Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Alison Bass. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alison Bass. 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.



Friday, August 26, 2016

LETTER I SENT PATRICIA CALLAHAN

Dear Ms. Callahan:

First of all, I can't thank you enough for all you've done to make the work shown in the film, and the film, "Hot Toxic Seat" possible.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJS9FyF_JGI  I feel like you've not only saved my sanity, but even possibly a movement I started back in the 1980's.  I just now was able to sit down with the film and start writing down names of people I need to start reaching out to who not only won't say I'm "crazy" for what I'm about to say, and have witnessed this for themselves, but further this film has given me a blueprint I can now follow from here.  

Let me try and explain briefly in a way your film is allowing me to have a language to explain myself finally.  Imagine if someone like the fireman in the film who was trying to expose the fact firemen were dying more of cancer than of fires started the movement to get this recognition for the first time.  Imagine he starts going on national TV and saying this was in fact "true".

Only that was me in 1987 when I went onto the Sally show the first time in my campaign to raise awareness about sex trafficking in America.  I've got clips about this up at www.hightechmadam.com and you can even see the show at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWvD_tmEHPE  A tape I'm lucky to have since my original was destroyed, the original at the ABC studio was destroyed in a "fire", and then I spent months negotiating with NBC to get this copy!  Seems NBC now owns almost all of my original TV appearances actually.

But then the American public lashes back and says "it's not true".  More important, the flame retardant industry lashes back and says he's "hallucinating".  So he then goes out and finds other fireman who have gotten cancer related to not just their job, but behind breathing in these toxic fumes caused by the flame retardants.  Now the flame retardant people think "oh well no one is going to listen to this guy" because "they didn't listen to the last guy who tried to raise awareness" so they kind of ignore him for a long time.  

Which also happened to me.  Linda Lovelace had tried to raise awareness about sex trafficking in 1980.  Only she wasn't believed.  Bruce Lee was going to raise awareness with his 1973 "Enter the Dragon".  Only he died three weeks before the film opened.  That left me.  Geraldo Rivera actually told me that "since no one is believing your story - maybe if you bring on people you've saved then we can convince the public it's true".  Only I don't have any of those tapes.  They're not anywhere online and I can't get anyone at his office to answer my requests to obtain copies of the four shows I did with Geraldo.  But I do have a few others such as Donahue which was taped a few months before he was taken off the air.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeG_CO06O2o

Imagine if after one year of trying to raise awareness about this flame retardant issue - the chemical companies try and pass a law requiring all carpeting, clothing, and furniture manufacturers  to use their chemical in order to sell their products in the state of California.   Imagine they spent over $1,000,000 with PR firms to help them pass this law, and even paid  another $1,000,000 to buy a "research study" out of the University of Berkeley to prove that "no one has ever got cancer from these chemicals".  Then imagine that when they're doing press about this law the ONLY person who will step up to oppose them is this one fireman.  Now mind you there's laws on the books at the time saying that no one can go on TV or radio talking about a law about to be passed without the opposition being allowed to voice their opinion as it was the case before the Telecommunications Act of 1995 passed.  Which is the ONLY reason I was allowed on that show at that time - it was the only way Joe could on the air!  

Then at the end of the year when voters go to the poll - imagine the chemical company LOSES.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUrAI2Ob4zA  Here's a tape I did opposing Joe Conforte when he did just this to try and get brothels legalized in California in 1988 - just one year after I launched the hotline and 12 step program "Prostitutes Anonymous".  Joe had in fact put up one million dollars to PR firms, and he further bought this study about HIV in his employees which he rigged so it would appear none of them contracted HIV.  He also left out of media appearances he'd paid for the study in the first place when making his claim "no brothel prostitutes contract HIV".   

So then 13 years later, this fireman gets federal recognition for this in fact being "real".  For the first time, doctors can now start treating cancer related to flame retardants and billing insurance.  They couldn't bill insurance for this before because supposedly it wasn't "real".  

This was the Trafficking Act of 2000. 

Up until then, the only prostitutes recognized as "victims" were Chinese women and juveniles who were taken over state lines with the Mann Act of 1910.  Further, no one had been prosecuted under the Mann Act up to the year 2000 except two African American men who had married white women - Chuck Berry and Joe Johnson.  

Victim services prior to the year 2000 had refused to offer any payment or assistance to domestic sex trafficking victims because they weren't "federally recognized" as anything but "criminals".  So we actually obtained federal recognition this issue was not only real with this passing, but further it meant money could now be used by our government to help these victims.  Up to that point, money had to be obtained through private donations or paid for by people like us.  I myself had spent over $400,000 of my own money helping victims because there was no such federal money, grant money, etc. available before this Act passed.  You also couldn't hold any fund raisers for it - because again no one thought it was "real" outside of the actual victims before this.

Okay now the flame retardant people realize there's a problem - a big problem.  So they have got to do something about this.  Which your film outlined what they did - a huge campaign about how their chemicals "save children".  Of course making it look like anyone opposing this must "support children being burned alive".  My what an awful person this guy must be to want children to die from a preventable fire right?

But see the last thing they want is REAL firemen talking in the media about this issue.  We've got on the books now that firemen are dying of cancer.  This fireman, and the people he's been working with, all say the source of that cancer is the flame retardant chemicals.  It's now a fact that firemen are getting cancer.  Cats out of the bag there.  

So now the chemical companies have to lash back with a huge media campaign that the source of their cancer is not their product - but instead tobacco.  That's a logical assumption right?  They're getting from smoking!

Meaning now you've got to find firemen who will say the source of their cancer is smoking.  What do you do?  Well this little fireman has already got this on the books.  Everyone knows him.  Everyone knows his face.  He started all of this.  He's the "expert in the field" people clearly believe.  So if you can get that fireman to stand up in the press and say his cancer was caused by smoking - then you're off the hook right?  

Which is what happened to me in 2007.  Melissa Farley, PhD, came to me and asked me to work in a a report about sex trafficking in Nevada for the State Dept.  She then told me if I helped her with this report  we were going to be given a grant for $300,000, and that an architecture firm in Las Vegas had offered to donate us the building of a center where we could take in victims from all over the world that I could even design.  She even told me that I'd get to meet Gloria Steinhem, Diane Von Fursterberg, and even Prince for God's sake knowing he was my favorite musician!   You can read more about this press conference we gave to release this report at www.hightechmadam.com

Melissa even asked me to bring out my "two best firemen" which was Brenda Myers-Powell and Kathleen Mitchell to support the release of the report "Trafficking in Nevada - Making the Connections".  Only as I'm in a room filled with the press from all over the world, and I'm literally being miked by the sound guy to go up and talk about this report - she asks me to speak what is the equivalent of saying it was smoking that caused our cancer to the press.

I refused.

So Melissa then took the reporters out into the hallway and spoke to them "one on one" saying that this was in fact my view.  Which then led to the release of those articles calling to "outlaw the industry" which was not my words.  Well needless to say, in these terms the "tobacco" industry wouldn't be too happy about me blaming them now would they?  So in fact, I go home from this press conference which has just blamed them for our cancer to find my car has been trashed by men who are owners of tobacco companies in that sense.   Is my beef with them?  No.

But now they got a beef with me. 

I even get one of the owners of the largest tobacco companies there is in the world send an employee over to me right after this conference to report that I am now "blacklisted" in any media he owns or controls or buys any advertising with.  That man is Sheldon Adelson who not only is pushing for the legalization of prostitution, but further hates unions (which I support in the sex industry) and also happens to fund a HUGE chunk of the drug treatment world.  Which would be the equivalent of the cancer medical community who treat the firemen's cancer.  Meaning that in one fell swoop - all of the support I'd received up to that point from the drug treatment world was also yanked and turned against me by what Melissa Farley did to me that day.  Which again would be like if in my analogy if all of the cancer treatment community were turned against me while I'm still having firemen with cancer calling me up for help and support.  

Can he do this?  Can he "blacklist" me?  Only let's take this back to a time when the Telecommunications Act of 1995 passed and major media is now owned by the corporations.  Further, Fox vs. Snopes now has created a legal precedence where the media can actually fire a reporter such as yourself if they refuse to report something they know is a lie.  I'm going to assume that when you reported on this issue - you didn't have a boss standing over you who owned stock in a flame retardant company telling you if you published anything on this story you'd be fired.  Nor were you dealing with companies such as Relativity Media making films about the so called "truth about firemen" which when you uncover the so called "reality expose" was in fact staged and scripted falsely with actors and staged scenarios - you then go to the FCC who tells you "there's not a law against it".  

Well trust me - the "sex industry" has a lot more supporters than the flame retardant chemical industry, as well as lot more CONSUMERS!    http://traffickingandprostitutionservices.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-new-mafia-in-america.html  Companies such as "Live Nation" who actually handles the press for not only Charlie Sheen (a consumer) and Snoop Dogg (a manufacturer), but also for the Pope, as well as  Hearst Media, Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and the CIA - all who have partnered with, or donated heavily, to Polaris.  Who has now created a "monopoly" against our group.  I certainly can't compete with the people who are funding all grants in field.   Which I can show you documented evidence their support of the push to not only get prostitution legalized in this country, but further how they are being used to attack the "competitors" of where the sex industry is going today.  Or anyone not working for them in other words. 

But a problem remains.  How are you going to get any REAL fireman to stand up and say the source of their cancer is smoking and not flame retardant chemicals?

You can't.  


But you can hire "fakes".  Welcome to Chong Kim, Stella Marr and then Samoly Mam.  http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/30/world/asia/cambodia-sex-slavery-foundation-hero-resign/

You can also create "influencers" online just like the video game companies use to sell their products.  

Only you can't just use "victims" of smoking as your "influencers" in the media.  Not real ones anyway.  No - you've also got to find a doctor who will tell you his whole practice is devoted to helping firemen who get cancer from smoking - not the chemicals.  Welcome to William Hillar who the series "Taken" was based upon claiming to be about "sex trafficking rescue".  https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/man-who-profited-from-fabricated-military-resume-is-sentenced-to-21-months/2011/08/30/gIQAnKHfqJ_story.html

One by one the "fakes" are being exposed.  What do you do?  How are you going to continue to get the public, and the law makers, to believe the firemen are  getting cancer from smoking and not from the chemicals?

Well the next step is to get someone from the tobacco industry to step up and say they are not only doing it - but they further are aware they're doing it.  You need to find yourself some person in the tobacco industry to step up and claim responsibility.  Now here I can't point any fingers openly in the media without risking a defamation suit yet  - but I can point out one person making the equivalent kinds of statements, from an equivalent kind of viewpoint, who I've traced money being given to her by the flame retardant chemical companies.  So you have to ask yourself why would this person in the tobacco industry take money from the flame retardant chemical company when they're out protesting the chemical retardant people at the same time?  

See in your film you traced money to groups who were trying to use very clever marketing to push the idea of keeping the use of these chemicals in place. They even used "real" fire victims just as this movement is using so called "real" prostitutes.   I'm not sure however if you traced money to people who were setting up protests of the chemical companies while taking money from the chemical companies.  But I have "followed the money" to just such so called 'opposition" within the sex industry.  

It sound counter-intuitive - but when you realize you get more press from opposition and controversy, as well as the human mind WANTS things they are "forbidden" then it does start to make sense.   In fact, this is why the real tobacco companies were doing things like "youth prevention campaigns" back in the 1950's to sell their product to children while claiming at the same time they were trying to stop it.  

In fact, I have a lot of information I've been gathering on this issue that I'd like to talk to you about.  I saw in the film how when you were able to put together a series for the Chicago Tribune - and then this whole thing turned around.  That's of course what I'd like to talk to you about.  At least I know you're aware of how this "system" works with these large companies and that gives me a way to communicate these issues at least.  Your film is giving me a road map but our work is complicated further by the fact that many people don't like to talk about the subject of sex.  On top of that, prostitution is illegal in most of this country - further discouraging "real" victims from coming forward and speaking up in the press.   Further, we've got to deal with the people who are involved with the issue of abortion involved in this also to deal with.

Please call me any day you can at (702) 488-1127.  I would appreciate just someone to discuss over strategy with.  Thanks again for what you did. I at least now have a way to explain what I'm seeing happen in our movement to try and address sex trafficking in America.

Thank you.

Jody Williams
www.sexworkersanonymous.com
(702) 488-1127 Telephone







Thursday, August 25, 2016

LETTER I WROTE ARIANNA OF HUFFINGTON POST

Dear Arianna:

I'm preparing a report for the new administration about to be elected about the state of sex trafficking in the USA.  So far, I've been asking the Huffington Post to allow me to print SOMETHING, anything, about the work we're doing on this front.

So far, I've been ignored while you've brought in one after the other after the other of "influencers".  A common trade practice by companies such as Amazon - who just happens to have been arrested for prostitution a few months ago also.
http://www.kiro7.com/news/local/microsoft-leader-former-amazon-director-charged-in-prostitution-sting/281281333

 As of this moment, I'll be noting in my report this fact unless you have some explanation for why you continue to allow the views of "influencers" in your publication - but yet refuse to print even one word from this country's oldest, and largest, group of survivors of sex trafficking domestically, Sex Workers Anonymous.  Leaving us with only our blog to post some of our views and cases.  http://traffickingandprostitutionservices.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-new-mafia-in-america.html

Your publication claims to be "LGBT friendly".  However, the groups you do publish articles supporting exclude the LGBT community in one fashion or another.  However, we are the ONLY group working with victims that accepts everyone across the board as members, and our executive board is comprised also of LGBT community members.

In fact, one of the two founders of our 12 step program was a lesbian.  However, I find no such representation within SWOP - who you print article after article supporting their views.  As well Christian groups who refuse to work with the LGBT community, nor admit them in their sex trafficking shelters in any way.

But our voice - you ignore.  Even in your LGBT section of your publication - you ignore us.

So before I go to press - any explanation?

--
Jody Williams
(702) 488-1127 Cell Phone
www.sexworkersanonymous.com