Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the "D.C. Madam"


The good legal briefs, the terrible defense at trial and the Tragic Suicide
A history lesson as to waste of resources and lives over in private consenting adult sexwork
Outcall as in her service - legal in almost all the world except the U.S.

My various reports including ideas for good defenses that could have been used, with most recent first.
My Purpose is to share ideas on legitimate defenses to suggest to attorneys or anyone else in Court on these issues.

May 1, 2008 The Tragic Ending
Jeane Palfrey hangs herself on mother's property in Tampa, Suicide notes were found near the body, police say. Palfrey's 76-year-old mother, Blanche Palfrey, found her daughter hanged using a nylon rope from a metal beam on the ceiling of a storage shed outside her home,

One of Palfery's escort service employees was former University of Maryland, Baltimore County, professor Brandy Britton, who was arrested on prostitution charges in 2006. She committed suicide in January before she was scheduled to go to trial.

These deaths are so pointless resulting from victimless crimes against only the morality of certain religious groups that want to control our lives.

Best Article Yet in my view:

High price, little payoff in D.C. prostitution case
The sex may have been victimless, but not the prosecution.
05/05/2008 by Tom Teepan Cox newspapers Atlanta
THE recent conviction of the so-called D.C. madam has now cost two lives. The sex may have been victimless, but not the prosecution.

Was this case necessary? Or even called for? Apparently yes, in a Justice Department that in recent years has often seemed to be acting more like local vice cops than the nation's premier public law firm. Remember? The FBI had a dozen or so agents investigating a prostitution operation in New Orleans at the same time it was missing clamorous clues to the imminent 9/11. Finding hookers in New Orleans is about as tough as finding spots on a Dalmatian, and about as pointless.

And just recently the department had put loads of time and resources into investigating another sex operation, which was turning out to be small-fry stuff until big-fish Eliot Spitzer swam into the net and saved the day with redeeming notoriety.

In neither of those headline affairs was coercion, the mob, drug trafficking or any real criminality found. Ditto with the call-girl business run in Washington by Deborah Jeane Palfrey. All were cases of willing sellers, willing buyers. (Willing? Eager!)

Yet Palfrey hanged herself, at 52, last Thursday rather than face years in prison. In that, she followed a former University of Maryland professor who, at 48, had been caught up in the same case and hanged herself as her prostitution trial was about to begin last year.

When the case first broke, it promised an explosion of sensational revelations. Chops were licked. Palfrey's records pointed to maybe hundreds of high-level Washington types - politicians, government officials and even the truly powerful people: lobbyists. A few were shaken out - U.S. Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana; Harlan Ullman, a think-tank foreign policy heavyweight and a key designer of the Iraq War's "shock and awe"; the deputy secretary of state, Randall Tobias, who headed the Bush administration's anti-AIDS project, which emphasizes - wouldn't you know it? - abstinence.

But neither they nor any of Palfrey's other escort-service clients were called to testify and the names of nearly all were kept sanitized from public exposure. Instead, the prosecution forced 13 women to the stand, most of them part-timers and often years out of the game: a 63-year-old retired PhD; a mother of three, who had worked briefly when she was young; a promising U.S. Navy officer, now shipwrecked.

They were compelled to give detailed testimony about exactly how they produced clients' orgasms and how they managed their menstrual periods and sex. One prosecutor's questions became so voyeuristic and harrying that he was cut off by the judge, who at one point wondered, "Is there no end to the collateral damage?"

The D.C. madam case fell far short of its name-dropping promises, at its end notable mainly for a prosecution of dubious contribution to the commonweal and of uncommon prurience, with, as usual, women bearing, in exposure, embarrassment and criminal liability, by far the brunt of the burden.

The case did finally produce one truly lurid obscenity: At a news conference, the Justice Department announced its condolences to Blanche Palfrey, the D.C. madam's 76-year-old mother.

Death of a Madam
May 3rd, 2008
"I am not going back to prison. I will commit suicide first."
Deborah Jeane Palfrey made that vow last year, a friend told the Associated Press. Today she reportedly took her own life, just two weeks after a guilty verdict on charges of running a prostitution ring.
Source: Long article on history of her at http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2008/05/03/death-of-a-madam/
This quote has also been reported by other media

Another good article is in Time:

D.C. Madam: Suicide Before Prison at

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1736687,00.html?imw=Y

Summary from earlier reports
As I have extensively reported on, I had been in e-mail discussion with her civil attorney Palfrey lawyer Montgomery Blair Sibley. I read some of his motions which were excellent including using Lawrence vs. Texas (see my articles at http://www.sexwork.com/legal/Lawrence_Index.html ) But her criminal attorney, Preston Burton at trial had in my view, a terribly lacking defense.

At trial her only defense was that she didn't know sex was going on with her escorts. I had suggested an aggressive defense using both Lawrence vs. Texas and the fact that clients only paid for time not for sex and whatever happened during time in private with consenting adults with no money exchanged for sex, was not a crime.

I had discussed with prior lawyer what resulted in my article:
Paying for Time: "Legal Even Though Sexual Conduct is Likely to Occur?"
Is it similar to how Restaurants avoid Liquor License laws?
At http://www.sexwork.com/legal/TimeNotSex.html

The trial was a total disaster with only the "she didn't know" defense used which prior escorts easily proved wrong and the defense rested from what I have read with no other defense. It was a slam dunk guilty verdict by the jury.

She was found guilty April 15 of money laundering, racketeering and mail fraud and faced a maximum 55-year prison term at her sentencing, which was scheduled for July 24.

Consolidation of my many reports follows with most recent first.
A lot of reading but a serious issue. Hopefully some of the ideas might be useful in a future case

April 27, 2008 - D.C. Madam follow up From Dave's e-mail
You can't do that without a guilty verdict on prostitution as they failed to prove that anything illegal was going on. She should win on appeal because she did not break the law that was needed to make racketeering a crime. There has to be a racket (illegal activity going on to be racketeering) Same with the other counts. She has to be guilty of a fifth count to make the other four counts valid. This is partly good news for us and the Empire Club people as I am sure Murry Richmond will pounch on this for his client.

Here is a case where a jury had no idea what the law was and probably the Judge's inxtructions to that jury were not clear and may have been rigged.

Dave notes: I am not sure that a jury had to find her guilty of the "racket" before convicting of racketeering. They may have been convinced especially from all the escorts damaging testimony that it was prostitution. Not even sure if she was even being charged with "promoting prostitution". Just the related crimes, although I haven't had time to go back and look at the case in detail.

Yes it seems odd you can be convicted of racketeering without being convicted of the "racket"....yet I doubt this loophole if true would have gotten by smart prosecuting attorneys and the judge - it seems quite basis. Sadly I think the conviction will stand since there was almost no good defense and very convicting testimony by the escorts.

Response on Money for sex vs. time issue:
Mr. Burton (her lawyer) failed to get control of the trial and things that turned out against him should not have bothered him at all if his preparation had been correct. I read his motions and they were pretty good but his performance on his feet did not live up to his writings.

In his opening argument Mr. Burton needed to establish that as long as everyone is over 18 years of age or an adult the they can have sexual conduct with each other legally as long as it is consensual and as long as no money paid for the sexual conduct. The prosecution has to prove that sexual conduct was paid for by establishing the price for sexual intercourse or a blow job or any other conducts that are on the list of prohibited activities for money. This would put the prosecutors in a hole as the best they can do is claim that the money paid for an hour of sexual conduct. Now the argument centers around if $275 dollars were paid for the hour how much was paid for the sexual conduct? What portion or all of the fee was paid for a blow job but if all of the fee paid for a blow job then did anything pay for the time? What was the amount for each sexual conduct if you did a blow job and had sexual intercourse was extra money charge to the customer or was the money split between a blow job and intercourse?

The every prosecution witness gets the cross examination. Were you a minor when you went to work as an escort. "NO." Then you were and adult? "Yes" Adults can have sexual conduct with each other as long as it is consensual , correct? "Yes." You were paid for the hour that you were with the customer? "Yes." How much of that money was paid for a blow job? "Ha?" Were you paid for an hour of time or for the blow job which would be illegal? "No I was paid for the hour of time." Did you collect any extra money for sexual acts? "No." So everything you did was legal? "Yes." Next witness.

I need to examine the transcript of the case to determine the route of the appeal. What I read in the press is a joke. The prosecutor said that when somebody pays $275 for an hour they expect sexual conduct. That condemns all Escort Services the majority of which charge more than $275. Spitzer paid over $1000 per hour. The Prosecutor was giving his opinion not founded in fact and should have been countered immediately by Mr. Burton. Opinion has no place in a criminal court and the jury is very guilty of being a collection of incompetent ignoramouses unqualified to render any verdict at all.

Dave replies:
The money for sex or time issue as far as I know has never been argued in a Court in the way we would suggest. Most juries I believe would convict on the expectation of sex for the money paid for time. But that would be a nice issue to appeal on. Unfortunately in the D.C. Madam case the main defense was only that she had no idea sex was going on, and the escort witnesses blew a big hole in that argument.

From Dave's E-mail and my views on efforts to change laws
Dear Dave:
I live in southeast Texas. I am planning my first trip to Sheri's in Palrump, any tips? Anyway I am between girlfriends or as headcases as I call them, I am just wanting to get laid, with no emotional baggage. The legalization of safe( tested for STDs) prostitution would be good for society, less rapes, domestic abuse, etc. I know I am preaching to the choir on this. How can we bring some free market capitalism to the United States?

Dave comments, No tips on Palrump, I don't like the Nevada model vs. most or the world where gals control their own businesses and costs are far lower without the pimp houses of Nevada. Tests for STD's in my view as a government controlled requirement is totally unwarranted. No STD issues with millions of independent private escorts worldwide where no testing is needed. Rates of STD's probably far lower than in the general population. I'm only addressing private sexworkers not street hookers where the STD, HIV risks are real since often using drug needles etc.

I agree if we were like most of the world where private prostitution is legal, it is a big benefit for society since safe sex from professionals can help lowliness, sexual frustration and desperation which can lead to sexual harassment, abuse and even rape which in some cases is out of sexual frustration not control issues.

I believe are only hope is either public outcry over wasted police resources going after private consenting adults or a case to challenge the law based on the Lawrence vs. Texas case where the Court made it clear that morality was no basis for laws and upheld the rights of consenting adult sexuality in private.

However, the only major organized group trying to make the issue public is SWOP, is failures will continue since they insist on the right of street hookers to be a public nuisance and this destroys any chance of progress as evidenced in the Berkeley referendum that would most likely have been successful if was just about private sexwork not street hookers.

And we now have a more conservative "Bush" Supreme Court so we don't know if the Lawrence vs Texas case would have to same positive result.

The only organization that has the right idea that I know of (outside of Hawaii unorganized group) is Citizens 4 Privacy in California http://www.californians4privacy.us Those in C4P who have considerable experience working with the California Legislature but believe that including street prostitution in a decriminalization bill is the death knell for the entire bill. C4P's statewide polling ( http://www.californians4privacy.us/poll.html ) reflects the same thing. As "Counsel" of C4P says, "The public is not opposed to decriminalizing that which goes on behind closed doors out of the public view. They are very opposed to having their faces rubbed in it, which is the impact caused by street prostitution and its attendant problems (drugs, pimps in the street, local residents' teenage daughters being harassed by guys on the cruise, etc.). But they also get very little widespread support and only have a handful of dedicated folks fighting for sexual freedoms.

SWOP's vision got tested, and crushed, even in the People's Republic of Berkeley in the Measure Q debacle, precisely because the city fathers and mothers were able to paint a picture of Berkeley becoming a magnet for street prostitutes The poll said we more or less have the public with us (over 50% in every region of the state) on the privately conducted prostitution issue.

SWOP's position has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding in a statewide effort not confined to the liberal bastions of San Francisco and Berkeley (where it has already shown it couldn't even muster 40% of the vote)."

I have set up a domains AZCITIZENS4PRIVACY.COM and CITIZENS4PRIVACY.COM for either a similar organization in AZ and nationwide. But don't have the time nor financial ability to do much at this point. Also the citizens referendum way while very expensive may be the only way to change the laws since with the power of the religious right lobby, probably any state representatives would never dare introduce or support a decriminalization of private sexwork measure.

What it takes is far more active participation from many folks upset we lack the in private adult sexual freedoms most of the rest of the world enjoys. We need lots of folks to shine their small light and contact legislatures etc to at least open up the issue. If many shine their small light on the issue, together we can blaze like the sun!

We need a uniform grass roots organization such as I've proposed many times to fight to bring about change in the U.S. But the industry is so divided I have basically given up and don't have the time nor financial resources to fight the battle - thus I enjoy Canada where they have the sexual freedoms we are denied. You have SWOP which is by far the best organized but totally doomed to failure as have all their good efforts by insisting on the right of street hookers to be a public nuisance.

I've been fighting the battle almost alone for decades, speaking before the City Council in Phoenix when they outlawed swing clubs and made strip clubs just gawk at women clubs - get guys excited but no real human contact allowed which in the sick view of religious right who were behind the changes that it makes neighborhoods and children safer. I've been on radio talks shows, done petition drives, set up the Decriminalize Private Adult Sexwork Coalition at http://www.sexwork.com/coalition as well as previously mentioned AZCITIZENS4PRIVACY.COM and CITIZENS4PRIVACY.COM but with limited support have basically given up.

As I get old, I need to try and find the right female real companionship and struggle to get ahead financially since I am far behind where I should be if I have to retire or get too old to be effective :(

IF I was financially well off I would do far more but I simply have to spend more time earning a living not fighting for our freedoms. Sadly I don't see anyone or group with ideas, motivation and funds to fight the battle on the larger nationwide level it would take to make changes.

April 20, 2008 - The DC Madam Palfrey Guilty Verdict
A federal jury found so-called "D.C. Madam" Deborah Jeane Palfrey guilty on four felony counts for her involvement in running a prostitution business in the nation's capital. Palfrey, 52, was found guilty on racketeering and money laundering charges for her Palfrey's Pamela Martin & Associates escort service, which she claimed provided a legal "sexual fantasy service" to clients in the Washington-area between 1993 and 2006.

After deliberating for less than a day, the jury rejected Palfrey's defense that she was unaware of any sexual activities between escort and client. Palfrey could face up to 55 years in prison when she is sentenced on July 24.

Dave notes: I was amazed that Palfrey's attorney called no defense witnesses. I had correspondence with her prior attorney who even filed a motion to dismiss based on the Lawrence vs Texas case. The judge reviewed it with interest but wasn't strong enough for a Summary Judgment based on it which was not unexpected. But if raised at trial could be grounds for appeal.

But it seems the new attorney simply caved. The only cross examination of the many former workers was about if she knew sex was expected. Most said yes and it was a slam duck guilty verdict in less than 8 hours.

While I'm not a lawyer it seems she didn't even leave a firm foundation for appeal by not bring up a defense such as fees were only for time not for sex, or the Constitutional issues of Lawrence vs Texas.

The time vs sex money was raised but Palfrey was hung by her own newsletter-perfect example of what not to do:

As part of its closing argument, prosecutors displayed a copy of a newsletter Palfrey had sent to her escorts. Assistant U.S. Attorney Catherine Connolly referred to the newsletter, citing the following sentence: "The client is paying for the 'activity,' not the 90 minutes itself."

In the defense's closing argument, Palfrey's attorney Preston Burton said the decision to have sex was between the escort and the customer. Burton acknowledged that some of the escorts did have sex, but Palfrey remained unaware. When you have consenting adults in a private room, things can happen," Burton said.

When a man agrees to pay $250 for 90 minutes with a woman, what do most men expect in that time?" prosecutor Daniel Butler said during closing arguments Monday. "In that context, it's pretty clear. Most men want sex."

None of the former escorts has said Palfrey specifically said sex was part of an escort's job description, although some have testified Palfrey knew they were having sex with clients. "It was a pretty clever system," Butler said. "She gave herself plausible deniability."

If it weren't for the newsletter my argument would have been does any advertisement talk about $250 for sex or for an hour of time? Did anyone tell you you were paying for sex? etc. Activity is not sexual conduct and there was no mention of charging extra for extra activities. Then it becomes an activity of companionship and as a companion you need to keep the customer happy and as long as you do not charge for sexual conduct go ahead and have fun.. The prosecutor was unable to identify any specific case where an amount of money was paid for a sex act.

The result regarding "expectation of sex" may have still been the result but as I've argued before presented right it could sway a jury especially if she didn't say that in her newsletter which in her case made the argument far less credible.

Here are some defense question ideas: "When you were behind closed doors you had sexual intercourse many times?" Yes. "How much did you charge for the intercourse? "I was paid $250 for an hour. "Yes, but what money was paid directly for the intercourse and did you charge a different price for oral sex?" "No I only collected the 250 for an hour there. "There was no extra price for the blow job?" No, just the 250. The law says that money has to pay for sexual conduct in order for it to be prostitution so if you had sexual conduct but did not collect a fee for it wasn't that legal sex? You have to have both sexual conduct and money for it to be illegal but you are saying that one part is missing. Correct? "So no prostitution was involved? "You admit that you had sex but say it was not paid for so it was consensual and for free. No law was broken, correct?"

In the opening statement the defense lawyer should have educated the jury on the law - that the definition of a prostitute is the sale of sexual conduct for a fee and made sure they understand that there are two parts and both have to be present to complete the definition. If one is missing then it is legal conduct and no law is broken.

You could also argue that don't most men take gals on expensive dates in order to get sex later? Is that money for sex? No, its money for the date and time spent with the date not specifically for sex. So is money paid to spend time with an escort really any different?

April 11, 2008 DC Madam Former escorts testify in Washington prostitution trial
The women all took the stand with the same downcast look, speaking in halting voices that radiated embarrassment. One was a US navy officer. Another held a PhD in education. Each worked as a call girl in an alleged prostitution ring that has rocked official Washington. Among the men patronizing the escort service were a conservative US senator, George Bush's deputy secretary of state, and the strategist who devised Bush's "shock and awe" plan for the invasion of Iraq.

But front and center in the trial of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, dubbed the DC madam by the US media, are the women she employed. From the doctor who was 56 when she began selling sex, to the naval officer who is now likely to lose her job, the former prostitutes have had to recount tawdry details of their work using their real names.

"You're not particularly happy to be here, are you, ma'am?" Palfrey attorney Preston Burton asked one of the women who chose the name Simone for her three months of prostitution. "Who would be?" she replied. Minutes earlier, federal prosecutors forced her to describe a sexual audition arranged by Palfrey that ended with a client performing a tawdry sex act.

Palfrey, 52, took in an estimated $2m in profits over 13 years, making her service a far less high-profile target than the posh sex ring that brought down former New York governor Eliot Spitzer last month. The Emperors Club made $1m in four years, charging upwards of $1000 per hour for an encounter with Ashley Alexandra Dupre, 22, who called herself Kristen during her infamous trysts with the governor.

Palfrey's escorts, Pamela Martin & Associates, by contrast, charged $275 for every 90-minute appointment and usually split the proceeds with their madam.

Defence attorney Burton has raised charges of "selective prosecution" by the government, given the smaller size of Palfrey's ring and the fact that hundreds of other escort services remain open in the US capital.

The naval lieutenant used the alias Renee during her six months of sex work for the service. She was one of 12 former prostitutes to testify this week. "It was getting hard for me to keep doing it I didn't like it," she told the jury yesterday. Burton later produced an email the officer sent Palfrey six months after quitting the service, asking the madam if she still needed help. "I needed the money," she explained ruefully. She has since been placed on leave by the military. Like the other former call girls who testified, and like Dupre in the Spitzer case, the naval officer was granted legal immunity in exchange for her testimony. But the former prostitutes are required to use their real names in court -- relaying intimate details such as Palfrey's insistence that they have sex during menstruation.

The escort service's famous clients, meanwhile, are likely to avoid public testimony. Republican senator David Vitter of Louisiana apologized for "a very serious sin" after his phone number appeared in Palfrey's records, and he remains listed as a possible defence witness. But Vitter's attorney has avowed in court that his client would invoke his constitutional right not to incriminate himself, making his testimony unusable for Burton.

Another witness on the list is Randall Tobias, once a close friend of Bush's, who served as the White House Aids tsar and deputy secretary of state. Tobias resigned abruptly last year after he turned up in Palfrey's records, claiming to have paid for massages, not sex.

In fact, the type of intimate acts Palfrey sold is at the heart of the government's case against her. The defendant, who called herself Julia, contends she ran a legal "fantasy" service, and several of her former employees admitted they never directly discussed sex with their madam. The naval officer testified that when she called Palfrey to complain about one client's sexual behaviour, the only reply was: "Don't talk about that stuff on this line."

The trial is expected to last three weeks in US district court under judge James Robertson, appointed to the bench by Bill Clinton.

More from nbc4.com
The five women who testified Wednesday all said Palfrey never discussed their having sex with customers but that it was implied when they were hired.

Rhona Reiss, 63, was the first person to testify Wednesday. She testified that she had sex with at least 100 male clients during a 14-month period. She also said she had to perform a sex act as part of her job interview.

Reiss said Palfrey used the terms "adult entertainment" and "full-service agency," News4's Jane Watrel reported. Reiss said she was paid $250 per appointment and had sex with all but two of her clients. Reiss, who has a Ph. D and left the court disguised by a wig, also said she was not forced to do anything during her appointments.

Kristen Shavatt said she was fired by the service in 2003 because she didn't stay for the full 90 minutes. Another former call girl with the service said she tried it 14 years ago and didn't like it so she tried to quit, but Palfrey threatened to expose her.

One of the call girls who take the stand, who has an MBA, said she tried to buy the escort service in 2002 in order to make it a straight escort service with no sex. Business dropped, so Palfrey resumed control of the service.

Defense attorneys argue that Palfrey only sold appointments and had no control of her employees' or clients' actions.

Other reports:
Four former call girls testified Tuesday that they and Palfrey talked about prostitution only in ambiguous terms but that performing sex acts for money was a tacit condition of employment with Pamela Martin & Associates. But some of the former escorts who testified yesterday, including Reiss, said Palfrey at times talked openly about prostitution.

Reiss, now retired from both her former professions, did not explain her illicit career choice. Like the others, she signed a contract with Palfrey pledging to abide by the law -- a document that prosecutors allege was a sham intended to give Palfrey deniability.

Reader Comment on washingpost.com:
This trial is making a strong case that the prosecution of prostitution can do far more harm than prostitution itself. These were all capable, consenting adults engaging in private affairs that is of no legitimate concern to anyone else. The public needs to make clear that this prosecution does not serve our interests.

Older articles from May 5, 2007
http://www.sexwork.com/whatisnew/May5%202007%20articles.html
Defending the "D.C. Madam" John Stossel ABC News
Scare Tactics About Prostitution
Escort-service scandal set to ignite D.C. explosion

Back to May 2008:
Selected Comments on D.C. Madam the reports:
Post on TBD
Deborah Palfrey died for our sins--this is for real and no mere verbal mumbo-jumbo. Starting out as a rather ordinary honest businesswoman, she became a freedom fighter out of circumstance and conviction and has now become a martyr. We cannot not let her death be in vain. We must come out of our hiding places and scream to the rooftops for justice--...justice in ending nonsensical laws that criminalize honest and consensual services, justice in being able to remark to anyone, honestly and without shame, that we patronize providers, justice in saying we will no longer tolerate hypocrisy and lies from our government and its officials, justice in demanding an end to a system that has one effective set of laws for the powerful few and another for the powerless many.

Let us be properly outraged by what has happened and do what we need to do so that we can all walk with our heads high. If Deborah Palfrey's death is in vain, it will be because of our inaction.

Dave replies:
As I've often written about, the Gays had their Stonewall and they are now an effective force demanding their equal rights.

Sex positive people need their own Stonewall like gays. Gays got so fed up with the repression they revolted and the infamous Stonewall experience was the turning point to get legal changes made regarding attacks on gays.

Since I was not that familiar with Stonewall I found http://www.stonewallrevisited.com which says: For gay, lesbian and bisexual activists, the word "Stonewall" signifies quite possibly the most important, single landmark in the worldwide struggle for gay rights. Most chroniclers of the homosexual rights movement trace the beginnings of the movement's militant phase to 1969 and New York's lower-Manhattan (largely gay-frequented) Stonewall Bar. There, for the first time on record, homosexual patrons fought back when Stonewall was raided one hot summer night by New York City policemen, who came hoping to arrest gay individuals for engaging in then illegal homosexual acts. Eyewitnesses claim that the homosexual patrons' counter-riot began when one burly, Stonewall patron hurled a lidded, metal garbage can filled with empty liquor bottles through a police car window. Ever since that night, Stonewall has been revered as an enduring symbol of the gay militant spark lit that night, which has become a gay/lesbian/bisexual militant conflagration setting America -- and the world -- aflame with gay rights issues and conflicts.

While I don't agree with the violence, it was the result of gays getting so fed up with their status it was the starting point of getting laws and attitudes changed. We have the Lawrence vs Texas Superme Court case that needs to have a sexworker case argued with. We need public education on how much police and Court resources are wasted enforcing private consenting adult sexuality, not only with sexworkers but swingers and other sex positive people. The public needs to be educated that Bush's religious right morality can not be a basis for laws.

The U.S. is virtually the only country in the world where at least private consenting adult outcall sexwork is illegal. We need to educate and demand sexual freedoms the rest of the world enjoys. Canada, for close example that I am very familiar with. This fight is NOT for public nuisance street hookers for which their is a huge public interest to remain illegal but for private consenting adult sexuality.

However as I discuss in part of my DC Madam earlier reports (see link) I don't see this happening. Our only hope is in the Courts. I discuss various options but I've virtually given up after fighting for sexual rights and educating the public for decades. I just go to Canada now to enjoy the sexual freedoms we are denied in the U.S.
---
I am sick to my stomach tonight at the death of Jeane Palfrey. They took 1.5 million in money and assets from her so she could not properly defend herself. A Public Defender did a very poor job of a defense then she was convicted on all four counts and face 55 years in jail.

Megan Kelly on O'Reilly tried to tell his audiance that she was not facing 55 years in prison they were planning six years but that can't be trusted as it is after the fact. The Fed used intimadation to steal 1.5 million in property and money. Had Megan Kelly been correct Jeane would have done six years and left prison pennyless and homeless. Everything gone. I know, it happened to me and facing it makes death look very good. To hell with jail a million dolars gone. Many have jumped off roofs for that. They took everything away from her and you just don't get it back.
---
From Canada
Selling rocket lauchers is legal in the U.S. Selling consenual adult sex is not legal. Aren't we glad that our southern neighbour got their priorities straight?
---
The state has its head
...this woman was hounded into prison, broken, and driven to take her own life by a state intent upon ruining this woman for . . . arranging a sexual transaction between two consenting adults. For this, we have law enforcement? Was "saving" women from prostitution so important that we needed to make a woman's life no longer worth living?
---
What happened to this woman is tragic and unfair, as life often is. But right now prostitution and managing prostitutes in D.C. is illegal. That's the law. She made the choice to break the law, and every day to keep on breaking it. She could have made other choices. And now she is dead. That was her choice, too, apparently.
---
But do you think that we should perhaps have less laws, so that instead of preventing consensual sex, cops could be preventing, I don't know, maybe murders?
---
I support the effort to reduce laws. But since that rarely happens, I also support not enforcing bad laws. How does one judge a law to be "bad"? Common sense.
If the law involves one party acting, or preparing to act, against a non-consenting party, enforce it.If it involves preventing a person from hurting themselves, stop them and give a warning. And if that's not enough, arrest them and let them "sober up" in jail and let the judge decide what to do with them: Forced rehab or counseling for instance, but not traditional prison. If it's neither of the two cases above and the primary purpose is to enforce the will of the majority over the minority, don't enforce it.
---
I'm not complaining about the police; I'm complaining about the elected officials who sent the police in to harass this woman. Law enforcement resources are finite; this is not a good use of them.
---
Attacks on my posting D.C. Madam info
From theotherboard in Denver:
How low can you go Dave?? Using this poor woman's death to shill your sexwork website...

Dave replies:
I don't understand your disdain. I make no money from sexwork.com my only interest is to fight for sexual freedoms and my story on D.C. Madam is mostly about ideas that others might consider to fight a similar case.

While obviously there are very selfish folks on this board that have no interest in helping the community only getting their jollies, others responded with interest in my sharing info to help the community so I thought I'd share this info that some might find useful.

I have no idea why you are so against ideas to solve legal issues and fight for decriminalization as in almost all the rest of the world. That is what I have devoted decades toward with no financial or other benefits.