Washington D.C.--It's a very surprising move on federal District Judge Gladys Kessler's part--to allow the so-called "DC Madam" Deborah Jeane Palfrey to be represented by civil attorney Montgomery Blair Sibley in both her civil and criminal cases. But what else could Judge Kessler do? With virtually no discovery process, and numerous other problems in Palfrey's right to due process, she had to grant something.
This has been a story of surprises, however, such as Judge Kessler's granting of the release of the phone records of Pamela Martin & Associates in early-July. It should be noted here that the suppression couldn't have occurred at all had the defendant and her civil counsel not threatened openly to release them. Simply releasing them would have been a better move, but that wasn't the purpose: the threat of releasing them was considered more important by the defendant, and it was a risky move that didn't seem to faze federal prosecutors. This is a curious fact, except that their move for suppression appeared to show some signs of alarm.
Palfrey is that peculiar defendant: she's done an awful lot of talking. For those who have rushed to judgment and pronounced her guilty publicly, or simply within their own minds (such as Rawstory who have refused to cover the story adequately), you should all consider that, guilty or innocent, she's still got the right to due process. What's most important is protecting our time honored tradition of due process, not whether Ms. Palfrey is guilty or innocent.
It's far worse to jail an innocent person than to free someone who isn't, and that's not to imply in any direction what her actual legal state is. Americans should understand that this is to protect the innocent from wrongful prosecution, as well as a protection from the state for the rest of us. Interestingly, I've noticed that all of the recent bounce-backs of e-mail sent to Ms. Palfrey have ceased since the announcement of Sibley being authorized to represent her in her criminal hearings.
[Ed., 09.13.2008-In less than two-months, Palfrey would drop Sibley as her counsel and--according to a source--have counsel Preston Burton "forced" on her. I'm unsure about this latter assertion's veracity, however. What was going on? Kessler might have been a better bet considering Robertson's bias against the defendant and his curious credentials and behavior. Kessler authorized my pay as a researcher. I would like to thank her for this act. I was probably wrong about her all-along. A very dark game was being played on all of us.]