A few minutes in the docket of the Clarksdale sugar daddy case produce a lot of grist for the mill. This is the first of what I hope are several posts.
There’s the search warrant application addressed at AOL seeking the doctor’s internet records. This was submitted on the suppression issue, where Dr. Weiner was arguing that the application was misleading because it did not disclose that he’d told “wildginger” that he was not interested in paying for sex.
Here’s how that works as a legal issue: A search warrant application has to tell the magistrate the good and bad– to be honest about the evidence that would support, or contradict, probable cause.
What I found interesting related to a different question. Recall that at the hearing last week, the prosecution told the court that the case came to their attention after a report that the docter was involved in child porn. Yet, in the affidavit, there is no hint of that. In fact, the affidavit makes me doubt that completely. Here’s why: The affidavit states:
In December 2008, a previous co-worker… met with [the F.B.I.] and surrendered electronic communications of Weiner’s recovered from a work computer in which Weiner and the co-worker both utilized during business hours. THe electronic communications were “chats” between Weiner and various invididuals utilizzing the web site SugarDaddyForMe.com. ….
The affidavit describes Weiner as “repeatedly engaging in conversations” with females at SugarDaddyForMe.com with “attempts to solicit sexual acts… in exchange for gifts and monetary payments.” The affidavit then goes on to describe conversations with various women– but in dates both before and after December, 2008. The affidavit quotes Weiner seeking “dinner and a nite at the Peabody” with a “negotiable” “consulting fee,” talking to others in terms of “gifts” (e.g. offering to play Santa on December 24th), The affidavit quotes a couple of examples of Weiner asking women to cross state lines– from Texas to Arkansas, or Memphis to Mississippi– to meet him.
But there’s no hint of a child porn connection.
Next, the affidavit states that in January, the FBI set up a profile for a sugardaddyforme.com profile for “wild_ginger.” She listed herself as thirty-two, which again makes me ask– “I thought ya’ll told the court this started about child porn.” Here’s the application for a search warrant.
Now, the facts that caught my eye didn’t matter at least in the medium run– while they may have made me doubt the Government’s story about this prosecution, they did not aid Dr. Weiner. Judge Biggers read through Dr. Weiner’s chats, and concluded that the undisclosed facts would not have made a difference– the judge ruled that it was clear that Dr. Weiner was having chats about sex-for-pay and crossing state lines that supported the factual statements in the affidavit. Here’s the judge’s order.
But, particularly with that suggestion made last week about child porn evaporating pretty much completely, what I’m left with is the original question: What was the impetus behind this prosecution?
All you have to do is piss off one FBI agent who’s tight with one magistrate. There’s a lesson in here somewhere.
Maybe they were tired of busting lawyers and wanted to get some doctors. Look out accountants.
The ND USA’s office has had, since Bob Whitwell’s tour as USA, a hard on for people who think impure thoughts and pursue impure vices. They have lusted after child pornographers and others who engage in “dirty stuff.”
Well … I have no concern for child pornographers and wish law enforcement the best in rooting out that evil.
So I’m guessing that reports of the doctor’s “pursuits” ticked off someone in his office who then went to the FBI … maybe directly, maybe with a little steering by someone else who wished the doctor nothing good. Then the FBI agent went to the ND USA’s go-to Assistant for Impure Thoughts, who managed to conflate a search for a no-commitments romp in the hay into a federal court case.
I’m just sayin’ ….
Interesting and I look forward to the additional posts on this topic. But if you are looking for a rational explanation for this case you are likely to end up one mightily frustrated guy.
What if any are Dr. Weiner’s political connections?
That would seem to be the first question. Cherchez le Rove, as they say, or ought to say.
NMC asks: What was the impetus behind this prosecution?
Is it impetus or im-peter-us ??
federal agents stationed in a district where there’s just not that much to do [compared with other duty stations]?? Paul Roberts is also an AUSA that just doesn’t like to say no to federal agents…
i have heard no rumors of child molestation and i think i would have heard if there were any. i have heard this all started with a pissed off former employee. but why this becomes a federal concern is beyond me.
ben had it right. “a no-commitments romp in the hay [turned] into a federal court case.”
go chase a crook.
someone with connections to greenlee’s office didn’t like the doc. sounds like lackey and his pals who were jealous of scruggs and company. weiner maybe a deviant but he isn’t as dumb as balducci.
Weiner is a Democrat on the Coahoma County Board of Supervisora.
federal agents stationed in a district where there’s just not that much to do
The old question: Why does Mississippi have two judicial districts?
It may not have been personal. The agents had an excuse to send sexy photos for porn and talk dirty on the Internet and call it a federal investigation. The whole Ginger/Mary Ann angle points to some agent indulging his fantasies.
Anderson, when I started practicing law it was so we had Judge Keady and you folks had Judge Cox, but since then, I’m less sure.
[...] Freeland examines “Clarksdale sugar daddy” prosecution [Northern Mississippi Commentor; cf. Radley [...]