Look who is calling IP2P “unprofessional”
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
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.
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.
------ 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.
Why did Dennis Hastert agree to pay Curtis T Williams $3.5 million?
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in Chief
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!
ALERT: The Hastert story is about to take a wild turn!
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
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?"
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)
Alert: Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn caught telling the truth!
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn recently was caught doing something that has his employer and the U.S. Attorney's Office very upset.
He told the truth!
In an unguarded moment of honesty, Zorn let fly that the Chicago Tribune did in fact warn Rod Blagojevich that the feds were recording him.
You might say Zorn had a "Gruber" moment, and like Jonathan Gruber, he hoped it would go un-noticed.
Here's what Zorn had to say about IP2P's reporting of what he said:
"Not that it matters, really, but I didn't know I was speaking on the record for 'Ernie Souchak,' the brave blogger who has adopted the pseudonym of a John Belushi character. Next time you might want to say you're seeking a quote for publication. Though scrolling through the last year's worth of entries there is not a single reader comment on any of the posts on this blog, so I'm not sure anyone is going to see what I said anyway."
So Zorn claims he thought he was speaking off the record when he said that the Tribune warned Blago.
And now that he's clearly on the record, he's hoping no one will see what he had to say.
God forbid Zorn print the truth in his own column at the Tribune.
No, instead Eric "Gruber" Zorn is praying for a "Change of Subject."
Hey Eric, here's an idea: let's talk about the sealed Blago wiretap tapes the Tribune won't share with the public.
Developing story...
Related: Chicago Tribune reporters work for Federal Government
Eric Zorn: John Chase did not warn Blagojevich – the Chicago Tribune did
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn has come out in defense of his "hilarious" position that the phone call Tribune reporter John Chase made to the Blagojevich camp on December 4, 2008 did not serve as a warning.
Zorn's reasoning: Blagojevich would have read that he was being recorded by the feds in a Tribune article the very next morning.
Zorn was asked:
"Do you understand that Robert and Rod canceled a meeting with Jesse Jackson Jr.'s money man, Raghuveer Nayak, due to Chase's phone call?"
He replied:
"And do you understand they would've canceled that meeting anyway because of what was in the paper that morning?"
So let me get this straight, Eric. Your contention is that John Chase's late night phone call did not warn Blago that the feds were recording him - but that the article the Tribune published the following morning did.
Ok, Eric, have it your way.
However, now that you have reluctantly conceded that the Chicago Tribune did in fact warn Robert and Rod Blagojevich, perhaps you can explain why former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald was OK with the Trib's decision.
More to come...
Robert Blagojevich: Chicago Tribune warned my brother about federal wiretap
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
Robert Blagojevich recently acknowledged that Chicago Tribune reporter John Chase warned his brother, Rod Blagojevich, that the feds were recording him.
Blagojevich emerged in response to Tribune reporter Eric Zorn's ridiculous position that:
"Chase wasn't warning Blago he was being recorded, he was telling him a story was running the next day about him being recorded."
Wow, Eric. Are you joking?
Here's what Robert Blagojevich called Zorn's assertion that Chase did not warn Rod: "Hilarious!"
Keep in mind that Robert canceled his planned meeting the following morning with Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s money man, Raghuveer Nayak, as a result of Chase's late night phone call.
A meeting whose sole purpose was to hammer out the terms of Jackson's purchase of the U.S Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama!
Remember Robert was one of the biggest benefactors of Chase's infamous phone call to the Blago camp on December 4, 2008.
So if he considers it a warning, who is Eric Zorn - or anyone else to say it was not?
Related: Patrick Fitzgerald’s “not not denial” that he warned Blagojevich
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald named as source of leak.
Robert Blagojevich dodged going to prison
True identity of crooked Chicago immigration attorney’s co-conspirator revealed!
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
On September 23, 2014 U.S. Attorney Zachary Fardon announced the arrest and indictment of Chicago immigration attorney Robert W. DeKelaita, 51, of Glenview, IL and contract interpreter Adam Benjamin, 61, of Skokie, IL.
Well, as it turns out, Benjamin is much more than just an interpreter who happens to speak Assyrian.
Adam Benjamin is in fact Dr. Adam Z. Benjamin, the former head of the Assyrian Democratic Movement (ADM) of North America.
But when the spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office, Randall Samborn, was asked to confirm the identity of the man Fardon had just indicted, Samborn's response was: "Why do you persist on asking me questions that you know I can't answer?"
Huh?
To put this in perspective:
The U.S. Attorney's Office apparently now believes that asking them to properly identify individuals that they have arrested, indicted, and named in their own press release is something that the media should know not to ask them to do.
Wow! Take a moment to ponder that bit of brilliance.
Moving on, now the question is: Why did the feds not want the public to know the true identity of Adam Benjamin?
Could it be because Benjamin had access to the White House?
Also keep in mind that the ADM political party that Benjamin was in charge of in America was lead by Yonadam Kanna overseas in Iraq.
That would be the same Yonadam Kanna who joined DeKelaita associate and Tony Rezko pal, Dr. Ronald Michael, in Iraq pre-invasion meetings at the State Department.
Maybe Chicago Tribune reporter John Chase can shed some light on this subject for us.
Does anyone know where Chase has disappeared to?
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "John Chase" <[email protected]>
To: (redacted)
Cc: (redacted)
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 10:29:35 AM
Subject: RE: Assyrian Community-Robert Dekelaita
Thanks (name redacted). Yes, somebody else told me about Mr. Dekelaita. I will check into that.
John
From: (redacted)
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 11:29 AM
To: Chase, John
Cc: (redacted)
Subject: Assyrian Community-Robert Dekelaita
John
Robert Dekelaita is a immigration attorney that is a close associate of Dr. Michael and is very active in the Assyrian community.
Law office of Robert Dekelaita 6600 N. Lincoln Ave.
Suite 200 Lincolnwood, IL 60712
(name redacted)
Perhaps if Chase would come out of hiding, he could give some badly needed guidance to fellow Trib reporter Jason Meisner on the 'Chaldean-Assyrian Community Scandal'.
-----Original Message-----
From: (redacted)
To: Jason Meisner
Sent: October 4, 2014 at 6:30 PM
Subject: Feds knew about crooked Chicago Immigration Attorney in 2003
Jason
You missed a great deal of important facts in your reporting of the DeKelaita scandal.
Don't you think the people of Chicago deserve a better effort from you?
(name redacted)
Feds knew about crooked Chicago Immigration Attorney
Do you think Nadhmi Auchi figures into any of this?
Let's not forget that the Iraqi billionaire claims to be a Chaldean Christian.
Much more to come...
Patrick Fitzgerald’s “not not denial” that he warned Blagojevich
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-chief
Was former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald displaying his intellectual shortcomings or was he just being duplicitous when he was given the opportunity to deny that he was the one who ultimately warned Governor Rod Blagojevich that he was recording Blago's phone conversations?
In a recent phone call Fitzgerald was asked directly:
"Do you deny that the U.S. Attorney's Office had communications with the Chicago Tribune about the Blagojevich case on Dec. 4, 2008?"
Fitzgerald's response: "I'm not denying it and I'm not not denying it."
Really, Patrick? "Not not denying it"?
You either deny it or you don't.
And for the record, you did "not deny" communicating with the Chicago Tribune before you decided to "not not deny" communicating with them.
What's next, Patrick? Are you and former White House counsel Greg Craig, who is now your law partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, going to do Abbott and Costello's "Who's on first" routine for us?
And by the way is "not not" the kind of nonsense you teach the students at the University of Chicago Law School in your capacity as a Feirson Distinguished Lecturer?
If so, they will never be able to practice law anywhere but Chicago.
From:(redacted)
To: Sarah Galer
Cc: amgardn, andaws
Sent: March 29, 2013 at 10:59 AM
Subject: Feirson Distinguished Lecturer
Ms. Sarah Galer
Please inform Patrick Fitzgerald that the Office of Professional Responsibility and the U.S. Inspector Generals Office would be who conducts an investigation of a U.S. Attorney.
I would have thought a "Feirson Distinguished Lecturer" would know that.
< name redacted >
p.s. Perhaps Mr. Fitzgerald's 1st lecture could be on this very subject.
-----Original Message-----
From:(redacted)
To: Patrick Fitzgerald
Cc: Aaron Goldstein , Sheldon Sorosky
Sent: 2013-03-29 02:46:11 +0000
Subject: Fwd: Media inquiry/Patrick Fitzgerald
Mr. Patrick Fitzgerald
You are on the record claiming that you do not know who would investigate the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding the leaks to John Chase and the Chicago Tribune.
Do you agree, there should be an investigation?
< name redacted >
-----Original Message-----
From:(redacted)
To: [email protected]
Sent: 2013-03-27 09:34:58 GMT
Subject: Media inquiry/Patrick Fitzgerald
Ms. Sarah Galer
The fact that the University of Chicago Law School is welcoming former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to be part of your schools program. And, that your showering him with accolades at a time that he is embroiled in controversy. Leads me to believe that you might not be aware of just how serious this may ultimately be for your institutions reputation.
Are you aware of the following?
And, if so, have you done due diligence?
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald “Most Dangerous Man”
https://illinoispaytoplay.com/2013/02/09/turns-out-u-s-attorney-patrick-fitzgerald-most-dangerous/
Why no Grand Jury? Chicago Tribune reporter John Chase involved in a crime. AGAIN!
https://illinoispaytoplay.com/2013/03/09/why-no-grand-jury-chicago-tribune-reporter-john-chase-involved-in-a-crime-again/
< name redacted >
Former U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald named Feirson Distinguished Lecturer
In Fitzgerald's defense, there is the distinct possibility that he really is this stupid. And let's face it, if he truly is mentally challenged, how would he know unless someone told him?
After all, the media does nothing but tell Fitzgerald how wonderfully smart he is.
In fact, the fawning Chicago media actually remained silent as Fitzgerald declared during a press conference about the Blagojevich case that the leaks to the Tribune "might have come from his office so he could not investigate them," and that he "had no idea who would investigate".
Wow! Can you believe that?
Amazingly, no one in the adoring mainstream media insisted that Fitzgerald explain those ridiculously stupid statements.
Well, Patrick, IP2P has news for you: you're not as bright as the media has led you to believe.
And now that it appears that Blagojevich will get out of prison soon, we insist that you explain your asinine statements about the leaks from your office to the Chicago Tribune.
And while you're at it, Fitz, you also need to explain to the public why you buried irrefutable evidence that:
(A) Sibel Edmonds gave you in the Plamegate scandal;
(B) John A. Shaw gave you in the Nadhmi Auchi scandal; and
(C) I, Ernie Souchak, gave you in the Blagojevich scandal.
Not to mention the well-documented burying of evidence you did in the Southern District of New York.
To be continued...