All In The Family

The Expanding Orbit of the Price Family

Everyone’s life is complicated by family.  For many, especially gay men, the truth of that statement extends beyond biological relatives to what’s often called “family of choice”: those with whom we associate, build lasting bonds, and come to depend on as integral to our personal lives.

The Swann Street defendants were no exceptions.  By Victor’s own admission, the three represented a family – perhaps not yet of complete equals, but they were “…trying to develop it in that way.”

But close in orbit to Joe, Victor and Dylan are other individuals who play a recurring role in this family’s life.  Among them: longtime friend and housemate Sarah Morgan, Joe’s brother Michael, his partner Louis Hinton and Phelps Collins III.  What we are learning is how, exactly, the orbits begin to overlap.

We begin with Pride, and end with Excellence

Today’s example: less than four months before Robert Wone’s murder, Joe’s brother Michael filed domestic assault charges against his partner Louis Hinton – the very person Victor would bail out and Joe would come to defend.

April 20 2006, around 6:30am, Montgomery County police officer R. Micozzi was the first to speak with Michael Price.  Price told Micozzi he was “…asleep in his bed when he was woken up by his partner, Louis Hinton.”   Quoting further:

“Hinton came into Price’s room screaming at him about money and punched him in his head several times.  The writer (Micozzi) observed Price to have two abrasions that were swelled up on the right side of his head near his eye.”

Officer Micozzi then spoke with Hinton:

“Hinton stated that during the morning hours he had noticed that some money was missing from his bedroom.  Hinton went to Price’s room to inquire about the missing money.  While in Price’s room Hinton removed the pillow from under Price’s head and asked him where his money was.  Hinton stated that Price then kicked him in the stomach.  Hinton responded by spinning him around by his feet in the bed and striking him in the head with his fist.”

Hinton showed no signs of injury, and was placed under arrest for second degree assault.

Troubling problems indeed, but Louis Hinton’s luck was about to change.

Priority number one: getting bailed  out of jail.  Hinton found the right number when Victor Zaborsky posted his bond by way of a $2,500 personal check.   A curious choice for a man partnered to the brother of the man who originally brought the assault charges, but still.   Bail, check.

Second: finding a place to stay and an address to provide authorities as a condition of release on bail.  Mr. Hinton found good accommodations – with Victor, Joe and Dylan at 1509 Swann Street NW.  Crib, double-check .

Lastly, for his coming court dates, Mr. Hinton signed some of the best legal talent in DC.  Not just one K Street attorney, but two. You guessed it.

Joe Price, and Arent Fox colleague Emily Thorne.  As in, Joe Price, brother to Michael Price, the man originally assaulted by Louis Hinton.

None of this is to judge the decisions made.  Family demands sacrifice; sometimes painful.  It does, however, bring into sharper focus the nature and the depth of connections shared by all these players.

– posted by Doug and Craig

76 comments for “All In The Family

  1. Anon. in Arlington
    04/06/2009 at 1:06 PM

    Great investigative work guys! A tangled mess indeed.

  2. jackson
    04/06/2009 at 4:36 PM

    Wild. great stuff. Are michael and louis still together?

  3. CDinDC
    04/06/2009 at 4:40 PM

    They slept in separate rooms? Interesting. For a couple, that is.

    • Michael
      04/06/2009 at 4:59 PM

      CD –

      Good point, especially since Hinton, when questioned by police after the murder, provided an alibi for Michael Price. He stated that Michael was in bed with him at the time of the murder (Affidavit for Search Warrants, pages 47-48).

      – Michael, editor

      • DonnaH
        06/16/2010 at 3:04 PM

        Indeed! And this was only four months before Robert’s murder. I hope the history of their sleeping arrangements get fully explored in any depositions by Michael and Louis for Kathy Wone’s upcoming case.

  4. David
    04/06/2009 at 5:11 PM

    Two words. White Trash

    -redacted by Craig

    • CDinDC
      04/06/2009 at 8:23 PM

      Actually, Louis Hinton is an African-American.

      Defendant Name: HINTON, LOUIS O
      Sex: MHeight:600Weight:165DOB:06/15/1951
      Address: 1509 SWANN ST NW
      City: WASHINGTONState:DCZip Code:20009 –

      • Nick
        04/07/2009 at 1:49 PM

        Wow, he was a lot older than Michael Price

  5. 04/06/2009 at 6:16 PM

    For a group of drug-abusing, criminally adventurous and/or sexually obsessed individuals, its good to see that Dylan, Victor, Joe, Michael and Louis kept good bedtime hours; all going to sleep that night before 10:30.

    • CDinDC
      04/06/2009 at 7:35 PM

      go figure.

    • CDinDC
      04/06/2009 at 11:52 PM

      they probably wore themselves out with all that criminal activity going on

    • Lance
      04/07/2009 at 12:38 AM

      Man, I never get tired of this. “I just know that X; here’s evidence that contradicts X; isn’t it amazing the way X is still true?”

      • Poirot
        04/07/2009 at 12:44 AM

        LOL – let us hope something unfolds that eliminates so many of these contradictions.

        • 04/07/2009 at 12:49 AM

          For in the long run, either through a lie, or through truth, people are bound to give themselves away.

          • CDinDC
            04/07/2009 at 7:39 AM

            Well said, John.

      • CDinDC
        04/07/2009 at 7:38 AM

        Come on Lance….offer something in the way of defense…..evidence supporting the intruder theory….or perhaps another theory…..give us something…..this is your forum to to that…..but these little snippets are quite impotent. What do you have, Lance?

        • Lance
          04/09/2009 at 5:40 AM

          CD, have you read anything at all that I’ve written? I have no evidence. How could I? I’m not in any way involved in this case, on either side. And until the trial starts, we’re not going to start seeing the defense’s evidence. I simply cannot prove to you that the roommates are innocent; I can only implore you to reserve judgment until the evidence is in.

          • CDinDC
            04/09/2009 at 7:22 AM

            Lance says: “I simply cannot prove to you that the roommates are innocent;”

            Lance, my good man, we finally agree on something. 😀

            And FYI….you’re okay in my book. We may quip at each other, but I like where you’re coming from.

            A court of law will ultimately decide the fate of these individuals. But in the meantime, a daily presence helps to bring a little more focus on this case.

            Not to mention, this blog could be just as helpful, if these individuals are truly innocent, in bringing the actual killer/s to justice.

  6. CDinDC
    04/06/2009 at 8:39 PM


    Here’s something you might try to figure out……

    According to Maryland court records, Louis Hinton used 1727 R Street, NW #401 (Joe Price’s condo) as his address for a civil case (tax lien) docketed 03/13/2002. The amount was satisfied 04/05/2004.

    This was 2 to 4 years prior to the death of Robert Wone. 1 to 3 years before purchasing the Swann Street property.

    A couple of questions:

    1) When did Price and Zaborsky begin their relationship?
    2) When did Michael Price and Louis Hinton begin their relationship?
    3) Was Joe Price ever involved with Louis Hinton?

    What’s the story re Joe and Louis? Inquiring minds want to know.

    • CreepWatch
      04/06/2009 at 8:44 PM

      Apropos the 17th hundred block of R. Here is something I have often thought but I know is unfair. One must be awfully fond of children to live on that block, and perhaps not in the best way. (n.b. there is a very loud school on the block).

      • CDinDC
        04/06/2009 at 8:53 PM

        Ohhhh, stop that. I used to live three doors down from that school on R Street. Those kids are fenced in better than the tigers at National Zoo.

        • TK
          04/07/2009 at 8:03 AM

          LOL CD. I used to live right around the corner from that school too, walked by it on the way to the Soviet Safeway. I think it’s a little odd that CreepWatch would even bring such a thing up.

          • CDinDC
            04/07/2009 at 9:21 AM

            LOL The Soviet Safeway…I haven’t heard it called that since the 80’s! I’ll never forget the empty shelves.

            I guess the trio’s behavior is so beyond what most people would consider normal, I suppose a lot of people think anything is possible with those guys.

    • Craig
      04/06/2009 at 8:52 PM

      CD – Nice work again. And there’s another Hinton connection to that R Street condo. Later this week we hope.

      -Craig, ed.

      • CDinDC
        04/06/2009 at 8:55 PM

        Ooo…I look forward to that.

        This plot is thicker than Brunswick Stew.

  7. 04/06/2009 at 9:14 PM

    They came for my personal journal. Will they also want these video tapes?!?

  8. 04/06/2009 at 10:21 PM

    We apologize for not responding to your many insightful posts. Lance, Ex Swann Dude, A.I. Gamisou, et al and our legal teams have been preoccupied today with other new urgent unfolding developments. We will get back to you once we have something, anything, substantive to say.

    • CDinDC
      04/06/2009 at 11:50 PM

      CDinDC <—–giddy with anticipation

  9. Just Another Friend
    04/07/2009 at 10:01 AM

    Remember that Michael was an addict with extensive drug history (4 convictions 1998 – 2004, and caught with a drug pipe in 2006). If Joe and Victor were concerned about Michael’s problem, and viewed Hinton as someone that was trying to help Michael get turned around, their behavior toward Hinton was reasonable. (The people who love an addict need each other’s support to make it through.) And I am not condoning Hinton’s alleged behavior toward Michael, but Michael’s drug problem also could explain Hinton’s fury over missing money.

    • Just Another Friend
      04/07/2009 at 10:27 AM

      Oops, my bad. Collins was the one with the 4 drug convictions. What we know about Michael’s drug problems is that Joe said that Michael was a user … and that Michael was found with the pipe later in 2006.

      • SheKnowsSomething
        04/07/2009 at 11:42 AM

        Guess who has been quite chatty to anyone wwho would listen in the past about Michael Price’s drug problem? That’s right — Sarah Morgan.

        • CDinDC
          04/07/2009 at 11:47 AM

          What about Joe’s drug use….or was Sarah part of it?

    • CDinDC
      04/07/2009 at 10:55 AM

      Hinton had his own history of “problems”…..his record is peppered with battery, foreclosures, tax liens, etc. He didn’t pay his rent. Didn’t pay his utilities. He owes thousands of dollars to the IRS (case still has an active status). Maybe his relationship with MPrice was a relationship of convenience….for HIM.

      1990 Defendant – foreclosure
      1995 Defendant – Battery (nolle prosequi)
      1995 Defendant – federal tax lien ($15000)
      1996 Defendant – Battery (nolle prosequi)
      1997 Defendant – foreclosure/bancruptcy
      2002 Defendant – tax lien ($3500)
      2003 Defendant – small claims ($300)
      2005 Defendant – non-payment of contract (gas bill)
      2006 Defendant – 2nd degree assault
      2008 Defendant – non payment of rent ($1300)
      (This information is public record.)

    • Dupont Dweller
      04/07/2009 at 12:34 PM

      Yes. Putting together what many are saying here
      I think you have a good point. I do not think that drugs were the central issue for Joe Price and Zaborsky. I think this whole sad story is about mental illness and ambition. As to the brother that is a different. I agree with the substance of the catty comment made elsewhere on this site that this is also about “white trash”. It is not just comical. It is about people wanting to rise out of their family’s lowlife world but not realizing they have be thorough about it. Looking at porn,
      having edgy sexual interests or being a polygamist (gay style) does not make you a lowlife. It is not having any ultimate ethics, a line you would not cross under any circumstances that does. Unfortunately, for Joe Price he is clearly someone who is lowlife to the bone and deserves nothing but scorn.

      • CDinDC
        04/07/2009 at 12:49 PM

        Nice post, Dupont.

        Perhaps the fact that each of them had “the goods” on each other may have factored in, as well. Joe knew about Michael’s ciminal behavior, Michael knew about Joe’s, and on down the line. Joes was certainly not one to hold anything over Michael’s head (in a legal OR moral sense).

  10. Frankie
    04/07/2009 at 2:02 PM

    It’s interesting, and may be slightly relevant to this site’s purpose, to explore these “family connections.” But what point does it serve for people in some of these comments to label the individuals involved as “white trash,” “lowlife,” etc., when at bottom those making these comments really don’t know all that much about these individuals? Plus, such comments don’t at all promote a useful discussion. My suggestion to those inclined to comment — stick to speculating about what might have happened based on facts, rather than offering subjective, self-righteous moral judgments.

    • Craig
      04/07/2009 at 2:25 PM

      Thank you. I agree.

      -Craig, ed.

    • Dupont Dweller
      04/07/2009 at 3:58 PM

      I understand your point, but I think you are missing the reason for such discussion. Failure to address these issues leads to the tendency to think that a normal person must be a good person. Therefore, if a normal person commits a crime there must be another outside explanation. i.e. drugs or sexual perversity. “Lowlife” describes someone who has not risen to a minimal moral or cultural level. There may be other explanations, but we should not assume them. In the case of Price many people who saw him did not impute drugs to him. By the way, you do not at all need to know much about the individuals to make this observation.
      People are judged by their actions. In this case their actions and the cover-up and the burglary are all in the realm of lowlifes. Sadly our culture in general is pretty mixed-up about these basic things at this point. I regret to say that our own gay community is even more mixed up about it. That is part of why so many people defended Joe Price. Much of it is not entirely avoidable for gay people as we are treated badly sometimes and not given the respect we are due as equal human beings. Even if this is so we can’t shrink from applying the basic moral observations. In this case that means not using the easy conceptual “out” of thinking a rich lawyer must have been on drugs to do such horrible things. If he did them, and I believe he did, the simplest explanation is that he did them because he was a very nasty piece of work, even though everyone
      thought he was so nice and full of integrity. By the way, I never thought that, but I never quite expected this level of nastiness.

      • CDinDC
        04/07/2009 at 4:41 PM

        >>>Frankie says: “when at bottom those making these comments really don’t know all that much about these individuals”<<<<

        Using the term “white trash”….I don’t like that so much either, but I have to disagree with your comment about not knowing “these individuals.” We do know a lot about them. A lot more than Joe Price or Dylan Ward or Victor Zaborsky probably EVER wanted the world to know. Their lives have been splayed open for all to see. And what I’ve seen isn’t very pretty. Conspiracy and obstruction charges aside. If Robert Wone had walked out of that house on August 3rd, those 3 men are STILL the type of individuals I wouldn’t invite to MY dinner parties.

        To borrow DupontDweller’s phrase…..they are a “nasty piece of work.”

        • Lance
          04/07/2009 at 5:39 PM

          You’ll be unsurprised to learn that I disagree with you on this point. What I’ve learned for certain about the three roommates is that they had sex lives utterly unlike my own. I suspect that a lot of my friends have sex lives quite unlike my own, and since I don’t typically discuss my sex life, or my guests’ sex lives, at dinner parties, that on its own wouldn’t stop me from inviting them to a dinner party.

          There were, admittedly, the drugs, a lifestyle choice I feel more comfortable disapproving of. On the other hand, if drug use didn’t interfere with their daily lives….

          • CDinDC
            04/07/2009 at 5:53 PM

            Ever heard of hepatitis?

            I’m happy to say that I don’t socialize with drug users OR people that have dangerous sexual behavior.

            Be careful who you kiss goodnight, Lance.

            • Lance
              04/08/2009 at 12:02 AM

              I don’t recall saying I planned to kiss any of them; nor do I typically screen my dinner party guests for possible diseases.

              • CDinDC
                04/10/2009 at 9:31 AM

                Don’t be so literal, Lance. Life is not black and white.

                • Lance
                  04/10/2009 at 4:44 PM

                  I…don’t even know what that means.

                  I’d also love to know how CDinDC knows that he doesn’t “socialize with drug users OR people that have dangerous sexual behavior”. Does he screen the sexual lives of all his friends? Isn’t part of the lesson of Price/Ward/Zaborsky that, no matter how someone appears publicly, they could be doing anything at all in the bedroom and you’d have no way of knowing?

      • Frankie
        04/07/2009 at 5:17 PM

        I disagree. There is no legitimate reason for making self-righteous judgments on the lives of the people involved here, even if based on what you believe are their actions, particularly when those judgments amount to what is nothing more than name calling. It serves absolutely no useful purpose to call anyone a “lowlife” and “white trash” or to make pious judgments on anyone’s background. What does it possibly matter whether anyone thinks someone else is “white trash”? How does that “observation” advance the ball?

        My making this point has nothing to do with defending Joe Price, or anyone else, or with “shrink[ing] from applying basic moral observations.” It has to do with the desire to read thoughtful observations and theories based on fact, not value judgments based on a sense of moral superiority.

        I take issue with two opposite strands of thought that have appeared in various comments on this site: (1) the notion that “intelligent,” “attractive,” and “wealthy” individuals like Joe and Victor could not possibly have committed such heinous acts; and (2) the notion that Joe, Victor, and Dylan, their family members, and those close to them necessarily had a poor upbringing, financially and otherwise, and had to have been mired in some kind of objectively immoral life before Robert Wone was killed. Humans at all levels of the social strata are capable of just about anything. So we should dispense with these groundless value judgments on these people and focus on figuring out what happened.

        • CDinDC
          04/07/2009 at 5:39 PM

          Frankie, I think you’ve echoed pretty much (in a nicely written post, by the way) what the majority of people on this board have said all along. Every now and then someone will throw around a disparaging epithaph. Don’t attack the entire board. There are plenty of “thoughtful observations and theories based on fact.”

          (And for the record, I still think drinking urine is a FILTHY behavior and they certainly wouldn’t be eating off of my silverware…..and this is an observation based on FACT.)

          • Frankie
            04/07/2009 at 5:54 PM

            Right, CD. I’m not attacking anyone, much less the entire board. Just providing my take on the content of some of the comments.

            (By the way, I think drinking urine has some salutary effects (not that I’d know firsthand). So keep an open mind on that one.)

            • CDinDC
              04/07/2009 at 5:59 PM

              No thanks, Frankie. I’ll pass on that. 😀

        • Dupont Dweller
          04/07/2009 at 7:15 PM

          What you are arguing for would undermine the very possibility of civilization. But clearly parsing such matters is not the purpose of this site. It is only relevant in this sense. All legal systems are based on value judgments, and in fact a feeling of moral superiority. The belief that killing your longtime friend is evil is a value judgment, and one who does not kill his friend is in fact superior to one that does. Such abstract talk is pragmatically useful to clarify some conundrums about this case. First, why have so many defended Joe Price
          in the face of truly insurmountable evidence of guilt. Because many assume as Frankie seems to a sort of values-neutral pose which is absurd on its face. In this vacuum identity becomes all, and therefore defending a fellow gay guy trumps defending what is right. Second, it clarifies why this case has gotten less press and attention than others of comparable significance. Since the defense seems based on identity, and since the identity in question –gay man– is one which in the eyes of many on the DC Police force has historically either deprecated or not taken seriously, the lack of attention is shown as a symptom of that very same, and misguided, attempt at identity explanations for moral questions.

          • Frankie
            04/08/2009 at 5:57 AM

            I am not assuming a “values-neutral pose.” I am stating, once again, that it serves no purpose whatsoever to call people names — which is all you’re doing — and to pass judgments (on all the subjects of these posts, including individuals for whom no evidence indicates any involvement in Robert’s murder) as if you’re morally superior. None of what I’m saying relates to this case receiving less attention from the press or defending Joe Price or defending “a fellow gay guy.”

            You’re attempting to paint calling people “lowlife” and “white trash” as some high-minded manner to discuss people — again, some of whom probably have no direct involvement in this murder — related to this whole story. It’s not high-minded. It’s the opposite.

            That’s the last I’ll say about this.

            • Dupont Dweller
              04/08/2009 at 1:04 PM


              I am guessing you are pretty young. The difference between us old gay guys and
              you young fellows is that we can remember a time when being gay meant being part of a subculture that prized the arts and learning. Gay guys often affected a pose of being cleverer, more cultured, more artsy. That pose represented, in the subculture a way of keeping our own sense of dignity in the face of hateful assumptions. I am sad to say that gay culture now seems to live down in every way, including morally, to every bit of the worst in the broader culture. Joe Price is a tragic symbol of this, despite having many fortunate opportunities in life. Thus, I don’t agree with your philosophy, but I want you to know that there a cultural background for some of these judgments.

  11. Ex Swann Dude
    04/07/2009 at 7:35 PM

    You argue some very strong points Dupont Dweller and I think that you should … Hey, are those Prada?

    • Dupont Dweller
      04/07/2009 at 8:41 PM

      Servum servorum dei.

  12. 17th and Mass
    04/08/2009 at 12:03 PM

    Dupont Dweller, I feel sure you are able to understand that sex practices and drug use are not moral issues, whereas murder is.

    • CDinDC
      04/08/2009 at 12:32 PM

      17th and Mass, if the definintion of morality is conforming to standards based on right and wrong, and buying/using illegal drugs is criminally wrong, wouldn’t using drugs be immoral?

      BUT, is pissing on your partner wrong? That’s a question that could be debated for hoooours. And there’s the camp that doesn’t even consider S/M “sex”. But, whatever….I think it’s all kinda gross. So have at it, if you like….

      • 17th and Mass
        04/08/2009 at 3:17 PM

        “Conforming to standards based on right and wrong” is not at all what I consider to be the definition of morality, as it implies that one is automatically “moral” as long as one adheres to what everyone else is doing.

        In fact, that is pretty much the opposite of what I think of as morality, which I consider to pretty much consist of the eternal idea that one must refrain from hurting others.

        So, drug use and sex– as long as they don’t veer into “hurting others” territory– are not inherently immoral activities.

        Obviously you can take the most innocuous activity and transform it into something immoral if you do it in a way that hurts others.

        If I don’t have money to feed my children and I spend the family’s grocery money on candy bars and rush home and binge on them, then I have committed an immoral act because my children will be hurt. If I’m just some random dude eating too many candy bars…who cares? Same with drugs and sex.

        And the “if it’s criminal, it’s immoral” argument seems fairly obviously a no-go.

        • CDinDC
          04/08/2009 at 4:29 PM

          17th…for the most part, I don’t disagree with you, but when it comes to drugs, although a drug user believes they are only hurting themselves…you need to think again. In the long run, there’s a much bigger picture involved. Family, friends, the system, society are all affected by someone’s drug use. If I do drugs, my family and friends suffer. If I do drugs, the system and society becomes burdened for multiple reasons because of my bad decision. It not just you and your decision and your good time. That’s where drug users loose sight. So using your very own logic…using drugs hurts other people. So, tell me again that using drugs is not immoral.

          Re illegal/immoral, Merriam Webster seems to think so too: “moral implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong “.

          But it’s all good. I like your thoughts.

          • Ex Swann Dude
            04/08/2009 at 4:33 PM

            Thanks CD. You are right … you just beat me to the reply. One can also check the statistics on how much we pay as a society for drug treatment, rehabs, emergency rooms, etc.

            • CDinDC
              04/08/2009 at 4:40 PM

              Precisely, ExSwann. You hit the nail on the head.

              • Ex Swann Dude
                04/08/2009 at 4:53 PM

                Oh, did I forget to mention the cost of coroners … Stupid me CD.

    • Dupont Dweller
      04/08/2009 at 12:52 PM

      I wish this country would just legalize all drugs. Let me say that first. But such habits of drugs and sex are really only a serious moral issue if they lead you to worse things. For some they don’t. For others they do. Once again other people have the right to judge others by their actions. The fact that issues of drugs or sex may be gray in themselves does not eliminate that actions related to them are not gray in the slightest. I don’t care if someone likes to get drunk. But getting in car and driving while drunk is a terrible thing. This whole discussion is fortuitous in that I think it makes clearer the basic point. You rightly identify “murder” as the
      central moral issue here. Ockham’s Razor tells me that the impetus for a crime is likely to be close to the moral issue. The murderous instinct
      is pretty strong in some people. I do not think it is so abusive of the reputations of lawyers to point out that the cut-throat ambition needed to succeed in the ever-less-genteel legal world might dove-tail with a murderous instinct in some. Thus, the bottom line point is, drug use is not the most profitable rubric, so to speak, under which to analyze this case.

  13. CDinDC
    04/10/2009 at 5:04 PM

    >>>>Lance says:
    April 10, 2009 at 4:44 PM
    I…don’t even know what that means.

    I’d also love to know how CDinDC knows that he doesn’t “socialize with drug users OR people that have dangerous sexual behavior”. Does he screen the sexual lives of all his friends? Isn’t part of the lesson of Price/Ward/Zaborsky that, no matter how someone appears publicly, they could be doing anything at all in the bedroom and you’d have no way of knowing?<<<>>>>I’d also love to know how CDinDC knows that he doesn’t “socialize with drug users OR people that have dangerous sexual behavior”. <<<>>>Does he screen the sexual lives of all his friends?<<>>>Isn’t part of the lesson of Price/Ward/Zaborsky that, no matter how someone appears publicly, they could be doing anything at all in the bedroom and you’d have no way of knowing?<<<<

    No…that’s not the lesson of the 3 Stooges. The lesson is that you shouldn’t alter a crime scene, and conspire to obstruct justice. Considering, “the intruder” certainly wouldn’t have cleaned up after himself, Lance.

    Now isn’t past your bedtime?

    • Lance
      04/10/2009 at 5:15 PM

      You’re not even trying, are you.

      • CDinDC
        04/10/2009 at 5:16 PM

        Did I hear something?

    • CDinDC
      04/10/2009 at 5:16 PM

      Damn system messed up my post…..

      ——Lance says: I’d also love to know how CDinDC knows that he DOESN’T “socialize with drug users OR people that have dangerous sexual behavior”——

      Lance, why the hell would I say that? You totally misquoted me. I was speaking of myself. But now that you mention it, OF COURSE, he socializes with drug users and people that have dangerous sexual behavior!

      Lance, I think I’ll ignore you from now on. You are clearly being antagonistic. And if everyone else does the same, your posts will get lost in the shuffle.

      • Lance
        04/10/2009 at 5:27 PM

        Hold on, I think you misread me. You said:

        I’m happy to say that I don’t socialize with drug users OR people that have dangerous sexual behavior.

        I said:

        I’d also love to know how CDinDC knows that he doesn’t “socialize with drug users OR people that have dangerous sexual behavior”.

        The “he” there was specifically CDinDC. What I meant was this:

        CDinDC said that CDinDC doesn’t socialize with certain types of people. I’d like to know how CDinDC knows that CDinDC doesn’t socialize with those types of people, since again one thing that we’ve learned here is that you can’t tell by looking who those people are.

        I apologize if somehow that wasn’t clear. I don’t believe that I in any way misquoted you.

        • CDinDC
          04/10/2009 at 5:37 PM

          You have a good point, Lance, but I know who my friends are. My friends don’t lead some seamy alternative life. They get up…go to work…come home to their partners…their children. They are regular, everyday people, and I know them like I know the back of my hand. I know them, and I love them and I would trust them with my life.

          I know what you’re going to say….”how do you know?” I just do, Lance. If you can’t say the same about your friends, well, those friendships don’t run very deep then.

          • Lance
            04/10/2009 at 5:55 PM

            The thing is that Price, Ward, and Zaborsky, by all pre-Wone accounts, were exactly those sorts of people. They got up, went to work, came home to their partners. They were regular, everyday people, two of whom were profiled by USA Today as a model of a mainstream couple. Indeed, Musheno and Alston trusted the couple with the lives of their children.

            It’s still my opinion that you can have a fairly deep friendship with someone without knowing anything about what they do in the bedroom. CDinDC apparently disagrees on this point; other people may decide for themselves.

            And to get back to the original point I was making in my first comment in this subthread: CDinDC feels that we’ve learned things about the trio independent of the Wone murder and cleanup that indicate that they’re “a nasty piece of work”. (I hope I’m correctly representing his view.) My feeling is that (a) we haven’t learned anything about them beyond facts about their sex lives and drug use, and that (b) having this kind of sex life doesn’t make you “a nasty piece of work”. I think that, again, CDinDC disagrees with me at least on point (b); again, I’ll let other people decide what they think.

            (I’d point to, as evidence, the wide variety of politicians who get the support of their constituents without those constituents realizing that the politician solicits prostitutes, or hits on underage aides, or the like. It’s different than a close friendship, but it’s a lot of people giving relatively close scrutiny, with nothing in the politicians’ public lives indicating anything about their private lives.)

    • Ex Swann Dude
      04/10/2009 at 5:19 PM

      Bedtimes … curfews … I’m soooo confused!

  14. CDinDC
    04/10/2009 at 6:11 PM

    [Lance says: It’s still my opinion that you can have a fairly deep friendship with someone without knowing anything about what they do in the bedroom.]

    Okay, Lance….I will concede on this one. You’re right…..but only to a degree. I know my friends well. We have open, trusting relationships. They have no reason to hide things from me, and I believe what they tell me.

    • CDinDC
      04/10/2009 at 6:13 PM

      But I do still think they are “nasty pieces of work.” Ew. So not my style.

  15. Penelope
    03/25/2010 at 12:53 PM

    It’s just unfathomable to me that my family would support a partner who had abused me, particularly if said partner had Hinton’s string of financial issues and previous battery charges. Granted, I’m a hetero woman, I don’t have a drug problem, I have yet to steal money from a partner, and I’m financially independent and self-supporting, but DAMN. I’d like to think that in that situation, my family would check me into a rehab program for drugs and/or mental illness (where I could also examine my codependent relationships with my family and my partner). Depending on the severity of my condition, there are also 12-step meetings, talk therapy, and outpatient programs for psychiatric and addiction issues. I suppose I’ve seen too many episodes of Intervention…

    How did Joe attempt to help Michael with his alleged drug problem and/or mental illness?

    Is this yet another example of the Price clan’s propensity to deal with problems in-house, protect their own, and sweep family issues under the rug?

    • Craig
      03/25/2010 at 2:18 PM

      If Joe winds up in prison and/or financially wiped out from the $20 megaton civil suit, could he end up being supported by little brother Michael?

  16. Clio
    03/25/2010 at 9:28 PM

    Since Joe might become destitute after the civil suit, eyecandy dvds may save the day, after all. Go, Ma’am, Go!

    • Penelope
      03/25/2010 at 10:52 PM

      Eyecandy DVDs is a limited liability corporation (LLC). I wonder if this is another ruse Joe created to divert his assets in preparation for the civil trial. FWIW, its status is active according to the DC corporation registry – I suppose that means they filed a bi-annual report in 2009. Joe, classy as always, registered them at Arent Fox’s address. Don’t most big firms have rules about conducting outside business on firm premises? It may also be a problem that Joe, the registered agent, is no longer a “bona fide resident” of DC, which is required of registered agents. Joe, Joe, Joe… if you don’t have a fulltime job, you could at least keep up with your paperwork!

Comments are closed.