home

DC Madam Banned From Releasing More Names

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:43:40 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

A federal judge has stepped in and granted a restraining order against D.C. Madam Deborah Jeane Palfry prohibiting her from releasing more of her client records, saying the release was a form of witness intimidation.

Related somewhat: Norway is going to follow Sweden's policy of keeping prostitution legal, but criminalizing purchasing sex services, and then prosecuting the Johns.

< Alberto Gonzales: Hasn't Thought About Habeas | Bush Wants $100 Billion for Iraq But Will Veto 3.5 Billion in Farm Aid >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    DC Madam Banned From Releasing More Names | 13 comments (13 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    martha mitchelled (none / 0) (#1)
    by Miss Devore on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:15:16 PM EST
    she is

    Lists (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Thu May 10, 2007 at 10:11:12 PM EST
     
    I love its gentle warble,
    I love its gentle flow,
    I love to wind my tongue up
    And I love to let it go.

    martha mitchell

    Parent

    so, the prosecution (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Thu May 10, 2007 at 11:30:23 PM EST
    is asserting, and the judge bought into it, that everyone on those lists is a potential witness for the state?

    if they are planning on calling them, as witnesses, in a public trial, to testify that they paid for sex, how is releasing their phone# going to "intimidate" them?

    sounds a little bogus to me.

    Gee (none / 0) (#4)
    by Sailor on Thu May 10, 2007 at 11:39:32 PM EST
    calling your clients is intimidation?

    Someone tell the Mafia!

    What a joke; the girls get prosecuted and the johns get a pass.

    i have a differing take, on this. . . (none / 0) (#5)
    by the rainnn on Fri May 11, 2007 at 12:36:51 AM EST
    i think the t.r.o., and that
    is all it is -- is a temporary
    restraining order -- has been
    issued to prevent a separate
    series of crimes. . . involving

    e x t o r t i o n.

    my street law hunch, as i typed
    here, earlier is that given blair sibley's
    statements, the judge could easily infer that
    a fair part of these outrageously-postured
    demands [among them, that AG gonzales must
    open an investigation(!), or all names
    will be released to bloggers!] suggest
    a sub-rosa campaign to collect hush-
    money from those well-heeled enough, and
    clever enough, to make payments, and whose
    names are known, with certainty, by the same
    well-heeled playboys, to be in palfrey's
    rolodex. . .

    so -- while i agree that many of the men
    will walk, and she will stand trial -- i do
    also think preventing extortion-attempts
    is a secondary goal of the t.r.o. . . .

    so no, i don't think the prosecutors need
    prove, or even fully suggest, that they want
    to call ALL these men as witnesses to get
    the t.r.o. -- just my $0.02.
    by them

    Stay away from sex (none / 0) (#6)
    by koshembos on Fri May 11, 2007 at 03:31:23 AM EST
    Stay away from sex is what governments should do. Here I disagree with Norway and Sweden. Smells of men discrimination rather than anything else. Suppliers are fine, of both sexes, but users are criminal? This should be called Sexual Capitalism.

    I still think (none / 0) (#7)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri May 11, 2007 at 08:14:13 AM EST
     she is just letting her crazy (civil) lawyer create publicity to make her "life story" a better seller likely realizing that this isn't helping the criminal case.

      I'm also curious if the TRO extends to her releasing any records she has in her possession or only such records as she received through discvery that were gathered pursuant to a GJ subpoena. As poor a choice it might be as a tactic in the criminal case, i think a court might be abusing its power to prohibit her from publishing information that belongs to her simply because of the possibility some of the information might "intimidate" some potential witness.

      If this were an insider trading case would a gag order be imposed prohibitng a defendant from providing a reporter with information the defendant lawfully possessed tending to show that other people were involved who were not being pursued just because some of those peolpe might possibly be witnesses?  Granted, the statements she and Sibley are making help establish the perception of a more nefarious intent but theis judge might be going too far here.

    No more names (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 11, 2007 at 08:45:20 AM EST
    And all across DC a huge sigh of relief was heard...

    hmmmmmmmmmmmmm (none / 0) (#9)
    by cpinva on Fri May 11, 2007 at 09:14:24 AM EST
    let me see if i have this logic correct:

    1. i release names of my clients.
    2. i then attempt to extort funds from those same clients, by threatening to................?

    i think the judge has been bamboozled by the prosecution. if she actually spent more than 30 seconds considering the basis of their request, she'd have denied it.

    granted, her civil atty. is a boob, and a lot of this public posturing may well be a thinly veiled effort to buff up the value of her "life story". that said, the gov't, i submit, will end up being hoist on its own petard.

    sorry -- cpinva -- not 1 to 2. . . (none / 0) (#11)
    by the rainnn on Fri May 11, 2007 at 10:19:47 AM EST
    i think your order is
    what's at fault for the
    misunderstanding, here:

    (01) i let it be WIDELY-
    KNOWN that i WILL release names.

    (02) i release a few juicy ones,
    to show my bona fides -- i WILL do it.

    (03) i wait for the calls to come
    in -- i collect a bunch of dinero,
    off-shore, of course, and wait some more. . .

    (04) not enough coming in, so. . .

    (05) i threaten to turn the list over
    to bloggers     -- and, i mention that a deceased
    former justice department official is on the list.

    more credibility. . .

    (06) now, a judge enters a t.r.o.

    (07) and that decreases, immensely, the
    likelihood that my release will ever happen.

    (08) that reduces my ability to generate income.

    is that clearer -- the whole game is forever
    threatening disclosue, but only doing it as
    to those who don't/won't pay up. . .

    just.my. $0.02.

    Parent

    Gee (none / 0) (#13)
    by scarshapedstar on Fri May 11, 2007 at 12:22:48 PM EST
    Maybe if our politicians weren't such slimy, sanctimonious hypocrites, they wouldn't have wasted so much time grandstanding against victimless crimes and nobody would give a sh*t about this. That, or somebody might actually have an ounce of sympathy for the terrible "predicament" they find themselves in: namely, the American public might find out where all those taxpayer-funded salaries actually go.

    Total Information Awareness for thee, but not for me?

    Parent

    This is one the relatively few types of issues (none / 0) (#10)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri May 11, 2007 at 09:17:15 AM EST
     where an interlocutory appeal is possible.

    Most rulings can only be appealed post-judgment but I think, if so inclined, she could appeal this now.

    Perceptive "take" on case inside (none / 0) (#12)
    by NoBull1 on Fri May 11, 2007 at 10:28:06 AM EST

    http://xymphora.blogspot.com/

    DC Madam Banned From Releasing More Names | 13 comments (13 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment