KENNEBUNK — A Portland attorney for two of the more than 150 people who may be charged in connection with an alleged prostitution operation in Kennebunk attempted to prevent the release of their names by the Kennebunk Police Department, but was twice denied by a Biddeford District Court judge.
Attorney Stephen Schwartz filed an injunction Thursday in Biddeford District Court, seeking to keep his clients’ names private. Later Thursday, Judge Andre Janelle denied the motion for a temporary restraining order against police and prosecutors, saying the names are “public information.”
Schwartz appealed Janelle’s ruling Friday morning, but Janelle denied the appeal late Friday afternoon.
Schwartz has taken the case to the state Supreme Judicial Court and has vowed “to fight to the end for our clients.”
The appeal at the Supreme Judicial Court level asks for an expedited hearing that won’t happen until Monday at the earliest.
In a statement issued Friday as part of the most recent arrest logs, Kennebunk Police Lt. Anthony Bean Burpee said the department “is awaiting action” from the court before proceeding with the release of the names of those charged in connection with the alleged prostitution business.
Burpee said Friday that if the judge denies the appeal, “then we will go forward to release the names on our police blotter the way we typically do.”
In Schwartz’s initial injunction, he wrote, “(The) plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury if denied an injunction, because the nature of the charges are such that any appearance or indication of involvement on the part of (the) plaintiff would cause severe and completely irreparable harm (in) his personal reputation as a private citizen.”
Schwartz went on to say that releasing the names of those charged in connection with the alleged prostitution business would violate Maine’s Criminal History Records Act because it won’t serve a governmental purpose.
“Rather,” wrote Schwartz, “it will prejudice a jury pool, shame plaintiffs and create a public scandal, all in violation of the law.”
Schwartz said that the public interest would not be adversely affected by the injunction because the only public interest at stake is “that justice be done.”
The initial injunction includes affidavits from his clients, simply referred to as “John Doe 1” and “John Doe 2.” John Doe 1 is described as being disabled, a Maine resident, and a “commorant of Massachusetts,” meaning he is a temporary resident there as well. John Doe 2 was said to be a Maine resident and own a business.
The prostitution business in Kennebunk is alleged to have taken place at the Zumba fitness Pura Vida Studio operated by Alexis Wright, 29, of Wells. Wright, who is alleged to have recorded video of sexual acts with clients without their permission, pleaded not guilty in Cumberland County Superior Court earlier this week to 106 counts, including multiple counts of violation of privacy, engaging in prostitution, evasion of income tax, and a count of theft by deception.
Wright was the second person charged with a crime in connection with the case. A Thomaston man, Mark Strong Sr., 57, was arrested in June and pleaded not guilty this week to multiple counts of promotion of prostitution, a count of conspiracy to promote prostitution, and multiple counts of invasion of privacy.
In the decision to deny Schwartz’s initial injunction, Janelle wrote, “The identity of adult individuals charged with criminal offenses and summoned to appear in court is public information.
“Ordinarily,” he wrote, “a court will conduct a hearing on a request for a temporary restraining order, but here the essential facts are not in dispute and there is no need for a hearing.”
The initial injunction was filed against Maine State Police Chief Robert Williams, Kennebunk Police Chief Robert Mackenzie, and state Attorney General William Schneider, as well as York County District Attorney Kathryn Slattery.
— The Associated Press contributed to this report. Staff Writer Jeff Lagasse can be contacted at 282-1535, Ext. 319 or jlagasse@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less