Wednesday, June 13, 2007


VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA/WASHINGTON D.C.--In an earlier article, this writer mentioned two names in the headline--Joe Clark and Maria Couvillon (phonetic). According to Ms. Deborah Jeane Palfrey and her civil attorney Blair Sibley, these are the two postal investigators who called Palfrey's realtor at 2pm for access to her home.

At this time, they had no warrant, and secured one later that day in Sacramento from a lowly magistrate. Clark and Couvillon obtained their warrant, but with what information? Read on. Did they accuse Ms. Palfrey of links to Al-Qaida? Apparently not, since she's not at Guantanamo Bay prison. Ms. Palfrey has informed me that Couvillon, Clark, and IRS agent Troy Burrus--not the UK pop star--are all in their late-twenties. How is this important? Further investigation could tell us, and about a whole lot more.
USPS couldn't confirm on the two from postal investigations, but Palfrey asserts that all were in this age-range (she calls them, "the kids"). Why would this matter? It could have something to do with the current "war on terror," and hiring and appointment-practices under the Bush administration. How did Monica Goodling get her job? She was appointed, she is 33, and she attended Pat Robertson University for her law degree (take that, Harvard!). Can the same be said for Clark and Burrus? According to Palfrey's civil attorney (Sibley), Couvillon has no substantial educational background that would qualify her as a postal investigator. Importantly: why was Couvillon present with IRS agent Troy Burrus on a visit to Palfrey's mother in Florida about a week ago? More on this aspect later. If any readers have information pertaining to the educational background of government agents covering this case, it would be greatly appreciated.

Mr. Clark left his home phone number with Ms. Palfrey's realtor--want it? Mainstream media and many so-called "liberal" blogs don't appear interested in this story anymore. They should know that there were "screaming matches" at ABC over whether to run the full-story or not. Brian Ross wanted to do full-disclosure, but his Executive producers quashed the segment. Many things ended-up "on the cutting-room floor," asserts Palfrey. Considering the run-up to the show, this is not hard to believe.

A call to the USPS's PIO (Public Information Office) has so far yielded no new answers, and many of the unanswered questions cannot simply be due to investigative procedures. There could be some stonewalling. I'm still waiting, but was told that the release of how long both agents were with the USPS as investigators was likely. J-7 readers will be the first to know. Author William Keisling has informed me that Sunday's Sopranos finale had a line referencing a prostitution and bribery scandal. Jeane was excited to watch the show that night, and it must have been a stunner, she's a big fan of the show (hey, who isn't?). One can grant that it's entirely legitimate to withhold certain facts in an investigation (there are legitimate concerns not to expose procedure), but shouldn't Ms. Palfrey and her civil attorney know who authorized the trip of Ms. Couvillon and Mr. Clark? Was it the grand jury? Shouldn't we all know by now?

If the investigation into her lasted over two years, why is it still ongoing after nine months after its disclosure? It gives the appearance that this--as Ms. Palfrey so aptly put it--is a "loser" case run by incompetents, and that there is a lot of scrambling going on in various bureaus. Why isn't she being given due process? Was there ever really an investigation at all? These are worthy questions, and the prosecution and investigators won't answer them. We could have a case of gross incompetence here, and that's just-for-starters. But it's even worse: there was use of informants.
"[There were] five girls that they questioned in December of 2005, and questioned them--believe me, very leading questions. This is the information that they used for the search warrant...The girls who were interviewed in December of 2005 were girls who worked for me in 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003. That's why the information was at least 3-1/2-to-5-years-old....[from] these five "confidential informants," states Palfrey.

She goes on to detail what she's been shown of these "affidavits," most statements totaling "a couple of paragraphs, tops." This sounds all-too-familiar. The affidavits sound consistent with the strategy of the press: don't name any names of clients, especially if they're prominent.

For other primary documents: