No wool over this judge's eyes

Wayne Madsen is the only reporter I've found covering today's DC madam hearing.
U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler in D.C. heard arguments on the Attorney General's motion to keep DC Madam Deborah Jeanne Palfrey's phone records that go back to 1994 restrained, but the U.S. attorney can't seem to keep the government's stories straight, and her honor ain't no chump.

Palfrey (right) has 46 pounds of phone records including numbers tied to Dick Cheney when he was CEO of Haliburton, Madsen has reported.

Kessler suggested that Assistant U.S. Attorney William Cowden appeared to be more interested in protecting the identities of PMA clients than in showing just cause why releasing the phone records would cause any harassment of potential government witnesses in the criminal trial of Palfrey.

Cowden says escorts could fear harassment, but when the judge asked him for evidence, he admitted no one has been harassed, despite ABC News having some numbers.

Then he admitted a "significant number of clients did have sex" with the madam's escorts, which led the wise judge to ask why this prostitution racketeering case isn't charging any of the johns, who all commit an equal crime of prostitution. Just how does one prove a prostitution ring without johns testifying they paid for sex?

"I don't know where the government is going in this case," Kessler told Cowden.

In claiming the government's motive to restrain the phone list is because the madam could sell them, Cowden admitted the AG doesn't have a copy of those numbers now and doesn't intend to call any of customers for the case, stressing it "is immaterial who had sex" with the madam's escorts.

Cowden's argument to maintain the restraining order on the phone list wandered all over the map. First, he suggested that after Palfrey's trial, the government would make access to the list subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Alternately, he suggested the list would be turned over to the Smithsonian Institution or "buried" in a government warehouse. Or, Cowden suggested, the government would give the list away.

Cowden also suggested that the government could order the list seized as an asset and put in in the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service. Cowden indicated that the government's desire to keep the list from becoming public was to "ensure the trial [of Palfrey] does not turn into a circus."

One of Palfrey's lawyers pointed out the same records are available from the phone company (did he add, available for the duration of the legal statute of limitations?)

Cowden responded that the list, which dates as far back as 1994, is valuable because "no phone company keeps records for 13 years, only five years." He added that incoming call records are only maintained for a few months.

So, to be straight, he wants to obtain and "bury" the madam's records because they are the only records with the numbers of the johns he isn't going to put on trial. I see.
I think Judge Kessler does, too.

Kessler stated that the government's argument that it is the information in the phone records that is valuable "raises First Amendment" issues.

I think I like this judge. I look forward to her ruling on this, "in the near future."