Sep 13, 2007 12:00 PM
0
Enter your username and password.
New York, 11:20 AM
Wed Feb 10
58 posts in the last 24 hours
The Post goes off on some crazy story today about Elli Frank, who runs a service that provides girls for Manhattan parties, and how the New York Observer "accused [her] of prostitution" in a profile in 2004 and supposedly there was a settlement when she claimed defamation. Though, probably, it was not any meaningful kind of settlement, because the story's still there and it says things like "Ms. Frank says her girls don't have sex for money, and don't get propositioned" and also says "Her parents, a former Catholic lay minister and a registered nurse, as well as her three brothers, tease her that she's Heidi Fleiss." Doesn't it seem that any newspaper's lawyer who'd agree to a defamation settlement over a story like that would have to be a complete moron? (Also? Don't terms of settlements usually state that parties are forbidden from mentioning the settlement?) But we think we know why the Page Six item ran—we hear that Elli's telling friends that Paramount caught her story and bought the rights. So she may not be a whore-monger, but.... Well, congrats, ya little fame seeker!
Contact information for this author is not available.
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
Start a new discussion