AVN.com Has just updated its story on the raid on National A-1 this morning.
According to the updated story, the Local CBS affiliate is reporting, that the raid was related to a prostitution ring investigation.”
and according to the new report it could be the National A-1 owned site Escorts.com, that could be the issue rather than HotMovies.com
AVN quoted a special agent of the FBI, Special Agent J.J. Klaver who said:
“Any information about the raid will only come from the U.S. Attorney’s office, not our office, and it will probably not be today, or for quite a while.”
Initially our thoughts went to a possible record keeping violation under US code 2257, but if this new report is correct it could be an outgrowth of the government crackdown on escort advertising which lead Craigslist.com to withdraw the adult/escort section of their site last month.
Another service, backpage.com announced recently that it was going to block some sections of its highly popular personal section.
Ahhh. That makes sense.
Yet another reason why I will be ‘throwing away my vote’ on the Libertarian Party for the rest of my life. So, so sick and tired of the morality police using my tax dollars to fund this nonsense.
Anon
It does make more sense although I still want to remind everyone again its innocent until proven guilty.
I’ve been on the Libertarian Party bandwagon for quite a while, people in Eurpoe can’t believe that we spend money on this crap.
Craigslist was working with law enforcement until politicians decided it was better to make it go underground. And there are many other sites that continue to legally allow adults to find each other.
http://www.Backpage.com and Village Voice is still big online and in print.
http://www.NaughtyReviews.com – not based in US and with reviews too.
and others….
The land of the free.
Yeah right!
Other countries in europe laughing there a.. off at these rules set by US law.
In europe?
Topless teenagers and women of all ages on beaches is normal.
Phone sex TV ads with completly nude women running on national TV every single day.
Prostitution is legal.
The largest sex trade show “Venus” with the pornstars running arround nude at the show and also giving trade show visitors a touchable expirience “All Hands on”.
While all the mentioned is illegal in the U.S. and government makes the rules of what they think is moral and what not?
They send out recruters and let 18 year old youngsters sign there life away to go to war and kill others because that is moraly right ?!
But hey, if you want to buy a six pack? Sorry, you got to be 21?
The land of the free? What joke!
@Duane – “”The land of the free? What joke!””
-yet you stay! Yup, what a joke.
@Kevin
Wrong! I left and chose a european country.
@ Duane
In europe?
Topless teenagers and women of all ages on beaches is normal.
—————————————————————-
Well …Topless teenagers, maybe okay…
but women of all ages on beaches is normal?
If my wife was on the beach Topless…
there would be emergency martial law
the next day to prevent blindness, against it. 🙂
I’m dismayed by this news and agree with the comments of earlier posters. It’s time we stood up and stopped the government deciding where to spend OUR money. If this news is true, then http://www.escorts.com will be replaced by companies like http://www.naughtyreviews.com and http://www.eroticreveiw.com simply because they decided to set up shop here in the US instead of offshoring. Sex has always been sold and what’s wrong with that as long as the seller is willingly doing so?
What a joke and waste of taxpayers money – I feel bad for National a-1 just having to deal with this lunacy. Tell me some of the agents are not looking at the site’s going “she’s hot!
Yes. Only in America do we waste our taxpayer dollars in this crap and nipple accidents at the superbowl.
@Anon and Duane,
I just wrote and deleted a six paragraph rant about how selective injustice is carried out in this country and how the U.S. is becoming a bankrupt police state directly as a result, how the U.S. Constitution is being made a mockery of and how there are two separate and distinct “Justice Systems”, one for corporations, the rich and privileged and one for the common man.
Let me just present two examples,
Case A:
The U.S. v. Roderick Vosburgh
“FBI agents used this hyperlink-enticement technique, which directed Internet users to a clandestine government server, to stage armed raids of homes in Pennsylvania, New York, and Nevada last year” further “Roderick Vosburgh, a doctoral student at Temple University who also taught history at La Salle University, was raided at home in February 2007 after he allegedly clicked on the FBI’s hyperlink. Federal agents knocked on the door around 7 a.m., falsely claiming they wanted to talk to Vosburgh about his car. Once he opened the door, they threw him to the ground outside his house and handcuffed him.Vosburgh was charged with violating federal law, which criminalizes “attempts” to download child pornography with up to 10 years in prison. Last November, a jury found Vosburgh guilty on that count, and a sentencing hearing is scheduled for April”
“The implications of the FBI’s hyperlink-enticement technique are sweeping. Using the same logic and legal arguments, federal agents could send unsolicited e-mail messages to millions of Americans advertising illegal narcotics or child pornography-and raid people who click on the links embedded in the spam messages”
Anyways, it goes on.. basically the FBI used an entrapment scheme to lure potential predators to a site and mind you they did not download child porn, but merely clicked on a link and they were arrested and now face up to 10 years in prison. That is of course, besides your career, marriage, self esteem and the thought of forever being branded a convicted sex offender the rest of your life. The implications are enormous and if it could happen to a well respected teacher with no prior criminal history, it could also happen to you also.
Case B:
Jeffrey Epstein, billionaire hedge fund mogul, friend of the Clinton”s known and documented pedophile and sex trafficker.
“Today hedge-funder Jeffrey Epstein walks free from a year-long house arrest in Florida, which he served after a previous 13-month sentence at the Palm Beach Stockade, a county jail”
“Police identified 17 underage local girls who had contact with Epstein – the youngest of whom was 14. The FBI later turned up roughly 40 girls who it claimed had been victims of Epstein’s attentions over the past decade.
Epstein is said to have referred to one of the girls, Nadia Marcinkova, as his “Yugoslavian sex slave” because he had imported her from the Balkans at age 14. She later became part of the household.
Allegations in a later civil suit claim that for Epstein’s birthday one year, three 12-year-old girls were flown over from France and molested before being sent back home the following day. Girls from South America and former Soviet republics were also alleged to have been sourced for Epstein”
This guy get’s 13 months in jail and 1 year of house arrest as a known and convicted pedophile and international trafficker of child prostitutes.
I think you get my point…
I don’t know if MHB will approve or dissaprove of me providing links to both cases, but both are a fascinating read about our justice system and how justice is metered out. The Vosburgh case treads into nebulous legal territory and has some fascinating and scary implications for anyone on the internet.
The U.S. v. Roderick Vosburgh
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=264081&messageID=2592397
Jeffrey Epstein
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-07-20/jeffrey-epstein-billionaire-pedophile-goes-free
Dean: That Roderick Vosburgh case is one of the most egregious things I’ve ever heard.
We are in desperate need of a ‘philosophical ruling’ from SCOTUS on entrapment. We presently take a schizophrenic position that all boils down to whether the presiding court takes an objective or subjective view on the matter.
Some Law Enforcement offices are totally out of control. They’ve been given such carte blanche from a society trying to be ‘tough on crime’ that they have no hesitation to employ regulatory framework to ‘trip up’ otherwise law abiding people, absent any evidence that they were predisposed to criminal activity to begin with. It’s almost as if for every criminal they catch doing something wrong, they create one anew with ridiculous schemes like this.
It’s not just Child Pornography, either. Local Law Enforcement and the DEA do this with regularity on ‘drug conspiracy’ cases where no drugs are actually involved, the BATF ‘creates criminals’ with complex schemes involving illicit transfer of otherwise lawful firearms possessed by law abiding owners and there seems to be a creeping theme of the FBI making some pretty tenuous ‘terrorist conspiracy’ cases, too.
Whats so sad here is that this sort of activity is prohibited by virtually every country on earth. When even countries like Russia and China don’t let their cops get away with this stuff, how can we claim to be on some ideological high road when we do?
The outcome is that we incarcerate more of our population per-capita than any other nation on earth? It’s because we’ve created such an unnavigable patchwork of laws and rules and laws for laws for more laws- then handed the whole thing over to ‘law enforcement’ who can effectively make a case against anyone, for any reason and absent a good reason, can ‘virtue test’ them to see if they can’t be swindled into breaking a law- that an otherwise law abiding and honest person can find himself a ‘criminal’ without much effort.
Solzhenitsyn wrote extensively about our ridiculous justice system here. It’s high time policy-makers started addressing this. We cannot continue down this road where legal technicality is emphasized over right and wrong… Where bored cops in offices can plan and use artifice to try and ‘trip up’ someone who isn’t doing anything wrong.
Rant over.
There’s more info here
http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/video/irs,-feds-raid-center-city-business.
Just like the apathy that people show (or don’t show) concerning important law’s and rulings affecting they’re industry, people will turn a blind eye, until it is they’re domain being taken away or they’re door being kicked down. Maybe that is the wake up call that most need.
*
AIDS, Human Trafficking, Child Abuse and Porn, Modern Slavery, Poverty, Domestic and Sexual abuse.
Prostitution benefits only pimps.
Prostitutes, both male and female (mostly female), almost always lose, often forced to turn several tricks a night. This is not a choice but an act of desperation by young women and men who have little education and fewer choices. And once they grow too old, they are tossed aside like garbage, sometimes even killed.
I lived in Europe, and I never saw naked women running on beaches. In fact, where I was prostitution was illegal, and the police clamped down–hard.
Back in the U.S., we recently had a case in my town (40,000) where some Chinese snakeheads illegally brought in young women from China and placed them in a local “massage parlor,” where they were forced, against their will, into prostitution to service johns. Is that a freedom and choice?
Craig’s List shut down its adult site because some young women were murdered after they answered an ad by a serial killer. Getting murdered is a freedom and choice?
Yeah, I’m glad that the cops are cracking down on this crap.
In the U.S., we enjoy freedom of speech, religion, and other rights, but we don’t have the right to prey on and exploit other people. And if someone’s website is a cause of someone’s slavery or death, then it should be shut down and the perps arrested.
Some of you sound like whiny frat boys who care nothing about consequences, just your own selfish self-gratification.
*
Ms Dominatrix… err, Domainer
no one here is defending human trafficking, governments should not go unchecked, rampantly and injudiciously “exploiting” it’s citizens rights. Slavery comes in many guises.
No, Ms Domainer, pretty much everything you laid out there is a hysterical construct.
It’s not called ‘the worlds oldest profession’ for nothing. I would wager that for every 1 transaction involving a woman being exploited in sex commerce (prostitution, pornography, exotic dancing, etc), there are 9999 that are nothing more than a business transaction between two people, voluntary and mutual, that harms no one.
There isn’t an ‘issue’ out there that can’t be extrapolated out to the furthest fringes of ‘worst case scenario’. It’s what people with agendas do whenever they’re trying to define an issue they cannot win with reason and fact.
So, we both agree that sexual exploitation of anyone for any purpose is wrong, however, you cannot legitimately define this issue in that distant context, no more than you can legitimately call for the prohibition of alcohol because someone got drunk, drove and had a fatal accident.
Your logic fails from start to finish, Ms Domainer.
Anon, You about nailed it.
“There isn’t an ‘issue’ out there that can’t be extrapolated out to the furthest fringes of ‘worst case scenario’”
“pretty much everything you laid out there is a hysterical construct”
Yep.
Legalize prostitution.
Legalize all drugs.
Control both, tax both, use those taxes for the public good.
That is, and always has been, the best answer to both these problems.
Honestly Deke – you also nailed it.
There is nothing wrong with legalizing any of this stuff as long as its regulated. A lot of people confuse legalization with having drug dealers and hookers on every corner – entirely ignorant point of view.
Regulation is acceptance that an industry exists and an attempt at managing it.
Neither drugs or sex are ever going away.
I am libertarian too! 🙂
“Presumed innocent until proven guilty” is a rule of court procedure and a jury instruction. It is not some sort of right or obligation bearing on anyone outside of a court. Anyone is entitled to believe and express their opinion about anyone charged with anything.
If you watch me shoot someone to death, you don’t have to say, “Gee, I dunno, I’ll see if a court finds him guilty.”. That’s just silly.
The way this phrase gets thrown around as if it is some kind of general command. Is one of my pet peeves.
Legal regulated prostitution is a preferable situation. However, under the situation we have, if you think pimps are a myth, that all of those women at the Asian massage parlor are in the US on valid visas of their own free will, and that eastern European women are getting lots of “housekeeping jobs in America” from friendly overseas employment agencies, then you are simply willfully blind to a reality that you do not want to acknowledge.
Over a hundred employees laying on the ground with there hands behind there head.
Cops all over the place taking out boxes of files.
No charges or giving a reason why this raid is happening?
Business and servers shut down?
“Presumed innocent until proven guilty” ???
Will there be anything added to the content inside the boxes which where taken out of these offices just to make a case? Who knows.
If federal agents can come into your office or house, throw you on the ground with your hands behind your head, take your belongings and take your job or business with out giving you any reason? Anything is possible.
But hey! It’s the home of the free!
Duane
“”If federal agents can come into your office or house, throw you on the ground with your hands behind your head, take your belongings and take your job or business with out giving you any reason? “”
They have to have a search warrant, which has to be issued by a judge.
Once they have that, then yes, they can raid your house or office, take any “evidence” which would be all computer equipment and file.
They did not take the business, the business is still there but a lot of equipment I’m sure has to be replaced
I know everyone is just speculating at the moment what the reason “could be” but that reporter in the link I posted above gives the impression it may have more to do with money and the IRS than anything else.
You have take into account that at the moment governments (from around the world) are watching any big money transactions/movements like a hawk to prevent terrorism funding. Maybe they are just checking it out cos they’re all pretty paranoid just now?
Hopefully it will all work out ok for A1
“If federal agents can come into your office or house, throw you on the ground with your hands behind your head, take your belongings and take your job or business with out giving you any reason? Anything is possible”
It is called executing a warrant.
If federal agents do that to you without one, then you have a payday coming.
I missed where National A-1 has issued a statement saying that the agents lacked authority to enter, search or seize, and I’m pretty sure they know how to find lawyers.
“They have to have a search warrant, which has to be issued by a judge.”
“It is called executing a warrant.”
Oh, now I understand. Thanks for explaning.
So now all the actions taken makes it legal and moral by the laws of the U.S. Government.
Stupid me.
John
“”“Presumed innocent until proven guilty” is a rule of court procedure and a jury instruction. It is not some sort of right or obligation bearing on anyone outside of a court. Anyone is entitled to believe and express their opinion about anyone charged with anything. ”
As far as I know so far no one has been charged in this case.
“”If you watch me shoot someone to death, you don’t have to say, “Gee, I dunno, I’ll see if a court finds him guilty.”. That’s just silly.”
John how many cases have we seen a police officer beating up a suspect only later to find out that either no charges have been brought against the officer or that the officer was found to be acting within his powers.
Your example of course is not applicable in this situation where once again charges haven’t even been filed so I do think layman need to be reminded not to jump the gun just and go directly to jail, because law enforcement came in with warrants
Duane
At least in the US they have to go to a judge with some evidence and get a search warrant, in many countries there is no such requirement and police can do this and even worse without any oversight.
@ MHB
“in many countries there is no such requirement and police can do this and even worse without any oversight.”
You mean like, raiding a office and treating employees with there face to the ground like criminals. May I say without any reasons explaind or charges made?
You can also have your wife stoned to death in Iran if she cheats on you. It’s legalized by there Government and executed by there judges. It is presented to the people as moraly right? Is it? I dont think so.
Duane
“”You mean like, raiding a office and treating employees with there face to the ground like criminals. May I say without any reasons explained or charges made?
They maybe criminals, law enforcement apparently thought so, and they had to convince a judge that they had evidence of criminal conduct to obtain a search warrant.
“Your example of course is not applicable in this situation…”
The situation is irrelevant. Anyone is entitled to their opinion about anyone else, charged, arrested, tried or whatever. Hey, when is that Rod Blagojevich re-trial starting? Anytime soon, since it was such a slam-dunk, and everybody “knows” he’s guilty?
This is not crooked cops rolling someone they perceive as a cheap punk in a back alley somewhere. National A-1 has significant resources to seek an appropriate remedy if there was a violation of any kind, and the feds are perfectly well aware of that.
I have a classmate from law school, now an attorney, who was mis-identified and indicted on a federal murder charge, and spent years having his life turned upside down – it was an awful situation. But what makes the “noteworthy” cases noteworthy is that they are the exceptional ones.
The reaction in this thread suggests to me that a lot of folks woke up this morning and never heard of a warrant. Yes, an investigatory warrant can itself be sealed, but that all gets sorted out eventually. It’s entirely possible that the subject of the investigation is not even A-1 itself, but in an organized crime investigation you don’t tip off people capable of international flight, and we have procedures for not doing that. And, double yes, when you send agents into a location to execute a warrant the first priority is officer safety and you make sure that every person at that location is not going to be reaching for a weapon or otherwise able to injure or kill an officer.
There is the world as it is, and the world as one might wish it to be. As I said, I agree legalized and regulated prostitution is a preferable situation. It’s not the one we have here. So, you don’t just say, “Well I think that law is silly, so I’m going to ignore it” and then whine about the consequences. The Mann Act is a real live federal law, and if you are part of a conspiracy to violate it, you can go to jail – regardless of how hard Europeans are laughing at that or anything else about the way things are run here.
Absolutely there are crooked cops. There are also a heck of a lot of crooked crooks who outnumber them. 99% of the time, I know who is risking their life for my safety, and it’s not the crooks. I don’t see anyone here complaining about the arrest yesterday of the guy who was “entrapped” into casing Washington METRO stations for bombings because he thought he was working for Al Qaeda. Do we want to shed tears over that one?
If there is something hinky going on in this investigation, A-1 is going to have half the suits on Market Street on this thing like white on rice. You betcha.
“However, under the situation we have, if you think pimps are a myth, that all of those women at the Asian massage parlor are in the US on valid visas of their own free will, and that eastern European women are getting lots of “housekeeping jobs in America” from friendly overseas employment agencies, then you are simply willfully blind to a reality that you do not want to acknowledge.”
—————————————–
No one thinks they’re a ‘myth’. A lot of people know that they’re hugely outlying to the larger situation and trotting them out to define the entire issue is hysterics at best.
We all agree- stop sexual exploitation, in all its forms. Not too hard to find- just look in places where there’s a nexus between immigrant women and sex work.
With that said, some of us understand that exploitation isn’t synonymous with the broader sex industry. Matter of fact, it isn’t even ‘remotely common’. It’s relegated to tiny little pockets and to cite those things to define the entire industry is akin to saying Nike Shoes are nothing more than enabling devices to help robbers flee the scene. It’s just a gigantic stretch of logic.
“With that said, some of us understand that exploitation isn’t synonymous with the broader sex industry.”
I didn’t meant to suggest it was “synonymous”, but we do have people whom we employ as a democratic society to combat it.
And, I’m not suggesting anything about A-1. I will say there was plenty of “word on the street” last night, literally, at the nightclub next to the A-1 employee entrance where my assistant (whom some of you know) meets up with her fiancee after he gets off from work about a block away, but I’m not going to recycle the A-1 employee rumor mill here.
Consider, the following acts are crimes in Pennsylvania:
——-
(b) Promoting prostitution.–A person who knowingly promotes
prostitution of another commits a misdemeanor or felony as
provided in subsection (c) of this section. The following acts
shall, without limitation of the foregoing, constitute promoting
prostitution:
(1) owning, controlling, managing, supervising or
otherwise keeping, alone or in association with others, a
house of prostitution or a prostitution business;
(2) procuring an inmate for a house of prostitution or a
place in a house of prostitution for one who would be an
inmate;
(3) encouraging, inducing, or otherwise intentionally
causing another to become or remain a prostitute;
(4) soliciting a person to patronize a prostitute;
(5) procuring a prostitute for a patron;
(6) transporting a person into or within this
Commonwealth with intent to promote the engaging in
prostitution by that person, or procuring or paying for
transportation with that intent;
(7) leasing or otherwise permitting a place controlled
by the actor, alone or in association with others, to be
regularly used for prostitution or the promotion of
prostitution, or failure to make reasonable effort to abate
such use by ejecting the tenant, notifying law enforcement
authorities, or other legally available means; or
(8) soliciting, receiving, or agreeing to receive any
benefit for doing or agreeing to do anything forbidden by
this subsection.
…
(d) Living off prostitutes.–A person, other than the
prostitute or the prostitute’s minor child or other legal
dependent incapable of self-support, who is knowingly supported
in whole or substantial part by the proceeds of prostitution is
promoting prostitution in violation of subsection (b) of this
section.
———-
You have to engage in some major mental gymnastics to run a site like escorts.com, and not think that someone is going to believe that, just maybe, you might be doing something relevant to something listed above.
I guess we need to shut down the porn movie industrie, because every one on the set is getting paid for sex.
Oh and the guy holding the camera was realy “encouraging”.
By the way, customers buying the DVD’s they need to go to jail because they are a “substantial part” why all the porn is made.
People need to grow up.
Don’t be surprised if the local AG doesn’t make a case for taking the domain escorts.com away from National A-1. Where are all of those domains for the pirated movie sites that got shut down right now….
It’s surprising that with that insane portfolio of names they would risk this kind of heat. I’m not taking a position regarding the FBI, DOJ or local AG’s cracking down on these type of sites but its been painfully obvious in the last two years that the governments reach is far beyond what most of us would have ever imagined. Wasn’t this a major issue being discussed at TRAFFIC?
The government will chase it all the way down the rabbit hole to the domain level. My advice, govern yourself accordingly and partner with the right people or risk losing your IP.
You have to engage in some major mental gymnastics to run a site like escorts.com, and not think that someone is going to believe that, just maybe, you might be doing something relevant to something listed above.
————————
Right. On this, we agree. The laws are what they are.
The disgust comes from the fact that this industry isn’t allowed to operate in the open; safe, regulated and clean. I realize the Puritan impulse dies awfully hard here in the US, but honestly, I think it’s time to get out heads out of our ‘well intentioned’ asses and start addressing human ‘vises’ in an entirely different context, if for no reason other than we can’t continue to burn up untold amounts of capital on enforcing an extremely narrow view of morality when the social return is negligible at best.
Anyway, this isn’t a legal debate. It’s an ideological one and those tides are turning very, very quickly.
Maybe I am missing something here. In the USA you can legally pay for two people to have sex when making a porn. Then, you can go purchase a porn movie in order to watch two people wo were paid to have sex in the first place, BUT its ILLEGAL if you want to actually pay to have sex with you. WOW!
National A1….looks like a nother multi-million dollar US Company that will be moving overseas.
i’m not all too interested in this story, but i did a quick cursory google and came away with two purported factoids:
– they never showed anyone the warrant (that’s just what i read. can anyone comment?)
– the state AG’s have some operation underway (that included clamping down on the village voice backpage site and craigslist)
but the real burning question in my mind is: does this mean pizza.com may become available? lol.
j/k!
“I guess we need to shut down the porn movie industry, because every one on the set is getting paid for sex.”
I used to be curious about that as well, and asked a New Jersey state prosecutor about that. The answer is that the everyone on the set is getting paid for making a movie, not having sex. Having sex is not illegal, nor is filming it. All of the people are being paid by the film production company for making the movie. They are not paying each other for having sex.
There HAVE, on the other hand, been successful prosecutions against “Be a porn actor” operations which have attempted to use “making porn films” as a cover for what was essentially prostitution. In these schemes, you are invited to be a “producer”, and you pay a fee to have sex with another “actor”. A camera is in the room, the event is taped, and they provide you with the tape. As noted above, the point in a film production is that the producer is paying the talent for making a movie, and then the producer is making money by selling the movie.
“Anyway, this isn’t a legal debate. It’s an ideological one”
I don’t have an issue with how anyone thinks the world “should work”. As an attorney, my only point is that, whatever one’s ideas about what the laws should be, the consequences for violating the ones which exist can be severe.
If anyone is interested in the subject of a “sealed warrant”, this article provides some background –
http://www.nacdl.org/CHAMPION/ARTICLES/96mar01.htm
The basic point is that sealed warrants are used in pre-indictment investigations. Before you can be charged for certain crimes, an indictment must be issued by a grand jury. Grand jury proceedings are themselves secret, since what goes on is an unopposed presentation of all evidence to obtain a finding of probable cause to indict. The evidence put before the grand jury may or may not ultimately be admissible, and grand jury testimony itself has no Fifth Amendment privilege, because the grand jury proceeding is not a trial to determine anyone’s guilt or innocence.
After an indictment is issued, the original warrant and supporting affidavits must be unsealed. The indictment may be challenged at that stage, and the admissibility of any evidence obtained under the warrant can be challenged. That is what I meant when I said there are ways of sorting out the lawfulness of the warrant in the first place.
The real problem with a lot of federal prosecutions is that some prosecutors drag out the time between execution of a warrant in a grand jury proceeding and actually bringing the indictment. That’s why I mention the Blagojevich situation in passing. Regardless of whatever he may have actually done or not done, the prosecutor made quite a show of presenting the original indictment some two years ago, he was then impeached by the the legislature and removed as governor, and the jury deadlocked on the “slam dunk” charges against him, leading to a mistrial. I have no opinion about Mr. Blagojevich, but when you stop and think that a federal prosecutor essentially removed a governor who has not been found guilty of the charges made, then it does raise some concern about the ability of federal prosecutors to essentially hold unresolved charges over anyone’s head for years at a stretch without resolution.
But do keep this stuff in mind the next time you hear politicians complaining about how the system is “too protective of the rights of criminals”; advocating summary punishments for whomever the government decides to identify as a “bad person”; or suggesting that accusations of certain crimes should be an exception to the defendant’s right to a fair trial and right of counsel. Criminal procedure is where the rubber meets the road when it comes to your constitutional rights, and all of that “tough on crime” rhetoric is fine until you are suspected of a crime.
if this were to go to some sort of court hearing or trial, would it be the State of Pennsylvania vs. National A-1?
I think the porn industry needs to be regulated, and no doubt the feds had a reason to go to National in the first place, but there are very well documented cases where it was unwarranted and property was destroyed, damaged and reputations ruined.
A well documented case is that of photographer Jock Sturges.
National A1 also owns around 1.9 million toll free numbers:
http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/106283698.html?cmpid=15585797
that was an interesting article. thanks J.B.
might it be reasonable to conclude there is indeed an ongoing operation, and it is of some importance to some “important” people (read: people who can give marching orders to federal prosecutors), and that there’s something in the affidavit that might “tip off” future targets?
“hold unresolved charges above anyone’s head for years… without resolution”
That makes me think of the Roman Polanski story, which gets a lot of write-up on the ‘net. I read about it and it is indeed interesting. The judge was worried about his image and changed horses in midstream, refusing to accept an agreement reached between the parties. Now _three decades later_, someone still wants to drag Polanski through the mud (for the same reasons? i don’t know), while the victim says she’s happily married, living in Hawaii, enjoying life and has all but forgotten about the experience. She says the thing she has not gotten over is the way the media behaved… and that was the media of 30 yrs ago. We’re still getting the story, 30 yrs later… cha-ching!
There’s some strange sort of disconnect. As if, the people involved and the specific facts fail to matter, except as symbols to operate in someone else’s self-centered objectives.
In fact, pimp, it is entirely possible that A-1 is not itself the subject of the investigation. While that is unlikely, A-1 would have a lot of data about users and advertisers on escorts.com.
The Roman Polanski thing is a very different story. He drugged and sodomized an underage girl. There is no “agreement between the parties” that can stop a criminal prosecution. Once a charge is filed, the case proceeds at the discretion of the prosecutor. Absolutely, he paid a lot to settle her civil claim and buy her off from testifying in the criminal case. Some people with money get the idea that it can buy anything. It can’t and he fled the country. He was found guilty, and has limited himself to countries from which he cannot be extradited. He popped up in the news lately because he made the mistake of going to Switzerland, from which extradition is possible. He was detained by Swiss authorities while the Swiss courts considered the extradition request, which was denied a few months ago.
Anyone remember Seth Warshavsky?
If his name doesn’t ring a bell, then you might want to read that story, being repeated here.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Warshavsky
He was the King Of Internet Porn and had serious personality flaws.
to be clear, i am not taking a position on what polanski did… it was wrong and it’s against the law. that’s a no-brainer. he should be treated like any other first offender for his crimes. but was he the only one who did something very wrong here? there’s a reason why he fled. there’s more to the story.
to the system’s credit, the victim (unlike most) reported what happened and the man was charged. and as a person charged with a crime, his lawyers and the prosecutor made a deal. correct me if i’m wrong but that’s to be expected if he has a reasonably good defense lawyer (even if he’s not of great financial means).
but the facts of this case (that the media just keeps on milking for attention) illustrate what you mentioned: the DA’s office holding charges over someone’s head for an extended period. three decades. what’s so special about this particular offender, from 1977? i won’t attempt to answer that. but we do know that his victim has forgiven him and even instructed her lawyers try to get the charges dropped. that seems somwehat unusual, don’t you think?
what’s curious about it all to me is there seems to be an issue of whether plea bargains are binding. i’m too lazy to research it. so i’ll ask: if prosecuters are allowed make deals, then should courts be obligated to honour them?
as i understand it, the reason the swiss courts let him go was because the us attorneys refused to give them the sworn testimony on the plea agreement. (and i wonder why that is?) it sounds as though the swiss court thought that such an agreement is indeed binding.
what do you think? if you get charged with an offence, and your lawyer and the prosecutor make a deal, wouldn’t you expect the court to honour it? your lawyer would be telling you it’s a sure thing.
is the court’s role is to prosecute? do they get to weigh in on how “good” or “bad” a plea bargain is for either of the parties?
if a prosecutor makes a deal that’s “too lenient”, who’s responsible for that? the court? how?
as the champion magazine says, prosecutors don’t like to “lose”. it’s an ego thing. and i believe when they make a mistake they’ll go to any length to cover it up with a “win”. any length, no matter how absurd. like prosecuting a case from 1977 via extradition treaty, at substantial cost, when there are heaps of worse offenders running around in their own jurisdiction, right under their nose. as i see it, this has little to do with the particular victim’s welfare or protecting other potential victims. even the deterrent value seems minimal. it’s more likely about ego, public image and la-la land politics.
i want to read about present-day rates of sexual crimes decreasing, not higher rates of incarceration. but i guess that’s not what sells newspapers, garners TV viewers or internet user eyeballs. instead we get to read about the la county da (still) trying to prosecute a film director in his 70’s for something he did, and has since been forgiven for, in 1977.
Very interesting blog, really like it!