Zionist conspiracy from the Pentagon. (The Times, 03.17.2005)

Again, this was even before Wolfowitz was appointed World Bank President. Someone might want to ask Ms. Ali Riza if she's ever worked for the Saudi General Intelligence Directorate under Prince Turki al-Faisal (once Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, Great Britain, and Ireland). How did Shaha Ali Riza--a British subject at the time--obtain security clearances for the State Department and the Pentagon? Is she a triple-agent? No answers appear to be forthcoming here.

Of course, much of this is connected to late-April of this year, when the Wolfowitz/World Bank scandal broke. Paul Wolfowitz had--and still has--many detractors, but there was an odd "defender": former U.S. Attorney and international law and diplomacy prof at John Hopkins, Ruth Wedgwood.

Her location puts her very close geographically to the death of Brandy Britton, as well as what could be a sprawling web-of-corruption in Baltimore involving prostitution, police corruption at the highest-levels, political warfare, and much more. Where does Wedgwood fit into all of this? On April 17th, 2007, she did something peculiar: she wrote a defense of World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz for the L.A. Times called "The Wolfowitz non-story."

The authors of this acrid affair have nakedly forgotten the standards of fairness and due process owed Riza, who is a member of the bank staff association and entitled to its fiduciary protections. And the scandal-mongers have recklessly ignored a written record of bank documents that serves not to condemn but to exculpate Wolfowitz. (L.A. Times, 04.17.2007)

Oddly, a number of the facts she trots-out in the opinion piece tends towards the thesis that Ali Riza has an intelligence background. As we all know now, she was wrong about Wolfowitz on several counts, and hid her credentials as a staunch-supporter and beneficiary of the Bush administration (they appointed her as an Assistant U.S. Attorney) and Wolfowitz. Wedgwood's article is a smokescreen, and her credibility is in-question.

A reply was in-the-offing, and it came to the L.A. Times on April 30th from "Islamic Law expert and photojournalist" Sarah Whalen after angry readers pointed-out Wedgwood's connections to the Bush administration and the embattled World Bank President:

Ordinarily, expert opinions by former assistant U.S. attorneys like Wedgwood count for something. But Wedgwood, sputtered one angered reader, is biased. "For the Times to publish her column without disclosing her close ties to the Bush administration is inexcusable," scolded reader Gerald Shea. ...Wedgwood should address the real legal question facing Wolfowitz and Shaha: How did Shaha, a Libyan national with British citizenship, get her Pentagon and U.S. State Department security clearances? Sidney Blumenthal first raised this issue in his recent Guardian article, "Wolfowitz Sinking Into Endless Scandal." Shaha needed security clearances for her Wolfowitz-engineered "leave of absence" from the World Bank to her consulting job at Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) and later to her State Department job. But she apparently didn't have them. "Who intervened?" Blumenthal asks. (L.A. Times, 04.30.2007)

That's right, who allowed Shaha Ali Riza those security clearances? When we know their name(s), they're going to be leaving office. Perhaps they already have--in-part--in the person of Paul D. Wolfowitz...and possibly Randall L. Tobias. It's important to put your middle-initial in there to at least look and sound prominent. Merely sleeping with a woman does not explain Tobias's immediate departure from the State Department. What generates and motivates these kinds of scandals and the usage of "honey traps"? Usually, overarching national and strategic-aims...

Saudi Arabia has been concerned about the status of the several break-away Republics in Central Asia which are primarily Muslim. They also provide pipeline routes and sources of oil and natural gas. The aims of all of this--employing someone like Shaha Ali Riza in deep cover--would be to ascertain what the State Department's and the Pentagon's planning on these regions would entail.

Whether he knew it or not, Paul Wolfowitz might have allowed a spy for MI6/MI1c/SIS/the Saudi Intelligence Directorate/etc. to have extraordinary access and clearance within these institutions. This could be some of that context:

At the same time, members of the ruling dynasty, including the directors of several big oil companies and high-ranking officers of the General Intelligence Service, were pursuing clearly practical aims. They viewed Central Asia as part of a larger region, stretching from Pakistan in the South, to the Russian Caucasus in the North. Besides the diffusion of their influence over the local Muslims, and the competition with Turkey and Iran, the Saudis were interested in participating in a greater number of regional projects for the mining and transporting of energy resources. Not having the possibility of neutralizing the competition with the Eurasian states in the oil and gas markets, Riyadh relied on getting a share of the income from their future profits. It was with this purpose in mind that Delta Oil Company developed its activity in Afghanistan; Gulf Star company and Dallah al-Baraka Group did the same in Kazakhstan; and the Caucasian Investment Bank was established for developing work in the Caucasus (with the help of the commercial structures belonging to the Saudi billionaire, Adnan Khashoggi). Pakistani partners were actively helping the Saudis to attain their goals. (axisglobe.com, 11.30.2005)

Is this a segment of "hookergate's" genesis? Sources are telling me that it could be. Was Shaha Ali Riza a sex worker? Did she have connections to these channels? On December 11th, 2006, then-ambassador Prince Turki al-Faisal left his post "after 15 months." ('Saudi Ambassador Abruptly Resigns, Leaves Washington." Washington Post, 12.12.2006) Is there a connection? More later.

The Guardian on the Profumo affair (2001):
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/politicspast/story/0,9061,471383,00.html

The Washington Post on the suicide of Brandy Britton (and a curious admission on their part),
01.30.2007: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012900654.html

The Times on Shaha Ali Riza, March 17, 2005: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article429379.ece

"Complete 911 Timeline":
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline

The L.A. Times' "Wedgwood piece," 04.17.2007: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-wedgwood17apr17,1,4026819.story

and the reply: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-whalen30apr30,0,364571.story?coll=la-opinion-center

"UNDER THE SIGN OF ANDIJAN-Saudi Intelligence Versus the Pentagon: http://www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=506

COURT UPDATE ON PALFREY CASE: "DC MADAM'S" CRIMINAL LAW ATTORNEY REQUESTS A DROPPING OF CHARGES

Washington D.C.--Again, credit goes to the Washington Post for continuing their coverage of the legal predicament of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, eschewing the credulous reaction most of the media (and prominent "liberal/progressive" blogs) to the killing of ABC's 20/20 segment (redacted to seven minutes).

Today's news brought us a little closer to what a settlement and resolution of the case might look like if the investigators considered the current political climate:

Deborah Jeane Palfrey was the victim of selective prosecution and was indicted only after she publicly criticized federal prosecutors and threatened to seek an independent investigation of them from the attorney general, her attorney wrote in court filings. "As can be verified by picking up the Yellow Pages, a Washingtonian magazine or The Washington Post, Ms. Palfrey owns and operates merely one of hundreds of escort services operating [in] the District of Columbia," lawyer Preston Burton wrote. "There is evidence . . . that demonstrate[s] the realistic possibility that Ms. Palfrey was singled out for prosecution on the basis of her petition to the government requesting the appointment of Special Counsel." (Washington Post, "District Briefing, Saturday, June 16 2007; B02. ESCORT SERVICE CASE. 'Attorney Asks Judge to Dismiss Charges. ")

This appears very likely, especially upon examination of the time-line, but it's also a well-known fact that Washington D.C. is literally teeming with sundry escort services--why aren't they in court too? Why is it just Deborah Jeane Palfrey? Where are her former employees, particularly the ones who constitute the "five confidential informants?" Surely, all of them feel "intimidated" as "witnesses," forget former clients (like Fred Thompson? [Ed., 08.28.2008-This name was confirmed to myself by Palfrey in a missive. Larry Flynt has the name, but it no-longer matters.]).

This leads into how informant programs and deals frequently work: the affiants are given legal immunity in-exchange for their testimony. This doesn't prevent someone from having engaged in prostitution--or any other crime--without Palfrey's knowledge to save themselves by accusing her in what would constitute perjured statements. That's a possible reason for this statement from the Justice Department's lead-prosecutor:

"Here's the pickle we're in, your honor," said federal prosecutor William Cowden [Ed.-assistant US Attorney]. "The information in government files in some cases relate to other individuals' possible criminal activity [Ed.--probably those of the informants, but could also include the criminal activities of former clients] . . . . My suspicion is the defense wants to make some of that information public." Palfrey and the government have been in a protracted dispute over whether she has used some of her phone records from her business, Pamela Martin and Associates, to try to publicly identify former customers and intimidate potential prosecution witnesses. (Washington Post, 05.22.2007)

Even a cursory examination of the government's past use of informants illustrates its usage is highly suspect--suspicion is right. Most informants have already broken a law (frequently, a heinous one with victims) before they reach a federal prosecutor, and their motives should always be questioned (as well as the truthfulness of their claims).

The "pickle" could be the mess that federal prosecutors have allowed themselves to be baited-into by certain former clients--prominent ones. Some of them could still be holding-office within the Justice Department as I write this, or even the White House. They wouldn't lie, would they?

What sets-off alarm bells is that Assistant U.S. Attorney Cowden is trying to quash any attention to these legitimate concerns, and they are real concerns in any criminal case brought by the federal government against any lone-individual (especially one they've impoverished through forfeiture laws). Cowden's probably being told to take this approach by his boss, Jeffrey A. Taylor. Is Taylor being told by Attorney General Gonzales on how to proceed in this case? Congress (the Judiciary Committees) and her own investigators might be interested to know. They should ask Ms. Monica Goodling, and under oath.

The use of confidential informants has been abused countless times by the FBI in the harassment of political, religious, and cultural minorities in the United States.

But consider this: should you trust the testimony of someone who has broken laws that are worse than what the defendant is being accused of? This is just another valid criticism of the use of confidential informants. This aside, Palfrey and her new criminal attorney Preston Burton are attacking the legal foundation of all five federal counts against her. Readers should also know that until Ms. Palfrey's case (not an issue of her guilt or innocence), prostitution wasn't a federal offense.

Somehow, it became so without the passage of any legislation...or did it? There's another side to Palfrey's former employees--the ones who didn't get caught-up in the Justice Department's net:

The escort says she never told Palfrey—"a great boss"—that she slept with clients several times a week. She says she misses the work—and the business and investing advice clients offered. [my emphasis]"It was all about role-playing and packaging yourself," she says. "It's exactly what they teach you in sales and marketing." ("D.C. Sex Scandal: An Escort's Perspective," Newsweek, 06.04.2007.)

Question: are the "confidential informants" lying? And what was that "business and investing advice" that former clients "offered"? It all seems to hinge on the affidavits, and these are being suppressed as evidence.

The whole case seems flimsy, yet, this is how the Justice Department is handling the case, and with no obvious jurisdiction. Maybe that's why the postal investigators were brought in. The only "evidence" they appear to have is the word of some very frightened former employees--who may have solicited prostitution without Palfrey's knowledge--of Pamela Martin & Associates.

Do Taylor and company have much of a case at all? Even looking from the outside, it doesn't appear so. Again, it's a pertinent question to ask about how Assistant U.S. Attorney Cowden, Assistant U.S. Attorney Catherine M. Connelly (Mass. Bar #649430), U.S. Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel P. Butler, (D.C. Bar #417718) came into their jobs. If it was under the Bush administration, the Senate Judiciary Committee needs to subpoena them as well for all the reasons one might suspect.

The Washington Post on "Hookergate" and trial proceedings (various): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/21/AR2007052100660.html

And: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/21/AR2007052100660.html

A directory of articles on Ms. Palfrey's predicament: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/related-topics.html/Deborah+Jeane+Palfrey?tid=informline

Newsweek, 06.04.2007: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18881818/site/newsweek/

MSNBC Today on the new court developments: http://www.nbc4.com/news/13515636/detail.html

BUSH ADMINISTRATION HIRING PRACTICES & REGENTS UNIVERSITY: WORSE THAN YOU THINK

Washington D.C.--You have to hand it to the Washington Post--they know the right tendrils to follow. Well, at least when they're allowed to by the Editorial board (headed by Bob Woodward--thanks Bob). This one might have escaped those of us following the US Attorney firing scandal:

It used to be that being 33 and in charge of 93 U.S. attorneys would mean you'd been top of your class at Harvard or Yale or clerked at the Supreme Court. Now, Christian schools are joining that mix. Regent has had 150 of its graduates working in the White House; the school estimates that one-sixth of its alumni are in government work [my emphasis]. Call them the Goodlings: scrubbed young ideologues, ready to serve their nation, the right's version of the Peace Corps generation. (Washington Post, 05.25.2007)

"One-sixth" is significant, and potentially overrepresentational. Is it just the Justice Department? Well, no. A number of journalists have been pointing this out for years, and we know that dozens of Regent's alumni have been in the White House as gophers, aides, assistants, and what-have-you. But it's not just about whether they're "evangelicals," or even religious--as long as they follow-orders and tow the partisan line for the GOP, it's all good. Is this the case regarding the investigators in the "Hookergate" case? This writer would like to know.

This recruitment of evangelicals like Goodling is just a part of an overall strategy in overrunning civil government and other social institutions--and seizing them for their agendas. Schools like Regent, Liberty, Patrick Henry, Bob Jones University, Messiah University (Goodling's first college-of-choice) are parallel institutions meant to overwhelm the rest of us before we know what's happening. So far, the public isn't paying-attention, and they should.

These parallel institutions have cousins, as in the case of "the Leadership Institute," which trains right-wing activists in the arts of attack-journalism and agitprop. They aren't real credentials, yet the appearance of competence and credibility somehow appear out of the ether in the form of cash-endowments from donors like Joseph Coors (maker of a very impoverished line of beers):

The seminars offered by the Institute cover a wide range of topics, including the two-day broadcast journalism workshop of which Gannon is a graduate and a five-day Candidate Development School, in which students preparing to run for public office are instructed in areas such as "Right to Life -- How to Win This Battle," and "Right to Keep & Bear Arms -- How to Win This Battle" (according to the school's "sample agenda"). The Leadership Institute lists on its website a number of prominent public figures who have graduated from its programs; including Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-KY), president of Americans for Tax Reform Grover Norquist, and Republican strategist, former executive director of the Christian Coalition and Southeast regional chairman for the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign Ralph Reed. (Media Matters, 02.11.2005)

This is where many of these politicians get their "talking-points," in-case you ever wondered. "Right to Keep & Bear Arms" has been one of their best shticks all-along, dividing traditional conservatives from grassroots populism and progressives on the so-called Left who actually agree with them on the 2nd Amendment.

What the Leadership Institute constitutes is a shibboleth factory, a place where social apparitions are manufactured in order to divide the American public on unimportant sideline-issues that never cut to the heart of our problems. This is all done in the service of power, funded by power. Surely, the functionaries believe, but "leadership" doesn't buy their own line. That's why Karl Rove referred to most evangelicals as "idiots" and "crazies." That's because they've been played...by him and his masters. These people could be the real "fifth- columnists," the real budding-terrorists, our domestic Bolshevism.

The Washington Post, 05.25.2007 (by Hanna Rosin): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/24/AR2007052402032.html

Media Matters on Jeff Gannon and the Leadership Institute: http://mediamatters.org/items/200502120002

HIRING PRACTICES AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT: WIDESPREAD PATRONAGE APPOINTMENTS UNDER BUSH ADMINSTRATION?

"We anticipate that many of our graduates are going to go and be change agents in society." --Regent School of Law Dean, Jeffrey Brauch to the Boston Globe (04.08.2007)


Washington D.C.--While it's beyond the scope of this blog to fully-investigate this--something that only Congress can truly find-out--there could be connections between "Hookergate" and the U.S. Attorney firing scandal, and they could be legion. Take former senior counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Monica Goodling: she's now 33, but was in her late-twenties when she tapped for Justice by...who?

That would be Alberto Gonzales, who answers to the president. Goodling--a graduate of lowest-tiered Regent School of Law--hired ex-U.S. Attorney (not fired) Tim Griffin in what could be a widespread game of appointment-leapfrog, and helped draw-up a list of prosecutors to fire. There is ample-evidence at this time to believe they were fired for political reasons. According to an April Boston Globe article on Regent, there is ample-evidence the Bush administration hires-and-fires, and also for political reasons. Hey, that's fair:

But even in its darker days, Regent has had no better friend than the Bush administration. Graduates of the law school have been among the most influential of the more than 150 Regent University alumni hired to federal government positions since President Bush took office in 2001, according to a university website. One of those graduates is Monica Goodling , the former top aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who is at the center of the storm over the firing of US attorneys. Goodling, who resigned on Friday, has become the face of Regent overnight -- and drawn a harsh spotlight to the administration's hiring of officials educated at smaller, conservative schools with sometimes marginal academic reputations. (Boston Globe, 04.08.2007)

Hey, the president didn't have good grades either. He must have a soft-spot (his head) for them. It would seem it's the Bush administration and their appointments, once ensconced within the bureaucracy, who decide on the hiring now. How widespread is this? Is it politically-based? It appears it could very well be. There have been rumblings about this for months-and-months, but we got an earful around May 7th regarding the Justice Department probe:

"We are highly disturbed by the emerging information, because it seems to repeat this pattern going on at the [Department of Justice] where people are chosen for their positions not for their experience and qualifications, but rather whether or not they match a certain political ideology," Sanchez said. Among those raising concerns is Joseph Rich, a 36-year veteran of the department, who left in 2005 after serving as head of the Civil Rights Division's section that deals with voting rights. "The whole hiring process had been changed to put the decision-making in political appointees' hands, and it was clear it was being politicized in that manner," Rich told CNN. (CNN, 05.07.2007)

Tim Griffin could tell us more about the problems at the Civil Rights Division. But is it just at Justice? This is the connection to Deborah Jeane Palfrey and her case. Palfrey's impressions of the postal agents who contacted her realtor on October 3rd of 2006 appeared to be in their "late-twenties." Her mother was visited at her home in Florida on June 5th of this year by IRS agent Troy Burrus...and one of the postal investigators, Maria Cuvillon. Her mother had the same impression, and Palfrey adds, "...my mother thought the “kids” appeared to be very young."

Is it a strange question to ask: are hiring practices throughout the rest of our government bureaucracy are the same as they are at Justice (under the Bush administration)? This is an administration that has made-it-plain that they're at war with the departments of our government--could politically-based hiring be of any surprise after warrantless wiretapping?

It's being alleged that Bradley Schlozman (former top official in the Civil Rights Division of Justice) had the party-affiliation of Ty Clevenger (a Republican) removed from his application for employment at the department. Again, the public isn't allowed to know these details under federal law, based on protecting investigative procedures and privacy. The public isn't allowed access to this information.

Is standard procedure a legitimate front (highlighted by legal counsel like Harriet Miers, or even someone like Goodling?), something that the Bush administration was counting on? What's strange is the multi-jurisdictional quality of Palfrey's case, it seems confused: the USPS, the Justice Department, and the IRS (more?). There could be other departments involved, but the question is: why? Was authorizing the use of postal investigators a way to federalize the case? Could the same be said about the involvement of the IRS? Is this how "Hookergate" began:

Lawmakers from both parties yesterday called for limits on antiterrorism laws in response to a Justice Department report that the FBI improperly obtained telephone logs, banking records and other personal information on thousands of Americans." It also found that the FBI had hatched an agreement with telephone companies allowing the agency to ask for information on more than 3,000 phone numbers -- often without a subpoena, without an emergency or even without an investigative case. (Washington Post, 03.10.2007)

This sounds very familiar, and might cover the predicament that Ms. Palfrey has found herself in. Were antiterrorism laws used--and abused--in her case? Many in Congress have been calling for a rollback on statutes within the Patriot Act. We could be finding-out soon whether Deborah Jeane Palfrey was caught-up in this net, but this aspect can only be covered by Congress--or by whistle-blowers.

CNN, 05.07.2007: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/07/justice.prosecutors/index.html

The Washington Post, 03.10.2007: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902356.html

The Boston Globe on Regent School of Law, 04.08.2007:

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/04/08/scandal_puts_spotlight_on_christian_law_school/?page=full

"HOOKERGATE," CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANTS, AND "THE KIDS"

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA/WASHINGTON D.C.--In an earlier article, this writer mentioned two names in the headline--Joe Clark and Maria Couvillon (phonetic). According to Ms. Deborah Jeane Palfrey and her civil attorney Blair Sibley, these are the two postal investigators who called Palfrey's realtor at 2pm for access to her home.

At this time, they had no warrant, and secured one later that day in Sacramento from a lowly magistrate. Clark and Couvillon obtained their warrant, but with what information? Read on. Did they accuse Ms. Palfrey of links to Al-Qaida? Apparently not, since she's not at Guantanamo Bay prison. Ms. Palfrey has informed me that Couvillon, Clark, and IRS agent Troy Burrus--not the UK pop star--are all in their late-twenties. How is this important? Further investigation could tell us, and about a whole lot more.
USPS couldn't confirm on the two from postal investigations, but Palfrey asserts that all were in this age-range (she calls them, "the kids"). Why would this matter? It could have something to do with the current "war on terror," and hiring and appointment-practices under the Bush administration. How did Monica Goodling get her job? She was appointed, she is 33, and she attended Pat Robertson University for her law degree (take that, Harvard!). Can the same be said for Clark and Burrus? According to Palfrey's civil attorney (Sibley), Couvillon has no substantial educational background that would qualify her as a postal investigator. Importantly: why was Couvillon present with IRS agent Troy Burrus on a visit to Palfrey's mother in Florida about a week ago? More on this aspect later. If any readers have information pertaining to the educational background of government agents covering this case, it would be greatly appreciated.

Mr. Clark left his home phone number with Ms. Palfrey's realtor--want it? Mainstream media and many so-called "liberal" blogs don't appear interested in this story anymore. They should know that there were "screaming matches" at ABC over whether to run the full-story or not. Brian Ross wanted to do full-disclosure, but his Executive producers quashed the segment. Many things ended-up "on the cutting-room floor," asserts Palfrey. Considering the run-up to the show, this is not hard to believe.

A call to the USPS's PIO (Public Information Office) has so far yielded no new answers, and many of the unanswered questions cannot simply be due to investigative procedures. There could be some stonewalling. I'm still waiting, but was told that the release of how long both agents were with the USPS as investigators was likely. J-7 readers will be the first to know. Author William Keisling has informed me that Sunday's Sopranos finale had a line referencing a prostitution and bribery scandal. Jeane was excited to watch the show that night, and it must have been a stunner, she's a big fan of the show (hey, who isn't?). One can grant that it's entirely legitimate to withhold certain facts in an investigation (there are legitimate concerns not to expose procedure), but shouldn't Ms. Palfrey and her civil attorney know who authorized the trip of Ms. Couvillon and Mr. Clark? Was it the grand jury? Shouldn't we all know by now?

If the investigation into her lasted over two years, why is it still ongoing after nine months after its disclosure? It gives the appearance that this--as Ms. Palfrey so aptly put it--is a "loser" case run by incompetents, and that there is a lot of scrambling going on in various bureaus. Why isn't she being given due process? Was there ever really an investigation at all? These are worthy questions, and the prosecution and investigators won't answer them. We could have a case of gross incompetence here, and that's just-for-starters. But it's even worse: there was use of informants. "[There were] five girls that they questioned in December of 2005, and questioned them--believe me, very leading questions. This is the information that they used for the search warrant...The girls who were interviewed in December of 2005 were girls who worked for me in 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003. That's why the information was at least 3-1/2-to-5-years-old....[from] these five "confidential informants," states Palfrey.

She goes on to detail what she's been shown of these "affidavits," most statements totaling "a couple of paragraphs, tops." This sounds all-too-familiar. The affidavits sound consistent with the strategy of the press: don't name any names of clients, especially if they're prominent.

For other primary documents:
www.deborahjeanepalfrey.com/html.legal

WHERE IS THE NEGATIVE FOR MICHAEL MOORE'S "SICKO"?

www.michaelmoore.com --I'm sure they had copies in France--as Moore stated to reporters at Cannes--but now Michael Moore is saying he's still worried the film will be confiscated by the Bush administration's Treasury Department, and that a copy of the negative is now in Canada. Well sure it is, Lion's Gate are doing the actual distribution, while the Weinstein Company will be doing the promotions. Lion's Gate are a Canadian entertainment company that began as an affordable post-production house in the 1970s.

But Moore says he has not broken any laws because he traveled to Cuba for a "journalistic endeavor." "We brought back 15 minutes of the movie and we're concerned about any possible confiscation efforts," Moore told a news conference in New York. "We took measures a few weeks ago to place a master copy of this film in Canada so if they did take our negative we would have a duplicate negative of this film in Canada." (Reuters, 06.11.2007)

Considering we're now squarely in the digital age, there are likely numerous digital-copies of the film now. It's possible the film was stored on several hard drives, and shipped or flown up with an escort more than a "few weeks ago." It's a wait-and-see as to whether the Treasury Department will seize the film during the distribution process, though it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to tell us what their move will be before June 29th when the film is released nationally. This shouldn't be happening to any filmmaker.

Reuters, 06.11.2007: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070611/wl_canada_nm/canada_moore_col_1

DICK TRACY'S NEW ARCH-NEMESIS: ONIONHEAD THOMPSON

This was posted in comments on McCain and Thompson's poll ratings, at www.rawstory.com:

Can I start this here and hope it sticks? Thompson is "Onion Head"....Tell me he doesn't look like an onion....He does...Onion HeadOnion HeadOnion HeadAnonymous Email Homepage 06.12.07 - 8:12 am

Yeah, and everyone laughed at Reagan--until he'd "won." Americans tend to forget (almost everything) that there was a lot of voter-apathy at that time. Also, the GOP was caught disenfranchising tens-of-thousands of Black Americans. Sound familiar? Belittle him--yes--but realize that he's a real threat, another Bush and another...uh, Bush.

The McCain/Thompson story: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Thompson_within_striking_distance_of_GOP_0611.html#comments

GASOLINE IS HOVERING AROUND $3.00-A-GALLON IN SOUTH BEND/MICHIANA

SOUTH BEND/MICHIANA--Yeah, but it's still $3.00-a-gallon! I'm seeing gas as low as $3.03-a-gallon...at a Citgo station. Oh well, the State Department and the Bush administration must have wanted Hugo Chavez to have the world's single-largest oil supply. At the prices we're seeing per-barrel now, it's economical for Venezuela's state controlled oil industry to exploit their oil that rest in geological-deposits. Thanks George W. Bush, you've made my dream of a Socialist-encircled America come true! Also, thanks for exposing most of the levers-of-manipulation thanks to you and your administration's obvious incompetence.

Want to understand the genesis of the Palfrey case better? (buy this book)

Baltimore, Maryland--It's called "The Midnight Ride of Jonathan Luna," by author William Keisling, and it's even being read by Maryland state politicians (who are then attacked by the media for daring to read it at all).

Ms. Palfrey has told this writer that this could be part of the "genesis" of her case. Keisling's site has numerous articles on the "Baltimore cesspool of muck," as Palfrey calls it, and they're essential reading regardless.

William Keisling's site: http://www.yardbird.com/index.htm

  [Ed., 08.28.2008--It would behoove a President Obama to push for the solution to this case in his first months in office.]

WHO ARE JOE CLARK AND MARIA CUVILLON? WHO ARE "DC MADAME" DEBORAH JEANE PALFREY'S ACCUSERS?

"It's my understanding that there really was no investigation."
--Deborah Jeane Palfrey to the author.

Washington D.C.--"Do you realize that the information contained in the search warrant was 3-to-3 1/2, to 5-years-old?" states an exasperated Jeane Palfrey. The first thing one notes in speaking with Palfrey is her directness and approachability.

She's a very well-spoken woman who sees the implications of her case, and that they go well-beyond her own peculiar predicament.

I point-out that the AP used the same excuse in October of 2006 as ABC recently did for not naming names on their 20/20 segment--she calls ABC's decision "curious."

Palfrey's clients might have included wealthy doctors and lawyers in Washington and its Maryland and Virginia suburbs, but now well-known names have so far surfaced, said a law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing. The escort service, Pamela Martin & Associates, advertised in newspapers, on Web sites and in the Yellow Pages. It operated since 1993 “as an out-call prostitution business” of college-educated women with other jobs, the affidavit says. (AP, 10.10.2006)

The piece is careful not to use the words "confidential informants," but that's exactly what they were and are. Palfrey adds, "They would have had no knowledge of who the clients were at that point [October 9th when the interview for the above quote took place]. These folks did not have a black book--there never was one. They passed-up 46 lbs. of phone records...they were already making statements about the doctors and lawyers on the 9th of October." Could this suggest they already had an prepared outline of what to charge Ms. Palfrey with?

It appears at this point that the prosecution has lost the script, with the defendant shut-out of court--an obvious abrogation of due process, a Kafka hell.

The good news is that the Supreme Court could be her venue-of-choice soon. Interestingly, the decision is being pushed by Justice Clarence Thomas. Also of-note: her "gentleman's agreement" not to divulge any information expired after the 20/20 broadcast (they wanted the other nine years of her phone records too), and the gag order barring her from releasing more phone records appears to be floundering with a lot of back-peddling by Federal District Judge Gladys Kessler.

The AP article on October 10th, 2006:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061010/news_1n10hookers.html

More primary-documents:
www.deborahjeanepalfrey.com