Jury in NY says Money for Time is not prostitution even if sex is intended
February, 2009
Jury in NY says Money for Time is not prostitution even if sex is intended
Jury unanimous acquittal in the Big Apple Case (BA)
In my view it is similar to escorts in the U.S. Money for Time is not prostitution
per jury.
Background reminders - In the Philippines "bargirls" are available for "take
out" There is a very clear expectation of sex, but they are paid for their
time when bar fined to go to a customers hotel room usually for the night.
Prostitution is illegal in the Philippines and New York was prosecuting the
owners of BA. New York lost a couple times in lower Courts but the State of
New York appealed. At the Appellate Court, they sent the case back for retrial
where a jury found them innocent.
BUT THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR U.S. Escort Defenses:
One of the jurors wrote the following and he very closely to what Norman wrote
(below) . The whole trial was audiotapes where the BA owners talked abut having
sex with women while on vacation. The intent to have sex was clear but the
jury found that you need more than intent you have to have the completion
of a deal to provide sexual conduct for a fee. Intent is always vague unless
followed up by facts of evidence.
Juror Number 4
MaQUana wrote:
I was on this jury and we had to acquit. And prostitution is illegal
in the Philippines. That's the only reason we had jurisdiction, however
there is this system and the girls are licensed entertainers and men pay
the bar $20 in order to take the girl on a date. They are paying the bar
for the girl's time. And the main reason we had to say not guilty is because
the Attorney General's office was not smart enough to call the Philippines
once in this investigation. Also Doug Allen said about 20 names and the
investigator didn't try to find one of them. It was a huge waste of taxpayer's
money for men who faced less than a year in jail. I spent 2 weeks sitting
through this garbage because the AG's office couldn't let a case that Judge
Hayes dumped twice just be dumped. It really was a horrible example of the
failings in our judicial system. Is is clear these guys are lowlifes, yes,
but unfortunately not guilty, and it would have been easy to do so. Tsk
tsk attorney general.
1/27/2009 10:23:04 AM
This is for your information and publication if you wish.
Dave notes:
The AG's office could not find anyone who would testify they were paid for
sex since the barfine system that is used never does pay for sex only her
time and a fine to the bar to "take her out". Not for sex, even though that
is the usual result between two consenting adults for no specific fee.
"licensed entertainers"... could be in the U.S. or Phoenix where escort
licenses are often required, "licensed escorts." But more clear issue is
money for time not sex is not prostitution according to this jury.
Dear Dave:
Last week we held a number of conversations with the people who have a
been part of our case from the beginning. My partner has summed up those
comments and gives his analysis of the current situation. My partner sage
comments are:
In all the back and forth over the last week, one of the most significant
consequences of our victory was scarcely mentioned. After about three
hours of jury deliberations, the jurors (pinpointed to a man on the panel)
submitted three questions for Judge Hayes concerning the applicable law.
The most important of them was whether or not we could be convicted of
promoting prostitution if they could find no evidence of prostitution
actually occurring. Judge Hayes reconvened the court and told the jurors
that prostitution (money for sex not for time) must be proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. Less than an hour later, the jury found us not guilty.
This came after more than a week of the prosecution bombarding the court
with audio and video tapes purporting to prove that prostitution has been
an ongoing activity in Angeles City thanks to the barfine system. In defining
the law for the jurors, Judge Hayes quoted Penal Law Section 230 as declaring
that prostitution is the exchange of sexual conduct for a fee.
In finding us not guilty, the jury effectively held that the barfine does
not pay for sexual conduct, but merely to remove an employee from the
premises of the bar she works for, for a specified period of time whether
there is sexual conduct or not.
The prosecutor had argued that any negotiations between the woman and
her customer over sexual conduct prior to his paying the barfine revealed
the intent to engage in prostitution. The jury did not buy that. We could
have argued further that time and companionship are not among the definitions
of sexual conduct within the Penal Law, but our lawyers were squeamish
about going there.
The implications of the jury's verdict are profound. It effectively legalizes
escort services and freelance escorts who charge by the hour but not for
the actual acts, porno movie producers who pay the actors to perform according
to a script that includes acts of sexual conduct, even massage parlors
and S & M clubs that charge an all-inclusive one-price admission at the
door while eschewing additional "happy ending" charges which are clearly
illegal. No wonder the state Attorney General's Office has hushed up the
verdict until now and ordered the Equality Now people to keep their big
mouths shut.
Norman
Note: It is going to be interesting to see what (is published) in the
Law Journal as the review of our case.. That won't be out for several
months yet.
We are watching Equality Now's website for comments about our case. In
November 2008 they were demanding letters be written to Andrew Cuomo encouraging
him to prosecute this case. Now that they have lost I bet we get the silent
treatment.
Sincerely,
Douglas Allen
Paying for Time "Legal Even Though Sexual Conduct is Likely to Occur?"
Is it similar to how Restaurants avoid Liquor License laws?
Some escort agencies and independent companions get busted others don't
yet they all sell the same thing; time and companionship. Is that legal?
Neither product is sexual conduct so it has to be legal? If purchasing
time to go have consensual sex is illegal then more than Jeane Palfrey
and Jenny Paulino are guilty. What does the money pay for? It has to pay
for sexual conduct to be illegal. See US V. Jones 909, where a dispatcher
and seven escorts won and appeal in Federal Court. They had been convicted
of Travel Act (Interstate Transportation in Aid of Racketeering Enterprise
- ITAR or Travel Act) and Mann Act violations
on a vague notion that prostitution was occurring. The Appellate Court
said, "no." You have to have proof that sexual conduct was been bought
or sold or at least offered for a fee. The Fed Prosecutors could not do
that. The only thing they could prove was that money was being spent for
some period of time for some companionship. Usually on hour but sometimes
longer. What ever they do or did behind closed doors is up to them or
is it?
Palfrey is also using this argument cited the Jones case in addition to
her constitutional argument under Lawrence vs Texas. Her June 15, 2007
Motion to dismiss count 2 is quite interesting at
http://deborahjeanepalfrey.com/download/count2.pdf
Up until now I totally agreed the "just for time not for sex" disclaimers
were worthless that it would be if a reasonable person would assume there
was an expectation of sex as part of the fee. But I now see the argument
as what was actually paid for. If you pay for time but also expect sex,
your still paying for time not sex is the argument. Legal issues rely
on such fine points in definitions. And there is some support for that
in seems in United States v. Jones, 909 F.2d 533. At least the defense
is being tried along with the constitutional defense of prostitution in
a case with good attorneys making the fight.
The phone operators convictions were reversed since the mere "inducement"
for sex was not enough to have a conviction at least under the Mann Act.
The Travel Act is more complex and may have been reversed more on bad
jury instructions since under the Travel Act intent can be a valid criminal
act it seems. Is the escort agency case like the restaurant avoiding having
to have a liquor license (see argument below)? Was money paid for the
sex or for the time is the issue with escorts.
It would certainly be a whole lot simpler and not waste all these attorney
fees and Courts time if private prostitution was simply decriminalized
as in most of the world with no significant negative effects.
May be comparable to restaurants avoiding liquor license problem
In response to my post Ryver writes:
Around here (Philadelphia, PA), many restaurants that do not have
a liquor license serve meals with multiple courses for a per-person
set price and serve wine and liquor as "complimentary" along with the
paid-for meals. Others have everything prices separately but still serve
"complimentary" wine and liquor with whatever you order. I believe this
is a common practice in many establishments that do not have such licenses
to sell alcoholic beverages instead of being strictly BYOB.
Now, it's well known when you go there for dinner, you will be served
alcohol and of course you realize on an unspoken level that you are
paying for it somewhere in the cost of your food but legally you are
only paying for food and the establishment is not violating liquor laws
since they are not selling alcohol without a license.
--------------
Similar issue in Canada - Is a release an adult body rub "sex" so it
would violate the bawdy house law (outcall 100% legal in Canada as in
most of the world except the U.S.)
Parlour's 'manual release' ruled legal
Charges thrown out in masturbation case
Do you just pay for massage and "manual release" simply optional no
fee addition
Argument of course is similar in the U.S. including for time paid for
an escort
A Canadian judge rules it wasn't sex
Some cities like Vaughan (suburb of Toronto) are going after unlicensed
body rub parlors under the rarely enforced bawdy house law that makes
incall prostitution illegal, while outcall has always been legal.
Justice Howard Chisvin, of the Ontario Court of Justice, dismissed two
bawdy house charges against a body rub manager saying: "The payment
of money was for a full-body massage. The act of masturbation was optional,
at no additional fee. I wonder, and am left in doubt as to whether or
not the community might consider the act of masturbation in all situations
to be sexual."
The judge then made a reference to Clinton's liaison with the intern.
"One only needs to look to the conduct of a certain president of the
United States and ... the activity that he participated in to wonder
whether or not the act of masturbation is indeed, in all circumstances,
a sexual act."
Will the judge's ruling open the flood gates for more "happy endings"
at rub and tugs without fear of police prosecution? Lawyer Alan Gold
says it's too early to tell. But he said he believed the judgment to
be unprecedented and said it will be in the next issue of his Criminal
Law Netletter, a collection of "novel and important" cases.
In his ruling, Chisvin was critical of the undercover York Regional
police officer in the case. The court heard how the officer stripped
naked, lay first on his stomach and then flipped over for the female
attendant, stopping her when she put her oiled-up hands on his penis.
He went to the massage parlour again, going through the drill with another
attendant. "It strikes me that his actions were not only unnecessary
but outside a protocol of investigative techniques of offences of this
nature and bordered on no more than attending for self-gratification."
Source:
http://www.thestar.com/article/255176 from 9/11/2007
Good comments:
- Kinda like McDonald's offering free smiles with your meal. You
dint pay for it, didn't ask for it, but it was nice to get and you'll
probably go back since they made you feel special.
- Unless it's challenged in appeals court, it becomes legal precedent.
The judge has defined that a HJ in itself is not prostitution if
no dealing took place, and that it wasn't an indecent act that would
have made the place a common bawdy house. Lets hope that, in the
future, the justice system spends its time prosecuting real crime,
instead of stimulation between consenting adults.
- I prefer to have my penis massaged by a vagina. Now THAT's a
full body massage *g*
|