Amo Probos: DC Madam

-->

Showing posts with label DC Madam. Show all posts

Showing posts with label DC Madam. Show all posts

Friday, May 13, 2016

Sibley v. Caesar

The Judicial Caesars at the Circuit Court of Appeal have answered my Petition to order the District Court Clerk to file my pleading seeking persmission to release some of the records of the D.C. Madam. In toto, they said: "ORDERED that the petition be denied. Petitioner has not shown a "clear and indisputable" right to mandamus relief. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988).

I have responded by filing a pleading demanding that they explain how I can be ordered not to release records and yet not have the ability to file a request to be released from that order.

Entitled, Petitioner’s Motion for Articulation of the Ratio Decendi for Denying Petition, the Motion stated in sum: "Therefore, a written decision with intellectual honesty explaining why Sibley’s Petition was denied in this matter is required from this Court if it is to discharge its Article III duty and maintain public confidence in the ability to faithfully discharge the heavy duty the People have placed upon this Court."

For those of you who keep clamoring that I release records in possible violation of a court order, I simply quote Theodore Roosevelt:

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

Tuesday, May 3, 2016

My next steps . . .

Yesterday, the Supreme Court docketed the denial of my Application. They gave no reason for the denial of my request to review the refusal of the District Court Clerk to file my Motions for Modification of the Restraining Order which I believe prevents me from releasing information relevant to the present election cycle.

So now what is my next step? Torn as I am that I should not be gagged from First Amendment political speech by a restraining order that I am being denied the opportunity to even asked to be dissolved, I am a Doctor of Laws and cannot flaunt the Court's authority easily. Hence, I will continue to press Obama Supreme Court nominee Chief Judge Garland of the D.C. Circuit Court to expedite the resolution of the Petition I placed before him on March 9, 2016.

Chief Judge Garland and I have tangled before which is why I believe he is hoping I will release the records so I can be arrested for criminal contempt of court. That most certainly would silence me as there are no keyboards or Internet in jail. Notably, the underlying determination of what Chief Judge Garland has permitted on his watch is deemed "confidential" under Rule 23 and thus sealed from public view. Of course, Chief Judge Garland has the authority under Rule 23(a) to: "disclose the existence of a proceeding under these Rules when necessary or appropriate to maintain public confidence in the Judiciary’s ability to redress misconduct or disability." How about it Chief Judge Garland? Will you release the existence of the proceeding I initiated so the public confidence can be restored? I thought not.

My "confidence" is shaken in the Judiciary's ability to redress misconduct. How about your confidence? And how convenient for the nominee to the bench of the unaccountable, non-elected, super-legislature running our Country to keep his misconduct in the shadows.

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

"Citizens" or "Subjects"?

It was a hot July in Philadelphia when the Second Continental Congress took up a “humble petition” to King George III. This was not the well-know Declaration of Independence, for the year was 1775, not 1776.

The Peoples of this Continent submitted the "Olive Branch Petition". It was an effort to have the King address the differences of the colonies despite the fact that Canada had been invaded and Paul Revere, had "on the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-five; Hardly a man is now alive, Who remembers that famous day and year" rode off to alert the Minutemen at Concord, Lexington and Bunker Hill.

The Petition stated: “Attached to your Majesty's person, family, and Government, with all devotion that principle and affection can inspire; connected with Great Britain by the strongest ties that can unite societies, and deploring every event that tends in any degree to weaken them, we solemnly assure your Majesty, that we not only most ardently desire the former harmony between her and these Colonies may be restored.” Among those who signed the Olive Branch Petition were the well-known founding fathers: John Hancock, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Jay, Roger Sherman and Lewis Morris.

Lord Dartmouth received the original on September 1, 1775; King George refused to receive the Petition. Lord Dartmouth, when pressed for an answer reportedly said: "As His Majesty did not receive the petition on the throne, no answer will be given."

Four months later, on January 10, 1776, a 46 page pamphlet appeared in the bookshops of Philadelphia. The pamphlet was simply titled: "Common Sense" Remarkable for that time - or even this - it sold 120,000 copies in the next 90 days. As the colonies only had about 3 million people at that time, it was a phenomenal market penetration any publisher today would envy. Moreover, as Common Sense was read publicly and passed on to others, the actual readership was certainly twice the number of copies printed.

Picking up where John Cooke had left off, Common Sense decried the tradition, habit and superstition that created a population that John Cooke had described as more "delighted in servitude than in freedom."

Our present day judicial monarchs, just like King George who ‘did not receive the petition on the throne, no answer will be given", the Courts have refused to “receive my Petitions” and as such, I must now ask, are we “Citizens” or “subjects”?

Sunday, April 17, 2016

I could not have said it better myself . . .

The Post & Email

April 29 SCOTUS Conference on DC Madam Petition Provides Window of Opportunity for Submission of Amicus Briefs

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Justice Thomas and My Supreme Court Application

Today, Justice Thomas -- apparently disagreeing with Chief Justice Roberts' denial of my Application -- has referred myApplication for determination by the entire Supreme Court at their Conference on April 29th.

More waiting for Lady Justice to grind out her answer. But at least all of the Justices will be on record as to whether they will continue the muzzling of my First Amendment Political Speech so that We the People can govern ourselves accordingly.

Monday, April 11, 2016

Can you hear me now?

I have waited long enough for the basic right to be heard in a timely fashion. Former Chief U.S. District Court Judge Roberts would not let me file my Motion to Modify the Restraining Orders. Recently nominated-to-the -U.S.-Supreme-Court Circuit Court Chief Judge Garland has tied up my Emergency Petition in the Circuit Court of Appeals for over thirty (30) days without addressing the merits. Chief Justice Roberts has denied my Application.

But then a funny thing happened.

Back in February I had filed a lawsuit against Former Judge Roberts and the Clerk of the District Court in D.C. Superior Court -- the "state" court for the District of Columbia. Last week, the U.S. Attorney in her infinite wisdom removed that case to U.S. District Court which left me one last federal judicial opening.

So today I jumped through that opening and filed with U.S. District Court Judge Walton both my First Amended Complaint and "Emergency Motion for Pre-trial Conference to Schedule Expedited Disposition of Sibley’s Third Claim".

Exhibit "B" to that Emergency Motion lists the names of some 174 companies and government agencies whose cellphone numbers appear in the Verizon Wireless subpoena return that I have in my possession. Before you rush to Exhibit "B", I would hope you would take a moment to read the seven (7) page Emergency Motion in its entirety so you can put my actions in releasing this information in the context I intend them.

And no, I am not releasing any individual names . . . yet.

Wednesday, April 6, 2016

A Second Bite of the Supreme Court Apple

Yesterday, Chief Justice Roberts denied my Application to be relieved from the Restraining Order which prohibits me from releasing any of the D.C. Madam Jeane Palfrey's Escort Service Records. This follows: (i) the refusal of the U.S. District Court to allow me to file a Motion to Modify that Restraining Order and (ii) the refusal of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to rule upon my Petition which sought to Order the District Court Clerk to file my Motion to Modify.

Before I simply release the records in my possession, I must exhaust all judicial remedies. Accordingly, invoking Supreme Court Rule 22.4, I am renewing the Application with a second Justice, the estimable Clarence Thomas. I will wait to see what he says before taking my next step.

But permit me to make this observation: On January 19, 2016, I sought to be released from a "gag order" covering First Amendment protected political speech and to date -- seventy eight (78) days later -- I have yet to be allowed to even file that request in the proper court. Can anyone deny that justice delayed is justice denied in this instance?

Monday, March 28, 2016

And now to the Supreme Court . . .

After waiting for two weeks for the U.S. Circuit Court to rule upon my Petition to (i) order the District Court Clerk to file my Motion to Modify the Restraining Order that prevents me from releasing the D.C. Madam's client list and (ii) direct that I receive an expedited hearing on that Motion, I am -- as I previously announced -- waiting no more.

Today I have filed at the U.S. Supreme Court my Application for a Stay of Restraining Order directed to the Honorable John G. Roberts, Jr. , Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Notably, in that Application, I unequivocally stated the following:

To be clear, if Sibley is not allowed to file his Motion to Modify the Restraining Order and thereafter does not promptly receive a fair and impartial hearing on that Motion, he will justifiably consider the Restraining Order void as a result of being denied such a hearing by the District Court, Circuit Court and now this Court. In that event, Sibley will simply release publicly the Verizon Wireless Subpoena Return records containing the names and addresses of eight hundred fifteen (815) Washington D.C. clients of the D.C. Madam’s escort service.

Not a threat, but a promise. And, to date, I have been a man of my word.

Thursday, March 17, 2016

Anonymous, the D.C Madam and Me

Curiouser and curiouser! Anonymous joins the conversation.

Wednesday, March 9, 2016

Mick Jagger was right!

My GoFundMe campaign -- despite receiving over 800 visits -- only garnered $390; almost all from people I don't know but now love dearly. For as it turns out, Mick Jagger was right: I have found that I got what I needed now -- most all of the filing fee for my Petition for Writs of Mandamus, Prohibition, and Procedendum Ad Justicium to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia And Request for Expedited Briefing and Oral Argument.

That Petition throws the matter into the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals which now has to choose either: (i) approve the continuing denial of my access to court to seek release of the D.C. Madam's Escort Service records which I continue to maintain are relevant to the pending Presidential selection process or (ii) order the District Court to accord me a meaningful hearing at a meaningful time before an impartial magistrate.

I will wait two weeks for a decision one way or the other and then seek review at the U.S. Supreme Court. Thanks Mick.

Thursday, March 3, 2016

Montgomery Blair Sibley Says: “I Need a Horse” and Starts GoFundMe Campaign to Pursue Appeal for Permission to Release D.C. Madam Escort Service Records

Montgomery Blair Sibley, former attorney for Deborah Jeane Palfrey famously known as the D.C. Madam, has started a GoFundMe campaign to raise $25,000 to pay for the filing fees, printing fees and attorney fees he expects to incur taking his case to the U.S. Supreme Court in the next 60 days.

His case began in January 2016 when Sibley, custodian of the records of the D.C. Madam’s Escort Service, realized that those records contained information relevant to the Presidential election. However, since 2007 Sibley has been under a Restraining Order not to disseminate those, and other, Escort Service records he possesses. Accordingly, Sibley made a Motion to Modify the Restraining Order to the U.S. District Court to permit him to release some – if not all – of those records. Rather than hear and decide upon the merits of Sibley’s Motion to Modify the Restraining Order, the Court simply directed the Clerk not to file Sibley’s Motion so the merits were not addressed.

Thus, the only course available to Sibley to seek judicial authorization to release those records is to appeal first to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal and then the U.S. Supreme Court. Climbing that appellate ladder in the next 60 days on an expedited basis costs money. Hence Sibley has started a GoFundMe campaign: www.gofundme.com/DCMadam. That campaign begins with a video of Sibley stating: “I need a horse for the same reason Paul Revere needed a horse . . . ”

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Sibley Renews Request to Release D.C. Madam Case Documents

Montgomery Blair Sibley, a former attorney for Deborah Jeane Palfrey famously known as the D.C. Madam, has modified and renewed his Motion to Modify Restraining Order to Permit the Release of Telephone Records requesting permission to release some – if not all – of the D.C. Madam’s escort service business records of which he is custodian. Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts had previously refused to consider Sibley's Motion by Ordering the Clerk not to file that Motion.

Since, 2007, Sibley has been under a District Court Restraining Order not to disseminate in any fashion the contents of the D.C. Madam’s escort service business records. Sibley’s renewed motion apprises the Court of it's misapprehension of the legal representation by Sibley of Jeane through a detailed chronology of the events of Jeane's legal odyssey. That chronology also details why Sibley's license to practice law was, without-a-hearing, suspended thus preventing Sibley from litigating the issues remaining in Jeane's civil forfeiture case.

The motion requests permission from the Court to disseminate Jeane’s records upon two grounds. First, they are a valuable teaching aid in privacy law and litigation, a course that Sibley teaches at Northern Virginia Community College. Second, given the relevance Jeane’s records may well have to the looming Presidential elections, public policy considerations outweigh any privacy claims that individuals, corporations or government entities may have in keeping their Personally Identifiable Information from the public view.

Additionally, alleging that Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts impartiality might reasonably be questioned, Sibley has made a Motion to Disqualify Judge Roberts upon two grounds. First, that Judge Roberts had no authority to direct the Clerk to refuse to file Sibley Motion to Modify Restraining Orders thus demonstrating his bias against Sibley.

Second, Sibley has tangled with Judge Roberts before in the notorious case of U.S. v. Duke. The indicted, Capital-bombing terrorist and fugitive from justice Elizabeth Duke was released from her indicted and fugitive status at a questionable legal hearing in 2009. At that hearing, Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson dismissed the indictment against Elizabeth Duke by: (i) falsifying a court order and (ii) committing a felony when she misrepresented herself as an Article III judge when she is in fact an Article I judge when signing that Order dismissing the indictment. Judge Roberts, though apprised of these facts by Sibley, refused to address this corruption of the legal system. Singularly and collectively, upon these facts Sibley alleges Judge Roberts must disqualify himself from considering Sibley's motion to modify the restraining order.

Monday, February 1, 2016

The Game is Afoot

The game is indeed "afoot": See this recent article in the Post & Email: Privacy Law Course to Include Discussion of Obama's Hidden Documents And Government's Claims to "Privacy" in Withholding Information from the Public.

That "withholding" has now resulted in my filing of a Complaint for Judicial Misconduct against Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for his directing the Clerk to refuse to file my: Motion to Modify Restraining Order to Permit the Release of Telephone Records Received Pursuant to Subpoenas but Never Made Public and Other Records in the U.S. v. Palfrey case.

Let's see what Professor James Moriarty does next.

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Jeane Palfrey, Elliot Spitzer and Me

I recently watched the documentary Client 9 – the story of the rise and fall of the former Governor of New York, Elliot Spitzer. He, who many thought would be our first Jewish President, fell from grace when his use of the Emperor’s Club Escort Service became known in March 2008.

Jeane and I were in the documentary. Client 9 raised the question as to why the Bush Department of Justice clearly went after the Democratic Elliot Spitzer in its prosecution of the Emperor’s Club employees but at the same moment in time went out of its way to protect the known – and other never publicly revealed – Republican patrons of Pamela Martin & Associates, Jeane’s escort service such as Senator Vitter and Harlan Ullman.

The answer is plain – the Department of Justice has become corrupted to the political aspirations of those in office. My answer: Return to the jury system to exclusive right to decide the law and facts and allow private attorney generals access to the grand jury now exclusively reserved to public prosecutors thus removing the excessive concentration of power in the Department of Justice.

Monday, September 28, 2009

A Curious Confirmation of Jeane's Honey-Pot defense

As part of her defense strategy -- prohibited by the Court -- Jeane maintained that her escort agency was being used by the intelligence services of the United States government as part of a "Honey Pot" operation. In espionage, a honeypot or honeytrap is a trap set to capture, kill or compromise an enemy agent using sex as the lure.

Now, Sibel Edmonds -- whom the ACLU has declared "the most gagged" person in the history of this great nation -- has alleged that such Honey Pots were be operated with the knowledge of the United States government The link to the full blog is below, and it makes fascinating reading on a number of levels, but the particular point validating Jeane's belief follows . . .

As reported on The Brad Blog:

Edmonds, twice-gagged by the Bush Administration's unprecedented use of the so-called "State Secrets Privilege," was recently able to begin disclosing information about a massive bribery, blackmail, and espionage scandal involving current and former government officials and the sale of nuclear weapons technology to the black market, when she was deposed in an Ohio Elections Commission case on August 8, 2009. The Obama Adminstration's Dept. of Justice chose not to reinvoke the "State Secrets Privilege," finally paving the way for Edmonds' sworn deposition detailed treasonous crimes she says were carried out by a number of current and former members of Congress, as discovered via the wiretaps of the Turkish targets. Those named by Edmonds included Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Bob Livingston (R-LA), Dan Burton (R-IN), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Stephen Solarz (D-NY), Tom Lantos (D-CA, deceased).

Another married, but allegedly bisexual, Democratic member of Congress was unnamed at the time, but described as having participated in a lesbian sexual affair with a woman who was, unbeknownst to the Congresswoman, a Turkish agent. The tryst, according to Edmonds, was video-taped by the Turks for possible use in a blackmail scheme, though Edmonds left the FBI before learning whether or not the Congresswoman was ever blackmailed

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

I make the "Watch List"

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.

Monday, September 14, 2009

I must be interesting to someone . . . Part II

Last week I wrote about Matt Janovic and his blog reporting that someone from Qualcomm was searching my name on his blog -- J to the Power of 7. Matt's blog was apparently read by someone at Qualcomm for now the searches for me are being conducted anonymously. As Matt reported: "This time, this time, they decided not to leave a slime-trail. Anyone know what "max results" means? I'd assume they're downloading like a bandit. I've had many of these over the last couple of years. It's pretty obvious that they're trying to obscure their identities". . .

Site Meter--This time, this time, they decided not to leave a slime-trail. Anyone know what "max results" means? I'd assume they're downloading like a bandit. I've had many of these over the last couple of years. It's pretty obvious that they're trying to obscure their identities.

Domain Name

(Unknown)

IP Address

174.70.112.# (Unknown Organization)

ISP

Unknown ISP

Location

Continent	:	Unknown
Country	:	Unknown
Lat/Long	:	unknown

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; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Qwest 1.0; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; Qwest 1.0)

Javascript

version 1.3

Monitor

Resolution	:	1280 x 800
Color Depth	:	32 bits

Time of Visit

Sep 10 2009 7:55:41 am

Last Page View

Sep 10 2009 7:56:01 am

Visit Length

20 seconds

Page Views

2

Referring URL

http://www.google.co...gomery blair&aqi=g10

Search Engine

google.com

Search Words

montgomery blair sibley

Visit Entry Page

http://chickasawpick...ontgomery-blair.html

Visit Exit Page

http://chickasawpick...05:00&max-results=50

Out Click

Time Zone

Visitor's Time

Sep 9 2009 6:55:41 pm

Visit Number

59,585

Thursday, September 10, 2009

I must be interesting to someone . . .

The Internet can be creepy sometimes. A fellow blogger recently reported on searches conducted for my name on his site by unknown persons. The blogger, Matt Janovic, has a great blog called J to the Power 7, and recently wrote a piece about me entitled: Songs from the Site Meter: Qualcomm of San Diego visits over Palfrey-related matters . . .

Wednesday, September 09, 2009

Songs from the Site Meter: Qualcomm of San Diego visits over Palfrey-related matters...

Site Meter--This one's very interesting and had me perplexed until I realized that Qualcomm and SAIC are frequently mentioned in the same breath as government contractors.

Here's the score: SAIC has been around before reading about the DC Madam scandal and what I've been posting and writing, and now Qualcomm's doing likewise, snooping around. The other commonality? San Diego, that point-of-intersection that kept cropping-up again and again during the scandal and in my own research into it. San Diego was also where Jeffrey A. Taylor served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney from 1995-1999, possibly where he became familiar with other players involved in the DC Madam scandal. People like Brent V. Wilkes, convicted briber of former California Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, now sitting in the federal pen where the majority of politicians in America belong.

Unsurprisingly, Taylor connects the megafirm of Ernst & Young to Qualcomm since many of its founders and past executive partners have gone on to Qualcomm, almost an interlocking-network of the same names. Keep in mind that I discovered these connections very casually, thanks to whomever this reader was. Interestingly, Taylor is going to be doing the same kind of work as the peculiar Sam Deskin at his new job:

U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeffrey Taylor will join Ernst & Young as the Americas leader of the Fraud Investigation & Dispute Services area, the Blog of the Legal Times reports. Taylor announced his resignation today, effective tomorrow, and will reportedly join Ernst & Young’s Washington, D.C. office next month. (Securities Docket, 05.28.2009)

The question that I have is: why would someone at Qualcomm want to do a search on Montgomery Blair Sibley, Palfrey's former counsel who was fired at the 11th hour by his client? Who exactly persuaded her to do this? My money's on Preston Burton and Federal Judge James Robertson, but that doesn't mean others weren't involved in this.

Say what you want, but I would have loved seeing the circus that would have come out of his defense and would have applauded it. But no, journalists seem to fixate on things like kilts, small offices on K Street, acrimonious divorce proceedings, but nothing to do with the former clients they allowed to get off scot free. Pathetic, but one of numerous reasons why I couldn't care less that the newspapers are dying. Another final question for the day: has Mr. Deskin ever communicated with Jeffrey A. Taylor either personally or professionally? I'd really like to know. Sammala? Jeff? And what of Mr. Burton and his gigantic firm, Orrick, Herrington, and Sutcliffe? Do they all know each other? I wouldn't be surprised...

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

Sep 10 2009 2:45:27 am

Last Page View

Sep 10 2009 2:45:40 am

Visit Length

13 seconds

Page Views

3

Referring URL

http://www.google.co...bley&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g1

Search Engine

google.com

Search Words

montgomery blair sibley

Visit Entry Page

http://chickasawpick...ontgomery-blair.html

Visit Exit Page

http://chickasawpick...9_09_01_archive.html

Out Click

Time Zone

UTC-5:00

Visitor's Time

Sep 9 2009 2:45:27 pm

Visit Number

59,574

Jeffrey A. Taylor: Curiouser and curiouser...

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS178428+28-May-2009+PRN20090528

http://www.mainjustice.com/2009/05/28/us-attorney-jeff-taylor-in-dc-resigns/

http://www.securitiesdocket.com/2009/05/28/us-attorney-jeffrey-taylor-to-join-ernst-young-in-dc/

Qualcomm, meet Ernst & Young, together again and again (and again): http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Qualcomm+Ernst+%26+Young&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=a52f6f39e4c8144b

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

And yet another take on the D.C. Madam Case

Even after a year, speculation concerning the unanswered questions concerning Jeane's life and death still circulate. The latest can be found on the "The Rag Blog". It is nothing if not well documented and well articulated. The validity of its conclusions, are left to you to decide.

Friday, July 31, 2009

Prostitution, Pornography and Hypocrisy, Part II

Why is paying adult film actors not prostitution? I addressed an adult film industry seminar on this issue in August 2008, at the New York Exxotica Conference. This is what I told them . . .

In 1983, while shooting a film called "Caught From Behind, Part II,"a Harold Freeman was arrested and charged with five counts of pandering for purposed of prostitution based on his hiring of five of the film's performers. Even though he was never charged with violation of any of California's obscenity laws, Freeman was tried before a jury and convicted on all five counts of pandering. He was sentenced to 90 days in the county jail and ordered to pay more than $10,000 in restitution. Even though Freeman lost on appeal to the California Court of Appeal, the California Supreme Court reversed the conviction and issued a groundbreaking opinion. People vs. Freeman, 250 Cal.Rptr. 589 (Cal. 1988):

“[F]or a 'lewd' or 'dissolute' act to constitute 'prostitution,' the genitals, buttocks, or female breast, of either the prostitute or the customer must come in contact with some part of the body of the other for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of the customer or of the prostitute. . . .[I]n order to constitute prostitution, the money or other consideration must be paid for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification. The payment of acting fees was the only payment involved in the instant case. This payment was made to the actors for performing in a nonobscene film. There is no evidence that defendant paid the acting fees for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification, his own or the actors'. Defendant, of course, did not himself participate in any of the sexual conduct. Defendant, the payor, thus did not engage in either the requisite conduct nor did he have the requisite mens rea or purpose to establish procurement for purposes of prostitution.

The linchpin of the decision founded in judicial activism was the imposing of the “arousal” element onto prostitution/pandering statute which was enacted by the California legislature. Simply put, notwithstanding the video evidence to the contrary, the California Supreme Court ruled ex cathedra that no one on the set of a porn movie was being aroused sexually.

Upon this thin reed of a legal decision, the $13 billion/year porn industry was launched and is now so powerful that no state or federal prosecutor will take them on – even though to do so would be prosecutorial child’s plan.

Yet, escort services are being regularly targeted for engaging in the same behavior: money for sex. Thus, if the escort would bring her video camera, I guess there would be no crime . . .

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)