I also wanted to commend on the Review Journal expose' in that I already knew about Adelson being the real owner of the Review Journal years ago. I knew that in 2007 when a reporter from the RJ came out to promise me a cover story on our work. I gave her a two hour interview and then she tried to schedule me a photo shoot. I balked. I'm not putting my face on the front page of the RJ and it's not necessary to do so in order to talk about an "anonymous" program. The reporter than turned to me, laughed, and said "smart girl". There was no cover story. Her job had been to try and get a clear face shot of Jody Williams so my undercover work infiltrating brothels, strip clubs, massage parlors, etc., to get victims away from their pimps safely could be blocked by entering my photo into facial recognition software.
The reporter then told me there was a "life time ban" on the RJ writing any article on Sex Workers Anonymous which was backed up when Tom Ragan, a reporter who had worked there for 12 years, went to his editor and insisted they publish a story not only on our work, but on the fact that every group he'd investigated in Nevada other than ours claiming to be actually doing something for these victims was a sham. In response for his push - both he and the photographer working with him were fired. I have this story in writing. Now Tom managed to talk his way back onto the paper but promised me he would get my name in print past the publisher's nose - which he did.
He got a quote from me published in an article the RJ published about a reality show on how "empowering" stripping was that never made it to air. I knew about Adelson when I got a call from one of the Cashman's basically telling me to "leave town if I knew what was good for me". He then informed me how almost everyone with money in Nevada wanted our organization to leave because they liked their prostitutes and this included Adelson.
Anyway, I went to ask this "ban anonymous companies" if they were going to apply this to actual "anonymous companies" and I found my email to them was blocked. My comments on their facebook page was blocked. Only thing is I don't know these people and have never talked to them so I'm wondering why I would be blocked?
I then went into an anonymous account I have that appears to be someone in the sex industry I keep on hand for scouting missions like this one. Guess what? That account wasn't blocked. Here's the proof below. Meaning that whoever is behind Global Witness - sure doesn't like Sex Workers Anonymous for some reason but does like prostitutes. Hmmm. You can see where I posted "testing" on the account that wasn't blocked by these people.
Here's what happened when I tried to comment and email them from the Sex Workers Anonymous facebook account:
Note - my email also came through when it came from an account set up to look like it came from an active prostitute.
I went to ask Charmain Gooch is she was aware of our being blocked - and I was BLOCKED AGAIN! I went to make a comment on https://www.facebook.com/RecodeDotNet/?fref=nf
Seems "Re/Code" is also "Vox Media" who is also "Revere Digital" and a bunch of other companies also. http://www.voxmedia.com/terms-of-use
There is much more to this campaign than meets the eye if these people have gone to all the trouble to block Sex Workers Anonymous while starting a campaign to "ban anonymous companies". Ever since the Tea Party and Occupy - I've learned that things aren't always what the soundbites say they are. Including when we learned "8 Minutes" was also a completely faked rescue program and faked reality show as well.
Why would a company pushing for "transparency" block someone like little old us? Despite the RJ's ban on us - we fought back the brothels from expanding into California in the 1980's. There is now a Mob Museum where many men had tried for years to expand the legal brothels. I already know that Vivid has partnered with a fantasy football sports betting company in Nevada with the intention of expanding legal brothels to every spot where there's a medical marijuana dispensary. Why would a big money campaign be starting up to end not "shell" companies but to "ban anonymous" companies and just so happen to have a block on Sex Workers Anonymous - the ONLY program I'm aware of that helps trafficking victims escape their captors without allowing corrupt law enforcement to get access to our files?
If they're so interested in "protecting the poor" then why block a survivor site, but not block a site clearly made to look like it belongs to an active sex worker?
Ask questions people.
Update: A little more digging, Global Witness' Executive Director is Gillian Caldwell. Seems they're active in fighting sex trafficking also. Why would someone who is also fighting sex trafficking in India block Sex Workers Anonymous'?