I have always had a "live and let live" philosophy in my own life, so don't think that I seek to target clients of adult business – au contraire mon ami – but why should the owners of these adult businesses and the workers providing services be the targets? I grew-up in Europe, was born and raised in Paris, moved to Mons, Belgium for several years, and moved to Germany (Kaiserslautern area) as a teenager. I resided in Germany until age 23 and frequently spent time in Amsterdam. This background, unmistakably, gave me a unique outlook on adult business, and even prostitution, in comparison to the great majority of my peers here in the United States.
The male clients of massage parlors and escort services are the enablers. Trust me, if no clients called escort services or visited massage parlors these businesses would shut down. So why does every raid and bust article that I read in relation to adult businesses, except in the case of the Desert Divas investigation in the Phoenix area, state that clients are not the focus or the target? Law enforcement agencies, both state and federal, target everyone except the enabling client! The owner is blamed for mere existence and the ladies that work at the business are blamed for having the audacity to tempt the male client by agreeing to his request. Is it just me or does this entire arrest and prosecute strategy lack common sense to you too? I will admit that sometimes I feel as if I arrived here from another planet, and regardless that I've lived in the US for 26 years, the different mindset remains in my life.
My own case was no different. Sure, they wanted the nonexistent client books, but only to use against me. They wanted to find anyone that ever had contact with me, call them a witness, and prop them up on the stand. This is exactly what was done with the one client, Sam, they managed to locate when they found his business card in an escort's purse. They first assured Sam that they just wanted him as a witness and he faced no charges, as long as he testified against me for existing and sending him the escorts. When I chose trial over a plea deal all bets were off, and Sam didn't need to testify as he had been promised public anonymity in exchange for his deposition prior to my arrest (i.e. they promised they wouldn't contact his wife). I'm as far from dumb as most people will ever meet – do you think I needed 1000 Sams offering-up depositions? Of course not as these Sams would say anything they were told so that their wives, girlfriends, bosses, and neighbors wouldn't find out that they dared to patronize an escort service. Trust me again – they'd say absolutely anything, and they'd disregard the fact that I never discussed sex for money with any one of them. No, I sure didn't need 1000 Sams in my life. So of course I didn't keep client books and I never accepted credit cards.
And Sam, they lied to you about so many things - if I were as horrible as they claimed, I'd name you publicly here and now. You do realize that I can legally do exactly that, right?
Men that go to massage parlors and use credit cards are also tracked in the end. When the charges to their credit card are for $200 or $300, it's assumed that more than a massage was received. In the Nan O'Reilly case in Grand Junction, Colorado these 1000 Sams are referred to as "cooperating witnesses." How dare she have a massage parlor in a state wherein there was not even a special license required to offer massage! How dare Nan exist, circulate money in a broken capitalist system, purchase real property, shop at a grocery store, buy a car, and pay taxes! Worse yet – women worked at her business and made money, enabling each to support herself and also circulate money in the broken-down economy. This can never work – these women should just get married and let their husbands support them, or better yet, each should work at a fast-food minimum wage joint in Grand Junction – that way they'd also be eligible for free medical care and food stamps, and if children are involved, perhaps even Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC – the former welfare). Doesn't that sound like a better route to you? Excuse me while I transport myself back to that other planet.
I don't know, but I think that if I were Nan, I'd make sure those 1000 Sams had to face the witness stand.
Next: More on the Nan O'Reilly Persecution in Colorado
No comments:
Post a Comment