From the Palfrey trial transcripts: April 10th, 2008 excerpt

Editor's note: Below is a brief exchange from the trial transcript for April 10th, 2008. It was striking how poor and lacking-in-detail coverage from Palfrey's trial was. Reading the transcripts themselves, it's not difficult to understand why--it was little more than a formality to hold it, and Palfrey's criminal defense attorney--Preston Burton--didn't fight very hard for his client.

There's the real possibility that it's because he's rumored to covet a Federal Judgeship, but then there's the fact that he's also a partner in a law firm that does extensive contract work for the government internationally. You never know.

But that's my opinion, decide for yourselves. I wasn't aware of how informal and shoddy these affairs were conducted until recently, being unable to attend the trial itself. A real eye-opener, that. It must have been excruciating for any defendant to have had to sit there and watch the kangaroo court unfold before them as it surely did this April in Washington D.C.

Reading the transcript, you get the very obvious impression that the Court and the prosecution were working hard to rush the proceedings and that Burton barely mounted a defense at all. At some point, this site will be publishing the entire transcripts in-full.

From Pg. 20-21 of the April 10th, 2008 trial transcript of Deborah Jeane Palfrey

..."MS. CONNELLY: Your Honor, we have nothing further for
this witness.

THE COURT: All right, Ms. Couvillon. You may step
down. (The witness steps down.)
May I see counsel at the bench?
(Bench conference on the record.)

THE COURT: Okay. Where do we stand? Is that it?

MS. CONNELLY: For today, yes.

THE COURT: And what about these other two people?

MS. CONNELLY: Well, one of them is flying back into
town tomorrow, so she'll be here Monday. The other one we spoke
to -- well, the agent spoke yesterday to her in the hospital,
and they've diagnosed diverticulitis and they were just debating
when they're going to release her. They think possibly this
weekend.

THE COURT: Do we need either one of these people? [Page Break]

MR. BUTLER: The one that's in the hospital is

racketeering, so the answer is yes.

MS. CONNELLY: I think they both are.

THE COURT: You need all 14 acts, but you've got 15
now.

MR. BUTLER: We do have the burden of proof, and we
need sufficient evidence to meet that burden.

THE COURT: Yeah, but so what? There's only 13 in
baseball. Thirteen out of 14 isn't bad.

MS. CONNELLY: We're at 10 out of 14 now.

MR. BUTLER: Well, I would request, Your Honor,
that (inaudible) the last day for court proceedings.

THE COURT: What can you tell us about what you're
going to do?

MR. BURTON: My inclination is to not put on any
defense.

THE COURT: Okay. So we're looking at one, maybe two
witnesses first thing Monday morning, and then we're going to
argue and charge.

MR. BURTON: But we do have a rule 29.

THE COURT: Yeah, we have a rule 29. That'll be a
lengthy argument.

MS. CONNELLY: Your Honor, do you charge first or do
we argue first?

THE COURT: I charge first." ... [Page Break]

Postcript, 11.13.2008: Talking about baseball gives one the impression that the "wall of professionalism" was basically nonexistent between the prosecution and Judge Robertson, a real convivial and friendly atmosphere between them all. You think they went out and had a drink at trial's conclusion? I mean, really, if I was one of the AUSAs or USAs, I would've went out and gotten the judge laid, frankly. They had a good list of escort services in-hand, so...what scum. Yes, worse than a female pimp. The public was denied coverage of the trial because it was not only handled poorly, the proceedings were rigged from-inception.

Intelwire.com publishes U.S. Postal Service files of DC Madam's early-1990s bust

WWW--Freelance reporter J.M. Berger's site--Intelwire.com--is a treasure trove of declassified and primary documentation of the war on terror and American involvement in global politics. On July 8th, he posted around 40 pages from the early-1990s federal investigation into Deborah Jeane Palfrey and her first escort service, which also included the use by the late madam of money orders, credit cards, and a generally criminal misuse of the postal system.

The documents are included with commentary from Mr. Berger, who has written and researched for the National Geographic Channel, NPR, and numerous other media outlets. His work looks pretty sound and unbiased, and the site is a good place to start for researchers looking into far-ranging topics as 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing, FBI misconduct, our intelligence community and their links with known international terrorists, government informants running amok and committing profoundly violent crimes--and that's just for starters.

My own question is: why post it on a site dedicated to "the War on Terror, domestic and international extremism, and Middle Eastern politics"?

http://intelwire.egoplex.com/2008_07_08_blogarchive.html#2187829177917801058

Michael Mukasey - Will You Help Me?, by Deborah Jeane Palfrey

Michael Mukasey – will you help me?

The dubbed D.C. Madam Deborah J. Palfrey seeks fairness in a sea of injustice.

55 years imprisonment and my entire life’s savings – this is what they want to take from me, in my real life ‘David and Goliath’ struggle with the United States Department of Justice.

For the past year, I have discovered myself immersed in the world of the Justice Department; a world, replete with on-the-record faulty memories, omissions of fact and out-and-out lies; one where political motive and groupthink usurp integrity and the rule of law and where as hard as one might try, justice is nowhere to be found. This is the setting I have been placed in to do battle with a bureaucratic behemoth.

As I fight for my very life ostensibly on a daily basis, I have experienced a legal and financial pounding– a premeditative orchestration created to best the most resolute among us, by the Department of Justice or the Department of Injustice, as it more widely regarded these days.

On October 4^th of last year, a dozen plus federal agents descended upon my sedate, restored Victorian home in Northern California armed with a search warrant and arrested - of all things - my property (my turn came later in March). The process known as civil asset forfeiture allows the government to seize a person’s property and assets, without due process often leaving them destitute, when there is suspicion – not actual proof, but merely a suggestion of wrong doing.

In my case, the Federales claimed I had proffered the unthinkable – pleasures of the flesh - for financial gain, to the male denizens and visitors in our nation’s capitol. Accordingly, I found myself – besides instantaneously broke - charged with over-the-top and obscene federal crimes. My job description was elevated exponentially from retired escort service operator to the powerful, to money launderer and conspirator over night and later to racketeer.

What particularly made and continues to make my case so unusual, actually bizarre is no one ever has been charged similarly to me, in the metropolitan Washington, D.C. area. Over time, I have come to understand my case is truly one of a kind. Considering there are more adult service businesses than McDonald’s restaurants in operation in the overall vicinity, a virtual array of rich targets for the Feds to pursue – I and I alone appear to be the only subject of their interest. Furthermore, none of the estimated 10,000 or so clients, who patronized my agency or the almost 150 subcontracted women, who worked for me over the years have been charged.

The question begs. Why me and why only me? In part, the answer may lie in the fact I operated a high-end, erotic outcall service continuously (a bit of an anomaly) for a thirteen year period, from 1993 through 2006, in a part of the world laden with politically influential men; many with high level security clearances. Although, my firm routinely was patronized by the typical, garden-variety doctor, lawyer and perchance even, Indian chief; it nonetheless saw more than its share of the high and the mighty.

As flattering as it might be – albeit in a rather perverse way – for me to think I was ever the real object of the DOJ’s attention, it would be sheer folly to believe such. The clientele base, specifically the more notable customers were the true persons of interest and the reason I believe I was surveilled personally and professionally, for at least a five year period, before I decided to close shop and retire to Europe, in August of 2006. Ironically, it was this very decision to shut down the business and disrupt the status quo, in conjunction with my desire to move out of the country, which I feel ignited the raid on my home, in early October.

The combination of selective prosecution, a politically sensitive clientele and an extended surveillance period points to a matter, which has less to do with the goings-on of an alleged prostitution ring than it does with spying activities involving a constitutionally protected, American citizen. As I often have stated, my case has something to do with something, but it sure as heck has very little, if anything to do with a small-time escort business. My case - had it been more customary in nature - would have been under the sole purview of the state courts and never entered the federal realm.

But then the culture at the Justice Department, under former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has been revealed – particularly of late with the suspect attorney firings - as one more concerned with the inclinations of the White House, i.e. the GOP than with those of truthfulness and fair dealing toward a society at large; a society, which most assuredly includes me and my idiosyncratic case. The founding fathers desire for a wide divide to exist between the Executive Branch of government and the Judiciary appears to have been profanely abused by former AG Gonzales and his cohorts outside Justice.

I rather suspect that as time marches on, with it will come a multitude of eye-opening disclosures, which will call into question further the practices of the DOJ, the past several years. I believe my case is part and parcel of any such coming revelations. That is of course, if the newly appointed Attorney General – be it Bush nominee, Judge Michael Mukasey or another – chooses to do right by us, the American people; to ally with us and not the current administration. For me in my politically charged case, such a decision by the future Attorney General holds particular weight; quite possibly, whether or not I will spend the remainder of my natural life behind bars or as a free person.

Nonetheless as I begin my second year combating the beast, I do so with significant hope. After a full twelve months of being stonewalled at every twist and turn along the way, including access to discovery materials, by the assigned Assistant U.S. Attorneys - my counsel, Mr. Montgomery B. Sibley, a small band of interested third parties and I have pieced together sufficient reason to believe my case - simply put - is rotten to the core. Since the Government for all intents and purposes has run out of tactical maneuvers to prohibit me from uncovering the truth any longer, I anticipate exposure of considerable wrongdoing by the DOJ, in short order. Additionally, the fact Alberto Gonzales, perhaps one of the most dishonest and politically aligned attorney generals in U.S. history, the very one who has reigned over my specific case this last year has resigned – leaves open the hope that his predecessor may correct the direction of a wayward and seemingly corrupt Justice Department and in its wake my increasingly frightening tale of woe.

However, time will tell. In the interim, I only can remain determined and trust in the final analysis, I indeed will find justice in this dark and terrifying sea of injustice I have been thrust.

[Ed., 08.28.2008--Why she felt a shill and an apparatchiki like Mukasey would help her is beyond my ken.]

HIRING PRACTICES AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT: WIDESPREAD PATRONAGE APPOINTMENTS UNDER BUSH ADMINSTRATION? (Repost of June 14th article)

"We anticipate that many of our graduates are going to go and be change agents in society." --Regent School of Law Dean, Jeffrey Brauch to the Boston Globe (04.08.2007)

Washington D.C.--While it's beyond the scope of this blog to fully-investigate this--something that only Congress can truly find-out--there could be connections between "Hookergate" and the U.S. Attorney firing scandal, and they could be legion. Take former senior counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Monica Goodling: she's now 33, but was in her late-twenties when she was tapped for Justice by...who?

That would be Alberto Gonzales, who answers to the president. Goodling--a graduate of lowest-tiered Regent School of Law--hired ex-U.S. Attorney (not fired) Tim Griffin in what could be a widespread game of appointment-leapfrog, and helped draw-up a list of prosecutors to fire. There is ample-evidence at this time to believe they were fired for political reasons. According to an April Boston Globe article on Regent, there is ample-evidence the Bush administration hires-and-fires for political reasons. Hey, that's fair:

But even in its darker days, Regent has had no better friend than the Bush administration. Graduates of the law school have been among the most influential of the more than 150 Regent University alumni hired to federal government positions since President Bush took office in 2001, according to a university website. One of those graduates is Monica Goodling , the former top aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who is at the center of the storm over the firing of US attorneys. Goodling, who resigned on Friday, has become the face of Regent overnight -- and drawn a harsh spotlight to the administration's hiring of officials educated at smaller, conservative schools with sometimes marginal academic reputations. (Boston Globe, 04.08.2007)

Hey, the president didn't have good grades either. He must have a soft-spot (his head) for them. It would seem it's the Bush administration and their appointments, once ensconced within the bureaucracy, who decide on the hiring now.

How widespread is this? Is it politically-based? It appears it could very well be. There have been rumblings about this for months-and-months, but we got an earful around May 7th regarding the Justice Department probe:

"We are highly disturbed by the emerging information, because it seems to repeat this pattern going on at the [Department of Justice] where people are chosen for their positions not for their experience and qualifications, but rather whether or not they match a certain political ideology," Sanchez said. Among those raising concerns is Joseph Rich, a 36-year veteran of the department, who left in 2005 after serving as head of the Civil Rights Division's section that deals with voting rights. "The whole hiring process had been changed to put the decision-making in political appointees' hands, and it was clear it was being politicized in that manner," Rich told CNN. (CNN, 05.07.2007)

Tim Griffin could tell us more about the problems at the Civil Rights Division. But is it just at Justice? This is the connection to Deborah Jeane Palfrey and her case. Palfrey's impressions of the postal agents who contacted her realtor on October 3rd of 2006 appeared to be in their "late-twenties."

Her mother Blanche was visited at her home in Florida on June 5th of this year by IRS agent Troy Burrus...and one of the postal investigators, Maria Couvillon [Ed.-Quite possibly the daughter of federal district court judge Irvin Couvillon who works out of Louisiana]. Her mother had the same impression, and Palfrey adds, "...my mother thought the “kids” appeared to be very young."

Is it a strange question to ask: are hiring practices throughout the rest of our government bureaucracy are the same as they are at Justice (under the Bush administration)? This is an administration that has made-it-plain that they're at war with the departments of our government--could politically-based hiring be of any surprise after warrantless wiretapping?

It's being alleged that Bradley Schlozman (former top official in the Civil Rights Division of Justice) had the party-affiliation of Ty Clevenger (a Republican) removed from his application for employment at the department. Again, the public isn't allowed to know these details under federal law, based on protecting investigative procedures and privacy. The public isn't allowed access to this information.

Is standard procedure a legitimate front (highlighted by legal counsel like Harriet Miers, or even someone like Goodling?), something that the Bush administration was counting on? What's strange is the multi-jurisdictional quality of Palfrey's case, it seems confused: the USPS, the Justice Department, and the IRS (more?). There could be other departments involved, but the question is: why? Was authorizing the use of postal investigators a way to federalize the case? Could the same be said about the involvement of the IRS? Is this how "Hookergate" began:

Lawmakers from both parties yesterday called for limits on antiterrorism laws in response to a Justice Department report that the FBI improperly obtained telephone logs, banking records and other personal information on thousands of Americans." It also found that the FBI had hatched an agreement with telephone companies allowing the agency to ask for information on more than 3,000 phone numbers -- often without a subpoena, without an emergency or even without an investigative case. (Washington Post, 03.10.2007)

This sounds very familiar, and might cover the predicament that Ms. Palfrey has found herself in. Were antiterrorism laws used--and abused--in her case? Many in Congress have been calling for a rollback on statutes within the Patriot Act. We could be finding-out soon whether Deborah Jeane Palfrey was caught-up in this net, but this aspect can only be covered by Congress--or by whistle-blowers.

CNN, 05.07.2007: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/07/justice.prosecutors/index.html

The Washington Post, 03.10.2007: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902356.html

The Boston Globe on Regent School of Law, 04.08.2007:http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/04/08/scandal_puts_spotlight_on_christian_law_school/?page=full

Ed.-Minor revisions added 08.27.2007. FOIAs were filed in July of this year by J-7 on all members of the investigation and prosecution team at Justice involved in the case of Ms. Palfrey. They are pending, but could aid in substantiating if others at DOJ were hired for ideological reasons. [Ed., 08.28.2008--The FOIAs were laughable with no detail on the prosecutors' backgrounds, merely their loyalty oaths.]

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

On Jeane Palfrey's Dolby stocks: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2007/08/02/dolby-wins-the-debate.aspx

"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)

J-7 CALL FOR INFORMATION ON THESE PALFREY INVESTIGATORS AND PROSECUTORS

Maria E. Couvillon or Cuvillion U.S. Postal Inspector [Ed.--Palfrey contends that she to be in her late-twenties, early-thirties. 6/27-name is phonetic. Wayne Madsen Report has it as "Cuvio."]
Joe Clark, U.S. Postal Inspector (want his home phone number? Get it before he changes it!) [Ed.-Palfrey also contends that Clark is the same age-range.]
Catherine K. Connelly, Assistant U.S. Attorney (MA Bar #649430) [Ed.-Ms. Palfrey contends in our interview that Ms. Connelly appears to be in the same age-range as the aforementioned investigators.]
William Rakestraw Cowden, Assistant U.S. Attorney (D.C. Bar #426301)
Jeffrey A. Taylor, U.S. Attorney [Ed.-Appointed interim by Alberto Gonzales under the Patriot Act provision that was that was repealed by recent legislation--Taylor has 109 days left in his term as of June 26th, 2007, less than the president]
Daniel P. Butler, Assistant U.S. Attorney (D.C. Bar #417718)
Troy Burrus, Agent Internal Revenue Service [Ed. Ms. Palfrey and her mother contend that Burrus appeared to be around the same ages as Connelly, Clark & Cuvillon. Palfrey's mother only met Burrus and Cuvillon on the night of June 5th of this year.]
Is there a doctor in the house? J-7 would like to know the ages and hiring-circumstances of these folks, the accusers of one Deborah Jeane Palfrey. I believe that Mr. Taylor was appointed by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, so we already know his appointment as an U.S. Attorney was questionable.

Is he a Republican? I'm sure we'll all be finding-out very soon. While J-7 cannot fully substantiate the ages of the others yet, it's even money that Cuvillon, Clark, and Burrus are in their late-20s, or early-30s.

This is very strange--how does one become a Postal investigator/inspector at 22-24? This writer contends that it would take some serious juice, a benefactor either already ensconced above within the bureaucracy, or someone who was appointed by the president. I'm trying to get through to a number of these public servants, and without any luck so far. This is what we need to know, then, in-sum:

--What are the exact ages of these public servants?
--How did they attain their positions within the federal bureaus that they're working for? Were they appointed? We know that Jeffrey A. Taylor, lead prosecutor, was appointed by the embattled Alberto Gonzales. He actually appears to be in his 30s, but Al scotched his credibility already. Taylor is a "positive" example, but then, all of them could be considered such. Assistant U.S. Attorneys are appointed. All Justice Department lawyers on Palfrey's case were appointed by Alberto Gonzales.
--Are any or all of these individuals evangelical Christians with an activist background?
--Did any of them attend colleges like Regents School of Law?
--What are their real world qualifications? Court documents appear to be saying that Ms. Cuvillon has almost none whatsoever.
--Do they have any incidents in their professional records that would call their credibility into question as prosecutors or investigators?

--What's their educational background? Taylor's appears to be pretty solid, and so is Troy Burrus's--he went to Auburn University.

These are a few things we all need to know as citizens, but it's a rare commodity. It's beginning to look like FOIA-time here at J-7. We need to know if our prosecutors are credible and untainted politically. Credible submissions only, it has to be solid primary evidence, legally-obtained. I welcome these public servants to contact me through my blog profile, my e-mail address is available there.

Ed.--revised, June 26th & 29th, 2007.

"HOOKERGATE," CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANTS, AND "THE KIDS"

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:
www.deborahjeanepalfrey.com/html.legal

THE FEDS HARRASSED DEBORAH JEANE PALFREY'S MOTHER LAST NIGHT

More later: www.deborahjeanepalfrey.com