Tag Archives: Blackmail

How to Indict a Ham Sandwich

Solomon Wachtler, the former Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, once quipped that special prosecutors of grand juries have so much power over grand jurors that they could coax grand jurors into indicting a ham sandwich, and the Washington, DC grand jury that indicted me was a ham and swiss on rye.

A grand jury makes the initial decision to indict (formally accuse) a criminal defendant to stand trial, and the phrase “grand jury” has authoritative connotations—like the gods on Mount Olympus have sent down a decree. But grand juries are notoriously susceptible to manipulation. Unlike a standard trial, a grand jury proceeding is cloaked in secrecy: Grand juries aren’t open to the public, and the identity of the witnesses who testify and the content of their testimony are never disclosed. Moreover, there is no cross-examination or presentation of the defense’s case.

The special prosecutor of a grand jury calls the witnesses, questions the witnesses, and selects the evidence that is shown to the grand jurors, and grand jurors are normal, everyday citizens who have shown up for jury duty and have been funneled to a grand jury. Generally, only witnesses and evidence deemed relevant by special prosecutors are presented, and special prosecutors are in a unique position to influence grand jurors’ judgments in a particular direction.

Jay Stephens, the U.S. Attorney for D.C., appointed Alan Strasser, the Assistant U.S. Attorney for D.C. and chief of the felony trial division, to be the special prosecutor of the grand jury investigating me. Strasser received his bachelor’s degree in economics from Yale University in 1974, and he was a 1977 graduate of Harvard Law School. He joined the office of U.S. Attorney for D.C. in 1980.

Despite Strasser’s lofty academic credentials, the grand jury he directed to investigate me served a ham sandwich to the public, and it was a cover up of epic proportions. He never called the three people who helped me run my escort service or me to testify before the grand jury that was ostensibly investigating our operation of an escort service. I’m also not aware of Strasser calling the escorts I employed to testify. Unfortunately, my mother was subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury.

A Washington Times article, commenting on the grand jury investigating me, confirmed my lingering suspicion that it was extremely corrupt. The article revealed that the newspaper’s reporters had contacted “a number of principal witnesses and active participants in the case” and “discovered that few of them had been interviewed, and only a handful had been asked to testify before the grand jury.”

Washington Times reporters interviewed “a longtime acquaintance” of Craig Spence, the CIA asset who used my escorts to blackmail the rich and powerful, who had been called before the grand jury. The Washington Times reported that the “witness was not asked any questions about credit cards, Mr. Spence’s alleged involvement with the homosexual call-boy ring or about the ring itself.” The witness told the reporters that one of the grand jury’s primary concerns was establishing if Spence had been in the possession of purloined White House china that dated back to the Truman administration.

Spence was involved in pandering children, pandering adults, blackmailing powerbrokers, procuring illicit drugs, etc., so I find it mindboggling that one of the grand jury’s primary concerns was whether or not he had absconded with some of the White House’s Truman china.

Instead of indicting Spence, the grand jury overseen by Strasser indicted me on 43 RICO counts that had the potential to imprison me for 295 years! As I look back on that grand jury in retrospect not only was it designed to have me take the fall for all of Spence’s illicit activities, but it’s 43-count RICO indictment with the potential for 295 years was designed to leverage my silence, because I had witnessed activities that would’ve jeopardized the Bush administration and subsequent Bush dynasty.

Political Blackmail

Intelligence agents know all about political blackmail, which has been used by kingdoms, empires, syndicates, and unscrupulous groups since time immemorial. Indeed, throughout World War II and the Cold War, intelligence agents carefully watched for hints of subordination among their peers, because it was a tell-tale sign that they had been blackmailed. The CIA and State Department never knowingly hired homosexuals due to their susceptibility to blackmail.

Unfortunately, I ended up providing escorts to a CIA asset named Craig Spence who was a preeminent blackmail artist. His upscale DC home was fitted with state-of-the-art blackmail equipment that he used to blackmail our country’s elite. Spence told me that he was blackmailing the rich and powerful for the CIA, and he told newspaper reporters that “friendly” intelligence agents had installed the blackmail equipment that was scattered throughout his home. Spence had the ability to pull off mindboggling feats, and he was unscathed by law enforcement as he engaged in a myriad of illicit enterprises. And subsequent events would confirm that individuals at the pinnacle of power in the government protected him.

Blackmail is invariably practiced in the shadows, and the American people are oblivious to blackmail subverting their political system. The principle reason for Americans obliviousness to blackmail is that blackmailers and their blackmail targets never divulge such crimes. Blackmailers would be subjected to criminal prosecution and their blackmail targets would be subjected to either prosecution and/or persecution for the conduct that led them to be blackmailed in the first place. So political blackmail is almost never made public, and if it becomes public, then it occurs years after the fact.

Edgar Hoover is a prime example. He blackmailed people for decades, and his blackmailing only emerged years after his death. Hoover’s FBI recorded Martin Luther King having extramarital affairs, and it sent the recordings to King in an effort to blackmail him into committing suicide. Moreover, according to John F. Kennedy’s secretary, Evelyn Lincoln, Hoover had the dirt on Kennedy’s extramarital affairs and blackmailed him into accepting Lyndon Johnson as his running mate in 1960. Kennedy didn’t particularly like Johnson, and he planned on tapping Missouri senator Stuart Symington for his vice presidential running mate. Hoover’s purported blackmail of Kennedy changed the course of history.

Ironically, several accounts have since emerged that the Mafia was blackmailing J. Edgar Hoover, because he was a homosexual, which is one of the reasons why Hoover said the Mafia didn’t exist until there was overwhelming evidence of its existence. There’s a precedent for blackmail in relatively recent U.S. history.

Recent government whistleblowers have also discussed the blackmailing of American politicians. Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator, has disclosed that the FBI routinely collected information that enables it to blackmail American politicians. NSA whistleblowers Russell Tice and Bill Binney have also disclosed that the NSA has collected information on American politicians that could be used for blackmail.

The media has reported on some information provided by Edmonds, Tice, and Binney. In fact, Tice was one of the sources for the New York Times articles in 2005 that reported on the NSA’s illegal data mining of Americans. However, the mainstream media has refused to report on their allegations regarding the potential blackmailing of American politicians. I provided escorts to various people in the media, so I believe that people in media may have also fallen prey to being compromised by government agencies.

Republican Senator Larry Craig made headlines when he attempted to solicit sex in a public restroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, and I feel that he is an example of a politician who was most likely compromised. Craig was in Washington, D.C. for nearly 30 year as a U.S. representative and a senator. Given Craig’s status as a conservative Republican, if word of his shadow life leaked out, it would result in political suicide and public disgrace, but his runaway libido compelled him to take mind-boggling risks.

I find it nearly impossible to believe that Craig’s homosexual exploits were unnoticed by the blackmail ring that I provided with escorts, because I provided Craig with escorts too, and the ring was well aware of my patrons. I’m also of the belief that the foremost explanation that can be offered concerning Craig’s brazen exploits with regards to his homosexuality is that he was compromised, and he was mindful that his brazen exploits would be covered up. Perhaps Craig strayed out of his protective net when he attempted to solicit sex in a public restroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport?

Henry Vinson: Scapegoat – Part 4

Given the onslaught of erroneous press I’ve received over the years, I’m reluctant to ascribe inordinate intelligence to many in the media, but common sense would dictate that a veteran CBS correspondent could distinguish a bug from a “button-release” on a table. But, perhaps, because of the skeptical guest’s expertise on “architecture and furnishings,” he or she was able to provide the Post with the definitive truth?

And once more, the Post relayed the unequivocal truth from the perspective of the skeptical guest: “Spence confronted them later that night. ‘I heard every word you said,’ Gordon recalls Spence saying. ‘You’re conspiring against me. I’ve got this corner bugged.’ And then he pointed to the ceiling. ‘There was never a bug hanging over Professor Gordon’s head,’ says the same skeptical guest, who was also at that party. Another person there says that it was so obvious that Gordon and Trotta were gossiping about Spence all night he would not have needed bugs to guess what they were saying.”

After the Post deployed the skeptical guest and “another person” to debunk the fact that Spence’s house was bugged for blackmail, it descended into a rather absurd commentary: “Some believe that Spence may have been up to something with the electronic equipment that friends observed in the house. But Spence’s clairvoyance, it seems, was strongest when his bodyguards were present and within earshot of the supposedly bugged conversations.”

So now the Post acknowledged that Spence had “electronic equipment” in his home, even though in the preceding paragraph it had asserted that the bug uncovered by Trotta was, in actuality, a button-release on a table. The Post wanted to have its cake and eat it too by conceding that Spence had electronic equipment in his home, but ridiculing the fact that his home was bugged for blackmail.

And the Post’s remark about Spence’s “clairvoyance” being heightened when his bodyguards were within “earshot” was rather disingenuous too. The Post doesn’t question why Spence had a need for bodyguards. But in all likelihood, Spence needed constant protection, because he was the point man for blackmailing some of the most powerful men in the country—powerful men who almost certainly had access to their own thugs. Given Spence’s penchant for blackmailing the powerful, I think his longevity had the potential to be violently curtailed if his private Praetorian Guard didn’t vigilantly safeguard him.

Later in the article, the Post described Spence’s bodyguards as “clean-cut college guys who also tended bar, parked cars and drove Spence around. Spence later started hiring Army men and Marines, especially large, well-built ones.” I’m aware of Spence collecting bodyguards from the military, but the article made no mention of Spence’s bodyguards being pulled from the ranks of the Secret Service, even though the Washington Times had been meticulous about nailing down that Spence had Secret Service agents moonlighting as his bodyguards.

The Post’s “The Shadow World of Craig Spence” portrayed him as a high society bottom feeder who was more of name-dropper than a powerbroker with high powered connections, and the article also attempted to dispel the notion that he was affiliated with the CIA. The article caricaturized Spence by having his friends discuss his rants of self-importance and name-dropping, which wouldn’t be too difficult because he was a coke-head and megalomaniac. After the Post made Spence appear as a mere cartoon character it dropped in the following paragraph: “Like the tales of espionage, the allegations about bugging were a regular subject of discussion among his friends. And again, they got their information from him [Spence].”

A week after the Washington Post demolished the Washington Times’ reportage on Spence’s illicit activities, I found myself in the Post’s character assassination crosshairs. The Post reported a series of lies that made me appear as a conniving villain who had conspired to cartelize D.C. prostitution as if I were the Richard III of gay escorts.

A later article by the Post conscripted the Los Angeles Times and New York Times to jump on its bandwagon. “’We checked into it; we sent reporters out when they raided the house in February and again when they had the eviction,’ said the Washington bureau chief of the Los Angeles Times. ‘We never did turn up with anything that looked like a national story.’”

After the Post quoted the Los Angeles Times bureau chief, the New York Times’ D.C. bureau chief endorsed the Post’s spin. “’I don’t take the Washington Times seriously as a journalistic entity, so I view with suspicion almost anything that they do,’ he said. ‘I don’t deny a raid on this house and that there’s obviously some kind of investigation going on. But so far I haven’t seen any evidence that it means what they say it means.”

In addition to the New York Times and Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post buttressed its propaganda campaign with sources that were delighted to reinforce its disinformation—government sources. The Post wrote of its first government source: “…a key law enforcement official came to lunch at the Post and assured the staff that the investigation was primarily on credit card fraud.” As I recall, several administration officials, including the U.S. attorney general, were telling the media that Watergate was much ado about nothing, so I find it perplexing that the Post was all ears about non-existence of Spence’s blackmail enterprise, but it was vehement when contesting the administration’s official position about Watergate.

The Secret Service, the Justice Department, and the Washington Post did a masterful job of making me a scapegoat for all the illicit activities committed Craig Spence and his cronies. In retrospect, when that much power is deployed to obfuscate the truth, I didn’t have a chance of being anything other than a scapegoat.

Henry Vinson: Scapegoat – Part 3

As the Washington Times bore deeper and deeper into the enigma of Spence, I was astonished to read about the eddies of his sordid life in black and white—on the front-page of a newspaper. The levy of lies that had suppressed the truth about Spence for years was starting crumble, and I pondered its implications for me. I felt that it would be difficult for the government to cover up Spence’s illicit activities now that the toothpaste was out of the tube. I also had a tendency to think that the government wouldn’t take a chance on indicting me, because a trial would only publicize Spence’s complicity with high-ranking federal officials and his connections to the Secret Service and perhaps even the CIA.

The Washington Post commenced a counteroffensive against the Washington Times. The first blast of disinformation perpetrated by the Washington Post was a protracted article, “The Shadow World of Craig Spence,” published about two weeks after the Washington Times began to expose Spence’s blackmail operation, and it was a concerted effort to dismantle the Washington Times reportage on Spence. The article mocked the earlier headline floated by the Washington Times—”Power Broker Served Drugs, Sex at Parties Bugged for Blackmail”—by providing the veritable, unadulterated truth about Spence’s get-togethers: “People sat around in a perimeter after dinner discussing trade policy, where American policy makers were ushered into circles of foreign visitors to make serious talk; parties to which Koppel would sometimes send a stand-in; parties so dull that even Dossier magazine wouldn’t run the photographs.”

The Post’s “The Shadow World of Craig Spence” also dismantled the idea that Spence’s house was bugged for blackmail, but its hatchet job was transparently disingenuous. The Post deployed a contrivance it coined the “skeptical guest” to debunk the notion that Spence’s home had clandestine surveillance. The Post’s “skeptical guest” was an unnamed source, and the Post even neglected to mention the source’s gender or his or her relationship to Spence.

According to the Post, the “skeptical guest” was in attendance at a party in Spence’s D.C. home when a friend of Spence’s, CBS correspondent Liz Trotta, “got down on her hands and knees in the living room and found wires and cables all over the room at floor level. She also found metal fasteners that could have been listening devices, she says, clipped to the bottom of a coffee table. A skeptical guest who witnessed this—who was familiar with the architecture and furnishings—said that one of the so-called bugs was a button-release on the table and that to his knowledge, there were no bugs.”

 

Henry Vinson: Scapegoat – Part 1

Scapegoating is often defined as a hostile discrediting by which people move blame and responsibility away from themselves and towards a target person or group. The scapegoat target invariably receives misplaced vilification, blame and criticism. Scapegoating always includes a distortion of the facts. As a DC madam, I was privy to the blackmailing of our country’s power elite and also to a pedophile network that provided children to the rich and powerful. These sinister machinations had to be covered up at all costs, and I was the convenient scapegoat. I was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

My scapegoating started when the Secret Service raided my house. The U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jay Stephens, told the media that Washington D.C.’s Metro Police learned of my escort service, because a “local hotel” complained about suspected prostitution activities, and the Secret Service only became involved in the case to assist D.C.’s Metro Police Department in its investigation of credit card fraud. In reality, Secret Service agents were part and parcel of the blackmail operation that had ensnared various powerbrokers and also me, so the Secret Service spearheaded the investigation as a means of damage control. U.S. Attorney Stephens’ remarks would begin the distortions of reality that made me the scapegoat of a sprawling government cover up.

The next phase of me becoming a scapegoat was perpetrated by the Department of Justice when it convened a grand jury to “investigate” my escort service and me. Although “grand jury” has an authoritative ring—like the gods on Mount Olympus have sent down a decree—the grand jury process is notoriously susceptible to manipulation. Unlike a standard trial, grand juries aren’t open to the public, and the identity of the witnesses who testify and their testimony are never disclosed. The special prosecutor of a grand jury calls the witnesses, questions the witnesses, and selects the evidence that is shown to the grand jurors, who are everyday citizens who have shown up for jury duty and have been funneled to a grand jury. A former Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals once quipped that prosecutors have so much control over grand juries that they could convince grand jurors to “indict a ham sandwich,” and the federal grand jury investigating me was a ham and Swiss on rye.

The grand jury that investigated me didn’t indict the architects of the blackmail operation and pedophile network, nor did it indict the Secret Service agents who participated in the blackmail operation. Instead the grand jury walloped me with a 43-count RICO indictment. When all the RICO indictments were tallied up, I was staring at 295 years in a federal prison. The grand jury walloped me with a lifetime behind bars, so it could ultimately leverage my silence, because I had witnessed events that could have jeopardized the George H.W. Bush administration and ultimately the Bush dynasty.

Deborah Jeane Palfrey (AKA, DC Madam) RIP – Part 1

Part 1

Deborah Jeane assumed the mantle of “D.C. Madam” after I had been toppled and banished to federal prison. Although she was in the business of providing female escorts and I had been in the business of providing male escorts, I followed the tribulations, trial, and death of Deborah Jeane Palfrey with intense interest. I marveled at the striking similarities between our cases, and I empathized with her dire circumstances.

The federal government unleashed a reign of terror on Palfrey just as it unleashed a reign of terror on my family and me. In fact, the feds even threatened to indict my elderly mother, and one newspaper reported that Secret Service agents actually kicked down the front door of my sister’s home and held my brother-in-law at gunpoint.

On Larry King Live, Ms. Palfrey dispensed a warning to Americans about their corrupt political system: “. . . think about it a bit, and you’ll come to the conclusion that we have come to. That there are possible people who have used the service who have become the subjects and targets of blackmail . . .”

I’m uncertain if Ms. Palfrey witnessed the blackmailing of politicians first-hand, but I was certainly privy to the blackmailing of politicians and sundry powerbrokers. If the Department of Justice, the Secret Service, and the Washington Post had not been resolute on covering up the facts and individuals enmeshed in my case, Americans would have learned the unsavory truth that blackmail is endemic in their political system. The sexual escapades of the D.C. elite are vastly different than the infidelities of the average citizen—thus their susceptibility to blackmail.