My thoughts of week one of the DC Madam trial; Open thread.

Here is the court document of Palfrey from Preston Burton in June 2007

Preston Burton filed a court document requesting a motion of dismissal of Ms. Palfrey's case for unconstitutional application of local prostitution statutes. He stated in his filing that there is no federal crime of prostitution. And Burton is correct. Her case wasn't a federal crime of prostitution. Let's look at the state prostitution laws in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia:

Prostitution laws in Maryland:

§ 11-306: House of prostitution (a) Prohibited.- A person may not knowingly:
(1) engage in prostitution or assignation by any means;
(2) keep, set up, occupy, maintain, or operate a building, structure, or conveyance for prostitution or assignation;
(3) allow a building, structure, or conveyance owned or under the person's control to be used for prostitution or assignation;
(4) allow or agree to allow a person into a building, structure, or conveyance for prostitution or assignation; or
(5) procure or solicit or offer to procure or solicit for prostitution or assignation.
(b) Penalty.- A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 1 year or a fine not exceeding $500 or both.
http://www.prostitutionprocon.org/maryland.htm

Prostitution law in Virginia:

§ 18.2-356: Receiving money for procuring person Any person who shall receive any money or other valuable thing for or on account of procuring for or placing in a house of prostitution or elsewhere any person for the purpose of causing such person to engage in unlawful sexual intercourse or any act in violation of § 18.2-361 shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony.
§ 18.2-357: Receiving money from earnings of male or female prostitute Any person who shall knowingly receive any money or other valuable thing from the earnings of any male or female engaged in prostitution, except for a consideration deemed good and valuable in law, shall be guilty of pandering, punishable as a Class 4 felony.
http://www.prostitutionprocon.org/virginia.htm

Prostitution law in D.C.

§ 22-2712: Operating house of prostitution Any person who, within the District of Columbia, knowingly, shall accept, receive, levy, or appropriate any money or other valuable thing, without consideration other than the furnishing of a place for prostitution or the servicing of a place for prostitution, from the proceeds or earnings of any individual engaged in prostitution shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 5 years and by a fine of not more than $1,000.
http://www.prostitutionprocon.org/dc.htm#9

And of course, RICO (Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization) was the only way to nail Ms. Palfrey on federal racketeering because this statute carries a much stiffer sentence. RICO provides for extended penalties for criminal acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. RICO is used to prosecute organized crime figures. And the government labeled Pamela Martin and Associates as a criminal business.

This has only been week one of the DC Madam trial. All of the hype of this trial brought by the government is just that: hype. From the opening arguments to the mentioning of STDs and to the witnesses that were employees performed sex as call girls and clients who had sex with the female employees presented by the Assistant U.S. attorney Catherine Connelly, the prosecution team has failed so far to create and present a clear and concrete timeline to the jurors on how Ms. Palfrey willingly and knowingly laundered money through her business for 13 years and used her company as a front for prostitution. I heard no timeline from Ms. Connelly. Only that this case will be the biggest case in DC and that Ms. Palfrey is the mastermind and madam.

In Preston Burton's opening arguments (Burton will be presenting his witnesses next week), his argument was plain and simple: the female employees signed a employee contract with Ms. Palfrey. And one of things in the contract that each employee had to sign from the contract is not to engage in any illegal activities. If the employee violated the guidelines of the contract, the employee is fired. And basically, Ms. Palfrey had no control over what the employees did at their appointments.

From week one of government witnesses, it was a trainwreck. The government were attacking their own female witnesses and asking very personal and embarrassing questions that shouldn't have been allowed for the jurors to hear and were irrelevant. I kept asking what does the female witnesses' menstruation have to do with money laundering? Where is the timeline in this case? Burton cross-examined the witnesses about the employment contract. And all of them said that there was no sex talk between Ms. Palfrey and them. And basically, Burton pointed out to the witnesses who performed sex and their interpretation of the employment contract meant: Don't get caught.

Prosecution wraps up their witnesses on Monday. And it will be Burton's turn with his witnesses for the defense. U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor and his three amigo assistants, Catherine K. Connelly, Daniel Butler and William Cowden brought this case to trial. And certainly Taylor's office will have eggs on their faces on this embarressment case. All of the witnesses's lives are ruined thanks to the government. Palfrey's case is the first prostitution case charged under the federal racketeering statute.

I noticed that Brent Wilkes who was convicted for 12 years in prison this year on bribery and money laundering was never charged under the RICO. Palfrey was accused and charged for running a prostitution business in exchange for money. And Wilkes was charged and convicted for bribery in exchange for government contracts.Wilkes should had been charged under RICO Title 18, 201:

Section 201 (relating to bribery),
§ 201. Bribery of public officials and witnesses

Remember, Wilkes bribed public official Randy Duke Cunningham. But, that never happened because the U.S. Attorney that was involved in the case was fired for political purposes. So, we may not know if Carol Lam was going to charge Wilkes under RICO.

Ms. Palfrey's case has always been a selected prosecution and politically motivated. It is too bad the female witnesses and former clients are being used as pawns to win a weak case. One former employee said no to the bullyness of the government and that is Brandy Britton. Brandy Britton, a former sociology and anthropology professor at the University of Maryland, worked for Palfrey, but she had her own business on the side and website. Britton's side business was, according to her website, "a very passionate full-service, GFE (girl friend experience) escort and erotic masseuse." In January 2006, her home was raided and was accused of prostitution. Britton denied the charges and hired attorney to fight her case. We will never known the outcome of Britton's case because she killed herself because of the emotional stress over her case brought by the government. Keep in mind that Ms. Palfrey's home was raid in October 2006. A quote from Charles Dickens' book, Oliver Twist:

"If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”

And that will certainly be the outcome of Ms. Palfrey's trial.