Thursday, August 21, 2008

Palfrey Defense emails: Late-December, 2007

--These are more missives from the Palfrey defense, between Jeane, myself, and my co-researcher Monique Rawlings. I asked Palfrey whether certain things she conveyed to us could be published. Rawlings jumped on it--as she did on another occasion on another topic--for reasons I still don't entirely understand.

She was stating the obvious, and there was no "leak" by me. I had been looking for clarification only. In my opinion, Rawlings has an overstated sense of importance, like many I've encountered in this whole saga. In case you didn't notice, Palfrey was jumping from one theory to another as to the genesis of her case. She would shift-gears and go from theory-to-theory, which I assume was desperation on her part.

She fostered an atmosphere of paranoia and conspiricism, though the speculations were coming from numerous directions, myself included. Other than standardized-fonts and my added comments, these are unedited and pasted directly from the original e-mails. This is primary historical material, enjoy it if you can. I can't, but I did what I could to help. Looking back, it could never have been enough. Lost causes are for gentlemen.

From: Jeane Palfrey
To: Justice League
Cc:; Montgomery Sibley
Sent: 12/28/2007 7:17:56 AM
Subject: RE: Anderson

Bil I just emailed my other contact and told him that he is the first outlet to have the Anderson tip; however, I informed him that I would be passing along the same information to another, on Friday. Please inform Jason of Andersons former patronage. The connection of Anderson, to the phone records is very simple  he is in them, complete with social security number. Remember, this is the Verizon Wireless list. The numbers here are all cell numbers. And lets face it. There would be no reason in the world why I would have the private cell number of a high-level Treasury Department official; especially, in my geographically disenfranchised existence in California, unless Anderson gave it to me in the course of my escort business dealings. He is a sure bet, as are the others. Bottom line - if my first guy doesnt do it, then Jason has a fantastic story, tomorrow (today). Jeane

Matt Anderson goes to the heart of the selective prosecution case; even more so than the average client. Incredibly, this man is part and parcel of the very institution, which has seized and frozen my lifes savings, for the past 15 months. More unbelievably, he is a very senior official, who acts in the capacity of Treasurys mouthpiece. He spins and justifies their junk on a daily basis. How absolutely mind-boggling it is for him to be found in the records. It is almost as delicious as Tobias and his ban regarding third world countries and prostitution. Consequently, it is imperative something like this gets a big boost at the onset. I cannot afford for it to get lost in cyberspace. [Ed.--I'm wondering how she felt any of this would do anything but taint a jury, but Anderson was a "false positive" that was subsequently dropped anyway, along with counsel at that time, Montgomery Blair Sibley.] -Jeane

-----Original Message-----
From: Justice League []
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 9:47 PM
To: jeanepalfrey; Matt Janovic; Montgomery Sibley
Subject: Anderson


I tried to call Jason [Leopold] tonight. I left him a message on his voicemail. I just told him that I have a tip for him regarding your case. I told him that I will email him. I didn't leave the info on voicemail to him without talking to him live over the phone. I know he will ask the connection of Anderson to the phone records. I will dig into imfo om Anderson. Knowing Jason, he will email me or call me. This is good to tip Jason as well as your other source. [Ed.--...and would benefit yourself and Jason.] This will spread like wildflower. [Ed.--That would be "wildfire."]


We are part of the legal team. So certain aspects of this case can't be leaked to blogsites first. Only the trustworthy media such as Truthout and others that Jeane and Blair wish to leak should get first dibbs. I was the first person that Jason had allowed to see his video interviews of Joe Wilson and four fired USAs before that was released.

Bil [Monique Rawlings]

Matt… just gotta love it! -Jeane PS if Bil’s suggestion that I was being used as the “fall gal” in the hope, Representative Slaughter’s persistent questioning would stop; thus driving attention away from the likely panorama of corruption the bad actors surely must have been trying to keep hidden – why then would they assume such a strategy would work? Unless of course, they thought I quickly would capitulate and not fight as I have. Nonetheless, I don’t understand why the ‘gift’ (Pamela Martin’s services) could be seen by Slaughter, as some sort of answer to her investigation into the shenanigans of K Street and the CIA and God only knows who else at this point. After all, I/we were not in cohots with Wilkes & Company. I was never part of any sort of influence peddling conspiracy. I absolutely had no knowledge whatsoever, of such happenings. And frankly, I suspect neither did any of the women in my employ. Was it perhaps proferred – by ??? - that I indeed was part of the conspiracy? -Jeane

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Janovic []
Wednesday, December 26, 2007 1:13 PM
To: Jeane Palfrey
Cc: Justice League
Subject: From Verizon records, a DHS member...

Dear Jeane and Bil:

You're going to love this. I normally do just some random fishing and got a twinge to check the recently conveyed Verizon recs--found a man who's in DHS: Merrick Krause, looks like he's in "National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center" (NISAC). Here's a link to a document, but there are a few things that come up on a google search. He's involved in infrastructure protection. He's a retired USAF Colonel.

kind regards, Matt Janovic

[Ed.--Also a false positive, but why did Verizon provide a list containing the "uninvolved"? What they gave the defense was a messy conglomeration of information that had to be sifted-through. We even found a war on terror internee. Did it fulfill the subpoena? It shouldn't have. We were given no substantial directions--just "find big names." I'd say this should lay to rest the notion that Palfrey consciously "had more names," but it won't.]

No comments:

Post a Comment