Attorney for Hastert’s extortionist makes crazy argument in court
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
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?
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.
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)