Thursday, August 02, 2007

DC MADAM MISCELLANY FOR AUGUST 2ND



Washington D.C./Vallejo,California--Today we have...well, not a lot that hasn't been said or alleged before. But we have something new from the long-silent U.S. postal inspector, one Maria Couvillion who has filed a "new" affidavit in federal court against Deborah Jeane Palfrey.

Why do I think http://www.thesmokinggun.com/ was tipped on this again? There are no primary-documents from this filing at their site yet, so it seems the Hill scooped them. [Ed.-Except they didn't scoop anybody--the information is months-old.] They have posted documents on a Hoosier couple who had sex in-front of a day care center in Indianapolis this week (Republicans? Dan Burton? Mark Foley?). The Smoking Gun seems to get-along a little too well with the cops and the courts, carrying their water and whatnot--or even unknowingly helping in a misinformation/disinformation campaign to smear Ms. Palfrey? I know, it's never happened to writers and news sources, not ever. TSG could use a dose of healthy adversarialism in their relationships with law enforcement and our broken criminal justice system.
Perhaps TSG's editor should be grilling the prosecution as much as he did Palfrey back in October of last year, it might add some more balance. What happened after they outed Bill "Mr. Loofah" O'Reilly? Where's the edge? J-7 would love to have these suspicions allayed, particularly since thesmokinggun.com leaped at the throat of Ms. Palfrey last October. Their editor's presumption-of-guilt was dripping off of my computer-screen as I read it (which hasn't dried at this writing-a bit like drool). She hasn't even had a trial yet in almost a year's time. That's not due process.

Oh, but back to Maria, the quiet and coy Maria Couvillon (and Joe Clark). It's interesting, but there's a federal Judge in Louisiana named Irvin Couvillion. When I think of French last-names, I think of Quebec and Louisiana (even Mississippi). Irvin was appointed by the Maoist Saint Ronald Reagan when he occupied the Oval Office. Is this Maria's father? Also, there's a "Maria T. Couvillion" who appears to be employed in Phoenix, Arizona as a "private bookkeeper." Same woman? Palfrey claims that both U.S. postal inspectors lied to her realtor in a phone message on October 3rd, 2006, at 2 PM, claiming they were a couple who were moving to the area of her home ("transferred" is the term this writer keeps tripping-over), and wanted a look-around inside the house.

In short, Palfrey claims they were attempting entry into her home without a warrant (old ground, I know, but it's wise to retrace one's step occasionally). It's not hard to believe. Does any of this sound familiar? No warrants? Lies? Obfuscations? It should, but the mainstream media are dragging-their-feet in investigating the investigators (and the babysitters).
A new court filing in the criminal case against Palfrey reveals some of the details of what prosecutors believe are the “sins” of both Palfrey’s employees and clients. Maria Couvillon, a U.S. postal inspector involved in the investigation of Palfrey (it’s a crime to distribute the proceeds of an illegal business through the mail), offered gritty details in an affidavit supporting a search of Palfrey’s California home. The testimony accompanied a motion that Palfrey’s lawyers filed Friday to suppress evidence seized in the search. (thehill.com, 08.02.2007)

As with the original affidavits back in October of 2006, it's all information from "confidential informants," and we're all just supposed to suspend any disbelief we might harbor (like watching a Michael Bay movie) and believe everything the government is telling us, as well as what said informants are saying. For those of us who aren't familiar with legalese, it usually means they're someone who was popped doing something illegal (frequently unrelated to the defendant), and are in-fact "cooperating witnesses."

There is a genuine distinction here, as some juries reject the claims of cooperating witnesses, because they're likely to be under coercion by the prosecution in a given case. They're tainted. This is why you would want to cloud the distinction if you were a government prosecutor like Jeffrey A. Taylor or assistant U.S. attorney William Cowden.

According to previous court documents, there are a total of five "confidential informants" accusing Ms. Palfrey of running a prostitution ring. But the overriding-pattern appears to defame and slander the defendant before trial, and the FBI is usually known for leaks that accomplish this, though the IRS also has experience in this area:
On June 4, 2007, at approximately 8:30 p.m., two people knocked on Blanche’s residence door and identified themselves as Maria Couvillion of the U.S. Postal Service and Troy Burrus of the Internal Revenue Service and asked if they could speak with her. Having a weak heart and given the late hour, Blanche agreed, as she didn’t want to get into an argument. (Blanche PalfreyAffidavit,¶2)

The two agents came into Blanche’s house and questioned her for 30-45 minutes. During that questioning, Blanche told them that they should speak to the undersigned counsel, Mr. Sibley. In response, both agents indicated that they already had spoken with Mr. Sibley and that she should speak with them. (Blanche Palfrey Affidavit, ¶3)

Thereafter, they asked Blanche questions and she answered, regarding her daughter’s escort services and Blanche’s finances. They did not tape record the interview to Blanche’s knowledge, but were making written notes. (Blanche Palfrey Affidavit, ¶4).

Two additional facts are significant. First, Claimant was with her mother for the three days preceding this visit by Federal Agents to Blanche Palfrey and had left only minutes before the Federal Agents appeared at her door raising the specter that the Agents waited until Claimant had left in order to confront Claimant’s mother when she was along. Second, this Court must take judicial notice that it was scheduled to hold a hearing on the temporary restraining orders on June 5, 2007, the following day. ...Page 2 of 8... ('CLAIMANT'S MOTION TO LIFT STAY, DISMISS FOR OUTRAGEOUS GOVERNMENT CONDUCT AND FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING,' filed to United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 06.14.2007)

The press hasn't caught-on much regarding these allegations against Couvillion, IRS agent Troy Burrus, or even the other U.S. postal inspector Joe Clark. Why wasn't he in Florida visiting Ms. Palfrey's ailing mother? As far as this writer can tell, only Alex Jones (and this writer) has written much about it. It would behoove the media to look into these areas a little more deeply...if they dare.

Then, there's the story at the Motley Fool that Ms. Palfrey's skills on the stock market are pretty solid. This goes back to early-May when the defendant moved to have her Dolby stocks sold as she felt that they'd matured, could depreciate, and that she wanted to use them to pay-down legal expenses in the civil arena. If it reveals anything at all, it's how daunting a civil forfeiture case can be for the accused in the United States. The difference in this case, according to Ms. Palfrey and her civil attorney Montgomery Blair Sibley, is that most defendants capitulate very early-on, which is accurate, hence the subsequent scrambling of the prosecution in the case. They thought this was going to be easy like all the others. Federal prosecutors aren't used to someone refusing to take a deal and fighting-back. The Motley Fool article doesn't say much, but it does show that Jeane Palfrey is a wise investor. They also make some snide remarks that paint her badly in other related articles, but that's their opinion and their right.
Don't choose a life of prostitution [Ed.-original emphasis]
Now, I know what you're thinking: The madam was right! (Ah-ah-ah! Remember -- alleged madam.) You're thinking that with a current price-to-earnings ratio of 34, against analysts' projected 19% growth in profits, Dolby is woefully overpriced, and it's sure to waste away, just as my debate's Palfrey predicted. But that's not necessarily so. [?!] Remember that the business often generates significantly greater cash profits than it reports as net income under generally accepted accounting principles [Ed.-or the exact opposite!]. That hasn't been the case so far this year -- the two numbers are almost precisely equal. (motley fool, 08.02.2007)
Yes, I was thinking this because she was right. She's been right about virtually everything this writer has looked into, and she wasn't lying about names on her phone records either. Remember that the same media that got us into the war in Iraq is still trying not to report on this story when they can get away with it. It's unfortunate, because one can imagine that many professional journalists are just itching to have their stories run on the Palfrey beat. Why wouldn't they? Because there are editors (pimps) and owners (expletive deleted), perhaps eliciting a Pavlovian response to save one's chances for: a raise, a promotion, or simply staying-on. Nobody said journalism was easy.

"Maria. I just met a girl named Maria."( and more on the same page): http://thehill.com/under-the-dome/nice-try-sen.-2007-08-02.html
Jeane Palfrey's Motions from June 14th, 2007 (w. affidavit of Blanche Palfrey): http://deborahjeanepalfrey.com/download/conduct.pdf
"No Red Light District for Dolby" (pretty coy, eh?), 05.03.2007: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2007/05/03/no-red-light-district-for-dolby.aspx
"Is Your Broker a Prostitute?," 05.02.2007, where the debate over Dolby stock began: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2007/05/02/is-your-broker-a-prostitute.aspx

Ed. Update, 08.06.2007: Ms. Palfrey has assured me that the Hill article isn't news--the information in the filing by Couvillion is months-old, probably dating-back to October of 2006. A quick look at the original court filings by the prosecution confirms this. It reflects the lack-of-quality in reporting at thehill.com, as well as their cage-lining rag. Dick Morris writes for it, and he's been linked to being a client with Pamela Martin & Associates, though it is unconfirmed. Ever get the feeling you're being cheated? ;0)