From the Palfrey trial transcripts: April 14th, 2008 excerpt

Ed.--This comes from the closing arguments of the trial of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, from trial proceedings on the day of April 14th, 2008. The comments below come from Palfrey's final criminal counsel, Preston Burton, a partner in the law firm Orrick, Herrington, and Sutcliff.

A number of his statements strike me as blatantly insincere, especially considering that Orrick is a massive firm with offices in at least a dozen countries (even in Russia and China), doing a lot of contract work for...the federal government. Can we say "conflict-of-interest"?

Not when you want to put a lid on a very embarrassing case that could "out" an awful lot of well-positioned clients, and perhaps a lot more that would be very inconvenient to moneyed-interests. Mr. Burton refuses to talk or correspond with me as he did during the legal proceedings. Was he saying things to Ms. Palfrey to dissuade her from testifying on her own behalf? If he did, I can guess why, but why not clear-up things if I'm wrong for the record? No, that would make sense, it would mean transparency, and there's a deal on with the government over a settlement regarding the forfeited properties of Palfrey.

Money figures highly in the entire saga.

..."Mr. Burton: ...The money. This business certainly generated money. You
heard that over 13 years it grossed around $2 million. You also
heard that the escorts got half of that. So that means that over
13 years, my client made, according to Special Agent Burrus's
summary chart, a little under a million dollars.
Now, a million dollars is a lot of money, still is to me,
anyway. But over 13 years, that's not a lot of money. It's not
peanuts, but it's not some lavish life-style." ...

Yet, she did lead a pretty "lavish life-style," owning two very expensive homes in Vallejo and Poway (where convicted former-Rep. Randy Cunningham owned one), and even a condominium in Florida for when she visited her mother--sound like a "lavish life-style"? I thought so too, it was.

There are other factors involved that have come to my attention from sources close to the whole affair, such as money that was hidden-away by Palfrey, and it wasn't exactly chump-change to this writer.

I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the contentions that were conveyed to me, albeit accidentally.

I'm sure that it's a "lot of money" to Mr. Burton, but he's likely to be making significantly more than that as a partner of the firm, if not in one year, in two-or-three. Of course, we all make money like that, right? Get real. He was attempting to make himself appear like some kind of "average Joe (not the plumber)" to the jury. One has to wonder why. If I had Burton's dough, I'm sure it would just get pissed-away on beer, being the malcontent that I am.

The lady made a lot more money than what Burton, Palfrey, or the prosecution, contended. They aren't alone, but I'm not within their ranks. I strenuously disagree. I'm waiting with bated breath for Mr. Burton, the prosecution, and others, to clarify these obvious discrepancies in the record.

Mr. Burton stands to make a very real windfall out of all of this as a member of the firm who will be administrating the Estate of Deborah Jeane Palfrey for her family, a group of people whom I believe to have been heartlessly and tragically misled--but by whom? Not me.

One final--and peculiar-- fact: Palfrey was running a "blown-glass importation business" out of the Czech Republic before the charges were levelled against her. Take from that what you will, and I know you will.

From the Palfrey trial transcript, April 9th, 2008: The testimony of Treasury agent Troy Burrus

Washington D.C.--There's an interesting passage in here where IRS agent Troy Burrus and AUSA (Assistant US Attorney) Daniel P. Butler "misspoke," down towards the bottom hinting accidentally that there could be issues of Palfrey misreporting her income, a tax issue, not one of simple "money-laundering."

No worries, Judge Roberston let them off-the-hook, but he appears to be covering his ass as well...like when he quit the FISA court.

It's a potentially telling exchange, and could mean something about what Palfrey actually made, and what the government was actually able to find regarding all of her assets/money.


...435

1 (TROY BURRUS, GOVERNMENT witness, having been duly sworn,

2 testified as follows:)

3 DIRECT EXAMINATION

4 BY MR. BUTLER:

5 Q. Would you state your name please, and spell your last name?

6 A. Troy Burrus, B-U-R-R-U-S.

7 Q. And Mr. Burrus, what's your occupation?

8 A. I'm a special agent with the Internal Revenue Service.

9 Q. How long have you been an agent with the IRS?

10 A. For almost nine years.

11 Q. And what is your back ground for that job?

12 A. I have a bachelor's of science degree in accounting from

13 Auburn University, and I spent 10 years working as a public

14 accountant, and I'm a certified public accountant.

15 Q. And did you work in the field as a public accountant?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. For you said how long?

18 A. Approximately 10 years.

19 Q. And after that you went to the IRS?

20 A. That's correct.

21 Q. As part of your duties with the IRS, were you involved in an

22 investigation of Pamela Martin & Associates?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And did there come a time when charges were brought in that

25 case?

436



1 A. Yes, they were.

2 Q. A case against Pamela Martin & Associates?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And were you involved in processing the defendant on that

5 case at that time?

6 A. Yes, I was.

7 Q. And the name of the defendant was what?

8 A. Deborah Jeanne Palfrey.

9 Q. And do you see Ms. Palfrey in the courtroom today?

10 A. Yes, I do.

11 Q. Would you identify --

12 MR. BURTON: We'll stipulate.

13 THE COURT: She's identified. Go ahead.

14 BY MR. BUTLER:

15 Q. How did you get involved in this case?

16 A. We received a call, my supervisor received a call from the

17 United States Postal Inspection Service in approximately March

18 of 2004. They said that they needed some assistance on an

19 investigation, some financial analysis assistance.

20 Q. After you became involved, what particularly did you do?

21 A. My role in this investigation was to analyze all the

22 financial records, whether they be bank records, brokerage

23 records, any records related to money and money transfers.

24 Q. And what financial records did you review, generally

25 speaking?

437



1 A. I reviewed bank records, I reviewed brokerage account

2 records, and all the different items that go into the bank

3 records themselves.

4 Q. And these were bank records for whom?

5 A. For Deborah Jeanne Palfrey.

6 Q. And what type of financial documents did you review?

7 A. We also reviewed the tax return information, plus the

8 brokerage account information with Charles Schwab.

9 Q. And that was whose account?

10 A. Deborah Jeanne Palfrey.

11 Q. This jury has heard about money orders. Were money orders

12 reviewed in this case?

13 A. Yes. Postal money orders, money orders from other sources,

14 whether they be 7-11, Western Union. Those were all reviewed.

15 Q. Bank records?

16 A. Bank records, and not only the bank statements but the

17 deposit items, whether they be the postal money orders, whether

18 they be personal checks or traveler's checks. All the check

19 items -- in other words, checks that she wrote to pay for bills

20 or expenses, any kind of money transfers between accounts or to

21 other accounts.

22 Q. And from where did you get the bank records?

23 A. The bank records were subpoenaed from Wells Fargo Bank.

24 Q. And any other financial institutions?

25 A. Charles Schwab was also subpoenaed, and records were

438



1 received from them.

2 Q. And why Charles Schwab and Wells Fargo?

3 A. The postal money orders that the U.S. Postal Inspection

4 Service had identified, we traced those as being deposited into

5 both the Wells Fargo account, and some were deposited into the

6 Charles Schwab account.

7 Q. And in terms of the financial documents you reviewed, are

8 those documents here in court?

9 A. Yes, they are. They're on the table.

10 Q. And that's the binders that are in front of the jury here?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Which have been marked as BNK-17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22.

13 Is that correct?

14 A. That's correct.

15 Q. Did you review tax returns?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. For which years?

18 A. We received tax returns from the Internal Revenue Service

19 through an ex parte order for the years 2000 through 2005.

20 We also reviewed tax returns from 1991 through 2005,

21 that were found at the defendant's home when we executed the

22 search warrant.

23 Q. Did you compare those two sets of tax returns in terms of

24 the ones that you obtained from the IRS versus the ones you

25 obtained from the search?

439



1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And what did the comparisons show?

3 A. The comparisons showed that for the years 2000 through 2005

4 they were exactly the same.

5 Q. And did you take steps for the years that were prior to

6 those years, take steps to compare the tax returns that you

7 obtained during the search warrants?

8 A. Yes, but we were unable to get those older tax returns.

9 Q. Why is that?

10 A. The Internal Revenue Service only keeps tax returns going

11 back for a certain amount of years.

12 Q. So you reviewed the ones you did have?

13 And in terms of the Wells Fargo records, for what years

14 did you have those?

15 A. I looked at records starting approximately January 1st of

16 2000 through June of 2006.

17 Q. And again, why not before or after that?

18 A. Banks only keep records going back so many years. And due

19 to the statute of limitations on the various charges we were

20 looking at, we didn't go back further than 2000.

21 Q. And in terms of the money orders, you reviewed those; did

22 you add up the dollar figures over the years that you had?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And how much money was involved there?

25 A. For the time period 2000 through 2005, it was approximately

440



1 $880,000 or somewhere around there.

2 Q. And did you prepare a chart of those amounts?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And I would like to at this time -- can you see that?

5 A. Yes, I can see it.

6 Q. That's a chart you prepared, and that's BNK-23. Is that

7 correct?

8 A. That's correct.

9 Q. And just walk the jury through that document, please.

10 A. This spreadsheet --

11 THE COURT: You want the jury to see it?

12 MR. BUTLER: I'm sorry.

13 BY MR. BUTLER:

14 Q. This is from the review of your bank records, the bank

15 records -- I'm sorry, the money orders you reviewed in this

16 matter. Is that correct?

17 A. This spreadsheet shows not only money orders, but also

18 personal checks that were received, and traveler's checks

19 relating to the business activity of Pamela Martin & Associates.

20 MR. BUTLER: I would move to admit BNK-23, Your Honor.

21 MR. BURTON: No objection.

22 THE COURT: Received, and you may show it to the jury.

23 (Government Exhibit BNK-23 was moved into evidence.)

24 BY MR. BUTLER:

25 Q. Could you walk the jury through what that document shows,

441



1 please?

2 A. The document shows in the columns the years 2000 through

3 2005, with the final column being the total. And then the

4 receipts per the bank records, and the asterisk indicating it

5 includes all money orders, checks, traveler's checks deposited

6 into the accounts related to the business activity of PMA,

7 including both Wells Fargo Bank and Charles Schwab.

8 And then you have the individual amounts per year, to

9 total up to the $882,649.48.

10 Q. And just for the record, would you read off the years, the

11 individual years in terms of what the amounts are, please?

12 A. For 2000, it is $185,265.25; for 2001, it's $177,098.17;

13 2002, $124,605; 2003, $142,341.06; 2004, $158,835; and 2005,

14 $94,505.

15 Q. And in lay terms, what does this diagram show? What is the

16 purpose of this diagram?

17 A. This diagram just shows only the business receipts that were

18 deposited into her account. So it's an analysis of seeing how

19 much income she was receiving for the business over this period

20 of time.

21 Q. And when you say she, to whom are you referring?

22 A. Deborah Jeanne Palfrey.

23 Q. Did you do another diagram or another graph of that same

24 information, to show it in a different format?

25 A. Yes, I did a graphical column bar chart to show the same

442



1 amounts.

2 MR. BUTLER: I need to show this to the witness but not

3 the jury for one moment.

4 THE COURT: All right.

5 BY MR. BUTLER:

6 Q. This is BNK-24.

7 THE COURT: It's just the same numbers in a bar chart?

8 MR. BURTON: Yeah, it's just cumulative.

9 THE COURT: It's not very edifying. Why don't we move

10 on? I think the jury can handle those numbers.

11 MR. BUTLER: Is there any objection to its admission?

12 MR. BURTON: Objection.

13 THE COURT: It's been objected to as cumulative. The

14 objection is sustained.

15 BY MR. BUTLER:

16 Q. Would the chart that you already talked about show all

17 postal money orders, or just those that were deposited?

18 A. It would only show those that were deposited. If the postal

19 money order had been cashed, it would not be included on that

20 chart.

21 Q. You mentioned earlier a search warrant that was done at the

22 residence of Deborah Jeanne Palfrey?

23 A. That is correct. A search warrant was done on the 4th of

24 October 2006.

25 Q. And was there a search warrant obtained for that search?

443



1 A. Yes.

2 Q. From where?

3 A. It was obtained from the magistrate judge in Sacramento,

4 California.

5 Q. And when was that search?

6 A. The search was actually on October 4th, 2006.

7 Q. Were you involved in that search?

8 A. Yes, I was.

9 Q. What was recovered during that search generally,

10 category-wise?

11 A. The search of the defendant's residence in Vallejo, we

12 uncovered all types of financial records: Binders containing

13 information on the individuals who were working for the

14 organization, phone records, utility records, tax returns,

15 checks, appointment books. Just a lot of different

16 correspondence information.

17 Q. And those are the tax returns that you already testified

18 about, that went beyond the ones the IRS had. Is that correct?

19 A. That's correct. We found tax returns from 1991 through

20 2005.

21 Q. And did you review those earlier returns as well?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And did they show how far back Pamela Martin & Associates

24 went?

25 A. Yes. The 1993 tax return indicates that that is the

444



1 beginning year for Pamela Martin & Associates.

2 Q. I'm sorry, you said which year?

3 A. 1993.

4 Q. Let me also have you take a look at -- not to the jury at

5 the moment, but the --

6 I would like you to take a look at what's been marked

7 as TAX-310 through 334. You've reviewed these documents before.

8 Is that correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. These are the ones you talked about?

11 A. Yes. I'm waiting for it to come up on the screen.

12 Q. And what is the first page of TAX-310? What is that?

13 A. It is a copy of Deborah Jeanne Palfrey's form 1040, page

14 one, for 1993.

15 Q. And in terms of the -- if we flip through the pages of that,

16 would the entire tax return be there?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And I would like to take a look at TAX-285 through 309.

19 What is that?

20 A. 285 is a copy of Deborah Jeanne Palfrey's form 1040 for

21 1994, page one.

22 Q. And if we flip through the pages, would we have the rest of

23 the tax return?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. I would like to review TAX-271 through 284.

445



1 A. 271 --

2 THE COURT: I think I know where we're going with this,

3 counsel. Is there a stipulation?

4 MR. BURTON: That's why I'm taking a look at the hard

5 copy, judge. I think we'll be able to arrive at one pretty

6 quickly.

7 MR. BUTLER: That's fine, Your Honor.

8 THE COURT: Why don't you take a second and see if you

9 can? Because nobody can really see these things as they go by,

10 anyway.

11 (OFF THE RECORD.)

12 MR. BURTON: We don't object to these returns coming

13 in. We can expedite this.

14 THE COURT: Just give us the TAX numbers of the

15 earliest and latest, tell us briefly what they are, and they'll

16 all be offered in a lump.

17 Don't take this personally, Mr. Burrus.

18 MR. BURTON: I'm sure he gets it all the time.

19 MR. BUTLER: Your Honor, you want just the first number

20 of the different years of returns?

21 THE COURT: Just do it the fastest way you can.

22 MR. BUTLER: Okay. The numbers are all -- the first

23 number, it's in sort of a reverse order. Well, let me start it

24 this way, Your Honor:

25 TAX-9 through TAX-334 are the tax returns in reverse

446



1 order of the years; in other words, going 2005, 2004, 2003,

2 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999 --

3 THE COURT: All the way back to 1993?

4 MR. BUTLER: Yes, Your Honor.

5 THE COURT: Offered into evidence?

6 MR. BUTLER: Yes, Your Honor.

7 THE COURT: Received. Thank you.

8 (Government Exhibits TAX-009 to TAX-334 were moved into

9 evidence.)

10 MR. BUTLER: And I would also like to offer the binders

11 as well, Your Honor, the ones I previously referred to.

12 THE COURT: 17 through 22?

13 MR. BUTLER: BNK-17 through 22, yes.

14 THE COURT: Now, are these going to be the subject of a

15 Rule 1006 summary?

16 MR. BURTON: Yes, Your Honor.

17 MS. CONNELLY: I have a stipulation.

18 THE COURT: I don't think all those documents have to

19 be in evidence if they're made available under Rule 1006.

20 There's no point in sending all that back to the jury room and

21 letting the jury think they have to go through all that if

22 they're just getting a summary.

23 MR. BUTLER: That's fine, Your Honor. I believe we

24 have a stipulation that will cover it.

25 MR. BURTON: We entered a stipulation that these are

447



1 financial documents, so...

2 THE COURT: Okay. Moving right on.

3 MR. BURTON: Your Honor, could I read this stipulation

4 at this time?

5 THE COURT: Yes.

6 MR. BUTLER: Thank you. "The United States and

7 defendant Deborah Jeanne Palfrey, after consultation with her

8 counsel, stipulate and agree that: The government has

9 established the authenticity and admissibility of the financial

10 business records, documents, records, reports, and data

11 compilation under Federal Rules of Evidence 803.6; and has

12 produced declarations conforming to Federal Rules of

13 Evidence 902.11 from a custodian of records for business records

14 relating to accounts maintained on behalf of the defendant by

15 the following businesses:

16 Wells Fargo & Company, and Charles Schwab & Company

17 Incorporated, a subsidiary of the Charles Schwab Corporation.

18 The parties agree that the defendant may still object

19 to such records on the basis of relevancy, Federal Rules of

20 Evidence 402, and any improper prejudice, Federal Rules of

21 Evidence 403."

22 THE COURT: Very well.

23 BY MR. BUTLER:

24 Q. If I could just pull out the -- and this might be easier,

25 Agent Burrus. I'll hand you TAX-0096 through 138. What is

448



1 that?

2 A. This is a copy of the 2002 form 1040 filed by Deborah Jeanne

3 Palfrey.

4 Q. And would you go to the Schedule C -- I'm sorry, the line C

5 on that document? Is that for an individual or for a business?

6 A. Form 1040 is for an individual filing.

7 Q. For what? I'm sorry --

8 A. The form 1040 is a U.S. individual income tax return.

9 Q. Would you go to line C on that document?

10 A. Line C of -- you mean Schedule C?

11 Q. I mean Schedule C. Thank you.

12 A. (Witness complies.) All right.

13 Q. What is a Schedule C in a tax return?

14 A. A Schedule C that's attached to the form 1040 is to report

15 profit or loss from a business of a sole proprietorship or a

16 single-member L.L.C.

17 Q. And was that Schedule C filed by Ms. Palfrey in this matter?

18 A. Yes, she did file a Schedule C.

19 Q. For what business?

20 A. For the business listed as Pamela Martin & Associates.

21 Q. And is there a Schedule A in there, too?

22 A. Yes, there is a Schedule A.

23 Q. And what is a Schedule A?

24 A. A Schedule A is where you report your itemized deductions,

25 which includes taxes you may have paid, interest on your home,

449



1 gifts to charity, casualty/theft losses, and other miscellaneous

2 expenses.

3 Q. And does the tax return say what type of business Pamela

4 Martin & Associates was?

5 A. It lists it as a "Service/Personal business."

6 Q. And what document within the tax return is that?

7 A. That is listed on Schedule C, line A.

8 Q. And does the tax return say the accounting method that was

9 used for that business?

10 A. Yes. On line F she selected or chose accounting method as

11 "cash."

12 Q. On the Schedule C?

13 A. That's correct.

14 Q. And what does that mean?

15 A. A cash basis method of accounting means that when you

16 receive income, you report it in the year that you actually

17 receive it. And when you incur expenses or actually pay the

18 expenses, you can take those as expenses.

19 Q. And is that on a gross receipt, net receipt? How was that

20 done?

21 A. I'm not sure I understand the question.

22 Q. Does Ms. Palfrey's return show gross receipts or net

23 receipts?

24 A. It shows gross receipts.

25 Q. And where does it show that?

450



1 A. On line one, under part one for the income, it shows the

2 gross receipts.

3 Q. And what is gross receipts, just to make sure?

4 A. Gross receipts in this instance would be all the income that

5 was received by the business during that year.

6 Q. So that would include Ms. Palfrey as well as her employees.

7 Is that correct?

8 A. Actually, it should include the monies that she actually

9 received, that was sent to her.

10 Q. And did you compare the tax returns to the bank records for

11 Ms. Palfrey? [Ed.--Emphasis added.]

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And what did that show?

14 A. The comparison of the bank records for this year, 2002, show

15 that there was a greater amount of gross receipts than was

16 reported on this line. [Ed.--Emphasis added.]

17 MR. BURTON: Can we approach, Your Honor?

18 THE COURT: Yes.

19 (BENCH CONFERENCE ON THE RECORD.)

20 MR. BURTON: I don't know where this is going.

21 MR. BUTLER: I'm not going to any tax discrepancy, or

22 anything to that effect. [Ed.--Emphasis added.]

23 THE COURT: You just saddled her with basically what is

24 false reporting. [Ed.--Emphasis added.]

25 MR. BUTLER: Well, I don't think it's gone that far

451



1 yet, Your Honor. I'm not going any further with this line of

2 inquiry.

3 THE COURT: Well, now you've put the defense in the

4 position where they have to respond to this. How are they going

5 to do that?

6 MR. BUTLER: Well, Your Honor, that was not the intent

7 of my question, but I appreciate what the Court is saying.

8 THE COURT: What was the intent of the question?

9 MR. BUTLER: My intent of the question, Your Honor, was

10 directed at the gross receipts that were deposited into this and

11 comparing it with the bank records that we have. It was a

12 poorly phrased question. That's all I can say about it. I

13 don't know anything more than that.

14 THE COURT: Well, where are you going next?

15 MR. BUTLER: Your Honor, I'm going next with -- can I

16 just have a moment, Your Honor?

17 Your Honor, there's another chart in terms of -- I just

18 need to grab it, just to answer the question more explicitly, if

19 I can have a moment.

20 THE COURT: How much more do you have with this guy?

21 MR. BUTLER: Not very much at all, Your Honor.

22 MS. CONNELLY: I think there's a bunch more documents.

23 MR. BUTLER: Well, there's other documents we need to

24 admit through him, yes.

25 THE COURT: Can he come back in the morning?

452



1 MR. BUTLER: We can do that, Your Honor.

2 THE COURT: I think I want to instruct the jury that

3 there was no tax charge, no tax claim in this case.

4 MR. BUTLER: That's fine, Your Honor.

5 THE COURT: Maybe I'll even instruct them they are to

6 disregard that last answer because it's not relevant to your

7 case. ...

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.]

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