Another 'ho with another story to tell. Shut the hell up.

Why is it that a woman can give it away for free but can't charge for it? After all these years I still completely fail to understand this continued puritanical view our society has in this regard.

I want to know why they won't RELEASE THE NAMES ON THE LIST??????????

Let her just go free of any charge. What has she done wrong? Men and women have the right to have some fun and good time. If somebody gets a reward or a little cash gift, what is the big deal? We still live is a medieval society with retrograde ideas. Judge Kessler should find something more useful to do, and issue arrests to some politicians at the Hill and at the WH for killing thousands of innocents abroad.

Buying sex is just as illegal as selling sex.
So why isn't the government bringing charges against every person in her files?
Could it be that prominent Repubs are her clients?

Who is this pop-tart to demand anything from prosecutors? It is called black-mail. If women demand "equality" that mean "equality" in the courtroom as well. Having the cake and eating it too has run it's course, some men will make sure of that.

The real problem with the U.S. is that few people take pride in the country. I'd rather have a more puritanical society and give up a few of the more frivolous things so that everyone knows right and wrong, don't nearly get killed by kids speeding through red lights, and stop buying all the drugs which are corrupting killing our people and helping to keep citizens of latin america slaves to the drug lords.

here in germany sex workers pay taxes like any else, they pay for health insurance like anyone else and they get a pension like anyone else.
in america if the guy flipping burgers in the truck stop has to pay taxes why do you let the strippers get away with NOT paying taxes? legalize the trade and tax it you can not stop women from selling sex. its their nature since cave man times they have always traded sexual favors for-food shelter protection and status.
grow up america get real

Let Deborah free and let freedom ring!

THE SECOND OLDEST PROFESSION IS LAWYER.
IT CLOSELY RESEMBLES THE OLDEST PROFESSION.SEEMS PAMELA MARTIN HAS SENIORITY.

What is wrong with selling and buying sex?

SGA---Wouldn't equality in the court room mean trying the johns, too? P.S. Eating the cake will cost you extra.

Yeah, these charges have baffled me from the start. Conspiracy to commit what? The DOJ lawyers answered the judge at the last hearing that they don't intend to prove sex ever took place, don't intend to name even one john or bring one john as a witness, so ... where is this going?????

I saw someone somewhere make the assumption the charges are tax fraud, but nothing I've read says that's alleged. RICO requires some underlying illegal activity that's organized and interstate.

The only underlying crime I see alleged is prostitution, which the court would have to agree to just assume guilt without evidence to proceed with the RICO case. It would be crazy if the court didn't dismiss this, based on what's public so far.

Maybe the DOJ could prove prostitution if it was willing to prosecute a john, but then the whole "little black book" becomes open to public inspection ... and the chickens come home to roost, so to speak!

Remember, at the moment the court would agree prostitution took place, it establishes Palfrey's customers were all johns who committed the equal crime of prostitution or intent to commit prostitution, and they all would be part of the racketeering and conspiracy, too. If the case moved ahead, the DOJ would be obligated at some point to go after all the johns, and the black book already is public enough to see that it does. Hee hee.

If "prostitution ... is not a federal crime" how can it then be argued that "utilizing the United States mails and unnamed facilities in interstate commerce to carry on [said] business" is a federal crime?

Sounds like an exercise in the restraint of trade. Sounds like some one has a vendetta going.

Mr. Burton, go get 'em and make the government leave people alone.

The fact that a women can give it away for free, but not get paid for it is for ONE REASON ONLY. The GOVERNMENT can't charge taxes on it (sex). If there was any way they could totally control this activity, it would be legal.

I think the Republicans need to stay out of everyones bedrooms. I am getting sick and tired of the neo con party and the stupidity that runs from their mouths.

The legal loophole up until recently was that the act of prostitution in WDC was not illegal...but "soliciting" prostitution was. Therefore, the woman at the head of Pamela Martin Associates, if proven to have "marketing sexual services" would be guilty of a crime. The fact that she used male testers to screen girls really hoses her argument that this was an introduction type of service. C'mon lady. Don't insult our intelligence. At least be real here. I'd be behind her if she would just tell the truth! I hate liars. Same goes w/ the Johns in the case. If you get busted and called out...just admit it an d move on. At some point, maybe America will get wise and just legalize it all. For now...time for Miz Julia to just pay the piper.

Anyone paying for it should be punished, prostitution is crime but I don’t see the prostitutes being the problem. Releasing these names and punishing them would start to stamp out this inhuman occupation.

Sex is great! D.C. is sex capital of the US. United Sex of America, for united we have sex.

Pusedo: Just exactly what is it that makes “prostitution” an “inhuman occupation”? I could agree with you if we were talking about men in a boxing or wrestling ring – WWF style – pummelling each other to a bloody pulp while the crowd in a frenzy calls for murder and mayhem. And likewise if we were talking about the abduction of little girls as happened recently in Spain. I mean, everybody has the right to their own opinion but an act and a contract between two consenting adults?

Sarah: Why should soliciting be illegal? If selling the “product” is not illegal why should the advertising of it be so? It might make sense if it disrupts traffic as would be the case for streetwalkers but it is most “illogical” in the case of escort agencies so why harass them? And if you are prepared to suggest that complete legalization is appropriate why insist on the execution of a bad law?

From the apparently large number of posts on all of the related stories there seems to be a lot of support for some further steps in legalization. And it would probably even make a worthwhile PhD dissertation for someone to evaluate the statistics to see what “community standards” currently accepts. But on that basis, it is hard to see how the prosecution could cobble together a jury that would convict on either the [implied] prostitution charge or the consequent racketeering charge.

And that seems to make the whole process a waste of effort unless it leads to a rationalization of the related laws and to an improvement in the lives of those most affected by what a number of researchers have characterized as “the stigmatization of and the discrimination against” those in the profession.

Reply to Alan:
Dear foreign guy,
Strippers DO pay taxes, even if clubs are notorious for helping business men (term used loosley) launder money.
It's the prostitutes (hookers, street-walkers, ladies of the night) that don't pay taxes...because they CAN'T. Crack dealers don't pay taxes on their transactions either. I think both should be legal and taxed, and while we're at it, tax the land holdings of the Catholic Church. That would pay for healthcare for every American with some left over.

Reply to Mr/Mrs Hi: I'm not arguing the legitimacy of soliciting, rather, I'm stating the fact that the loophole in the DC laws up unil late was that sex for money (the act) was not illegal, however soliciting was. I'm not against prostitution. But until it is legalized this Deborah Palfrey looks to me to be a criminal. Guess we have to wait for the verdict.

I believe that what consenting adults do is their own business as long as they do not hurt others. The problem I have with it is: those making the laws against prostitution are some of the very ones who are partaking of those services. Like another previous writer, I would love to know WHY those names have not been published. Guess some of those DC partakers stopped it. I would just bet big names in DC fill that list.

Well ABC, here comes your moment of truth. If you lied about the DC madame having no "notable names" on the List, the world will find out anyway.

And you all will have lost the last shred of credibility you hoped to retain after the fiasco pre war reporting that you did.

Criminal negligence of our troops, the way you shilled for Bush without mercy. Perhaps corporate media will die out like the dinosaurs they are,unable to adapt-in this case-by telling people the truth as best they could.

Some Reflections on Judge Kessler's Ruling, Ending Prosecution's Injunction in "DC Madam" Case
Washinton D.C.--The ruling is an interesting read, albeit rife with legalisms that would make anyone outside of the legal profession's head spin. But it's fairly to-the-point: the temporary injunction barring Deborah Jeane Palfrey from distributing copies of her phone records to investigative journalists, bloggers, citizen journalists, and those like myself who do a mix of news analysis, opinion, & investigative journalism, has begun. Ms. Palfrey is going to tell her story, and nobody is going to stop it; whatever the truth is, some of it is going to begin leaking-out in the intervening months. As Palfrey has stated in a recent newsletter:

Deciphering the voluminous amount of data – some of which is well over a decade old – will not be an easy task. Frankly, this likely is understating matters. It will take a small army of people skilled in computer and phone technology, investigation as well as factual knowledge regarding the significance OR non-significance of identified persons. No one individual or entity will be able to connect all of the dots. The overall endeavor easily could take many months, if not years to research and report conscientiously.

Indeed, this is going to be a very arduous task, but a worthy one. The public trust has been violated again-and-again under this administration, and it's time to get to the bottom of things. If Congress intervened to accelerate the process--even better. In 46 lbs. of phone records, it's statistically inevitable that there are at least a dozen more prominent individuals still holding public office in them. We already know this from early-results, and ABC's producers told Palfrey of other names--names they would not make public.

A very Special thanks go to Maria Cuvillion (phonetic) and Joe Clark, the postal inspectors who walked-past the phone records several times in their search of Ms. Palfrey's home. You missed the most important evidence in the case--the evidence that could exonerate Ms. Palfrey, and maybe cage some of you abusers of our federal bureaucracy. Why they sent you, and not the FBI is hard to understand, Joe and Maria, but it worked-out OK for everyone. At the Justice Department, they have even bigger-problems besides the U.S. Attorney firings scandal--Assistant U.S. Attorneys William R. Cowden, Catherine K. Connelly, Daniel Butler, and their interim appointed boss Jeffrey A. Taylor are in for quite a ride. Judge Kessler was paying attention during the hearings:

At oral argument, the Government was asked whether the List contained the telephone numbers of unindicted co-conspirators. After a significant silence, Government counsel agreed that the answer to the Court's question was "yes." One cannot help wondering why the Government has exhibited such a strong interest in protecting a list containing the telephone numbers of unindicted co-conspirators, i.e., the women who the Government alleges provided the illegal sexual services and the men who the Government alleges sought and obtained such illegal sexual services. (US vs Palfrey, July 5th, 2007 'Memorandum Order,' pg. 7)

In short, there's no good legal reason to let the temporary injunctions on release of the phone records stand. "Unindicted co-conspirators" don't get to hide behind legalisms trotted-out by the federal prosecution, and the five "confidential informants" (really "co-operating witnesses," which fits the Government's contentions more accurately) are going to be unmasked for the purposes of the defense. This doesn't bode well for the Government's case at all. That observation of a prolonged silence in the above quotation is Judge Kessler noting her doubts in the Government's contention over the injunctions. This was just one of a number of reasons and observations given by Federal District Judge Kessler, but the observation is perhaps her way of hinting she's not buying all of the prosecution's story.

This saga of the injunctions began in mid-March, with a lot of peculiar legal maneuvering by the prosecution. The phone records themselves have been defined and redefined a number of times, which is also peculiar and resembles obstructionism. To be sure, that's the case regarding the 46 lbs. of Pamela Martin & Associates phone records that range from 1993-2006. If there are "unindicted co-conspirators" within the records, they should be revealed, correct? We have to know if Ms. Palfrey's accusers are impeachable, otherwise there's no real discovery or due process. To only indict Ms. Palfrey and nobody else would appear strange to just about any sitting judge. You can only be so credulous for so long.

The floodgates have been opened, but it's going to take a good deal of careful research on-the-part of investigative journalists and researchers. What's most important, however, is the beginning of carefully released primary documents that are essential in understanding such a twisted example of our Justice system run amok. Now--hopefully--it's time to understand how far it has gone outside-the-bounds of the rule of law (if it has, but there is smoke). Never mind Scooter Libby, this could be it. Patience is a virtue.

What's with the alias name? Actors use different names..it's part of the business and free enterprise...Even Ralph Peabody can call his burger stand Bill's Burgers and tell purchasers his name is Bill and even on TV commercials...Names used in contracts (legal) would be suspicious but stage names are stage names..seeking to victimize someone to get millions from her would be the true act of fraud here by whom ever is trying to prosecute her and one should counter sue on that...

Prostitution is against the law in an increasingly global world because of contact with disease from infected partners. In an international capital such as DC there may be visitors from countries where leprosy, syphillis, or the plague have not been eradicated. There are countries where the "kraft of witchcraft" is the only education a little girl can get and if not "educated" the rest of the girls are sold to witches to be destroyed by men. It would be a shame if witchcraft, disease and vice were allowed to infect the charming national capital of Washington.