Posted on 03/10/2008 4:06:54 PM PDT by jimbo123
In an FBI affidavit filed March 5 in Manhattan Federal Court, prosecutors described complex discussions about a payment for sending a hooker named "Kristen" on the train to Washington to meet Client 9 in a hotel on Feb. 13 - the night before Valentine's Day. Sources said Gov. Eliot Spitzer was Client 9.
Spitzer was in Washington to testify the next day at the House Financial Services Committee about troubles in the bond market.
Below are excerpts of the transcripts of the wiretapped calls:
On February 11, 2008, at approximately 10:53 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, sent a text message to CECIL SUWAL, a/k/a "Katie," a/k/a "Kate," the defendant, at the 3390 Number. In the text message, LEWIS wrote: 'Pls let me know if [Client-9's] 'package'(believed to be a reference to a deposit of money sent by mail) arrives 2mrw. Appt wd b on Wed."
SUWAL sent a text message back to LEWIS, stating: 'K."
On February 12, 2008, at approximately 2:37 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a 'Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, called a prostitute who the Emperors Club marketed using the name "Kristen." During the call, LEWIS left a message for "Kristen" that the "deposit" had not arrived today, but that they should be able to do the trip if the deposit arrived tomorrow.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
I understand the libertarian PoV, but whether anyone likes it or not Spitzer has seemingly violated federal law, The Mann Act, as well as the local laws of NY State and the District of Columbia by engaging in a money transaction for sex. He may also, based on the transcript, be a repeat offender and may even be involved in forwarding a criminal conspiracy. A person may think the laws are too intrusive to a person’s liberty, but until rescinded they are law, and he is the Chief Executive of New York State, charged under the state’s Constitution with faithfully executing the laws of the state.
It was only a state matter until money went from one state to another. Now it’s federal and he’s in trouble.
Audit his taxes, where he will become the catcher.
Yes, he should be charged under the Mann Act. Spitzer was engaiging in human trafficking in prostitution because he knowingly paid for her transportation across state lines.
Now the question is, where did Client #9 get the $4,400 for this little encounter? And the $ for the prior encounters? If this happened when he was Attorney General for the State of NY, he was probably making $150K per year — you don’t go forking over $4,400 for 2 hours of servicing if it’s coming out of your own pocket and representing 3% of your annual income (before high taxes). Follow the money!
Spitzer is loaded. He grew up the son of a millionaire and has numerous NYC real estate interests and resulting cash flow.
Some Mann Act info from wikipedia:
Mann Act case decisions by the United States Supreme Court
* Hoke v. United States (227 U.S. 308, 322) (1913). The Court held that Congress could not regulate prostitution per se, as that was strictly the province of the states. Congress could, however, regulate interstate travel for purposes of prostitution or “immoral purposes”.
* Athanasaw v. United States (227 U.S. 326, 328) (1913). The Court decided that the law was not limited strictly to prostitution, but to “debauchery” as well.
* Caminetti v. United States (242 U.S. 470, 484-85) (1917). The Court decided that the Mann Act applied not strictly to purposes of prostitution, but to other noncommercial consensual sexual liaisons. Thus consensual extramarital sex falls within the genre of “immoral sex”.
* Gebardi v. United States (287 U.S. 112) (1932). The Court held that the statutory intent was not to punish a woman’s acquiescence; therefore, consent by the woman does not expose her to liability.
* Cleveland v. United States (329 U.S. 14, 16-17) (1946). The Court decided that a person can be prosecuted under the Mann Act even when married to the woman if the marriage is polygamous. Thus polygamous marriage was determined to be an “immoral purpose”.
* Bell v. United States (349 U.S. 81, 83) (1955). The Supreme Court decided that simultaneous transportation of two women across state lines constituted only one violation of the Mann Act, not two violations.
Everyone should know by now that lawyers(particularily DemocRat lawyers) have no respect for the laws. They use the laws to further their position, but violate any law that they think they can get away with.
If you don’t get caught..you haven’t broken the law.
Political payoffs, earmarks, bribes..sex for favors..special stock deals with the Chinese. All fair game and hardly raises an eyebrow with our MSM.
We need to clean house.
This is gonna be better then "What's the frequency, Kenneth?"
I should have added that it carries 5 years per act.
I totally agree with you...legalize it.
No he should not be charged under the Mann Act. He was only wiring money for sex. If he was wiring money for cigarettes, then it would be a different story. BJ clearly established the precedent for the sex exception for a rat politician. Hypocrisy does not count either. BJ was subjected to questions about sex with ML only because of the 1994 law that he signed. Spitzer is a rat crusader who is allowed to prosecute escort services but he is clearly above the law as to his usage of these services.
Hello...my name is Bawwwnd...Spitzer Bawwwnd...
Client double-O nine...
Wanna go up to my rooooom?
This summer is gonna be a riot with this guy going down!
Buy Enquirer stock now...
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.