It's likely that Nan O'Reilly's arrest on November 20, 2008 surprised no one more than Nan; after all, she had the Grand Junction, Colorado business, Fuji Oriental Therapy Massage, for 14 years. The case involves city and county agents, a joint drug task force, and the feds. One must wonder what brought the Western Colorado Joint Drug Task Force into this picture as there are no drug-related allegations. I'd bet on an informant – someone was busted in a drug investigation and offered information and assistance to gain favor in their own mess. More often than not such information is false. As for the feds, the FBI and the IRS, the smell of money drew both agencies to this 14 year-old business. So they all merge to attack this woman's massage parlor that has peacefully existed for so long that it's a part of the city.
Ms. O'Reilly was charged with racketeering, pimping, tax evasion, keeping a place of prostitution, and promoting sexual immorality. I didn't realize that the last charge was prosecutable, considering the existence of the internet, and because it screams religious agenda. What is immoral to some is not immoral to others, so I'm curious as to specifically whose morals are used as the basis for such a prosecution. The trend of mentioning "human trafficking" does not escape this massage parlor case, although nothing more specific is stated anywhere as usual. It's just something that is often stated to help the general public understand why there would be an investigation of a business that's existed for so long. Does it help you? It doesn't help me at all and comes off as pure rhetoric that undermines real cases that do involve trafficking.
According to various news articles, including one written by Paul Shockley in the Grand Junction Free Press, Ms. O'Reilly allegedly filed a false tax return in 2007. The reported income on the return is $230K, and the IRS claims that she omitted $70K that was collected from business and was in the bank account. This is just my opinion, but when a business owner declares $230K in income it's unlikely that this person would place their life on the chopping-block to avoid declaring an additional $70K. It's more likely that it was an accounting error of some sort, made by either Ms. O'Reilly or her tax preparer. The additional $70K could also be a loan to the business or anything for that matter, but she wouldn't put it in the bank if she were attempting to hide it. You might recall from my post yesterday that I often feel as if I'm from a different planet and just think differently than most people. Maybe I'm lost and it's just me and my weird reasoning. At any rate, the alleged tax evasion is what drew the feds into the case. Oh – did I mention that the feds and the state are doing their overzealous best to forfeit all of Nan O'Reilly's property and money? They get to split it up between them if they succeed.
Let us get down to the nitty-gritty of the case: the "cooperating witnesses" – Nan really does have a 1000 Sams begging to help the prosecutors so that their identities remain unknown, and the Grand Junction Police Department has obliged them by opening a hotline and warning former customers that if they do not call the hotline and offer to help they will be contacted at their home or workplace. This reeks of extortion to me. The male enablers are contacting the P.D. in droves offering to help in any way possible. It's okay with these louses that Ms. O'Reilly pays for their own immoral transgressions; immoral according to the State of Colorado, that is. But no, the P.D. would never want to alert the families or the employers of these participants and cause them the slightest of problems. It is completely the fault of the business owner that was most likely never present during the transgressions and just involved some momentary lapse of judgment for the men – momentary on many occasions according to credit card transaction records.
I never had a 1000 Sams ready and waiting to help the state doom me to a prison, as I never accepted credit cards because I know better than to trust Sams, but if I were Nan O'Reilly, I'd see every one of them on the stand. It would be an all or nothing prosecution – drag in everyone that participated in the alleged acts of prostitution, book them all, or drop the charges and the entire case against the lone party that did not participate and simply used her business acumen to survive and prosper in the land of entrepreneurs.
No comments:
Post a Comment