Sure, this guy may be scum, but I don't like the idea of any company whose services I use turning my info over to the police without a warrant.

I love it when a story like this causes the creeps to show their true colors.

Anyone that defends this guy and tries to justify a middle-aged guy being attracted to 13- and 15-year old kids, you're just sick. Sick, sick, sick. Go ahead and try to make that argument to your parents, teacher, parole officer, or employer and see how far you'll get.

Okay so he's a child molester...either way he's a perv and is going to get it up the ol' poop chute when he gets to where he's going. Well deserved I might add.

Sometimes it's just better not to point out certain "mistakes". Your objection seems kind of....odd.

I guess my point is that these debates about age etc are funny because everyone would react the same way and have the same thoughts, desires, etc until after they knew the ages. To me this indicates that pedophilia is to some a term that simply describes, "the willingness to have sex with someone where that willingness is against cultural normalities", rather then "having sex with someone under X years of age".

And @humbop: Some guy named Benjamin Franklin...
""Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."

@Corporate-Shill:

Not saying it is right or wrong. Just trying to interject a little humor into an ugly situation.

BTW, my Great Great Grand Mother was 14 when she was married off to my Great Great Grand Father. He was 46. It was 1847 in rural farmin country of Wisconsin and my Great Great Grand Mother was his 3rd wife. His first wife had died in childbirth. The other wife and a child died from an unknown disease when the child was less than 1 year old.

There was a time and a place when older men took younger wives.

@Garbanzo:

The whole wisdom teeth statement was derived from an old Southern Joke.

DeWayne speaking to his friend Bubba about taking a young girl to be his bride.

"Damn, Bubba, she ain't got all her teeth yet".

yea he's a creep, but the catch all term of pedophile is probably over used these days. it gets really wrong when they are attracted to prepubescent children.

You are indicted on a crime, appear to be on the run, and AmEx for some reason "gives up" his privacy? Probably something to do that that subpoena thing, don't cha' think?

Everyone is so outraged that this guy has the gall to do something actually legitimate -- If American Express broke their agreement, then he does have the right to sue (but for $4 million? I don't know about that). Maybe what he did is deplorable (However, it is generally not considered sociopathic to be attracted to postpubescent teenagers under 18 -- in fact, anything on sexuality that I've read has classified it as normal. After all, youthfulness is generally an attractive trait.) But, even if what he did WAS terrible, and if they were much younger, that's irrelevant. The fact that people (commenters and author included) are so quick to call names, point fingers, and be angry that this guy doesn't cower with his tail between his legs is sickening. If we Americans are so quick to say that other people shouldn't have their privacy honored, then we are in no position to complain as the government tramples over our rights as well.

People are on a witch hunt against people who commit sexual crimes, regardless of how just it is. What happens when we decide it's okay to deny people the right to privacy for other crimes? How many of you are angry at what ISPs are doing to their customers that download music illegally?

Cheers!

Well, I'm going to throw in an element that gives hebephilia a more artistic cant: the photographs of well-published artist, David Hamilton.

His several books of photgraphs are a sensitive record of the transformation from girl to almost-woman. His is an amazingly straightforward and (for the viewer, erotic for most) presentation of girls becoming women.

[ I see already a stir of response/rebuttal: Go ahead kids; I'm taking a 'tini-break;

Later

p

What's the quote? Something like those who value security over freedom deserve neither.

As long as the public can be goaded into knee-jerk reactions where emotions override rational thought and long-term self-interests, police-state oppression -- the wolf at the door -- will inevitably be allowed in.

Grow up people. Yeah, there are bad people out there. But there are also bad people who want to control and monitor everything we do. There's a price to pay for everything, as repulsive as it may be.

There's a whole list of wrongs in the latter there.

I'm 28 and don't have my wisdom teeth yet, I guess I'd better stop f**king my husband.

@aphexbr: Nobody is "missing out on the actions of the mother". There's just no debate over whether or not her actions were justified or whether AmEx was picking on her. She's evil and should be taken out and shot; did you expect people to DEBATE that?

Of course, "pedophile" rolls off the tongue more easily, and is more inflammatory, so that's the term people prefer to use, accuracy be damned.

@thrashanddestroy: "I understand your little theory, but there's no justifying a 13 and a 15 year old."

Nobody is justifying this guy's rape of a 13 year old and a 15 year old. He is a rapist and a sexual molester and if he was on fire I wouldn't cross the street to piss on him. But he isn't a pedophile. As has been explained several times above, a pedophile is not attracted to teenagers who are legally protected as children; he is attracted to people who are prepubescent.

We have laws to protect children from people who would exploit them sexually during that period when their bodies run ahead of their mental and emotional maturity... but that has nothing to do with the appalling crime of pedophilia. Otherwise you're going to have to label every high school senior who has ever looked at a high school fresher and said "she's hot!" as a pedophile.

It is clear, and stay focused if YOU can!

THis is about giving up information and privacy issues without permission or for any other reason someone believes they can use anything they want , whether bank or identity whatever the reason may be is not important , it should only and i said ONLY be Released by the Owner of the information and not the USER at their own discreation or whim,,,
what happened if this guy is falsely accused or exonnerated from the charges , and the police were lying to find out his whereabouts, based upon an vindictive person, making up something to get him to lose his life and career, theri are some whacked out women out there like some fatal attraction and men haters or psycho's out there and they are not always men that are the predators in every case or circumstance this woman may have a background of doing this in prior relationships,,,, problem is nobody cares to look into this or properly investigate surrounding circumstances without prejudice or being biased, due to the nature of the allegations or charges...
bottom line is ...
the privacy laws cannot be abridged becasue they are guarantees by the US Constitution or Magna charta...

so lets not be hasty, or a witch hunt or trigger happy vigilante, and balance our skeotisims and misgivens...

"Every human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier."

I understand your little theory, but there's no justifying a 13 and a 15 year old. If this were some 16 year old kid, I'd cut him some slack but this is a 44 YEAR OLD MAN who BARGAINED with a mother to SLEEP WITH A 13 AND 15 YEAR OLD. That's not just pedophilia, it shows that he seeks this out rather than acting on impulse. Absolutely no reason why he shouldn't be getting traded around in a minimum security prison right now like a pack of smokes.

Back in the pre-BC days, kids had sex, she got preggers, there was a wedding. Age of consent was a fiction that kept the babydaddy out of jail.

Oh yes, many young girls look fairly adult at 15. Only a pervert would pretend them to be adult.

As a former government enforcement officer, I'll point out that I could pretty much look at everything.

AmEx I believe allows for such a disclosure under those circumstances. Read your Terms of Service, folk! I won't be surprised if VISA, Mastercard, and Discover do the same.

To help defend a few of the guys above (who are not defending this guy's actions, btw, nor am I) a few things bear stating/repeating:

1. This guys is not a pedophile. Pedophilia is defined as sexual attraction to *pre-pubescent* children. Unless they have something medically wrong with them, a 13 and 15 year old have entered puberty. There *is* a medical term for people who are sexually attracted to young children who have entered/passed puberty and that's ephebophilia. I assume the latter term isn't used in many of these articles because it's not as inflammatory as "pedophile" (and it's harder for morons to pronounce/spell).

2. While what he did was sick, it's only barely illegal, depending on where you go. OK, the 13 year old was beyond the pale no matter who you are but the 15 year old? In many states, she might only have been a few months or days away from the legal age of consent. Put it this way - if the girl had been 17, would you all be so angry and screaming pedophile? Yes, either way the age gap is way too wide and she was clearly manipulated but depending on where she was living, she may only have been a few days away from that invisible line that makes it "legal". Hardly the same as the real pedophiles who rape babies and toddlers, is it?

3. What's especially sad here is all the righteous indignation about this "monster", but all the anti-pedo flamers here seem to be missing out on the actions of the mother. What's really worse - the guy who pays for sex with young girls, or the mother who sells her daughters for sex? I'd say the latter is far worse, but there's not the inflammatory "pedo!" to shout about her actions so she gets ignored.

Again, neither I nor others here are actually defending this guy's actions and he should rightfully be prosecuted. It's just a shame that the real issues in this story (the mother's actions, whether American Express were right to violate customer privacy in order to act as a police informant) are ignored because the headline contains the word "pedophile", of which so many people don't even know the correct definition.

Given that he'd already been investigated and prosecuted, the content of his actual crime should not be relevant to whether or not his rights were violated. Unfortunately, in America at least, crying "pedophile" means that rationality tends to go out the window (consider this case for example, where a substitute teacher was in danger of being sent to prison for 40 years after the classroom's computer became overwhelmed with porn popups.)

Were this guy's right's violated? Because if they were, that's an entirely separate issue from whether he deserved to have them violated. I don't know anything about AmEx's customer agreement. Maybe it's standard practice. The extent of all my legal knowledge comes from Law and Order, but usually they have to have a warrant before they get the goods. Is that what happened here?

Because, if a warrant isn't needed, I surely don't want anyone tracking my movements and purchases just by telling the cops I'm a suspected pedophile. I know saying the word "terrorist" gets around a lot of privacy laws these days, whether or not there is a legitimate security concern. And it sucks to thing that "pedophile" could be added to that list.

Disclaimer: before you rush out to reply and scream at me for supporting pedophiles, I don't. In fact, I actually teach in a school for children who have been victims of trauma, including for many of them, sexual abuse. So I am both very sympathetic to, and aware of, the problem in all it's ugliness.

'Nuff said.

"We're not lawyers, but we're pretty sure convicted felons lose their right to moral indignation or the right to vote or something."
Only the right to vote in state elections.

"She don't got her wisdom teeth she ain't old enough to going bumping in the night. Period."
My stepmom never had wisdom teeth - does that mean she's still illegal?

@tenio:

Once the arsewipe failed to appear, most likely at the arrainment, the presiding Judge would then have the authority to issue a bench warrant for his arrest.

([en.wikipedia.org])

With a valid warrant for his arrest, the police can request subpeonas to track his movements.

The TOS of Amex most likely says they will cooperate with court orders.

Boom, done. Charge something on your CC and you will get nailed.

if there was a warrant out for him then of course they should have given the police the date, but if there was only suspicion then they shouldn't have given out the data,

i am always wary of big companies giving out clients data, it shouldn't matter how screwed up the client is

@JennQPublic: however sexually mature your friend may have appeared from your POV as a thirteen-year-old, an adult has no business screwing a child. "Well she was a MATURE child!" Whatever.

1) Reports of his sexual abuse are reported to child services and confirmed by the victims
2) He gets indited for several criminal charges
3) While his lawyer negotiates his surrender, he bails to Canada. His assertion that he went 'only to gamble a bit' is patently false, as he already knew the charges that had been laid upon him.
4) Now that he is a fugitive law enforcement use all available tools to find him.

Now what is the privacy policy for Amex? I found one for Visa which I believe is a good indicator of what Amex should be.

We reserve the right to share your personal information with third parties if required to do so by law, or if we believe such action is necessary in order to: (1) conform to the requirements of the law or comply with legal process served upon us; (2) protect or defend our legal rights or property, the Visa U.S.A. site, or our users; or (3) investigate, prevent, or take action regarding illegal activities, suspected fraud, situations involving potential threats to the physical safety of any person, or violations of the terms and conditions for using the Visa U.S.A. site.

This case falls under 1 and 3, they were probably served with a notice to provide records, and his actions were illegal, as he was evading law enforcement, and the use of the card is being used for an illegal activity.

Thus we can conclude that this guy has zero chance of succeeding in this case, regardless of how you feel about this vile excuse for a human.

For a totally ad-hominem attack, this guy really isn't playing with a full deck of cards. For example he has filed suit with his employer for back pay, AFTER he was charged and subsequently convicted of being a sex offender

[abovethelaw.com]

That being said, I'm very curious about the cross-border implications.

As far as I'm concerned, this should read:
Anyway, the moral of the story is that if you're an indicted pedaphile on the run, PLEASE DO use American Express.

It is a shame the judge can't just toss the case out and order this fellow's balls removed with a butter knife.

That said, when I was a teenager, I had a 13 year old friend who was completely developed and sexually aware, and would frequently wrap older men around her little finger. When I was 13, I was still a child. Not all 13 year olds are the same, and a grown man who slept with my friend back then would not have been on a moral level with a man who slept with an eight year old. That's why people are stressing that this guy wasn't a "pedophile." It's not that anyone thinks what he did was in any way acceptable, it's just not pedophilia.

Hey!! Leave us left-handers out of this. Geez.

Actually, this does NOT ordinarily apply to doctors (in the US at least). I have the obligation to "warn or protect" (usually by notifying police) an identifiable potential victim of "imminent" serious harm as evidenced by overt acts or threats. One gets to argue about terms such as "identifiable," "imminent," and "serious." Some jurisdictions include threats against property. As far as I know, though, no jurisdiction in the US protects a doctor against civil liability for reporting the whereabouts of someone who's on the lam or who confesses to having committed a non-violent crime (or even a violent one with the insistence that he'll never do it again).

In short, patients are entitled to a darn sight more confidentiality from me than they are from their credit card company.

@Pro-Pain:

I KNOW! I'm reading these comments and you're the first one to bring this up. That woman is a bigger piece of shit than anyone else in this story.

And I'm pretty sure that if I were a fugitive, I wouldn't be using my cell phone, credit or ATM cards. Don't know much about the legality of all this, from watching Nancy Grace and Law & Order they use these things to track the movements of missing people and criminals.

@Human947: I think you're looking for the terms ephebophile, someone attracted to post-pubescent adolescents, and hebephile, someone attracted to pubescent children. Both are different than the pre-pubescent definition of pedophile, but neither popular culture nor the law always observe the distinction.

That's unfortunate because there is not the same sense of anger at an 18-year-old who has sex with a 17-year-old girlfriend as at this 40-ish lawyer going after 13- and 15-year olds, and they should NOT be in the same category. Some states have degrees of registered sex offenders, but this gets confused with plea deals and even more so when people cross state borders.

People are likely to hear "so-and-so is not a pedophile" as a positive defense, not as a distinction.

@mgy:

Yeah...just like all black guys look like car thieves right?

"It's so hard to get a room without a credit card
It's so hard not to let em know who you are
Tried to get a rent a car
But he laughed when I showed him cash
Had to mash 'fore he called the feds on my ass"

As for your statement on the father, was that meant to be a question? If not, and it was a statement, you fail x 2

As for the people splitting hairs about pedophiles, it is true that preferring pre-pubescent children is a particular pathology. It is NOT true that 13 = just like an adult woman, only younger. It is NOT true that 13 = "sexually mature". Young teenagers are starting to develop sexually, but it is a process. A thirteen-year-old is not "sexually mature" in the way a 20-year-old is. Otherwise there would be no market for "barely legal" porn, since all those girls would be indistinguisable from the 18-year-old women in regular porn....right?

I tried to look up the case online and there isn't much yet....and I can't tell if he has an attorney or is representing himself.

Girls are almost always pubescent by then. Pedophilia is preference for PREpubescent children.

On the subject at hand, though, I can't find any information on whether they gave it to the authorities willingly or if they did it after a court order. If they did it after a court order, I hope this guy loses. If they volunteered it after hearing that he was accused of the crime, then I hope he wins, because no company is a court of law and should not be making decisions simply based on the word of others.

So he's more concerned about his privacy being violated, than the crimes he committed? Dude, if you want to rectify the situation... I recommend a prison public shower, and a slippery bar of soap. And a wig... fake nails... and some huge guy named Bubba saying "It won't hurt, I promise" as he bends you over to give you whats rightfully yours.

I think then, you could complain about your privacy being violated, plus feel the shame you put into those young girls.

was charged with rape. with underage people, willingness is irrelevant. it's rape.

you do know this, yeah?

But if you genuinely don't see the difference between somebody who is sexually aroused by a minor because he thinks she looks like a child and somebody aroused by a minor because he thinks she looks sexually mature... well, I find that a little scary.

Oh, and the people saying that people who recognize a distinction that really exists are themselves somehow creepy: Shame on you.

Just because people clearly define what is what they are condoning it? some people up in here need to learn to read. Then you would know what a pedophile ACTUALLY is.

NOBODY here said sexual relations with a 13 or 15 year old is OK. NOBODY. only that sex with a pre-pubescent and a teen are 2 different pathologies.

BOTH = jail & sex offender status. so don't sweat it.

And he's an idiot. Fugitives do dumb shit all the time - just because you do something moronic doesn't make you not a fugitive - just a stupid one. Plus there's no confidentially agreement that I'm aware of with Amex. It's not a doctor telling on him, his lawyer, his clergy. It's a private business doing whatever they want with the information they have, within the law. And they're allowed.

Fuck this guy.

"Colliton...who had already served 19 months in jail, pleaded guilty last October to rape and patronizing a prostitute."

And what the fuck does this "Most prostitutes start working at around this age(13)." have to do with anything? What, she was probably gonna be a whore anyway, so she was probably willing? If that statistic is true, then it's a sad, sad reflection on our society. The fact that you use it in a left-handed defense of a convicted rapist is nauseating.

@varro:

Yea, something like that.

I thought the correct term was: Chester Chester Child Molester, but what do I know...

So I guess any sexual relations I had between the ages of 16 - 27 were statutory rape..."Oh, Stifler's Mom!"

Although the non-technical term is "creepy lecher".

@snoop-blog: FTW!

Wisdom teeth "come-in" at a certain point when the body is "mature"..... 16-22 for most people.

She don't got her wisdom teeth she ain't old enough to going bumping in the night. Period.

"The American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) criteria for Pedophilia (302.2) are:

1. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger);

2. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty;

3. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A."

AmEx is not a bank in the Caymans, designed to protect people who are illegally hiding money and/or hiding from the law.

Also, @cmdrsass:

Totally. And it probably does apply.

Also, WTF...sleep in your car. No credit card, and no one sees you. Just get a huge cash advance or make a large cash withdrawal, and you can be on the run for ages, spending money on nothing but gas and Taco Bell. But no...some people just GOTTA have a bed and a shower every day. Pussies.

I find it interesting when people come out of the woodwork to split hairs on pedophilia versus ephebophilia. In my experience the people who make this point tend to be HUGE fans of adult anime and use the distinction to justify their attraction to suspiciously young girls (mostly in cartoon form). Not that that applies to any of the above posters of course.

5-14-103. Rape.
(a) A person commits rape if he or she engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual activity with another person:

(1) By forcible compulsion;

(2) Who is incapable of consent because he or she is:

(A) Physically helpless;

(B) Mentally defective; or

(C) Mentally incapacitated;

(3) (A) Who is less than fourteen (14) years of age.

(B) It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under subdivision (a)(3)(A) of this section that the actor was not more than three (3) years older than the victim; or

(4) (A) Who is less than eighteen (18) years of age and the actor is the victim's:

(i) Guardian;

(ii) Uncle, aunt, grandparent, step-grandparent, or grandparent by adoption;

(iii) Brother or sister of the whole or half blood or by adoption; or

(iv) Nephew, niece, or first cousin.

(B) It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under subdivision (a)(4)(A) of this section that the actor was not more than three (3) years older than the victim.

(b) It is no defense to a prosecution under subdivisions (a)(3) or (4) of this section that the victim consented to the conduct.

(c) (1) Rape is a Class Y felony.

(2) Any person who pleads guilty or nolo contendere to or is found guilty of rape involving a victim who is less than fourteen (14) years of age shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of twenty-five (25) years.

(d) (1) A court may issue a permanent no contact order when:

(A) A defendant pleads guilty or nolo contendere; or

(B) All of the defendant's appeals have been exhausted and the defendant remains convicted.

(2) If a judicial officer has reason to believe that mental disease or defect of the defendant will or has become an issue in the case, the judicial officer shall enter such orders as are consistent with ยง 5-2-305.

History. Acts 1975, No. 280, ยง 1803; 1981, No. 620, ยง 12; 1985, No. 281, ยง 2; 1985, No. 919, ยง 2; A.S.A. 1947, ยง 41-1803; Acts 1993, No. 935, ยง 1; 1997, No. 831, ยง 1; 2001, No. 299, ยง 1; 2001, No. 1738, ยง 1; 2003, No. 1469, ยง 3; 2006 (1st Ex. Sess.), No. 5, ยง 2.

5-14-124. Sexual assault in the first degree.

(a) A person commits sexual assault in the first degree if the person engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual activity with another person who is less than eighteen (18) years of age and is not the actor's spouse and the actor is:

(1) Employed with the Department of Correction, the Department of Community Correction, the Department of Health and Human Services, or any city or county jail or a juvenile detention facility, and the victim is in the custody of the Department of Correction, the Department of Community Correction, the Department of Health and Human Services, any city or county jail or juvenile detention facility, or their contractors or agents;

(2) A professional under ยง 12-12-507(b) and is in a position of trust or authority over the victim and uses the position of trust or authority to engage in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual activity; or

(3) An employee in the victim's school or school district, a temporary caretaker, or a person in a position of trust or authority over the victim.

(b) It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the victim consented to the conduct.

(c) It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under subdivision (a)(3) of this section that the actor was not more than three (3) years older than the victim.

(d) Sexual assault in the first degree is a Class A felony.

History. Acts 2001, No. 1738, ยง 2; 2003, No. 1391, ยง 1; 2003, No. 1469, ยง 2.

Where does it say that it keeps all purchase histories confidential?
ALL purchases, by ANY card provider (credit & debit), are traced and tracked for verification. All you need is a warrant to provide to the financial institution and the info is there.

IF you want to stay confidential, you have to stay cash only. And that is also hard to do, because many recent acts of congress "made" keeping large amount of cash increasingly difficult.

The 13 year old was sold by her mother into sexual slavery lasting about a year. She had also been placed in foster homes after being sexually abused when she was 6.

The American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) criteria for Pedophilia (302.2) are:

1. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children

2. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty;

3. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

I can guess the standard police proceedures that start when an idiot scum fails to appear on their apppointed court date .... alert the train, bus and air stations, notify the CC companies etc ect. That notify the CC company is most likely some sort of bench warrant-automatic subpoena document thingy that is faxed/mailed to the CC company courtesy of the Judge who wasted his/her morning waiting for the scum to show up.

Yep, go ahead and sue, yhe Judge has already ruled against ya.

Lawyer...figures.

Also, Did he actually have sex with these girls, or did he just ask? And if he did have sex with them, did the mom actually pimp them out!?

Cops tracking people using their credit card transactions isn't a surprise. They do it all the time on TV. ;) So if you're on the run and use a credit card you're just stupid. I'm not sure he had any realistic expectation of privacy here.

Really an interesting point on the CC thing. On one hand the guy is caught and I am sure numerous others are/would be by the same thing. On the other hand any argument for more privacy rights is not a bad thing, just hope the guys doesn't get off because of it.

He was a lawyer, and he didn't understand what extradition is?

@ameyer: Forgive me if I don't take Wikipedia's opinion on the matter seriously:
[valleywag.com]

It's mind-boggling that Colliton had the gall to say, ""That's not why I gave them 20 years of fees and thousands of dollars in profits," he said. "They spied on me."

What can he mean? That because his use of Amex generated income, the company should protect him while he skips the country and rapes children? This guy is beyond vile.

@humphrmi: That was a poor choice of words indeed. He made it sound like charging a credit card eliminates his status as a fugitive.

@DeeJayQueue: "Prosecutors say James Colliton fled to Canada after being indicted on charges of having sex with underage girls." He was on the run. He was on the run. Finding someone via where they charge their credit cards is one of the easiest ways.

That Mother is a bigger pig than he is IMHO. Throw HER in jail.

@henrygates: Yes, those are called mandated reporter laws. I don't feel bad for this guy. "I'm bitter because I got caught so I'm taking it out on AmEx." So this guy was on the run, and authorities looking for him, and he uses a credit card, and then whines when they find him. Another tool.

-If there was no court order or subpoena or proper paperwork, then sue away.

Indicted, convicted, felon, pedophile or regular average citizen, the rules apply evenly and equally to everybody. He's no less of a cretin for his behavior, but that doesn't give AmEx the excuse to hand over transaction info without proper authorization.

This is the same kind of thing that's happening to regular people all the time, and when we complain about it, the government says "Yeah, but look it helps us catch pedophiles!" and that's what makes it ok for them to violate everyone's rights on a blanket scale. Well, it's not ok. If that means that the cops have to work harder to catch the pedos, or make sure their I's are dotted and T's crossed on all their paperwork, then so be it.

He'd have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those darn kids

/oh, wait...

This guys actually is complaining about someone violating his privacy, when he is the butt munch that violates these young girls privacy. What an idiot.

What a creep. Police usually say people stupid enough or egotistic enough to do things like this are stupid or egotistic enough to screw up and get caught.

The only way I can see this guy having a case is if there wasn't a warrant for his arrest.

@matdevdug: Unless your definition of "civilized" specifically excludes that, I can think of at least two in whcih the 15-year-old is legal (including that huge chunk of land to your north), and one (Spain) where the 13-year-old was legal last I saw.

That said, I still think it's seriously wrong and kind of disturbing, and I wonder what exactly possessed the lawmakers in these nations to set the bar so low.

And for those arguing the age of consent issue, you may find this an interesting read ([www.haworthpress.com] link to article abstract)

Prosecutors said that if he had gone to trial and been convicted, Mr. Colliton could have faced a combined sentence of up to 11 years in prison on the two counts of rape to which he pleaded guilty yesterday. His lawyer, Howard Greenberg, said he would have faced up to 30 years in prison if convicted on all 43 counts in the indictment.

Mr. Colliton, whose wife and children live in Poughkeepsie, fled to Canada in February 2006. He was arrested later that month in a motel in Grimsby, Ontario, but mistakenly released. The police took him into custody after finding him in an East Village hotel room in March 2006, after a clerk who had seen his picture in the newspaper called the police.

Anyway if American Express actually violated its agreement to keep customer information confidential then he deserves compensation, pedophile or not.

[en.wikipedia.org]

As for the sexual activity of 13 and 15 year olds, there isn't a civilized country in the world that condones that to my knowledge. Its disgusting to even consider. Remember though that this is a man who has now lost everything and probably sees this fight as a last-ditch effort to redeem himself.

Regarding the rest, was he actually convicted before he was arrested in Canada? If not, then the claim that convicted felons lose their rights is simply bullshit. Of course, it only takes a court order for the credit card company to release information to the police.

On the other hand, do you people really want the credit card companies to release information without court orders?

So you would be OK with the situation if there hadn't been a middle man?

"You're not a fugitive if you sign into a major chain hotel using your driver's license and your American Express card," he said.

Well obviously the only reason you used the card is because you thought you were proctected by some expectation of privacy

Colliton says Canadian authorities would never have "falsely arrested" or "unlawfully detained" him on immigration charges if American Express hadn't revealed when and where he had used his credit card.

proof-

Also, I've personally never met a 13-15 year old who could deal with the emotional trauma of being pimped out by a parent.

@Human947: Sick! 13 is FAR too young, and even the law states that statutory age is 16. If 13 year olds are having sex, and they are, I hope it's at least with other 13 year olds, and not creepy grown men.

You're not a fugitive if you sign into a major chain hotel using your driver's license and your American Express card

Umm, yes you are a fugitive if the police are looking for you, regardless of whether you use your Amex card or not.

Can we at least call him a creep?

Also, let's say you had two daughters aged 13 and 15, would it not ruin your day for them to be propositioned by a much older man, or is anything goes good enough?

Anyway, the moral of the story is that if you're an indicted pedaphile on the run, don't use American Express.

Visa. It's everywhere you want to be.

I certainly hope the mom was also thrown in jail for prostituting out her children.

Brilliant...

Best line ever.