The Judicial Lynching – Part IV –The Prevarication of the Assistant United States Attorneys

To prevaricate is to “make evasive or misleading statements.” In Jeane’s case, when the Assistant United States Attorneys (AUSAs) made such statements and suffered no consequence, Jeane was further pushed deeper into the despair which led her to take her own life as she came to realize that it was not a justice system -- as every school child is taught -- but just a system.

The background for the prevaricating statements arose when I sued the escorts of Jeane’ service for breach of contract in March 2007 in a lawsuit captioned Palfrey v. Neble et al. The basis of that suit was that Jeane required each escort to sign an agreement that: “the scope of said employment [with Pamela Martin & Associates] expressly does not encompass in any way shape or form any sexual act, favors or behavior prohibited by law.” By testifying for the government that they engaged in illegal behavior, the lawsuit alleged that these escorts breached their contract of employment with Jeane.

The government, predictably, went ballistic as this suit would give me access to the escorts who had given statements to the government in advance of trial. That could upset the carefully crafted, vastly unfair criminal practice that prevents defendants from learning anything from the witnesses against them prior to the day of trial.  In a panic, the AUSAs on March 16, 2007, rushed in to see Judge Kessler ex parte; which means without notice to me and without me being present.

Once before the Judge in a secret proceeding, the AUSAs represented that the Palfrey v. Neble et al. lawsuit was solely for the purposes of “witness intimidation and harassment, retaliating against witnesses, and done to harass and to attempt to have witnesses in a federal criminal prosecution recant testimony.” Notably, this representation was made under 18 U.S.C. §1514 which empowers a Court to enjoin a lawsuit when it is filed for these improper reasons. In particular, §1514 states: “A United States district court, upon application of the attorney for the Government, shall issue a temporary restraining order prohibiting harassment of a victim or witness in a Federal criminal case if the court finds, from specific facts shown by affidavit or by verified complaint, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that harassment of an identified victim or witness in a Federal criminal case exists.” Hence, at the ex parte hearing, the AUSAs had to present to the judge under oath “specific facts” that there was “harassment of an identified victim or witness” by the Palfrey v. Neble et al. lawsuit.

Under §1514, “harassment” has a specific legal definition: “"a course of conduct directed at a specific person that: (A) causes substantial emotional distress in such person; and (B) serves no legitimate purpose.” Hence, in order to obtain an injunction stopping the Palfrey v. Neble et al. lawsuit, the AUSAs under oath would have to identify a “specific person” who was caused “substantial emotional distress” by the lawsuit. 

Upon that representation from the AUSAs, the judge stayed the Palfrey v. Neble et al. lawsuit and put a chilling cloud of criminal contempt and felony prosecution over me for having filed it. It was not until July that the issue was forced and the judge issued her order stating: “At oral argument, the government conceded that it cannot rely upon section 1514 because at this time it cannot identify any specific witnesses as required by each of those sections of the statute. . . . There is now substantial doubt as to whether the government can satisfy the requirements of Section 1514.” The judge well knew that the “witness harassment” argument of the government was what originally prompted her to issue the restraining order ex parte. Now, at the hearing section 1514 required., the government had been forced to admit that no witnesses were harassed by the Palfrey v. Neble et al. lawsuit.

And what consequence to the AUSAs for their prevarication to the judge ex parte about the harassed witnesses? 

None. 

Jeane had now taken another bruising blow as she learned – as did Senator Ted Stevens later – that judges will not punish the Attorney General for behavior which exceeds not only the ethical bounds, but the criminal bounds as well. Why? Maybe it is because in the end, they have the same signature on their paychecks – Uncle Sam.

To Jeane this was simply too unfair. Jeane would write Sue Ann Pressly of The Washington Post: “These people, the government, simply put are pigs (quote me if you wish). The AUSAs here have lied and deceived from the onset and they continue to do so, in an effort not just to bolster, but to create a case. They will say (or do) anything, no matter how untrue or far flung.” This incident in the “judicial lynching” of Jeane put another wrap around the noose that would ultimately cause Jeane to hang herself.