BRIAN ROSS REPORTS
- Like Jay-Z + the Beatles, But Worse
- Update: Help for Homeless Children
- Bush Era, Revised -- and with More Barbeque
- The Tax Woman Cometh
- Paging Mr. Stanford: Antigua Called
- Who Are You Calling Partisan?
- Update: IRS Won't Use Private Debt Collectors
- But Is It Art?
- PMA Scandal a Sore Point for Dems in 2010?
- Down in Flames
- A New Mystery for RNC Chief
- PMA Clients Were Big Givers
- Raided Lobby Firm Still a Force on Capitol Hill
- Stanford Update: Another $143 Mil Found
- Cheney, Hooked on Controversy
TOP BLOTTER CATEGORIES
- Abramoff Lobbying Scandal
- American Al Qaeda
- Avian Flu
- Beirut Hospital Out of Gas
- Cheney
- CIA
- CIA Secret Prisons
- D.C. Madam Affair
- FBI
- Federal Air Marshal Service
- Homeland Security
- Hurricane Katrina
- IRS
- Mark Foley Internet Scandal
- Millionaire Sex Scandal
- Nigerian E-mail Scams
- Norman Hsu, Clinton Fundraiser
- NSA: Wiretapping
- Osama bin Laden
- Payola
- Pharmacy Investigation
- PMA
- Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
- Stanford
- Steele
- Terror
- Troopergate
- U.K. Airline Terror Plot
- U.K. Bombing Attempts
- Wen Ho Lee
- William Jefferson
- Zarqawi
« Previous | Main | Next »
'D.C. Madam' Speaks with ABC News
Email
Print
ShareApril 09, 2007 4:42 PM
Alleged "D.C. Madam" Deborah Jeane Palfrey has given an exclusive interview to ABC News.
ABC News investigative correspondent Brian Ross recently interviewed Palfrey, who for over a decade operated what she terms an "erotic fantasy service" in the metropolitan Washington, D.C. area, for an upcoming investigative report on "20/20" and on "The Blotter" on ABC News.com.
Last October, federal prosecutors charged Palfrey with racketeering offenses in connection with the business, which she contends was a legal operation. From 1993 to August 2006, Palfrey ran a high-end escort service in the nation's capital, charging a flat fee for 90-minute "dates" with women between the ages of 23 and 55 whom she termed independent contractors.
Click Here for Full Blotter Coverage.
The women signed contracts agreeing not to engage in illegal activity, including having sex for money, Palfrey says, and were given guidelines on the difference between legal and illegal sexual behavior. At least one woman, Dr. Paula Neble, is known to have told federal prosecutors that she had sex for money while working for Palfrey. Palfrey is suing her for breach of contract.
Palfrey has claimed that her service's clients were "upscale" and "came from the more refined walks of life." In March, she made headlines by briefly offering to sell the phone records of her company, Pamela Martin and Associates, to the highest bidder. She withdrew the offer after a federal judge ruled the government could confiscate any proceeds. Shortly thereafter, Palfrey consented to be interviewed by ABC.
The network did not compensate Palfrey in any way for her interview or cooperation with Ross' 20/20 investigative report. "There was no consideration given or promised for Jean's cooperation with the story," said lawyer Montgomery Blair Sibley, who represents Palfrey in her effort to reclaim money and property seized by the government.
Palfrey recently dismissed the federal public defender representing her in the criminal case against her. She has asked the government to return $500,000 in her assets so she can pay for a new criminal lawyer; given that the government has unlimited resources with which to prosecute her, she has reasoned, the amount would be "fair play and due process."
This post has been revised.
April 9, 2007 in D.C. Madam Affair | Permalink | User Comments (88)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
What did they do...
and to whom did they do it...?
Posted by: seamangate | Apr 9, 2007 5:08:17 PM
More gov't control. Isn't that what we all need. This is just another stark example of bureaucracy run amok. She must have ticked off one of the crooked politicians that run this country, who then set out to destroy her business of which he was a client. Of course no politicians want the records released, it would probably destroy both parties. I may not agree with her or the "business" she ran, but I'll defend her rights against the federal government.
Posted by: ado | Apr 9, 2007 5:16:54 PM
Justin, specifically what did Deborah do that warranted racketeering charges? Was it the threat of selling her phone records to the highest bidder?
Posted by: Jazz | Apr 9, 2007 5:19:08 PM
Go get'em girl!
Posted by: e | Apr 9, 2007 5:19:15 PM
She is being railroaded. We will see, in short order, that the government will flat out refuse to give her the money she wants to mount an adequate defense. There is no fairness when dealing with the government, particularly when you are someone who knows where various power brokers have skeletons hidden.
There can be no doubt that Palfrey is one of these people, and if I were her, I would absolutely go out of my way to destroy whomever she can before she is locked away forever... (unlike child predators who will be out in 3-5)
Posted by: Steve Scheetz | Apr 9, 2007 5:29:05 PM
Who cares really? Seems like a major [non]top story here. Lets waste our time and brain space on news tht matters to the major population.
Posted by: KitKat | Apr 9, 2007 5:30:56 PM
It looks like she'll do anything for money. I sure hope that ABC didnt pay out for that story.
Posted by: Marie | Apr 9, 2007 6:20:09 PM
I'll bet there are more than a few DC politians sweating over this one. Does she have a legal defense fund where I can send $$$$$???? Inquiring minds DO want to know who these "clients" were......
Posted by: Chukkal | Apr 9, 2007 6:21:16 PM
According to the article: "She has asked the government to return $500,000 in her assets so she can pay for a new criminal lawyer; given that the government has unlimited resources with which to prosecute her, she has reasoned, the amount would be 'fair play and due process.'
Isn't it better to say that the amount would be "foreplay and due process."
Posted by: Lou Voren | Apr 9, 2007 6:25:35 PM
I want to know who used her escort and sexual service, however I am afraid we will hear about all the Republicans and not the Democrats with ABC reporting.
Posted by: Rita Nelson | Apr 9, 2007 6:35:39 PM
would just love to see those records. can only guess who's on it. probably reads like the who's who in washington.
Posted by: steve | Apr 9, 2007 7:01:29 PM
I would bet that some of the elite in D.C. may be sitting on pins and needles if the info. hits the paper. Just goes to show what free interprise is all about. I do not condone her choice of lifestyle, she does seem to appear to have some big fish by: hook, line, and sinker!
Posted by: jnsmith | Apr 9, 2007 7:07:17 PM
I hope the records get "leaked." The gov't is to big for its own britches and people need to see the people that are running the country for what that really are. That means boths sides!
Hey they "leak" stuff that want us to know all the time why can't the records be leaked also?
Posted by: YouWish | Apr 9, 2007 7:24:52 PM
why can't this list be leaked. you can be sure someone has copies
Posted by: sallyblevins | Apr 9, 2007 7:39:13 PM
Just another example of a "crime" where there are no victims... no one killed, no one hurt, no one losing money, no one failing to pay taxes. This is all about religious people upset that some people are having more fun than they are.
Posted by: morgan | Apr 9, 2007 8:27:20 PM
I wonder if the number of congressmen and TV/radio talk show hosts taking advantage of these 'services' will be in the dozens, or the hundreds. I doubt it will be less than double figures. Hopefully this will clean out the rest of the government that is corrupt by forcing various resignations and allowing some honest people to run the country for once.
Posted by: IWonder | Apr 9, 2007 8:44:23 PM
Wouldn't it be funny if the person who dropped a dime on Madame Palfrey was Jack Abramoff? Or maybe it's Bob Beckel... he certainly has the history....
Posted by: MediaLizzy | Apr 9, 2007 8:58:50 PM
So that's it? This is the whole story? You interviewed her yesterday and all you got was a recap of what is already known from previous news articles?
Posted by: Eric | Apr 9, 2007 9:11:58 PM
I find this ridiculous. This seems like a hunting expedition. They better be careful what they ask for because it is very possible that there are congressmen, presidents/staff that could have been involved with this company. As a country we don't need another distraction from the REAL issues. Get back to work.
Posted by: Jess | Apr 9, 2007 9:21:22 PM
My guess is there is a judge with love stains on his robe. Shame on him for helping protect the list of phone numbers. Too bad she didn't release them, it would take people's mind off the stupid election
Posted by: Jim Ballantyne | Apr 9, 2007 9:24:29 PM
Post a comment
