Mar 112007
Deborah Palfrey was indicted on racketeering and money-laundering charges related to her allegedly running a prostitution ring in Washington, D.C. After federal prosecutors brought a forfeiture action to tie up all her assets, she threatened to sell off her client list to raise money for her defense.
Prosecutors responded by asking the court to gag Palfrey, on the grounds that she might reveal “personal” and “sensitive” information, including financial information. How would such disclosure harm the prosecution, or violate any laws? There’s no way to tell from the Motion for Protective Order, as it’s extremely vague. One wonders exactly what, or who, the DA’s office is trying to protect.
mythago
One Response to “And speaking of “policy decisions”…”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
It’s interesting. I’m wondering whether there isn’t a way to spin this as extortion. Of course, it also raises some questions about the use of asset seizure proceedings to cut off the oxygen to a criminal defense effort.
I notice that Palfrey has taken the charming step of suing one of her employees (“sub-contractors”) for violating her employment contract (which, naturally, forbids having sex for money), in an apparent effort to buttress her “I run a legitimate ‘fantasy’ business” defense. (Yes, men pay $275 for ninety minutes of NOT having sex.)