Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Let's Get Real About Mary Beth Kepner

[Update, Saturday November 20, 2010:  As leaks suggest that a "draft Justice Department  report makes misconduct findings against" Mary Beth Kepner, I've organized my thoughts on all this in a new Kepner post with links to relevant posts since this post.]

[Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 9:30 pm Thai time] I saw more hits from people looking up Mary Beth Kepner than any other single google search term today. Then, later, someone sent me a link to a story that begins like this:

Stevens: Agent, witness had romance
By JOHN BRESNAHAN | 1/26/09 5:42 PM EST [I've corrected the link, sorry about that, I accidentally put in the link from the email.]

Whoever put that headline up is the kind of person who gives bloggers a bad name.  I know that people want to believe the worst and really don't care about the facts. [As I look at that headline again, pre-posting, I realize that the colon means that Stevens is alleging this. But I missed that the first few times I looked and I'm sure others did and will, as the person who put it there (presumably Bresnahan) intended.]

Let me say from the beginning here, as I've said in previous posts: Mary Beth Kepner met with a class of mine and I've talked to her on a couple of other occasions when I've accidentally run into her around town. I even met her mother at the Weekend Market in the summer. (For non-Alaskans, that happens a lot in Anchorage. We have a small population and we see people we know when we are out and about.) I'm a reasonably cautious judge of character - I know that often people are not what they seem to be. With those caveats, I'm 99% sure that Kepner is a stellar agent who has played very craftily in the grey area of working with undercover sources. Chad Joy seems to be extremely rigid and can't deal with ambiguity, grey areas, or the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

Let me say that for the most part, while some of my blogger friends come out and say things like, "He's a total slimeball" I generally put all the evidence out there for the readers and then let the readers draw their own conclusions. Generally, but not today. I did that in a very long post on the original, heavily redacted, complaint that this story is based on.


The headline is totally sensational and based on the flimsiest of evidence, as the story says later. Well the story doesn't say the evidence is flimsy, but it gives the evidence.  It's evidence I and others have posted already in more depth.   FBI special agent, Chad Joy, in a complaint he filed with an internal oversight unit within the Justice Department (that did NOT grant him whistle-blower status) says that:

  1. Most recently, Kepner met with Allen by herself in her hotel room in Washington, DC.
  2. Kepner wore a skirt for Allen during the recent trial during his testimony. Kepner doesn’t wear skirts.
1.  Two people can't be in the same hotel room without having sex?  Do you think she'd have met with him in her hotel room if she could have imagined that anyone would have leaped to the conclusion they were having an affair?
2.  Obviously, one of the two parts of the second statement is false.  Either she DOES wear skirts sometimes, or she DIDN'T wear one in court.  Basic logic.  OK, I know he means something like he's never seen her in a skirt before.  But this is evidence in a serious complaint?  By an FBI agent no less?
It's sort of like someone saying Mr. X murdered Mr. Y based on the evidence that someone says he saw Mr. X buy a gun. Just as I could win the lottery tomorrow (if I'd bought a ticket), the odds are millions to one against it.

From there the Defense team filed a motion to dismiss the Stevens conviction based on a number of issues including their leap to claim that Kepner and Allen were having an affair.

OK, I acknowledge that nothing is impossible, but this allegation (as well as the post cited above) is clearly part of an attempt to invalidate the Stevens conviction, and seemingly part of a scheme to make the Prosecution case look ridiculous whether there is evidence or not.  I can't speak for what happened with the Prosecution in the DC based Stevens case. I've offered possible explanations in at least one previous post already. But I can speak to Joy's comments about Kepner in the investigations and working with sources.

Let's look at some of the facts:

Bill Allen is in his early 70s, but looks and acts older. When Allen testifies, the prosecutors first take pains to point out he was in a motorcycle accident that has affected his ability to find the words he wants to say, but not his memory or his thinking abilities. Judging from when I saw him on the witness stand in the Kott and Kohring cases, I would say his mind works just fine, but he does have trouble speaking fluently at times and he walks slowly. He's an old man who's not well.

Kepner is a fit, attractive woman, attractive in a very natural and unobtrusive way,  probably between 30 and 40 years old. She instigated, as I understand it, and has been in charge of, the FBI investigation of Alaska corruption since 2004 and has been pretty busy working the case with various sources and with the Prosecutors most of the time.

I know such alliances happen, but usually the younger lady is hoping there will be an inheritance. While Allen is wealthy, there's no way Kepner could be expecting to cash in on that.

She is not your stereotypical FBI agent. Well, you could say that was obvious since she's not a man. But beyond that, she exudes a sense of sincerity and caring with the people she's talking to. I realize I'm generalizing from my own experience, but most of the media who covered the three trials in Alaska that I've spoken with also admire her. Frank Prewitt (about whom I have serious ethical concerns), a key source in the Tom Anderson trial,  wrote a book in which he often praises Kepner  while being snide about almost everyone else - including Chad Joy. Let me quote from him as I did in the post on the original, highly redacted complaint.    Prewitt is writing about meeting with Kepner because there have been complaints that she got a gift from him - a painting of her dog by his wife.
"Let me get this straight. I worked covert operations with you and your team nearly full-time for two years, worked overt, including trials, for another two, and someone's concerned we might be too close!?" I squinted, leaned forward and cynically whispered, "Has anyone told my wife?". . .

Come on Kepner, once you figured out I wasn't a crook [this was debated in trial - it seems at least that the statute of limitations was up] you know very well we both had to trust each other to do what we've accomplished. If I hadn't thought you really cared about me, my family, and getting to the real source of the corruption, I would have been out of here a long time ago. . .

In truth, we had become very close. People have real lives, real feelings, real highs, and real lows. Some people bring out our best, others our worst. Some relationships fit like a glove, others chafe like a scouring pad. Most of us are healthiest and happiest in circles of mutually supportive community. And for all those very natural reasons Kepner and I worked well together.

"I understand Bureau concern over conflicts of interest. But extreme cases make poor general policy. It was your training and humanity that accomplished the government's mission. Robotons don't have instincts or feelings, that's why they make crappy supervisors and can't solve cases, they also make lousy friends."


I would note that while Prewitt is clearly a very smart man, the details of the book, as he acknowledges, are not necessarily accurate.  And he is the hero in his own book.  But this section about their relationship rings true with what I know. While nearly everyone else in the book gets skewered, the fact that he didn't do that to Kepner and instead portrays her very positively, says something about how he regards her. And how I would imagine Allen regards her. Remember, Kepner's investigation brought down Allen, one of the most powerful men in Alaska, but he's stuck around and been a convincing witness in three trials. If wearing a skirt is going to keep him testifying, I say go for it.

I also know of another person who lost his freedom due to Kepner, who nevertheless, speaks highly of her too. This all tells me she does her job of working with undercover sources exquisitely well.




There was a time when women were trying to get into law enforcement, but there were barriers - mostly physical. First it was height requirements which kept out most women. Then there were requirements like "able to carry 100 pounds for 100 yards." Those too, were eventually shown to be basically irrelevant to most situations. What wasn't generally recognized by the old guard was that women had compensating abilities. They often can calm down situations that the guys who can carry 100 pounds would inflame.

My suspicion is that Kepner's use of her 'feminine' charms to so successfully work her sources has driven Chad Joy's frustration level through the roof. It's all so unmanly. And so exceedingly successful. These folks are cooperating voluntarily because they want to please Kepner, not because she's some big bad guy they are afraid of.


The most plausible story for me is that Kepner has used her skills, including charm, to keep Allen active and cooperative in the various cases - he first testified in fall 2006. Her playful intelligence and her seeming guilelessness which appears to have worked on Frank Prewitt too, seems to work well on Bill Allen. Both these men are smart enough to know she's an FBI agent and playing them, and both probably enjoyed just being in her company. I suspect there aren't that many people who feel that way about Chad Joy. And it bothers him, I suspect, that this woman is being so successful using decidedly un-macho techniques.

Am I falling under the Kepner spell myself? I came of age when J Edgar Hoover WAS the FBI and he was the personification of power gone bad. Kepner has given me renewed faith in the FBI. I have this to say in my defense - my wife, who has also met Kepner, likes her too and doesn't feel the least bit jealous. (I double checked this last fact just now.)

Some of the googlers have been looking for "Mary Beth Kepner photo." Part of me thinks a photo of her would help people get who she is. But I also have been fascinated by how the person who is behind shaking up the Alaska political scene like no one has ever done before can wander around Anchorage unrecognized. There are photos of her on different Alaska blogs, including on this blog; I'm not going to repost my picture here.

26 comments:

  1. Steve, she shouldn't have met with Bill Allen alone or him her without someone with him. These days I refuse to speak to medical people without someone with me and they always come in escorted just because we live in a suspicious society. Go to a hotel room with a man like Bill? He could have been bribing her for all we know and had nothing to do with sex.

    ReplyDelete
  2. John Bresnahan is a total fucking slimeball asshole.

    I'd put the comment at his article, but I don't have time to create an ACS account to gain access to his story.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anon, When I interviewed Chinese officials in the agencies that were trying out their civil service reform 20 years ago, one reason they didn't didn't have many women (despite official equality) they kept telling me was the difficulty women caused- especially when they were traveling. They had to have separate rooms and ...

    If male FBI agents can talk privately with a man in a hotel room without being charged with having an affair, then let's allow women agents to do the same.

    Your comment suggests a female agent can never be alone with a male source. After all, you can have sex in an office, in a car, and most any place you could be alone. Let's get real here.

    I'm not suggesting sex isn't a factor at times. But aside from the fact that he's in his seventies and frail and she's much younger and fit, we need a lot more evidence of impropriety than their being in a room together before people start making such charges.

    And while I do think appearances of conflict do matter, we can't, as a society, let gossips prevent women FBI agents from doing their jobs.

    Here's how I imagine what happened. They are both in DC, away from home in Anchorage, staying at hotels, maybe even the same hotel since they have to work together in preparation for the trial.

    He has some questions about his testimony. They can't talk about it in the lobby. They don't have time to go to the FBI headquarters. So she says, come down to my room.

    That's just a guess, but a likely scenario.

    Philip, I accidentally put up the link to the email I got about the story. I've fixed that. Most of the comments on the original site were skeptical. BTW, in the context of cross-cultural sensitivity, do you think you could modify your language on sites that have a different approach toward profanity? Here, for instance, I'll use it if it is essential to the story (Such as posting about the song "Unfuck the World" ) but otherwise I find other ways to convey the same meaning. It's like using different language when you're working on a fishing boat and when you visit your grandmother.

    ReplyDelete
  4. When I go to a hospital, I never see ANYONE without me having someone else present. The reason is that I do not want there to be any question about what is said. If I say that I don't want something treated, I don't want to be coerced.

    It's not about having sex, but in this case it was kind of implied to some degree. I'm just talking from the stand point of one side having power and the other does not. The FBI is kind of powerful. A person is a caged animal with them even if they are a witness. It's a lot like being in the ER-- you are really atthe mercy of them. If the sky is blue but they need you to say it is orange and they keep asking you, "well, are you sure it wasn't orange?" you'd be an idiot to stand up to them. Individual agents can cause problems for their prey. It's best to get along with them. If you don't have someone with you, you have no guarantees.

    Anyone dealing with the law should have someone else present for their sakes and someone else with the law present. There is a a lot at stake. Was it Dave Anderson whose testimony was supposedly going to give him immunity or something, and then he didn't get it and the Feds said they never promised anything of the sort? That is where you run into problems. Talk on the phone from your own rooms where you can tape yourself and the other person if you must. Do not meet in private.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In my mind, the meeting in the hotel room isn't what's relevant here; it's the process that the FBI and DOJ took to get the conviction.

    What about the alleged job for her husband ?

    Did they really withhold crucial evidence that would have exonerated Sen Stevens ?

    Judge Sullivan is severely pissed; I hope they have good explanations for the allegations that Agent Joy has brought forward.

    Just ask Don Siegelman if he thinks the FBI and DOJ played fair at his trial ?

    If the Feds can do this to Stevens and Siegelman, imagine what they can do to you and me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm guessing Anon1 and 2 are the same person: As a general rule, you're probably right. But if the general rule always applied, we could have machines make decisions for us. The doctor you have gone to for 20 years and know from experience is trustworthy is different from the doctor you visit the first time. If you go because you have a cut on your finger, you don't need someone else to listen with you. But if you go because you have cancer you do. It's all about context. Kepner and Allen have been working together since August 2006. They've built a relationship of trust. He's not worried that she's going to trick him at this point and she's reasonably sure about him. That's different from the first couple of weeks (or months) of their relationship.

    We have rules - wear your seatbelt, don't kiss on the first date, floss every day, etc. - which most of us usually follow. Some never. But most of us make exceptions now and then if we think the conditions are ok.

    Few, if any, rules are followed 100%. It depends on the context.


    Anon 3: Watching the trials I came to see the enormous power the FBI and the Prosecution have over most citizens. This was something I knew already, but it was visibly brought home when Tom Anderson's attorney had to walk out of the court room to bring in his witnesses. The Prosecution had lots of people around to help do that, Stockler was there by himself and had to leave his client alone to go get the witness. It's a small example, but indicative.

    I also recognize that the kinds of evidence you need to prove someone guilty is hard to get in crimes like these where everything is done in secret. And I think it leads the investigators and prosecutors to push the limits and even go beyond. I suspect in the Stevens case, they have evidence - but not quite enough - of a number of other situations where Stevens did things much more egregious than not report income. But they felt this was the charge they could make that would stick. I don't know if statutes of limitations played a role here or not. Like any competition, you can get caught up in wanting to win, and some people will cheat to do so if they can get away with it. But your point is a good one, and prior to this investigation, my gut reactions were to be totally suspicious of the FBI. But the FBI, like all organizations, is not monolithic. There are competent, dedicated people and there are zealots.

    The job for her husband? Well, that's his allegation. As I've said in other posts, I learned as a grievance rep that there is always another side. That the grievant somehow fails to include relevant details. Let's see how that plays out.

    In the Stevens case there was a lot more money for defense and that money is doing everything it can to find fault with the Prosecution. The same factors apply to the Defense. They too can get carried away trying to win.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Snake charmers get bit all the time in India. MBK and Bill are adversaries, long time relationship or not. (Remember Sigfried and Roy.) You don't put yourself in a state of vulnerability. Date rape happens with those we trust. If the FBI needs something, they make it happen. Bill was an idiot to have met with her alone. What if she accused him of trying to bribe her? Her word against his: who is more trustworthy?

    Steve, you don't make friends with FBI investigators. Do you know where they start out? They start out in fed pens investigating crimes against inmates. I do not see how they can have a decent opinion of anyone. They are trained to read people and to manipulate, not form trusting relationships, which are the realm of hairdressers and taxi drivers.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Joy, FBI so called Anchorage, may have filed false charges, to bring about jury nullficiation, to help a large D C law firm.
    And, to think , we pay this guy's salary via U S taxes, as American taxpayers.
    It would be like saying we saw him down on Main Street, and it was obvious he just had sex in the back alley.(the kind of bogus dishonest smear he used on Agent K.)
    But, going to the so called smoking gun FBI statement withheld from the defense where Allen mentioned some $ 80,000 figure, which was suppose to be some condradiction.
    That is absurd, the paper trail shows the real costs, all labor, all material all overhead, all etc, and even Ted Stevens seem to admit it was well over $ 130,000, and well over the amuont he did not report on his Senate forms
    Joy was suppose to be the numbers guy, but does he know how to count.(or was he ejaculating in the back offices, too much)
    Here is the major question never addressed:
    Did Joy withold FBI (301) statements from D. C, to then use that as a prextet for his rants, he put in a form of a so called complaint to help Williams and Conolley the big D C firm for Stevens, if so he sabotaged an nullfied a jury verdict, and was involved in obstructiing of justice, and is a major cheater, where he stole any honest services to the USA, and he should be indicted in a long criminal complaint, in D. C,. and brought to justice.
    I hope this site contiunes to raise questions, and seek answers for all, and for the sake of genuine justice.
    Joy mabe have subverted real justice, and his 8 page compalint was a lot of rant, devoid of any facts.
    He timed it to derail a jury verdict, as if he is some great derailer to destory the jury system in America, he was not the jury. Joy
    should pay for his dishonest and corrupt misconduct, he shold pay the ultimate price.
    Joy makes Alaska the most corrupt spot on the universe, more so than Chicago. I hope good honest Alaskans will seek to take appropriate actions--as US citizens.
    I worked in construction management in Ak, I know that JOY was using a device as a diversion, to distract from the real costs, and so that would be lost sight of.
    His big somke diversion bomb should be seen for what it is: an attempt to subvert the entire justice system in the U. S.
    I may submit info to the U S Justice Dept on this JOY outrage. and this rogue JOY and his dishonest activity.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anon, you sound like you might know more about this. What you say matches my gut reaction plus what I see in the complaint, but I don't immediately see any smoking guns here. I'll have to sleep on this. But if you have more concrete evidence of Joy's intent, do go to DOJ or send me an email .

    ReplyDelete
  10. To: Steve: and et al:

    I pulled up on a real estate site that the average price of a real estate property in Anchorage was about $ 75/ sq ft in 2001.
    Granted Girdwood may be more expensive to build at. So the Stevens propery addition was
    about 1,400 sq ft. so that puts some base figure at around $ 105,000.(would have to be adjusted as to particulars) Again granted, those are rough ..one has to look at the actual costs, etc, all labor, material etc... as run by a contractor, subs etc.
    So, We are told Stevens wrote a check for $ 130,000. I used to ski a lot at Aleska, it is so beautiful there. It is breathtaking in its beauty, some may not be aware of that on just the NET.
    So, who was the FBI guy most near Girdwood etc.
    The FBI/ DOJ came up with some number of $ 250,00. how so ?
    We read in the papers that Chad Joy was the numbers guy-- honchos in FBI in Ak said that. it is quoted as scuh in the papers, again most close to Girdwood, and did he speak with the owner of the Double Musky Inn. Mr P.. or did he drop the ball, and then play games--asubterfuge, just a game player, B. S or what ?
    here is where I am going. Things unravel in the proceedings in D C in late 2008.
    Joy sees which way the wind is blowing, and he files his rant--8 pages of utter rant, to attack Agent K. It was mostly utter garbabge rant.
    However, where was Agent Joy, to nail down every penny in value in the $ 250,000 number so floated by the DOJ/ FBI, he was cloest to Girdwood--and the reputed numbers guy...like he was there, did he not have responsibilites, to the USA, he got a pay check from the USA
    The Joy complaint was a diversion, Joy saw the foul wind blowing in late 2008, and his rant, under cover of a complaint obscures something much more serious--as to Joy, no less.
    I loved Skiing at Alesya, loved the town of Girdwood.
    Mr Joy professes to be this El Grande Whistleblower, but was he more than some potted plant.
    Recall "potted plant" are the words used in the Iran Contra proceedings, as Ollie North was sprung on a technality.
    Did we the U S taxpayers not pay Mr Joy, as a FBI guy, somehow a diversion happened with all his smoke bombs lobbed which were so sensational.
    but, should we be distracted: was there a sold basis for the $ 250,000 number which the FBI/ DOJ claimed were gifts to Stevens, and where does Joy fit in there, it is not like he is in some parrallel universe, he was in the center of those very questions, center of Girdwood investigations etc.
    I reamin; AON, but i loved Alaska, and.....i hope the truth will be a focus, and the supposed two DOJ sorts questioned Allen in April of 2008, but those person are being kept in the shadow, but that was what was used by Stevens attorneys to scream bloody murder..
    I enjoyed reading you first hand account, it is not a crime for a lady FBI agent to have coffee with people, they do not live on Mars, they too are people in a community--did Mr Joy forget that, his ranting complaint was silly, but why are some allowing the main question--the real value/ costs etc of stuff to Stevens be off the radar, why did that happen,
    America deserves answers to that, i hope you can bring that about, you have a wonderful WWW site.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You say Joy's intent to go to the DOJ:
    CYA, he was not like some Joe Blow, just wandering around aimlessly, on his big fat salary, IS HE WHAT A FBI GUY IS ALL CRACKED UP TO BE... ? HMMMMMMMMMMMM
    Who were the 2 DOJ guys who interviewed ALLEN in 2008(April), and they kept that from DOJ D C,(some sand bag game) as some sabotage actions, which then Joy played off of.... ?
    Again, did we the U. S taxpayers pay Joy to be some plant for the Stevens defense, and how well did he do his job as a FBI Agent,(for the united Swtates of America)
    are some in Ak afraid to confront that.
    Does Joy have a trouble with woman, like he goes around making sexist stupid remarks in formal complaints, and the FBi digs that, finds it KOOl. Not real impressive, it ought to alert you to much more serious matters with Mr JOY STICK

    ReplyDelete
  12. Massive power so says Steve:
    the massive power is big corporate law firms in D. C(Williams and Connelly), who had 6 attorneys assigned to the Stevens case..and maybe a big Joy stick popped up, on some ranting sexist diatribe.
    How many of those FBI guys or DOJ attorneys revolved out the door to go to some big corporate firm..it is not just a few...
    Who paid Joy's salary---it was the USA, and taxpayers.
    Did you pay him to be a sexist weasel, who is crawling around on the ground to run to the defense to negate a jury verdict, do you really want anarchy, and no equal justice under law under, if the defendat happens to be a very powerful U S Senator, it makes a mockery of the U S justice system

    ReplyDelete
  13. Sen. Stevens' letter to Wev Shea | adn.com

    Stevens's ^^ letter to ex U S Atty in AK--8/10/2007 (on the $ 130,000, and Stevens $$ >>> via Girdwood A Frame)---NOTE DATE---2007, most interesting.

    Who hide the Shea letter from the DOJ in D C.. ? may we ask...?

    Web Extra: Wev Shea on Stevens indictment, Alaska corruption | APRN


    The radio interview of ex U S Atty for Ak, dated July 29, 2008


    Now Mr.. Shea(ex U S atty in AK) in 2009 has gone a rabid attack of the DOJ/ D C, like a real flippy flop, as he plays teh directions of the fouls winds.

    Mr Shea says he is a very very good friend of Ted. Says Shea
    Senator Ted Stevens was convicted based upon "gross" prosecutorial misconduct. The miscarriage of "justice" by those required to uphold the highest Public Integrity standards at our Department of Justice is obvious. The "integrity" of law enforcement was intentionally ignored by Public Integrity Deputy Brenda Morris. The standards of "justice" were lowered to the lowest common denominator, informant

    Posted By: Whistlego @ 02.14.2009 4:48 PM (COMMENT ON THE EX U S ATTY for ALASKA)

    How can you say that Mueller is a person of integrity when he has allowed and condoned whistleblowers to be persecuted and retaliated against and done NOTHING to stop it? He has no integrity whatsoever evidenced once more by his refusal to respond to Senators and members of the public who have questioned practices in the FBI.


    <>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    DID forcess in Ak set up a sabotage of the proceedings in D C... and seek to frame Agent K....

    Shea is a big political wind bag, as are a lot of political appointed U S Attys..he gets his political plumbs by sucking up to politicans, and just how deep does that go in the matters, if any have the desire to peel back what was realy going on......

    I have seen some of the politcal crap that went on in the AK U S Attys office, it is pukey. I saw it up close and personal, if that give you any clues.

    Now, Shea is leaving a trail of rabid rants, much like the utter rant king, JOY, which points up---soemething is very rotten in offical places in AK.

    ReplyDelete
  14. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/ted_stevens_conviction_voided_/

    Someone in Fl, see above, who is an Army Official( ex), is gloating; he thinks Ted Stevens was guilty, but he is beside himself, with Joy, that a jury of citizens verdict was tossed, like it meant nothing.
    I doubt most citizens(who are civic minded) feel that way, as it makes a mockery of the justice system, when an FBI guy can be used to go mad with power to go on about his suggestions of sex in a motel room, devoid of any evidence, as if he was on some mission to get agent K, an act of retaliation so gross, it placs a cloud over the FBI as in the tank for the elite, most corrupt as to make the justice system look like some Banana Republic farce to assure the most corrupt are never held accountable.
    The view of the FL individual looks more like it is support for a tin horn dictator in Central American, it is about as corrupt as the activity of Agent Joy.
    We have no reason to be joyful when corruption invades the system to nullify a jury verdict, to make things look like it was all a fix for the powerful.
    The D C culture of corruption is alive and well, at the top of the DOJ in the office of its current AG, Holder.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Steve: Hope you had a good trip.
    One thing you should know---and I hope you
    do is:
    Agent Chad Joy never testifed at the Stevens Trial in 2008
    Plus, Agent K never testified at the Stevens tial, as well. you knew that, right.
    The bogus complaint pulled out of Joy's arse is largely irrelevant to the trial.
    Agent Joy had no personal knoweldge as a witness to make any bogus charge that Agent K had sex with Bill Allen.
    Agent Joy may have helped Ted Stevens stay out of of jail(@ age 85), but his problems are only begining, and, his false statements on material matters to obstruct justice, sent through the mails, are so major I need not comment, here.....PERIOD, other than to say this is so serious, it is not going away.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mary Beth Kepner made huge mistakes / the least of which is the affair. Just drop FBI male vs. female plot. She - Kepner - screwed up and now will pay the price.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anon/ o7/ 1.07: Like you were in some motel room, and witnessed something. Really.
    On your just drop the FBI male.... is that some FBI order ?
    Clear it with Muller, bub...
    I got news for you screw-ball, she did not testify in the trial.
    She never handled the DOJ filings, as she was not an officer of the court. Duh, like you are out to lunch.
    You are so out in left field you sound like some alpha Joyous FEDDIE male, in the middle of some mail malstrome
    Sounds like you are worried that you saw nada, and have an imigation that is working over time and worried about the full truth.
    Besides, aren't you joy boys boy friend, some alpha bond

    ReplyDelete
  18. J Edgar Hoover, was he the guy who wore dresses, and was so when the FBI Director or was that his homosexual boy friend.
    He was listening to Martin Luther King, via illegal tapes. and was freaking out.
    Many reports record that J Edgar Hoover homosexual life style;
    Anthony Summers, in his book Official and Confidential, claimed Hoover deliberately refused to crack down on organized crime because he was being blackmailed by the Mafia for living a secret life as a homosexual. Summers believes that Hoover was blackmailed after powerful Mafia boss Meyer Lansky, an associate of Frank Costello, obtained photographs of the FBI boss in a compromising position with his friend and top aide, Clyde Tolson. Summers's "proof" about Hoover's homosexuality comes from a number of witnesses who told him that they had seen such photographs. Former members of the Mafia or Mafia associates told of how Lansky pressured the FBI director into leaving the criminal organization alone.

    Not a joyous history, of a FBI squeaky one

    ReplyDelete
  19. You are ordered to drop any FBI male things.
    Do you get that. Report to 6th Ave. ASAP

    ReplyDelete
  20. Old old Billy Allen is in his 70's.
    Mary Beth is 30 years younger than the old TOAD.
    I though you knew, Mr ANON-badge # ****, that Billy Allen liked hot young babes who are younger than 18, didn't you have the report on that, too.
    Now, his Esq Bundy has to face the music too.
    Mary Beth will come out the hero in it all, she was not in the loop of any Court things on the April 15, 2008 Esq interview, plus 302's ate not atty notes, , & attorney notes are not 302's, PERIOD, didn 't you read the manual but wipe. You know the attorneys(names) who ran the notes on the Allen April 15, 2008 interview, and who got rated out. Joy drops
    Mary Beth is not an officer of the court, and besides, the D C court has no jurisdiction over her, and you keep up lipping off on your male trip, joy Boy BONDS, you gona see the ACLU, or Legal Watch in the middle of matters, bubba. Keep it up flapper.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Stop all discussion of FBI male things at once.
    Return to 6th AVE. ASAP.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Clear it with Muller joy-poppy drops, he couldn't handle the woman FBI agents in the 9-11 ball drops, you know the woman agent in Minn..
    , you know Collen Rowley.
    This motel sex thing laid out by JOY BOY is
    based on what ?
    you want to get into that Anon/ NO....###.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Stop it Deep Throat, you are turning on joy drops, just stop the FBI Teddy bear games. Stop it now. Ted is loving his day, and
    he won't drink any more wine with Bill Allen in Az.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Most of you give bloggers a bad name. get a life.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anon 1/9/11 - I've speculated here about things, based on lots of evidence which I've spelled out.

    But you've said nothing of substance to challenge anything I've said.

    You've not explained why you think this post gives bloggers a bad name, and you've ended with a cliché insult that says basically, "You're a jerk." If you have specific, serious suggestions for what's wrong with my life and how to improve it, please let me know.

    If you have anything substantive to dispute or add, please do. If you just want to vent, please do that elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete

Comments will be reviewed, not for content (except ads), but for style. Comments with personal insults, rambling tirades, and significant repetition will be deleted. Ads disguised as comments, unless closely related to the post and of value to readers (my call) will be deleted. Click here to learn to put links in your comment.