Search This Blog

Showing posts with label ACLU lawsuit against prostitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ACLU lawsuit against prostitution. Show all posts

Saturday, October 29, 2016

TOLD YOU

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alison-bass/aclu-joins-historic-case_b_12488532.html

Here is an article in the Huffington Post confirming the lawsuit filed by Maxine Doogan was DISMISSED. 

JUST AS I PREDICTED.

The complaint wasn't written with one leg to stand on.  Not if the intent was to decriminalize prostitution as she's claiming the lawsuit was intended when she was out fund raising and garnering support from sex workers who don't have 30 years of experience with the legal system as I do (I've been working as a paralegal for 30 years since I left sex work).

Which is why when I first read the lawsuit, and knew it would be dismissed, I reached out to Maxine offering her support to modify the complaint to something I thought would have a better shot at winning the stated race of trying to get prostitution decriminalized.

Only to find myself rebuffed, even threatened to "back off". 

So I contacted her attorney's directly thinking maybe Maxine just didn't understand the legal jargon I was throwing at her.  I thought maybe her lawyers might understand more of the legal problems I saw with the lawsuit, and thus might be more willing to discuss ways to amend the complaint so they'd have at least a shot at not being dismissed at the gate.

Only to have her attorney's not want to talk to me about the case - even to discuss possible legal options based on the experience of not only a paralegal with 30 years experience, but also someone who has been looking at legal options, and following legal cases, quite closely for over 30 years also.  I mean I've had not only my legal case I was involved with in the 1980's, but I've also been involved in many of the legal cases, and lawsuits, our members have been involved with as well as their legal strategies.  Strategies which included what Jeane Palfrey was intending to bring about by refusing to take a plea bargain in her case even. 

If you remember, in Jeane's case she was arguing she could not be held responsible for her escorts being prostitutes being she had them sign contracts with her they would not be engaging in prostitution.  The court struck down this defense so she went with option B - which was how could she be held responsible for her actions as a madam when it was in fact our own government who was the one forcing her to act as such under threat of arresting her when she refused?  When in fact she was arrested when she refused as evidenced by her arrest at the airport when she was attempting to flee the country - certainly not acting as a madam when she was at the airport because she had told her CIA contact she was no longer willing to engage in these covert actions they were involving her in.  But of course she never got that far before her supposed suicide.  She had a "leg to stand on" legally in her case - but then again that's probably why she got whacked. 

Anyway, this is when I realized this case wasn't about what they were claiming it was about because any first year law student, as well as any paralegal, could see this case wouldn't be anything BUT dismissed.  A fact all the more established as true when neither Maxine nor her attorney's would speak to me about the holes in the case. 

And when I realized Maxine was not on "our" side as she's claiming either.  This is when I started digging and uncovered the strange little fact that both Maxine as the plaintiff, as well as the four prosecutors she was suing as the defendants, had BOTH received money from Swanee Hunt.  Meaning maybe they weren't "adversaries" either as appeared on the surface.  Certainly would explain why she only filed the lawsuit against four prosecutors - instead of the state prosecutor's office, or even that of just San Francisco for that matter (the same four who had received Hunt grant money in other words). 

Which is why I predicted the case would be dismissed.  It wasn't written with one legal leg to stand on to have prostitution overturned as a criminal activity - something she has been touting it was filed with the intent to do while fund raising and garnering support from the sex industry. 

Oh and if you're not sure who Nancy O'Malley is nor why Alison Bass failed to mention anything about her in this article - she's the prosecutor who is involved in the Oakland sex scandal who announced just in time for the election she's decided to prosecute seven of the police officers accused of having sex with Celeste Guap.  Of course since I've seen cops who have done horrific acts of brutality against people like in the Rodney King case not held accountable even with the videotape he had on his side - well excuse me if I don't hold my breath here about anything really happening to these cops.  Especially since the cases would hinge completely on Celeste's testimony.  What with her mother being a 911 operator - I have a strange feeling we're not going to be hearing much testimony coming out of her against cops. 

Nancy also received $80,000 of money from Swanee Hunt for one.  She's also the same prosecutor in Alameda County who stepped up for some strange reason inbetween our organization and Celeste Guap.  Leading to Celeste being driven courtesy of the police in her hometown to a treatment center in Florida where she was then somehow involved in a criminal charge of assault between her and a GUARD in this treatment program.  Now I've been around the recovery community for also over 30 years and I have never heard of a client being drug off by the police for assault on a "uniformed guard" as supposedly was the person she was charged with assaulting.  Nor have I ever heard of someone being held on a $300,0000 bail either - very convenient way if you ask me to shut her up from talking to the press.

In fact, it reminds me very much of when I was slapped with a $50,000 bail in 1984 to stop me from correcting the press when I was arrested into explaining that the "brothel" I was being accused of running was actually a "safe house".  That the woman I was being charged with "pimping" out of this warehouse was there recuperating from her pimp's assault which had broken her arm, her nose and blacked both of her eyes.  I'd sure like to know how in the hell I'd be "pimping" a woman with a cast on her arm, a brace on her nose and two black eyes like she'd been in a heavyweight fight!  But hey my bail being so high gave the police who set up the arrest two weeks to blast me all over the media as being the "High Tech Madam".  Hell they even got to tell the press that all of that security I had on the place was to help me "operate my prostitution business".  Yeah right that's why I set the place up next to the police station?  You can see what I mean at www.hightechmadam.com where my arrest clippings are placed. 

Meaning I'm well aware of how the media is manipulated to cover up our side of the story about what's really going on.  Just as I didn't buy for one minute Maxine filed that lawsuit "on behalf of decriminalizing prostitution for sex workers".  I've been trying to get prostitution decriminalized for 30 years and this was not a tactic that stood once chance.  Again, if this was about what she said it was about, and being made up to be about in the press, then my call to help her win that lawsuit where I was bringing her 30 years of legal strategy to the table, would have been welcomed with open arms. 

Media which for some reasons seems to be focusing a lot on a case even a paralegal could tell you would have been dismissed.  But then again the publicity sure didn't harm Maxine's fund raising campaign, nor the sale of Alison Bass' book I imagine. 

Anyway, I was proven correct when this case was dismissed SADLY. 

Shame really when all of that support could have been translated into something which would have worked to decriminalize prostitution.  But then again I realize now this wasn't it's real intent.  So mark my words here again when I say this appeal is more propaganda

I'm still trying to figure out how all of these groups listed in the Brief are listed in this Brief being they weren't plaintiff's in the original action, nor do I see them filing papers to become joined as plaintiff's in this action.  Why is this important?  Because if the case were heard, and lost, with the loser being liable for court costs, and even possibly a punitive penalty of some kind for say having wasted the courts time maybe - then they don't really have any legal say in the matter. 

I mean where were these people in the original lawsuit but now they're listed in the Brief on the appeal?  Not from any legal standpoint I can see but as evidenced by the publicity they've received thanks to writers such as Alison Bass - it's great publicity.   I'm going to be looking over all of the papers in this case in more detail over the weekend because I've never ever seen an appeal brief filed by people who are not parties to the action.  So I'm kind of scratching my head here on that point.

But for now I'm afraid the content of the Brief just doesn't hold up to scrutiny of any kind. 

What I mean by that is let me ask you something - if all of the juvenile arrests in California were stopped as of 2015 as part of the "No Such Thing" campaign, dropping juvenile arrests for prostitution down to ZERO - then how on earth can this Brief be claiming that "juveniles are being targeted for arrest"? 

Can someone please explain that to me?  http://esplerp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/22-Brief-of-American-Civil-Liberties-Union-Foundation1.pdf

By using 2014 arrest figures is how.  Convenient to cite arrests which are no longer the case in this Brief.  I say that because California stopped arresting ANY juvenile for prostitution in 2015.  So by quoting 2014 statistics - yes you can make it appear to be disproportionate - but it's no longer the case however in 2016 nor the foreseeable future either. 

As to why "LGBT youth are detained twice as much as straight youth for detention" how about the fact that one can only be tested for HIV/AIDS if convicted of prostitution, which doesn't happen unless detained?  I'm sure the fact that more LGBT youth are now infected with the HIV/AID virus, in fact we're now in an epidemic according to many statistics, has more to do with the concern over them possibly spreading the virus than that of a heterosexual youth right?  That maybe these "detentions" were more for the sake of getting them tested for HIV/AID than of this being about prostitution or them even being LGBT.  But of course pointless at all now NO  juveniles are being arrested, or at least convicted, now of prostitution charges period since the 2015 "No Such Thing" campaign.

In fact, explain something else to me.  Money for services for those infected with HIV/AIDS is determined by the numbers of those showing up as infected.  Now to make a porn movie on a licensed set - you have to show you've recently been tested for the virus.  This makes of course the numbers for those infected with the virus who are in the porn industry fairly easy to track as well as relatively low since they use protection most of the time. 

However, I have gone into strip clubs and massage parlors here in Los Angeles, and Las Vegas.  Both establishments where I've seen illegal prostitution going on right in the premises.  In fact, one strip club in the san Fernando valley is so sleazy they have back rooms sectioned off from the stage area with sheets where the "dancers" are going in to the "back" rooms several times in one hour's time.  I've spoken to dancers who are over 18 in California, but between 16 to 18 years of age in Nevada (where the legal age of consent for sex in Nevada is 15 years old mind you and yes there are strip clubs who hire 16 year olds to work there but just don't serve alcohol when they're on stage).  Not only have the women employed in these establishments told me they have never been arrested for prostitution since no stings happen inside of these types of businesses (when have you last heard of a prostitution sting happening in a strip club or massage parlor in these two states recently?), but they further report not having ever received any type of HIV/AIDS education, nor are they tested for the virus as part of their job requirement.  In fact, I asked these same women if they've ever had an HIV/AIDS test and they all looked at me like my Pomeranian does when I say something he doesn't understand.  In other words, no.

So if we are not testing sex workers who are the most likely to be infected with HIV/AIDS as much as we did before when they were being arrested more, thus tested more, and tested with results that would be reported as such as being from a sex worker, not protected from this reporting under private HPPA laws,  then this lower reporting of sex workers having HIV/AIDS would thus translate into lower services being funded for sex workers with the virus - so I ask you how is this helping them?

Now, on the reverse side of this equation, how many strip clubs and massage parlors do you know of who hire the transgender or an LGBT person?   Statistically, while there are transgender strippers I assure you they are outnumbered at least 20 to1 from what I've seen by heterosexual, or at least heterosexual "appearing" natural born females.  Why?  Market demand. 

But from what I've seen the police have been laying off any type of "legal" sex industry operation - strip clubs, massage parlors, Nevada legal brothels, webcam studios, porn sets, etc., and focusing more on the street walking faction of the sex industry.

One where there are proportionately more transgenders and the LGBT community who are not being hired by these establishments - so therefore wouldn't that be one of the reasons why arrests might be appearing to be targeting them more?  I mean if I'm wrong - take a look at the catalog of women working at the Bunny Ranch owned by Dennis Hof who owns something like 7 of them I think at last count.  Do you see many transgenders or those who say they're LGBT in their description here?  http://www.bunnyranch.com/

Now take a look at movies like "Tangerine" and tell me if you see any women out there on Hollywood Boulevard working the streets who look like the women at the Bunny Ranch? 

So if there are more of this community out on the streets where the police are operating than that of the heterosexual females employed by all these other "off the street" industries - than is the discrimination here the fault of law enforcement, or that of the sex industry itself that's putting them out there in the first place?

Either way, this appeal is just more press and more fund raising.  It has NOTHING to do with helping those who are being targeted by law enforcement for arrest as prostitutes to get prostitution decriminalized. 

Not one damn thing.