25Feb/180

Attorney for Hastert’s extortionist makes crazy argument in court

Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

(L to R): James Doe attorney Kristi Browne, Hastert attorney John Ellis and Judge Robert Pilmer (photo by WSPY News.com's Jim Wyman)

 

The attorney representing James Doe in the "hush money" case against Dennis Hastert is claiming that Hastert paid her client $1.7 million in cash because he wasn't trying to hide anything.

(Access to Dennis Hastert Bank Records an Issue in Kendall County Lawsuit Hearing)

This is one of the most insane arguments that I have ever heard come from an attorney, and that's saying a lot!

Kristi Browne, who is representing Curtis T. Williams aka James Doe, told Judge Robert Pilmer that she needs Hastert's bank records so that she can establish that by being paid in cash, her client was also open about the "hush money" payments and not trying to keep them a secret.

Now I have heard it all!

Browne ludicrously contended that if Williams and Hastert were trying to keep the "hush money" payments secret, Hastert would have paid Williams by check.

Don't checks leave a paper trail, Ms. Browne? Or are most criminals just paranoid?

By the way, since Williams was supposedly not trying to hide anything by accepting the $1.7 million "hush money" in cash, perhaps Browne will show us the "hush money" deposits slips from his bank.

And while she is at it she can also tell us if he reported his cash windfall to the IRS?

Or did he just transparently stuff the $1.7 million under his mattress?

IP2P asked Ms. Browne if her client reported his cash windfall to the IRS, but she did not respond.

Interestingly, if Hastert had written checks instead of paying by cash he would not have gone to prison for structuring.

If all of this wasn't crazy enough, Browne told reporters after the court hearing that she plans to file a motion asking Judge Pilmer to close the courtroom to the public in order to keep James Doe's identity a secret even though he has already been identified as Curtis T. Williams.

 Could Hastert Case be Heard in Secret?

The question is: Will Judge Pilmer continue to tolerate such insanity in his courtroom?

18Feb/180

Look who is calling IP2P “unprofessional”

Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

(WSPY News.com photo by Jim Wyman)

Kristi Browne, the attorney for 'James Doe' in the civil lawsuit against former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, told a WSPY radio reporter that Illinois Pay to Play acted "unprofessionally" when IP2P revealed the true identity of her client, who is extorting Hastert.

Attorneys in James Doe Lawsuit Against Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert Spar Over Discovery Evidence

Who are you to call anyone "unprofessional", Ms. Browne?

Let me educate you on what truly is "unprofessional" behavior.

It was "unprofessional" of you as Curtis T. Williams' attorney to repeatedly ignore IP2P's legitimate questions about his civil lawsuit.

-----------------------------------------------

------ Original Message ------

To: Kristi Browne
Sent: May 2, 2017 at 3:15 PM
Subject: Call your client

Ms. Kristi Browne

If you are not going to return my phone call.

Call your client.

Curtis T. Williams

------ Original Message ------

To: Kristi Browne
Sent: June 2, 2017 at 9:06 AM
Subject: Doe vs. Dennis Hastert

Ms. Kristi Browne

If you truly do wish to keep the identity of your clients in the Hastert case masked.

Perhaps it would be prudent for you to stop dodging members of the media that you know can unmask them.

That is unless for some reason you do want them unmasked?

Either way. Have you shared your strategy in this matter with your clients?

-----------------------------------------------

Keep in mind Browne's client is now a 58 year old man who was caught red-handed extorting Hastert.

It is also "unprofessional" of the Chicago Tribune to keep his identity secret even though the serious subject of extortion of the former Speaker has not been honestly addressed.

Why did Dennis Hastert agree to pay Curtis T Williams $3.5 million?

And It is "unprofessional" for the Chicago Sun Times to ignore the fact that Hastert victim Williams, aka 'James Doe', at age 38, helped his molester become Speaker of the House.

How “Individual A” helped Dennis Hastert become Speaker of the House

But the most "unprofessional" behavior of all was by FBI Director Robert Mueller and the Department of Justice, who concealed the fact that Hastert was a known pederast - thus ensuring that the blackmailable Congressman would become one of the most powerful people in Washington, D.C.

The “REAL” Dennis Hastert Scandal!

6Feb/180

How “Individual A” helped Dennis Hastert become Speaker of the House

Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

Curtis T. Williams

Curtis T. Williams (Individual A), a former star wrestler and victim of Dennis Hastert's proclivity to molest under-aged boys, was instrumental in helping his former coach become Speaker of the House.

On December 19, 1998 Congressman Bob Livingston, who was slated to replace Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House, was forced to announce his resignation from Congress. This was due to the fact that illegal FBI surveillance on him had uncovered Livingston's adulterous affair.

https://www.newsbud.com/2015/09/20/dennis-hastert-case-clinton-scandals-fbi-the-1996-cointelpro-directive/

Thus clearing the path for Hastert to become Speaker instead.

On December 21st, just two days later, the Chicago Sun Times trotted out Curtis T. Williams to say a few nice words about the man (Hastert) who he now says had molested him nearly 25 years earlier.

         Chicago Sun Times  December 21, 1998 by Jim Ritter

                            Lawmaker also on top as coach


Now had Williams divulged the fact that Hastert had molested him when he was a child in that suspicious interview with the Chicago Sun Times, Hastert would not only not become Speaker, he too would have had to resign from Congress in disgrace. And quite possibly would have faced criminal prosecution.

I wonder if that had anything to do with Hastert's decision to secretly pay Williams $3.5 million in cash?

More importantly, did that have anything to do with the Feds' decision to keep Curtis T. Williams' identity a secret and not have him testify against Hastert?

You bet it did!

As for Scott Cross (Individual D), he did testify against Hastert. And then in a March 2017 phone interview with IP2P, Cross was asked, “Do you think Hastert stopped his pederast activities when he left Yorkville High School to get into politics?” He immediately responded with an emphatic "No!"

But how does what Cross said square with this picture?

It doesn't. What is Cross not telling us?

More to come...

26Jan/180

Why did Dennis Hastert agree to pay Curtis T Williams $3.5 million?

Ernie Souchak, Editor-in Chief

Curtis T. Williams

Why did former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert agree to pay Curtis T. Williams (Individual A), a former student and son of a close family friend, $3.5 million?

According to Hastert, it was because Williams was blackmailing him!

However, the Feds and their sock puppets at the Chicago Tribune insist that Williams was just extracting "hush money" in return for remaining silent about the fact that Hastert molested him decades ago.

Is there a difference?

Blackmail:

The action, treated as a criminal offense, of demanding money from a person in return for not revealing compromising or injurious information about that person.

Synonym: extortion.

The only difference is that if they called it what it really was, blackmail, Curtis Williams would have been charged with a crime and been forced to testify that Hastert, a known pederast, gave him cash-stuffed envelopes totaling $1.7 million.

Now why would the Feds, including former FBI Directors Robert Mueller and James Comey, not want Williams to testify against a known pederast?

Could it be that the Deep State was trying to hide something big?

Related:

ALERT: The Hastert story is about to take a wild turn!

The “REAL” Dennis Hastert Scandal!

 

 

 

 

26Feb/170

ALERT: The Hastert story is about to take a wild turn!

 

Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

IMG_2032.PNG

Chicago Tribune's Christy Gutowski reported that former House Speaker Dennis Hastert retracted his accusation that Mr. Doe (Individual A) was extorting money from him in her story on the civil case of James Doe vs Dennis Hastert.

She obviously did not fact check that claim.

Because the former speaker is still implying that he is being blackmailed in recent court documents.

IP2P emailed Gutowski to get verification of the claim that Hastert retracted his accusation.

---------------------------------------------
From: [redacted]
To: Christy Gutowski
Sent: February 23, 2017 at 3:20 PM
Subject: Dennis Hastert victim again argues for rest of hush money in court filing

Ms. Christy Gutowski

Did you fact check Ms. Browne's claim that Dennis Hastert has retracted his accusation that "Individual A" was extorting money from him?

Where and when did Hastert make this retraction?

In response, Kristi Browne, the victim's attorney, said in her recent court filing: "Hastert engaged in illegal conduct by failing to make proper disclosures in connection with withdrawing funds from his bank accounts in violation of banking law, rendering himself and the agreement between the parties the subject of a federal investigation. Hastert was the first to disclose his agreement to pay Mr. Doe to federal officials, but falsely accused Mr. Doe of extortion, an accusation he has since retracted."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-dennis-hastert-lawsuit-met-20170222-story.html

[redacted]

Illinoispaytoplay.com

-------------------------------------------

Gutowski did not reply to our email.

When Gutowski was contacted by phone to discuss the seemingly fraudulent claim that Hastert had retracted his accusation, she refused to answer any questions and stated: "You will have to speak to my editor, I am just a reporter" before abruptly hanging up.

Is she implying that her editor at the Chicago Tribune is responsible for the false reporting?

Why would the Tribune do this? Especially since the Tribune has already reported that it knows the identity of "Individual A"?

(Reporters Shine Light on Alleged Victims in Dennis Hastert Case)

Perhaps the Tribune knows that if it was determined that "Individual A" was indeed blackmailing Dennis Hastert that the public would demand to know who he is?

The Tribune also knows that if it were to reveal the identity of "Individual A" it would not only confirm that Hastert was being blackmailed. It would also raise new and serious questions that would open a can of worms that U.S. Attorney Zachary Fardon desperately wants to keep closed to the public.

And lets face it, we all know that when the U.S. attorneys office in Chicago says "jump", the Tribune asks: "how high?"

IMG_2035.PNG

Nice try Zachary. But we are not falling for your "fake news"

Buckle up, folks. The Hastert story is about to take a wild turn!

(Kristi Browne and Tribune Editors did not respond to attempts for comment)

15Oct/150

The “REAL” Dennis Hastert Scandal!

Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-chief