Posts
Love Shack closes in Johns Creek, but suits continue
15 years ago
Monday, December 31, 2007
John Cornetta makes the top AVN's Stories Of 2007
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Will Adult Entertainment Ordinance Hold Up?
Posted: 9:50 PM Dec 30, 2007
Email Address: chris.sadeghi@kake.com
A zoning ordinance in Wichita forcing adult entertainment stores to leave town will take effect on January 1st. However, that is not expected to have an impact on some businesses right away. A constitutional challenge will determine if the ordinance will hold up in court.
Back in 2005, the Wichita City Council approved the ordinance, giving adult entertainment shops over two years to move or shutdown. While some have closed, at least three are still open and will not be cited until a ruling is made on the law's constitutionality.
The lawsuit challenging the ordinance will be filed shortly after the turn of the new year.
Below is a statement by the city, released on Monday, Dec 31.
SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESS ORDINANCE STATUS
As of Jan. 1, the moratorium on new licenses for sexually oriented businesses within the City of Wichita will expire. The moratorium was approved Feb. 8, 2005, by the Wichita City Council.
The Council also enacted a new zoning ordinance on that date that restricts those businesses to areas that are further than 500 feet from a church, school, public park, licensed in day care center, residential zoning district boundary, Old Town district boundary, or other adult entertainment establishment.
The 2005 ordinance defines a sexually oriented business within the City of Wichita as a holder of a valid adult entertainment establishment license. By adding the definition, the City’s regulatory code became consistent with the existing City-County unified zoning code.
As of Feb. 8, 2005, there were nine sexually oriented businesses validly operating in the City of Wichita in areas prohibited by the new limitations. The moratorium provided a two-year grace period for those businesses to voluntarily comply with the new ordinance.
Since the enactment of the 2005 ordinance, four of these businesses have closed their doors and ceased to operate. The City is in the process of negotiating the eminent closure of two such additional businesses.
The ordinance requires the City to test the constitutional validity of the ordinance in court before it seeks to enforce it against any of the remaining, pre-existing businesses. It is likely there will be three such businesses. These businesses will not be sued directly. There are available court procedures that will allow the City to seek a court determination without placing the burden of defense on those businesses. However, those remaining businesses will have an opportunity to appear in court if they so choose to address the validity of the ordinance.
There are seven sexually oriented businesses in the City currently operating in areas allowed by the resolution.
The specific ordinance that addresses the lawsuit requirement is found at VII-J.2.c of the Wichita/ Sedgwick County Unified Zoning Code.
Dale Goter
Government Relations Manager
City of Wichita
http://www.kake.com/news/headlines/12930162.html
Email Address: chris.sadeghi@kake.com
A zoning ordinance in Wichita forcing adult entertainment stores to leave town will take effect on January 1st. However, that is not expected to have an impact on some businesses right away. A constitutional challenge will determine if the ordinance will hold up in court.
Back in 2005, the Wichita City Council approved the ordinance, giving adult entertainment shops over two years to move or shutdown. While some have closed, at least three are still open and will not be cited until a ruling is made on the law's constitutionality.
The lawsuit challenging the ordinance will be filed shortly after the turn of the new year.
Below is a statement by the city, released on Monday, Dec 31.
SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESS ORDINANCE STATUS
As of Jan. 1, the moratorium on new licenses for sexually oriented businesses within the City of Wichita will expire. The moratorium was approved Feb. 8, 2005, by the Wichita City Council.
The Council also enacted a new zoning ordinance on that date that restricts those businesses to areas that are further than 500 feet from a church, school, public park, licensed in day care center, residential zoning district boundary, Old Town district boundary, or other adult entertainment establishment.
The 2005 ordinance defines a sexually oriented business within the City of Wichita as a holder of a valid adult entertainment establishment license. By adding the definition, the City’s regulatory code became consistent with the existing City-County unified zoning code.
As of Feb. 8, 2005, there were nine sexually oriented businesses validly operating in the City of Wichita in areas prohibited by the new limitations. The moratorium provided a two-year grace period for those businesses to voluntarily comply with the new ordinance.
Since the enactment of the 2005 ordinance, four of these businesses have closed their doors and ceased to operate. The City is in the process of negotiating the eminent closure of two such additional businesses.
The ordinance requires the City to test the constitutional validity of the ordinance in court before it seeks to enforce it against any of the remaining, pre-existing businesses. It is likely there will be three such businesses. These businesses will not be sued directly. There are available court procedures that will allow the City to seek a court determination without placing the burden of defense on those businesses. However, those remaining businesses will have an opportunity to appear in court if they so choose to address the validity of the ordinance.
There are seven sexually oriented businesses in the City currently operating in areas allowed by the resolution.
The specific ordinance that addresses the lawsuit requirement is found at VII-J.2.c of the Wichita/ Sedgwick County Unified Zoning Code.
Dale Goter
Government Relations Manager
City of Wichita
http://www.kake.com/news/headlines/12930162.html
Adult ‘fantasy’ store planning expansion
BY CHARLES SCHILLINGER
DICKSON CITY — A Dickson City shop trading in adult sex products is looking to quadruple in size, adding a 6,000-square-foot addition.
The new owners of Adult Outlet at 2109 Business Route 6, Clindum LLC, received permission to expand the store from the borough’s Zoning Hearing Board this month, though not without conditions. And building plans must still be approved by the borough as well.
Clindum bought the business in January with the intention of renovating the 2,000-square-foot building and “making it more upscale,” said the company’s director of marketing, Robyn Anderson.
“It’s going to be very tasteful. It’s a fantasy store for couples,” she said, adding the addition would be filled with retail products such as lingerie, shoes and lotions.
Ms. Anderson declined to say how many stores the company operates.
Competition and the continuing growth of Business Route 6 attracted Clindum to the area with the idea of expanding.
When the company submitted its intentions to expand, Dickson City zoning officer Jim Damski initially rejected it. Adult stores are permitted as special exceptions only and need Zoning Hearing Board approval, he said.
However, in the company’s appeal to the Zoning Hearing Board, Mr. Damski said it was found the company was more interested in expanding the retail part of the business, including the sale of lingerie. The board was more agreeable to that, he said.
The company also asked to expand the number of “viewing booths” it had in its existing shop from 18 to 24; however, at the borough’s request, the company put aside those plans.
Clindum is “perfectly content” with the conditions set for its expansion, said Ms. Anderson.
Mr. Damski indicated those conditions included the addition being limited to retail products and the company not expanding the viewing booths. The exact details were not available as the formal written report from the hearing had not been finalized as of last week.
Contact the writer: cschillinger@timesshamrock.com
http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19155944&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=416046&rfi=6
DICKSON CITY — A Dickson City shop trading in adult sex products is looking to quadruple in size, adding a 6,000-square-foot addition.
The new owners of Adult Outlet at 2109 Business Route 6, Clindum LLC, received permission to expand the store from the borough’s Zoning Hearing Board this month, though not without conditions. And building plans must still be approved by the borough as well.
Clindum bought the business in January with the intention of renovating the 2,000-square-foot building and “making it more upscale,” said the company’s director of marketing, Robyn Anderson.
“It’s going to be very tasteful. It’s a fantasy store for couples,” she said, adding the addition would be filled with retail products such as lingerie, shoes and lotions.
Ms. Anderson declined to say how many stores the company operates.
Competition and the continuing growth of Business Route 6 attracted Clindum to the area with the idea of expanding.
When the company submitted its intentions to expand, Dickson City zoning officer Jim Damski initially rejected it. Adult stores are permitted as special exceptions only and need Zoning Hearing Board approval, he said.
However, in the company’s appeal to the Zoning Hearing Board, Mr. Damski said it was found the company was more interested in expanding the retail part of the business, including the sale of lingerie. The board was more agreeable to that, he said.
The company also asked to expand the number of “viewing booths” it had in its existing shop from 18 to 24; however, at the borough’s request, the company put aside those plans.
Clindum is “perfectly content” with the conditions set for its expansion, said Ms. Anderson.
Mr. Damski indicated those conditions included the addition being limited to retail products and the company not expanding the viewing booths. The exact details were not available as the formal written report from the hearing had not been finalized as of last week.
Contact the writer: cschillinger@timesshamrock.com
http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19155944&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=416046&rfi=6
Saturday, December 29, 2007
2257 Software Packages
2257 Software Packages
Software for those who prefer not to start their digital record-keeping systems from scratch.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Cornetta Makes good with the Charity Fundraser
Cornetta Makes Good With Charity Fundraiser
Love Shack owner John Cornetta sponsored a fundraiser on Sunday to benefit the town of Johns Creek and help fund fire and rescue services for the small town.
FBI Halts 2257 Inspections of Secondaries
FBI Halts 2257 Inspections of Secondaries
Special Agent Chuck Joyner, head of the FBI's 2257 inspection effort, clarifies the FBI's inspection policies.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Love Shack stays open
2007-12-20
JOHNS CREEK HERALD
Love Shack stays open
by Caron Cooper
December 27, 2007
Same headline, different year.
About this time last year, John Cornetta, owner of Love Shack, was busy removing items from his shelves to comply with a court order to close down his controversial business, but only if it is selling "a significant quantity of sexually explicit materials."
Love Shack had opened without a business license from Fulton County Nov. 29, 2006, citing a county ordinance that gives a business 30 days to obtain one, in an attempt to be grandfathered in before the city of Johns Creek was to take over licensing and zoning services in January 2007.
Rumors had been swirling that Love Shack was to be padlocked at 3 p.m. Dec. 21, 2006, if Cornetta didn't follow the court order.
Courts had previously ruled "significant" to mean more than 25 percent. So Cornetta went beyond that, reducing his sexually-related inventory to about 5 percent and replacing it with purses and other non-sexual novelties.
But Cornetta predicted the opposite.
"At 3 p.m., they are going to show up and cite me," he said to the crowd that had started to gather in front of his store that day.
Shortly after 3 p.m., a handful of Fulton County code enforcement officers, along with a U.S. federal marshal, arrived on scene. Cornetta was right – the officers measured his store and counted the amount of merchandise that was sexual in nature to determine a ratio of square footage versus sexually explicit merchandise.
He was cited again that day for not possessing a sign banner and for inappropriate zoning.
"Victory," Cornetta announced to the crowd. "We're still open."
Cornetta has maintained from the beginning that Love Shack is not an adult bookstore as defined by the county's ordinance. He says the county's determination was presumptuous and prevents Love Shack's right to free speech.
The case was in federal court last month to hear oral arguments. Cornetta is appealing the preliminary injunction ordered by the U.S. District Court, which calls for Love Shack cease operation or comply with the county's ordinances.
A ruling could take months. Cornetta's attorney, Cary Wiggins, said it could go three ways: one, court finds Cornetta's appeal moot; two, court sides with Love Shack that injunction was improper; or three, the court upholds the county's injunction.
Either way, the parties will return to district court and Judge Thomas Thrash for a decision on the remaining motions filed.
Love Shack has remained open since November 2006. In the meantime, Cornetta has taken on another opponent – Johns Creek.
The city filed a motion this summer asking Fulton County Superior Court to order Love Shack to cease operation, citing the U.S. District Court's findings that the business is operating unlawfully at its current location. The city has maintained this case is not about free speech – it is about zoning. And under the city's ordinances, Love Shack fits the definition of a sexually oriented business in a location not zoned for such. That's why the city also denied Love Shack a business license.
But Wiggins has maintained that the city sat on the Love Shack's business license application without explanation for a solid month while City Council adopted a new ordinance, and two weeks later, the city finally denied the application.
Wiggins said at the time that all of this is moot because the city's updated super-ordinance was not in place when the business application was submitted to the city. He also said that the part of the definition specific to language used in advertising is likely in violation of the First Amendment.
Love Shack then sued the city, naming specific city staff and members of the city's Zoning Board of Appeals, for denying the adult business's applications for sign and banner permits.
The Love Shack's petition to Fulton County Superior Court says the city staff's denial is based on "arbitrary criteria" and asks the court to declare that decision as beyond the scope of power. Neither the city's sign ordinance nor its zoning ordinance states a business license as prerequisite for a sign or banner permit.
The city disagrees.
"What's the logic of issuing a sign to a business that does not have a license and is in essence operating illegally," said Johns Creek Mayor Mike Bodker.
The city must answer the petition within 30 calendar days from Nov. 19, the date the city was served, but is not uncommon for parties to request more time.
And so Johns Creek residents will continue to wait into 2008 to see if the New Year will bring any results.
http://www.northfulton.com/Articles-i-2007-12-20-168927.112113_Love_Shack_stays_open.html
JOHNS CREEK HERALD
Love Shack stays open
by Caron Cooper
December 27, 2007
Same headline, different year.
About this time last year, John Cornetta, owner of Love Shack, was busy removing items from his shelves to comply with a court order to close down his controversial business, but only if it is selling "a significant quantity of sexually explicit materials."
Love Shack had opened without a business license from Fulton County Nov. 29, 2006, citing a county ordinance that gives a business 30 days to obtain one, in an attempt to be grandfathered in before the city of Johns Creek was to take over licensing and zoning services in January 2007.
Rumors had been swirling that Love Shack was to be padlocked at 3 p.m. Dec. 21, 2006, if Cornetta didn't follow the court order.
Courts had previously ruled "significant" to mean more than 25 percent. So Cornetta went beyond that, reducing his sexually-related inventory to about 5 percent and replacing it with purses and other non-sexual novelties.
But Cornetta predicted the opposite.
"At 3 p.m., they are going to show up and cite me," he said to the crowd that had started to gather in front of his store that day.
Shortly after 3 p.m., a handful of Fulton County code enforcement officers, along with a U.S. federal marshal, arrived on scene. Cornetta was right – the officers measured his store and counted the amount of merchandise that was sexual in nature to determine a ratio of square footage versus sexually explicit merchandise.
He was cited again that day for not possessing a sign banner and for inappropriate zoning.
"Victory," Cornetta announced to the crowd. "We're still open."
Cornetta has maintained from the beginning that Love Shack is not an adult bookstore as defined by the county's ordinance. He says the county's determination was presumptuous and prevents Love Shack's right to free speech.
The case was in federal court last month to hear oral arguments. Cornetta is appealing the preliminary injunction ordered by the U.S. District Court, which calls for Love Shack cease operation or comply with the county's ordinances.
A ruling could take months. Cornetta's attorney, Cary Wiggins, said it could go three ways: one, court finds Cornetta's appeal moot; two, court sides with Love Shack that injunction was improper; or three, the court upholds the county's injunction.
Either way, the parties will return to district court and Judge Thomas Thrash for a decision on the remaining motions filed.
Love Shack has remained open since November 2006. In the meantime, Cornetta has taken on another opponent – Johns Creek.
The city filed a motion this summer asking Fulton County Superior Court to order Love Shack to cease operation, citing the U.S. District Court's findings that the business is operating unlawfully at its current location. The city has maintained this case is not about free speech – it is about zoning. And under the city's ordinances, Love Shack fits the definition of a sexually oriented business in a location not zoned for such. That's why the city also denied Love Shack a business license.
But Wiggins has maintained that the city sat on the Love Shack's business license application without explanation for a solid month while City Council adopted a new ordinance, and two weeks later, the city finally denied the application.
Wiggins said at the time that all of this is moot because the city's updated super-ordinance was not in place when the business application was submitted to the city. He also said that the part of the definition specific to language used in advertising is likely in violation of the First Amendment.
Love Shack then sued the city, naming specific city staff and members of the city's Zoning Board of Appeals, for denying the adult business's applications for sign and banner permits.
The Love Shack's petition to Fulton County Superior Court says the city staff's denial is based on "arbitrary criteria" and asks the court to declare that decision as beyond the scope of power. Neither the city's sign ordinance nor its zoning ordinance states a business license as prerequisite for a sign or banner permit.
The city disagrees.
"What's the logic of issuing a sign to a business that does not have a license and is in essence operating illegally," said Johns Creek Mayor Mike Bodker.
The city must answer the petition within 30 calendar days from Nov. 19, the date the city was served, but is not uncommon for parties to request more time.
And so Johns Creek residents will continue to wait into 2008 to see if the New Year will bring any results.
http://www.northfulton.com/Articles-i-2007-12-20-168927.112113_Love_Shack_stays_open.html
Regs Putting the Squeeze on Industry
Regs Putting the Squeeze on Industry
In June 2005, the adult entertainment industry seemed thrown into a near-panic when the U.S. updated 18 U.S.C. §2257
Cornetta Charitable Foundation Raises $1,400 With Dunk Tank Event
Cornetta Charitable Foundation Raises $1,400 With Dunk Tank Event
Mike South plays Johns Creek Mayor in public spectacle
By Peter Warren, AVN Media Network
Posted: 11:30 AM PST Dec 20, 2007
JOHNS CREEK, Ga. — Love Shack owner John Cornetta raised $1,400 at a public event on Sunday designed to benefit civil services in Johns Creek - but the city has not yet agreed to accept the money.
Cornetta and porn director Mike South served as the targets in a booth where participants paid $20 for the chance to douse them in flour. South stood in for Johns Creek mayor Mike Bodker, who refused the Love Shack owner's public challenge to participate in the event.
Cornetta has been locked in a legal battle with Johns Creek since he opened his Love Shack store in the city over a year ago. The adult retailer has lambasted the city for spending over $150,000 to shut down his store when that money could have been used to fund fire and other rescue services.
After a Memorial Day fire killed Fulton County firefighter Felix Roberts and Johns Creek resident John Callahan, Cornetta established a charitable foundation for the victims' families and the city's fire department. He dedicated a percentage of the Love Shack's summer profits to the cause, setting out a collection bucket in the store for customers to contribute.
Cornetta presented a check for $2,913 to the city Sept. 28, but the city sent it back on the grounds that it could be perceived as an attempt to influence the outcome of the Love Shack litigation.
Fulton County Fire Chief Larry Few angrily chastised Cornetta in an e-mail for attempting to make the donation as a publicity grab to push his own agenda.
"You have sought to use the death of a hero and other firefighters in order [to] move forward with or push an agenda," Few wrote in the e-mail, "and I personally find that unpleasant."
Ironically, as Cornetta and South were holding the event Saturday, a massive fire destroyed the home of a local single mother and her two daughters. All three survived, but the family lost everything.
Said South, "Playing the mayor was very tough for me to do — I had never been that big of a putz my whole life."
Should Mayor Bodker reject the money raised Saturday, Pastor Michael Cole — chairman of the Cornetta Charitable Foundation Board of Advisers and clergyman at the Cathedral of the Holy Spirit at Chapel Hill — will decide how it is disbursed.
For more information and/or donation inquiries, contact Kate Cook at kate@cornetta.com or (770) 458-4386 ext. 105.
http://www.avn.com/index.cfm?objectID=F4001585-EBC9-D813-F3DE4FCA68160909&slid=324399
Mike South plays Johns Creek Mayor in public spectacle
By Peter Warren, AVN Media Network
Posted: 11:30 AM PST Dec 20, 2007
JOHNS CREEK, Ga. — Love Shack owner John Cornetta raised $1,400 at a public event on Sunday designed to benefit civil services in Johns Creek - but the city has not yet agreed to accept the money.
Cornetta and porn director Mike South served as the targets in a booth where participants paid $20 for the chance to douse them in flour. South stood in for Johns Creek mayor Mike Bodker, who refused the Love Shack owner's public challenge to participate in the event.
Cornetta has been locked in a legal battle with Johns Creek since he opened his Love Shack store in the city over a year ago. The adult retailer has lambasted the city for spending over $150,000 to shut down his store when that money could have been used to fund fire and other rescue services.
After a Memorial Day fire killed Fulton County firefighter Felix Roberts and Johns Creek resident John Callahan, Cornetta established a charitable foundation for the victims' families and the city's fire department. He dedicated a percentage of the Love Shack's summer profits to the cause, setting out a collection bucket in the store for customers to contribute.
Cornetta presented a check for $2,913 to the city Sept. 28, but the city sent it back on the grounds that it could be perceived as an attempt to influence the outcome of the Love Shack litigation.
Fulton County Fire Chief Larry Few angrily chastised Cornetta in an e-mail for attempting to make the donation as a publicity grab to push his own agenda.
"You have sought to use the death of a hero and other firefighters in order [to] move forward with or push an agenda," Few wrote in the e-mail, "and I personally find that unpleasant."
Ironically, as Cornetta and South were holding the event Saturday, a massive fire destroyed the home of a local single mother and her two daughters. All three survived, but the family lost everything.
Said South, "Playing the mayor was very tough for me to do — I had never been that big of a putz my whole life."
Should Mayor Bodker reject the money raised Saturday, Pastor Michael Cole — chairman of the Cornetta Charitable Foundation Board of Advisers and clergyman at the Cathedral of the Holy Spirit at Chapel Hill — will decide how it is disbursed.
For more information and/or donation inquiries, contact Kate Cook at kate@cornetta.com or (770) 458-4386 ext. 105.
http://www.avn.com/index.cfm?objectID=F4001585-EBC9-D813-F3DE4FCA68160909&slid=324399
Xbiz Reports Ga. Town Restricts Adult Businesses
By Tod Hunter
Thursday, Dec 20, 2007
FLOWERY BRANCH, Ga. — The Flowery Branch City Council has repealed its adult business ordinance and passed a new adult business ordinance restricting them. Flowery Branch Mayor Diane Hirling said no adult businesses have made new requests to move into the city limits, but the ordinance was passed in preparation for future requests.
The new adult business ordinance brought the city's adult entertainment rules in line with a 2006 zoning ordinance passed that detailed where specific businesses are allowed to operate within the city, according to Hirling.
The new ordinance establishes operating hours for adult businesses of 8 a.m.-midnight and prohibits the serving of alcoholic beverages. Adult businesses cannot operate within 1,000 feet of any place of worship, school building, college campus, religious institution or any governmental building including public parks, hospitals, libraries, children’s day care centers or another adult entertainment venue.
"It’s not that we’re trying to keep them out," Hirling said. "We’re just keeping them away from schools and churches."
The new adult business ordinance continues the restriction that adult business establishments can only operate in areas zoned manufacture industrial.
Thursday, Dec 20, 2007
FLOWERY BRANCH, Ga. — The Flowery Branch City Council has repealed its adult business ordinance and passed a new adult business ordinance restricting them. Flowery Branch Mayor Diane Hirling said no adult businesses have made new requests to move into the city limits, but the ordinance was passed in preparation for future requests.
The new adult business ordinance brought the city's adult entertainment rules in line with a 2006 zoning ordinance passed that detailed where specific businesses are allowed to operate within the city, according to Hirling.
The new ordinance establishes operating hours for adult businesses of 8 a.m.-midnight and prohibits the serving of alcoholic beverages. Adult businesses cannot operate within 1,000 feet of any place of worship, school building, college campus, religious institution or any governmental building including public parks, hospitals, libraries, children’s day care centers or another adult entertainment venue.
"It’s not that we’re trying to keep them out," Hirling said. "We’re just keeping them away from schools and churches."
The new adult business ordinance continues the restriction that adult business establishments can only operate in areas zoned manufacture industrial.
Xbiz Reports Wisc. Town With No Adult Businesses Restricts Them
By Tod Hunter
Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007
MENASHA, Wis. — The Menasha Town Board adopted a revised liquor license ordinance by a 5-0 vote, a license that provides restrictions to license holders who might want to offer adult entertainment or sexually oriented business.Town officials may continue to look for additional restrictions as well. The town currently does not have any business offering adult entertainment.
"I think we all agree we don't want that type of business in our town," said Town Chairman Arden Tews, who recommended the city continue to look at requiring licenses for any such business seeking to locate in the town.
Fears that a nude "juice bar" that doesn't offer alcohol might still locate in the town worries former town supervisor Jay Schroeder, who has said that when the county reduced the legal setback distance from churches, schools and parks from 2,000 feet to 600 feet it went too far, opening up more areas in the town where an adult business can legally operate.
The county's adult entertainment zoning ordinance, passed earlier this year, restricted strip clubs to operating only in certain areas and prohibited the sale or consumption of alcohol at adult entertainment facilities, unless permitted by towns through issuance of a liquor license.
Town Attorney Chuck Koehler, consulting with Virginia attorney Pat Trueman, incorporated Trueman's advice into Menasha's new liquor license ordinance. Trueman offers free legal advice to nonprofit groups or communities seeking protection against sexually oriented businesses.
Koehler called the revised ordinance a "backstop" for whatever enforcement or legal deficiencies that might exist in the county's ordinance, suggesting that the town adopt the revised ordinance and then continue examining various issues before making amendments, if needed.
"It's a matter of time before one comes here," former supervisor Schroeder said. "I don't believe [the revised ordinance] is complete enough."
Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007
MENASHA, Wis. — The Menasha Town Board adopted a revised liquor license ordinance by a 5-0 vote, a license that provides restrictions to license holders who might want to offer adult entertainment or sexually oriented business.Town officials may continue to look for additional restrictions as well. The town currently does not have any business offering adult entertainment.
"I think we all agree we don't want that type of business in our town," said Town Chairman Arden Tews, who recommended the city continue to look at requiring licenses for any such business seeking to locate in the town.
Fears that a nude "juice bar" that doesn't offer alcohol might still locate in the town worries former town supervisor Jay Schroeder, who has said that when the county reduced the legal setback distance from churches, schools and parks from 2,000 feet to 600 feet it went too far, opening up more areas in the town where an adult business can legally operate.
The county's adult entertainment zoning ordinance, passed earlier this year, restricted strip clubs to operating only in certain areas and prohibited the sale or consumption of alcohol at adult entertainment facilities, unless permitted by towns through issuance of a liquor license.
Town Attorney Chuck Koehler, consulting with Virginia attorney Pat Trueman, incorporated Trueman's advice into Menasha's new liquor license ordinance. Trueman offers free legal advice to nonprofit groups or communities seeking protection against sexually oriented businesses.
Koehler called the revised ordinance a "backstop" for whatever enforcement or legal deficiencies that might exist in the county's ordinance, suggesting that the town adopt the revised ordinance and then continue examining various issues before making amendments, if needed.
"It's a matter of time before one comes here," former supervisor Schroeder said. "I don't believe [the revised ordinance] is complete enough."
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Dear Chief Few and Fulton County representatives
"I understand Chief Few has denied donations from Mr. and Mrs. Cornetta recently fora fallen Fulton County firefighter, Felix Roberts and John Callahan who lost theirlives in a recent fire.
I am truely saddend by these losses, but I cannot condone your response to his generosity. Shame on you Cheif for not acceptng monetary donations from Mr. and Mrs. Cornetta on behalf of these families. Mr. Cornetta has every right to his offerings and tocontradict John's Creek in the manner in which they have ear marked so much money to fight his business and to build a City Hall without their own emergency service providers for the newly established community.
I am afraid this effort by John'sCreek against Cornetta's Love Shack business has many negative overtones, but the facts are: without ample emergency services in John's Creek more citizens may benegatively and unecessarily affected. I don't live or vote in Fulton County so you probably don't care what I think, butit appears to me, you don't care what the people who pay taxes in your communitythink as well.
Now, should you try to run in Cobb County, I will be ready to alerteveryone here about this historic mistake.
For those who have read this, thank you for your time. "
T.C.
I am truely saddend by these losses, but I cannot condone your response to his generosity. Shame on you Cheif for not acceptng monetary donations from Mr. and Mrs. Cornetta on behalf of these families. Mr. Cornetta has every right to his offerings and tocontradict John's Creek in the manner in which they have ear marked so much money to fight his business and to build a City Hall without their own emergency service providers for the newly established community.
I am afraid this effort by John'sCreek against Cornetta's Love Shack business has many negative overtones, but the facts are: without ample emergency services in John's Creek more citizens may benegatively and unecessarily affected. I don't live or vote in Fulton County so you probably don't care what I think, butit appears to me, you don't care what the people who pay taxes in your communitythink as well.
Now, should you try to run in Cobb County, I will be ready to alerteveryone here about this historic mistake.
For those who have read this, thank you for your time. "
T.C.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
"Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." Voltaire, letter to M. le Riche, February 6, 1770.
Monday, December 17, 2007
The Dumbest Things President Bush Said in 2007
10. “And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I’m sorry it’s the case, and I’ll work hard to try to elevate it.” –interview on National Public Radio, Jan. 29, 2007
9. “I fully understand those who say you can’t win this thing militarily. That’s exactly what the United States military says, that you can’t win this military.” –on the need for political progress in Iraq, Washington, D.C., Oct. 17, 2007
8. “One of my concerns is that the health care not be as good as it can possibly be.” –on military benefits, Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007
7. “Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for your introduction. Thank you for being such a fine host for the OPEC summit.” –addressing Australian Prime Minister John Howard at the APEC Summit. Later, in the same speech: “As John Howard accurately noted when he went to thank the Austrian troops there last year…” –referring to Australian troops as “Austrian troops,” Sept. 7, 2007
6. “My relationship with this good man is where I’ve been focused, and that’s where my concentration is. And I don’t regret any other aspect of it. And so I — we filled a lot of space together.” –on British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Washington, D.C., May 17, 2007
5. “You helped our nation celebrate its bicentennial in 17 — 1976.” –to Queen Elizabeth, Washington, D.C., May 7, 2007
4. “The question is, who ought to make that decision? The Congress or the commanders? And as you know, my position is clear — I’m a Commander Guy.” –deciding he is no longer just “The Decider,” Washington, D.C., May 2, 2007
3. “Information is moving — you know, nightly news is one way, of course, but it’s also moving through the blogosphere and through the Internets.” –Washington, D.C., May 2, 2007
2. “There are some similarities, of course (between Iraq and Vietnam). Death is terrible.” –Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007
1. “As yesterday’s positive report card shows, childrens do learn when standards are high and results are measured.” –on the No Child Left Behind Act, Washington, D.C., Sept. 26, 2007
Written by Ron Chusid
From liberalvalues.com
10. “And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I’m sorry it’s the case, and I’ll work hard to try to elevate it.” –interview on National Public Radio, Jan. 29, 2007
9. “I fully understand those who say you can’t win this thing militarily. That’s exactly what the United States military says, that you can’t win this military.” –on the need for political progress in Iraq, Washington, D.C., Oct. 17, 2007
8. “One of my concerns is that the health care not be as good as it can possibly be.” –on military benefits, Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007
7. “Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for your introduction. Thank you for being such a fine host for the OPEC summit.” –addressing Australian Prime Minister John Howard at the APEC Summit. Later, in the same speech: “As John Howard accurately noted when he went to thank the Austrian troops there last year…” –referring to Australian troops as “Austrian troops,” Sept. 7, 2007
6. “My relationship with this good man is where I’ve been focused, and that’s where my concentration is. And I don’t regret any other aspect of it. And so I — we filled a lot of space together.” –on British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Washington, D.C., May 17, 2007
5. “You helped our nation celebrate its bicentennial in 17 — 1976.” –to Queen Elizabeth, Washington, D.C., May 7, 2007
4. “The question is, who ought to make that decision? The Congress or the commanders? And as you know, my position is clear — I’m a Commander Guy.” –deciding he is no longer just “The Decider,” Washington, D.C., May 2, 2007
3. “Information is moving — you know, nightly news is one way, of course, but it’s also moving through the blogosphere and through the Internets.” –Washington, D.C., May 2, 2007
2. “There are some similarities, of course (between Iraq and Vietnam). Death is terrible.” –Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007
1. “As yesterday’s positive report card shows, childrens do learn when standards are high and results are measured.” –on the No Child Left Behind Act, Washington, D.C., Sept. 26, 2007
Written by Ron Chusid
From liberalvalues.com
Butch lesbians accuse DeKalb police of bias
Department has no plans for gay liaison officer, not that that has helped gays under APD control.
Please view article in full at http://www.southernvoice.com/2007/12-14/news/localnews/7860.cfm
Please view article in full at http://www.southernvoice.com/2007/12-14/news/localnews/7860.cfm
End of the Year Approaches, What will you stand for?
Para-phrased from V, to apply to us all.
Good evening, US Citizens. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this December the 31st, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, George Bush. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I sought to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old ways in my dreams, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the 31st of December forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives.
So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the 31st of December to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me , outside the gates of the white house, city hall, governors mansion, wherever those who seek to oppress you live and work, and together we shall give them 2008 that shall never, ever be forgot. Let 2008 be the year that true democracy and freedom return to this great nation of ours!
Good evening, US Citizens. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this December the 31st, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, George Bush. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I sought to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old ways in my dreams, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the 31st of December forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives.
So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the 31st of December to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me , outside the gates of the white house, city hall, governors mansion, wherever those who seek to oppress you live and work, and together we shall give them 2008 that shall never, ever be forgot. Let 2008 be the year that true democracy and freedom return to this great nation of ours!
Dunking in Johns Creek
Dunking in Johns Creek
by Griftdrift
Monday, Dec 17, 2007
The low grade war between adult toy store owner John Cornetta and Johns Creek continues.
One year ago, Fulton County attempted to prevent the opening of Cornetta's latest outlet of prurience but ultimately failed - leaving the matter in the lap of the newly formed city of Johns Creek. Since that time, the conflict has lain dormant as the case winds its way through the federal appeals process.
Could there be another avenue for resolution to the conflict? Perhaps, involving jello?
Cornetta, angry at the city of Johns Creek for refusing a charitable donation in the wake of a tragic family fire, challenged Mayor Mike Bodker to a classic dunking booth contest with the "loser" personally donating $1000 to charity. Bodker apparently refused but Cornetta will proceed with a Bodker "look-a-like" and due to the drought situation will use jello instead of water.
The event will take place on Saturday, Dec. 15 from noon – 4 pm in the parking lot of the Love Shack in Johns Creek at 10950 State Bridge Road...“We’ve had a couple of changes, but the end goal still remains the same, to raise money for the City of Johns Creek to protect all citizens, even the ones the Mayor doesn’t like,” said Cornetta, owner of the 10,000 square foot Love Shack in Johns Creek...“When this challenge was issued months ago to Mayor Mike Bodker we planned on doing this contest in a dunk tank in the cold of December. With the recent ongoing drought we’ve decided to change it from a water dunk contest to a Jell-O dunk contest.”...Fans and non-fans of Cornetta and Mayor Bodker will have the opportunity to purchase three softballs for $20 to throw at either of the two. All money generated will be donated to the Cornetta Charitable Foundation www.tccfusa.com and earmarked to be donated to the City of Johns Creek to assist in the development of civil services...The chairman of the Board of Advisers for the CCF, Pastor Michael Cole of the Cathedral of the Holy Spirit at Chapel Hill, www.mycathedral.org will have final say so over where the money goes if the city of Johns Creek should once again reject the money...
Mike South will be coming out dressed in his finest suit to play the part of Bodker. Additionally, he will be bringing out a bevy of his beautiful starlets to entertain the crowd...Whoever has the most softballs thrown at them will also make a personal donation of $1,000 to the City of Johns Creek. Since Mayor Bodker has declined the offer to participate, Cornetta will be making the $1,000 donation whether he is dunked the most or his stand-in competitor. The Drift will of course be there to cover the event.
by Griftdrift
Monday, Dec 17, 2007
The low grade war between adult toy store owner John Cornetta and Johns Creek continues.
One year ago, Fulton County attempted to prevent the opening of Cornetta's latest outlet of prurience but ultimately failed - leaving the matter in the lap of the newly formed city of Johns Creek. Since that time, the conflict has lain dormant as the case winds its way through the federal appeals process.
Could there be another avenue for resolution to the conflict? Perhaps, involving jello?
Cornetta, angry at the city of Johns Creek for refusing a charitable donation in the wake of a tragic family fire, challenged Mayor Mike Bodker to a classic dunking booth contest with the "loser" personally donating $1000 to charity. Bodker apparently refused but Cornetta will proceed with a Bodker "look-a-like" and due to the drought situation will use jello instead of water.
The event will take place on Saturday, Dec. 15 from noon – 4 pm in the parking lot of the Love Shack in Johns Creek at 10950 State Bridge Road...“We’ve had a couple of changes, but the end goal still remains the same, to raise money for the City of Johns Creek to protect all citizens, even the ones the Mayor doesn’t like,” said Cornetta, owner of the 10,000 square foot Love Shack in Johns Creek...“When this challenge was issued months ago to Mayor Mike Bodker we planned on doing this contest in a dunk tank in the cold of December. With the recent ongoing drought we’ve decided to change it from a water dunk contest to a Jell-O dunk contest.”...Fans and non-fans of Cornetta and Mayor Bodker will have the opportunity to purchase three softballs for $20 to throw at either of the two. All money generated will be donated to the Cornetta Charitable Foundation www.tccfusa.com and earmarked to be donated to the City of Johns Creek to assist in the development of civil services...The chairman of the Board of Advisers for the CCF, Pastor Michael Cole of the Cathedral of the Holy Spirit at Chapel Hill, www.mycathedral.org will have final say so over where the money goes if the city of Johns Creek should once again reject the money...
Mike South will be coming out dressed in his finest suit to play the part of Bodker. Additionally, he will be bringing out a bevy of his beautiful starlets to entertain the crowd...Whoever has the most softballs thrown at them will also make a personal donation of $1,000 to the City of Johns Creek. Since Mayor Bodker has declined the offer to participate, Cornetta will be making the $1,000 donation whether he is dunked the most or his stand-in competitor. The Drift will of course be there to cover the event.
2257 Information from the Free Speech Coalittion
While I'll write up my own thoughts and beliefs on this subject, Free Speech Coalition has been wonderful in their support and work in this matter.
2257 Industry Statement for Public Comment PeriodBy:
Posted: 9/6/2007
With regard to the proposed rules and regulations for 18 U.S.C.section 2257, the undersigned members of the adult entertainment industry would like to voice our concern.
The proposed rules and regulations in support of 2257 issued on July 12, 2007, will cause considerable burden, both financially and logistically, to the adult entertainment industry. This burden is so onerous that it would force many small companies completely out of business. For those able to stay in business, the proposed 2257 would severely diminish their ability to succeed.
The cost to collect and maintain 2257 records, as suggested by the DOJ in its proposed rules and regulations, is astronomical to businesses in the industry, both large and small. Staffing costs to collect records, assure proper documentation and filing processes, updates and maintenance, including cross-referencing requirements are excessive. For larger businesses this record keeping requires new, well-trained staff of a dozen or more plus supervisory personnel to comply. For smaller businesses, hiring additional staff is not an option. Many of the industry's small businesses are one- to two-person operations with a profit margin so thin that the additional expense of record-keeping staff would make the difference between the business being viable and incurring a net loss; thus, eventually causing the business to close.
Due to the complexity of 2257's regulations and record-keeping requirements, adult businesses require expensive attorney services to assure compliance and mitigate their risk of 2257 violations. Some larger companies have staff attorneys who do nothing but oversee 2257 record-keeping and compliance. Smaller businesses keep attorneys on retainer and pay for their services from time to time to audit their 2257 records for compliance. Some businesses that cannot afford an attorney do their best to comply with their understanding of the law. Attorney fees for 2257 compliance add a great deal of expense to the cost of operation of an adult business, again cutting into these businesses' net profit - often resulting in a net loss and/or eventual closure. All of the aforementioned businesses live with the added stress of this restrictive law potentially imposing prison time for inadvertently misfiled or misplaced records.
Some businesses in the industry are associated with thousands of websites. Some are responsible for literally millions of individual pieces of content. Besides the expense of gathering and maintaining the records, the storage for that quantity of materials is nearly impossible to fathom. Many small adult business owners work out of their homes and do not have the space to store the quantity of records required to comply with 2257. Renting storage space adds additional expense and poses the problem of non-compliance as the records are to be available at the "place of business" when the compliance officer is present.
A number of adult businesses have developed and/or purchased software to facilitate compliance. This has proven to be very costly, especially for small businesses. It does nothing to alleviate the previous problems, and, with the proposed regulations requirement of hard copy records, it may prove futile.
For small businesses, the requirements for the custodian of records are particularly burdensome. As mentioned previously in this statement, many small business owners of adult entertainment companies work out of their homes. Some have full-time jobs outside of the adult entertainment industry. For adult small business owners, the requirement that the custodian of records be present at the place of business 20 hours a week between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. is unrealistic, often impossible.
Business owners who have jobs outside the industry would have to quit those jobs to be present. This means that entrepreneurial start-ups are all but impossible for someone who relies on another income during the start-up phase of their small business.
As discussed previously, profit margins are so thin for these businesses that hiring someone for 20 hours/week to wait for a potential FBI inspection is not an option. Conversely, being in non-compliance is not an option either, resulting in the business owner being left in a Catch-22 situation with grave consequences.
Moreover, business owners who operate their businesses out of their homes are understandably uncomfortable with the idea of FBI agents conducting an inspection in their home, causing undue neighborhood stigma to them and their families when agents appear. Finally, the requirement to post the address for "custodian of records" on content presents an undue burden on small business owners when, as stated, in many cases the location is the owner's residence. This puts the adult business owner and his/her family at potential personal risk.
The proposed requirement that the custodial statement be on every page is excessive and impractical. A reasonable interpretation of HR 4472 would allow a hyperlink on every page rather than the full physical address. The proposed regulation requirement could result in scores or even hundreds of addresses visible on each website page.
The statute is limited to recordings. There is no legal justification for requiring webcam operators to record any part of their performances. The Department has no authority to require persons to engage in behavior that they would ordinarily not do, in order to bring webcam operators within the scope of a statute.
For "secondary producers" (anyone who does not direct-hire talent or hold the camera, actually producing the original content), the proposed regulations are particularly egregious. "Secondary producers" rarely, if ever, come in contact with the performer in the content they are displaying. It is physically impossible for them to "inspect the original ID" of the performers in their content.
Therefore it is literally impossible for secondary producers to comply with the statutory requirement. Secondary producers are reliant on primary producers to ship all documentation to them for record-keeping purposes. They are also reliant on the primary producers for initial compliance, yet they have no ability to know if the primary producer's records are accurate. In this situation, the "secondary producer" is at risk of non-compliance, despite having done everything within his/her ability to comply. As mentioned before, some webmasters have thousands of sites and millions of pieces of content; therefore, the mere shipping of these materials would prove cost-prohibitive, both for primary and secondary producers, not to mention the added staff needed for shipping and receiving.
We urge the Department to make the rules non-retroactive. No image should be required to be compliant unless it was recorded after the effective date of the regulations. How can a "secondary producer" be expected to know what records to acquire and in what condition to maintain them until the rules are final? What if in the rule-making process, the provision allowing edited identification (eliminating unnecessary personal data) is changed? How can a "secondary producer" rely upon and make significant economic decisions about content acquisition without knowing what the rules are?
Even limiting implementation retroactivity to July 27, 2006, would be immensely burdensome to many producers. Producers who in good faith acquired or who will acquire content after July 27, 2006, must now go back and acquire additional documentation or face the loss of that content, resulting in yet another undue financial burden on these businesses.
During the previous public comment period for proposed 2257 regulations, the Free Speech Coalition recommended an alternative to the onerous record-keeping requirements proposed by the current and proposed regulations. In this plan, for-profit, third party keepers of records accredited by the government would keep performer information updated and maintained to government standards. Performers would register with a third party keeper of records, performer records would be kept safe, the government would have access to the records when necessary and the adult businesses would be responsible for listing where the performer's records were on file. This alternative would allow businesses to comply without producing the record-keeping nightmare present with the proposed 2257 regulations and inspection regime.
As we understand it, the purpose of 2257 is to ensure that underage performers are not being used in adult entertainment productions. The adult entertainment industry has no interest in using underage performers in its productions and, to that extent, has no conflict with a law that is designed to monitor performer ages within the industry.
However, the proposed 2257 regulations do nothing more than create an insurmountable bureaucracy, spending millions of dollars of government resources on the problem of underage performers in the adult industry which adult entertainment businesses already screen out. Furthermore, as proposed, 2257 effectively dismantles small business models within the industry as well as seriously compromises the profits of many of the industry's larger businesses. We ask that you consider the burdens addressed in this statement and revise the proposed regulations accordingly in order to avoid devastating a vital, responsible, and legal industry.
2257 Industry Statement for Public Comment PeriodBy:
Posted: 9/6/2007
With regard to the proposed rules and regulations for 18 U.S.C.section 2257, the undersigned members of the adult entertainment industry would like to voice our concern.
The proposed rules and regulations in support of 2257 issued on July 12, 2007, will cause considerable burden, both financially and logistically, to the adult entertainment industry. This burden is so onerous that it would force many small companies completely out of business. For those able to stay in business, the proposed 2257 would severely diminish their ability to succeed.
The cost to collect and maintain 2257 records, as suggested by the DOJ in its proposed rules and regulations, is astronomical to businesses in the industry, both large and small. Staffing costs to collect records, assure proper documentation and filing processes, updates and maintenance, including cross-referencing requirements are excessive. For larger businesses this record keeping requires new, well-trained staff of a dozen or more plus supervisory personnel to comply. For smaller businesses, hiring additional staff is not an option. Many of the industry's small businesses are one- to two-person operations with a profit margin so thin that the additional expense of record-keeping staff would make the difference between the business being viable and incurring a net loss; thus, eventually causing the business to close.
Due to the complexity of 2257's regulations and record-keeping requirements, adult businesses require expensive attorney services to assure compliance and mitigate their risk of 2257 violations. Some larger companies have staff attorneys who do nothing but oversee 2257 record-keeping and compliance. Smaller businesses keep attorneys on retainer and pay for their services from time to time to audit their 2257 records for compliance. Some businesses that cannot afford an attorney do their best to comply with their understanding of the law. Attorney fees for 2257 compliance add a great deal of expense to the cost of operation of an adult business, again cutting into these businesses' net profit - often resulting in a net loss and/or eventual closure. All of the aforementioned businesses live with the added stress of this restrictive law potentially imposing prison time for inadvertently misfiled or misplaced records.
Some businesses in the industry are associated with thousands of websites. Some are responsible for literally millions of individual pieces of content. Besides the expense of gathering and maintaining the records, the storage for that quantity of materials is nearly impossible to fathom. Many small adult business owners work out of their homes and do not have the space to store the quantity of records required to comply with 2257. Renting storage space adds additional expense and poses the problem of non-compliance as the records are to be available at the "place of business" when the compliance officer is present.
A number of adult businesses have developed and/or purchased software to facilitate compliance. This has proven to be very costly, especially for small businesses. It does nothing to alleviate the previous problems, and, with the proposed regulations requirement of hard copy records, it may prove futile.
For small businesses, the requirements for the custodian of records are particularly burdensome. As mentioned previously in this statement, many small business owners of adult entertainment companies work out of their homes. Some have full-time jobs outside of the adult entertainment industry. For adult small business owners, the requirement that the custodian of records be present at the place of business 20 hours a week between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. is unrealistic, often impossible.
Business owners who have jobs outside the industry would have to quit those jobs to be present. This means that entrepreneurial start-ups are all but impossible for someone who relies on another income during the start-up phase of their small business.
As discussed previously, profit margins are so thin for these businesses that hiring someone for 20 hours/week to wait for a potential FBI inspection is not an option. Conversely, being in non-compliance is not an option either, resulting in the business owner being left in a Catch-22 situation with grave consequences.
Moreover, business owners who operate their businesses out of their homes are understandably uncomfortable with the idea of FBI agents conducting an inspection in their home, causing undue neighborhood stigma to them and their families when agents appear. Finally, the requirement to post the address for "custodian of records" on content presents an undue burden on small business owners when, as stated, in many cases the location is the owner's residence. This puts the adult business owner and his/her family at potential personal risk.
The proposed requirement that the custodial statement be on every page is excessive and impractical. A reasonable interpretation of HR 4472 would allow a hyperlink on every page rather than the full physical address. The proposed regulation requirement could result in scores or even hundreds of addresses visible on each website page.
The statute is limited to recordings. There is no legal justification for requiring webcam operators to record any part of their performances. The Department has no authority to require persons to engage in behavior that they would ordinarily not do, in order to bring webcam operators within the scope of a statute.
For "secondary producers" (anyone who does not direct-hire talent or hold the camera, actually producing the original content), the proposed regulations are particularly egregious. "Secondary producers" rarely, if ever, come in contact with the performer in the content they are displaying. It is physically impossible for them to "inspect the original ID" of the performers in their content.
Therefore it is literally impossible for secondary producers to comply with the statutory requirement. Secondary producers are reliant on primary producers to ship all documentation to them for record-keeping purposes. They are also reliant on the primary producers for initial compliance, yet they have no ability to know if the primary producer's records are accurate. In this situation, the "secondary producer" is at risk of non-compliance, despite having done everything within his/her ability to comply. As mentioned before, some webmasters have thousands of sites and millions of pieces of content; therefore, the mere shipping of these materials would prove cost-prohibitive, both for primary and secondary producers, not to mention the added staff needed for shipping and receiving.
We urge the Department to make the rules non-retroactive. No image should be required to be compliant unless it was recorded after the effective date of the regulations. How can a "secondary producer" be expected to know what records to acquire and in what condition to maintain them until the rules are final? What if in the rule-making process, the provision allowing edited identification (eliminating unnecessary personal data) is changed? How can a "secondary producer" rely upon and make significant economic decisions about content acquisition without knowing what the rules are?
Even limiting implementation retroactivity to July 27, 2006, would be immensely burdensome to many producers. Producers who in good faith acquired or who will acquire content after July 27, 2006, must now go back and acquire additional documentation or face the loss of that content, resulting in yet another undue financial burden on these businesses.
During the previous public comment period for proposed 2257 regulations, the Free Speech Coalition recommended an alternative to the onerous record-keeping requirements proposed by the current and proposed regulations. In this plan, for-profit, third party keepers of records accredited by the government would keep performer information updated and maintained to government standards. Performers would register with a third party keeper of records, performer records would be kept safe, the government would have access to the records when necessary and the adult businesses would be responsible for listing where the performer's records were on file. This alternative would allow businesses to comply without producing the record-keeping nightmare present with the proposed 2257 regulations and inspection regime.
As we understand it, the purpose of 2257 is to ensure that underage performers are not being used in adult entertainment productions. The adult entertainment industry has no interest in using underage performers in its productions and, to that extent, has no conflict with a law that is designed to monitor performer ages within the industry.
However, the proposed 2257 regulations do nothing more than create an insurmountable bureaucracy, spending millions of dollars of government resources on the problem of underage performers in the adult industry which adult entertainment businesses already screen out. Furthermore, as proposed, 2257 effectively dismantles small business models within the industry as well as seriously compromises the profits of many of the industry's larger businesses. We ask that you consider the burdens addressed in this statement and revise the proposed regulations accordingly in order to avoid devastating a vital, responsible, and legal industry.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Study Shows Women Becoming More Accepting of Porn
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Promoting Intimacy and Positive, Healthy, Consenting Adult Sexuality
12/9/07 UPDATE ON: Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2007
A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2008 through 2011 for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, to enhance measures to combat trafficking in persons, and for other purposes.
My letter faxed to Tom Lantos, its sponsor and others is shown below.
I also have been in e-mail exchanges with Robyn Few founder of SWOP. While we disagree on the street hooker issue, we certainly are in agreement in fighting this law and have had good e-mail discussions and some of my response has gone out on the SWOP mailing lists.
As Robyn pointed out, beyond my issue that in private consenting adult prostitution is included in the trafficking definition so the FEDS can continue to enforce and provide funding for going after sexworkers when there is no force or coercion involved the Amendments also could be argued to include all Internet dialog, website etc that crosses state lines (all do). This is an expansion of the Mann Act. This could be used against even CragsList, all the sexworker boards, even the Private List if it has anyone getting it in another state. Federal crime promoting trafficking (even if consenting adults in private) with up to 20 years in prison
As SWOP said in there press release:" Even the Dept. of Justice is squawking at this one. With limited resources to enforce laws prohibiting coercion and trafficking in women and children as it is, this amendment which will basically affect the medium in which consenting adults communicate gives new meaning to the long arm of the law." .
SWOP also has pointed out that the language should be similar to the California Trafficking Protection Act, which only applies to forced or underage acts.
It is surprising that Tom Lantos is sponsoring this as he has a record in support of individual civil rights, including gay rights.
Reporting on a SWOP press conference in the front of Latos's office in CA, Robyn says: "I agree that Lantos is not the enemy. SWOP did not attack him but we did say that we did not agree with amendments to the Mann Act and that we want the trafficking definition to be the same as in the California Trafficking Protection Act. I talked about creating more felons from the sex industry and keeping commercial prostitution a states rights issue. Maxine and Lisa went up and spoke with his aide and she was very cordial and took notes. Max asked if they could testify in Congress. We had planned on doing this at the federal building but decided to go to Lantos because he is the sponsor.
THE RESULT (SADLY):
Dec 4, 2007: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The vote was held under a suspension of the rules to cut debate short and pass the bill, needing a two-thirds majority. The totals were 405 Ayes, 2 Nays, 24 Present/Not Voting.
There is a companion bill in the Senate which I suspect will get approved quickly with overwhelming support. I wonder how many Congresspeople realize that "trafficking" is not limited under the law to forced or coerced like most people think of when they hear all the overblown hype about "trafficking".
All these trafficked people that are forced, it seems are almost no where to be found according to the government data which shows the huge numbers quoted for the original 2000 Act justification can't be found. But it gives local LE as well as the Feds more ammo and excuses to go after in private consenting adults since they are committing Federal Crimes under the Act.
Oh Canada! And most of the rest of the world that respects private sexual rights and in private consenting adult sexwork choices.
More info from e-mail to Dave from an informed person:
Dear David:
Norman did his thing this afternoon and he found that the trafficking bill HR 3887 has already passed the House and is in the Senate Judiciary Committee where Senator Schumer is a member. I contacted his office but no answers so far. I have a hunch it is a done deal and the Senate will just rubber stamp it and it will become law in March 2008.
Norman found the rhetoric given by various people to the House to encourage passage. I sent the text to you already and it contains a passage where Carolyn Maloney discusses .... as a villain. I take note that she has toned down her words from previous years but the implications are still obvious. While she is on the floor of the House she can say anything she wants too as the truth can take a holiday. Last year on cable TV she said words that should cost her dearly someday.
As you can see from the text of the Congressional Record the rhetoric is very strong and very determined to wipe out all forms of sex between men and women, There is no room for consensual or compromise. I still need to see if I can get to Jerry Nadler (Representative of the 8th District of New York) ,and his staff. Maybe we can effect a change.
On to the Senate and then to Bush who will obviously sign it into law
Highlights of e-mail 12/9/07:
Dear Dave..
...I e-mailed Sen. Chuck Schumer, a member of the Judiciary Committee now considering the trafficking bill. I raised seven objections: jurisdiction, vague language, the mischaracterization of consensual conduct as trafficking, the misplaced emphasis on sex when sweatshop abuses are far more prevalent, the ulterior motives of proponents as way beyond human rights, the harmful effects of moralism on our foreign relations, and law enforcement abuses and absurdities.
I pointed out that the State Department's anti-trafficking office has flunked the last two GAO audits on its statistics gathering, that President Bush has used these anti-sex campaigns as a sop to the Christian Right to divert attention from his embrace of the business sector engaged in very un-Christian greed and con games,...
Congressional Record Brief Highlights of Carolyn Maloney testimony
...although we passed the constitutional amendment against slavery in 1865, slavery still exists, not just in the world, but in the United States of America...A young woman, who couldn't even use her real name in the committee, told about the trafficking of human beings inside of America, in the City of Detroit, where this club was using her to commit all kinds of acts and raise huge amounts of money at the same time. As one of the television shows on NBC showed yesterday morning, guess what? There is more money being taken out of prostitution in America than in the drug industry. Drugs come number two to prostitution and involuntary servitude.
(Dave notes this was the Cheetahs strip club in Detroit where it seems forced to work by organized crime. This is about kidnapping not prostitution! Yes go after forced prostitution but the Act makes promoting all prostitution a Federal Crime)
... This is what brings all of us to the floor today. I am very proud of these two committees in the House that are dealing with new enforcement tools to combat modern-day slavery, whether the exploitation is by unscrupulous labor recruiters, by diplomats who abuse their services, or by brutal street pimps who coerce and keep under their domain these women, young women, at that.
... And the crime entitled ``sex trafficking'' improves the Mann Act to allow prosecution of pimps whose activities affect interstate commerce, not just those who actually cross a State line.
...This bill is named in honor of William Wilberforce, the famous English antislavery legislator of the Nineteenth Century.
The Congressional Record goes on and on with more speakers about the slavery nature of human trafficking related to prostitution in the U.S. and abroad.
There is no discussion or acknowledgement that their could be consensual freely chosen prostitution - just the horrors of slavery and forced prostitution.
I support laws against forced prostitution, aka kidnapping which is already a Federal Felony. But the Act in its definition of trafficking includes all prostitution with a 20 year prison term. If "forced" its extreme trafficking with up to 40 year in prison. The law should only cover "forced" as probably most in Congress think it does, who haven't read the definitions in the original 2000 Act this rereauthorizes and funds for 3 more years.
Update 12/3/07
IMPORTANT Opportunity to Change Federal Law
(see earlier articles below for background)
Trying to get a message to California Rep Tom Lantos the Sponsor
I attempted to send this response to Tom Lantos via is reply on his website. But it is rejected since I don't have a CA zipcode!
I have faxed the following to his DC office and encourage others to express their views:
On Liberated Christians Letterhead on 12/3/07
Memo to: The Honorable Tom Lantos
FAX: 202-226-4183 & 650-375-8270
Re: H.R. 3887: William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2007
Since this Act doesn't change the definition of the original 2000 Act, do you realize that the definition of trafficking includes all prostitution including consenting, in private, adult prostitution? This is legal in almost all the world except the U.S. (at least outcall).
In the original 2000 Act the definition of "severe trafficking" is "forced". But “trafficking” includes consensual adults. HR 3887 mostly enforces "trafficking" with it’s help and study of for non existent victims (of adult consensual) included in “trafficking”. It would seem to not help at all victims of "severe trafficking" because it only says “trafficking” (consensual) (Dave notes re reading this a few days later it is confusing and since trafficking includes both consensual and forced I could have worded this better)
Reference
Definitions (refers back to the definitions in the original section 103(9) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102(9)) which says:
SEX TRAFFICKER.—The term ‘‘sex trafficker’’ means any person who, for financial gain, recruits, harbors, transports, provides, or obtains a person for the purpose of using them for unlawful commercial sex acts.
SEVERE FORMS OF TRAFFICKING - "Severe" means if by force, fraud or coercion.
The solution is easy. Amend the definition in the 2000 Act of trafficking and make it the definition contained in severe trafficking which is forced. The you can delete everywhere the word "severe" since that is the only form of trafficking, Result is no money wasted on Federal enforcement of consensual adult prostitution.
Taxpayers in many polls do not want their tax dollars going toward arresting in private consenting adult sex acts. Further it may be unconstitutional under the Lawrence vs. Texas Supreme Court case.
Since you are so strong on other civil liberties issues, especially the rights for gays etc I don't see how you support Federal enforcement of private consenting adult sex acts.
It is a huge waste of public resource, police, federal agents, the courts and prosecutors to go after in private consenting adult prostitution vs. real criminals committing crimes that have real victims. The vast majority of prostitution is not exploitive. Yes, forced trafficking as with the 2007 Rhode Island law should be illegal and use public resources to fight trafficking that has real victims, not consenting private adult prostitution that is included in the current Trafficking Act that is trying to be reauthorized.
I have prepared much more research and arguments against the Act related to changes needed in the 2000 Act and various other points at http://sexwork.com/legal/Fedlaw.html
While I am not in California I have been an active national consenting adult sexual rights advocate for decades and you are the sponsor of this bill
Dave in Phoenix
Promoting Intimacy and Positive adult sexuality
www.sexwork.com
www.lovetouch.com
www.sexworkcanada.com (with the freedoms we lack)
www.libchrist.com - no issue biblically with "common" consenting adult prostitution - not the temple prostitutes worshiping the fertility gods - idolatry the sin not prostitution
Co-sponsors:
Dave notes I encourage folks to send letters, e-mails or copy this to the other co-sponsors which I at least can't e-mail since most have sites that reject out of state e-mails: Over the next few days I will try and send similar e-mails to their fax numbers. But hearing from more than just me - not even in their state- is more effective but can use my letter above if you wish or just support it by quoting it to them.
Fax phones are easy to find at
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt
See Congressional Directory and select letter of last name to narrow it down or use their name. I am sending both to their DC office and local office. They also list phone numbers if any one wants to call them and talk to staff.
Rep. Howard Berman [D-CA]
Rep. Dan Burton [R-IN]
Rep. Steven Chabot [R-OH]
Rep. John Conyers [D-MI]
Rep. Thelma Drake [R-VA]
Rep. Jeffrey Fortenberry [R-NE]
Rep. Alcee Hastings [D-FL]
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX]
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D-CA]
Rep. Carolyn Maloney [D-NY]
Rep. George Miller [D-CA]
Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D-NY]
Rep. Donald Payne [D-NJ]
Rep. Joseph Pitts [R-PA]
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R-FL]
Rep. Albio Sires [D-NJ]
Rep. Christopher Smith [R-NJ]
Rep. Hilda Solis [D-CA]
Rep. Frank Wolf [R-VA]
In addition and would be useful to send to your local representative and Senator Address and faxes at on site listed above.
If the bill passes the House, then we have to communicate more with the Senate sponsors. But there may not be much time. There is a companion Senate bill but the House PROBABLY has to pass first since its a spending not a revenue bill.
Civics lesson:
In accordance with the Constitution, the Senate cannot originate revenue measures. By tradition, the House also originates general appropriation bills. If the Senate does originate a revenue measure either as a Senate bill or an amendment to a non-revenue House bill, it can be returned to the Senate by a vote of the House as an infringement of the constitutional prerogative of the House.
Dave notes:
I doubt that very many in Congress even realize the two definitions. I bet if they realized it uses Fed funds for private consenting adult sexwork that it would have the support.
But again, I bet few realize this difference since "trafficking" sounds so bad and implies forced but that is not the definition in the Act which includes consenting.
IMPORTANT Opportunity to Change Federal Law
Under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102(9)) that was reauthorized in 2005 but for which funding expires after 2007 the DEFINITION of trafficker includes ALL prostitution not just forced!
Funding expires at the end of 2007. The Act is up for reauthorizaation now under the current Anti-Human Trafficking Bill which many in Congress are trying to get passed by the end of the year.
If it was forced it was "Severe Forms" with higher penalties. But aiding consenting private adult prostitution like Aussie Amber's husband was charged with for setting up appointments for her results in 20 years in prison even if not forced, but consenting. To me the most important thing is to get the definition changed to forced like Rhode Island did in June 2007
I have extensive info on the 2005 Reauthorization Act at http://www.sexwork.com/coalition/Federallaw2005.html
The details of the Rhode Island new law where trafficking only includes forced into prostitution is at http://www.sexwork.com/legal/RhodeIsland.html
Here is the definition problem from the Trafficking Victims Protection Act
Definitions (refers back to the definitions in the original section 103(9) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102(9)) which says:
SEX TRAFFICKER.—The term ‘‘sex trafficker’’ means any person who, for financial gain, recruits, harbors, transports, provides, or obtains a person for the purpose of using them for unlawful commercial sex acts.
SEVERE FORMS OF TRAFFICKING - "Severe" means if by force, fraud or coercion.
But non "severe" trafficking does not require any coercion, i.e. consenting adult sexworkers.
The sex trafficker definition includes the massage parlor owner the escort agency owner regardless if its consenting private adult sexwork that is not the exploitative relationship the world "sex trafficker" implies.
Aussie Amber's husband was charged with this just for helping wife answer phones and set up appointments when touring the U.S. My discussion of the law and Aussie Amber is at
http://www.sexwork.com/legal/TraffickingLaw.html
Consensual in private sexwork as a choice is legal (at least outcall) in almost all the world except the U.S. It is a choice for example of millions of college educated women who choose private consenting adult private sexwork. See http://www.sexwork.com/coalition/whatcountrieslegal.html
What's more the law against private consenting adult sexuality may be unconstitutional under Lawrence vs Texas -see http://www.sexwork.com/legal/LawrencevsTexas.html The Supreme Court said laws can not be based on religious morality nor take away the sexual freedoms of consenting adults in their private place (which is what outcall prostitution is)
This issue is far more important than the Mann Act changes, which we should also fight!
It is a huge waste of public resource, police, federal agents, the courts and prosecutors to go after in private consenting adult prostitution vs real criminals committing crimes that have real victims. The vast majority of prostitution is not exploitive. Yes forced trafficking as the new Rhode Island law should be illegal and use public resources to fight trafficking that has real victims, not consenting private adult prostitution that is included in the current Trafficking Act that is trying to be reauthorized.
Prostitution between consenting adults is not trafficking and it is not slavery no matter how much the religious groups and anti-sex feminists have sensationalized and lied about it. Even in biblical times "common" prostitution was never wrong - see http://www.sexwork.com/coalition/christian.html
As one escorts signature line says:
Happy escorts make happy clients.
Happy clients make a happy business.
A happy business makes a happy life.
A happy life is a good life.
---
As Ivy says what she enjoys the most of escorting (outcall prostitution);
Re: The Top Things I Like About Escorting
November 26, 2007, 12:25:03 AM »
I like a variety of things.
1. The freedom. Freedom in several ways. The freedom of having my own money. Being able to choose who to see. Being able to set my own hours. The freedom to explore sexuality. Hmm, perhaps I should elaborate more about freedom in a future column. I feel inspired!
2. Meeting new people. In spite of my shyness, I'm a people person.
3. Having to be the aggressor at times with newbies who are also shy has lowered my shyness. I used to be very shy, almost painfully. I like that it has greatly dissipated.
4. The money. That is given. However, I'm able to make money doing something I enjoy. Not all people can say that.
5. Helping people. Granted, satisfying a person's sexual needs is helpful. But, at times, some people also like being able to talk. Someone to just listen to them, and what not. I love it when not only sexual needs are met, but other need has been fulfilled, to some degree.
===============================================
Anti-Human Trafficking Bill Would Send FBI Agents on Trail of Pimps
Washington Post November 29, 2007; A05
Local vice police officers, who for decades have led the law-enforcement crackdown on prostitution, could soon have unwilling partners: FBI agents.
The Justice Department is fighting legislation that would expand federal law to cover prostitution cases, saying that the move would divert agents from human trafficking crimes. Although local police still would handle the vast majority of cases, Justice officials said the law's passage would force them to bring cases in federal courts as well.
Some anti-trafficking activists and members of Congress say the federal government should be involved in policing prostitution. Prostitution is a social evil, they say, and increased law enforcement can only help the campaign against it. "It's mind-boggling that the Justice Department would be fighting" the bill, said Dorchen Leidholdt, a founding board member of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, an activist group pushing the change. "They have the power to pick and choose the cases they want to prosecute. They don't have to prosecute local pimps if they don't want to."
The new provision is part of a bill reauthorizing the federal human trafficking statute, which passed Congress in 2000 and helped trigger a worldwide fight against what many consider modern-day slavery. The House Foreign Affairs Committee this month approved the legislation, which has bipartisan support and is expected to be taken up by the full House next week. Its prospects in the Senate are unclear.
The battle against trafficking is a major priority for the Bush administration, which is attacking it with 10 federal agencies reporting to a Cabinet-level task force chaired by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. But there has been heated debate, even among the dozens of organizations fighting trafficking in the United States, over whether prostitutes should be considered trafficking victims.
Federal officials define trafficking as holding someone in a workplace through force, fraud or coercion, elements that are required to prove a trafficking case under federal law, other than in cases involving minors. Trafficking generally takes two forms, forced sex or labor. But some activists argue that all prostitutes, even those not forced to turn tricks, should be defined as trafficking victims and their pimps subject to federal prosecution. (Dave notes READ THE 2000 ACT that has been reauthorized in 2005 - It does just this)
The debate over the bill comes amid broader questions over how many victims are trafficked into the United States. The government estimated in 1999 that about 50,000 slaves were arriving in the country every year. That estimate was revised downward in 2004 to 14,500 to 17,500 a year. Yet since 2000, and despite 42 Justice Department task forces and more than $150 million in federal dollars to find them, about 1,400 people have been certified as human trafficking victims in this country, a tiny fraction of the original estimates. The House legislation cites the government's current estimate of up to 17,500 victims a year, but the Justice Department, in a Nov. 9 letter to congressional leaders, "questions the reliability" of the numbers. "Such findings, without a full body of evidence, are counter-productive," the letter says.
The letter also expresses opposition to the provision that Justice officials said would expand federal jurisdiction to cover prostitution offenses, which the department calls unnecessary and "a diversion from Federal law enforcement's core anti-trafficking mission." A senior Justice official, who was not authorized to speak for the record, reiterated the department's opposition yesterday. "Prostitution is abhorrent, but state and local law enforcement officials already do an excellent job fighting it," he said.
Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) said yesterday that she strongly supports the bill. "We want to crack down on sex trafficking, and DOJ can allocate its resources to go after the most serious cases," she said. But Jack McDevitt, an associate dean in Northeastern University's College of Criminal Justice, who has studied local law enforcement's response to trafficking, said the Justice Department's concerns are warranted.
"Cases in local prostitution and pimping are better handled by local law enforcement, which have the contacts in the community and are going to find more intelligence about these crimes," he said. "Every major police department in the United States has had a vice unit for the past 50 years."
===============================================
Draft of suggested letter to your Congress person and others
Re: Anti-Human Trafficking Bill
Summary
While I totally support strong laws against coerced human trafficking in prostitution I am appalled that the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 which this Bill seeks to reauthorize (as did the 2005 Reauthorization Act for 2 years) includes in its definition of trafficking, in private consenting adult prostitution. This is a huge waste of public resources to go after what is legal in almost all the world except the U.S., consenting adult private prostitution.
Taxpayers in many polls do not want their tax dollars going toward arresting in private consenting adult sex acts. Further it may be unconstitutional under the Lawrence vs. Texas Supreme Court case.
Unless the current Bill changes the definition of trafficking from the original 2000 Act, only "severe trafficking" is coerced.
Definitions (refers back to the definitions in the original section 103(9) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102(9)) which says:
SEX TRAFFICKER.—The term ‘‘sex trafficker’’ means any person who, for financial gain, recruits, harbors, transports, provides, or obtains a person for the purpose of using them for unlawful commercial sex acts.
SEVERE FORMS OF TRAFFICKING - "Severe" means if by force, fraud or coercion.
Therefore consenting adult private prostitution is covered with penalties up to 20 years in prison vs harsher penalties if "severe"
This is outrageous for the millions of adult sexworkers that freely choose private prostitution as a career in forms that are legal in almost all the world except the U.S. We are denied the sexual freedoms that most of the world enjoys. Hopefully you will oppose this act or be sure the definitions are rewritten to only oppose forced or coerced prostitution.
Extensive background and discussion
(I would include all the points from above before the Washington Post article, if some staffer wants to really understand the background and what we are talking about).
http://www.sexwork.com/legal/Fedlaw.html
A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2008 through 2011 for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, to enhance measures to combat trafficking in persons, and for other purposes.
My letter faxed to Tom Lantos, its sponsor and others is shown below.
I also have been in e-mail exchanges with Robyn Few founder of SWOP. While we disagree on the street hooker issue, we certainly are in agreement in fighting this law and have had good e-mail discussions and some of my response has gone out on the SWOP mailing lists.
As Robyn pointed out, beyond my issue that in private consenting adult prostitution is included in the trafficking definition so the FEDS can continue to enforce and provide funding for going after sexworkers when there is no force or coercion involved the Amendments also could be argued to include all Internet dialog, website etc that crosses state lines (all do). This is an expansion of the Mann Act. This could be used against even CragsList, all the sexworker boards, even the Private List if it has anyone getting it in another state. Federal crime promoting trafficking (even if consenting adults in private) with up to 20 years in prison
As SWOP said in there press release:" Even the Dept. of Justice is squawking at this one. With limited resources to enforce laws prohibiting coercion and trafficking in women and children as it is, this amendment which will basically affect the medium in which consenting adults communicate gives new meaning to the long arm of the law." .
SWOP also has pointed out that the language should be similar to the California Trafficking Protection Act, which only applies to forced or underage acts.
It is surprising that Tom Lantos is sponsoring this as he has a record in support of individual civil rights, including gay rights.
Reporting on a SWOP press conference in the front of Latos's office in CA, Robyn says: "I agree that Lantos is not the enemy. SWOP did not attack him but we did say that we did not agree with amendments to the Mann Act and that we want the trafficking definition to be the same as in the California Trafficking Protection Act. I talked about creating more felons from the sex industry and keeping commercial prostitution a states rights issue. Maxine and Lisa went up and spoke with his aide and she was very cordial and took notes. Max asked if they could testify in Congress. We had planned on doing this at the federal building but decided to go to Lantos because he is the sponsor.
THE RESULT (SADLY):
Dec 4, 2007: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The vote was held under a suspension of the rules to cut debate short and pass the bill, needing a two-thirds majority. The totals were 405 Ayes, 2 Nays, 24 Present/Not Voting.
There is a companion bill in the Senate which I suspect will get approved quickly with overwhelming support. I wonder how many Congresspeople realize that "trafficking" is not limited under the law to forced or coerced like most people think of when they hear all the overblown hype about "trafficking".
All these trafficked people that are forced, it seems are almost no where to be found according to the government data which shows the huge numbers quoted for the original 2000 Act justification can't be found. But it gives local LE as well as the Feds more ammo and excuses to go after in private consenting adults since they are committing Federal Crimes under the Act.
Oh Canada! And most of the rest of the world that respects private sexual rights and in private consenting adult sexwork choices.
More info from e-mail to Dave from an informed person:
Dear David:
Norman did his thing this afternoon and he found that the trafficking bill HR 3887 has already passed the House and is in the Senate Judiciary Committee where Senator Schumer is a member. I contacted his office but no answers so far. I have a hunch it is a done deal and the Senate will just rubber stamp it and it will become law in March 2008.
Norman found the rhetoric given by various people to the House to encourage passage. I sent the text to you already and it contains a passage where Carolyn Maloney discusses .... as a villain. I take note that she has toned down her words from previous years but the implications are still obvious. While she is on the floor of the House she can say anything she wants too as the truth can take a holiday. Last year on cable TV she said words that should cost her dearly someday.
As you can see from the text of the Congressional Record the rhetoric is very strong and very determined to wipe out all forms of sex between men and women, There is no room for consensual or compromise. I still need to see if I can get to Jerry Nadler (Representative of the 8th District of New York) ,and his staff. Maybe we can effect a change.
On to the Senate and then to Bush who will obviously sign it into law
Highlights of e-mail 12/9/07:
Dear Dave..
...I e-mailed Sen. Chuck Schumer, a member of the Judiciary Committee now considering the trafficking bill. I raised seven objections: jurisdiction, vague language, the mischaracterization of consensual conduct as trafficking, the misplaced emphasis on sex when sweatshop abuses are far more prevalent, the ulterior motives of proponents as way beyond human rights, the harmful effects of moralism on our foreign relations, and law enforcement abuses and absurdities.
I pointed out that the State Department's anti-trafficking office has flunked the last two GAO audits on its statistics gathering, that President Bush has used these anti-sex campaigns as a sop to the Christian Right to divert attention from his embrace of the business sector engaged in very un-Christian greed and con games,...
Congressional Record Brief Highlights of Carolyn Maloney testimony
...although we passed the constitutional amendment against slavery in 1865, slavery still exists, not just in the world, but in the United States of America...A young woman, who couldn't even use her real name in the committee, told about the trafficking of human beings inside of America, in the City of Detroit, where this club was using her to commit all kinds of acts and raise huge amounts of money at the same time. As one of the television shows on NBC showed yesterday morning, guess what? There is more money being taken out of prostitution in America than in the drug industry. Drugs come number two to prostitution and involuntary servitude.
(Dave notes this was the Cheetahs strip club in Detroit where it seems forced to work by organized crime. This is about kidnapping not prostitution! Yes go after forced prostitution but the Act makes promoting all prostitution a Federal Crime)
... This is what brings all of us to the floor today. I am very proud of these two committees in the House that are dealing with new enforcement tools to combat modern-day slavery, whether the exploitation is by unscrupulous labor recruiters, by diplomats who abuse their services, or by brutal street pimps who coerce and keep under their domain these women, young women, at that.
... And the crime entitled ``sex trafficking'' improves the Mann Act to allow prosecution of pimps whose activities affect interstate commerce, not just those who actually cross a State line.
...This bill is named in honor of William Wilberforce, the famous English antislavery legislator of the Nineteenth Century.
The Congressional Record goes on and on with more speakers about the slavery nature of human trafficking related to prostitution in the U.S. and abroad.
There is no discussion or acknowledgement that their could be consensual freely chosen prostitution - just the horrors of slavery and forced prostitution.
I support laws against forced prostitution, aka kidnapping which is already a Federal Felony. But the Act in its definition of trafficking includes all prostitution with a 20 year prison term. If "forced" its extreme trafficking with up to 40 year in prison. The law should only cover "forced" as probably most in Congress think it does, who haven't read the definitions in the original 2000 Act this rereauthorizes and funds for 3 more years.
Update 12/3/07
IMPORTANT Opportunity to Change Federal Law
(see earlier articles below for background)
Trying to get a message to California Rep Tom Lantos the Sponsor
I attempted to send this response to Tom Lantos via is reply on his website. But it is rejected since I don't have a CA zipcode!
I have faxed the following to his DC office and encourage others to express their views:
On Liberated Christians Letterhead on 12/3/07
Memo to: The Honorable Tom Lantos
FAX: 202-226-4183 & 650-375-8270
Re: H.R. 3887: William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2007
Since this Act doesn't change the definition of the original 2000 Act, do you realize that the definition of trafficking includes all prostitution including consenting, in private, adult prostitution? This is legal in almost all the world except the U.S. (at least outcall).
In the original 2000 Act the definition of "severe trafficking" is "forced". But “trafficking” includes consensual adults. HR 3887 mostly enforces "trafficking" with it’s help and study of for non existent victims (of adult consensual) included in “trafficking”. It would seem to not help at all victims of "severe trafficking" because it only says “trafficking” (consensual) (Dave notes re reading this a few days later it is confusing and since trafficking includes both consensual and forced I could have worded this better)
Reference
Definitions (refers back to the definitions in the original section 103(9) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102(9)) which says:
SEX TRAFFICKER.—The term ‘‘sex trafficker’’ means any person who, for financial gain, recruits, harbors, transports, provides, or obtains a person for the purpose of using them for unlawful commercial sex acts.
SEVERE FORMS OF TRAFFICKING - "Severe" means if by force, fraud or coercion.
The solution is easy. Amend the definition in the 2000 Act of trafficking and make it the definition contained in severe trafficking which is forced. The you can delete everywhere the word "severe" since that is the only form of trafficking, Result is no money wasted on Federal enforcement of consensual adult prostitution.
Taxpayers in many polls do not want their tax dollars going toward arresting in private consenting adult sex acts. Further it may be unconstitutional under the Lawrence vs. Texas Supreme Court case.
Since you are so strong on other civil liberties issues, especially the rights for gays etc I don't see how you support Federal enforcement of private consenting adult sex acts.
It is a huge waste of public resource, police, federal agents, the courts and prosecutors to go after in private consenting adult prostitution vs. real criminals committing crimes that have real victims. The vast majority of prostitution is not exploitive. Yes, forced trafficking as with the 2007 Rhode Island law should be illegal and use public resources to fight trafficking that has real victims, not consenting private adult prostitution that is included in the current Trafficking Act that is trying to be reauthorized.
I have prepared much more research and arguments against the Act related to changes needed in the 2000 Act and various other points at http://sexwork.com/legal/Fedlaw.html
While I am not in California I have been an active national consenting adult sexual rights advocate for decades and you are the sponsor of this bill
Dave in Phoenix
Promoting Intimacy and Positive adult sexuality
www.sexwork.com
www.lovetouch.com
www.sexworkcanada.com (with the freedoms we lack)
www.libchrist.com - no issue biblically with "common" consenting adult prostitution - not the temple prostitutes worshiping the fertility gods - idolatry the sin not prostitution
Co-sponsors:
Dave notes I encourage folks to send letters, e-mails or copy this to the other co-sponsors which I at least can't e-mail since most have sites that reject out of state e-mails: Over the next few days I will try and send similar e-mails to their fax numbers. But hearing from more than just me - not even in their state- is more effective but can use my letter above if you wish or just support it by quoting it to them.
Fax phones are easy to find at
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt
See Congressional Directory and select letter of last name to narrow it down or use their name. I am sending both to their DC office and local office. They also list phone numbers if any one wants to call them and talk to staff.
Rep. Howard Berman [D-CA]
Rep. Dan Burton [R-IN]
Rep. Steven Chabot [R-OH]
Rep. John Conyers [D-MI]
Rep. Thelma Drake [R-VA]
Rep. Jeffrey Fortenberry [R-NE]
Rep. Alcee Hastings [D-FL]
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX]
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D-CA]
Rep. Carolyn Maloney [D-NY]
Rep. George Miller [D-CA]
Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D-NY]
Rep. Donald Payne [D-NJ]
Rep. Joseph Pitts [R-PA]
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R-FL]
Rep. Albio Sires [D-NJ]
Rep. Christopher Smith [R-NJ]
Rep. Hilda Solis [D-CA]
Rep. Frank Wolf [R-VA]
In addition and would be useful to send to your local representative and Senator Address and faxes at on site listed above.
If the bill passes the House, then we have to communicate more with the Senate sponsors. But there may not be much time. There is a companion Senate bill but the House PROBABLY has to pass first since its a spending not a revenue bill.
Civics lesson:
In accordance with the Constitution, the Senate cannot originate revenue measures. By tradition, the House also originates general appropriation bills. If the Senate does originate a revenue measure either as a Senate bill or an amendment to a non-revenue House bill, it can be returned to the Senate by a vote of the House as an infringement of the constitutional prerogative of the House.
Dave notes:
I doubt that very many in Congress even realize the two definitions. I bet if they realized it uses Fed funds for private consenting adult sexwork that it would have the support.
But again, I bet few realize this difference since "trafficking" sounds so bad and implies forced but that is not the definition in the Act which includes consenting.
IMPORTANT Opportunity to Change Federal Law
Under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102(9)) that was reauthorized in 2005 but for which funding expires after 2007 the DEFINITION of trafficker includes ALL prostitution not just forced!
Funding expires at the end of 2007. The Act is up for reauthorizaation now under the current Anti-Human Trafficking Bill which many in Congress are trying to get passed by the end of the year.
If it was forced it was "Severe Forms" with higher penalties. But aiding consenting private adult prostitution like Aussie Amber's husband was charged with for setting up appointments for her results in 20 years in prison even if not forced, but consenting. To me the most important thing is to get the definition changed to forced like Rhode Island did in June 2007
I have extensive info on the 2005 Reauthorization Act at http://www.sexwork.com/coalition/Federallaw2005.html
The details of the Rhode Island new law where trafficking only includes forced into prostitution is at http://www.sexwork.com/legal/RhodeIsland.html
Here is the definition problem from the Trafficking Victims Protection Act
Definitions (refers back to the definitions in the original section 103(9) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102(9)) which says:
SEX TRAFFICKER.—The term ‘‘sex trafficker’’ means any person who, for financial gain, recruits, harbors, transports, provides, or obtains a person for the purpose of using them for unlawful commercial sex acts.
SEVERE FORMS OF TRAFFICKING - "Severe" means if by force, fraud or coercion.
But non "severe" trafficking does not require any coercion, i.e. consenting adult sexworkers.
The sex trafficker definition includes the massage parlor owner the escort agency owner regardless if its consenting private adult sexwork that is not the exploitative relationship the world "sex trafficker" implies.
Aussie Amber's husband was charged with this just for helping wife answer phones and set up appointments when touring the U.S. My discussion of the law and Aussie Amber is at
http://www.sexwork.com/legal/TraffickingLaw.html
Consensual in private sexwork as a choice is legal (at least outcall) in almost all the world except the U.S. It is a choice for example of millions of college educated women who choose private consenting adult private sexwork. See http://www.sexwork.com/coalition/whatcountrieslegal.html
What's more the law against private consenting adult sexuality may be unconstitutional under Lawrence vs Texas -see http://www.sexwork.com/legal/LawrencevsTexas.html The Supreme Court said laws can not be based on religious morality nor take away the sexual freedoms of consenting adults in their private place (which is what outcall prostitution is)
This issue is far more important than the Mann Act changes, which we should also fight!
It is a huge waste of public resource, police, federal agents, the courts and prosecutors to go after in private consenting adult prostitution vs real criminals committing crimes that have real victims. The vast majority of prostitution is not exploitive. Yes forced trafficking as the new Rhode Island law should be illegal and use public resources to fight trafficking that has real victims, not consenting private adult prostitution that is included in the current Trafficking Act that is trying to be reauthorized.
Prostitution between consenting adults is not trafficking and it is not slavery no matter how much the religious groups and anti-sex feminists have sensationalized and lied about it. Even in biblical times "common" prostitution was never wrong - see http://www.sexwork.com/coalition/christian.html
As one escorts signature line says:
Happy escorts make happy clients.
Happy clients make a happy business.
A happy business makes a happy life.
A happy life is a good life.
---
As Ivy says what she enjoys the most of escorting (outcall prostitution);
Re: The Top Things I Like About Escorting
November 26, 2007, 12:25:03 AM »
I like a variety of things.
1. The freedom. Freedom in several ways. The freedom of having my own money. Being able to choose who to see. Being able to set my own hours. The freedom to explore sexuality. Hmm, perhaps I should elaborate more about freedom in a future column. I feel inspired!
2. Meeting new people. In spite of my shyness, I'm a people person.
3. Having to be the aggressor at times with newbies who are also shy has lowered my shyness. I used to be very shy, almost painfully. I like that it has greatly dissipated.
4. The money. That is given. However, I'm able to make money doing something I enjoy. Not all people can say that.
5. Helping people. Granted, satisfying a person's sexual needs is helpful. But, at times, some people also like being able to talk. Someone to just listen to them, and what not. I love it when not only sexual needs are met, but other need has been fulfilled, to some degree.
===============================================
Anti-Human Trafficking Bill Would Send FBI Agents on Trail of Pimps
Washington Post November 29, 2007; A05
Local vice police officers, who for decades have led the law-enforcement crackdown on prostitution, could soon have unwilling partners: FBI agents.
The Justice Department is fighting legislation that would expand federal law to cover prostitution cases, saying that the move would divert agents from human trafficking crimes. Although local police still would handle the vast majority of cases, Justice officials said the law's passage would force them to bring cases in federal courts as well.
Some anti-trafficking activists and members of Congress say the federal government should be involved in policing prostitution. Prostitution is a social evil, they say, and increased law enforcement can only help the campaign against it. "It's mind-boggling that the Justice Department would be fighting" the bill, said Dorchen Leidholdt, a founding board member of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, an activist group pushing the change. "They have the power to pick and choose the cases they want to prosecute. They don't have to prosecute local pimps if they don't want to."
The new provision is part of a bill reauthorizing the federal human trafficking statute, which passed Congress in 2000 and helped trigger a worldwide fight against what many consider modern-day slavery. The House Foreign Affairs Committee this month approved the legislation, which has bipartisan support and is expected to be taken up by the full House next week. Its prospects in the Senate are unclear.
The battle against trafficking is a major priority for the Bush administration, which is attacking it with 10 federal agencies reporting to a Cabinet-level task force chaired by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. But there has been heated debate, even among the dozens of organizations fighting trafficking in the United States, over whether prostitutes should be considered trafficking victims.
Federal officials define trafficking as holding someone in a workplace through force, fraud or coercion, elements that are required to prove a trafficking case under federal law, other than in cases involving minors. Trafficking generally takes two forms, forced sex or labor. But some activists argue that all prostitutes, even those not forced to turn tricks, should be defined as trafficking victims and their pimps subject to federal prosecution. (Dave notes READ THE 2000 ACT that has been reauthorized in 2005 - It does just this)
The debate over the bill comes amid broader questions over how many victims are trafficked into the United States. The government estimated in 1999 that about 50,000 slaves were arriving in the country every year. That estimate was revised downward in 2004 to 14,500 to 17,500 a year. Yet since 2000, and despite 42 Justice Department task forces and more than $150 million in federal dollars to find them, about 1,400 people have been certified as human trafficking victims in this country, a tiny fraction of the original estimates. The House legislation cites the government's current estimate of up to 17,500 victims a year, but the Justice Department, in a Nov. 9 letter to congressional leaders, "questions the reliability" of the numbers. "Such findings, without a full body of evidence, are counter-productive," the letter says.
The letter also expresses opposition to the provision that Justice officials said would expand federal jurisdiction to cover prostitution offenses, which the department calls unnecessary and "a diversion from Federal law enforcement's core anti-trafficking mission." A senior Justice official, who was not authorized to speak for the record, reiterated the department's opposition yesterday. "Prostitution is abhorrent, but state and local law enforcement officials already do an excellent job fighting it," he said.
Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) said yesterday that she strongly supports the bill. "We want to crack down on sex trafficking, and DOJ can allocate its resources to go after the most serious cases," she said. But Jack McDevitt, an associate dean in Northeastern University's College of Criminal Justice, who has studied local law enforcement's response to trafficking, said the Justice Department's concerns are warranted.
"Cases in local prostitution and pimping are better handled by local law enforcement, which have the contacts in the community and are going to find more intelligence about these crimes," he said. "Every major police department in the United States has had a vice unit for the past 50 years."
===============================================
Draft of suggested letter to your Congress person and others
Re: Anti-Human Trafficking Bill
Summary
While I totally support strong laws against coerced human trafficking in prostitution I am appalled that the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 which this Bill seeks to reauthorize (as did the 2005 Reauthorization Act for 2 years) includes in its definition of trafficking, in private consenting adult prostitution. This is a huge waste of public resources to go after what is legal in almost all the world except the U.S., consenting adult private prostitution.
Taxpayers in many polls do not want their tax dollars going toward arresting in private consenting adult sex acts. Further it may be unconstitutional under the Lawrence vs. Texas Supreme Court case.
Unless the current Bill changes the definition of trafficking from the original 2000 Act, only "severe trafficking" is coerced.
Definitions (refers back to the definitions in the original section 103(9) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102(9)) which says:
SEX TRAFFICKER.—The term ‘‘sex trafficker’’ means any person who, for financial gain, recruits, harbors, transports, provides, or obtains a person for the purpose of using them for unlawful commercial sex acts.
SEVERE FORMS OF TRAFFICKING - "Severe" means if by force, fraud or coercion.
Therefore consenting adult private prostitution is covered with penalties up to 20 years in prison vs harsher penalties if "severe"
This is outrageous for the millions of adult sexworkers that freely choose private prostitution as a career in forms that are legal in almost all the world except the U.S. We are denied the sexual freedoms that most of the world enjoys. Hopefully you will oppose this act or be sure the definitions are rewritten to only oppose forced or coerced prostitution.
Extensive background and discussion
(I would include all the points from above before the Washington Post article, if some staffer wants to really understand the background and what we are talking about).
http://www.sexwork.com/legal/Fedlaw.html
Friday, December 7, 2007
FTC/AFF case to help against obscenity?
A follow up thought to the FTC/AFF story.
From the FTC website, they wrote:
The settlement bars the defendant from displaying sexually explicit ads to consumers unless the consumers are actively seeking out sexually explicit content or unless the consumers have consented to viewing sexually explicit content....
So if a web surfer visits an adult website that has the warning labels that it is an adult site, and they enter the website as an adult to view adult material.. how can there be obscenity charges anymore?
If the adult content was in the open (like you see on some paysites, TGP, MGP, etc)... that's one issue where people who stumble upon those images, but in circumstances when an adult choose to view content...
Maybe the adult lawyers can use this case to help in obscenity issues.
Fight the Click if over 18!
From the FTC website, they wrote:
The settlement bars the defendant from displaying sexually explicit ads to consumers unless the consumers are actively seeking out sexually explicit content or unless the consumers have consented to viewing sexually explicit content....
So if a web surfer visits an adult website that has the warning labels that it is an adult site, and they enter the website as an adult to view adult material.. how can there be obscenity charges anymore?
If the adult content was in the open (like you see on some paysites, TGP, MGP, etc)... that's one issue where people who stumble upon those images, but in circumstances when an adult choose to view content...
Maybe the adult lawyers can use this case to help in obscenity issues.
Fight the Click if over 18!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
