« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
"Client 9"
The New York Times cites "a person with knowledge of the governor’s role" that Eliot Spitzer is "Client-9" in last week's criminal complaint against four people who allegedly managed an international prostitution ring for wealthy clientele.
The New York Sun reported this morning that "prosecutors specializing in government corruption cases are leading the investigation."
Below are the relevant portions of a search warrant request filing filed by an FBI agent investigating the case (you can see the actual document here). The defendants mentioned below, Temeka Rachelle Lewis, Mark Brener, and Cecil Suwal, all are charged with managing and running the prostitution ring. QAT Consulting Company is alleged to be a front company used by the ring for transactions.
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. (Call 9324R) . At approximately 4:03 p.m. , LEWIS received a call from "Kristen." During the call, "Kristen" said that she had heard the message, and that was fine. LEWIS and "Kristen" then discussed the time that "Kristen" would take the train from New York to Washington, D.C. LEWIS told "Kristen" that there was a 5:39 p.m. train that arrived at 9:00 p.m., and that "Kristen" would be taking the train out of Penn Station. LEWIS confirmed that Client-9 would be paying for everything - train tickets, cab fare from the hotel and back, mini bar or room service, travel time, and hotel. LEWIS said that they would probably not know until 3 p.m. if the deposit arrived because Client-9 would not do traditional wire transferring. (Call 9362) .At approximately 8:12 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received a call from Client-9. During the call, LEWIS told Client-9 that the "package" did not arrive today. LEWIS asked Client-9 if there was a return address on the envelope, and Client-9 said no. LEWIS asked: "You had QAT . . .," and Client-9 said: "Yup, same as in the past, no question about it." LEWIS asked Client-9 what time he was interested in having the appointment tomorrow. Client-9 told her 9:00 p.m. or 10:OO p.m. LEWIS told Client-9 to call her back in five minutes. (Call 9460R) .
At approximately 8:14 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, called MARK BRENER, a/k/a "Michael," the defendant, at the 0937 Number. During the call, LEWIS told BRENER that Client-9 had just called about an appointment for tomorrow, and that he had around $400 or $500 credit. SUWAL [defendant Cecil Suwal of New Jersey] said that she did not feel comfortable saying that Client-9 had a $400 credit when she did not know that for a fact. SUWAL and BRENER talked in the background about whether Client-9 could proceed with the appointment without his deposit having arrived. (Call 9462R). At approximately 8:23 p.m., LEWIS called Client-9, and told him that the 'office" said he could not proceed with the appointment with his available credit. After discussing ways to resolve the situation, LEWIS and Client-9 I agreed to speak the following day. (Call 9467R) .
On February 12, 2008, at approximately 9:22 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, sent a text message to ''Kristen." In the text message, LEWIS wrote: 'If D.C. appt. happens u will need 2 leave NYC @ 4:45pm. Is that possible?" (Call 9515R). "Kristen" wrote back: "Yes." (Call 9516R) .At approximately 3:20 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received a call from Client-9. During the call, LEWIS told Client-9 that they were still trying to determine if his deposit had arrived. Client-9 told LEWIS that he had made a reservation at the hotel, and had paid for it in his name. Client-9 said that there would be a key waiting for her, and told LEWIS that what he had on account with her covered the "transportation" (believed to be a reference to the cost of the trainfare for "Kristen" from New York to Washington, D.C.). LEWIS said that she would try to make it work. (Call 9636R). At approximately 3:24 p.m., LEWIS, using the 6587 Number, called CECIL SUWAL, a/k/a "Katie," a/k/a "Kate," the defendant, at the 3390 Number. LEWIS explained to SUWAL what Client-9 had proposed. SUWAL told LEWIS she would call her back. (Call 9642R) . At approximately 3 : 53 p.m., MARK BRENER, a/k/a "Michael," the defendant, using the 0937 Number, called LEWIS at the 6587 Number. BRENER and LEWIS discussed the problem about Client-9's deposit. (Call 9654R). At approximately 4:18 p.m., SUWAL, using the 3390 Number, sent a text message to LEWIS at the 6587 Number, stating: "[P]ackage arrived. Pls be sure he rsvp hotel." (Call 9659R) .
At approximately 4:58 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received an incoming call from Client-9. During the call, LEWIS told Client-9 that his package arrived today, and Client-9 said good. LEWIS asked Client-9 what time he was expecting to have the appointment. Client-9 told LEWIS maybe 10:OO p.m. or so, and asked who it was. LEWIS said it was "Kristen," and Client-9 said "great, okay, wonderful ." LEWIS told Client-9 that she would give him a final price later, and asked Client-9 whether he could give "Kristen" "extra funds" at this appointment in order to
avoid payment issues in the future. Client-9 said maybe, and that he would see if he could do that. LEWIS explained that the agency did not want a model accepting funds for a future appointment, but that she was going to make an exception that way a deposit could be made so that he would have a credit, and they
would not have to "go through this" next time. Client-9 said perfect, and that he would call her regarding the room number. (Call 9686R) .At approximately 7:51 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received a call from Client-9. During the call, LEWIS told Client-9 that the balance was around ,"2611 (believed to be a reference to $2,600), but she would give him an exact number later. LEWIS asked if when "Kristen" went to pick up the key she would have to give a name or would she be able to say that she as one of Client-9's guests for whom he left an envelope. LEWIS and Client-9 discussed how to arrange for "Kristen" to get the key to her hotel room. LEWIS said that she would prefer if "Kristen" did not have to give a name. Client-9 said that he was trying to 'think this through." Client-9 repeated that his balance was '2600," and stated that maybe he would give "her," a reference to "Kristen," '3600" and have a thousand on balance. LEWIS suggested making it "1500" more. Client-9 said that would make it "4100," and said that he would look for a bank and see about it. Client-9 told LEWIS to let him go down and take care of this, and suggested that maybe he could put it [the hotel key] in an envelope with the concierge. (Call 9725R).
At approximately 8:47 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received a call from Client-9. During the call, Client-9 told LEWIS to tell "Kristen" to go to the hotel and go to room 871. Client-9 told LEWIS that the door would be open. Client-9 told LEWIS that there would be a key in the room, but the door would be ajar. LEWIS asked if the hotel staff might pass by the door and close it, and Client-9 said no it was okay. Client-9 explained that the door would not be visibly open, but if someone pushed it, the door would open. LEWIS told Client-9 that his balance was $2,721.41, and that if he wanted to do an additional "150OU or even "2000" it would be better. Client-9 said that he did not know if he could get to a machine to do that, but he would see. LEWIS said that 'Kristen" would go directly to room 871. Client- 9 asked LEWIS to remind- him what 'Kristen" looked like, and LEWIS said that she was an American, petite, very pretty brunette, 5 feet 5 inches, and 105 pounds. Client-9 said that she should go
straight to 871, and if for any reason it did not work out, she should call LEWIS. (Call 9731) .At approximately 9:32 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received a call from "Kristen." During the call, '"Kristen" said that she was in the room. LEWIS told "Kristen" that she would call her back when she knew when Client-9 would be there. (Call 9734R).
At approximately 9:36 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a 'Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received a call from "Kristen." During the call, LEWIS told "Kristen" that "he," a reference to Client-9, was at the hotel. "Kristen" told LEWIS that she just talked to him. 'Kristen" said that Client-9 was coming to her. LEWIS told "Kristen" that Client-9 should be giving her "extra," and that the extra should be
deposited into [redacted]. LEWIS told "Kristen" to text her when he arrived and LEWIS would start the four hours then, and also to let her know if he left early. (Call 9741R).On February 14, 2008, at approximately 12:02 a.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, received a call from "Kristen." During the call, "Kristen" told LEWIS , that "he," a reference to Client-9, had left. LEWIS asked "Kristen" what time he got there, and "Kristen" said "15 after . . . maybe 10." LEWIS asked "Kristen" how she thought the appointment went, and "Kristen" said that she thought it went
very well. LEWIS asked "Kristen" how much she collected, and 'Kristen" said $4,300. "Kristen" said that she liked him, and that she did not think he was difficult. "Kristen" stated: 'I don't think he's difficult. I mean it's just kind of like . . . whatever. . . I'm here for a purpose. I know what my purpose is. I am not a . . . moron, you know what I mean. So maybe that's why girls maybe think they're difficult . . . . " "Kristen" continued: "That's what it is, because you're here for a [purpose]. Let's not get it twisted - I know what I do, you
know." LEWIS responded: "You look at it very uniquely, because . . . no one .ever says it that way." LEWIS continued that from what she had been told "he" (believed to be a reference to Client-9) "would ask you to do things that, like, you might not think were safe - you know - I mean that . . . very basic things. . . . "Kristen" responded: "I have a way of dealing with that . . . I'd be like listen dude, you really want the sex? . . . You know what I mean." Near the end of the call, LEWIS and "Kristen" discussed "Kristen's" departure via Amtrak, the room that Client-9 had provided for "Kristen," and "Kristen's" share of the cash that Client-9 had provided to her. (Call 9750R).





Comments (45)
I am shocked that I am shocked.
Spitzer has stepped on a lot of toes over the years--I wonder if there's a payback dimension involved in this story.
Not that that in any way excuses his behavior--like any moralizer caught in flagrante he needs to pay the piper.
March 10, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Client No.9 is also a superdelegate who cast his lot to Clinton.
EXCELLENT news for Hillary!
March 10, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_8521942
apparently, some of those women charged $5500/hour.
must have been quite an hour.
March 10, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never realized how much work it took to set up a tryst, his cell phone bill must be enormous :)
March 10, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reason why he got screwed was he was trying to gyp them out of 5 bennies and way, way, way too much detail and long calls. What a moron???? This guy was a prosecutor????????
March 10, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
My heart goes out to his family. I came into political consciousness during the Clinton era and I just don't blink at these things anymore. I don't live in NY. From afar, he's always appeared to be shiny and a perhaps a worthy future contender for the WH. Will he feel like he has to resign now? Sad.
March 10, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man oh man this really sucks
Get ready for Monica-Bill redux
The Media gorging, raking mucks
Oozing glee from all their ducts
Republicans full of tuts and clucks
Leno and Letterman will use it for yucks
Tabloids making beaucoup bucks
As pundits narrate the jives and shucks
Of another Democratic Boy Wonder Deluxe
Who squandered the world for a few cheap fucks.
March 10, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like our Gov was also into kinky sex if you delve further into the remarks between Kristen and Lewis...
March 10, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't read that as a reference to kinkiness, but more like, "He may tell you he doesn't want to use a condom."
March 10, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is amazing how some otherwise intelligent people can be so mind-bogglingly stupid.
March 10, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am only a Canadian, so can somebody please explain what a "prostitution ring" is, what is illegal about one, and what is allegedly newsworthy about the fact that somebody, even a married governor, paid money to have sex with a prostitute? Is that worse than committing adultery with someone who is not a prostitute?
March 10, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everybody makes stupid mistakes, even mistakes of infidelity.
But damn, man. That's like being the guy who ran on a platform of ridding society of bread getting caught eating raw dough at the Wonder bakery.
March 10, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're one to talk! I saw what you did to that lady's dog, Thorwald!
March 10, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, with Democrats, it's always the sex. They just like sex too damn much - and apparently illicit sex. Unfortunately for Spitzer, it was also illegal sex. And very expensive sex.
How unlike the Republicans, who are upright, moral, full of family values! Their downfall is only corruption. Well, corruption and violation of civil rights. Well, corruption and violation of civil rights and phony wars full of real death. Corruption, violation of civil rights, phony wars full of real death and torture. Those are full-bodied American values, as opposed to just filthy old sex.
Next I expect the Spanish Inquisition. Will Spitzer be forced to go on the rack?
March 10, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now, now. Don't forget airport bathroom sex.
March 10, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans must be sighing with relief that it wasn't one of them this time.
March 10, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Politicians and prostitutes. Birds of a feather.
Is this a Roger Stone hit?
March 10, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
So if Spitzer resigns, does he remain a superdelegate? If not, has Clinton lost a vote?
March 10, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Talk about monumentally dumb.
Do we have anything other than NYT assertion that Spitzer is involved? And if lawyers who do government corruption cases are involved, was he paying for this on the taxpayer tab (maybe that's why the difficulty with payments came up)?
March 10, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you telling me that the Governor of New York did NOT have sufficient CREDIT... only $400.00??!!... and therefore he had to go through some extraordinary loops to meet up with Kristin?
And, after all is said and done, they grill Kristin to see if Spitzer likes the nasty and perverted stuff?
Finally, don't take your eye off the real story here. The sex is a diversion. Spitzer was working on insurance markets.
March 10, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least he's banging grown women. Maybe he and Vitter went halves? Foley went after half pints.
March 10, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't he know he can get a blow job at the airport for free?
March 10, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you are playing 6 degrees (or whatever number) today, here is mine:
Spitzer stayed at the Mayflower hotel, the Mayflower and pilgrims "landed" at Plymouth Rock, Malcolm X had the line "We didn't land on Plymouth Rock, Plymouth Rock landed on us", Obama likes to use the words Bamboozle and Hoodwink (words of Malcolm X).
March 10, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what I find really odd? The across-the-board headline of "Spitzer linked to prostitution ring."
That makes him seem like an owner.
The current headline on the Yahoo homepage is "Spitzer linked to prostitution."
WTF?
Is this a concerted effort? Why isn't it "Governor linked to prostitute?" Or "Governor busted in prostitution sting"?
No doubt that Spitz is busted, duh, but I am seriously starting to smell a rat here.
March 10, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
My guess is that Faux News will not accidentally identify Spizter as a Republican [R]
March 10, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kharma strikes a democrat but with some politically mitigating sexual undertones for the party :
Straight sex, with a hot and expensive woman, in a hotel, no price haggling, maybe even a future credit
and some hesitation indicating fragments of a conscience.
(WHEW....... Democrats breath a collective sigh of relief)
March 10, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"he" (believed to be a reference to Client-9) "would ask you to do things that, like, you might not think were safe. . ."
straight but kinky?
March 10, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bad Google ad placement...right after the details of Spitzer's trysts, we have "Why Mommy Is A Democrat."
No, it's not for the five fifty under the table...it's for the CHANGE.
March 10, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can someone tell me why there is/was no JD pursuit of that Senator from LA?
I'm sure there's a good reason...
March 10, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, yeah, that's Sen. David Vitter (R-La.)
Just sayin'
March 10, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm of two minds about this.
The first is that since he has a lot of experience busting prostitution rings, he might have given them tips on how not to get caught. Maybe it's evidence of his "honesty" that he didn't.
On the other hand, I'm kind of glad to know that the johns have to take the heat along with the prostitutes. That's seldom the case. And if he's doing something illegal (which is a whole other subject, since I really don't understand prostitution's being illegal), he needs to be responsible for breaking the law.
No matter what, he should have known better.
March 10, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if this isn't just the beginning for Democrats and rogue Republicans alike. How can anyone not think to themselves that maybe the "listening in" by the NSA isn't the proximate cause of the investigation?
I know...I know....I'm jaded!
March 10, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll be interested to see if Spitzer is the only one on the client list whose name is revealed. I would assume that there are many more shoes to drop here, both in the US & abroad. Let's see if they do. I suspect, though, that- like the recent "Washington Madame" scandal which outed Vitter and no one else -Spitzer will be the "john" thrown to the wolves, as it were, and we'll hear no other names associated with this investigation. And am I wrong to see the hand of the politicized DOJ in this particular revelation ?
March 10, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had wondered the same thing. Especially in light of these two paragraphs from the NYT article (my bolding):
Preserving Republican control of the NY state senate would definitely have been an incentive for a politicized DOJ to target Spitzer the way they did Siegelman, and then of course, there are bound to be people influential in the GOP who would like some payback for Spitzer's Wall Street prosecutions.
Still and all, Spitzer has apparently acknowledged, if indirectly, that he is indeed Client9. Hard to believe that such an aggressive and successful prosecutor could get himself caught up in the same sort of net that he himself snared other people in. Thinking with the wrong head, I think it is called.
March 10, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe William Jefferson Clinton is Client # 10?
March 10, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
There were over 5,000 phone calls taken in by investigators. I would imagine that there were 100's of johns recorded. What are the chances that one of the few exposed would be the govenor of NY? Pretty much guarantees exposure with a good bit of ammo for the Republicans. Were there any Republican donors or politicians as one of the johns listed in the complaint?
March 10, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Clients" of prostitutes are rarely prosecuted or even publicized **unless** they are public officials And it makes sense: use of public resources (travel, lodging, perhaps $, etc.) to 'commit a crime' and vulnerability to blackmail or undue pressure since, by definition, with this particular crime, there are going to be other people who know the official is committing it. -------- From the warrant request, this doesn't appear to be an isolated incident, either. Keeping a credit balance, for heaven's sake!!
WHY do these men insist that their wives stand beside them in the full glare of the public???? Sometimes it makes sense but when it's because he went to a prostitute!! Even worse - his daughters are 13, 15, and 17.
March 10, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
There must be a bunch of men sweating right now! And not due to paying for current services!
March 10, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Doesn't he know he can get a blow job at the airport for free?"
From a GOP congressman, no doubt.
March 10, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Life imitates art. Didn't we see something like the following in seasons 4/5 of "The West Wing"?
March 10, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Couple comments:
1. Some "guys" have said that the women on the site weren't hot??? Are you kidding me. Totally hot, air brushed and probably fake photos, but they were definitely hot.
2. My wife costs me substantially more than 5k per hour plus a mountain of bullsh*t. I would gladly pay 5k for an hour of hot sex with a babe and then say adios. Think about it. That's a blue light special.
March 10, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It can't be said enough: how incredibly STUPID of Spitzer!!
March 10, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, I haven't seen any real evidence that client-9 is in fact Eliot Spitzer. Maybe, maybe not. The public may never really know in the same way we don't really "know" who killed JFK.
Now, if anything that happened to Ross Perot is any indication of the way some very powerful folks operate (threatened Perot's daughter's future) it is very possible that Spitzer was coerced into not denying his alleged involvement in it.
Too many folks here seem to think America is operating under normal rules or that we live in a normal world. We don't. The Bush Administration and the Republican/Conservative Movement in alliance with the hard-right Theocrats have seen to that.
So, I'm less interested in the minor issue of personal infidelity than I am the monstrous unConstitutionality of what is going on in the White House and in Congress today.
I really do hope things in this country completely melt down so it will give people something more to obsess over (next meal, keeping warm, not getting sick) than other people's sex lives.
March 11, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whether Spitzer is client 9 is a moot point; he has admitted to the crime.
I don't think he can weather this storm. Clinton
did, but Clinton has a stronger political team
and Clinton was the most "gifted politician" we have seen for some time.
Also, Spitzer set the trap for himself. His sexual escapade was technically a Federal crime, paid for with taxpayer monies. (And this is possibly not the first instance of misappropriation of taxpayer monies by Mr. Spitzer).
Thus, he made himself vulnerable to blackmail by those who knew of his crime.
But the worst thing for him politically is this: he is a hypocrite in the eyes of the public.
Karma didn't happen instantly but it caught up with him. Somehow, this universal law, whatever you want to call it (what goes around, comes around, or karma, or you reap what you sow) asserted itself. This man who prosecuted prostitution rings and publicly expressed his revulsion at the thought of them, was doing so
possibly to internally balance the guilt he felt for his actions.
But it never works that way.
Whether some political enemy was involved, possibly "getting back" for some real or perceived wrong done to him, is immaterial to this point.
His previous public stance, and legal action regarding prostitution rings has come full circle:
he is damned by his own actions and words.
No, I don;t think he can walk away from this.
March 11, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, not just technically; it is, without question, a federal crime to transport someone across state lines for the purpose of prostitution. A crime that carries a sentence of up to 20 years in federal prison.
But is it known that he was using state funds for his trysts? I had not heard that assertion made.
March 12, 2008 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink