London, you’ve changed for the better

For the first time in a year I have spent the week in London, working and seeing friends. It has been an eye-opening experience; after all, it has been 11 years since I lived here.

I was expecting to complain about the weather. When I left New York the temperature was in the high nineties. But here it has not yet rained and the temperature has been pleasantly warm. Other things are refreshing too. Unlike their New York counterparts, my English friends’ every other sentence is not about the economy. “The recession is coming,” one person in finance told me, “but we relegate it to background talk.”

People prefer talking about their children and the Indiana Jones movie to what they’ve been doing at work. A girlfriend told me how an expat English banker friend recently bored everyone with a monologue about his job throughout dinner. No one will be rushing to ask him back.

I have been lunching well. I cannot say I enjoyed Maze, in Grosvenor Square: my idea of lunch is not four laborious courses, each served in a martini glass. The Wolseley was better: my lunch companion offered me a glass of champagne. I don’t think I have ever drunk alcohol at lunch in Manhattan. Here, I drank the champagne willingly; for once, it was fun.

To my surprise, I’ve been out dancing three times, finishing Thursday night at Mahiki with 300 Sloanes under 30, dancing to disco music written well before they were born. They dance with a furious frenzy, in groups, often of the same sex. That didn’t happen when I lived here.

Taxi drivers are, as ever, opinionated, but also thoughtful: one reminded me not to forget my phone as I got out. In fact, in general the service has unquestionably got better; to my surprise I found you can get a pedicure on a Sunday.

But other things don’t change. I went to a wedding where, during one speech, the groom’s genitalia were graphically mocked. I realised, with horror, that I was undergoing a uniquely “British” moment.

So, London, thank you. I’ve enjoyed my week here. Now I need to go go home, detox and sleep. The pang will come when I get the bill for this trip on my credit card – and it will be have to be paid in US dollars. V

Digg StumbleUpon Facebook

My nursery shame as a no-show mom

It was the one item in the diary marked “DO NOT MISS”, scheduled for 10.30am on Thursday. What occasion merited such urgency? My children’s graduation ceremony … from nursery school.

Given that my parents did not make it to my university graduation, I was amazed to receive emails from other (more involved) parents advising me that this occasion was a special event, preceded by dinner at the school head’s home two nights before, and everyone must dress up especially for it. DVDs of the five-year-olds receiving their certificates had to be ordered and pre-paid; there was much discussion of who would bring what food to the post-graduation party in Central Park.

Guilt immediately flooded my veins. In the past few months I have, as one mother put it to me nicely, been “MIA” (Missing in Action) from school. After the fiasco of getting them into kindergarten for next year was resolved, I had concentrated on my work instead of volunteering to chaperone school field trips or watch tap-dancing performances (a good thing as it turned out, as one child got “stage fright” while another was so overtired he just sat down on stage). So I felt that missing graduation would be a sin too far.

The pre-graduation dinner didn’t go entirely without mishap. I was relieved to see there were name tabs because even though my children are in two of the four classes in the school, my non-intervention in their education might mean that no one would know who I was.

The problem, I found, as I hopefully handed round a plate of brownies, was that they all did: I’m known as the no-show mom. And the women wanted to reassure me how sweet and lively my children were, since they – and not me – had been their chaperones on field trips.

Yet despite feeling utterly ashamed, as my little cherubs processed out of the place on Thursday, I cried. I may be the school’s token useless, no-show working mother, but the nurturing environment of this little school – and the back-up of all those kind non-working mothers – has more than made up for my absence.

“Remember, you have really great boys,” one of the teachers said as she hugged me farewell. I was speechless with emotion. So next time someone says they cannot miss their child’s graduation from nursery school, you will hear no mockery from me. V

Digg StumbleUpon Facebook

Big Apple macho men spin out of control

I will readily confess to being a New York gym rat: I like to go for a run or workout on the elliptical machines. The only times it isn’t relaxing is if I happen to enter the gym at the same time as the “spinning” class is taking place; then, you can literally smell the dripping sweat of the cyclists.

No matter how high I turn the volume on my iPod, the class’s booming music and instructor’s gravelly microphoned voice intrude into my private space. I find myself secretly hating the spinners and their ostentatious brand of energy. I stare at the men and women in their tight-fitting Lycra and lurid sneakers, as they race to sign in, and wonder: did you not get enough opportunity to strut, preen and explode during your day in the office?

So it was with some satisfaction I read last week of a lawsuit concerning a fight during a spinning class on the Upper East Side. Apparently the defendant, a thick-set, orange-headed, bearded hedge fund manager named Stuart Sugarman, 48, had grunted so obnoxiously, Monica Seles-style, furiously shouting “Yeah!” along with unprintable obscenities, that eventually a broker two bikes down, Christopher Carter, 44, could take no more. Carter asked the instructor if he could quieten the hedge fund manager down; the instructor replied: “If this is the the way this guy wants to psych himself up for class, I’m not going to stop him.”

What a typically New York response: go ahead, exercise the right to free speech with zero consideration of its effect on others. Carter snapped. He yelled “shut up” and when this didn’t work, got off his bike, grabbed Sugarman’s bike by the handlebars and pushed it back against the wall, thus injuring Sugarman.

Not to be publicly humiliated, Sugarman carried on biking for 20 minutes before calling an ambulance. He was diagnosed with a herniated disc and hospitalised for a week, requiring surgery and metal screws in his neck. When asked why he had continued biking, he replied: “I was trying to be macho – a football player plays through the pain.”

He did wrong, but it’s hard not to feel sorry for Carter, who faces a year in jail if found guilty. Sugarman sounds an idiotic man, and the instructor not much better. As for the testosterone-laden world of spinning – even in aggression-fuelled New York, such behaviour seems out of place. V

Digg StumbleUpon Facebook

John Cusack’s Viral Success Story

cuar01_proust_cusack0806.jpgCritics in the mainstream media scoffed, for the most part, at John Cusack’s low-budget didactic satire, War Inc., calling it heavy-handed and five years too late. The film struggled to get into festivals, finally making it into Tribeca this year. But on the Web, voices sang a different tune, calling War Inc. “prescient” and groundbreaking for its strange tonal shifts and for highlighting the morbid absurdity and immorality of the war in Iraq and those who profit off it. Writers such as Arianna Huffington, The Nation’s Jeremy Scahill, and even British artist Damien Hirst all gave blurbs for the movie’s Web site and Cusack’s MySpace page. Juno writer Diablo Cody interviewed Cusack about it for MySpaceTV, Vanity Fair quizzed him in print and online, and I talked with him on CNBC.Despite the negative reviews, I found War Inc. innovative and subversively ironic. And it appears that early audiences are responding to it, too. Last weekend, the film opened in two theaters—one in New York, the other in Los Angeles—and grossed $50,714 after four days. Per seat, according to Cusack, who spoke to me a few days ago, its performance was second only to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

The encouraging results may be proof of the power of viral marketing, an instance when the subculture becomes the culture. Today, looking bleary-eyed from London, where he is filming Shanghai for the Weinstein Company, Cusack used MySpace to talk about the success of his film and to ask people to go see it this weekend. If the figures are good enough, he said, the film will go national.

And if that happens, it won’t just be the anti-war message of the movie that is groundbreaking; War Inc. could become a model for a new, grass-roots type of marketing, in which a film’s potential audience (with a little help from the director) may be better able to advertise it than the so-called experts are. To me, that’s exciting. Just as the war’s main orchestrator in the movie, a capitalist played by Ben Kingsley, meets a gruesome end after running from an angry crowd, so too, if the drum roll is loud enough, can the views of critics be overruled by people who will see what they want to see, no matter who tells them not to.V

Digg StumbleUpon Facebook

Give me Michelle over Hillary any day

It was an intensely political evening. First, the premiere of the amazing new film Recount, starring Kevin Spacey and Denis Leary, turned the dry legal arguments about “hanging chads” in the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election into fascinating drama. Then screens hung down at New York’s Four Seasons restaurant so we could watch the results come in from the polls in West Virginia.

Few people were talking about anything else. We were all invited to vote ourselves – for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John McCain. Not surprisingly – this is New York – Obama won the restaurant poll.

But while everyone knows he is more than likely to be the Democratic nominee, I was surprised to hear negative talk about him. And it was especially his wife, Michelle, whom I have always found to be deeply impressive, who came in for a bashing. One senior TV executive told me how when they’d filmed a puff piece recently on the Obamas, no one had commented on how every campaign staffer had on their desk a note along the lines of “Michelle is always right”.

I volunteered that it seems that Clinton, with her outrageous remarks about race and her unwillingness to give up despite her inability to win, seems to be far more the deranged, power-hungry woman than ice-cool Michelle.

No, no, they said. The truly angry, power-hungry woman here was Michelle Obama. Had I read her Princeton dissertation? It was all about race.

I have now read it: it is indeed about race and attitudes to race. But why shouldn’t it be? It is a subject she has talked about openly.

And having re-read profiles of Michelle Obama, frankly it seems to me that she is being attacked for being … well, just like me and most other professional career women.

She once complained that her husband didn’t put the butter away – and a columnist wrote that this was “emasculating”. Please. She has also been on his case for smoking, since one of their daughters has asthma (he has never smoked in front of her or their kids). Well, the same thing happened in my family. I don’t consider myself a harridan.

She introduces herself as a wife, mother and a “professional”. Ooh – dangerous! What’s worse: a “professional” – or a woman who says she’ll stand by her unfaithful man? Personally I’d choose the smoker husband and a profession for myself – but then I’m not in the running to be First Lady. And having watched the nail-biting Recount, all I can say is – thank goodness.V

Digg StumbleUpon Facebook

Chattering Class

Vicky WardGuest commentators on the financial cable shows tend to be shouty men in striped shirts. But a rather different face has been showing up on CNBC lately, one that’s familiar to New York’s social and media types: Vicky Ward, Talk magazine survivor and current Vanity Fair contributing editor. Ward credits her new gig as a talking head to “stalking” the channel’s senior VP, Jonathan Wald, whom she met through mutual friend Dan Abrams. (“You can never know enough people,” she counsels.) So far, the blond Brit (wait, this is CNBC, not Fox News, right?) has sounded off on everything from the declining newspaper business to the booming call-girl industry—the latter is becoming a bit of a journalistic obsession for the writer, who has profiled Jeffrey Epstein and the D.C. Madam. Speaking to Ward about what it’s like to appear on TV, Style.com was quick with the tough questions: What’s it like, for example, sitting through all that hair and makeup? “The traditional helmet hair and power-shoulders look is far behind us,” she said, sounding relieved. “But I’ve learned that what looks great in real life can be horrendous on camera. I’ve worn the same dress about five times, as it was the only thing in my wardrobe that I realized worked.” Now it seems all she needs is one of those catchy television nicknames, though we hear Money Honey is already taken. —style.com

To view this article on Vicky, please click here

Digg StumbleUpon Facebook

Life’s just a deal for the new gurus

Last week, in a dash to get to a television studio, I lost a valuable ring. Devastated, I later narrated the story to a friend who works in finance. “The ring was worth X. How much was TV paying you? You clearly didn’t rationalise the situation,” he said. I was speechless at his words, but he’s not the only one around me who talks like this.

The reason perhaps lies in an article that appeared last week discussing America’s “new business gurus”. They write best-selling books and give motivational talks at jaw-dropping prices – $75,000 a pop, apparently. Even more remarkably, some of these men – of course they are men – have never worked in business.

In the wake of my personal disaster, I emailed three CEOs of major financial services firms and asked if they had read any of the five books mentioned in the article, if they believed in “business gurus”, and whether they offered employees “motivational seminars”. I am delighted to report that all three had not read the books, did not believe in “business gurus” and agreed with me: the fundamentals of business are simple – either you can do your job or you can’t.

However, the article made one interesting point: two of the new five “must-reads” are not written by academics or businessmen, but by journalists. One of the new bibles, Blink, is by fuzzy-haired New Yorker writer Malcolm Gladwell, who I see most days in the gym, looking so pale and thin I worry he might faint on the treadmill.

Gladwell has established a reputation for capturing the psychology of the zeitgeist in a funny and clever way. In fact, Blink has become such an integral part of a New Yorker’s reading list that, frankly, it’s a bit uncool for anyone, in business or otherwise, not to have read it.

Nonetheless, its premise – that our split-second intuitive responses often trump the well-researched decisions of experts – is not exactly earth-shattering. One could also argue that our current president has followed the guidelines explicitly. After all, G W Bush christened himself “The Decider”, and expounded upon his ability to make swift decisions that come not from his brain but his gut. And look where that has got us.

Look also where following Gladwell’s theories got me: one five-minute TV appearance – and a missing, uninsured ring. V

Digg StumbleUpon Facebook

No Way to Treat a Lady

DC MadamD.C. Madam” Deborah Jeane Palfrey played a risky game in catering to Washington’s power brokers with her upscale escort service. Her suicide, this month, marked a tragic—and not unexpected—end for a complicated woman who believed she was unfairly victimized. Having talked to Palfrey for months and spoken with her mother after her death, Vicky Ward tells the whole story.

On May 1, the body of Deborah Jeane Palfrey was found hanging from a metal bar in a shed near the Tampa home of her mother, 76-year-old homemaker Blanche Palfrey. Police reports told of a notebook containing two suicide notes at the scene. Jeane, as she was called—she was better known as the “D.C. Madam.”—had been convicted two weeks earlier in the U.S. District Court in Washington of racketeering, money laundering, and two counts of using the mail for illegal purposes.

For well over a year, Palfrey, 52, had been saying to the press, to supporters, to book publishers, to anyone who would listen, that she was going to set a precedent: unlike so many former madams who had fallen victim to the law—indeed, unlike Brandy Britton, a mother of two and former University of Maryland professor who had once worked as an escort for Palfrey and who killed herself, in January 2007, rather than face trial—she was going to win this fight. She refused to admit that her agency had been anything but a fantasy-sex service. If employees had had actual illicit sex, they had done so without her knowing, she claimed.

The name of the agency was Pamela Martin & Associates, and, according to at least two of the young women who worked for it, it was well known to be the highest-quality operation of its kind in Washington, D.C., thanks to Palfrey’s professionalism. In her brisk, businesslike telephone manner, Palfrey, who ran the service from her home, in Vallejo, California, would demand that employees dress smartly in a style that reflected her own penchant for neat pantsuits, sensible heels, and discreet jewelry—what she called the “Ann Taylor look.” She stipulated that they not drink or take drugs during appointments and that they be punctual. Her “gals,” as she called them, had to be over 23, and they had to have college degrees and day jobs. And, according to Palfrey, they had to sign contracts promising not to copulate or perform oral sex with clients, but they could do “pretty much anything else.”

The women would typically earn $300 plus tips for a 90-minute appointment; they would then send half of the base fees to Palfrey, in postal money orders of under $800, allegedly to help avoid detection. For the most part, the women were careful not to let drop to clients any clues as to their real names or day jobs—“nobody wants a stalker,” explains one—but they included a naval-academy instructor, a blonde legal secretary at the noted law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, a real-estate agent, and a financial consultant, who went by the professional name of Rosslyn and who looks like a brunette Farrah Fawcett in her prime. Since retiring from Pamela Martin, Rosslyn tells me, she misses the designer clothes she bought with her supplemental income.

The men who used the agency ranged from C.E.O.’s to store clerks, from terminally ill men and those with seriously ill wives to men on the verge of marriage who wanted one last fling. They included, we now know, former deputy secretary of state Randall Tobias, 66; Pentagon adviser and author Harlan K. Ullman, 67; and U.S. senator David Vitter, 47, a Republican from Louisiana. We know this because, in October 2006, Palfrey learned that the Internal Revenue Service had placed a lien on the Victorian home she was attempting to sell in Vallejo, California, near San Francisco, and had frozen her $2 million in assets. The house had been searched by Troy Burrus, an I.R.S. agent, and Maria Couvillon, a postal inspector from Alexandria, Virginia, who had posed as potential buyers before obtaining a warrant. According to court records, they had begun investigating Palfrey around June 2004. In what appears to be a peculiarly elementary error, Burrus and Couvillon left without 46 pounds of Pamela Martin & Associates phone records, which were gathering dust in the basement. Still, they found sufficient evidence to pursue charges of racketeering and mail fraud. A grand jury was convened in 2006. Approximately 14 former Pamela Martin employees testified, identified in court documents as Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and so forth, and on March 1, 2007, Palfrey was indicted for running a prostitution enterprise. She told Vanity Fair she was offered a plea deal that included four months’ imprisonment, but she turned it down. She kept to the claim that if illegal sex took place, then her employees had broken their agreements with her. In court the women said otherwise, that she merely spoke to them in “euphemisms” to hide the true nature of what was going on.

After her indictment, Palfrey threatened to sell the agency’s phone records to the highest bidder; then, in March 2007, she gave four years’ worth of them to ABC News. As part of her defense, in court papers she filed that same month, she outed Ullman as a client. According to her civil lawyer, Montgomery Blair Sibley, she selected the Pentagon adviser because he had come up with the phrase “shock and awe,” later used for the government’s war effort in Iraq—a fact that would show the prominence and quality of her clientele. Palfrey also said she never liked Ullman, whom she referred to as “Mr. U.” “He was an unpleasant person,” she said.

On May 4, ABC’s 20/20 featured Palfrey, and ABC news lead investigator Brian Ross claimed that Deputy Secretary of State Randall Tobias, a married man, whose mandate included withholding grants from countries with legalized prostitution, had also hired Palfrey’s women. Tobias “was most embarrassed to receive the call,” according to Ross. He resigned the next day, admitting to paying for “massages,” but not for sex.

Suddenly everyone wanted to know who else was in Palfrey’s phone records. She told me there were at least 100 more names worth knowing, and she insinuated that the network had bowed to pressure from the government and withheld them. Indeed, leading up to the broadcast it was rumored that 20/20 knew of a Bush-administration economist, the head of a conservative think tank, a C.E.O., lobbyists, and senior military officials, but their identities were not revealed on the show or later. (ABC denies it came under any pressure. Brian Ross says, “No one wanted to do a more thorough job than me, but the records showing abuse of office at a high level weren’t there in the phone records, dating from 2002 to 2006. I wasn’t going to out low-level analysts in the Pentagon. This is 20/20, not The Pentagon Times.”)

In the ensuing media frenzy, Judge Gladys Kessler, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, issued a protective order blocking the release of phone records to prevent the potential intimidation of witnesses. On July 7, the order was lifted. A few days later Palfrey put the phone numbers, which are not accompanied by names, on the Internet, at deborahjeanepalfrey.com, but first she had her lawyer give the records to Dan Moldea, an investigative journalist in the employ of Hustler founder and C.E.O. Larry Flynt. For years, Flynt has dedicated himself to revealing the sexual peccadilloes of government officials who are hypocritical about morality issues—in December 1998, his efforts stopped U.S. representative Bob Livingston, a Republican from Louisiana, from becoming Speaker of the House by suggesting that Hustler would reveal details of an extramarital affair. Moldea quickly unearthed Senator Vitter’s name from Palfrey’s records. It was supremely ironic not only because of Vitter’s conservative “family values” platform but also because he had earlier replaced Livingston in the House of Representatives. Furthermore, Vitter was the Southern regional chairman for presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, who quickly stopped appearing with him. According to Moldea, the records showed that Vitter had called Palfrey five times between October 1999 and February 2001, when he was a U.S. representative.

DC MadamOn July 16, standing side by side with his wife and mother of their four children, Vitter gave a press conference. He allowed no questions, but issued a carefully worded statement, apologizing for “a serious sin,” while pointing out that his wife, Wendy, 46, had long since forgiven him and leaving the impression that this had been a single aberration. (It’s worth noting that Wendy Vitter once claimed, “I’m a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary [Clinton],” whom she criticized for standing by her man.)

Vitter’s fellow Republican senators appeared to forgive him as well; he received a standing ovation from them in a private Senate luncheon in July. Meanwhile, Jeanette Maier, a former New Orleans madam, claimed that Vitter had been a customer of her famous brothel as early as the mid-90s. Vitter dismissed those stories as untrue. On September 11, Larry Flynt held a press conference at which he produced a prostitute from New Orleans who said she had had an ongoing relationship with Vitter beginning in 1999. In response, Vitter’s spokesman, Joel DiGrado, would say only that “Vitter and his wife addressed all of this very directly.”

One would think that Jeane Palfrey would have been delighted to have unearthed a hypocrite like Vitter. She had often said that she was out to expose hypocrisy—the hypocrisy of the oldest profession in the world, for which society punishes the women involved, but seldom the men who patronize them. But when I met her for the fourth time, in early September 2007, her mind had moved on. “This case is not about Vitter,” she said. She talked incessantly of government plots against her and violations of her rights. She was never able to fathom why she was the only D.C. madam being targeted, and this irked her more than the startling revelations of her case. On September 10, in a court filing she listed every single brothel and escort agency she knew of in Washington—83 in total. Her plan, eventually, was to subpoena their records, too.

I first met Jeane Palfrey in early May 2007, when I took her and her lawyer Montgomery Blair Sibley to dinner in New York, just after 20/20 had aired its interview with her. Some of the people in the restaurant clearly recognized her, but for the most part she blended in perfectly. Her dark, shoulder-length hair was glossy and thick, her makeup perfectly applied, her navy pantsuit elegant. She had on drop earrings.

“Look around,” Palfrey said, gesturing at the mostly male clientele. “This is exactly the crowd who used to use my agency. Mostly they don’t notice me, but if they recognize me, either they look appalled or they shake my hand and say, ‘You go girl. I hope you win.’ ”

Palfrey told her story in a way that made it hard not to sympathize with and even admire her. She grew up in rural Charleroi, Pennsylvania, population 5,000, about 20 miles outside Pittsburgh. “She came from a decent family and, despite quarrelling with other majorettes in the local band, she was a quiet person in high school,” recalls Stacy Wolford, now a reporter for the local newspaper, the Tribune-Review. Palfrey’s father, Frank, worked for a grocery company, while her mother stayed at home. There was a younger sister, Roberta Lynn (“Bobbie”), three years Jeane’s junior.

After high school, Palfrey got a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice at Rollins College in Winter Park, Florida. Later she enrolled in law school, but did not complete her degree. When asked why not, she sighed. “I guess women from my generation just thought that tomorrow they’d marry the right man, and there’d be no need for that,” she said. “In retrospect, I did the wrong thing.” In 1988, however, she did complete a nine-month paralegal course, in San Diego.

Her personal life was erratic. As she put it, she “wasted 15 years” on two men, both of whom were married and, she claimed, took a while before telling her. The first, she said, was now a very high-ranking figure in government. “Believe me, I am well aware he is squirming, wondering if I am going to name him,” she told me, looking amused.

Would she?

She shook her head.

The second was a Marine, whom she met after moving to San Diego, in 1985, and who later accused her of stalking him, even obtaining a restraining order. He claims he was single when they met, but Palfrey wouldn’t let go after he married another woman. “I didn’t stalk him,” she said. “I just wanted closure from him.”

At some point in the late 80s, in San Diego, Palfrey met people in the escort business and got involved herself. “I was doing interior design, waiting to get married and have children,” she said. “But by the time I’d got through with my two big love affairs, I was 40. I was making $20,000 or $30,000 a year on interior design. It wasn’t nearly what I could have made.”

Suddenly, in the midst of our interview, she looked tired. “That’s when I just gave up,” she said. She didn’t go into details other than to say that she “made some stupid mistakes” in trying to start an upscale escort business in San Diego, which never got off the ground and never made her any money.

In 1993, Palfrey opened Pamela Martin & Associates, in Washington. She knew that the capital was full to bursting with lonely men separated from their families during the week, and it had a steady stream of businessmen in its many large, anonymous hotels. She knew too that the town’s women were educated and ambitious. And she also knew that this was a place where sexual lines got crossed all the time behind closed doors. She thought of a name for her agency: “I wanted to be Pamela Mason, James Mason’s wife,” she said, “so the closest thing was ‘Martin.’ ” Her own handle was “Julia,” after the Dixie Carter character on the 80s TV series Designing Women.

Virtually all the women who worked for Palfrey were in it for one thing: the money. “They needed to pay off college loans, or put themselves through college or their children, or pay for that condo their day jobs couldn’t get for them,” Palfrey said. She saw herself as the enabler who empowered them.

In general Palfrey felt a little sorry for the men who called. “I think it takes a certain amount of loneliness for anyone to call the number advertised,” she said. She added that 80 percent of her clients were repeat customers. One, a former lobbyist, wrote to her not long ago: “I am not ashamed I used Pamela Martin & Associates. In fact some of the best women I have ever met in my life I met through Pamela Martin. I lived on the Hill, and the first time I called I had a knock on my door an hour later with a woman who was as beautiful as Sophia Loren. I was fed up with the uptight lawyer, lobbyist, hillstaffer women I had been dating, and was I ever pleased the next several years.” Another client, a former military officer, wrote to her that the agency had gotten him through a depression following service in the Balkans and the end of a relationship.

DC MadamThe Palfrey employees I spoke to seemed to have enjoyed their work and considered Palfrey a good boss. “Jennifer,” the former legal secretary at Akin Gump, tells me she was treated better at night than during the day, when the men in the office and some clients referred to her as “the blonde” and “slapped her on the ass.” She says she did not feel obliged to accept every appointment Palfrey offered and that she dictated the terms of each. She says that sometimes all clients wanted was “to spend 90 minutes discussing [the television program] Dancing with the Stars.”

“Rosslyn,” the Farrah Fawcett look-alike, says over a sushi lunch that, being half European, she doesn’t have a particularly puritanical view of sex: “I thought, You go on dates, and you have sex for free, so what is the difference?” She found that working as an escort made her more tolerant of men and softened her to the point that she now feels able to get married. “They really showed their vulnerable side, weren’t afraid to talk about anything,” she says. Her clients included well-known businessmen and Arab princes, and she was flown by clients to five-star resorts and to islands in the Caribbean.

Palfrey’s “gals” admired their boss’s non-interfering managerial style. As long as they sent half of the fees via money order to her home, in California, how they had spent their appointment and any tips they collected were their business. The only directives Palfrey issued were in her so-called newsletters, which the government produced as evidence that she clearly knew her employees were having sex. These included instructions, for example, “to always bolt the door and search the place thoroughly and let the man get naked before disrobing oneself,” as well as to brush one’s teeth and dress appropriately.

Jennifer says that Pamela Martin was “known to be the classiest outfit in town.… I don’t know if you’ve ever called any of the other agencies, but they don’t sound like Jeane Palfrey on the other end of the phone,” she says. When she was 20, Jennifer tried to work for Palfrey, but was told to come back when she was over 23. “I wanted women, not girls,” Palfrey told me at our first meeting.

But, it turns out, maintaining Pamela Martin & Associates’ professional image was not Palfrey’s sole reason for wanting only mature, intelligent women on her payroll. Papers from a 1991 conviction for attempted felony pimping, for which she served an 18-month jail sentence, show she was arrested in San Diego after the mother of one of the escorts in her first agency informed the police her daughter was having illegal sex. Local female police officers pulled off an undercover sting.

Palfrey’s own account of her jail experience was desperate to the point of heart-rending and may shed light on why she apparently decided to take her own life rather than return to prison. She wrote a long, rambling letter to the court begging for lenience, describing the assaults—verbal and physical—she received from other women in jail. One would stick her “fist in both my throat and face” on a daily basis, she wrote. Palfrey called it her “Nam” experience.

Her minister in San Diego, the Reverend James E. Smith, visited her in jail and subsequently wrote to the judge: “Jeane can be a dynamic person and I don’t see this in her eyes when I visit her.” Palfrey wrote to the judge that she had plans for an art-export business between the U.S. and the U.K., that she had gotten into the sex industry as a last resort. She promised never to dabble in it again.

Within a year of her parole she’d broken that promise and started Pamela Martin. Why?

“Once I was a felon, my options were limited,” she said. “My life had gone down the tubes, my looks had gone down the tubes, my health had gone the tubes. I spent a year physically recovering. I went virtually blind … because the stress almost did me in … I had no choice but to re-enter the business and this time to do it the right way.”

Eventually, Rosslyn began to think she was being followed on appointments. She told Palfrey she wanted to quit the business, and although Palfrey was reluctant to let her leave, after a while she did.

By then, running the operation from the West Coast, Palfrey may have felt a false sense of security about law enforcement back in the D.C. area. Many have observed the puzzling fact that this whole thing started with the I.R.S. in Alexandria, yet no charges of tax infringement ever surfaced in the trial.

Rosslyn, however, recalls that, in the early 90s, Palfrey learned that somebody was on to her and had to vacate a house outside Maryland with her records, with less than 10 minutes to spare.

At our first meeting, Palfrey and Sibley brought up a complex conspiracy theory as to why she had been busted. She believed her agency got named as part of a plea deal struck by a former public official convicted in a corruption scandal. “I think [there was fear that] this woman is sitting on a powder keg of information that we’re just monitoring to make sure she doesn’t do anything,” Palfrey speculated.

If A. J. Kramer and later Preston Burton, Palfrey’s court-appointed criminal attorneys, even knew of Palfrey’s theory, clearly they were not convinced. There were rumors that the investigation into Pamela Martin began because one of the girls’ boyfriends tipped off investigators. Burton said that no matter what the origins of the case, they were irrelevant when it came to fighting the charges.

Burton is a sandy-haired lawyer of considerable criminal experience. He has represented C.I.A. spy Aldrich Ames and Monica Lewinsky. Back in July, he explained during an interview in his K Street office, in Washington, that he was glad to have been handed the case, though he admitted he thought Palfrey was “different.” He could not have foreseen that by September she would try to replace him with Sibley, who was more receptive to her theories. A colorful lawyer, Sibley had taken on another high-profile sex escort case in the past—defending an alleged pimp named “Big Pimpin’ Pappy”—and he was not afraid of annoying other lawyers, or even judges, with his generous use of the subpoena.

As summer wore on, Jeane Palfrey grew more and more desperate.

She told me she could cope with the fact that the neighbors in Vallejo were sneering—she had never befriended them anyway—and the flag on her lawn had been cut up. She could also cope with the hate mail she received, particularly from her former schoolmates in Charleroi, where she had been part of a group rehabilitating the area.

Palfrey went on a media blitz, appearing on television programs like Geraldo at Large and the Star Jones Show, each time trying to distract the interviewer from asking about prostitution by going into alleyways of theories that she was a target of the government. Though he stopped short of saying this, it was clear during our interview that Preston Burton didn’t like all the public appearances and thought it imprudent of Palfrey to expose herself so.

DC MadamIn the fall Palfrey went back to Washington and the legal battle took on new life. First, on September 6, Burton was handed what is known as Jenks material, which consisted of the testimony of five original Pamela Martin “gals,” who, it turned out, had spoken to government agents in 2006, before Palfrey’s house had been searched.

Palfrey believed that in order to get a search warrant for her house, the government omitted crucial testimony from these women that would have backed up her claims. According to Palfrey, the women said things like “Jeane never asked me what happened” and “Jeane didn’t make me go to an appointment,” which the government did not include in its bid for a search warrant, she claimed.

Palfrey wanted Burton to go to court and have members of the prosecution removed from the case. She even called Burton a “wuss.” “This guy is a former U.S. attorney,” she said. “It was too much for him to believe that the whole system had done the wrong thing by me.” So, on August 22, she stood before Judge Kessler and asked her to appoint Sibley, the one man Palfrey felt would not be afraid to take on the country’s legal system.

Kessler bluntly told Palfrey she would not appoint Sibley to be her lawyer, since there was “nothing to suggest that he is equipped to handle a case as complex as this one or a case in which a defendant is facing … a maximum sentence of 55 years in jail.”

In a rather dramatic courtroom scene, Sibley suddenly spoke up from the back of the room, and Palfrey told the judge that if the court would not appoint him she would like to hire him on her own. Kessler asked for time to consider this; she asked Burton for his opinion. Burton said he “was speechless.”

In mid-September the subpoenas from the defense started to fly, written and issued by Sibley, still not officially Palfrey’s criminal lawyer. They were sent to a wide and extraordinary list of people, including newspaper columnist Cindy Adams (who had reported that Palfrey was set to fire Burton and therefore was felt by Palfrey to “have a mole in the Justice Department”), Brian Ross and ABC, and even Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. According to Sibley, Palfrey sought Leahy’s testimony for “his knowledge of the ‘corruption’ of the justice system by political influence,” as evidenced by his outspoken criticism of the Justice Department, mainly over the brouhaha surrounding the firings of U.S. attorneys.

On September 27, Palfrey filed a motion to have Kessler disqualify herself from the case, since Palfrey felt she was biased against her, particularly because she would not let Sibley sit next to her.

On October 4, I spoke to both Sibley and Palfrey. Sibley told me he intended to appeal to the circuit court. Palfrey added they were prepared to go to the Supreme Court to get Kessler off the case if need be.

Sibley also said he would subpoena every escort service in town and had already spoken to Verizon in an attempt to get all their local records; he was going to rip Washington apart and find out why Palfrey had been singled out, scorching the earth as he went.

Palfrey, meanwhile, reminded me that a whole year had passed since the start of her ordeal. “I still haven’t had one day in court,” she said. “I was entitled to that 30 days after they broke into my house. Here I am, judge-less, lawyer-less, and my pre-trial-services officer just went on holiday.”

She paused.

“Happy anniversary to me,” she said, still with some gusto.

In the end Judge Kessler was unavailable for Palfrey’s trial and Judge James Robertson oversaw the case. Sibley, however, was still not able to represent Palfrey—Burton remained her defense lawyer when she strode into court in April. Palfrey’s last e-mail to me, written on February 26, 2008, indicated that she feared what was coming, though her tone was as feisty as ever. She reiterated that she and Sibley were determined to figure out why she had been targeted.

“Without doubt I am in the fight of my life,” she wrote, calling her case “bizarre.” She concluded that, if she was convicted, the length of her sentence would realistically be 10 to 15 years, which, she wrote, would be “tantamount to a life sentence … stripping me of some of the most productive years remaining in my life.”

As we now know, it was not an experience she was prepared to endure.

Blanche Palfrey told me a few days after her daughter’s suicide that Jeane had felt utterly betrayed by what her “gals” had said on the stand. She and Burton had felt that in cross-examinations they had proved that she had not explicitly asked the girls to have sex with clients. Following the verdict, Blanche says, her daughter came with her to Florida and cried for two weeks. Jeane told her mother that she simply could not face a jail sentence and that she didn’t believe Burton’s attempts to appeal would work. (Burton expresses deep regret at his client’s fate, saying there was a good chance she might have received a shorter sentence than the recommended guideline of five to six years, and that the verdict might have been challenged based on a possible irregularity in how the government obtained its search warrant. “If we had prevailed on that issue, she might have gotten a new trial,” he says, adding that he was not aware how close to the edge she was. “To say it’s a tragic outcome is an understatement.”) The fiercely independent woman whose motto had been “Live free or die” had given up, her mother says. “The strain was too much,” Blanche tells me. “She just could not take any more.”

Around 10 a.m. on May 1, Jeane came downstairs and told her mother she was tired. “Why not rest?,” Blanche asked. “Yes, I think it’s time to rest,” her daughter replied. Later that morning, Blanche noticed her bike had been pushed out of the garden shed. She ran to Jeane’s bedroom. It was empty. Then she ran to the shed and found Jeane’s body. She called 911 in a panic.

The suicide notes reaffirmed everything she and her other daughter, Bobbie, already knew. “I cannot live the next 6–8 years behind bars for what both you and I have come to regard as this ‘modern day lynching,’ only to come out of prison in my late 50’s a broken, penniless, and very much alone woman,” Jeane wrote. “Surely you will not live long enough to see any possible release, and Bobbie likely will be unable to shoulder the responsibility of a sister who will be nothing but a mere shell of her former self.”

Like Jeane, Blanche desperately wants to know why Pamela Martin & Associates was singled out. “Someone, please, has to help me find out,” she says.V

Digg StumbleUpon Facebook

Don’t blame Obama for his mentor’s flaws

Barack ObamaThose of us firmly in the anti-Hillary, pro-Obama camp are fed up with it. “I can’t read about it any more,” one Obama backer wrote to me over the weekend.

But the endless press surrounding the inflammatory remarks pronounced by the Rev Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s former pastor of 20 years at Trinity Church in Chicago, just goes on. I’m sure you’ve heard how Wright has decided now is the time to tell us all that the American government was responsible for Aids among the black community, and that 9/11 was just the “chickens coming home to roost”.

As Obama heads into battle with Hillary Clinton in Indiana and North Carolina today, he is slipping in the polls – not much, but a bit. Wright’s insistence on continuing his inflammatory rhetoric could not have come at a worse time.

In several television appearances, Obama has done his best elegantly and calmly to deflect Wright’s views without resorting to personal abuse or giving too much information about what was once a close relationship. Obama chose a line from one of Wright’s sermons as the title of his book The Audacity of Hope, and Wright baptised Obama’s two daughters, but Obama has also pointed out that, like an “old uncle”, one can respect a leadership figure without agreeing with everything he says. Common sense suggests that Wright is a hurt, angry man who feels like his prodigal son left home without saying goodbye.

Obama’s campaign team know it screwed up last year by asking Wright to give the invocation when Obama announced his campaign – and then quickly disinvited him, realising it was sittingon a time bomb. Obama has been criticised for not denouncing Wright more forcefully when he first emerged on the media scene several months ago. Had the Clintons had a relationship with such a man, he’d have been silenced long ago.

Yet all of us have had mentors with flaws; that doesn’t mean we want to trample on them in public when we evolve into surer identities. Obama’s cool demeanour will eventually silence the din over this issue; even conservative pundit Peggy Noonan admits that she can’t get worked up over it.

Obama has already taught us that integrity and likeability can carry a man to unimaginable places. I find it unlikely that these qualities will stop working for him now.V

Digg StumbleUpon Facebook

Remembering the D.C. Madam

DC MadamJust a few hours ago, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the former owner of the Pamela Martin escort agency, was found dead in a shed near her mother’s house in Tampa, Florida.

The authorities said she had hanged herself. And while the news was shocking, I cannot say I was surprised. The 52-year-old, known in the press as “the D.C. Madam,” had been convicted last month of racketeering, money laundering, and two counts of using the mail for illegal purposes. She faced a potential sentence of 50 years.

I got to know Palfrey well over the past year as I followed her case for Vanity Fair. (My story will be published on VF.com in the coming days.) I know she saw herself as a lady, strange as it may seem, and a businesswoman. She had spent just over a year in prison in 1991, for prostitution, and had felt utterly out of place among her fellow inmates. She called it her “‘Nam moment”

She told me she’d returned to prostitution because she saw no alternative, but this time she was determined to do it right. She hired only educated women with day jobs who chose the work for the extra money. None of them were forced into it. This policy prevented snitching—and enabled her to justify what she was doing. The employees I met were impressively beautiful women, and they greatly respected her. They said the men they met through her were often preferable to those they encountered elsewhere.

In her presence, I used to have to remind myself that this was a former prostitute turned madam, not an executive at a law firm or an advertising agency. She was funny, feisty, and clever; she was always well-dressed, ate elegantly, and held herself bolt-upright. And she expected the same of her “gals.” I once asked who her ideal employee would be. “You, Vicky,” she replied, without batting an eyelid. A month or two later, she started probing about my personal life. When she heard I had children, she put down her napkin. “Oh, so you have a family … ” That’s when I realized she’d actually been serious!

As her case progressed, however, her competency began to desert her. She fired the lawyers given to her by the state and relied on the charming but ineffective Blair Sibley to defend her. She began to seem somewhat delusional. Livid that she’d been singled out by the government, she demanded that all the other prositution rings be outed and became convinced that someone in high office was responsible for her persecution. She became obsessed with this idea, to the point that she even thought one of her own lawyers, Preston Burton, was “too close to the government to represent her.”

Yet until the end, she remained resolved to win, to set a precedent. “I am in the fight of my life” she wrote me in February. It was hard to judge her tone. This was, after all, the woman who had told me she was no “Brandy Britton,” the college professor who had killed herself after it emerged she’d been a prostitute. Yet in the end, underneath the posture, the panache, and the bravado, she was the same in at least one tragic respect.V

Digg StumbleUpon Facebook