Mom indicted for hiring stripper for son's birthday

Nashville Tennessean | 5/28/5 | IAN DEMSKY

[SmithL]

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050528/NEWS03/505280336

Cassandra Joyce Park, 29, left, who police say used the stage name "Sassy,"
danced at the 16th birthday party for Landon Harris, right, in September.

Oh yeah, VERY mature.

[nmh]

She looks like a stripper.

I'm surprised she didn't strip for her son and his friends and maybe throw in some bedroom time.

[nmh]

About 30 people were at Landon Pharris' 16th birthday party in September, about 10 of them under the age of 18.

"We even had grandpa there," his mother said.

...

The excitement might have ended that night if Anette Pharris hadn't taken photos at the celebration and then tried to have them developed at a nearby drug store. Many of the pictures were taken by Anette Pharris, police said, but once the dancer's "bottoms" came off, she retreated into the next room and her then 14-year-old son, Brandon, continued documenting the action.


Anette Pharris said yesterday that she was coming up on her 18th wedding anniversary, "so I must be doing something right. Who are they to tell me what I can and can't show to my own children?"

DOING SOMETHING RIGHT? LOL! LOOK at YOUR SON - he's a creep!

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," she said.

---

This alley cat of a "mother" is too much!

Apparently laws are only for the little people as she Scripture twists.

[Drew68]

Landon's mother said she had to contact several companies before she found one that would agree to send an adult entertainer to a minor's birthday party.

That's apparent. Looks like "Sassy" probably needed the work.

All I know is that if my mom hired a stripper that ugly for my 16th birthday, I'd be pretty pissed off at her!

[Drew68]

Cassandra Joyce Park, 29,

29? Yeah, right! I'm buyin' that one. From the looks of her, this woman hasn't been 29 since the first George Bush was president! If she *is* 29, she really needs to tone down the meth use a bit.

[eastforker]

I wonder what the state statue was that she violated to get her indicted. Granted hiring a stripper is in bad taste but nudity in ones home is something else. Now if she had hired her to have sex with him, sure nuff said, so now what, throw the mom in jail and what will that do to correct things. Then again why would anyone go to a pubic photo developer with those pics. Then again why do photo developers think they need to be life moderators. And as Hedly Lamar would say while looking into camera, why am I asking you?

[Publius6961]

Just last night I found my asbestos suit, which I had misplaced.

Just exactly what is the source of the gross overreaction to this story?

No, I never hired a stripper for either of my sons' birthdays, but I don't do rap, rock climbing, starbucks, live in trailer parks, own an ipod, mind other people's business or lots of other things.

[Drew68]

I wonder what the state statue was that she violated to get her indicted. Granted hiring a stripper is in bad taste but nudity in ones home is something else. Now if she had hired her to have sex with him, sure nuff said, so now what, throw the mom in jail and what will that do to correct things.

I was wondering about that myself. I'm sure there is a law about soliciting adult entertainers for minors but it seems that having a naked adult in your home wouldn't necessarily be a crime.

At any rate, I fail to see the damage caused by having a 16 year-old boy exposed to a disturbingly ugly stripper.

[Bullish]

White trash creep!

She probably also shows her son how to shoot up heroin. On a regular basis.

[Publius6961]

Exactly.
I thought it was the new mantra that what one does in the privacy of one's home is constitutionally guaranteed private no matter what.
Right?

[jdm]

"If she *is* 29, she really needs to tone down the meth use a bit."

LOL!

[eastforker]

No, I asked what statute the mom violated.Exposure to nudity in of itself I don't see as a crime, if it was minors would not be allowed in art museums.

[randog]

Oh, that's the boy on the right. I thought it was the mother. He looks like he might have enjoyed a male stripper instead. And if he doesn't go that way, he sure will after seeing a crank ho' like that get naked.

[Publius6961]

I doubt whether you will get a satisfactory answer to either question here, other than "just because"...

[DaGman]

Which one is the dancer?

[ThinkDifferent]

The excitement might have ended that night if Anette Pharris hadn't taken photos at the celebration and then tried to have them developed at a nearby drug store.

She can afford a stripper but not a digital camera?

[ThinkDifferent]

I thought it was the new mantra that what one does in the privacy of one's home is constitutionally guaranteed private no matter what.

That's generally applied in the context of "consenting adults", which is not the case here.

[MikefromOhio]

THAT is 29? Yeah sure, maybe when Carter was the president....


yeaccchhhhhhh!!!!!

[Publius6961]

That's generally applied in the context of "consenting adults", which is not the case here.

That begs the question. The rational extension of that statement is that if the brainiacs had not "outed" themselves by going to the film processor, there would be neither foul nor penalty?

[Gunrunner2]

"I fail to see the damage caused by having a 16 year-old boy exposed to a disturbingly ugly stripper."

Perhaps because it will cause him to turn into a homo.


;-)