Just a thought.  Recent fears that a provider's client list might be published as a form of embarrassment tactics by LE lead me to ask a question:  Should every provider make sure they have their local prosecuting attorney, sheriff/police chief, mayor, etc…(on family members) in their client list? I would think that if LE wanted to publish the list, they’d have to publish the WHOLE list, or vet the whole list, not just pull out a few names. Legal beagles what are your thoughts?

Well, two problems with that...

1.  I agree that having police chiefs, prosecutors, and judges "in the hobby" may seem like the best way to be left alone, but...  I am not sure someone in one of those professions would ever reveal to the provider their true identity, and so it is not like a provider would likely know if they had one as a client.  And more importantly...  I am not so sure that rival prosecutors wouldn't just love to hammer one another.  County prosecutors, and sheriffs in MN are elected and the rivalries can be bitterly viscous.

2.  I disagree completely with the second part of your premise...  I am not a lawyer but, I am not sure if evidence in a trial is routinely made public.  The information in the initial complaint that was used to charge the provider would be public information, but I doubt the actual client list would be entered into the initial complaint.  If the case goes to trial, the list being entered into evidence may, or may not make it public, I don't know.  But I don't think this is how the info usually gets out.  I believe that generally, LE scans the list for newsworthy names, and if they find them, they leak them to the press.  If LE is going to leak a client list to the press to "out" the people on the list, they are under absolutely no legal obligation to publish the entire list.

What's your score?

There was at least one prominent politico named on the list.  He has had to endure some embarrassment, but no force resignations, etc.

Was the guy actually a client?  He and the provider(s) in question are the only ones who really know.  He denies it.

A perfectly plausible explanation is that someone used his business card to steal his identity for hobbying purposes.

Client lists are seldom revealed alphabetically.......top to bottom.....
Often a "client list" is slowly and partially revealed, certain names are kept out of the public eye
until backdoor deals can be completed... If you're a nobody you can be outed quickly if you're
somebody you may be able to work it and stay out of the public eye....like anything else money talks...
Prosecutors are always looking to trade up if you're a small fish with nothing to trade you'll fry quickly!

HH

One of the issues with the Desert Divas case is that a blog in Phoenix under the task of matching names with addresses and then posted their results on the web.

Needless to say, not every one on the list was thrilled with the outcome.

But a name on a list without something to support it doesn't mean a whole lot, which is one of the reasons why releasing a client list isn't automatically devastating.

There's a thread just a few places down where the topic came up.

...to add to a list of clients the names of people

a) you've never met and know little about

b) with the power to do something about it if you piss them off.

Plus it's adorable that you think LE is bound by some rule regarding lists that you just made up.

--
Pauper