Search This Blog

Saturday, December 12, 2015

LETTER TO NEVADA LEGISLATURE ABOUT AB67 - HUMAN TRAFFICKING BILL

Jody Williams, Founder & Director of Sex Workers Anonymous
www.sexworkersanonymous.com
(702) 468-4529 Telephone
December 12, 2015

Re: Assembly Bill 67

Dear Legislature:

For those of you who don't know who I am – I'm the founder of this modern day sex trafficking movement itself. You can verify this statement with looking at the dates on news articles I have posted up on www.hightechmadam.com The article about my arrest in 1984 for a “brothel” I was accused of running was in reality the first safe house for adults. The woman was on probation for prostitution and therefore a “known” prostitute. Her pimp had broken her arm and nose, as well as blacked her eyes.

Back in 1984, domestic violence and even homeless shelters refused to admit prostitutes. Because Los Angeles was experiencing what is now known to be a record number of violence and murder against prostitutes, while everyone was shutting the door on helping them because they were considered “criminals” in the eyes of the law – I took it upon my self to open the warehouse I placed that close to the police station hopefully to deter pimps from shooting into the building. This is also why the place had such sophisticated security the media dubbed me the “High Tech Madam” when I was arrested.

The reality however was the pimp had called in a “tip” I was running a brothel. Then when the police knocked on the door at midnight and a “known” prostitute answered the door in her PJ's – the “assumption” was that I was running a brothel. We got it straightened out when she testified against the pimp and put him away on pimping and drug charges. However, the case made me realize that to continue to do the work I was doing I had no choice but to raise public awareness at the same time as well as to call out for our legal system to expand it's understanding of what was happening in the current sex industry operating in the USA. So regrouping, I launched the first hotline for adults to call for help, as well as the first 12 step program in 1987 to be used for “alternative to sentencing” until we could do something to change the existing laws.

So as you can see, I have 30 plus years of a “vested interest” in how this is playing out. Not just on a national scale, but on a very specific scale of my work with Nevada's prostitutes, sex workers, and sex trafficking victims. You see in 1988, I was first approached by a woman who said she was being trafficked within one of the legal brothels of Nevada during the taping of a TV show, Sally Jesse Raphael. She asked me to help get her away from the owner which I did comply. Once word spread what I did – I started getting more and more calls to help get women out of these legal brothels. As you probably know, there is no mode of transportation in or out of any of them. There are no buses that stop at these establishments, as well there are no commercial cabs in any of the cities where these brothels operate either. It's literally against the law for them to leave on foot. Meaning the ONLY way to leave a legal brothel is to have someone come and pick you up in a car.

Unable to get any local agencies to help me to pick up these women, and not finding any shelters willing to drive sometimes 800 or so miles to pick up a victim and take them to a shelter considering the Trafficking Act of 2000 hadn't even been passed yet giving sex trafficking federal recognition – I had no choice finally but to relocate to Nevada in 1996 to respond to these calls for help.

Meaning I've been physically picking up and assisting countless Nevada sex trafficking victims since 1988. Thinking that you would want to hear from Nevada survivors about this AB67, when it was first being considered, I showed this to the members of Sex Workers Anonymous. They in turn wanted to let you know how they felt. However, they each felt uncomfortable going onto a publicly televised hearing to register their feelings. That was for those who still reside in the state. The majority of survivors of Nevada sex trafficking have relocated out of the state to truly feel safe. Meaning they had no way to come down to speak at these hearings in person physically.

For this reason, I contacted both the southern and northern Nevada legislatures asking if some kind of “anonymous”, and “remote”, method could be offered them to register their feelings about this without broadcasting their face on TV and then to be recorded for historical purposes. As well some means for those now living in other states to also register their feelings. I was told that “no accommodations would be made” for this purpose. I even asked if they could call in during the hearings to have their voices recorded – and I was also refused that accommodation.

Trying to figure out some way to have their feelings recorded, and heard, I coordinated a letter from everyone who had come through our program as having worked in Nevada in some fashion – whether by choice or by force. A copy of this letter was provided to John Hambrick, the Attorney General, and each member of the legislature by a member named Aubrey. Aubrey also testified against the expansion of the legal brothels into Las Vegas at a hearing that was being held in a back room after all the “anti-trafficking advocates” had left the building which was not listed in the calendar for some reason. We had asked John Hambrick to read the letter for us at the hearing – but he refused. So Aubrey says she read the letter on the legislature floor, personally handed a copy to the Attorney General, and then stated our opposition to the Bill as it was worded. Now why the news reported there was “no opposition” to this Bill from anyone after we did all this I don't know.

Maybe there was some misunderstanding. Which is possible because I think there was some language barriers with Congo Justice's director. I say that because I had asked for help in reading our letter on behalf of Nevada survivors. Instead of realizing I was an ex-prostitute running Sex Workers Anonymous – he seemed to think I was a current prostitute. I say that because the man started propositioning me online during the conversation thinking I was an “active” prostitute. I have the conversation screenshot if anyone would like to see it. He even falsely claimed he was a “doctor” while the state licensing board does not show this. So clearly we must have had language causing problems that must have contributed to them reporting falsely to the media there was “no opposition”.

We had issues with it the way it was written in February of 2013. In looking over it tonight, it appears it's been changed since then to state things I find even more confusing and troubling. Now I appreciate that Andrea Swanson's daughter was pimped out by a man in Las Vegas who did testify.  I even appreciate Amy Ayoub's testimony where she stated she's a survivor.  But I took into consideration with her testimony she was also working at the time as the director of the Mob Museum.  I couldn't help but wonder if that was a form of “conflict of interest” in some fashion considering how hard Oscar Goodman had been trying to expand legal brothels into downtown Las Vegas, and along with Amy's personal friendship with Andrea, Catherine, and Michon – who also were all members of the same Catholic Church, which again funded the Salvation Army.   I mean let's face it - if you weren't a personal friend of theirs who went to their church - you were not welcomed to participate in the hearings on AB67.  If anything, they acted like we didn't exist that's for sure when we'd attempt to connect to them during February of 2013.

One couldn't help but feel the deck was stacked here when we're excluded entirely, and then I'm watching 45 groups from outside of Nevada, none of who were survivors themselves from anywhere, but who were all coordinated by this church, piled onto buses to come down there to make a show for you of support for this bill. A bus which by the way I specifically asked if they would be willing to take myself and some SWA members with them to testify on this Bill and we were refused seats on that bus. I had also asked John Hambrick directly for assistance with transportation to testify and was refused.

 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.

So let me state my expertise and experience in this area if I might for the record here.  While Wilber Wilberforce is credited for starting the anti-slavery movement back in the 1800's - I can assure you that in the 1970's and 80's the world did not believe sex trafficking existed on US soil.  So first of all, I am the founder of the  modern day sex trafficking movement itself.   Meaning I was the first person to stand up in the national media informing the public this issue was “real” and demanding that our legal system, as well as our mental health system, change the way it was treating us as criminals across the board without listening to anything we had to say in our defense back before the issue was even acknowledged as real, let alone having received federal recognition by the passing of the Trafficking Act of 2000. Trust me I remember well the law not listening to me at all that my warehouse was in fact a “safe house” to the point where I had to retain an attorney and fight for my life not to wind up behind bars for pimping simply because I did take that woman in to protect her from the real pimp who had harmed her. I remember my mother coming down to my defense and then finding herself arrested for pimping me.

So I know from experience how important not only the “understanding” of the law is – but also the LETTER of the law. Because under the “letter” of the law, my mother was charged with pimping me based on a photograph of me handing her a $20 bill in exchange for a bucket of chicken. The law said the money received had to be from a “known” prostitute. However, I had no previous arrests for prostitution. Therefore, if there had not been that one teeny tiny little word in the law my mother would have gone to prison for eight years for not only bringing me some chicken but for also coming to my defense to explain that I was not running a brothel when that woman answered the door that night.

Since 1987, I've answered approximately 500,000 phone calls to our hotline myself personally based on our phone records to take count. That's not including letters and emails. I have been holding weekly, sometimes daily, meetings of our program since 1987 in many states – California, Nevada, Pennsylvania, etc. I hold a weekly phone meeting for members who come from all over the world. I've run jail meetings with sometimes 100 men, women and/or transgenders at those meetings. I think I've “sponsored” more people in recovery than anyone else I can think of as far as adults go. The only other person on this earth who has more experience than me in this issue is Lois Lee who runs Children of the Night for juveniles and I also didn't see her being asked to weigh in on this either. Considering up until Judge Voy opened his courtroom, Lois used to take in all the teens who were in trouble in Nevada at no expense to the state I would have thought she would have at least been asked for input.

I have been certified as an expert witness by the FBI to testify in a federal case against a trafficking on the subject of how pimps “turn out” and brainwash their victims into thinking they are acting of their own free will when in fact they are not. The pimp in that case upon hearing I was going to testify against him took the plea bargain rather than face the jury after I got done with them. I have sat in as an advocate on more trials over 30 years than I can possibly count. I have advised more than one legislature on laws related to this issue, and I've been called in as a consultant by attorney's on many cases. I have personally helped find and rescue more than one missing juvenile and adult victim of trafficking when law enforcement had failed to come up with so much as a lead. I have worked with more Nevada victims of trafficking since 1988 than I think anyone else who testified on this. I have also been a paralegal since I left the sex industry and got clean in 1985. So I come from a very knowledgeable place in my opinion with my questions and input on AB67.

I record a radio show at www.leavingtheliferadio.com I would like to schedule a time to speak to someone about it. I'm writing the letter to you so that we can find out who I'd be able to interview about this and also to give you a “heads up” about what my questions are going to be ahead of time. The points I'd like to question and/or address are as follows:

No Clear Distinction Between Juveniles & Adults: First, the law seems very unclear to me with respect to the issue of juveniles vs. adults. The center you refer to is the “National Center for Missing & Exploited Children” appears to be covering services for adults as well as juveniles and I don't see where the lines are clearly drawn between the differences between the two. You appear to have an “advocate” for the children – but what about the adults?

Also, you speak about how a civil action can be brought. Okay that's easy for an adult to do. However, I don't see you specify about what to do when the child's parents don't consent. In fact, I see no acknowledgment in this in any way anywhere of the fact that when juveniles are being sex trafficked it is often either the parent and/or guardian of the child, or it may be someone within the juvenile justice system itself such as a social worker, or even a police officer involved.

Are you saying that the money donated to the Children's Advocate can only be used for helping juveniles and not adults? I don't see any line of distinctions drawn here about where juveniles are handled differently than the adult. The wording also makes it appear that the Childrens' Advocate is going to be operating on ALL victims' behalf so will they be helping adult victims as well?

It becomes a serious question also when the parents' don't consent. Then what? I say that because when my father was sexually abusing me I wanted desperately to file a police report against him while I was still under the age of 18 years of age. In California at that time, the law said I could not do so without my mother's consent which she refused to give. She refused to give it because he was threatening to harm me if I did. So what are you doing here when the parents do not consent to what the child victim wants? What systems are set in place when the child is in an adversarial position to the parent and/or guardian? And yes, I've dealt with more than one case where the prostitute in question is being pimped by their parent. It's more common in Nevada than the media wants to report.

For example, you allow that a victim may use a fake name and a hidden address for where they are living. But again, what if the child is being trafficked by a parent and/or guardian? What provisions are set in place to make sure they don't know where the child is living and/or to terminate their parental rights? Also, I see they can hide from public record their home address but then what about school? Many schools have public directories of students. If a parent is looking for their child then can easily find them using school records or directories. What about the names of their social workers or even attorney's? What about other members of the family? 

Look again at the news clip of my arrest in 1984. You'll see my name there was “Rene Le Blanc”. That was a name the prosecutor gave me because they knew I had a contract out on my head. They also knew my hearings were public record. To protect me from being shot coming into the courthouse they changed my name so that someone couldn't look at the court calendar to know when to come shooting for me. Now also note my mother's name was still listed as Rosemary Williams. Our cases were joined. So yes they changed my name, but they didn't change hers. Meaning that anyone gunning for me just had to look up the hearings with her name on them to find me. So – what are you doing about siblings, spouses, and other members of the household who might be living with the victim to ensure they can't also be traced and/or found? I have also seen Nevada more than once over the years hide one child's name from public scrutiny, but then fail to hide the sibling, or the parent's name. Thus still making them a piece of cake to find.

Again, I've been involved in many rescues over the years. When a victim has gone missing, I've seen what pimps and traffickers will do in order to not only find their victims, but to scare and coerce them. Which concerns me when I see that you do allow for a deposition time and location to be noticed. Wouldn't that allow for the pimp to then just show up early to the parking lot to wait for the victim/witness to arrive? Are they going to have security with them coming in and out of the deposition? I've had pimps threaten the attorneys by waiting for them in the parking lot after work, and I've seen them show up at the social worker's office even and lay and wait for them there. These are opportunities not only for threats but also for bribes. My attorney's for victims have reported that pimps will use both approaches – threats and/or bribes. I've had victims tell me their social workers and counselors have “sold them out” .

Now I think we can acknowledge that if we're going to say that certain “testimonies” are so sensitive and traumatic for the victim that you can allow their testimony to be taped, but not given to you “live” - then I think we can agree that someone should be with this child at all times during this legal process. This law to me seems to assume there's going to be a loving parent and/or guardian involved there to help the child walk through this process. However, my experience has been that I'm fighting the parents ½ the time in Nevada. Especially guardians such as foster or step parents. You have to realize with the legal age here so low, and with the legal brothels and strip clubs allowing a child of 16 years old to be licensed – they don't drive themselves there.

So what clear lines are being made as to the differences between adults and juveniles here in this? Also, since juveniles are juveniles don't you think that some provision should be made for juveniles to have someone with them at all times for their security if they don't have a parent available? What provisions are being made for when the parents of the child don't want to consent to something because they might be protecting the pimp?

Do you have any idea how many “third generation” victims Nevada has? What I mean by that is that daddy is a pimp. Daddy turned out mommy and now mommy is being pimped by daddy. Mom got pregnant and had a baby. A baby that was used in child pornography when little. Then as the child aged more – the child starts being pimped by daddy. Now the child is pregnant with daddy's child. The first case I worked on were victims of the “Children of God” cult and that's EXACTLY how they operated. I had to find housing for 10 mothers and all of their small children.

Which is another issue I don't see addressed with respect to children and that's “conflict of interest”. Because in families where there's boys and girls that are children of the pimp – I've seen that when the boys hit about 13 years old or so, they wind up learning how to pimp from daddy. Aubrey, the woman who testified at your legislature, was raped when she was 12 years old by her pimp's father to “show him how it's done” when he was only 13 years old. Then the 13 year old took over being the pimp.

So what do you do when there's a “conflict of interest” as far as the defense goes when more than one child is the one being pimped? I have seen cases like the one in Pennsylvania where the victims did not have separate attorney's when in my opinion they should have because of the conflict of interest.

The Question of Snoop Dogg & Pandering: Now I find that sometimes it's easier to understand things if you use a specific case to discuss points of law. For that reason, I've attached a copy of the article in Rolling Stone dated May 2013 where Snoop Dogg talks about his 2003 Playboy Tour. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/snoop-lion-opens-up-about-his-pimp-past-20130508 He says he had an RV that he used to travel across the USA for the purpose of his “rolling brothel”. This was so he wasn't engaging in these acts in any hotel so to me this suggests “premeditation”. He admits he asked these women to “fulfill his fantasy” of “being their pimp”. 

He further admits connecting the woman to the “john” in question who were NFL players. However, I fail to see any explanation of how he checked their age before engaging in these acts. He then states that after they “willingly” complied that he “gave the money back” because he “didn't do it for the money”. I know some bank robbers who will tell you they did it for the thrill also – but that's besides the point. He also admits to “kicking them off” the bus. What isn't mentioned in the article is after he cast these women off – there were local pimps hanging in the wings to continue pimping them now they had been “turned out” by Snoop.

Now I found out about this when I received a call from a Nevada senator. Before receiving this call, I was negotiating with MTV about coming out to film a “True Life” show about our work, along with a series of public service announcements. They were telling me they wanted to “use my story to kick off their trafficking campaign” so they were promising me a lot of publicity for our work at the time.

When I got the call to go and rescue this woman, I at first refused. I said this was the job for Nevada to get involved with – not me. He explained since Snoop hadn't admitted anything about this that if our police went to arrest the pimp who was holding her hostage, he would then turn and say he got her from Snoop, and that this was a “public relations nightmare” that the state didn't want to engage in. I said “not my problem” to which he then said the publicity would be just as harmful on the victim – that she'd never be able to have a normal life if involved in such a high profile case. For that reason, I agreed to go in at my own expense and to pull her out of the apartment she was chained to a toilet in, paying for the locksmith that cut her loose myself, and also for her bus fare back to her family.

To try and stop this from happening to women in future cities, I then tried to contact Snoop's promoters. Since MTV was already speaking to me about filming a reality show about our work – I asked the producer if she wanted to film me getting this woman out of the apartment, and contacting Snoop's people about what was going on, to kick off the show. She told me she was “going to find out who his promoters were” for the tour, and “see if she could get a cameraman up to Vegas in time” and that was the last I heard from her.

When I called back – she had been fired. The remaining people at MTV refused to speak to me and their “launch” had been suddenly moved to kick off in Sweden rather than the USA. I continued to try to speak to the people who were left at MTV about running public service announcements for Sex Workers Anonymous for a USA hotline which was a reasonable suggestion at the time considering the National Trafficking Hotline was only a year old then and ONLY took calls from “trafficking victims” whereas our hotline had been running since 1987, and took calls from ANYONE wanting help to leave any part of the sex industry for any reason (trafficked or not). So since our hotline was older, and served a broader audience – I would have thought they would consider this but they just went silent.

Snoop made his “confession” about this in May of 2013 – meaning I could then speak about this for the first time publicly without fear of being sued for defamation. The victim I'm speaking of is still so traumatized by what happened she never leaves her house. Her parents are caring for her child now.

So when the film “Turbo” came out in July of 2013 – I started to organize a boycott of the film within the many anti-trafficking groups I was a part of in good standing at that time. Mind you, I've had nothing but the most sterling of reputation both on and off line up until July of 2013 so I expected to have a solid amount of support when I explained I wanted to boycott the opening of this film because of not just Snoop being in this film, but because he was playing a cartoon character of a “pimp” snail in a manner I felt was making pimp's “kid friendly”. I mean how am I supposed to help teach young girls and boys that “pimps are bad” when he's playing a fuzzy cuddly pimp and making them laugh?

The MINUTE I launched the first request to ask my fellow advocates to boycott this film – the moderator of the first group deleted my post at 2:00 in the morning LITERALLY within two minutes after posting. Then she blocked me from the group without explanation. Her name was Lynn Robertson and at the time her profile said she worked with MTV Exit – which was the group that MTV used to work with sex trafficking issues. Needless to say, I was shocked and demanded to know what was going on. Refusing to answer me, this woman then went to every other group online, gave them cash donations, and then demanded that I be blocked from the group. She had her son and husband as co-members in these groups – and threatened to have all three of them leave if they didn't comply.

I called MTV to ask about her actions. They denied she worked there. She then changed her profile to read she worked with “Traffick Jam” and claimed I had “misunderstood her profile” even though I had a screenshot to prove what it said previously. The next thing I know she's contacting people individually and accusing me of being a “pimp” and a “con artist”. To back up her accusation of being a “con artist” she pointed to the fact I have three names. I've been married and divorced twice – so yes I have had three legal names. To get into some clubs and massage parlors to do “rescues” I would sometimes pretend to be a psychic reader. I would then say I needed “privacy” to “do the reading” to separate the victim from the pimp. Pimps are very superstitious generally and will not argue with a psychic. It's the one thing many of them fear. Next thing I know, this Lynn is running around to the Christian groups that do sex trafficking and falsely claiming that I'm “running around the country being a palm reader”. I explained to her this was a “cover story” we used to get victims alone – and this only prompted her to then set up a whole website about my supposedly being a “fortune-teller”.  So in her pursuit of trying to smear me - she blew a perfectly good "cover" we'd been using for years to get into the back rooms alone with these victims on to then out the back doors!

Next thing I know, she wrote out a cash gift to one of my board members. After the cash gift, this woman starts bashing me. She then sets up a fake site to make it appear I'm soliciting donations when I don't have a 501c3. Lynn then files a complaint with the IRS, the Attorney General and the Secretary of State claiming I was “soliciting money without the proper paperwork”. I was threatened with six months in jail and a $10,000 fine for what Lynn and this other woman, Jacqueline Homan, had cooked up together. She kept making false complaints to Facebook, and my website host, to have my site/pages taken down for weeks at a time. 

I contacted the founder of Traffick Jam who then told me he “had no idea who Lynn was”. That's when I was able to get people to start realizing this Lynn was spending 8 hours a day, five days a week, bashing me while refusing to bash Snoop. She even gave a photo of me to a man online who was issuing written death threats after she'd wound him up at me to that point. After getting me kicked out of every trafficking group online, and winding up countless Christian ladies to think I was “demonically possessed” she finally stopped after “Turbo” was taken out of theaters. In fact, haven't heard a peep out of her since the movie was taken out of theaters.

I have checked back on Lynn Robertson's social media since August of 2013 and it consists of one promotion after another for TV Shows, music and fund raisers. In the entertainment world they call this “influencers”. Politicians have lobbyists and people in the entertainment world have “influencers” to help boost their ratings. So there's not a doubt in my mind she was hired by someone to shut me up as much as possible during the opening of “Turbo”. I feel I”ve been very damaged by this whole thing.

So here's my questions about the Snoop case concerning components of AB67:

  1. 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?
  2. 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?
  1. 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?
  2. 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?
  3. 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?
  4. 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?
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
    You think that's isolated? I watched as Heidi Fleiss's parents were both arrested for money laundering. I watched as Jeane Palfrey's mother almost got arrested also for pimping her. The only reason the DA didn't was we had the press over there at her home waiting because we knew they'd be coming. That's how predictable I know it is that to get someone to take a plea bargain – they'll arrest their parents, grand-parents, and anyone else they can get their hands on to try and force a defendant to take a plea bargain when they have no evidence and they want someone behind bars. So please explain what a “defense” then IS.
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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”?
  4. 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?
  5. 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?
  6. 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?
  7. 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?
  8. 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.
  9. 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?
  10. 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.

179.460 – states that the judge can 'issue a warrant for oral and wire” phone tapping “if” they think “sex trafficking” is going on. Can you please define what would constitute “probable cause” for a warrant to be issued for a phone tap on a sex trafficking case? I mean bear with my logic here – but I know our government has been using prostitutes to accomplish their goals for decades. What's to stop them from sending in a hooker into someone's house or office and then turning on the old warrant? I don't see anywhere that the “grounds” are spelled out for a wire or phone tap on a sex trafficking case as to what is “probable cause”. Again, I want to remind you I rented a warehouse that I used as a safe house where I put inside of it women with prostitution records to rest and recuperate from physical violence until we could arrange to get them home or into their own apartment. At any given time, I've had three prostitutes in that warehouse laying around in PJ”s watching TV. Nothing illegal was going on but you can see why I'm questioning what are your grounds here?

179D.0357 – speaks about “crimes against a child” who is under the age of 18 years old. I thought that the age of consent for six was 16 in Nevada. I'm not finding however more specifics about what the differences are between “crimes against a child” which can be done to them at 17 years of age, whereas sex is legal over 16 years of age. Can you be more specific here please?

179D.0357-3 – you say “prostitution here” without clarifying if you mean “legal” or “illegal” or both in this section.

179D.0357-5D – are you saying that if someone has been found guilty of a crime in another court elsewhere in the United States, that if committed again hypothetically in Nevada, then the person has to register as a sex offender here in Nevada? Or are you saying they need to have a new trial to see if they'd be guilty of this in Nevada also?

199.480 – F – can you please define “public health” and “public morals” here? What constitutes the definition of these words please?

Damages: I don't see anything for “loss of income” or “lost wages” or even “lost business opportunity”. I know that many young people work in Nevada. I've seen 16 year old kids working at Burger King. I feel I lost a documentary and public service announcements that would have been of great value to me by this Snoop case. However, I don't see anything in your damages that would cover “loss of income” because there would be a cash cost to me to replace this type of media exposure lost. I know there will be other people who will lose jobs over this sort of thing. Is clothing and furniture covered under “property”? Are you considering “dental” to be covered under “medical”? Almost every pimp I know has knocked out the teeth of his victims. Medicaid stops paying full dental at 24 years of age. Also, I don't see anything in here about reimbursing Medicaid for their expenses either.

People in Authority: While I see a special category for teachers who traffic kids – I don't however see any special penalties for others in authority such as social workers, therapists, and especially law enforcement. Frankly, I'm getting real tired reading about law enforcement who is beating up, raping, and violating prostitutes of all ages, and even impregnating them, and when caught the only thing they get is “retired with pension”. Big whoop.

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.

Section 42 – why did you remove the wordsinduce, persuade, encourage, entice. . . “? Why the strict limitation to the use of “force”? Very few pimps use direct force or threat of force. You're eliminating 98 percent of the tools traffickers use. Even the infamous Henry Hill knew how to avoid the law. He said in an interview himself that he fixed the basketball game by only saying to the player “I imagine it would be hard to play professional basketball with your legs in a cast?” I mean come on – are you going to tell me that wasn't a threat?

Work Contracts – where did “work contracts go?” Every day victims are tricked into coming into this country on the promise of work. They agreed to pay off these contracts based on legal jobs promised them. Then when they get here the jobs disappear, or pay a lot lower than promised. Then they're told “you can make five times as much if you work over next door at the massage parlor”. Now the “massage parlor” is not a “place of prostitution” nor is the “strip club”. In fact, most of the legal brothels have strip clubs right next door. “Just a walk across the hall” is what they're told. Now “technically” these women are making a “voluntary choice” to engage in illegal prostitution at a legal establishment. Where is the wording for this?

Section 43.5 – I just don't see really clear evidence anywhere of what constitutes “sex trafficking” that would give the court the right to come in, without notice or warning, to take items for possible forfeiture. Where is that spelled out clearly what is grounds for probable cause for “sex trafficking”.

Section 44 – I see the “threat of force” against the child – but I don't see anything about the threat against a loved one, a family member, or a pet. That is more common actually.

Section 49 – 217-400-1 – Dating relationship – this concerns me. Many pimps I know of will actually “turn out” their victim upon the first meeting . There is no “dating relationship” ahead of time. Some traffickers have been reported to literally run wants ads. Then when the victim comes in for a job interview they offer them laced water. Then after being knocked out – they're gone.

Those are my concerns with respect to AB67.

I also would like to repeat my proposal to the state about the following:

I would like to propose the state decriminalize prostitution so witnesses, and victims, are both more willing to come forward in order to prosecute the pimp/trafficker/pandering without fear.

The reluctance to do this is based upon the feeling that an arrest is necessary to find a point of contact with the prostitute in order to provide assistance. I don't feel that's necessary if you offer up a special license not unlike that offered by the legal brothels. In fact, I'd like to expand upon this to cover anyone working in the pornography performance field, massage parlors, outcall, reflexology, and/or strippers. Our hotline has been receiving a record number of HIV/AIDS calls unlike we've seen since the 1980's only worse. In the 1980's, sex workers didn't travel the way they do now. With the internet, it's allowing clients to come from all over, and for the sex worker to book clients all over the country.

I propose that an orientation/workshop be offered these men and women before they obtain the license going over what is and what is not considered “trafficking” or “coercion”. Studies, and people in the field, both report that those who are considered “victims” don't identify as such. That's because many are surrounded by this to the point where it's “normal” like those who would be living on a Warren Jeffrey compound would think their lifestyle is “normal” also.

Therefore, I'd like the orientation to be given to them “alone” without any “manager” or husband, or boyfriend, etc., in attendance. Then I'd like them to be given a list of hotline numbers they can call so they're aware of programs available to help. The workshop needs to go over possible long term consequences of this decision. I've had many a member of SWA tell me they “wish they knew what they were signing” when signing a copyright release which I'd also like to see an automatic expiration of in one year from the date of signing. Further, they be given a full battery of STD tests.

At the end of this orientation, I'd like them to be asked if they “need assistance” of any kind. Then I'd like to see them be required to come into the licensing office once a month for testing and a “proof of life” appearance so that if they go missing then someone is alerted to this. Updates to scars and tattoos can be recorded then also. This licensing can be used for tax purposes, identifying marks can be photographed, DNA samples taken, fingerprints recorded, along with next of kin being identified. The fees for this orientation can be used to set up a special “disability, retirement and vocational rehabilitation” program to help these women move on from sex work when they decide to, or get too sick to continue working in the field. I say this based on how many of our members are now living on public disability assistance because of being “worn out” by the industry, and then cast upon the taxpayers' to care for once the pimps have used them up. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions about this letter in the meantime, please feel free to contact me anytime.

Sincerely,


Jody Williams
www.sexworkersanonymous.com
(702) 468-4529

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.