I don't think close enough for a 'Separated at birth?' But close enough for siblings.
Posted on 03/09/2007 11:47:48 AM PST by EagleUSA
WASHINGTON — The so-called "Beltway Madam" pleaded not guilty to federal racketeering and money laundering charges in federal court Friday.
Prosecutors say Deborah Jean Palfrey, 50, ran a call-girl service in the Washington, D.C. area for 13 years, taking appointments from her California home and dispatching women to luxury hotels in Washington and Baltimore. They say the service promoted prostitution.
Palfrey was released Friday on her own recognizance, but had her passport confiscated. She was officially booked, and had her picture and fingerprints taken by police.
The judge also ordered Palfrey to wear an electronic monitoring device to track her travels between California and Washington, and anywhere in between.
Palfrey, who was indicted last week, is threatening to release her little black book of 10,000 clients on the Internet to pay for her defense.
She writes on her Web site that "consideration is being given to selling the entire 46 pounds of detailed and itemized phone records for the 13-year period, to raise the requisite defense funds."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
What a hoot it would be to have the cable newsies' spend a week or two tearing through that stuff.
-----
It would be more than delicous. The MSM would be in a feeding frenzy, trying to point out all of the Repubs, and hide all of the libs....ha!!
>>>I don't want my taxes used to put people in jail for selling or buying sex or drugs.
I do. And I will vote conservative to ensure that it continues.
:)
Thanks for the pick. She looks like Charley Sheen in drag.
Your thinking made the Italian mafia rich 80 years ago, the crips and ever south american ganster more recently. And people still get high and still want to sell and buy sex.
Who are you protecting with the "conservative" effort of yours. Certainly not me and my family. Making gansters rich does not make us safer. It makes the world more dangerous.
In case you haven't noticed, many of us other conservatives disagree with you.
She could be bluffing.
It might be nothing but small fish, or even falsified info to frame her enemies.
True, and I agree that is a very serious, worldwide problem. That doesn't seem to have been the case, here, though. From what I've read she recruited U.S. college educated women for a high-end operation.
I understand how that sounds; but you don't know the terms and conditions of their college attendance.
The service provided could have been part of the college tuition.
Sex trafficking isn't conservative.
OMG, I think you are right!
I don't think close enough for a 'Separated at birth?' But close enough for siblings.
First, yeah, like people in DC seeing a prostitute will not give the name of Congressman and Senators. I'm sure she's had at least 6 Ted Kennedy's as clients.
If she had names, she'd just use them. There's nothing a Congressman can do now and the prosecutor won't care that names are exposed.
However, it's also immoral to confiscate my money and make me pay taxes to stop a behavior which serves no purpose being a criminal act and in no way protects me or my family.
When the country was operating it's first 125 years drugs were not illegal. Was it conservative to make a change to social engineer the use of drugs by outlawing them? And is it conservative to now spend billions keeping taxes higher to punish the use of them?
LOL! Thanks for the pic. I guess siblings would work. That was my first impression. (Sorry Charley)
You are squealing pretty loudly there. You don't like your money being used for clean up, vote for a Democrate or for Giuliani.
I'm voting conservative to continue the clean up.
If you're gonna do it girl, just do it. Otherwise with all of this threatening, she'd probably be wise to watch her back.
What was it we used to hear ?? Arkansided, Ron Browned, Fort Marcy Park etc, etc, etc
Maybe her clients should start a defence fund where they can contribute anonymously. (Give it 501C3 status; so they can make tax deductible contributions.)
I would think she'd be afraid. Threatening politicians is worse than threatening the Mafia!
I doubt if she really intends to sell it. She probably has many former clients who are in a position to make life very difficult for those involved in prosecuting her.
She (or her lawyer) has been saying that she has no choice, but to sell the list, because it is the only significant asset which she still controls. Of course, if her other assets were returned, and her main problem was made to go away, there would be no need to sell the list.
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.