Pics are Ms. Palfrey's company ad and employment rules. In day three of the trial, former employees' testimonies of employment vs. Palfrey's employment contract of Pamela Martin and Associates.
Jury Hears Testimony From 4 Women Who Worked For Alleged D.C. Madam
Four more women who worked for the alleged D.C. madam testified Wednesday that she never discussed sex with them but that it was an implied part of the job.
The four women, who testified Wednesday morning, all said Palfrey never discussed their having sex with customers but that it was implied when they were hired.
Four more women who worked for the alleged D.C. madam testified Wednesday that she never discussed sex with them but that it was an implied part of the job.
The four women, who testified Wednesday morning, all said Palfrey never discussed their having sex with customers but that it was implied when they were hired.
Rhona Reiss, 63, was the first person to testify Wednesday. She testified that she had sex with at least 100 male clients during a 14-month period. She also said she had to perform a sex act as part of her job interview.
Defense attorneys argue that Palfrey only sold appointments and had no control of her employees' or clients' actions.
http://www.nbc4.com/news/15837566/detail.html
Defense attorneys argue that Palfrey only sold appointments and had no control of her employees' or clients' actions.
http://www.nbc4.com/news/15837566/detail.html
On side note about the jurors: 12 jurors and two alternates. Eight are women. I wonder what the women jurors are thinking.
6 comments:
Now these jurors are to believe that educated woman read and signed a contract that didn't include sex, but thought that was the job. After reading her add it's hard to believe no employee asked before doing. Now most people who still have a job must question what if their employer asked them to commit a crime after signing a contract that didn't include a crime. Are we to believe that educated woman are that dumb.
I was thinking. Goldman Sachs has companies all over the world. If an employee committed a crime while on the job would the Bush Administration charge the company for the crime or the employee who did the crime on their own. Looks like the Prosecutor might want to end this before making a bigger fool of themselves.
Did they check their college requirments? How about their holding a day job down requirments?
I guess 63 was not too old either.
TGCN the 63 year old lady was young at the time of employment. I thinks SPB said Jean had her business for 13 years. So subtract 13 the year or two left over for this trial and the lady would have been in her 40's. But your right unless she has young blood.
Now I was thinking what the 8 woman jurors make of this group. Here we have educated woman who say they signed a contract but assumed it was sex. The contract and the public ad doesn't say sex you have to wonder will woman be thought to be that stupid even if educated. I'm a Hillary fan you know. But this is helping me understand why people wouldn't want a woman as a President. If educated woman sign a contract then commit a crime you'd think one woman would have asked Jean a question or two. Now if these ladies got immunity we know their lying as all should be charged with prostitution. What's interesting is this makes Jean's civil suit easy as these ladies are testifying under oath and breached the contract they signed.
Good point Jackie -they did breach their contract. So dose this doj go after all employees who violate contracts? What about Bush-it's called an oath or an oral contract for him, since he took it past the contract and into the criminal element.
And if the female employees who tesified and going to testify say that they engage in illegal activities and are not one of the 15 Jane Does that are being sued in the civil law suit by Jeane, then look for their names to be added on the list. One of the government witness, Paula Neble, was given immunity and she is on the list in the civil lawsuit.
Yes, Jeane had her business for 13 years. She started her business in 1993. If the witness became an employee in 1993, that would make her around 48 years old. It doesn't matter what age group the female employees were. The bottom lime is that they all sign a contract when they entered employment.
Post a Comment