Skip to comments.
Judge Blocks Sale of Escort Client List
AP via SFGate ^
| 3/16/7
| MATT APUZZO
Posted on 03/16/2007 3:20:08 PM PDT by SmithL
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal judge ruled Friday that a former escort service owner cannot sell phone records and other company records, saving about 15,000 clients from possible public embarrassment.
Deborah Jeane Palfrey, 50, has said she planned to sell the list to a news organization to help raise money for her defense. The alleged "D.C. Madam" ran Pamela Martin and Associates, an upscale escort service in the Washington area, for 13 years before it closed in August.
Federal prosecutors say it was a prostitution ring that yielded $2 million in assets, including cash and homes. In October, the federal government froze the asset
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: activistjudge; clintonlegacy; corruption; corruptpoliticians; johnlist; palfrey; vitter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-66 next last
To: colorado tanker
Yes, and some put their pictures on TV. And it's wrong. Public humiliation went out as an appropriate punishment with the stocks.
That must be why accused criminals are given the option of having their names withheld from information given to the press. If our elected officials are breaking the law, we have a right to know it. Character counts, remember?
41
posted on
03/16/2007 5:13:57 PM PDT
by
freedomfiter2
(Duncan Hunter: pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, pro-border control, pro-family)
To: SmithL
Is this the case that Tommy Lasorda got caught up in?
42
posted on
03/16/2007 5:19:27 PM PDT
by
Diplomat
To: furquhart
There are going to be at least as many Republicans as Democrats on those lists.
Immaterial. Elected officials should be held to a higher standard. Left wing, right wing, if they were clients of this woman, they are scumbags and should be exposed as such.
I don't know about you, but I sure as hell don't want a man who would cheat on his wife (with a whore or otherwise) making decisions that effect my life.
He has already proven incapable of making reasonable choices as to where to stick his willy. That proves he can not be trusted with power over me.
43
posted on
03/16/2007 5:23:31 PM PDT
by
Dr.Zoidberg
(Mohammedanism - Bringing you only the best of the 6th century for fourteen hundred years.)
To: Tax-chick
I agree. Men are men.
Not all men cheat and fewer pay for sex.
44
posted on
03/16/2007 5:39:49 PM PDT
by
freedomfiter2
(Duncan Hunter: pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, pro-border control, pro-family)
To: isthisnickcool
45
posted on
03/16/2007 6:08:39 PM PDT
by
SmithL
(si vis pacem, para bellum)
To: freedomfiter2
Wrong! In one way or another all men pay for sex.
To: SmithL
What on earth could be her rationale... This really is a shameful decision worthy of a third world dictatorship..
Let the chips fall where they may.. Our Demon-crats and Republi-Cons need a good house cleaning. What a wonderful way to get rid of people who are clearly subject to extortion. Think of all the Millions spent by Islamofacists to sabotage the war which will go down the drain if this "Judge" were to release that list. All the millions spent by defense contractors to insure more innovative less expensive solutions to national defense never see the light of day. How many Judges, Prosecutors, Police, Media Personalities are on that list?
Joe Doakes get his name in the paper when after a week of work he hires some hag off the street...
Joe Millionare gets his name protected
Crap.
W
47
posted on
03/16/2007 6:15:34 PM PDT
by
WLR
("fugit impius nemine persequente iustus autem quasi leo confidens absque terrore erit")
To: colorado tanker
What they heck There is no right to privacy when engaged in a criminal conspiracy..
Calling some Madame to have some hooker delivered is a felony conspiracy.
If the state holds them as evidence/ asserts the right to control them they are public records..Subject to a separate hearing process all their own (If the government want to assert they represent a threat to national security..
Privacy of the Johns and Janes listed.?
piffle
W
48
posted on
03/16/2007 6:22:40 PM PDT
by
WLR
("fugit impius nemine persequente iustus autem quasi leo confidens absque terrore erit")
To: Popocatapetl
Don't you think that has already happened.
This is really a major scandal that much effort is being made to sweep under the rug.
One of the big things we were briefed on was being compromised and then turned.
The people on that list are compromised and possibly turned..
49
posted on
03/16/2007 6:26:37 PM PDT
by
WLR
("fugit impius nemine persequente iustus autem quasi leo confidens absque terrore erit")
To: freedomfiter2
Not all men cheat and fewer pay for sex.True, but if they're going to, Republican or Democrat doesn't seem to make a difference!
50
posted on
03/16/2007 6:26:53 PM PDT
by
Tax-chick
(John Edwards is a gamma male. "Yeah, buddy, that's his own hair!")
To: Dr.Zoidberg
To: SmithL
Even money the "news outlet" is a FoC (Friend of Clintons)
52
posted on
03/16/2007 6:43:01 PM PDT
by
theDentist
(Qwerty ergo typo : I type, therefore I misspelll.)
To: Dr.Zoidberg
Give the chosen news agency the List and sell one of her baby pic or a pic of anything for that matter for 4 million.
53
posted on
03/16/2007 6:45:55 PM PDT
by
Global2010
( I am just ole Lab dog with my head stickin' out the window and my ears a flappin' in the wind.htp)
To: Tax-chick
True, but if they're going to, Republican or Democrat doesn't seem to make a difference!
That's why we need that list and why we need real conservatives in office. The voters don't think the Republicans are any different ethically.
54
posted on
03/16/2007 6:47:30 PM PDT
by
freedomfiter2
(Duncan Hunter: pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, pro-border control, pro-family)
To: freedomfiter2
"Republicans" and "conservatives" is not the same thing, unfortunately.
Are human failings evenly distributed between the political parties, at least in this particular situation? It would be interesting to know!
55
posted on
03/16/2007 6:49:35 PM PDT
by
Tax-chick
(John Edwards is a gamma male. "Yeah, buddy, that's his own hair!")
To: Global2010
That works.
And a thumb in the eye of the judge to boot.
I like it.
56
posted on
03/16/2007 6:51:31 PM PDT
by
Dr.Zoidberg
(Mohammedanism - Bringing you only the best of the 6th century for fourteen hundred years.)
To: TruthWillWin
Wrong! In one way or another all men pay for sex.
You got me. The difference is that when married men pay their wives it doesn't guarantee that he'll get sex.
57
posted on
03/16/2007 6:51:56 PM PDT
by
freedomfiter2
(Duncan Hunter: pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, pro-border control, pro-family)
To: WLR
You're exactly right. The Johns , ( and possibly some Janes ), involved in this criminal endeavor shouldn't expect privacy.
If a dope dealer is arrested and the cops have a list of his customers, should the customers be offered the same protection that the judge is offering the Johns?
58
posted on
03/16/2007 6:54:14 PM PDT
by
csvset
To: SmithL
Maybe he's on it!
59
posted on
03/16/2007 7:38:52 PM PDT
by
pray4liberty
(a saint is a sinner who never gave up.)
To: furquhart
Those records are part of the assets frozen by the IRS, et al. If those are under the control of the government, you can't sell them - anymore than you can sell your house, etc, if the government's sold them.
But the government can sell your house etc to satisfy the debt to the IRS.
Those records have value, so when does the auction begin to satisfy the debt of the satisfiers?
60
posted on
03/16/2007 9:38:34 PM PDT
by
TYVets
(God so loved the world he didn't send a committee)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-66 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson