digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

See the original image at consumerist.com —

Convicted Pedophile Sues AmEx For Privacy Violation

consumerist.com — Meet James Colliton, a disbarred corporate lawyer who served 19 months in jail after bribing a mother so he could sleep with her 13 and 15 year-old daughters. Colliton recently sued American Express for $4 million, claiming that he was captured because the credit card company told authorities that the fugitive gutter-cretin was signing for hotel ro

show profanity settings
expand all
  • FairNUnBalanced, on 08/02/2008, -6/+106"Anyway, the moral of the story is that if you're an indicted pedaphile on the run, don't use American Express." lol
  • AmyVernon, on 08/02/2008, -1/+186what mother pimps out her daughters? i hope she was convicted, too
    • BobSutan, on 08/03/2008, -6/+67But that would mean women are capable/culpable of sex crimes, and we can't have that. See also: teachers screwing their male students. How many have spent serious time in jail? Of that jail time, what was the fraction of what a male teacher would have gotten. 1/2? 1/4? 1/12?
      • BoneheadFarker, on 08/03/2008, -4/+43"How many have spent serious time in jail?"

        It depends on what they look like.
      • moonboots, on 08/03/2008, -3/+28Nice
      • wing05, on 08/03/2008, -16/+4My view could be skewed here but from what I've read, the majority of women teachers who screw their male students believe they're in a serious monogamous relationship with the boy and there usually isn't more than one ""victim"".

        OTOH, I think there are also teachers (male or female) who have multiple victims and leaves a trail of traumatized kids that say they were cheated, intimidated and truly victimized by the perpetrator into having sex with tem. Their sentences (especially in the US where consecutive sentencing exists) are going to be much longer.
      • s0nicfreak, on 08/03/2008, -1/+5@win05
        or maybe only 1 boy's parents find out and complain?
      • proghead, on 08/03/2008, -2/+14niccccccce....
      • DutchGuilder, on 08/03/2008, -1/+1
    • thailand1972, on 08/03/2008, -4/+11I'm sure the mother was mentally ill or some such excuse.
      • deadmann, on 08/03/2008, -3/+9I think that classifies as mentally ill.
      • guybrush58, on 08/03/2008, -2/+13The problem is, if it were a Father he would not be classified as mentally ill, and sent to prison instead.
      • thailand1972, on 08/03/2008, -1/+7@guybrush58, yep : if man, then bad. if woman, then mad.
      • Riffraffs, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3or a crack whore
      • BadAshe86, on 08/04/2008, -0/+4Or she cut a deal with the DA in exchange for her testimony.
    • Jough, on 08/03/2008, -6/+4It did just say that she was bribed. Maybe she was the one who turned him in rather than following along.
    • adml_shake, on 08/03/2008, -1/+24Lynne Spears.
    • firebhaal, on 08/03/2008, -3/+3im guessing the kind that pimps out her daughters
  • Beowulf2112, on 08/02/2008, -8/+34I love how jacked up our legal system is
  • vsujohn2, on 08/03/2008, -3/+30I wonder how much he offered her.
  • socivitus, on 08/03/2008, -4/+19So I guess Visa or Mastercard don't taddle-tell on criminals who are looking to run from the fuzz? Good to know.
    • zephyr42, on 08/03/2008, -1/+6They are required by law if the records are subpoena'd, hence the term "paper trail"
    • davidjunit, on 08/03/2008, -2/+3I'm sorry, the correct answer is: he was running TOO the "fuzz".
    • NachoBusiness, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1Man, I had to deal with my bank recently... they told me what my last charges were (and would have given me basically any information) just because I gave them my SSN over the phone. The thing is... through work I have access to a database with the SSN of everybody in America, and you can get anyone's SSN for a small fee even if you don't have that database. Basically, you could get anyone's banking records for a $39.95 fee or whatever.

      Course it wouldn't be legally admissible without the subpoena.
  • TheMachine1, on 08/03/2008, -7/+12719 months in jail for assaulting kids? The average pot user likely spends more time in jail for a dime bag. He should still be in jail.
    • logandurand, on 08/03/2008, -27/+3I fail to see how more time would be helpful here, especially if it was a 1st offense.
      • btschul, on 08/03/2008, -4/+19Yeah, keeping a dude who ***** little kids locked up wouldn't make the world a better place or anything. /sarcasm
      • s0nicfreak, on 08/03/2008, -10/+6@btschul

        12 and 15 year olds are not little kids and I don't know about you but I wanted to get laid at 12 and 15
      • Coffeedemon, on 08/03/2008, -0/+14"but I wanted to get laid at 12 and 15"
        Did you want to pick the person out for yourself or were you ok with your mom whoring you out to the highest bidder?
      • raquel9e, on 08/03/2008, -0/+12@s0nicfreak:

        Oh, you wanted to have non-consensual sex with a creepy older guy so that your mom could make some extra cash? Even if they did want to have sex with this guy it's still statutory rape.
    • justinx0r, on 08/03/2008, -3/+18Uh, you usually don't go to jail if you have small amounts of weed. The only time you would is if you were on on probation or you've been caught selling drugs before or something.
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 08/03/2008, -3/+16Uh, it would depend on where you were.
      • mustang460, on 08/03/2008, -0/+7most states have mandatory jail time regardless of the amount
        unless you cut a deal with the cops, of course
        http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4516

        the states with no jail time(for at least the first offense/minor amount) are listed as decriminalized

    • thinkart, on 08/03/2008, -0/+13try rewording your statement "the average pot *dealer* likely spends more time...."
      even the 2nd offense, as a user, wouldn't get you that much time. with that being said, i get your point. pedophiles never get enough jail time. rapists and pedophiles get out quicker than many non-violent criminals. this should tell you, our system is about making money off the criminal. jails are big business.
      • snoogit, on 08/03/2008, -1/+1Who the hell is making money of the prison system? certainly isn't the government.
      • Darusame, on 08/03/2008, -1/+2It's not our government that's making the money, it's all of the industries related to the production and upkeep of prisons. These industries employ lobbyists who gain the favor of politicians who then continue to support the prison-industrial complex.
    • davedavis, on 08/03/2008, -0/+9A year and a half is a very harsh sentence. If you have been in jail for even 2 days you might have an idea what you're talking about.
      • WallnutBoy, on 08/03/2008, -1/+2..you're joking, right?

        Please tell me my sarcasm detector is malfunctioning.
      • davedavis, on 08/03/2008, -1/+2If you think privacy and human rights are a joke maybe you need a new sarcasm detector
      • bobbi21, on 08/03/2008, -2/+3...so criminals are allowed privacy now? Next time there's a mass murderer on the lose and we have his name address and have him GPS'ed I guess we'll just let him keep going killing people because it's a breach of privacy to track him down..
      • davedavis, on 08/03/2008, -2/+1I guess you'd rather live in Soviet Russia than deal with the utterly remote threat of mass murder to your personal safety.
      • btschul, on 08/04/2008, -0/+3@davedavis: "If you think privacy and human rights are a joke maybe you need a new sarcasm detector"
        He gave up his rights when he decided to pay a mother to let him stick his dick in her 13 year old daughter.

        "I guess you'd rather live in Soviet Russia than deal with the utterly remote threat of mass murder to your personal safety."
        Yeah. locking up mass murderers would make the USA just like Soviet Russia. / sarcasm
      • davedavis, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1I'm afraid you're wrong about giving up all your rights when you break the law. That's not how things should be. Lots of people make mistakes and don't deserve cruel punishment.
    • DaDrake, on 08/03/2008, -2/+9Since 2000, the number of people incarcerated for drug violations has dropped significantly. In fact, it's unheard of for anyone to get any jail time for weed alone. When people go to jail "for weed" ... they are on parole and violate their parole. In other words, some people on digg keep throwing around the idea that little innocent highschool students smoking weed go to some level 5 fed prison for a decade.... when in fact, chances are you won't even have to do community service.

      I don't think weed should be criminal, but in today's world .... it's about the same punishment as speeding.
      • rowjimmy, on 08/03/2008, -0/+10except it sticks to your record a lot more permanently than speeding.
      • Lith25, on 08/03/2008, -1/+4Not to mention it still has the public dogma of being "evil". Try to get a job with (a) a speeding penalty on your record, or (b) a marijuana possession penalty. Which do you think is going to hurt you more?
    • zephyr42, on 08/03/2008, -2/+110 for 2.... :- /
  • damian7, on 08/03/2008, -18/+13***** bastard, I hope he's sent back and raped by a gang of cholos
    • alex7575, on 08/03/2008, -0/+19Child molesters are so hated, even racists hate them...
  • fadeout, on 08/03/2008, -18/+10The ACLU announces that they're taking up his lawsuit pro bono in 3, 2, 1...
    • PHiZ187, on 08/03/2008, -1/+10It is a common tact that when the legal system wants to squeeze out civil liberties, they use a child abuse or child pornography case to do so. No-one wants to set a child predator free. The problem is that these cases end up having legal precedent. That is EXACTLY what happened in the 9th circuit, where they handed down a ruling saying that border guards could search laptops w/o any suspicion or probable cause.
      The ACLU fights to defend the bill of rights and the constitution. What do YOUR pet organizations do? The ACLU are patriots by ANY definition.
      • anonydigg, on 08/03/2008, -0/+4I wish your comment was the first and not in some sub thread.
  • 4totheFloor, on 08/03/2008, -7/+38The mother is more guilty than him. It is her job, her duty, the whole reason that she is there - to protect and care for her children. That's what mothers are for. I met a girl once who slept with her eyes open; her mother had given her crack cocaine at the age of 15.
    • Mononuclear, on 08/03/2008, -1/+15I know a kid that sleeps with his eyes open but he has never done crack...
      • paradox4190, on 08/03/2008, -0/+16I know a kid that has done crack but doesn't sleep with his eyes open.
      • PabloMac, on 08/03/2008, -1/+13That's not funny. I had a friend who lost two eyes sleeping with his eyes open.
      • DeFex, on 08/03/2008, -0/+7that would be a handy skill at work.
    • brickbat, on 08/03/2008, -3/+3More Guilty? Not. I'd say equally guilty.
      • vinod1978, on 08/03/2008, -0/+5Definitely More. He's a guy, and he likes to screw. The mother's sole purpose in life is to take care of her children, and wasn't just negligent. She actually let her children get raped by an older, ugly, man which I am sure hurt them physically, and will scar them for the rest of their lives. How do you think they feel knowing their mom did this just for a bit of cash?
    • 4totheFloor, on 08/03/2008, -4/+4Not the point I was making. The dirty paedophile owes no-one anything. The mother has a care of duty to her daughters. I would sell my soul to the devil (if he wanted it) before I would sell my beautiful, bright, successful daughter into the hands of someone like this. Fair enough if you disagree and would sell your daughter. That's your right brickbat ... The point I was making is that there are some mothers who feel differently.
      • guybrush58, on 08/03/2008, -3/+4When you say "beautiful, bright, successful daughter" you make it sound like you *would* sell her, if she didn't have those three attributes.
      • werries, on 08/03/2008, -0/+4@guybrush58.
        Idiot, shes proud of her daughter and thinks of her as a great kid. She wouldn't want to lose her.
    • DamienKarras, on 08/03/2008, -5/+0Was she gripping her pillow tight?
  • Fhwqhgads, on 08/03/2008, -23/+7Only in America
  • Lucas123, on 08/03/2008, -5/+102Wow. A corporate lawyer AND a pedophile. Does it get any worse?
    • JimmySpaza, on 08/03/2008, -34/+4Interesting to know if he votes Democrat.
      • Roland1232, on 08/03/2008, -2/+14WTF are you talking about, do you even know your party's history?
      • JimmySpaza, on 08/04/2008, -2/+2@Roland1232

        First, the Republican Party is NOT my party. I vote third party nowadays.

        Second, the Republicans were the ones who pushed the civil rights acts of the 60s. Most Democrats opposed them.

        Third, it's a lot easier to find pedophile support groups such as NAMBLA at Democrat gatherings. Just the way it is.
    • Jhiaxuz, on 08/03/2008, -14/+7At least it involved girls.

      Hell, someone had to say it.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 08/03/2008, -7/+23GOP politician.
    • pantone286, on 08/03/2008, -8/+4yeah he could have been Canadian too.
    • btschul, on 08/03/2008, -0/+35He could be a corporate lawyer for the RIAA.
    • schrutefan, on 08/03/2008, -0/+4Yes, it does. Look at his picture.
  • curseoflou, on 08/03/2008, -10/+3yeah, stick it to them you dirty pedo. AmEx, not the underaged girls with the ***** up mom.
  • JoeVet, on 08/03/2008, -1/+7Here's more of the story:
    http://lostinlimaohio.blogspot.com/2006/03/james-c ...
  • justinx0r, on 08/03/2008, -10/+3Waiting for the pedobear ASCII.
  • JimmySpaza, on 08/03/2008, -13/+60If American Express did this without a court order, screw them. Sue for billions. The fact that the guy is a child molester doesn't change the principle in play here.

    I wonder if American Express would gladly turn over their records if the guy in question was a Muslim suspected of being a terrorist supporter.
    • alex7575, on 08/03/2008, -16/+6Jesus Jimmy Bob,

      Has your ignorance no boundaries?
      • alex7575, on 08/03/2008, -6/+1To those digging me down and don't know this guy's comment history, I welcome you to check it out.

        Also, this is what I meant about his ignorance:

        "I wonder if American Express would gladly turn over their records if the guy in question was a Muslim suspected of being a terrorist supporter."
      • reed311, on 08/03/2008, -4/+2He won't win the lawsuit. It was Amex's duty to report someone if they knew that that person was committing a crime. If I was walking by someone's house and I heard a child screaming and heard slapping noises. I could walk onto the persons lawn and look in their window and then report the person to the police. In face, if a person is aware the a crime is being committed and they fail to report it, they are the ones who will get in trouble. If a hotel checks in a wanted fugitive into their hotel, they are well within their rights and within the law to report that person to the police.

        The point of privacy isn't to shield the guilty from the crimes, but to protect the innocent. Secondly, private corporations don't have the same strict standards that the Government is supposed to have.
      • locojones, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3Reed, I don't know what country you're living in, but in American a person has no obligation to report a crime. In your scenario, you could stand by and watch someone being murdered in their own home and then keep on walking to the grocery store with no liability. It may be unethical, but it's surely not against the law.

        And how do you propose American Express knew that this one customer, out of the millions of worldwide customers, was comitting a crime by reserving a hotel room? Did they somehow pinpoint this one transaction as felonious out of the billions of transactionst hat occur everyday?
    • Mononuclear, on 08/03/2008, -1/+17The sad thing is they don't need a court order if you are a suspected terrorist.
      • JimmySpaza, on 08/03/2008, -8/+2Yes, you do still need a court order. But, the whole thing is done in secret. The effect may be the same, but the procedure is not what you described.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 08/03/2008, -13/+8Yet Spaza supports the Patriot Act. What a ***** retard, he doesn't even understand the things he backs.
      • JimmySpaza, on 08/03/2008, -5/+7I do not support the Patriot Act. Please stop lying about me.
    • rlh1, on 08/03/2008, -10/+2Bulloney,

      They should get a medal for turning him in.
    • SRSco, on 08/03/2008, -8/+2What is the principle in play here? Privacy? Care to point out the "privacy clause" in the Constitution? The SCOTUS made a stretch argument in Griswold v. Connecticut, but that pertains to the Federal Government not being able to prohibit the use of contraception. This case and its made up "privacy clause" (not) found in the Constitution does not apply to private companies. AMEX has the right to infringe on this guy's privacy if they choose to do so. This guy agreed to a contract with AMEX, he wasn't forced into one. AMEX's own privacy policy states the following:

      "To the extent permitted by law, we may disclose personally identifiable information to government authorities or third parties pursuant to a legal request, subpoena, or other legal process. We may also use or disclose your information as permitted by law to perform charge verifications, report or collect debts owed, fight fraud, or protect the legal rights of American Express, our customers, our websites, or its users."

      http://www10.americanexpress.com/sif/cda/page/0,16 ...

      So the government agencies looking for this guy made a legal request, and AMEX chose to grant the request. No harm, no foul. This is completely different than the Patriot Act and FISA.
      • PHiZ187, on 08/03/2008, -1/+6What a profoundly stupid amateur lawyer argument. You start out attacking the "right to privacy," saying it doesn't exist in the Constitution. Why shouldn't it? Do you not think it was foundational to our founding father's understanding of "liberty," that citizens be left alone by the government? But that is immaterial, because the guy is pressing a CIVIL suit against a CORPORATION. Thus, civil liberties do not come into play. Civil liberties refer to the relationship between you and the government.
        Your second argument is baseless. The problem is, is that the AmEx did NOT comply with the law, and divulged his information w/o meeting ANY of the instances outlined in the contract. No warrant meand "not a legal request."
        I'm sick of douchebags like yourself and your amateurish march towards totalitarianism.
    • thebellmaster1x, on 08/03/2008, -0/+11Actually, and this is scaring me because this is the second time I've said this to you, someone who is on the antipode of my own political views, you are entirely correct. It's an unpopular position due to human nature, but the guy could have used his card to murder fifteen children—if they gave his information out without a court order, that is illegal. It doesn't matter who he is nor what he's done—he still has rights. When you take rights away from one person, they become meaningless for all people. After all, once that one guy's rights are gone, what's one other person's? ...And another's?
      • johnnick, on 08/03/2008, -5/+1Actually, I disagree with you and, particularly, your use of the word illegal. This is a civil law suit based on a claim of breach of contract. The alleged victim is claiming that AMEX breached the privacy contract between them.

        According to AMEX's privacy policy, for them to share information with law enforcement does not require a court order. The AMEX privacy policy is linked in a previous comment. It says that they will not provide information to third parties who intend to use the information to market to AMEX customers. It also provides specific instances where they can disclose information, including:

        "To the extent permitted by law, we may disclose personally identifiable information to government authorities or third parties pursuant to a legal request, subpoena, or other legal process. We may also use or disclose your information as permitted by law to perform charge verifications, report or collect debts owed, fight fraud, or protect the legal rights of American Express, our customers, our websites, or its users."

        AFAIK, there is no law that prevents them from disclosing the information they disclosed. If you disagree with me on that statement, please cite to the statue or regulation. It isn't clear from any of the articles whether law enforcement made a request for information about this guy. If they did, AMEX complied with the terms of the contract, because it says "pursuant to a legal request, subpoena, or other legal process." If there was no request from law enforcement and AMEX, on its own, elected to provide the information to law enforcement, then it's possible that AMEX breached the terms of the privacy policy.
    • DamienKarras, on 08/03/2008, -3/+0I'll never understand how you'll get buried into oblivion one post and 30+ diggs another. Digg is broken.
      • JimmySpaza, on 08/04/2008, -2/+1No, it's just the wave of liberal wackos from DailyKos and Thinkprogress who are paid to roam Digg at the same time...then the rest of Digg takes a look.
    • absurdist, on 08/03/2008, -2/+3Damn, Spaza... right on something for once? (At least the first half of your comment.)

      I guess a broken clock IS right twice a day.
  • palewook, on 08/03/2008, -2/+4argh. lawyers have so screwed up the legal system. can we just chain this pos in a public square with a sign on him.
  • richirwin, on 08/03/2008, -5/+43He "bribed" the mother to sleep with her daughters?

    What the hell does that mean?!

    He PAID her to sleep with her daughters.

    Saying he "bribed" her makes it sounds like she was absence of guilt in some way - The mother took money to let this guy sleep with her daughters!

    Don't weasel-word it in such as way as to let the mom off the freaking hook.
    • Haecceity, on 08/03/2008, -0/+5I wouldn't see things the same way. Accepting a bribe is a crime, so I don't think it lets the mother off the hook. But I agree that "paid" is much more straightforward and more appropriate.
    • diggenerate, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1maybe she needed an attorney and couldn't afford it, he offered to help in exchange for sex with her daughters. there are dozens of scenarios that could have happened who knows.
  • juliandunbar11, on 08/03/2008, -2/+4Guy looks like Andy Millman.. *ahem* Is he having a laugh?
    • LiberalKid, on 08/03/2008, -2/+1It could be funny for the extras reference but its not...
  • cdigioia, on 08/03/2008, -6/+28I'm going to look like I'm defending the sicko but...

    13 & 15 probably doesn't equal pedophile, unless one of the girls hit puberty quite late. His acts are horrible, but this doesn't mean he's a pedophile, just an *****, and one with questionable taste.
    • Mononuclear, on 08/03/2008, -3/+6ok he is a hebephile.. Most people though consider pedophile an adult with someone under the age of 18.
    • btschul, on 08/03/2008, -4/+1013? That's ***** up, whatever the situation. Imagine it was your kid. Some ***** ugly nerdy ***** 50 year old dude that looks like this: http://cache.consumerist.com/assets/images/consume ... doing your 13 year old daughter that looks like this:
      http://blogs.villagevoice.com/statusainthood/archi ... THAT IS ***** UP.
      • s0nicfreak, on 08/03/2008, -12/+7Although taking money to let someone sleep with your daughter of any age is wrong, I'd be perfectly fine with my daughter willingly getting laid at 13 as long as she used protection.
      • boubiyeah, on 08/03/2008, -10/+1It is still pedophilia. Even 50 and 16 is.
      • aceallways, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3the one on the left?
      • BattleChimp, on 08/03/2008, -7/+6@s0nicfreak - you'd make a pretty ***** terrible parent willingly letting your 13 year old daughter have sex. shes not old enough to fully understand yet, and apparently you aren't either.
      • s0nicfreak, on 08/03/2008, -3/+5@BattleChimp
        If your 13 year old does not understand sex you are doing something wrong. Wouldn't it be better to explain sex to them and help them get protection instead of saying "NO you can't have sex because it's just wrong!!" People are going to have sex no matter how much you pretend they can't understand.
      • hakluytbean, on 08/03/2008, -0/+4I don't see the significance of 'ugly' and 'looks like'.
      • bobbi21, on 08/03/2008, -3/+2Like it or not the majority of 13 year olds have had sex. I posted the stat before but I think around 30% of 13 year olds have an STD (included HPV). So that's a minimum for the amount that have sex, and it's probably a good amount more than that.

        Seems messed up to me but that's how it is in the states now (probably true in other countries too. I just haven't seen the stats)

        And I hate that it seems like i'm defending this but this girl is 14

        http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/photos/uncategoriz ...

        oh and here she is at 13
        http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/wp-content/uploa ...

        Kids mature fast nowendays. So we can only assume this girl looked "lets go play with barbies" young vs "what the h*** how was I suppose to know she was 13" young. It's still wrong obviously but just providing some perspective.
      • crossmr, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1You can get STDs through other means than sexual intercourse, so it isn't really a minimum for those that have had sex.
        Your assumptions don't make it a "majority"

    • chabs39, on 08/03/2008, -2/+9Yeah I agree with you, the word pedophile gets thrown around way too much. Although this guy is a sick bastard it's not like he is out raping 6 year olds.
    • PHiZ187, on 08/03/2008, -1/+3I think the salient point with underage sex is the emotional maturity of the participant. A 13 year old girl is unlikely to have a healthy sexual experience at 13.
  • RomanThommassen, on 08/03/2008, -26/+59………………….._,,-~’’’¯¯¯’’~-,,
    ………………..,-‘’ ; ; ;_,,---,,_ ; ;’’-,…………………………….._,,,---,,_
    ……………….,’ ; ; ;,-‘ , , , , , ‘-, ; ;’-,,,,---~~’’’’’’~--,,,_…..,,-~’’ ; ; ; ;__;’-,
    ……………….| ; ; ;,’ , , , _,,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ¯’’~’-,,_ ,,-~’’ , , ‘, ;’,
    ……………….’, ; ; ‘-, ,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-, , , , , ,’ ; |
    …………………’, ; ;,’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-, , ,-‘ ;,-‘
    ………………….,’-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-‘ ;,,-‘
    ………………..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;__ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,’
    ………………,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’¯: : ’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; _ ; ; ; ; ;’,
    ……………..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;| : : : : : ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘’¯: ¯’’-, ; ; ;’,
    …………….,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,_: : _,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | : : : : : ; ; ; |
    ……………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ¯¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-,,_ : :,-‘ ; ; ; ;|
    …………..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,-~’’ , , , , ,,,-~~-, , , , _ ; ; ;¯¯ ; ; ; ; ;|
    ..…………,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’ , , , , , , ,( : : : : , , , ,’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|
    ……….,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’, , , , , , , , ,’~---~’’ , , , , , ,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,
    …….,-‘’ ; _, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘’~-,,,,--~~’’’¯’’’~-,,_ , ,_,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,
    ….,-‘’-~’’,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | ; ; | . . . . . . ,’; ,’’¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,_ ; ‘-,
    ……….,’ ; ;,-, ; ;, ; ; ;, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ;’, . . . . .,’ ;,’ ; ; ; ;, ; ; ;,’-, ; ;,’ ‘’~--‘’’
    ………,’-~’ ,-‘-~’’ ‘, ,-‘ ‘, ,,- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ; ‘~-,,,-‘’ ; ,’ ; ; ; ; ‘, ;,-‘’ ; ‘, ,-‘,
    ……….,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ‘’ ; ; ;’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘’-,,_ ; ; ; _,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ;’-‘’ ; ; ; ‘’ ; ;’-,
    ……..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;¯¯’’¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-,
    ……,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,
    …..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|..’-,_ ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ‘,
    ….,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…….’’’,-~’ ; ; ; ; ; ,’
    …,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’~-,,,,,--~~’’’’’’~-,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…..,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-
    …| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘
    …’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,’….’, ; ; ; ; _,,-‘’
    ….’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…….’’~~’’¯
    …..’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;_,,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘
    ………’’~-,,_ ; ; ; ; _,,,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘
    ………..| ; ; ;¯¯’’’’¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,,-‘
    ………..’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘
    …………| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|
    …………’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ~-,,___ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,
    ………….’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘….’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,
    ………..,’ ‘- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’……….’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,
    ……….,’ ; ;’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,-‘…………….’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,
    ………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’…………………’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |
    ……..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,,-‘………………………’’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |
    ……..| ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…………………………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’
    ……..| ; ; ; ; ; ; ,’………………………..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,’’
    ……..| ; ; ; ; ; ;,’……………………….,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘
    ……..’,_ , ; , ;,’……………………….,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘
    ………’,,’,¯,’,’’|……………………….| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘--,,
    ………….¯…’’………………………..’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’~,,
    ……………………………………………’’-,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’~-,,
    ………………………………………………..’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ,,_ ; ;’-,’’-,
    …………………………………………………..’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,__,\--\.
    ……………………………………………………’-, ; ; ;,,-~’’’ \ , ,|, |
    ………………………………………………………’’~-‘’_ , , ,,’,_/--‘
    • saqer, on 08/03/2008, -12/+6really, that got old long ago..
      • werries, on 08/03/2008, -1/+2do you understand anything about meme's or the internet?

        sometimes its funny cause its an old meme everyone gets. Plus it applies, even if its overused.
    • Duggan360, on 08/03/2008, -1/+7Made me laugh
    • Duggan360, on 08/03/2008, -0/+5Thats how they lure them in!
  • metaliq, on 08/03/2008, -8/+14Well, he looks like a pedophile.
  • centure7, on 08/03/2008, -7/+49"We're not lawyers, but we're pretty sure convicted felons lose their right to moral indignation or the right to vote or something."

    Where the @#$% in the constitution does it say convicted felons don't get any rights? I'm sorry but if losing your rights for life is a punishment, then the judge MUST spell it out as a punishment during the conviction. I've never heard a punishment handed down that says "oh and you lose your right to free speech as a punishment". Talk about cruel and unusual! Even the loss of a right to own a handgun makes no sense unless you've committed a violent crime!

    PS - Even *terrible* people have a right to privacy unless a judge specifically says they don't get any privacy and the constitution supports that judges ruling.
    • Ajajadude, on 08/03/2008, -0/+13I was thinking the same thing. Yes, what the guy did (and the mother) was just plain sick, but we can't pick and choose when we follow the Constitution. I'm sure there are plenty of people here on Digg who have jumped all over companies and the government for privacy violations and are not having a problem with this. But, it's one or the other: either we have rights or we don't. What if the guy hadn't done anything?
  • cdigioia, on 08/03/2008, -2/+15"after bribing a mother so he could sleep with her 13 and 15 year-old daughters"

    That makes it sound like the daughters wanted to, and he just bribed the mothers to let him.

    Looking at his photo, I'm guessing it was more like "Paid a mother so he could rape her daughters". I hope the mom got jail time as well.
  • Stevethegreat, on 08/03/2008, -6/+10Paedo glasses. Unmistakable.....
  • stradf, on 08/03/2008, -15/+2I have to agree with this guy. Pedophiles should have more rights. I mean, they are humans too! American Express starts tracking pedophiles, and then what, rapists? This has gone too far. Boycott American Express.

    This is a line added for the slow diggers clearly stating this statement is ironic and not serious so that I do not get buried. Thank you.
    • nontoxyc, on 08/03/2008, -2/+8I buried you because your comment shows a basic misunderstanding of American justice. The guy was right. Pedophiles DO have rights under the Constitution, just like everyone else including rapists, murderers, and Washington stock brokers.
      • stradf, on 08/03/2008, -6/+2Ohhhh stop you're going to make me cry! Poor little guy!!!!!

        Do you realize he raped some girls/guy's ass? Do you realize he abused kids? But perhaps you are a ***** pedo too.

        Pedo should have only one right: the right to get castrated. CQFD.
      • anonydigg, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2No we're not pedophiles. You are just shortsighted and don't realize the ramifications of applying law and justice preferentially. If that were to happen, each preferential judgment would become case law and apply universally, thereby squeezing YOU out of every right you have; If you support taking rights away from a pedophile, that would mean taking rights away from you; let's say that everything you own would be subject to investigation on grounds that you might be a pedophile. So basically, search your house, all your computers etc until some day you do something stupid and down you go. If you support that, then good luck!
      • bobbi21, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2well the thing is, theres a difference between what should happen and what does happen. If you're upset with the laws right now get mad at the laws. Can't go all batman vigilante in this world (although it would be frickin awesome)
  • trumpcard, on 08/03/2008, -13/+1…………………………………………………..............
    …………………………………………………..............
    …………………………..,,………………………………
    ………………………..,/’…’,…………………………….
    ………………………..|…….’,………………………….
    ………………………………..………………………….
    …………………………|--……..………………………..
    …………………………/……….………………………..
    ………………………../…………………………………..
    ………………………,/-,.---.,……………………………..
    …………………….(,-~,-~~-,…..’……………………….
    …………………….|..•..•…./……………………………..
    ……………………..,,,-^-,,,-……..……………………….
    …………………..--/,,,,,,___,,--‘¯…………………………
    ………………….-|……………………’……………………
    ……………..,-‘’’./……………………….’’,………………….
    ………….,-‘’’…./…………………………………………….
    ………..,-‘…../……………………..………………………..
    ………/……./………………………………….…………….
    ………|…….|….o……………………...……..|……………
    ………_,,--¯/-__………………….,----‘’’\……/……………
    …………….¯’’’’-----‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’¯¯’’’’¯…./..,,,/……………..
    ……………..…………………………../…………………….
    ………………………_….,……………/…………………….
    ……………….|_______|¯|...………..|………………………
    ………………………./….…’’’’’’’’’’’’’/……………………….
    …………………..’-,,,-‘……………/………………………….
    ...........………………………….¯¯……………………………
    • flare1028us, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1Spongebob Childpants?
    • fletcher008, on 08/03/2008, -0/+5just because you have an ascii picture doesnt mean you have to post it.
  • flidge, on 08/03/2008, -7/+1what a bunch of *****!
  • grneye53, on 08/03/2008, -9/+3The only thing that's not mention in the article is that N.A.M.B.L.A was sponsoring the harness races, and when your custom fitting harness for you boy's what better way then" American Express" it's everywhere you need to be !
  • pantone286, on 08/03/2008, -2/+13"how much for the little girls?"
    btw do you take amex?

    it has to be said that by far the biggest douche in this story is the mom.
    • btschul, on 08/03/2008, -4/+1Should I digg you up for the John Belushi "Blues Brothers" quote, or digg you down for really bad taste? Hmmmm
  • EvilJelloMan, on 08/03/2008, -4/+48Not that you will get any accurate information from consumerist, but these kind of articles are the things the government uses to take away our civil liberties. Pedophilia and terrorism are the two great excuses - you can violate someone's privacy willy-nilly as long as they fall into one of those two categories.

    Lest you people forget, when this guy was arrested, he was an ACCUSED pedophile, not a convicted one. Ever heard of the phrase "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law"? He has every right to ensure that his liberties were protected before his arrest. Now, if it turns out that what AmEx did was a violation of the law, then this guy has a damn good case to sue them. This ***** should be decided in a court, though, not by public opinion shouting OMGz HES A PEDO, HE HAS NO RIGHTS!!!111one! And if it turns out he's full of *****, the court will decide that, not some diggers with no clue about the facts.

    How would YOU like it if someone hacked your computer, used it to distribute kiddie porn, and then you were arrested because a company handed over your personal information without a warrant? Would you like being branded as a pedophile in the media, and denied your civil liberties because of everyone's outrage? From what we can see, this guy probably did it, but that's not for us to decide.
    • blackturtleus, on 08/03/2008, -1/+7Brilliant, insightful, and accurate... the only reason I dugg this article was to access your comment. Not only does pedophilia sell news, but news articles on the topic also serve as a tool used to further the agendas of big government and big business. By exaggerating and spreading false information the public can be whipped up into a hysterical state in which they'll accept anything to help solve the manufactured problem. There are people who do bad things to kids, but they are far less common than the media would have us believe!
      • SRSco, on 08/03/2008, -1/+6You can Digg comments and leave comments without Digging the actual article.
    • DamienKarras, on 08/03/2008, -0/+4Unfortunately, being accused of anything related to pedophilia, guilty or not, automatically makes you guilty in the eyes of the public. While I agree that these acts are deplorable and despicable, the media blows a lot of these cases out of proportion with their sensationalized coverage (look no further than the Daily News, New York Post, or Trentonian if you're in Jersey).

      What is truly sad is that the general public will buy these sentiments hook, line, and sinker.
  • IndigoMoss, on 08/03/2008, -4/+5See here's the problem. One one hand you have a person that was caught using illegal method, but on the other hand if he wasn't caught, who knows what would have happened? I believe both parties should be charged, since both broke the law. I don't think 4 million dollars going to a pedophile is the right way of doing it though. For me, I'd rather not have this means of combating crime, if it means losing our freedom to privacy.

    As Thomas Jefferson said, "Those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor safety." I believe that applies today more so than ever.
    • Haecceity, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2We don't know if an illegal method was employed. The article doesn't mention a warrant, but there may have been one.
    • johnnick, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1This is not a question of any "illegal means." The dispute between the lawyer and AMEX is a civil matter based on breach of contract (AMEX's privacy policy). AFAIK, there is no law that prevents AMEX from disclosing the information they disclosed. If you disagree with me on that statement, please cite to the statue or regulation. It isn't clear from any of the articles whether law enforcement made a request for information about this guy. If they did, AMEX complied with the terms of the contract, because it says "pursuant to a legal request, subpoena, or other legal process." If there was no request from law enforcement and AMEX, on its own, elected to provide the information to law enforcement, then it's possible that AMEX breached the terms of the privacy policy.
    • bobbi21, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2yeah, I wish the article was more clear. Hard to pick a side when we really don't have any idea what happened
  • Wartyboskfapped, on 08/03/2008, -8/+12Strictly speaking, he's not a pedophile. He's actually an Ephebophile - someone attracted to adolescents.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophile

    That in no way means I do not think he deserves a shiv in the spleen and 25 to life, because I do.
    • opinionation, on 08/03/2008, -11/+1Apples and oranges you *****, you splittin hairs over what kind of sick bastard this guy is? Get a life.
      • Murdats, on 08/03/2008, -1/+13you apparently do not understand the apples and oranges metaphor.
      • opinionation, on 08/04/2008, -1/+2No see, he is a sick bastard regardless of the particulars of his "condition" maybe your just too dense to understand such a simple point.
      • Abomonog, on 08/04/2008, -1/+1Actually, you're the sick bastard.

        Aside from the bribing what this man did would have been perfectly legal as little as 45 years ago and Georgia still marries at 15.

        Add the fact that more than half of the males on this board would have at least jumped the bones of the 15 year old if given the chance....

        Plus we know no details of the crime. Was rape involved? Considering the sentence he got I would doubt it. Even though the girls can't legally consent they can still sway a case by going on the stand and saying they did. Get the facts before you judge.

        There is a lot of hypocrisy happening here today.
      • opinionation, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1Wow, never thought such a defense would have been raised for such a sick *****. Oh my... my heart its broken... Some schmuck that's defending some dirty old man that gets his kicks trying to screw little girls thinks I'm sick. I'm gonna go cry in the shower while I cut myself and listen to coldplay.
        /sarcasm

        There is far too much tolerance for men (or women to be fair) that prey on children in our society. Obviously their mother has issues for agreeing to go along with this, and is equally to blame. But I can imagine that if these were my children, I would likely not be able to control myself after I got my hands on him. Or the mother for that matter. Personally I would never raise my children in a state with such archaic laws. As for that hypocrisy bs, you know where you can put that *****. Although I realize I am a bit cold and quick to judge sometimes, I have no tolerance for "dirty old men". Wood chip em and make fertilizer for all I care. Nothing is more disgusting and perverse. The fact that you are defending such acts is well, beyond my imagination. You must be a lawyer or a pedo or something. imho of course
  • diggit08, on 08/03/2008, -4/+4He's also suing his ex-bosses for 1.45 million for back payments/vacation payment/and bonuses. Im pretty sure raping minors comes under gross misconduct and he is going to have a horrible time getting a jury to give him a single cent.

    I can imagine AmEx paying him off in a undisclosed settlement though.
    • PHiZ187, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3If he was fired while he was under suspicion, before he was convicted, he can make an argument there. Also, you have the right to a jury trial, but don't have to excercise it. You can always opt for a bench-trial, with the judge acting as the jury. This is a tactic when you have an emotional case against you, and you want the case (ostensibly) to be a dispassionate application of the law.
  • wing05, on 08/03/2008, -2/+5Jumping a bit, but related...

    All you diggers out there who work on other people's computers and who've expressed outrage at Geeksquad and others for browsing through people's hard drives, what do you think about stories of computer technicians or other private computer service companies who "stumble on" child porn and/or other illegal images on customer computers and then turning them over to the cops?

    • SwampFox82nd, on 08/03/2008, -2/+2My cool friend, I've got flicks that would make Bush blush -- all over my harddrive. But each is legal, because they are all adult. I'm sixty-four, a disable veteran. What I merrily did as an adult is my damned business, not yours.

      But, children are just that -- Children. We as a civilized society must protect our youth from becoming a sex-toy for older farts....
      • wing05, on 08/03/2008, -1/+1I agree.. none of my damned business snooping on someone else's computer. And being a father of three, I agree, children do need to be protected.

        So where does that leave a computer tech working on someone's computer?

      • bobbi21, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3Yeah, you didnt' really answer the question. Do you protect the kids and violate your privacy or do you abandon the kids and keep your privacy. Can't have it both ways (at least in this situation)
  • ForestRangerBen, on 08/03/2008, -2/+4Pedo Bear says "Don't use Amex!"
  • Spoomeister, on 08/03/2008, -11/+4…………….._,,-~’’’¯¯¯’’~-,,…………………………………………
    …………..,-‘’ ; ; ;_,,---,,_ ; ;’’-,…………………………….._,,,---,,_…
    ……….,’ ; ; ;,-‘ , , , , , ‘-, ; ;’-,,,,---~~’’’’’’~--,,,_…..,,-~’’ ; ; ; ;__;’-,……
    ……….| ; ; ;,’ , , , _,,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ¯’’~’-,,_ ,,-~’’ , , ‘, ;’, ………
    ……….’, ; ; ‘-, ,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-, , , , , ,’ ; |………
    …………’, ; ;,’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-, , ,-‘ ;,-‘…………
    ………….,’-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-‘ ;,,-‘…………..
    ………..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;__ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,’……………..
    ………,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’¯: : ’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; _ ; ; ; ; ;’,……………..
    ……..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;| : : : : : :| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘’¯: ¯’’-, ; ; ;’,…………….
    …….,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,_: : _,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | : : : : : :| ; ; ; |……………
    ……,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ¯¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-,,_ : :,-‘ ; ; ; ;|……………
    …..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,-~’’ , , , , ,,,-~~-, , , , _ ; ; ;¯¯ ; ; ; ; ;|……..
    …,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’ , , , , , , ,( : : : : :) , , , ,’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|……………
    .,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’, , , , , , , , ,’~---~’’ , , , , , ,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,..........
    ’ ; _, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘’~-,,,,--~~’’’¯’’’~-,,_ , ,_,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,......
    ’-~’’,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | ; ; | . . . . . . ,’; ,’’¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |Do you know me? .... |
    .,’ ; ;,-, ; ;, ; ; ;, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ;’, . . . . .,’ ;,’ ; ; ; ;, ; ; ;,’-, ; ;,’ ‘|That's why I carry |
    ,’-~’ ,-‘-~’’ ‘, ,-‘ ‘, ,,- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ; ‘~-,,,-‘’ ; ,’ ; ; ; ; ‘, ;,-‘’ ; ‘, ,-‘, American Express. |
    .,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ‘’ ; ; ;’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘’-,,_ ; ; ; _,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ;’-‘’ ; ; ; ‘’ ; ;’
    ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;¯¯’’¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-,……….
    -‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,…….
    ,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|..’-,_ ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ‘,…..
    ’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…….’’’,-~’ ; ; ; ; ; ,’…..
    ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’~-,,,,,--~~’’’’’’~-,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…..,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘……
    ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘……..
    ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,’….’, ; ; ; ; _,,-‘’…………
    , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…….’’~~’’¯………………
    ’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;_,,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘…………………………….
    ’’~-,,_ ; ; ; ; _,,,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘……………………………..
    ..| ; ; ;¯¯’’’’¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,,-‘…
    ..’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘…
    .. .....| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|…
    …’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ~-,,___ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,……
    ….’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘….’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,…………………………………
    ..,’ ‘- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’……….’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,………………………………..
    .,’ ; ;’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,-‘…………….’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,……………………………….
    ,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’…………………’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |……………………………….
    .,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,,-‘………………………’’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |………………………………
    .| ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…………………………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’……………………………
    .| ; ; ; ; ; ; ,’………………………..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,’’…………………………….
    .| ; ; ; ; ; ;,’……………………….,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘……………………………
    .’,_ , ; , ;,’……………………….,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘………………………………
    ’,,’,¯,’,’’|……………………….| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘--,,………………………………
    ….¯…’’………………………..’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’~,,…………………………
    ……………………………………’’-,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’~-,,……………………
    ………………………………………..’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ,,_ ; ;’-,’’-,…………………
    …………………………………………..’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,__,--.........................
    ……………………………………………’-, ; ; ;,,-~’’’ , ,|, |………………
    ………………………………………………’’~-‘’_ , , ,,’,_/--‘……………
    …………………………………………………….’’~-~’…….......................
  • opinionation, on 08/03/2008, -7/+2Yea, the guy definitely looks like a pedo. Our tolerance for this kind of sadist ***** is unrealistic. I saw this video once, a guy was being chased by a crowd armed with machetes, they eventually got him. I believe that was because he was a pedo. We should do the same thing here. Give em a 10 second head start. Then take his knees.
    • hakluytbean, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1Yeah. That wouldn't be at all sadistic.
  • jrockcol, on 08/03/2008, -4/+2WoW this guy is a loser. I'm totally agreed with Opinionation, But they shouldn't get 10 seconds thats to much, 5 seconds is better. :D
    • Totz83, on 08/03/2008, -0/+5Why are you talking about World of Warcraft? This is neither the time nor the place, *****
      =p
  • Rudegar, on 08/03/2008, -0/+4I'd bare careful with judging or enforcing ones views on these matters by looks
    just because a guy looks a sudden way
    most likely the most successful phedos look like they are average Joe's and pillars of society
  • shermanh4, on 08/03/2008, -10/+0This suit will be interesting. Most companies refuse to release information to law enforcement without a court order for this very reason. They want the protection a court order provides them. In this case, AMEX apparently gave the information out without the court order. Good for them! I hope this case goes to trial and that this moron loses. It will be a good precedent. Other companies might then start cooperating with law enforcement, facilitating the investigation of not only pedophiles, but also ID thieves and other miscreants who manage to operate below the radar.
    • s0nicfreak, on 08/03/2008, -0/+12First they came for the pedophiles, and I did not speak up, because I don't like pedophiles...
    • EvilJelloMan, on 08/03/2008, -1/+10***** you. No, seriously, ***** you. You represent everything that's wrong with America today. You want to congratulate a company for violating someone's privacy because he was ACCUSED of a crime? Notice I said accused, not convicted.

      If you allow them to violate the right to privacy for accused criminals, what's to stop them from accusing YOU of a crime, just so they can violate your rights too? Assholes like you are why people think warrantless wiretapping is actually a good thing. ***** you and your freedom-hating idiocy. ***** you a thousand times with a concrete dildo wrapped in barbed wire.
    • Haecceity, on 08/03/2008, -0/+7...and then Amex starts giving details about the movements of suspected "subversives," like Democrats/Republicans/Libertarians (depending on who's in power and who they hate), political opponents, political bloggers, journalists who are exposing government abuses, people who happen to be of the wrong religion, race, etc, etc, etc.

      There's a reason governments have to get warrants...
      • PHiZ187, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3Yes, thank you. You forgot about the bored government database operator stalking his ex-wife.
  • Hangly, on 08/03/2008, -2/+8why is it that all pedophiles look like pedophiles?
    • Haecceity, on 08/03/2008, -0/+6You know not of what you speak. I've worked in prisons and most pedophiles look like your regular guy on the street. The assumption that pedophiles have a certain look is very dangerous, because it leads to people ignoring the signs of abuse carried out by someone who looks like a regular guy.
      • Hangly, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1Ok. But this guy looks like a pedophile.
  • consciousNOT, on 08/03/2008, -1/+3Soooo, how you doin'?
  • GordonFree, on 08/03/2008, -4/+7American Express has a lot of explaining to do.

    And I know a lot of 13 year olds who look older than my 21 year old girlfriend. Let's face it, aren't we all attracted to young girls? We won't really see Aunt Mary when we open this month's Playboy. More like a 19 year old, airbrushed and dressed to look like she's 14. Let's stop the hypocrisy shall we? :)

    PS: yeah why is it that all the pedophiles we see actually look like pedophiles? I have no explanation for that as of yet. But usually the freaky ones like young boys. I'm not against gays and not really against being attracted to a 15 year old (girl), but when you combine both... eww. But it's not for me to decide anyway. Being a pedophile is not a crime. Being a rapist or molester is.
    • GordonFree, on 08/03/2008, -3/+2Ohhh stop digging down. Don't act like a little pedophile and get a sense of humor
    • GordonFree, on 08/03/2008, -2/+1Thank you.
    • binorgog, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1It's ok for a str8 30 year dude to be all over a 17 year old girl, but make that girl a boy, then pedobear and the fag terms go flying. Double standard IMHO.
  • clickwir, on 08/03/2008, -3/+11Convicted pedophile or not.... I don't like what credit card companies and the law have done here. It's none of Amex's business what he's doing. Unless the police come to Amex with a warrant, then amex just needs to keep to it's business and leave people alone.
  • Kristijan12, on 08/03/2008, -1/+2Oh my god...! His face is hilarious.
    It perfectly fits in description of pedophile with those glasses and that face.
  • perogi21, on 08/03/2008, -10/+2"I do not support the Patriot Act. Please stop lying about me."

    True Wartyboskfapped. Spaza is merely a douche.
  • Almonde, on 08/03/2008, -9/+4just the plain fact that ppl even dare to have this kinda attitude in public.
    A pedophile, blackmailing a mother, raping 2 you girls....
    holy *****, he should be just shot on the spot.
  • microview2007, on 08/03/2008, -5/+6Unless something changed just recently, 14 is legal in Canada. If that is where the incident happened he wouldn't be considered a criminal accept for the 13 yr old by less then 1 year. The mother should be in prison for pimping her kids out. Bribed her? Like it wasn't her fault? I'm sure he isn't their first.
    • Seldon2639, on 08/03/2008, -1/+3Wow... Just... Wow.

      In Canada, as well as in the United States, the "age of consent" is lower than 18 in most places. The issue here being the difference in age. The age of consent in Colorado (my home state) is 16, but only insofar as someone is within four years of the age of the person under 18. So, a nineteen year old can sleep with a seventeen year old, but there's no place in America or Canada where a middle-aged man can sleep with a girl under the age of 18 and have it be legal.

      Age of consent is a different legal concept from "anyone can have sex with"
    • bobbi21, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3I think the age of consent in canada is 16 years.
      • kbattack, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1it is. the harper govt just changed it recently.
  • flare1028us, on 08/03/2008, -1/+4"I believe that if you're a convicted sex offender in this country, when you get out of prison, you should have to put a sign in your yard or on your door that says you're a convicted sex offender because I don't care about you're rights anymore."

    -Ron White
    • Seldon2639, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2That's one of those questions about our legal system, though. Why do we let them out of jail if we honestly don't believe them to be rehabilitated, and ready to be part of society? I have disdain for anyone who would abuse a child, or commit rape, but there's something rather duplicitous about continuing to punish someone even after they've served their time in prison.

      But, that's really based on how we view our legal system. If jail time is meant as a way to actually rehabilitate criminals and mold them into productive members of society, then we can't reasonably continue to punish after their jail sentence is over. But, if jail is meant as nothing more than a punishment in and of itself, and we're merely interested in making bad people pay for crimes, it's perfectly fine.

      I'm not advocating either position, but when we discuss this sort of thing, remember that if we have a model of the criminal justice system based solely on making people pay, it raises a whole host of other issues
      • locojones, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2Your comment presumes that our penal system is based upon rehabilitation. It's not. It's purely a punitive system that turns people out in worse condition than they went in.
    • bobbi21, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1I'm advocating the position that we put em in jail to rehabilitate them. Failing that we lock em up for life. what's the point of punishing someone if they'll just do it again? If we just wanted them to suffer we should be flogging them or something instead of wasting millions on feeding them, clothing them, and providing them shelter. Of course theres the whole 'cruel and unusual punishment" stuff but isn't sticking a guy in a cell where you get gang raped pretty cruel and unusual too?

      If you really want to protect people, we should be trying to rehabilitate these criminals (or possibly just kill them all if you're a fan of that...), otherwise, the justice system is pretty useless.
  • ussoldier, on 08/03/2008, -7/+4"Pedophile" is the new "witch". Since the 1600's, people haven't changed one goddamn bit and the lynch mob still thrives in the heart of morally ass-sphinctered assholes everywhere. They project their fears and are so ready to put the label of their fear onto someone and burn them at the stake, without a shred of evidence and irregardless how ***** looney bin the whole thing is.

    I got shocking news for you assholes. Kids have been having sex as long as there have been kids. In fact, as long as there have been a human race. Last time I checked, everyone was born with a sex, male or female, or rarer cases, somewhere in between. And if you have a sex that makes you a sexual being.

    And people have been doing goofy religions for just as long.

    Stop persecuting innocent people for your fright or your sexual hangups. Last I checked, it takes two to tango, and females love sex just as much as males, irregardless of age. If they didn't want to have sex with this guy, they would of just said no. But obviously there was some attraction. If indeed this is the case.

    People don't have sex with people they don't like, AND, in the case where its via force against their will, that's rape and something entirely different.
    • Eganj, on 08/03/2008, -4/+1burn.
    • Seldon2639, on 08/03/2008, -0/+4Rather than just bury you for an antediluvian viewpoint, I'll explain why I disagree.

      There is a difference (and must be a difference) between a fourteen-year-old having sex with a sixteen-year-old, and a fourteen-year-old having sex with a middle-aged man who paid her mother to allow it to happen. Now, you can argue that the issue wouldn't be the sex itself, but rather his bribery and presumable coercion, but that's also missing something.

      There's a reason we don't allow children to drink, or smoke, or drive, or vote. We have a wide body of evidence (which I can bring to bear if you'd like) which indicates that children have undeveloped reasoning skills. The medial pre-frontal cortex is not fully formed until around the age of 25, and the ability to reason and think properly is increasing every day until then. A thirteen-year-old girl might "like" to smoke, and she might "like" to drink, and she may "like" a forty-five-year-old man enough to sleep with him, but we don't allow her to do those things because we know she's not possessed of enough maturity to decide whether to smoke or drink

      Of course, you'll probably take that to the illogical extreme, and say that my logic means we should prevent all children from having sex. But, that is not the correct interpretation.

      You must be aware that it is possible to manipulate a woman into having sex, even without it being rape. In the case of two young people, the assumption is that they are on the same level in terms of maturity and ability to (if they so choose) manipulate and coerce. An adult, on the other hand, is more mature, smarter, and more capable of manipulation. There's a reason we don't allow children to enter into contractual agreements, and it's for the same reason: the risk that they will be taken advantage of is too high.
      Yes, there's an argument to be made that teenagers will always have sex, but it's one thing when it's with another teenager, it's something far more insidious when it's with a middle-aged man.

      Also, "irregardless" isn't a word, it's possible to be possessed of a gender without being a "sexual" entity, I'm an atheist, and ass-sphinctered makes no sense
    • countthevotes, on 08/03/2008, -3/+0I sincerely hope you are not really a US soldier. You should be ashamed of yourself.
    • jerrycurley, on 08/14/2008, -0/+0Disturbing post from Digg's own resident pedophile...as usual.

      For those that don't know...ussoldier raped a 5 yera old girl, got convicted of it, and then claimed that he didn't,,,all while sayiung htat there is nothing wrong with a 30 sonmething man having sex with a 5 year old girls "as long as she wants it too." Yes...he acutally thinks that a 5 year old kid can make that decision.

      Since he has gotten out of jail, and his life understandably in shambles, he continues to do the things htat got him in trouble. He hangs out in teen chat rooms, and teen web cam sites, and when they kick him out after fidning out he is 40, he calls them *****.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.