'The D.C. Madam'

[CommunityEditor]

From the article --


A Naval Academy instructor worked as an “independent contractor” for an alleged Washington, D.C.-area madam, according to the defense lawyer for the escort service’s owner.

In an e-mail exchange Wednesday, Montgomery Sibley, a lawyer retained by Deborah Jeane Palfrey after she fired her court-appointed public defender, confirmed the information. He would not offer any other details. It’s unclear whether the instructor in question was a uniformed officer or civilian, and in what capacity she allegedly worked for Palfrey.

Prosecutors say Palfrey ran Pamela Martin and Associates, an escort service that sent college-educated women to work as prostitutes in upscale Washington-area neighborhoods, by telephone from her Northern California home for more than 12 years.

A Naval Academy spokeswoman Wednesday said Academy officials had no knowledge of a current instructor being connected with the case and referred calls about Sibley’s statement to the Navy’s public affairs office at the Pentagon.

Cmdr. Jeff Davis, a Navy spokesman at the Pentagon, said officials there have no knowledge of any Navy officials being contacted about a Navy officer working as an independent contractor for Palfrey.

Palfrey, 50, was indicted in March by a Washington grand jury on racketeering and money-laundering charges relating to the escort service.

More: http://www.militarytimes.com/news/20...mcase_070502w/

Palfrey is certainly calculating the "outing" of people. She's playing a game of "oh I don't want anyone hurt". BULL... hey dipdork...you're COURT ORDERED not to intimidate witnesses and THAT'S why you aren't naming this woman. That is the ONLY reason. Otherwise, you've pretty much already outed her haven't you? I don't understand how this is allowed to occur when the customers and escorts are potential witnesses to a federal case? Where is the judge's discretion? Apparently he/she has no discretion. Idiots. Another national embarrassment.

Here we go again.. another prostitution ring and everyone wants to blame the woman. what about these politicians spending our hard earned tax money on this?? Remember these hollywood "untouchables" who didn't want their names mentioned with heide fleiss?? Sorry corrupt politicians, I hope this ruins your families and your careers.

The getting is ALWAYS good until you get CAUGHT!! Exit stage left and have a nice life!

This is the funniest case I've ever heard about. Palfrey is genious. She basically is saying drop my charges and I won't expose 5000 gov't officials who are using my services. Talk about blackmail. Simply political genious.

I don't see how anything that this woman has done and is doing can possibly be conveyed as honorable or intelligent. She and her lawyer's current tack amounts to blackmail--pure and simple. That she would try to hold the federal government's foot to the fire is only indicative of her lack of judgement. How the hell can she expect to extort concessions out of the FBI by embarrassing a bunch of policiticians and servicemembers who have nothing to do with the fact she is being prosecuted. It's really disgusting, actually.

I'll be upfront in saying that I consider prostitution [very] morally wrong. That doesn't mean that I don't know many decent guys who occassionally let their hormones do the thinking. Since the beginning of time men have used the services of prostitutes. I wish it wasn't so, but apparently men have a much greater demand for sex than women are willing to supply. I'm not liberal, but there's nothing terribly complicated about that. I honestly wish there were programs in place that prevented women from feeling the need to become prostitutes, but I don't think either they or their patrons ought to have their lives destroyed for human weakness. The pimps and the madams who live off their misery and their customers folly should be the ones held most accountable and the ones prosecuted by the law. I don't see how this woman feels justified in dragging a bunch of people down who have nothing to do with her current plight, but I do hope they slap additional charges on her for her lack of decency.

I feel a lot of embarassment coming on. I hope like hell that those female sailors who were involved are out of the Navy--for their sakes (reprisal could be harsh) and ours (I don't think that a woman who sells her body should be here).

Regards

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Palfrey is certainly calculating the "outing" of people. She's playing a game of "oh I don't want anyone hurt". BULL... hey dipdork...you're COURT ORDERED not to intimidate witnesses and THAT'S why you aren't naming this woman. That is the ONLY reason. Otherwise, you've pretty much already outed her haven't you? I don't understand how this is allowed to occur when the customers and escorts are potential witnesses to a federal case? Where is the judge's discretion? Apparently he/she has no discretion. Idiots. Another national embarrassment.

And you thought Clinton was up to no good because of Monica? He was and is a NUN compared to the bunch of this administration. Where is Gonzalez now?

Originally Posted by activedutyofficer

I don't see how anything that this woman has done and is doing can possibly be conveyed as honorable or intelligent. She and her lawyer's current tack amounts to blackmail--pure and simple. That she would try to hold the federal government's foot to the fire is only indicative of her lack of judgement. How the hell can she expect to extort concessions out of the FBI by embarrassing a bunch of policiticians and servicemembers who have nothing to do with the fact she is being prosecuted. It's really disgusting, actually.

I'll be upfront in saying that I consider prostitution [very] morally wrong. That doesn't mean that I don't know many decent guys who occassionally let their hormones do the thinking. Since the beginning of time men have used the services of prostitutes. I wish it wasn't so, but apparently men have a much greater demand for sex than women are willing to supply. I'm not liberal, but there's nothing terribly complicated about that. I honestly wish there were programs in place that prevented women from feeling the need to become prostitutes, but I don't think either they or their patrons ought to have their lives destroyed for human weakness. The pimps and the madams who live off their misery and their customers folly should be the ones held most accountable and the ones prosecuted by the law. I don't see how this woman feels justified in dragging a bunch of people down who have nothing to do with her current plight, but I do hope they slap additional charges on her for her lack of decency.

I feel a lot of embarassment coming on. I hope like hell that those female sailors who were involved are out of the Navy--for their sakes (reprisal could be harsh) and ours (I don't think that a woman who sells her body should be here).

Regards

How can she extort the FBI? Because the FBI will allow it, pressured by the Government, i n order not to let the public know the corruption in Washington DC. While they denounce immorality, especially the right Christians nuts, they enjoy what it's considered to be immoral by them.

To active duty officer: Liberal has nothing to do with any of this. I'm moderate to liberal but don't think prostitution is an acceptable career path; nor is being a "john."

But, I'm curious as to why it's okay for men to seek out illegal services when they want "more sex than women are willing to supply."

There are men who aren't willing, too, but that doesn't mean their wives seek a gigolo, or a male prostitute, or the bagboy at the grocery store.

My mother always said, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Prostitution is not a one-way crime; if the women are indicted, so should the men be.

As for the military, it's always been "don't ask, don't tell" about men going to see prostitutes. I've never heard of a member of Congress trying to preach abstinence to the troops!

-- A Navy Wife

Navy wife,

I definitely understand where you're coming from. You're right that liberal and conservative don't have a whole lot to do with it. I know "conservatives" and libertarians who take a "boys will be boys" approach to at least the patron side of things--especially among young, single men who don't have time to start meaningful relationships. I'm a little guilty of this attitude myself. I also know liberals (feminists as well as just plain liberals) who take the principled stand that prostitution fundamentally relies upon someone else's misfortune--possibly drug addiction in this country or even trafficking and exploitation abroad. I frankly can't argue with the logic that it's wrong. I still don't believe that the women caught up in this lifestyle should be prosecuted and I honestly don't believe that most guys who patronize or have patronized a prostitute are necessarily deviant and dangerous. Like I said, I know a lot of normal, functional, successful guys who just like the idea of being with women that they don't have to owe any type of commitment to. Immature? Yes. Selfish? Yes. Does it make them the scum of the earth? I don't think so. Now I do take a different tack if the guys are married, but infidelity is a whole other can of worms.

On to your second point. Everything that I mentioned above explains why I feel that it should be a more forgivable offense for military men (unmarried) to patronize prostitutes than for military women to be prostitutes. It is, I belive, an intuitive fact that there is a huge qualitative difference between using the services of a prostitute and being a prostitute. That is, one's willingness to sell one's body for money (profit) implies an entirely different set of circumstances and attitudes than one's willingness to pay a relatively small amount of money to get a physiological need met. They are bot still morally wrong, but the fact remains that a guy can work 9-5, do his job, pay his taxes, hang out with his friends, and attend to any other obligations that he has while occassionally getting some on the sly. Belive me, half the guys you know and think of as upstanding guys have done this (especially in the Navy and Marine Corps). A woman who sleeps with men for money is honestly an entirely different matter. It signals either a desperation for survival (or drugs or whatever) or a complete disregard for one's one worth in the pursuit of a little bit of money. Simply stated, the desire for sex for young men (and dirty old men) is extremely strong, and (frankly) natural. Knowing some of the lengths that I and my friends have gone to in order to hook up (I'm still only 25)
--lying about jobs, promising things, living in bs relationships, blah, blah, blah...prostitution isn't that much of a moral stretch for some guys. Don't get me wrong, many of us won't do it either out of pride, or safety, or pity. But it's not like guys don't take advantage of girls (and/or buy them things) in order to get sex in a non-proprietary sense. Ask those same guys if they'd be willing to have sex for money and they'd all tell you Hell no. It's just different. I should point out that I think that if a guy was willing to act as a prostitute (for a man or woman) I wouldn't think that he was acceptable for service either. The fact is, though, that there is a double standard based largely on the genetic reality that men have a higher sex drive than women. ANy woman willing to go this far probably has soome real problems. I don't think that's necessarily so in the case of men who are willing to pay for sex when it is otherwise unavailable to them

Regards.

A couple of more things:
being a "John" isn't a career path. There are some freaks out there, but for 9/10 "Johns" it's an occassional peccadillo. For a prostitute it's often a 24/7 job.

And the FBI won't be "extorted" because (A) this isn't Hoover's FBI maneurving around the power-politics of Washington. The FBI has helped to bring down a VP (Spiro Agnew) a President (Nixon), and more congressmen between 1980 and now than you can count on all your fingers and toes. (Look up Bob Ney, Duke Cunningham, William Jefferson (he'll be going down soon enough), Governor Edwin Edwards, etc.)) Trust me. I know agents and US marshalls. They aren't impressed by Congressmen's antics. The second (B) reason that the justice department won't fold is because they've been publicly called out. It would be one thing if this idiot and her idiot lawyer had made the deal behind closed doors. But how likely is it that you would back down if someone gave ou a frickin ultimatum in public. Talk about a lack of "touch".

We'll see how this pans out. I don't see any good coming of it, though.

Regards