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

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

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!

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.

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.

Study Shows Women Becoming More Accepting of Porn

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

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

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!

Love Shack Hearing Coincides With Store's One-Year Anniversary

Love Shack Hearing Coincides With Store's One-Year Anniversary
Both Sides Arguing Before 11th Circuit Court of Appeals

By Peter Warren, AVN Media Network

Posted: 6:18 PM PST Nov 28, 2007


JOHNS CREEK, Ga. - Embattled adult outlet the Love Shack is set to celebrate its one-year anniversary on the same day that the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments from Love Shack attorneys H. Louis Sirkin and Cary Wiggins, as well as Fulton County prosecuting attorney Steve Rosenberg.

On Nov. 30, 2006, the second day of business for Love Shack and its owner, John Cornetta, Fulton County filed for an Emergency Restraining Order in Fulton County Superior Court to shut the Love Shack down, despite the fact that Cornetta claims adult material comprises less than 25 percent of the store's inventory, the amount allowed under Fulton County law.

Judge Jerry Baxter said from the bench that he felt the county's claim was not an emergency, and that the matter needed to be decided by the federal judge handling the dispute, Judge Thomas Thrash.

Judge Thrash eventually found in favor of the County, ruling that the Love Shack was operating as an adult bookstore, and ordering Cornetta to reduce his adult inventory by a "significant" amount. When pressed by Sirkin to define "significant," Thrash commented, "My order is what my order is." He furthermore found Cornetta in contempt of court and fined him almost $20,000.

Cornetta appealed the district court's ruling and earlier this year the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decided to hear the case.

The Love Shack has operated continuously throughout these events, though without a sign. Johns Creek has denied him permission to display a sign and sued him in State Court for operating what the city claims is an illegal business.

On Nov. 15, Cornetta retaliated by filing suit against the city in Fulton Superior Court on the grounds that city staff and the city Board of Zoning Appeals improperly denied him the right to put up a sign.

Thursday, as both sides plead their cases to the 11th Circuit, Cornetta will be offering his customers 35 percent off all merchandise to commemorate the one-year mark and thank them for their support.

"I have said from day one that we wanted to work with the community and that we were right on the law from day one," commented Cornetta. "We have raised over $5,000 to help the city build a fire department and they have said no. We have offered rent-free space for a police sub-station and they have said no. Heck, I even asked the mayor to join me in a dunk tank where people could choose who to dunk, me or him, with all money going to charity, and he has said no. I just have to wonder when we win this thing and I ask for an apology, will he finally have the guts to say yes?"

The dunk tank fundraiser will occur with or with out the mayor's participation, Cornetta said, and local adult personality Mike South has volunteered to fill in as the town chief's double for the cause. The event is scheduled to take place Saturday, Dec. 15.





http://www.avn.com/index.cfm?objectID=892D3D6F-FFDF-DAE5-03E8C0FBB4C67382&slid=324399

Woman Arrested for Discussing Sex Ed with Her Kids

George Orwell alert. A Wisconsin woman was arrested for discussing sex ed with her children.

In the agreement, Smalley pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor charge of exposing a child to harmful material in exchange for the dismissal of a felony charge of exposing a child to harmful descriptions.

The felony charge could have levied a sentence of more than three years in prison and fines up to $10,000.

ADA Crystal Long recommended a year probation and counseling, which the Judge accepted. This is a big loss to the citizenry on several fronts. It represents the irrational fear that Americans have of sex. Three years in prison for talking to your kids about sex is ludicrous. It’s also ludicrous to call it felony exposing a child to harmful descriptions. It is legal for a school to do that, however. What the government is saying to the public is that you should not educate your kids, but we’ll do it because we’re the government. Some may say that how she conducted discussion was inappropriate and perhaps too graphic. Her kids were 12 and 16 and in the UK they would have received sex education around 10. At 12 you should be exposed to everything that the world has to offer in the most graphic sense. Show pictures of mutilated bodies from drinking and driving, meth addicts photos, anything that can be a lesson to the worst possible scenario.

I don’t support Barack Obama, but his idea that we should have sex ed in kindergarten is a great one. Why? Let’s consider what class sex ed is taught in, General Sciences or Biology. America lags behind in science and math education. Therefore if Chinese students can learn calculus in middle school, it would stand to reason that they can learn advanced biology and chemistry in the same time frame. If you move backwards in time from that education level it would seem that sex ed would be appropriate for people around the first through third grade. The concepts of plankton, alge, mitosis, and bacteria are easily convertible from a middle school level to an elementary school level. America is falling behind the rest of the world and we can blame our government for that fact. It is time we looked at knowledge as power, not something to be feared.

City Refuses John Cornetta's Donation Toward Firetruck

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Residents Gather to Fight Adult Store Project

By: AVN Media Network

Posted: 12:00 AM PST Aug 28, 2006

Residents in this newly incorporated city gathered Thursday to discuss ways to stop an adult novelty store from opening.
An estimated 900 residents rallied at Chattahoochee High School to outline plans to stop the owners of the Love Shack from opening a 10,000-square-foot store here, the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported.
Mayor-designate Mike Bodker vowed to keep the store from opening and to help develop regulations aimed at adult businesses in the new city, which was formed last month after a referendum.
John Cornetta, who owns the Love Shack chain of stores, is apparently prepared, having sued Fulton County earlier this month for denying a business license for the proposed store. Cornetta argued that the county should give him a regular business permit because his proposed store would have less than 25 percent of its merchandise would be considered adult products.But the county said he must still apply for an adult entertainment business license.
As it is, Bodker said the new Johns Creek City Council will make it a priority to pass a series of regulations aimed at adult businesses. He told the newspaper that he is working on measures that define obscenity, adult entertainment, zoning adult businesses and on a measure to ban alcohol from adult establishments.
Republican state Rep. Mark Burkhalter is also developing legislation aimed at re-establishing Georgia’s obscenity law.
During the meeting, one woman suggested locals fill up the store’s parking lot and take pictures of patrons to dissuade customers from going there.
But another man said he was leery of local government banning any type of business, suggesting that the city would then be in charge of also enforcing morality on its citizens.

http://www.avn.com/index.cfm?objectID=EDA5DD98-1372-4B41-C42009C458F439FB&slid=324399

11th Circuit Judge to Hear Arguments in Love Shack Case

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Ga. Strip Club Petitions Supreme Court

Ga. Strip Club Petitions Supreme Court
Another Legal Battle for Love Shack Owner Cornetta

By Eddie Adams, AVN Media Network

Posted: 4:05 PM PST Aug 14, 2007


MACON, Ga. - A local strip club which was forced to shutter its doors by the county has filed a petition to argue its case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Club Exotica closed three years ago, after the county pulled its liquor license. Lawyers for the club filed the Supreme Court petition July 30.
The legal battle between the county and Club Exotica goes all the way back to 2001, when the club, which was run at the time by John Cornetta and Cornetta Enterprises, applied for a liquor license. The two have fought at almost every court level since that time.
Officials raided the club in 2003, arresting 16 dancers. Controversial adult businessman Cornetta hired lawyers for all of them; two were later acquitted, and the charges dropped against the rest.
“This has been a weird case from the beginning, in a bit of a backwards town, “Cornetta told AVN. “The people here have vowed against nude dancing at all costs. After the raid, we were basically forced out of business. Patrons were completely intimidated.”
Bibb County Commissioner Bert Bivins told the Macon Telegraph that the county was trying to close the club at the time because they felt it was, "not operating in good faith or in the best interests of the community."
Cornetta and his lawyers are now questioning the police investigation, and Sheriff Jerry Modena and the Bibb County Sheriff's Office were operating as an "arm of the state" when they raided the club. “What we’re asking here is if someone has the right to do whatever they want, without warrants, without a grand jury…and if so, that’s pretty scary.”
The appeal will deal heavily with the 11th Amendment, which prevents state officials from being sued in federal court for actions they took during the course of their duties.
According to the Macon Telegraph, if authorities and the state were acting as an arm of the state — that is, if they were enforcing state laws during their actions against the club — the sheriff's office has immunity in federal court under the Constitution and cannot be prosecuted for carrying out their duties.
“This decision could effect adult entertainment venues across the board, because people shouldn’t be allowed to just start kicking down doors because they see fit,” said Cornetta. “If we’re successful, this could make authorities think twice before they start doing these things without creating a case against someone.”
The Supreme Court can now either reject or accept the case, and possibly reverse the previous rulings against Club Exotica.
“We’re keeping our fingers crossed on this one,” said Cornetta. “We’re optimistic because we know that this is an issue that the circuits are split on. We think we’ve got a good chance here.”



http://www.avn.com/index.cfm?objectID=6699D6E3-DC45-F954-89BF8A8B409149B1&slid=324399

Ga. City Attempts to Block Adult Businesses

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Legal Prostitution in Rhode Island

Dave says:
In June 2007 the Rhode Island Assembly passed a very good anti forced prostitution law that unlike the Federal Trafficking law is ONLY about forced sexwork, not consenting adults. The law leaves off the street prostitution legal in RI, the only state in the U.S. other than the high priced brothels in Nevada where private consenting adult sexwork is legal. This could be the example to try and show other state legislatures what should be done to allow private consenting sexwork yet be tough against forced trafficking. Forced trafficking is made a larger than life issue by the media and anti sexual rights groups as an excuse against any sexwork decriminalization.

Press Release by RI State House
6/26/07 Assembly passes Perry’s human trafficking bill
STATE HOUSE – Human trafficking will soon be a felony punishable with steep fines and jail time under a bill sponsored by Sen. Rhoda E. Perry and approved by the General Assembly during its final session last week. Senator Perry said the legislation is a victory for human rights in Rhode Island, and will help police in their effort to crack down on the prostitution industry in Providence, which is fed in part by a steady flow of women who are brought from other countries, held captive and forced to work as prostitutes.

“Sex trafficking is an egregious crime against humanity, and it’s a black eye on our state that it is going on right here. It’s about time that we addressed this problem. This change to our laws, and the serious penalties we’re establishing, will send a message that Rhode Island is not going to tolerate this horrible abuse of human beings,” said Senator Perry, a Democrat who represents District 3 in Providence.

The legislation (2007-S 0692B), which is backed by Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch, is designed to crack down on brothels masquerading as spas in Providence and surrounding communities. Police have raided them many times in recent years, and each time most of the people working there were Asian women, many of whom are illegal immigrants who police say are essentially being held prisoner in the buildings, where they eat, sleep and serve as prostitutes.

The bill would make it a felony to participate in human trafficking – defined as transporting, soliciting, recruiting, harboring, providing, or obtaining another person for transport – for the purpose of making the victim perform prostitution. The crime would be punishable by up to 20 years in prison and $20,000 in fines. Penalties would increase if the victim is a minor; for those 17 years old, the prison time would be up to 30 years in prison and $30,000 in fines, and when the victim is younger than 17, perpetrators could get up to 40 years in prison and $40,000 in fines. People who don't directly force someone into involuntary servitude but otherwise participate in it for their own profit or benefit would also be guilty of a felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison and $20,000 in fines. Perpetrators could also be made to pay restitution to their victims.

“I'm amazed that in 2007 in Rhode Island we are still fighting against barbaric practices like slavery and prostitution, but for the sake of the women and the other victims, I'll be back with this legislation,” said Representative Giannini.

The bill received its final passage in the Senate in the early morning hours of Saturday and has been transmitted to the governor. It is co-sponsored by Sen. Juan M. Pichardo (D-Dist. 2, Providence), Senate Majority Leader M. Teresa Paiva Weed (D-Dist. 13, Newport, Jamestown), Sen. Joshua Miller (D-Dist. 28, Cranston, Warwick) and Sen. Maryellen Goodwin (D-Dist. 1, Providence). Identical legislation (2007-H 5881A) introduced in the House by Rep. Joanne M. Giannini (D-Dist. 7) of Providence also passed both chambers and will be transmitted to the governor.

Dave Notes: Again this is ONLY about forced trafficking. Very different from the Federal law that outrageously includes consenting adult private prostitution as "trafficking" in its definition. That is outlandish as I've reported many times. See http://www.sexwork.com/coalition/Federallaw2005.html

Article "Last Call for Sin" June 2007 Rhode Island Monthly - Just before new forced trafficking law passed
Prostitution behind closed doors is not illegal in Rhode Island. Police can arrest a worker for giving a massage without a license, but they can't bust her or the customer for a sexual transaction. According to the Loitering for Indecent Purposes statute of the Rhode Island General Assembly, “It shall be unlawful for any person to stand or wander in or near any public highway or street, or any public or private place, and attempt to engage passersby in conversation, or stop or attempt to stop motor vehicles, for the purpose of prostitution or other indecent act, or to patronize, induce or otherwise secure a person to commit any indecent act.”

The legislation was originally drafted to address prostitution at the street level, so only pimps, streetwalkers and the customers soliciting them as a passerby or from their cars can be charged. Singer and other Johns can evade the law by arranging indoor dates with streetwalkers or escorts; posters private message one another with women’s phone numbers. The offense is nebulous if a driver solicits from his car but there is no business talk or transaction until the couple is behind closed doors.

Last year, a bill that would have banned indoor prostitution was rejected by the Senate after criticism that it would punish the women, who — the Rhode Island ACLU objected — are already victims. Meanwhile, officials work to shutter the spas for massage license and building code violations.

Earlier this year, city officials presented revised legislative language that would make indoor prostitution illegal while addressing concerns of victim status. The proposal is pending General Assembly action. (passed late June against "forced" prostitution)

Until then, Rhode Island remains an adult amusement park, an I-95 exit for New Englanders seduced by the wink of something illicit yet legit.

Providence has at least ten “spas” or massage parlors that operate as brothels and are scattered across the city. The workers are mostly South Korean women, rotated every couple of weeks among parlors along the East Coast. Streetwalkers bristle at the public’s perception that they are willing sex workers but massage parlor employees have been forced into the industry.

“Few women will enter prostitution if they have other choices,” says Donna Hughes, a women’s studies professor at the University of Rhode Island (URI) and an expert on sex trafficking (defined as the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision or obtaining of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act). “So the women don't make a choice, but there’s no debate that the Johns make a choice.”

Older article:
Legislators drop bid to outlaw brothels in RI
Providence Democrats abandon their bills strengthening the state's prostitution laws after critics say the language unfairly targets women.
June 16, 2005 Highlights of longer article
PROVIDENCE -- Prostitutes who work behind closed doors will be able to dodge the law for at least another year. Pressure from local civil-rights groups has killed efforts by the police and City Hall to criminalize prostitution in brothels, escort services, and illegal massage parlors. The Providence Democrats sponsoring legislation that would have strengthened the state's prostitution laws are abandoning their bills. Rep. Joseph S. Almeida said yesterday he was withdrawing his bill after getting calls from activists and others that the measure unfairly targets women. His decision came three weeks after Sen. Rhoda E. Perry chose to drop her version of the bill for the same reasons. "They don't feel going after the girls is the answer," Almeida said.

Rhode Island is the only state whose prostitution law doesn't outlaw sex-for-money indoors -- and those involved in the prostitution business know it, he said. "Several years ago, there were one or two [massage parlors]. Now we're up to 10," Verdi added. "Unless we find another avenue, what's to say it can't go to 20?"

The state's law criminalizing prostitution was changed then after a group of female prostitutes sued in federal court with claims that the Providence police were discriminating against women in their arrests. The law at the time made prostitution a felony. The General Assembly amended the law to the current version of loitering for indecent purposes, a misdemeanor. The law targets the streetwalkers, their pimps, and customers who solicit them from their vehicles. But there is no provision for prostitutes working for escort services and brothels.

The illegal massage parlors aren't licensed by the state, so the police arrest the prostitutes for "massage without a license," a misdemeanor. The police also charge the managers with pandering or harboring, and arrest pimps for deriving support from the prostitutes. The latter charges are difficult, Verdi said, because they require some cooperation from the prostitutes. The pandering charge isn't applicable to a prostitute working out of a home or a hotel room, he said.

Using the attorney general's nuisance task force, the police can pressure the landlords to evict the brothels. However, without the record of arrests, the police have little to make their case. Verdi says the current law discriminates between arresting the street prostitutes, who are often poor and drug-dependent, and leaving alone the high-class call girls working for escort services or brothels. By not changing the law, Verdi said, more women will end up in prostitution in Rhode Island -- working by the dozens in the brothels.

Dave notes again the only change in the 2007 law was against "forced" prostitution. Private consenting adult prostitution remains legal in RI as it should be in all states. My question is could the Feds come in a enforce the new Federal Trafficking law that does make in private consenting adult prostitution a FEDERAL crime?



http://www.sexwork.com/legal/RhodeIsland.html

Love Shack's License Denied

By David Sullivan , AVN Media Networking

Posted: 12:00 AM PST Mar 19, 2007


The newly-incorporated city of Johns Creek has denied retailer John Cornetta's business license application for his controversial adult superstore, The Love Shack.
In a March 8 letter to Cornetta, City Manger John Kachmar wrote: "The application contains materially false information…The city's business license application form asks 'Will your business be an adult business establishment [sexually oriented business] . . . You responded in the negative. This is materially false..."
According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Kachmar's letter also stated that "the Love Shack is not authorized to operate at its location at Jones Bridge and State Bridge roads, and […] that a judge found that the business was operating illegally."
In light of the city's decision to deny the Love Shack's license, Mayor Mike Bodker now says that Cornetta must either comply with the law and stop selling adult material, ask that the property be rezoned, or move to a location where adult businesses are permitted. The letter does not explain the standards by which the city classified the Love Shack as an adult business.

"They're picking on the wrong gunslinger," Cornetta reportedly said.
Cornetta has been fighting Fulton County since The Love Shack opened on November 29, 2006. Local authorities attempted to padlock the store in December, but Cornetta was able to adjust his inventory to meet the county's requirements for a non-adult business license.
Cornetta is still awaiting the outcome of his federal case against Fulton County. In the meantime, the Journal report stated, the county has "washed its hands" of the case since Johns Creek became a city on Dec. 1. Johns Creek reportedly hired a team of lawyers to draft a zoning ordinance to eliminate any loopholes that would allow The Love Shack to operate in its current location.
Cornetta's attorney Cary Wiggins speculated that the city's denial of Cornetta's business license means "they're either not going to tax us, or try to shut us down," he said. "And I don't think they're going to let us operate for free."
A hearing on the Love Shack case is set for April 2.


http://www.avn.com/index.cfm?objectID=DB7D4120-ED25-2E61-5709CE24041AD358&slid=324399

Legal Battles Continue for Georgia Sex Shop

By Eddie Adams, AVN Media Network

Posted: 12:00 AM PST Jan 08, 2007


A new legal battle began on Friday morning over an area sex shop that has seen its fair share of controversy.
Johns Creek officially took over the ongoing zoning battle between Fulton County and the Love Shack, along with store owner John Cornetta. According to WXIA News, Cornetta and his attorneys filed an appeal on Thursday to stay open regardless of any new regulations imposed by the city of Johns Creek.
According to the report, the fight has been going on for about two weeks, since Cornetta opened the store without a business license.


http://www.avn.com/index.cfm?objectID=DB7C1287-9570-BCCA-C960C1059E50C717&slid=324399

Georgia City Passes Adult Business Moratorium

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Love Shack Remains Open Despite Legal Opposition

By David Sullivan , AVN Media Network

Posted: 12:00 AM PST Dec 11, 2006

Adult retailer John Cornetta has won the latest round in the battle over his new 10,000 square-foot Love Shack emporium.
“They [Fulton County authorities] were going to arrest me this morning and padlock the doors,” Cornetta told AVN.com. “But the state Superior Court judge sided with me. Anybody who knows me knows that when it comes to censorship and First Amendment rights, I love a fight."
Cornetta opened the Love Shack on Nov. 29, despite the county’s refusal to grant him a business license. “There’s a law that gives you 30 days in which to apply for a license, so we’re in compliance with the law,” he explained. “I’ve also made sure that only 17 percent of my retail space was [devoted to] adult material – magazines, videos, toys. But they still refused to give me a license.”
The county plans to prosecute Cornetta in federal court, while the city of Johns Creek has indicated it will also take action to shut down the store. “I’m expecting another round of motions,” Cornetta remarked. “Johns Creek was just recently declared a city [on Dec. 1], and they still haven’t established all the rules. If I can prove that the store has been open prior to the establishment of the city, I might get grandfathered in.”
Cornetta notes that public reaction has been overwhelmingly in favor of the store – and business is brisk.
“We have a million dollars in inventory in this store, and a half-million in build-out,” he said. “It’s the largest store of its kind in Georgia. I’ve been all over the country to many different adult stores, and a lot of them are really impressive, but this one is the nicest I’ve seen.”


http://www.avn.com/index.cfm?objectID=DB7BBEFF-C67D-019B-6AB90044834F1E0A&slid=324399