Washington's Madam Indicted on Racketeering Charges

[Ivan Seeking]

A woman accused of running a prostitution service catering to men in hotels and homes in the Washington area was indicted on federal racketeering charges yesterday in a case with a twist: She has threatened to peddle "the entire 46 pounds of detailed and itemized phone records" of her clients to raise money for her defense. [continued]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/01/AR2007030101725.html

Oh please, do tell! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

[Moonbear]

Have you seen any politicians looking particularly sweaty recently? :rofl:

 

[Astronuc]

Have you seen any politicians looking particularly sweaty recently? :rofl:

They all look sweaty, or greasy, or even slimey - if you know what I mean. :grumpy:

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Have you seen any politicians looking particularly sweaty recently? :rofl:

Hillary...?

 

[Moonbear]

Hillary...?

:rofl: Hey, you never know. Maybe there's a reason Bill had to seek entertainment elsewhere.

With a list of 10,000 clients, all with enough money to pay for $300 prostitutes, I bet there would be far more than just a few recognizable names on that list. Then again, why pay when you can get the interns for free? :uhh:

 

[Cyrus]

Damm, why didnt I hear about this sooner?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The former owner of a Washington-area escort business said she reached a deal to share her records of up to 15,000 client phone numbers with a media organization.

"I have decided to hand over all phone records, logs and invoices (including those presently unknown to the government) to what I believe to be one of the most reputable and respected investigative news organizations in the country, to assist me with my needs," Deborah Jeane Palfrey, 50, wrote in an e-mail to WTOP Radio.[continued]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/12/madam.clientlist.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

 

[Moonbear]

Ooh, now it's up to 15,000 clients? Good time to be a divorce lawyer in D.C. (unless, of course, your name is on the list). :tongue2:

 

[Astronuc]

Ooh, now it's up to 15,000 clients? Good time to be a divorce lawyer in D.C. (unless, of course, your name is on the list). :tongue2:

I wonder how many guys are going to 'find religion' in the next few weeks.

 

[Moonbear]

I wonder how many guys are going to 'find religion' in the next few weeks.

Gone are the days when they could just buy up every copy of the paper before anyone sees their name on the list. :rofl: I'm sure the lesser known names will be safe...the papers can't print every single name, so will have to select just the highlights of the most notable on the list. Though, perhaps we shouldn't assume it's only men on the list.

 

[arildno]

Ooh, now it's up to 15,000 clients? Good time to be a divorce lawyer in D.C. (unless, of course, your name is on the list). :tongue2:

Since "up to" is "less than", to have 20 clients is to have up to 15000. In addition, 20 is an approximation of 15000.

 

[Moonbear]

Since "up to" is "less than", to have 20 clients is to have up to 15000. In addition, 20 is an approximation of 15000.

Well, the original article said "about 10000" so I figure that means they're now estimating somewhere over 10000 and under 15000. Of course, I don't know how many were dumb enough to give their real names.

 

[arildno]

Hmm..a GOOD madam is an expert at getting the names of her clients whether she needs them or not.
Or at least, she should be good at it.

 

[BobG]

Well, the original article said "about 10000" so I figure that means they're now estimating somewhere over 10000 and under 15000. Of course, I don't know how many were dumb enough to give their real names.

You mean how many were dumb enough to use a real phone number to call from and for her to call them back? Only the large number of phone records makes it hard for anyone to track back the identity of her clients.