If all of these massage parlors are participating in "human trafficking" aren't the patrons participants as well? We have a slew of cases coming from the Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio tri-state area that prosecutors are alleging to be a part of an interstate network that spans three states and shuffles the women from one parlor to another every few months. The businesses are owned by Korean-American women and the cases are being prosecuted by the feds. The parlor owners are being prosecuted, but the customers, and in most cases, the workers, are not.
One might realize that the interconnection could be something as simple as the women wanting to work in different areas to develop new clients or the parlor owners wanting to have new workers for clients that frequent the business over an extended period of time. It is a fact that men that patronize adult businesses do not want to see the same lady all the time. According to an article written by Jim Hannah for NYK.com, Florence, Kentucky massage parlor operator Yong Hui Cho stated to an informant that her employees could make $9K a month. The women working for Ms. Cho were 36-, 37-, and 48-year-old Korean-American women. Thus far the massage parlor investigations have netted at least eight convictions and hundreds of thousands of dollars in forfeited money and property.
It sounds to me like these Korean-American women did quite well for themselves and the case has nothing whatsoever to do with human trafficking. If these women were legal residents in the US, then the "trafficking" label must be tossed – each could work wherever she so desired and was not smuggled into the country via Mexico or in a boat. It must be noted that there are grants and funding available for law enforcement agencies to train officers to spot human trafficking situations and victims, and perhaps too many officers depart these seminars and classes with the belief that any woman of foreign origin working in adult business has been trafficked and forced into this type of work. Most likely, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the women prefer plenty of money over having a minimum wage job.
Cho (age 51) was the feds latest arrest – May 7, 2009, in this tri-state area, but there are other cases in progress. The news around the internet reveals that Cho had a male partner, Tae Sun Kim from Flushing, New York, and he put the business entirely in Cho's name. There is no record of Kim being charged in state or federal court in connection to this case, so I know that if I were Ms. Cho, I would demand a clear understanding of who my money man really is and why he has not been charged in connection to this case. It is possible that Cho was a worker in a massage parlor that was put in business by Kim, backed by the feds. I smell a rat, or several, depending on your viewpoint.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Overkill in Colorado
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Clients Never the Focus
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
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
Monday, June 8, 2009
Massage Parlor Pursuits
When I saw the WFTV video of Li Ping Ding being taken away by agents of the Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation (MBI) on March 30, 2007, I couldn't miss the perplexed look on her face. Ms. Ding looked truly surprised, and at that moment had no clue as to the seriousness of the prosecution. I'm sure that the camera aimed at her face and the questions the reporter spewed forth didn't help her to understand the complexity of the events that would follow. I'm also sure that at that moment she perceived the situation to be fixable and her name cleared in the interim. She had two factors working against that though: the MBI and the Office of Statewide Prosecution (OSP). As a former defendant I am all too aware of the overkill capabilities of both agencies.
The OSP has all of the power, and funding, of the Department of Justice (DOJ). Prosecutors with this Florida agency do whatever they want. The Florida Attorney General describes the purpose of the OSP:
"The mission of the Office is to investigate and prosecute multi-circuit organized crime and to assist other law enforcement officials in their efforts against organized crimes. The prosecutors in the Office work regularly with their federal and state counterparts to coordinate efforts against criminal activity."
In other words, when the feds are not interested and/or do not have a case, the state uses the multi-jurisdictional organized crime card to destroy the victim/defendant. In the case of Li Ping Ding, the overkill came in the form of 22 counts, with 21 of the charges serious felonies. Count 1 was "Racketeering (RICO)" which is punishable by up to 30 years in a prison – it's a first degree felony in Florida. There were also 17 counts of "live off the earnings of prostitution," all felonies, and 3 counts of "maintaining a structure for the purpose of prostitution," and a lone count of misdemeanor "solicitation to commit prostitution" thrown in for good measure, as if Ms. Ding stopped running this far-reaching organized crime ring to offer an agent her sexual services. The misdemeanor had its purpose, no doubt to defame the defendant and paint a sordid picture for any potential jury, should she consider the option of trial. It is an Orange County, Florida case, number 07-CF-0004712-0.
I was rooting for Ms. Ding on the sidelines and hoping that she would call their bluff, but in the end she took the deal as most others in her situation do. Similar to almost all MBI cases, this case involved a GPS tracking device placed on her vehicle, without warrant, and various other acts of legal misconduct committed by agents and known to prosecutors. We do have a Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, although agents and prosecutors frequently forget that it exists. How convenient.
Two years after her arrest, Li Ping Ding pled guilty to the one count of racketeering, and all other charges were noted as nolle prosequi which translates to dropped. On April 17, 2009 her sentence was imposed: six months in the county jail with court-ordered work release; ten years felony probation; no contact with any witnesses; may not own, manage, or be a part of any massage parlor; fines and costs totaling $15,535; and provide substantial assistance when asked.
The part wherein Ms. Ding is required to provide substantial assistance when asked is a big win for agents and prosecutors: They now have a member of the local Asian community in their pockets, and it's unlikely that most Orlando residents, including others in the close-knit, yet sizable, community that she was a part of, have any idea what happened with the case as there was no publicity, cameras, or newspaper articles concerning her plea bargain. I'm unique – I follow-up on almost everything.
In recent news the MBI raided more Asian massage parlors, and live on television for all to view. On December 10, 2008, an International Drive spa run by several women was raided by agents. As in the Ding case, the MBI commander, Paul Zambouras, came out on camera discussing something else entirely:
"What we always look for in these types of cases is human trafficking and sex trafficking," said Cmdr. Paul Zambouras from the MBI. "A lot of times these women are smuggled into the country and they're forced to perform prostitution to help pay off their smuggling debt."
I've got a newsflash for Zambouras: Women from Vietnam, Korea, China, or any other part of East Asia, do not need to be smuggled into the U.S. – does he really believe that smugglers bring women in from this region to work in massage parlors? The women arrested in these raids are all in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. Does Zambouras think they arrived in boats or walked through Mexico, or what? I'd love to hear more from the MBI on this massage-smuggling phenomenon! It's unlikely that we will hear a word from this former MBI commander though – the agency rarely does follow-up.
In these parlor cases, the MBI admits to tracking down the clients via credit cards used at the business. Now there’s a reason to never accept credit cards, or try to use one, for any adult business service. No doubt that this is how they found so many of the customers in the Ding case.
In early February of 2009, the MBI raided a café in the Orlando Asian community, alleging that it was a front for a sports gambling bookmaking operation. Dung Ngoc Nguyen, the alleged head of the organized operation, had a puzzled look on his face as the WFTV reporter spewed accusations of his threatening violence to collect on unpaid debts – an unsubstantiated and uncharged accusation at that. Nguyen and Hau Tan Thai were both booked on racketeering, bookmaking, receiving money bets for a game of chance or skill, and unlawful use of a two-way communication device. That is 3 felonies and 1 misdemeanor, including the MBI signature racketeering charge. The cases are numbered 09-CF-0001668 and 09-CF-0001669, and they are not yet merged as co-defendants, in Orange County, Florida. Zambouras was there for the cameras with his expected rhetoric:
"Gambling is one of the things that leads to the violent crime, like I said before, these guys aren't nice guys, you owe them money and their may be a crime that happens to your family, property and so on," said MBI Commander Paul Zambouros.
Someone might remind this former commander of the MBI that the State of Florida runs the biggest organized gambling operation in the state – it is referred to as the Florida Lottery. You've got to wonder who set these guys up….
The OSP has all of the power, and funding, of the Department of Justice (DOJ). Prosecutors with this Florida agency do whatever they want. The Florida Attorney General describes the purpose of the OSP:
"The mission of the Office is to investigate and prosecute multi-circuit organized crime and to assist other law enforcement officials in their efforts against organized crimes. The prosecutors in the Office work regularly with their federal and state counterparts to coordinate efforts against criminal activity."
In other words, when the feds are not interested and/or do not have a case, the state uses the multi-jurisdictional organized crime card to destroy the victim/defendant. In the case of Li Ping Ding, the overkill came in the form of 22 counts, with 21 of the charges serious felonies. Count 1 was "Racketeering (RICO)" which is punishable by up to 30 years in a prison – it's a first degree felony in Florida. There were also 17 counts of "live off the earnings of prostitution," all felonies, and 3 counts of "maintaining a structure for the purpose of prostitution," and a lone count of misdemeanor "solicitation to commit prostitution" thrown in for good measure, as if Ms. Ding stopped running this far-reaching organized crime ring to offer an agent her sexual services. The misdemeanor had its purpose, no doubt to defame the defendant and paint a sordid picture for any potential jury, should she consider the option of trial. It is an Orange County, Florida case, number 07-CF-0004712-0.
I was rooting for Ms. Ding on the sidelines and hoping that she would call their bluff, but in the end she took the deal as most others in her situation do. Similar to almost all MBI cases, this case involved a GPS tracking device placed on her vehicle, without warrant, and various other acts of legal misconduct committed by agents and known to prosecutors. We do have a Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, although agents and prosecutors frequently forget that it exists. How convenient.
Two years after her arrest, Li Ping Ding pled guilty to the one count of racketeering, and all other charges were noted as nolle prosequi which translates to dropped. On April 17, 2009 her sentence was imposed: six months in the county jail with court-ordered work release; ten years felony probation; no contact with any witnesses; may not own, manage, or be a part of any massage parlor; fines and costs totaling $15,535; and provide substantial assistance when asked.
The part wherein Ms. Ding is required to provide substantial assistance when asked is a big win for agents and prosecutors: They now have a member of the local Asian community in their pockets, and it's unlikely that most Orlando residents, including others in the close-knit, yet sizable, community that she was a part of, have any idea what happened with the case as there was no publicity, cameras, or newspaper articles concerning her plea bargain. I'm unique – I follow-up on almost everything.
In recent news the MBI raided more Asian massage parlors, and live on television for all to view. On December 10, 2008, an International Drive spa run by several women was raided by agents. As in the Ding case, the MBI commander, Paul Zambouras, came out on camera discussing something else entirely:
"What we always look for in these types of cases is human trafficking and sex trafficking," said Cmdr. Paul Zambouras from the MBI. "A lot of times these women are smuggled into the country and they're forced to perform prostitution to help pay off their smuggling debt."
I've got a newsflash for Zambouras: Women from Vietnam, Korea, China, or any other part of East Asia, do not need to be smuggled into the U.S. – does he really believe that smugglers bring women in from this region to work in massage parlors? The women arrested in these raids are all in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. Does Zambouras think they arrived in boats or walked through Mexico, or what? I'd love to hear more from the MBI on this massage-smuggling phenomenon! It's unlikely that we will hear a word from this former MBI commander though – the agency rarely does follow-up.
In these parlor cases, the MBI admits to tracking down the clients via credit cards used at the business. Now there’s a reason to never accept credit cards, or try to use one, for any adult business service. No doubt that this is how they found so many of the customers in the Ding case.
In early February of 2009, the MBI raided a café in the Orlando Asian community, alleging that it was a front for a sports gambling bookmaking operation. Dung Ngoc Nguyen, the alleged head of the organized operation, had a puzzled look on his face as the WFTV reporter spewed accusations of his threatening violence to collect on unpaid debts – an unsubstantiated and uncharged accusation at that. Nguyen and Hau Tan Thai were both booked on racketeering, bookmaking, receiving money bets for a game of chance or skill, and unlawful use of a two-way communication device. That is 3 felonies and 1 misdemeanor, including the MBI signature racketeering charge. The cases are numbered 09-CF-0001668 and 09-CF-0001669, and they are not yet merged as co-defendants, in Orange County, Florida. Zambouras was there for the cameras with his expected rhetoric:
"Gambling is one of the things that leads to the violent crime, like I said before, these guys aren't nice guys, you owe them money and their may be a crime that happens to your family, property and so on," said MBI Commander Paul Zambouros.
Someone might remind this former commander of the MBI that the State of Florida runs the biggest organized gambling operation in the state – it is referred to as the Florida Lottery. You've got to wonder who set these guys up….
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Targeting Massage Parlors
Prosecutions of massage parlor owners have proliferated in the last few years, although the number of parlors open has not seen much, if any, increase during this period of time. Most of the targeted parlors have been open for many years, and some for more than a decade. It is decidedly a growing trend with state and federal prosecutors around the US, and frequently includes civil forfeiture of property and money. Do these cops and prosecutors have nothing better to do with their time or are they receiving an extra push from religious groups, for example, the Christian Coalition? Or are such pursuits receiving serious funding by government agencies quick to label the foreign workers "trafficked women"? Think about it for a minute – a massage parlor has been open for 10 or 12 years, but suddenly this parlor is a problem to the overall community? I admit to knowing little about massage parlors, or body scrubs, as they are sometimes called, but what little I do know tells me that often the same customers go there for years and nothing has changed to warrant the sudden attack.
There was one in Cocoa (Florida) that was directly across the street from the Cocoa Police Department for 20 years before the Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation (MBI) ventured over to Brevard County and raided, then permanently closed, the place. The MBI did what they did back in 2002, and only as a result of information received from the big informant in my own case, Ann, as she had worked there briefly. The City of Cocoa and Brevard County didn't care enough to bother for 20 entire years. I am referring to the Boardroom case, and the owner, Marjorie Ruzzo, pled guilty to a racketeering charge in state court back in 2003. If Ann the informant didn't exist the MBI would not have bothered. Today is different in that the MBI has been targeting these establishments in Orlando for the last two years; In fact, when they raid the places they bring along WFTV news reporters, so this is about the only time that I see the MBI in the news today.
It is a trend to target these parlors in that I'm seeing new cases pop-up all over the country, and not just in my own backyard. Most often the owners of the massage parlors that are targeted are Asian or Asian-American, although there are as many massage parlors open that are owned by non-Asians. In many cases I'm hearing agents talk about "trafficking in women" being a part of the investigation and a potential charge faced by the owner. Usually the women working in these places are in their 30s, 40s, and 50s – look at the booking photos the next time you see a raid in the news. It is beyond me to understand how women from Korea, Vietnam, or China, that are in these age groups could be referred to as "trafficked," unless of course it has to do with federal grants and police funding. Hell, if they wanted to leave they could, without doubt, but this is how they make a living, and it beats the crap out of working at a fast-food joint for minimum wage!
To illustrate my point here, the next few articles posted will concern specific prosecutions in different geographic areas. I'll begin with Orlando and the prosecution of Li Ping Ding, and then move on to cases in Ohio, Colorado, and elsewhere. Indulge me please – I have done my research on the topic.
There was one in Cocoa (Florida) that was directly across the street from the Cocoa Police Department for 20 years before the Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation (MBI) ventured over to Brevard County and raided, then permanently closed, the place. The MBI did what they did back in 2002, and only as a result of information received from the big informant in my own case, Ann, as she had worked there briefly. The City of Cocoa and Brevard County didn't care enough to bother for 20 entire years. I am referring to the Boardroom case, and the owner, Marjorie Ruzzo, pled guilty to a racketeering charge in state court back in 2003. If Ann the informant didn't exist the MBI would not have bothered. Today is different in that the MBI has been targeting these establishments in Orlando for the last two years; In fact, when they raid the places they bring along WFTV news reporters, so this is about the only time that I see the MBI in the news today.
It is a trend to target these parlors in that I'm seeing new cases pop-up all over the country, and not just in my own backyard. Most often the owners of the massage parlors that are targeted are Asian or Asian-American, although there are as many massage parlors open that are owned by non-Asians. In many cases I'm hearing agents talk about "trafficking in women" being a part of the investigation and a potential charge faced by the owner. Usually the women working in these places are in their 30s, 40s, and 50s – look at the booking photos the next time you see a raid in the news. It is beyond me to understand how women from Korea, Vietnam, or China, that are in these age groups could be referred to as "trafficked," unless of course it has to do with federal grants and police funding. Hell, if they wanted to leave they could, without doubt, but this is how they make a living, and it beats the crap out of working at a fast-food joint for minimum wage!
To illustrate my point here, the next few articles posted will concern specific prosecutions in different geographic areas. I'll begin with Orlando and the prosecution of Li Ping Ding, and then move on to cases in Ohio, Colorado, and elsewhere. Indulge me please – I have done my research on the topic.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
The Right to Privacy
Do We The People have any serious expectation of privacy or respect for the privacy of others in the United States today? I don't know about anyone else, but I do on both counts. I'll take it a step further here: Does a man that calls an escort service have an expectation of privacy? Should any business that he conducts with the escort and the agency be private?
Today it is all gossip fodder for the media. I owned the second escort service in the world that was on the internet and conducted business in conservative Orlando for 10 years. Is there anyone that thinks that public officials and Hollywood celebrities didn't use my agency when they stayed at Disney resorts? If you can answer "yes" to that I'd love to talk to you about some land for sale out in the Everglades.
When I testified in my defense at my trial, the prosecutor drilled me for most of an entire day, and one of his many questions was: "What are some names of clients that called your business?" My answer was that I didn't remember any names, and that was true – as I sat there on the stand, facing up to 60 years in a Florida prison and nearing the end of week two of the trial, and frazzled beyond imagination, I didn't recall any names. You see, I barbequed the client lists long before the day they banged down my door, and I did admit that on the stand. When asked why I would do such a thing, the answer was simple: Such lists could never help me, the escorts, or the clients, so why keep them. My business never accepted credit cards, or wire transfers, so there were no bank records either.
The policy at my agency was that the client remained private whether he wanted to or not. Why would any man use a credit card for escort services or do a wire transfer to the business? In my opinion, he'd have to be lacking in the intelligence department, or have nothing whatsoever to lose. So what was Elliot Spitzer's excuse? The man had everything to lose and was all too aware of how those investigations and prosecutions work.
Today a booker from the Emperors Club spoke about Spitzer in open court during her sentencing. The man has become total gossip fodder in the media, especially with all of the personal and private encounters revealed by Kristin, the newly-named Manhattan Madam. I think that Ashley Dupre is the only one that hasn't spoke publicly about him, and for that she earns my respect – she took the money and in doing so became ethically bound to an unspoken agreement of privacy. But what do I know? The Manhattan Madam is selling plenty of books and I'm not. My book is an actual story, not gossip, and reveals no client secrets. This in itself reveals the answer to the initial question. There is no expectation of privacy in the United States today, and the people rather enjoy seeing the right to privacy go by the wayside. After all is said and done our lives should be open books, right?
Today it is all gossip fodder for the media. I owned the second escort service in the world that was on the internet and conducted business in conservative Orlando for 10 years. Is there anyone that thinks that public officials and Hollywood celebrities didn't use my agency when they stayed at Disney resorts? If you can answer "yes" to that I'd love to talk to you about some land for sale out in the Everglades.
When I testified in my defense at my trial, the prosecutor drilled me for most of an entire day, and one of his many questions was: "What are some names of clients that called your business?" My answer was that I didn't remember any names, and that was true – as I sat there on the stand, facing up to 60 years in a Florida prison and nearing the end of week two of the trial, and frazzled beyond imagination, I didn't recall any names. You see, I barbequed the client lists long before the day they banged down my door, and I did admit that on the stand. When asked why I would do such a thing, the answer was simple: Such lists could never help me, the escorts, or the clients, so why keep them. My business never accepted credit cards, or wire transfers, so there were no bank records either.
The policy at my agency was that the client remained private whether he wanted to or not. Why would any man use a credit card for escort services or do a wire transfer to the business? In my opinion, he'd have to be lacking in the intelligence department, or have nothing whatsoever to lose. So what was Elliot Spitzer's excuse? The man had everything to lose and was all too aware of how those investigations and prosecutions work.
Today a booker from the Emperors Club spoke about Spitzer in open court during her sentencing. The man has become total gossip fodder in the media, especially with all of the personal and private encounters revealed by Kristin, the newly-named Manhattan Madam. I think that Ashley Dupre is the only one that hasn't spoke publicly about him, and for that she earns my respect – she took the money and in doing so became ethically bound to an unspoken agreement of privacy. But what do I know? The Manhattan Madam is selling plenty of books and I'm not. My book is an actual story, not gossip, and reveals no client secrets. This in itself reveals the answer to the initial question. There is no expectation of privacy in the United States today, and the people rather enjoy seeing the right to privacy go by the wayside. After all is said and done our lives should be open books, right?
Monday, June 1, 2009
The Bingo Racketeering Case
Bingo parlors used to be another target of the Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation (MBI), but it looks like the agents of the State of Florida had their fill, and bit off more than they could chew, in the biggest of the bingo cases. I referred to the case briefly in my book, and had one important part incorrect: The two defendants and several corporations that took the criminal case to trial were acquitted on all counts by the jury. It is the civil case that they originally lost, was overturned on appeal, won, and is now once again in appeal status, according to the file. The bingo case began in 1995 and continues today.
Back in 1995 when the criminal case was filed there were 17 defendants, and 8 of those defendants were corporations. One of the acquitted defendants was Pondella Hall for Hire, Inc. – Pondella was in Orange County (Orlando), but this was a large-scale commercial bingo operation comprising 15 bingo halls in 12 Florida counties. Leave it to the overzealous MBI to be the investigators to pursue a racketeering (RICO) case. The criminal case is Case Number 95-CF-0012838, and it is an Orange County case. I have never seen so many filings on a case as this one, except in the civil case that continues. The civil case was also filed in 1995, as the state sought to forfeit all of the property of the bingo halls and the defendants. Today the victims also seek damages and losses from the State of Florida. The civil Case Number is 1995-CA-006890-0 and it is also in Orange County.
The two defendants that didn't plead guilty to the lengthy list of felony counts are Roy Killingsworth Jr. and Philip Leroy Furtney. I recall Furtney being in the news in leg-irons well over a decade ago, and must believe that it was during the criminal trial when he was being taken to court, but it may have been right after his arrest. Furtney was the one connected to Pondella, and the man is a legend – he fought these abusive overzealous whacks until he died in September of 2007. His brother Bruce, on behalf of his estate, carries on in the civil case today. The last filing on the case was on May 28, 2009. Can you imagine a 13 year fight over a bingo hall case and then to die before it's resolved? Well, it is resolved in that the state lost and has pay for all the forfeited property – today it's about how much they have to pay for property value changes and specifically what state office is paying.
It should be the end of the MBI for twisting the Florida racketeering statutes to the point of obscurity in a case that has cost Florida taxpayers an unknown sum of money that has yet to be revealed. But hey, it gave all the attorneys and agents something to do, right? I still have the MBI Governing Board minutes from meetings in 1994, and forward, wherein Pondella is discussed, so the board was well-aware of this abuse of the statutes. May Philip Leroy Furtney of Ontario rest in peace – eventually they will pay for all that they did.
Back in 1995 when the criminal case was filed there were 17 defendants, and 8 of those defendants were corporations. One of the acquitted defendants was Pondella Hall for Hire, Inc. – Pondella was in Orange County (Orlando), but this was a large-scale commercial bingo operation comprising 15 bingo halls in 12 Florida counties. Leave it to the overzealous MBI to be the investigators to pursue a racketeering (RICO) case. The criminal case is Case Number 95-CF-0012838, and it is an Orange County case. I have never seen so many filings on a case as this one, except in the civil case that continues. The civil case was also filed in 1995, as the state sought to forfeit all of the property of the bingo halls and the defendants. Today the victims also seek damages and losses from the State of Florida. The civil Case Number is 1995-CA-006890-0 and it is also in Orange County.
The two defendants that didn't plead guilty to the lengthy list of felony counts are Roy Killingsworth Jr. and Philip Leroy Furtney. I recall Furtney being in the news in leg-irons well over a decade ago, and must believe that it was during the criminal trial when he was being taken to court, but it may have been right after his arrest. Furtney was the one connected to Pondella, and the man is a legend – he fought these abusive overzealous whacks until he died in September of 2007. His brother Bruce, on behalf of his estate, carries on in the civil case today. The last filing on the case was on May 28, 2009. Can you imagine a 13 year fight over a bingo hall case and then to die before it's resolved? Well, it is resolved in that the state lost and has pay for all the forfeited property – today it's about how much they have to pay for property value changes and specifically what state office is paying.
It should be the end of the MBI for twisting the Florida racketeering statutes to the point of obscurity in a case that has cost Florida taxpayers an unknown sum of money that has yet to be revealed. But hey, it gave all the attorneys and agents something to do, right? I still have the MBI Governing Board minutes from meetings in 1994, and forward, wherein Pondella is discussed, so the board was well-aware of this abuse of the statutes. May Philip Leroy Furtney of Ontario rest in peace – eventually they will pay for all that they did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)