UPDATE, September 26: The case is roiling; take some time to catch up.

UPDATE, July 10: As a result of Deborah Jeane Palfrey’s wide-scale release of her phone records, which was first reported on Big Head DC, it has been revealed that GOP Sen. David Vitter used her escort service — a story that went unreported by the ABC News investigative team in May. When we interviewed Palfrey last month, she was adamant that ABC News made some mistakes:

June 19: Big Head DC sat down last week with alleged “DC Madam” Deborah Jeane Palfrey for a wide ranging three-hour interview, which is sure to make some notorious political power players squirm. New allegations of political corruption and sexual exploits, shocking insights into her case, and honest observations of media coverage to date were frequently on the tip of her tongue. (A tongue, we might add, that was schooled in criminal justice and has had intense training for a law degree.)

We spoke to Palfrey via telephone while she sat in her not-so-luxurious laundry room, labeled “command central” by Palfrey and made famous by her less-than-revealing interview with Brian Ross on ABC’s 20/20 last month, inside her government-seized home in California. Having seen and heard her in action before, we knew she’d be candid, but we wondered how far she’d be willing to go. After all, many DC Madam spectators have wondered why bigger names weren’t revealed as past clients of Palfrey during the ABC interview, and we were left to wonder, too, whether this might turn out to be a rehash of no news.

But Palfrey did make news, talking strongly and eloquently about alleged clients, a list of whom she says likely includes Vice President Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton political guru Dick Morris and other high-ranking politicos. She also adamantly denied that Chandra Levy, a government intern and acquaintance of former Congressman Gary Condit found murdered in DC in 2001, ever worked for her escort service, despite many behind-the scenes claims to the contrary.

Ever since Palfrey had her assets seized by the government in October 2006 because officials claim her business was a front for prostitution, we’ve been in awe of her sense of control (and have said as much to reporters who have interviewed us about the case from outlets including The Guardian newspaper and Vanity Fair). Many in her situation could have bowed to governmental legal pressure by now, simply served a few months in prison - and have gone merrily along a path to rebuilding a life turned completely and utterly upside down. Others, facing the scrutiny and harassment resulting from such a circus, could have even committed suicide, as did Brandy Britton, a former employee of Palfrey’s Pamela Martin & Associates, whom we wrote about for another publication in 2006 and who ultimately hanged herself this February in her suburban DC home.

But not Palfrey. She just keeps talking. In fact, as a result of her words, the scandal surrounding her business has already led to the resignation of Ambassador Randall L. Tobias. Washington Times columnist Harman Ullman has also been implicated, although he’s made strong denials. Throughout, she’s held a key playing card, her 10,000 name client list, close to her heart, using it to leverage power over the very politicians and other high-ranking officials who have tried to silence her to date. Now, her silence is broken in ways yet unreported:

Rob Capriccioso, Editor, Big Head DC: How are you feeling right now, Jeane. And what do you see resulting from all of this?

Deborah Jeane Palfrey: I see a lot of good coming from all of this muck and mess. I get stronger everyday. I get better everyday.

RC: How so?

DJP: You have to remember, I am nine months into this ordeal. In the beginning, my answer would have been completely different. I was in shock. I was traumatized. I was functioning like a robot for a while. I was a mess. I was absolutely a mess… I believe now that the truth will prevail in the end.

We have not had our day in court yet, either in the civil matter or the criminal matter. We have not been able to get any discovery to speak of; we have not been able to do any investigating; we have not been able to get any answers; we have no idea who my accusers are. We have nothing. We simply have nothing here. But, you know, the government can stall only for so long… The tables are turning. We’re going to get to the bottom of what’s going on here very soon.

RC: So that’s why you’re more optimistic now?

DJP: It’s not that I wasn’t optimistic earlier on. I understood at the beginning, once I got through the really bad part, and I obtained an attorney, I realized what a strong case I have. It’s just that we’ve been prohibited and thwarted from being able to get at the truth.

RC: Explain.

DJP: We’re getting closer to putting the government up against the wall and making them answer our questions… Nobody ever gets this far into the process… The government is usually able to shut down people pretty fast. They’ve put me into an untenable position financially by confiscating all of my assets and property. Thank God I had a good line of credit… Otherwise, I would be like most everyone else in this country who lives paycheck to paycheck. I would have collapsed within the first thirty days and taken whatever the government offered. I believe that’s what the government was hoping would happen with me, but, indeed, that’s not the case. Consequently, I’ve been able to wait it out to fight them. And sooner or later, they just can’t block me anymore.

RC: When did you realize that your list of names gave you power, in terms of media attention and a possible legal defense?

DJP: …Well, in the beginning, my civil lawyer [Montgomery Blair Sibley] offered me up as “queen for a day” to the government. He really believed he could get this case dismissed, knocked out, something, in a few weeks to a few months. We really believed there had to be a legitimate reason for why they were going after me. Perhaps I had 9/11-like terrorists, or cells, who actually were customers of mine, and maybe the government needed that information. We started from the point that there must be a justifiable reason for this action. And we immediately went down that road with them…

We were told they were not interested in the clients… So, we proceeded onward.

RC: Your lawyer then went on to put together arguments that posit prostitution isn’t even a crime in the District of Columbia–

DJP: –Yes, it wasn’t. Therefore, they had been holding my money on that point alone, illegally, for nine months. Nonetheless, he put together these great arguments. We were thinking back in November and early December that Judge Gladys Kessler (who was appointed to the U.S. District Court for DC in 1994) would entertain our motions and start asking all the right questions.

The woman not only didn’t look at the motions, nor ask the right questions, she even ignored time-sensitive Congressionally-mandated motions to rule…

RC: One of those mandates, in particular one regarding your motion to return property, says the court is supposed to rule in thirty days, correct?

DJP: Yes, and that’s the motion that’s now before U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas who has said he is going to take our appeal on. He’s taking that motion to conference with the full court on Thursday, June 21. This is a very serious thing that Judge Kessler did. We’re hoping that based on Justice Thomas’ efforts here that we’re going to stay the criminal process I’m facing, kick the case back to the civil arena and get this thing killed that way. Regardless, I believe this is going to be killed criminally.

RC: Are you surprised that Justice Thomas has been supportive?

DJP: I am. Within a matter of just a couple of days, he decided to hear the motion.

RC: What are the ramifications of Judge Kessler’s hesitancy to rule on the motion?

DJP: It gave the government time to put together a grand jury to - what I believe was - to harass these poor girls (Palfrey’s former employees), to expose anything negative about me…

We then went through January, and I was able to stall them until early February, because, at that point, I was very, very nervous that 1) I would be indicted criminally… and 2) I was looking for a criminal attorney who was actually going to pay attention to my case as well…

(Palfrey noted during the interview that she was displeased with her original court-appointed criminal attorney, A.J. Kramer. She was also adamant that this situation should have always remained in the civil court, and then killed there.)

In late February, I was trying to look around for a criminal defense attorney, but no one would take on my case because 1) I don’t have any money; and 2) even if I could find somebody, which I didn’t, the government could then trace it back to what they would call illegally-gotten gains… They’ve got you screwed left to right in a civil asset forfeiture. Not only do they take your money; they leave you without the ability to hire an attorney. And then if you can find one to take on your case, the money used to pay them must come from another party, because if it’s still your money, the attorney will refuse it. Ultimately, if you lose, the government can come back and forfeit that money as having been gotten from illegal gains. You are really in one hell of a predicament when they play this civil asset forfeiture move on you…

RC: So, at that point you decided to utilize the names on your client lists?

DJP: [Sibley] and I decided at that time that we had one of two choices. We could either roll over like everyone else does, or we could come out fighting like hell. It was a black or white situation. It couldn’t be a little bit of one and a little bit of the other. We decided to go for it…

(Palfrey explained that she soon dropped A.J. Kramer as her criminal defense lawyer.)

Blair then told me, ‘The only thing I can think to do to get you some money to hire a criminal attorney is to sell those records. Maybe we can raise you enough money to get a decent attorney.’ We thought about this for about a week or so, and that’s when we put out the press release. And we got a hell of a lot of attention.

RC: In hindsight, was that a good idea?

DJP: After about a week or so, we thought it probably wasn’t. We backed away from that idea. Simultaneously, ABC was on to us. They said they would not pay us for the records, but would help find defense witnesses [by culling through the massive lists of numbers]. We didn’t have the thousands of dollars that it would take to do the research ourselves, so we said, ‘Thank you, thank you, thank you.’

(Before Palfrey could transfer all of the records to ABC, the Assistant U.S. Attorney’s Office placed an injunction on her, which, in mid-March, prohibited her from sharing any more records. Thus, ABC only received a portion of the records - 80 percent of her clients’ numbers from the years 2002-6. Palfrey was also indicted on March 9.)

We’re now trying to get that injunction lifted, so we can redistribute all of the records.

RC: Did ABC News do what you thought it would?

DJP: …Most people are very suspicious of what ABC did, including myself and my attorney. Right to the last minute, we believed that they were coming out with a hard-hitting story, and they came out with nothing…

For the almost two months that they had those records, they were courting us, they were babysitting us, they were hovering over us. They were terrified that I was going to go out there and give an interview. They demanded exclusivity, and they were just on us constantly…

Since the 20/20 piece aired on May 4, I haven’t heard from one of them. Not even a ‘thank you.’

RC: So, where are we at with respect to learning the contents of the full records?

DJP: Well, the injunction could be lifted literally at any hour now. This is where we have come with respect to the records. I now have a (criminal) attorney, who was appointed by Judge Kessler, Preston Burton. My worries about having a good criminal attorney and a proper legal defense are now out the window. I no longer have to worry about distributing the records for those reasons. Although, with that said, I believe that many minds are better than one mind. One researcher who Preston Burton might hire isn’t going to do it for me, as far as I’m concerned. I want other people looking at the records as well…

It has become obvious to me after reading all of these blogs, Big Head DC included, and hearing from all of the people who have come to me, that it’s almost as if it’s our patriotic duty to release the records. Not because we want wholesale disruption of 10,000 lives. No, we don’t want to destroy people’s lives. We don’t want to destroy the girls’ lives. I’ve never wanted to do that…

Still, there are, we estimate, statistically, 25 to 100 people who have violated the public trust who should indeed be outed. The only way they can be outed is for all of the information to be released - not just a few years - to multiple recipients. This includes responsible media, journalists, bloggers… In this way, they will be able to come up with the information that ABC should have indeed come up with. I’m never, ever going to give these records exclusively to anyone ever again.

RC: Do you think ABC might just have gotten a percentage of names that didn’t include politicos who, in your words, have ‘violated the public trust’?

DJP: I think there were indeed big names in the list ABC was given. And here’s why: Brian Ross interviewed me twice, once in New York and then he came out here to California, and that’s when he did the laundry room scene… In part of that interview that’s on the cutting room floor, he went down a laundry list of names - about a half dozen of actual, recognizable names … and then at the end said to me, ‘Did you realize that you had such important clientele?’ I said, ‘Of course.’ I hired first rate people who attracted first rate clients…

RC: One huge name that’s been put out there is Vice President Dick Cheney. Why do you think that is?

DJP: It’s certainly possible that he used the service… I think he probably used it in the mid- to late- 1990s…

I can also confirm that Dick Morris used the service.

RC: But Dick Morris says he did not.

DJP: Oh, he did. I remember him quite well. He did.

RC: Can you confirm for a fact that Dick Cheney used your service?

DJP: It’s certainly likely.

(Palfrey noted during the interview that other sources have shed more light on Cheney’s possible involvement.)

RC: So, when it boils down to it, what is your case all about, Jeane?

DJP: It sure isn’t about some prostitution case… We have these hypocrites running around telling us how we should behave, yet they behave quite differently, i.e. Randall Tobias. Even more importantly, I believe, are issues of espionage and blackmail. It’s very, very possible that that’s what’s been going on with a lot of my clients. Any statistician will tell you that with 10,000 clients, you know some of them have been blackmailed at some point along the way… Some of these people have been blackmailed.

RC: If someone were blackmailing high-ranking officials, how would they have gotten the information?

DJP: Good question. Because they sure didn’t get it from me… For all I know, there could have been an agent planted in my agency, a girl…

RC: Did you have many women who worked for you for a short period of time?

DJP: Yeah, many, many. But that’s par for the course. That would not have been a cause for alarm.

RC: How many women worked for Pamela Martin & Associates?

DJP: According to the government, I had 133 employment records filed. They counted, apparently.

RC: Did any men work for your business?

DJP: No, it was a strictly heterosexual business. Now the clients will be very happy I said that. (Laughs.)

RC: There have been rumors that Chandra Levy may have worked for you at some point during your reign. Is there any truth to that?

DJP: I’ve heard that her family is very concerned that she is being called a call girl. She was not a call girl. I want to make sure that her family knows that she was never a part of this.

RC: Could Chandra’s murderer be in your records?

DJP: You never know.

RC: Are you ever concerned when you throw ideas out there about your situation, like the possibility of blackmail against government officials who may have used your service, that people are going to start thinking of you as a conspiracy theorist?

DJP: Like a crazy girl? Uh, no. Because I’d like to know why me, and why only me? I wish someone could help me figure out this riddle.

RC: What about your detractors, people who don’t give credence to a former escort service business owner?

DJP: Well, that’s fine, but shame on them. I’m a citizen just like they are. Why should I be diminished? Am I less of a citizen? I don’t drink; I don’t smoke; I don’t do drugs. The last illegal thing I did was go 70 miles per hour in a 55 mph zone in 1991. And I got a speeding ticket.

I’m a good person. I’m a decent person. And if people want to laugh at me, well, that’s fine. Have your laugh. But that doesn’t mean what I’m saying is any less important…

RC: You retired in August 2006 before any of this ever began. Why?

DJP: I had just had it. I’d been in the business for thirteen years. The girls were driving me crazy. It was just like any other business owner who throws their hands up in the air and says, ‘That’s it.’

Originally published June 19.

Earlier: ABC News Reporter Planning Tell-All “DC Madam” Book?; “DC Madam” Supports Larry Flynt’s Effort to Out Philandering Politicos; “DC Madam’s” Sick Mom Now Under Investigation; Possible “DC Madam” / Dick Cheney Affair Raises Ire Among Concerned Citizens; “DC Domina” Speaks Out on “DC Madam” Gag Order; Rationale for “DC Madam” / “DC Domina” Connection; “DC Madam” Defense Turned to Bodybuilding Dominatrix as Expert Witness; “DC Madam” Not Gagged on WSRadio.com