Dominique Strauss-Kahn: The Mysterious Phone Call With Jailed Acquaintance

[Note: This is so long that it's likely to interest only those closely following the developing details of the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case.]

One of the details not adding up in the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case, which I don't believe will be a case much longer, is the phone call the accuser had with her jailed friend (also described as her boyfriend or fiance) 28 hours after she reported her encounter at the Sofitel with DSK.

When the conversation was translated — a job completed only this Wednesday — investigators were alarmed: “She says words to the effect of, ‘Don’t worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I’m doing,’ ” the official said.

....Suspicions of the woman’s associations arose relatively quickly: within a week of Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s arrest, the authorities learned of a recorded conversation between the subject of a drug investigation and another man, who said his companion was the woman involved in the Strauss-Kahn matter, according to another law enforcement official.

Reportedly, he was arrested when attempting to obtain 400 pounds of marijuana in exchange for counterfeit designer goods from Chinatown somewhere in the Southwest. The Times reported: [More...]

The boyfriend in the Arizona detention center was another issue. He had been arrested while bartering counterfeit designer clothing from Manhattan’s Chinatown for marijuana in the Southwest, the well-placed law enforcement official said. Her lawyer said she did not know the man was “a drug dealer.”

According to media reports, he's being housed in an immigration jail in Arizona and since all jail calls are recorded, prosecutors last week obtained the recording. This is the call where, according to the New York Times, the accuser told her jailed friend not to worry about her and that DSK had a lot of money. Reportedly, it was in a dialect of Fula. In other words, this is the evidence the accuser may have had a financial motive for reporting an assault.

It's been 48 hours since this was revealed, and no reporter has yet, that I'm aware of, uncovered the name of the inmate or details of his arrest or pending criminal charges. I've searched and can't find it. Presumably, since the call was in Fula, the man is from Guinea or Senegal or somewhere in Africa.

John Solomon, who has been reporting on the case for The Daily Beast, writes today that it was only in the past few days that prosecutors thought to get the key card data for the other suites near the one DSK occupied. Previously, they had just gotten the data for the DSK suite.

The Daily Beast has learned that, until last week, investigators didn't seek electronic keycard evidence for rooms the alleged victim cleaned at the hotel the day of the alleged attack, other than Strauss-Kahn's. That omission has taken on new significance as the maid’s account changed.

...The prosecutors sought the additional hotel key records on Wednesday, informed defense lawyers about the victim's credibility problems on Thursday, then got the hotel security key logs for the other rooms the next day, one source said.

...The hotel key card records that prosecutors belatedly got from the Sofitel on Friday show the maid keyed room 2820, which she had cleaned hours earlier, at 12:26 p.m. and, during the same minute, also keyed room 2806 where Strauss-Kahn had stayed – which would support the assertion that her supervisor took her there, according to a source directly familiar with the evidence.

“She didn't have time to clean 2820 again. The key cards show her supervisor took her to Strauss-Kahn's room almost immediately. And it would not have made sense to clean 2820 again, she had done it earlier between 10:30 a.m. and 11:30 .m., which would suggest she simply got confused,” the source said.

That Solomon's source said she may have been confused indicates to me this is a law enforcement source, not a defense source. (A defense source would not have tried to justify the accuser's actions as being one of confusion as opposed to deception.)

Solomon reports the accuser called the inmate, and raises the possibility that the reason the accuser re-entered the suite she had already cleaned after the encounter with DSK, was to make telephone calls.

But such changes in her account coupled with the evidence of lying about a prior rape and the hints of a financial motive revealed during the call to prison could give defense lawyers plenty to create reasonable doubt with jurors. Did she engage in consensual oral sex and then was coached to spit to ensure DNA evidence could be collected? Did she make a call to one or more conspirators during her multiple entries into room 2820? Was her original story simply rehearsed to garner sympathy with colleagues and investigators, only to unravel later when conflicting evidence emerged? Does the prison call suggest she habitually cashed in on VIP hotel client with lots of money? (my emphasis)

How would the accuser have called the inmate in a immigration detention facility? (Or any jail other than some local ones, for that matter. They don't exactly coming running to your cell when you get a call so you can take it.) The ICE facilities in Arizona all state this in their regulations:

Calling a Detainee

Detainees cannot receive incoming calls. If you need to get in touch with a detainee to leave an urgent message, you must call (520) ***** and leave the detainee’s full name, alien registration number and your name and telephone number where you can be reached. The detainee will be given your message.

But how would the inmate have called her 28 hours later, if she no longer had her phone? According to early media reports and interviews with her friend Blake Diallo, manager of the 2115 Cafe, Blake was the first person to be in touch with her, on May 14, hours after the incident. (It was Blake Diallo who found lawyer Jeffrey Shaprio, since departed from the case, on the Internet.)

Her phone call with the jailed drug suspect was on May 15. Blake has said investigators took her phone and gave her a new one. Her family has said even they couldn't reach her. (I'm not including links because the articles name her and so far mainstream media here has not.) Did she use the police phone to call the immigration jail and leave a message for the inmate to call her back? Where did she get the number? Did she ask the investigators to look it up? Were they not curious to do any follow-up? Or did they put in request for his subsequent calls to be monitored, which is how they found out about the call a week later? [Added: Solomon says the investigators found the call on phone records of one of the other phones in her name that they later found out about. Since she was in their protective custody at the time, she must have had the phone with her. But she denied to investigators she had any other phones and when asked about them, said her boyfriend must have put them in her name. )

Blake said he talked to her every day in the beginning and would bring toiletries and other essentials to the hotel where investigators were housing her in seclusion.

(Initially, Blake referred to himself as her brother, but when it was revealed he was from Senegal, not Guinea, he explained he used the word in a figurative sense, as he often does in describing friends in the U.S. who came from Africa. She also has a half-brother named Mamadou who lives in Indianapolis and has been interviewed several times.)

Today, the Paris Match says Blake Diallo of the 2115 Cafe hasn't talked to her in the past month, but during their last call, a month ago, she complained about the seclusion. English translation:

"The last time I got on the phone, it was a month ago, and it lasted half an hour. She called me. Cloistered in the house somewhere in New York, under police protection, she said she was suffocating. I advised her to pray to stay positive. Since I did not tell her speak again, but whatever happens, I keep my friendship. "

Blake Diallo has also said in the past that he was the one who advised her of the identity of DSK, having seen it on TV, and that she had no idea who he was. According to the DA's Disclosure of Evidence, detailed here, the lineup was on May 15 at 4:00 pm. When she spoke to the jailed friend, she knew (from Blake as well as having seen it herself on TV) that the man she accused was rich. Solomon also says that she had already retained a lawyer by the time she spoke to him.

According to the Times, the accuser told prosecutors and investigators upon being confronted with the bank records showing deposits of around $100,000. over two years into her bank account, that she had no knowledge of them and they were made by the incarcerated friend (who she said is her fiance). Did she never check her bank balance in 2 years? [Added: The money may have been deposited into other bank accounts in her name, which she denied knowing about.]

According to the two officials, the woman had a phone conversation with an incarcerated man within a day of her encounter with Mr. Strauss-Kahn in which she discussed the possible benefits of pursuing the charges against him. The conversation was recorded.

That man, the investigators learned, had been arrested on charges of possessing 400 pounds of marijuana. He is among a number of individuals who made multiple cash deposits, totaling around $100,000, into the woman’s bank account over the last two years. The deposits were made in Arizona, Georgia, New York and Pennsylvania.

The investigators also learned that she was paying hundreds of dollars every month in phone charges to five companies. The woman had insisted she had only one phone and said she knew nothing about the deposits except that they were made by a man she described as her fiancé and his friends. (my emphasis)

A French paper reports today the man is from Gambia and that he is the accuser's second husband, although they married only in a religious ceremony, not a civil ceremony. (I'm not linking because it reveals her name, which again, while all over the papers in France and Africa, has not been published by mainstream media here.) She met him when working at a Gambian restaurant located at 170th Street and Grand Concourse in the Bronx, which is where she worked before getting the job at Sofitel. They lived together before she got the Sofitel job up until his arrest, which according to her, was for immigration violations and working in the U.S. illegally.

Why has no one been able to identify the jailed boyfriend or his criminal case? When was he arrested? Where in the Southwest (he could have been arrested outside of Arizona but shipped to an immigration jail in Arizona.) Was he responsible for getting her the job at the Sofitel? Diaby, the owner of the Gambian restaurant that she worked at previously, has said she was a very good waitress and she quit suddenly, explaining she had gotten her asylum papers and this new job.

If her husband/fiance/provider was in jail and no longer able to contribute to the family income, she may have had a greater need for money, which would partially account for yesterday's uncorroborated report by the New York Post.

So long as there is a policy in U.S. media that the name of the accuser in a sex assault claim is shielded, even in a he-said/she-said case, it's hard to get at the truth about her history. Even though the French and African papers report details, Google translator isn't the best and these reports vary widely on her background.

DSK may have been a womanizer and he may have been accustomed to paying for sex when visiting other countries where he didn't have established female relationships. But it's quite a leap to equate such conduct with the claims of this accuser, that he came out of a shower naked and upon seeing her, jumped her, chased her around a hotel suite and forced her twice to have oral sex. Especially considering she's 5'11" or 6' tall to his overweight 5'7" or 5'8" and 30 years younger. I'm also not sure a male with any brains would force a female to engage in oral sex, given the risk of being bitten. While people have called DSK a risk-taker, no one has said he is stupid.

DSK stayed at this hotel six times in the past year. Was this the first time they met? Two other hotel employees reported he made overtures to them the same weekend. Photos of VIP guests were posted in the employee break room. Did the accuser know who he was and his reputation among employees and figure he'd be an easy mark, and then something went awry? (Perhaps he didn't expect to pay or want to pay enough?)

Unlike the media, which tends to view cases through guilt-colored lenses, I view cases through the lens of the defense. A bruise on a vagina and the presence of semen on clothing is not inconsistent with a consensual encounter. When the supervisor took the accuser back into the suite, she spit out repeatedly. Is that how and when semen was found on the carpet or walls, if it was? Was it an intentional ploy to ensure there would be evidence to support her story?

Reportedly, prosecutors don't believe after listening to the recorded call that the incarcerated boyfriend/fiance/husband had a hand in setting up the encounter with DSK. But who was the male he talked to in a recorded call a week or so after the incident, in which the Times reports he said it was his girlfriend who was accusing DSK? Apparently, that call wasn't in a dialect of Fula (also called Fulani) since they didn't need a transcriber to understand it. Has that person been interviewed and shed any light on either the inmate or the accuser?

One last question: The Times said the recorded call between the accuser and the inmate was in "a “unique dialect of Fulani." Was it in Pulaar, which is a dialect of the Fula language spoken in Gambia? According to an article written by someone who used to work with the accuser at the Gambian restaurant in the Bronx, their communications were in Pulaar, which is similar to Pular, an official regional language of Guinea.

I'm out of all the questions I can ask without identifying the accuser. I can't rule out a set-up, but a consensual encounter gone awry, possibly over money, seems more likely to me. I've read far more than I can report here, including interviews with her mother, other relatives and people who knew her or encountered her in various places. Given the varied and often contradictory descriptions, I'm not surprised the DA's office isn't prepared to draw a final conclusion when they've only had much of this information for a week.

I also doubt, unless the media stays on it or the accuser gets charged with a perjury or related crime, we'll ever learn what authorities really think happened between the accuser and DSK.

But I do think the person who will most disappointed is her current lawyer, who like those who preceded him in representing her, took the case believing a rich man exploited a poor immigrant worker, while knowing next to nothing about her.

Rush to judgments rarely pan out, for either side.
< Closing Arguments in Casey Anthony Trial | 2010 Report: Wiretaps Up 34% Over 2009 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Trading pot for Chinese counterfeit designer goods (none / 0) (#1)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 05:32:23 PM EST
    This is beginning to read like Elmore Leonard or Carl Hiassen.

    The question I have is ... (none / 0) (#2)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 05:53:13 PM EST
    Aren't there better ways of getting money out of a prominent married man you have just had sex with than heaving him arrested immediately?

    These are the worst extortionists ever.

    what, (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 06:06:45 PM EST
    you think only smart people are allowed to be blackmailers?

    she probably had no idea (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 06:13:48 PM EST
    she'd be put in seclusion. Maybe she thought she could negotiate with him after his arrest. But that would mean she knew how to get in touch with him, and it doesn't seem like she knew his identity (as opposed to only that he was rich enough to stay in an expensive hotel suite) at the time she reported him. Unless she hid the phone he left behind (which would explain why he didn't know he had left it behind.) But I don't think she was that clever or devious -- unless it was a set-up and that's what she was told to do.

    Could be (none / 0) (#15)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 06:48:36 PM EST
    I can't figure out if she was incredibly sophisticated, assuming she would get a good enough lawyer or other contacts to negotiate with him post arrest - why would she think that would be likely- oe very ignorant about our system. The latter seems likely.

    Seems like a very interesting  story may be emerging here about immigrants and a griff gone bad.


    The cell phone of DSK has (none / 0) (#20)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 07:39:11 PM EST
    been a question in my mind.  He realized at some point after leaving the hotel that the phone was missing and that its recovery bore a special sense of urgency since it  was his  confidential IMF phone.   Did the accuser have it and turn it over, or was it found somewhere in the room after being alerted to its loss by DSK?

    i have a couple of questions: (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 05:59:27 PM EST
    1. as noted, the male the accuser purportedly called is an inmate. inmates don't get to receive random phone calls, unless (i'm guessing) it's from their attorney, they can only make collect calls, to outsiders. she had a new phone#, how would he know what # to call? As well, unless it was just their regular weekly call, how would he have known beforehand that she was the accuser, and call her on a # he had no reason to know?

    2. odd that there's been almost no mention of this recent development in the media. odder still that no one, outside of "investigators" has seen or heard any evidence of the actual existence of this phone call, and its translation. odder even more still, who did investigators learn of the existence of this alleged recorded phone conversation from? i don't see where that was reported anywhere, just that they "learned of it".

    3. what makes you think the supervisor would allow the accuser to just spit on the floors & walls of an expensive hotel room? they would more likely suggest she go wash her mouth out using the bathroom sink.

    i note that mr. DSK is not out of the woods just yet: his passport has been retained by the police, and he isn't free to travel anywhere he wants.

    i note as well that, since the first accusations burbled up, claiming the accuser was using the hotel to conduct prostitution activities, no evidence to support the allegation has burbled up from the pits. could all this be part of a "black ops" plan, on the part of DSK's attorneys/advisors?

    as to #2 (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 06:07:32 PM EST
    they learned of the inmate's call with the accuser as a result of the call with the unidentified man a week later. It's in one of the quotes from the Times article:

    Suspicions of the woman's associations arose relatively quickly: within a week of Mr. Strauss-Kahn's arrest, the authorities learned of a recorded conversation between the subject of a drug investigation and another man, who said his companion was the woman involved in the Strauss-Kahn matter, according to another law enforcement official.

    again, (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by cpinva on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 07:57:41 PM EST
    no mention of how they learned of the existence of this previously recorded phone conversation. what, it just happened to fall into their hands from out of the blue?

    The whole thing is so bizarre no matter (none / 0) (#10)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 06:33:46 PM EST
    which way I look at it. No behavior recognizable to me as logical on either side.

    One thing is sure though - they ought to be able to get the hotel phone records to see if she made calls to the guy in jail from the hotel.


    Oops - meant that as a reply at #6 (none / 0) (#12)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 06:35:15 PM EST
    But I guess it applies throughout.

    I assumed she made the (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 06:37:07 PM EST
    call or received the call on her cell phone (and went into the suite for privacy during the call.) Don't you need a long distance dialing code to make a long distance call on a hotel room phone?

    Oh, I get it. I thought you meant to use (none / 0) (#14)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 06:42:40 PM EST
    the phone in the room. It has been so long since I made a call from a hotel phone that I don't know what kind of system they use these days. Probably you do need a code.

    That splendid (none / 0) (#7)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 06:22:22 PM EST
    erudite, and trustworthy journal, the NYPost, said that the source for the information that the accuser was a "hooker" was someone "close to the defense".

    Not too specific. Not the most disinterested of sources either.

    That having been said, if she was a professional "hooker", and she worked for the Sofitel for three years, wouldn't you think that someone - a previous guest - might be able to confirm that? Even if the identity of the hotel worker is anonymous in the US at present, someone could offer that they had experienced this kind of confrontation at the Sofitel?

    Wouldn't you also think that the hotel might be aware of this sideline of one of their staff if it had been ongoing for three years?

    Curiouser and curiouser.

    At the beginning of this mess, Strauss-Kahn was the defendant.
    It was a media circus. He was the poster-fellow for the mistreatment of hotel workers and the bullying by the rich of the poor - and the mistreatment of the powerless by the powerful and the intimidation of women by powerful and unscrupulous men. Mayor Bloomberg pronounced him guilty when approving of the perp walk.

    Now, I am beginning to feel that the accuser (or victim as the case may be) is the defendant. She is becoming the poster-person for blackmailers and extortionists.

    And how could she have made that phone call if the prison doesn't accept incoming calls? And what if she did say that the guy was rich? If she had been assaulted as she claimed, couldn't she have expressed that she would take the SOB for all he was worth?

    And who was the translator - and how reliable is that translation?

    it was a police source (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 06:34:47 PM EST
    who told the Times about the phone call. Since they had to search for a translator in that dialect, they probably used one who is court-certified somewhere. But the Times didn't publish the transcript, only the law enforcement official's description of the translation.

    I think the papers got it wrong that she called him. I think it's more likely that she called the facility and left a message for him to call her, with the new phone number. I just can't imagine how she would know the number, unless it was in her old phone and she either saked the investigators to retrieve it or they let her have her phone long enough to write down the numbers in it, so she could make calls with the new phone.


    Couldn't she have had the number written (none / 0) (#26)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 08:49:03 PM EST
    down somewhere? Maybe she was given it over the phone and wrote it down before ever calling it and storing it in her old phone.

    But it is also easy for me to believe that the investigators would have let her write down some phone numbers before they took her phone. Seems like a reasonable request.


    Now I'm reading (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 09:07:32 PM EST
    they came across the call when examining the call records from the other phones in her name -- the ones she denied having. If that's true, she had physical possession of the phone the day after the incident. Which makes it more likely he called her.

    yep, kind of hard to keep (none / 0) (#23)
    by cpinva on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 08:11:44 PM EST
    that whole "hooking in the hotel i work as a maid in" thing quiet, over the long term. so basically, the only identified "source" for this is the nypost which, as you noted, has a sterling reputation for journalistic accuracy and integrity.

    i think i'll try door# 3 instead.


    Yep. as an ex-maid, I am pretty sure that (none / 0) (#24)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 08:31:51 PM EST
    would be close to impossible to do in secret. Not exactly a private job. Everyone knows what everyone else is doing.

    Still opaque (none / 0) (#8)
    by ZtoA on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 06:22:29 PM EST
    Yes, there's lots of info out there on her, but some of it is false evidently, like some of the photos. Probably lots of false info rumoring around. But there is absolutely no real indication of her personality - all info I could access seems heavily biased. Maybe you can get better sources.

    She seems to be accused of lying because of things like falling to the floor crying while being questioned and while changing her story. Its really hard to see thru as this could indicate so many things. If she was a regular prostitute and he was a regular buyer of women then you'd think he would just pay her and be done with it. Why would he stiff her? If he did, how did she expect to get money from him (as implied in her phone call translation)? Had she already attempted? If not what do people think she was going to do? write him a letter when he was back in France "Hi there, remember me? You need to send me some money or else"? That translated phone call makes no sense.

    the DA said in its letter (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 06:26:13 PM EST
    she admitted lying to the grand jury and to them.

    Yes, and we need go no further (none / 0) (#19)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 07:19:03 PM EST
    at the moment than that letter.  The reliability and credibility of the accuser is now sufficiently in doubt so as to render continued prosecution of the case untenable. Moreover, the defense has not revealed what its investigation has uncovered which would, at a minimum, add to the doubts for reliability and credibility.  A judge has already altered the restrictive bail conditions  (permitting travel within this country) in view of the information provided by the prosecution. It appears that the prosecution will soon be addressing the realities of its case.

    the "realities" of this case (none / 0) (#22)
    by cpinva on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 08:04:22 PM EST
    actually doesn't appear to have much, if anything to do with whether or not DSK committed an act of sexual assault, according to mr. vance's letter. rather, it has to do with (mostly) unrelated information, which would be used by the defense to try and impeach the accuser.

    at this point, only two people have any clear idea of what, if anything happened in that hotel room. the investigation has been such a bungle, i doubt we ever will. if nothing, then DSK has had his reputation shredded even more that it (apparently) already was. if something, the accuser will never see justice done.


    once again that's not correct (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 08:42:50 PM EST
    the DA's letter says she admitted lying about cowering in the hallway in fear until DSK left in the elevator and she was found by a supervisor. The letter says she later admitted she didn't cower in a hallway but went on to clean another room and his before reporting it. That's a material misstatement regarding the facts of the charged crime.

    and again, (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by cpinva on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 03:45:21 PM EST
    it has nothing to do with whether or not the alleged event actually took place, nothing. i can lie to a grand jury all day long, regarding my specific whereabouts on 9/11, so what? that the events of 9/11 happened are not in doubt.

    nowhere in mr. vance's letter does he assert that the allegations themselves aren't true, simply that the accuser's public (and courtroom) credibilty has been tainted to the point that "hazards of litigation" policy mandate this case not go forward, at least not at this time.

    i have no idea what the true facts are, but i do know (because i can read plain english), that mr. DSK has in no way been completely exonerated by the DA. that is a fact.


    Simply not true (none / 0) (#34)
    by Rojas on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 04:08:02 PM EST
    The letter does not state that.
    Are you reading a different letter? If not, are you absolutely sure you "can read plain english"?

    from the letter (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 09:03:42 PM EST
    Here's the quote from the letter:

    In the weeks following the incident charged in the indictment, the complainant told detectives and assistant district attorneys on numerous occasions that, after being sexually assaulted by the defendant on May 14, 2011 in Suite 2806, she fled to an area of the main hallway of the hotel's 28" floor and waited there until she observed the defendant leave Suite 2806 and the 28" floor by entering an elevator. It was after this observation that she reported the incident to her supervisor, who arrived on the 28" floor a short time later. In the interim between the incident and her supervisor's arrival, she claimed to have remained in the same area of the main hallway on the 28" floor to which she had initially fled. The complainant testified to this version of events when questioned in the Grand jury about her actions following the incident in Suite 2806. The complainant has since admitted that this account was false and that after the incident in Suite 2806, she proceeded to clean a nearby room and then returned to Suite 2806 and began to clean that suite before she reported the incident to her supervisor

    Yes, and one (none / 0) (#32)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 08:54:01 AM EST
    made before the Grand Jury.

    why did it take them so long (none / 0) (#28)
    by desmoinesdem on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 09:39:04 PM EST
    to get the other key card data? That seems like a pretty important part of the story, which detectives should have checked out sooner.

    My understanding is (none / 0) (#29)
    by Rojas on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 11:06:14 PM EST
    the reader (lock) stores the information not the key card.  

    The timing is odd (none / 0) (#30)
    by tnjen on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 11:32:53 PM EST
    Funny that the info. about the calls only came out after his successor was appointed.

    with all the evil the IMF does on behalf of rich (none / 0) (#31)
    by seabos84 on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 11:54:02 PM EST
    pigs ... yawn.

    my brother used to swear that the crystal he sold the statie was some crap from high times that was legal ...

    and then I'd remind him of all the times he walked out to a car with no insurance, no registration, having a joint in 1 hand and beer in the other, and no driver's license - and drove away... to break the law for the rest of the day!

    He was probably set up. And he dodged the bullet on about 50 other things. What a joke.  

    a plague on on their houses.