Joe Francis Charged — And Charged Again
The L.A. Times reported Thursday:
The founder of the risque “Girls Gone Wild” empire was indicted Wednesday on two counts of tax evasion by a federal grand jury, the latest in a series of legal woes for the Santa Monica entrepreneur.
And reported yesterday:
The millionaire founder of the “Girls Gone Wild” video empire was charged Thursday with bribing a jail guard for a bottle of water and having prescription sleeping pills in his cell, authorities said.
When he learned of the new charges, Joe Francis waived his right to a bond hearing for the contempt-of-court charge that had led to his being jailed. Francis cried as his mother blew him a kiss while he was led from a federal courtroom back to his cell.
Crying goes over well in jail, I’m told.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
Based in the story you linked to, why isn’t thos S.O.B. being charged for rape? It seems like there’s an even better case against him than there was against … oh, I don’t know … Reade Seligman?!
Xrlq (84266a) — 4/14/2007 @ 1:22 pmNon-Nifong prosecutors generally know that rape charges are difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Plenty of rape cases get declined. My wife declined plenty over the years, including many where she believed the woman but didn’t think there was sufficient evidence to convict.
Patterico (034697) — 4/14/2007 @ 1:27 pm“Crying goes over well in jail, I’m told.”
So you now consider prison rape a rich source of humor? Surely you should retract this.
LTEC (3c4ca8) — 4/14/2007 @ 3:21 pmContempt of court for not settling a case? What happened to the Seventh Amendment?
nk (a3cd81) — 4/14/2007 @ 3:26 pmWho said anything about prison rape?
I’d suggest that he not cry in jail, so he doesn’t get beat up.
Patterico (5b0b7f) — 4/14/2007 @ 3:28 pm#3. You’re reading too much into that. A stand-up guy can buy protection from a gang-leader for $500.00 deposited into the gang leader’s jail account or with his mother. A punk with $30 million is just a victim to be fleeced for all he’s worth.
nk (a3cd81) — 4/14/2007 @ 3:30 pmThat’s a good point as well. He’s a *rich* guy crying and getting kisses blown to him by mommy.
Patterico (63f8e8) — 4/14/2007 @ 3:38 pmHonestly? Where rapists (or flesh-peddlers like this guy) are concerned, I do find prison rape a source of amusement… It’s sweet, sweet karma and irony…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 4/14/2007 @ 3:42 pmPatterico
Don’t use the B word in a story about prison 🙂
You know I was amazed at the string of Judges that slapped his wrists for encouraging underage sex acts etc.
totally gob smacked.
Until he got a Female Prosecutor?
This run into depravity lasted 5 years longer than it should have and every underage girl on it should sue every TV station that took his ad money.
It was plainly obvious
Also in contract law isn’t it universal that you have to be sober and of sound mind to legally contract – and of course not be a minor
EricPWJohnson (92aae0) — 4/14/2007 @ 7:43 pmP — A very large portion of your articles published on your blog point out what you claim to be misstatements in L.A. Times articles. You make a big deal of cancelling your home subscription. And then you copy a feature article from the Sunday L.A. Times Magazine when it suits you. Ironic? Or hypocritical?
nosh (de5a83) — 4/15/2007 @ 12:56 amOr neither? I don’t recall P ever saying that every word written in the LAT is evil and/or wrong, do you, nosh?
Where’s the irony or hypocrisy?
Pablo (08e1e8) — 4/15/2007 @ 4:46 amAn eye for an eye..How about filming it and sell the videos to pay for the public’s expense.
Jethro (3f1d12) — 4/15/2007 @ 5:34 am…
I think Jethro’s on to something here…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 4/15/2007 @ 6:34 amPablo, for you and the other ditto-heads, I’ll explain the irony and hypocrisy:
Patterico refers to the L.A. Times as the Dog Trainer and fills a huge proportion of his blog with criticisms, large and small, of the newspaper’s alleged misstatements, inadequacies, biases, and general incompetence. But when it suits him, there he is quoting and supporting the conclusions of an entire feature story. He attacks or grants credibility at his whim and inclination. He makes a big public pronouncement that he will no longer support the fiends and cancels his subscription. Yet when it suits him, why not print an entire feature article? Without supporting the economic basis of the enterprise by being a subscriber, and attacking its competence and judgement.
nosh (de5a83) — 4/15/2007 @ 10:10 amI criticize stories that are biased or have bad facts. I accept stories (with a grain of salt) that I don’t have specific reasons to criticize. Why is that so hard to understand?
And yes, I read the paper online but refuse to subscribe. You read this blog online but don’t donate any money. I contribute to the LAT hit count and you contribute to mine. Are we hypocrites? Only to scolds who love to find hypocrisy in others’ every waking action.
Patterico (5b0b7f) — 4/15/2007 @ 10:27 amwhat nk said in #4. i hadn’t really followed this up until i heard that a 29 million/year teentits film auteur was being threatened with contempt of court for…..for not settling a case? huh?
assistant devil's advocate (81af38) — 4/15/2007 @ 12:39 pmYou really need to score yourself a dictionary before you try a stunt like that, nosh. It’s not as easy as it looks on the internet. Unless you’re a trained professional, which you clearly are not, don’t try that at home.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 4/15/2007 @ 1:01 pmNosh,
fills a huge proportion of his blog with criticisms, large and small, of the newspaper’s alleged misstatements, inadequacies, biases, and general incompetence
Patterico has not just criticized, but has in many cases provided exhaustive documentation of the LA Times’ misstatements, biases, and levels of incompetence. In using the preface “alleged”, are you suggesting that the newspaper does not make misstatements, does not contain biased news articles, and has never displayed general incompetence (e.g. getting basic facts wrong even after having been notified, failing to correct significant errors)?
aunursa (2f05fb) — 4/15/2007 @ 3:19 pmI am on the cover of a Spring Break DVD in 2003. I was only 16 at the time and signed no consent form…. would this be worth pursuing? Do i have a good chance… i was on a public beach for everyone to see… i think that might hurt my case, but he did coerce me to flash the camera, and i was intoxicated.
Brittany (d7b827) — 4/18/2007 @ 4:03 pmIn the words of Professor Hubert Farnsworth from Futurama “Oh my yes…”
And it doesn’t hurt a thing that you were drunk and what-not…
You were 16, and showed boob… He can get nailed for child pornography… There’s a reason there aren’t many Tracy Lord “movies” out, you know… At the least they will have to recall and such…
Wow… Go get him! Though I dunno where you would place the call to…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 4/18/2007 @ 4:19 pmThanks! I have already hired a lawyer and now i feel pretty confident about pursuing things. I hope all turns out well and we settle out of court… the whole going to trial thing scares me.
Brittany (d7b827) — 4/23/2007 @ 1:47 pm16, drunk and flashing your tits and you want to sue? Brittany you’re an idiot.
Codie (1b00de) — 4/23/2007 @ 3:47 pmThose are the people who do sue, Codie. Hopefully, college lacrosse players will avoid her.
nk (49aa3f) — 4/23/2007 @ 4:01 pm