And quite a show it was that I watched them organize at their church also without one real survivor in sight. A church by the way who refused to let us have a meeting space for Sex Workers Anonymous that suddenly becomes concerned about the issue – but won't return my calls I don't exactly consider as someone having our best interests at heart. A church directly connected with the Salvation Army who is receiving funds to work with sex trafficking victims so I can't help but think that show bring organized the way it was for you might just have something to do with grant money. Especially when Andrea's husband is reported to have been a Metro officer and they also have been receiving federal grant money to work with trafficking victims. Considering both Metro and the Salvation Army, two groups receiving federal money to work with trafficking victims, have refused to take my calls concerning victims in need of aid – you'll have to forgive my hostility here on the issue on the fact real survivors were being shut out of these hearings by people who had financial self-interests in AB67.
- You say that “it doesn't matter if they were mistaken about the age of the victim”. I'm asking because one victim was from Colorado. In Colorado, the legal age of consent is 17 years of age, as long as the predator is less than 10 years older than the victim. Snoop was older than 27 at the time, so according to her state of residence, this would have been a violation of their laws. However, in Nevada the legal age is 16 years old. Now this one victim tells me she was 16 years old at the time she got onto the bus in Los Angeles with Snoop where the legal age of consent is 18 years of age. Meaning she would be legal as far as Nevada law goes – but not Colorado where she was residing (she came into town for the concert), nor in California where she got onto the bus and she was first asked to “fulfill this fantasy”. This is a very valid question by the way in Nevada concerning how many teens do come into town for concerts, and some who catch rides in with the tour buses like this case. So which state is the state you go by with respect to legal age – the state of residence or the state the act occurred in?
- Now she reports she was never asked for any ID at any time. But if the knowledge or even a mistake in knowledge “doesn't matter” then it wouldn't matter if he asked for an ID anyway correct? Meaning that even if she showed him an ID verifying she was over legal age of consent, but if in reality she was not of legal age when with him in Nevada – then he's still guilty of statutory rape correct?
- Now you say in this law that the “behavior of the victim doesn't matter”. Meaning that even if she was a totally willing woman who threw herself into this act of prostitution – then that isn't taken into consideration at all correct?
- What state can the deposition videotape of the victim be recorded? It doesn't specify if the deposition has to be taken in Nevada or not. Since our victim can't leave her home where she's at now, which is not Nevada, could she be deposed and the tape be recorded in another state? This is a very important question for me as for the last couple of years we've been taking all trafficking victims immediately outside of Nevada for safety's sake.Top level traffickers in Nevada are too well connected to be kept safely in Nevada. Nevada had a drug addicted prosecutor for a while who has died now, a Chief of Police who I saw aiding traffickers who has stepped down now in the middle of corruption allegations. When I had a reporter help me try and expose police corruption in 2007 – two police officers were in fact caught “red handed” in a home being used as a brothel with 24 prostitutes and baggies of drugs yet those women went given back to the pimps and sent home before being cleared by Immigration which is the law.
I've fought corruption and “conflict of interest” with both Vic Vigna and Karen Hughes for years (you'll notice not one sex trafficking charge was filed during the time both of those officers was in charge of Vice AND Internal Affairs at the same time), and Officer Bonaventura was even caught accessing private information on porn performers without proper authorization. Aubrey reported to me she was being raped on a regular basis by an officer who was in charge of not only the HIV test results of the brothel workers, but when I went to file a complaint with Internal Affairs at the time, found out he was also the Chief of Police in that district who was in charge of all three offices at the same time.There was a lawsuit filed over a sheriff working for the jail while also taking money from Dennis Hof to “act” like he was a customer during the filming of “Cathouse”. Lance Gilman owns the Mustang Ranch, while also being a Storey County Councilman, along with being on the Nevada Board of Economic Development whose members comprise some of the largest companies in Nevada, and one of the founders of Nevada Power from what my background check showed when I was trying to figure out why my power was cut off mysteriously when I held a press conference in 2007, and Aubrey's power was cut off right after her testimony at the legislature in 2013. Oscar Goodman while mayor tried for years to build “magnificent brothels” according to press interviews in downtown Las Vegas while obviously supporting legalized prostitution. He was behind the laws allowing for outcall services to be promoted in Las Vegas. Buffalo Jim was found dead with enough GHB in his system to kill 10 men a day after Rick Rizzolo had left a death threat on his car. Jim used to have women from the Crazy Horse coming over to his wrestling school for safety where they would wait until I could pick them up and take them out of Nevada. Rick was also a board member of Nevada Partnership for Homeless Youth after his release from prison – meaning while he was a felon.There was the exposure of the fact in 2013 the CLS Cab And limo company was involved in organized crime of prostitution and drugs– but clear back in 2006 was when I started having drivers telling me they were being threatened with being fired if they tried to help us with victims' escapes. The only residential shelter I'm aware of for victims in Nevada is the Salvation Army in Las Vegas which does not have specialized security if the witness were to be testifying against anyone in power or authority. I myself have been threatened more than once by Metro officers, a Chief, sheriff's, and a judge. For this reasons, I am having to reside outside of Nevada because of having a car demolished, a bomb placed in our outreach RV, and my front door kicked in while police refused to take a report on the break-in.
Aubrey was so severely threatened after her testimony to the legislature against the legal brothels - she was forced to also move outside of Nevada to protect her and her childrens' safety. I received a call from a Nevada senator asking me to go rescue a pregnant teen because Nevada didn't want to get “involved” to save her because of the “bad press”. If I was all that poor woman had – then no there are some victims who are not safe left residing in, nor coming back to Nevada, to give testimony. For these reasons, for years now I have been taking victims of sex trafficking who we have reason to believe they would not be safe out of Nevada for their own safety. Now we've not brought them back to Nevada to file charges because we've been under the assumption to do so would require them to be able to come back to Nevada and reside here during their testimony at trial. So my question would be can they be videotaped outside of Nevada? Or do they have to physically come back to Nevada in order to be deposed?
- Can you please define Section 1, chapter 1 for me a little clearer please. It says “anyone who profited from . . . “ Snoop says that the “johns” he gave these girls to where NFL players. So my question is would that mean they “profited” because they got sexual pleasure from this act? How far does the liability go? Since they weren't in uniform, and weren't playing at the time, I'm assuming that to mean the team owners didn't profit – or did they? Bear with my thinking here a moment please – but the team got press from the Rolling Stone article speaking about their players “getting pussy” from Snoop Dogg. I saw this talked about all over Twitter and believe me – the team did “profit” as a whole from the “status” of what happened. There were individual players online talking about what was happening at the time and they are “known” players for their team. Isn't publicity a form of “profit” as well as sexual pleasure? Now Snoop says he “gave the money back” to the women – meaning THEY “profited” financially. Didn't they? So please clarify for me using this case where the line is drawn as to what exactly “profit” means, how it's calculated and how it can be proven in respect to pandering, pimping and sex trafficking. Because again bear with my logic here. A trafficker and a pimp profit from cash – but a “panderer” actually profits more from exposure than cash because that allows him to suck in more victims does it not? So even though Snoop didn't profit financially – did he or did he not “profit” from the publicity from the Rolling Stone article as well as the “talk” on the streets that gave him further exposure which probably gave him more hits on his site which increased his ranking which in turn also did profit him financially?
- Section 1, Line 2 - it says “anyone can bring a civil action”. Can you please define that a little clearer for me? Now further down it says that there does NOT have to be a criminal action pending nor won in order for a civil action to be filed. It further states in that if the act is “willful”. Again, the fact he was in the RV rather than traveling in the hotel tells me this was done very carefully calculated ahead of time. He admits to having this “fantasy for most of his life” in fact. So my question is can I file a civil suit for the damages I suffered, both “real, compensatory and punitive” for his actions even though there's no criminal case against him? Where are you also drawing the line at damages?
- Here's how it might relate on another case down the line – let's say I own a motel and unknown to me there is a couple in there engaging in trafficking. They get arrested and it's determined that they used my apartment building in the operation of their business so the government comes in and takes my apartment building. This has happened I know in drug cases in California. When dealers were caught dealing in apartment buildings they would come in and take the apartment buildings and motels away. This forced landlords to get real “nosey” about where their tenants got their money from. You're going to hear this about the cars and phones used also I'm sure. So where is the line going to be drawn on who can sue for damages with respect to “related” parties. Like a parent. Are parents going to be held responsible? Can parents sue a pimp for damages to them for what was done? Please clarify.
- Section 1, Line 9 – if “consent” can not be used as a defense then can you please clarify what can be a defense? Again, I remember my mother being charged with pimping me with the proof being the photo of me handing her a $20 bill while she's handing me a bucket of chicken. I was told that “technically” under the “letter of the law” she was “receiving earnings from a known prostitute”. Only again I had no prior convictions on record as a prostitute. The only thing they had to “verify” I was a prostitute was the word of other convicted prostitutes saying I was.Honestly, I wanted to fight that charge because it was utterly outrageous. However, the prosecutor then pulled a copy of a receipt where I had paid my grandmother's rent using one of my checks. Now, yes I had written one of my checks for her rent. However, my grandmother was in her 70's then and didn't want to walk to the store to get a money order nor go to the bank to make a deposit to write a check herself for the rent. So I took her cash from her, and then write her a check on my account to pay for her rent.The prosecutor claimed there was “no proof” the check was for cash she'd given me because there was no receipt and even if there was they wouldn't believe me. Meaning the DA threatened to arrest and charge my 70 year old grandmother with pimping if my mother and myself didn't take a plea bargain. I knew we'd beat the case but I honestly didn't think my grandmother would survive being arrested by LAPD in her 70's. These guys had also arrested a cab driver, my nail lady, my landlord, and a guy who was a desk clerk at the motel I was staying at also for “taking earnings from a prostitute” so I knew they wouldn't hesitate at arresting that little old lady.
- Can you please explain more specifically how you're using the terms “prostitution”, “pimping”, “pandering”, “sex trafficking” and “involuntary servitude”. Because I have to be honest with you – the way you're using these words within this is very confusing to me. Now my understanding is that “prostitution” is the act of sex, or a related act, for money, or a material exchange. Meaning that if a man or woman agrees to selling sex, or a blow job, or anal sex, for cash, or a bag of drugs, or even a cheeseburger, then that's an act of prostitution. Now previously up until now I've been watching the shows on TV where you're arresting the customers also on this charge. However, in this you say the “customers are not held accountable”. I further see no distinction between “legal” and “illegal” prostitution in this law. Technically that would make what's going on at the legal brothels also “prostitution” because I do not see an exemption for what goes on in the legal brothels.
- Pandering to my understanding is the “enticement” to enter prostitution OR the direction of a customer to a prostitute. In California, it is not a defense you didn't accept any money. Now according to this article, Snoop BOTH “enticed” someone to engage in prostitution by him asking the woman to do so in order to “fulfill his fantasy”. He further “directed” the customer to the prostitute. She then kept the money making her a prostitute. This did not occur within the legal brothels of Nevada – but on an RV. So please define pandering for me.
- Involuntary Servitude – okay clarify something for me here then. I understand this to be when someone is forced to do a legal job like work in a kitchen or clean houses or pick cotton. Aubrey reported to me that she was forced to work in a legal brothel by her pimp threatening her with putting her children into porn if she did not do this. He further said because he had legal custody that he would take them away so she couldn't stop him if he was “forced” to do this by her refusal to keep prostituting. Now she had a brothel prostitute license so what she was doing was legal. However, she reports she was being forced to do it and the brothel owners knew full well. In fact, she says they knew all the girls were being forced to be there by their pimps. The owners encouraged it she said because they were the ones keeping them “on task” rather than the owners having to step in. So who is guilty here of forcing her to work in the brothel? It's not pimping or trafficking from what I understanding – but if the owners knew she was being forced to work there doesn't that make it “involuntary servitude”?
- Human trafficking – a pimp can have any number of prostitutes under him. I've known pimps to have 20 women under them. So what is the line between “pimping” and “sex trafficking”? I'm unclear. I've always defined “trafficking” as when the men, women and/or children are sold outright for sexual purposes. In other words, when I had traffickers approach me back in the day – they would offer me $25,000 to deliver them up a woman never to be seen again. So are you defining “trafficking” as being sold outright like a slave or how exactly?
- I'd like you to clarify something for me please. This law is basically saying some witnesses can give only video testimony without being cross-examined on a stand. That their videotaped testimony can stand in court against them. Now I know for a fact almost all of these prostitutes when arrested are under the influence of drugs. Many of them are also on psychiatric medications. When they're arrested – they're not allowed to take their regularly prescribed psychiatric medications while at the same time if they're junkies they're also going to go through withdrawal. I've seen people within police custody coming off heavy psychiatric medication suddenly, as well as going through drug withdrawal at the same time and trust me they're NUTS. You further say that video testimony can be used “in parts”. Meaning if you ask me – edited. Now personally if my life and freedom were riding on the testimony of someone coming off heavy psych meds while going through drug withdrawal at the same time – I'd sure want to know this. If called upon to testify in court – the judge and jury can determine if that person is sober enough to be considered giving “trustworthy” evidence. However, a blip on a videotape is not enough to determine the truth mental state of a witness. Frankly, if you took anyone off heavy medications like Serequel suddenly, then took them off of a heroin addiction t the same time – anyone would collapse into hysterical tears and then say anything the interrogator wanted to hear in order just to get out of there. So I'm going to ask you if you plan on administering any type of drug test requirement to witnesses before testifying?
- I'd like to know what your plans are for protecting a witness in between giving videotaped testimony and the trial if you don't need the actual testimony to proceed? I ask that because I've seen many a case where the pimp is so violent and dangerous that in order to ensure the victim/witness live long enough to make it to trial – the system will do everything in their power to protect that witnesses life even if that means putting them into protective custody. If you have all you need with the videotape – then please explain to me what motivation the system has to care about the safety of the victim/witness in between the date of the videotaped testimony and the hearing date?
- There's a very troubling omission within this law that I can't seem to find an answer to and that's the legal representation of the witness. I witnessed the most horrific abuse of a person's constitutional rights in Phoenix during Project Rose. During Project Rose, the police would pick up off the street any woman walking down it they felt might be a prostitute.
Not engaging in prostitution – but a prostitute. They even had a law that allowed them to do this “based on how she's dressed”. They would then handcuff this woman, throw her into the back of a police car, then take her to a church where they would tell her “you sign up for this program or I'm going to throw you in jail”. This woman would not be formally arrested at this time. She might be on probation, an illegal alien, have a warrant out, be on drugs thinking about her next fix – who knows. But all that's on her mind at this point in time is saying whatever these guys want to hear and getting the hell out of there . Now no lawyer was provided her before she was asked to make this decision. No attorney advised her that “any statements she made might be used against her in a court of law” because technically she was not arrested yet. Therefore, the police justified that they could use anything against her they wanted to and that they didn't have to “Mirandize” her because she was “not under arrest” - she was being “detained”.During this “testimony”, you are asking this person to say things that might incriminate themselves without the benefit of prior counsel. Therefore, I think it's a violation of their constitutional rights now to incriminate themselves. I also think it's a form of coercion because I see no limit here on how long they can be held while being asked to testify. You know and I know that if you hold a junkie in a room, heck if you hold a cigarette smoker, in a room longer than a few hours they'd tell you anything you want to hear to get the hell out of there. I see no offer of immunity for what they are saying under this testimony either. Now I know if someone is arrested the DA has 72 hours to file a case or release to inmate. However, if being “detained” I've been told the laws don't apply, neither does the Miranda offer them protection against self immunity if not arrested. A loophole I'm hearing abused regularly in prostitutes. Especially if they have a small child they have to get back home to. So please explain to me (1) how long you're going to be allowed to hold them for in order to get testimony, (2) will they be offered an attorney to advise them of their situation before giving the videotaped testimony, and (3) are they going to be granted immunity for whatever they say that might be incriminating?
- Section 53 – you are granting an office to “investigate” certain crimes but then you're also allowing that office to “take donations”? Now I see the person running this office has to be a licensed attorney, but I see nothing going into more detail as to who can be on this board. Meaning let's just say for the sake of argument you were to allow Lance Gilman to be on this board. Now this board is put in charge of “investigating crimes” yet also can take “donations” from a very vague unspecified sources. Now if this was just federal grants I'd say okay but it's not. This looks like this office can take donations from anyone. To my knowledge, no one has ever gone into the legal brothels asking for girls to produce their licenses on a random spot check to verify every girl in that establishment is licensed. I've pulled more than one girl out of these brothels who tells me they not only did not have a license to work there, but they further weren't of legal age either. Who's going to check? I have never ever ever heard of random checks on the licenses of the girls working there. So knowing what I know about this are you really going to tell me the very office put in charge of investigating crimes against children is going to have an unspecified board membership with unspecified sources of where they can accept donations from AND that there's no oversight being assigned here? Give me a break.
- Nevada currently lists any woman arrested for prostitution as a “sexual offender”. Doesn't that mean they can't be alone with their own children? Also, how come she's labeled a “sex offender” but the same man who is actually buying her isn't classified as an “offender” which means he's going to be allowed to be around children when she can't? Since most prostitutes have more than one child of school age, and they generally are single parents, this means that every woman you charge as a “sex offender” is going to have to have her kids taken away. Isn't that going to be extremely expensive on the state? Do you think it's fair to take away children from a woman who is prostituting herself in order to feed them?
- Section 179.121 – if I'm reading this correctly it appears you are not going to consider it a felony if the gun wasn't loaded? However, the victim doesn't know this. The victim having a gun pointed at them THINKS it's loaded. What is your logic here when the victim still thinks they're going to be blown away having no idea if it's loaded or not when pointed at them.
I think there should be a special place in hell for a police officer, a prosecutor, a judge, or a social worker who is supposed to be someone a kid especially can trust who violates that trust. I personally would like to see any city, county, federal or governmental employee, including politicians, who is found guilty of either soliciting a prostitute, or sex trafficking to be not only fired, but I'd like to see them lose their pension. And I mean yes for soliciting a prostitute you know why? Because when a cop sees a prostitute as a client – she then knows she's got nowhere she can report a problem to in the future, especially not about him, because he'll be busy covering up his ass instead of the path being cleared for her to receive the same justice as anyone else. This leaves her completely defenseless. I especially don't think a teacher should be any less punished than a cop, a prosecutor, a social worker, a judge or a politician who is supposed to be a “trusted servant of the people”. So I want to see any type of employee like this to not only be fired – but to lose their pension if caught doing this sort of thing and that means no ability to plead out either.