« Previous | Main | Next »

Dismiss All Charges, D.C. Madam Argues

June 18, 2007 10:55 AM

Dismiss_all_cha_mn The D.C. Madam has asked a federal judge to dismiss all charges against her.

In a flurry of pleadings Friday, the court-appointed counsel to Deborah Jeane Palfrey argued  the government had misapplied prostitution laws, unfairly singled out his client for prosecution, and its charges against her were unconstitutionally vague.

From 1993 to August 2006, Palfrey ran a high-end escort service in the nation's capital. Pamela Martin and Associates, as the firm was known, charged a flat fee for 90-minute "dates" with women between the ages of 23 and 55, whom Palfrey termed as independent contractors.

In one of eight separate motions filed, Palfrey's lawyer Preston Burton argued to Judge Gladys Kessler that the government prosecutors were misusing local prostitution laws to justify their charges against Palfrey.

Federal prosecutors have not charged Palfrey with prostitution, which is not a federal crime, but with racketeering and conspiracy charges which assume Palfrey's business violated local laws against the sale of sex.

But whatever sexual activity took place between the women and clients of Palfrey's service was "private conduct between consenting adults" within private homes or hotel rooms, Burton wrote, and protected from unwarranted government intrusion.

In public statements about her case, Palfrey has maintained that if any of the women who were working for her had sex with the firm's clients, they did so in violation of her rules and without her knowledge.

"[E]ven assuming that the escorts breached their contractual agreement with Ms. Palfrey's business and negotiated arrangements of sexual intercourse in exchange for compensation, [that] occurred in private settings," beyond the government's right to regulate personal behavior, Burton argued.

In separate filings, Burton said Judge Kessler should dismiss the racketeering and conspiracy charges against Palfrey because they failed to include enough details of the crimes they allege.

"'[B]etween, in, or about' time periods spanning up to five years in length, Ms. Palfrey, aided and abetted by unnamed individuals, utilized the United States mails and unnamed facilities in interstate commerce to carry on a business enterprise involving prostitution offenses," Burton paraphrased the indictment against Palfrey, arguing it was too vague to allow Palfrey to defend herself.

In yet another filing requesting dismissal of the case, Burton noted the government filed its indictment against Palfrey just days after another of her lawyers had requested an independent prosecutor handle her case, citing his belief that Justice Department prosecutors were compromised because their colleagues may have used Palfrey's service.

"If the indictment was indeed sought as a response to Ms. Palfrey's petition, this action would...constitute selective prosecution," Burton argued, and justify dismissing the case.  If the judge thinks otherwise, Burton asked if the government would turn over documents showing why they chose to prosecute Palfrey.

Burton noted that "Ms. Palfrey owns and operates merely one of hundreds of escort services operating within the District of Columbia." Palfrey has said she shut down the business in August 2006, two months before she says she learned of the federal investigation into her operation.

In still another filing, Burton requested the government reform its use of so-called aliases when referring to Palfrey. The indictment against Palfrey "suggests falsely the use of criminal aliases," he wrote, by referring to his client as "'Deborah Jeane Palfrey,'...also known as 'Jeane Palfrey,' also known as 'Julia,' also known as 'Pamela Martin.'"

"'Jeane Palfrey' is simply the use of a middle name from Ms. Palfrey's given name," argued Burton. "'Julia' was simply a nickname that Ms. Palfrey used as part of her escort service... 'Pamela Martin' was the name of Ms. Palfrey's escort service and not a nickname or alias of any kind."

The U.S. Attorney's office for the District of Columbia, which is prosecuting Palfrey, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Do you have a tip for Brian Ross and the Investigative Team?

June 18, 2007 in D.C. Madam Affair | Permalink | User Comments (28)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

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

Posted by: Battleship | Jun 18, 2007 11:53:32 AM

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.

Posted by: Ronald | Jun 18, 2007 12:27:50 PM

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

Posted by: artist22 | Jun 18, 2007 12:50:16 PM

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.

Posted by: evcj | Jun 18, 2007 1:08:57 PM

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?

Posted by: azureblue | Jun 18, 2007 1:58:21 PM

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.

Posted by: SGA | Jun 18, 2007 2:00:48 PM

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.

Posted by: blue guy | Jun 18, 2007 2:34:26 PM

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

Posted by: alan | Jun 18, 2007 2:39:41 PM

Let Deborah free and let freedom ring!

Posted by: Pam | Jun 18, 2007 3:08:56 PM

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

Posted by: PAT | Jun 18, 2007 3:46:54 PM

What is wrong with selling and buying sex?

Posted by: James Goldman | Jun 18, 2007 4:56:26 PM

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

Posted by: Dale | Jun 18, 2007 8:44:07 PM

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.

Posted by: anonymous | Jun 19, 2007 12:28:54 AM

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.

Posted by: Jim | Jun 19, 2007 1:06:25 AM

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

Posted by: Rsmith | Jun 19, 2007 10:55:18 AM

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.

Posted by: artist22 | Jun 19, 2007 12:41:57 PM

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.

Posted by: ant | Jun 19, 2007 2:47:27 PM

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.

Posted by: Sarah | Jun 19, 2007 8:29:42 PM

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.

Posted by: pusedo | Jun 20, 2007 12:57:34 AM

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

Posted by: hi | Jun 22, 2007 4:46:56 AM

Post a comment