If you contact ESPLERP.ORG, they will supply you with a motion to dismiss, and if it is denied and you go to trial there will be ground for an appeal.
Litigate, Educate, Liberate! http://www.gofundme.com/litigatetoemancipate Our courtcase sponsored by ESPLERP.ORG http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwBbtUu_oT
Hello
I'm a provider and seeking legal advice and recommendation for a solicitation charge and a lawyer in Baltimore/Rockville area. I'm not sure this is the right board to post (but I figure its a good guess). I'm independent and new to area so would appreciate any advice. Please try to message me directly if you have questions. Thank you!
If you contact ESPLERP.ORG, they will supply you with a motion to dismiss, and if it is denied and you go to trial there will be ground for an appeal.
Litigate, Educate, Liberate!
http://www.gofundme.com/litigatetoemancipate
Our courtcase sponsored by ESPLERP.ORG
Not sure I have seen (or can easily find) the great work of ESPLERP but reminds me of the need for a real constitutional fight.
Below is a motion to dismiss based on Lawrence v Texas as I was in close contact with the attorney. Sadly her criminal defense attorney at trial did not use - only "gee I didn't know they had sex" defense and sadly she committed suicide after being found guilty.
Today there is addition case law for a motion to dismiss and a real fight like ESPLERP is trying to do but funds are needed for a attorney ready to fight.
Sample Idea in Motion to Dismiss:
Highlights of motion to dismiss Memorandum of Points and Authorities, based prostitution laws being unconstitutional:
"Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the States should not be a dominant presence." And so begins the seminal decision in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 562 (2003), in which the United States Supreme Court struck down the limited recognition of privacy interests set forth some fifteen years earlier in Bowers v. Hardwick and invalidated a Texas law criminalizing sexual conduct between consenting adults of the same sex. These same constitutional considerations call for the dismissal of the charges brought against Deborah Jeane Palfrey in this case.
The conduct in issue in this case occurred not on the public streets of the three jurisdictions invoked by the United States, but, rather, occurred between consenting adults in private homes, private hotel rooms, or other private areas. The conduct between these adults, even assuming that the escorts breached their contractual agreement with Ms. Palfrey's business and negotiated arrangements of sexual intercourse in exchange for compensation, occurred in private settings and, therefore, occurred beyond the scope of what the government may properly regulate. Accord Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 564 ("The petitioners were adults at the time of the alleged offense. Their conduct was private and consensual.").
In Lawrence, the majority opinion does note that the conduct before it did not "involve public conduct or prostitution." Lawrence, 539 at 578. But the context of that declaration was the distinction between private interests and public interests. Consistent with Lawrence, Ms. Palfrey does not challenge the aspect of the prostitution laws that apply to public conduct; however, the allegedly proscribed conduct before this Court is purely private in nature and the fact of a commercial component between the two consenting adults involved does not erode those same privacy and liberty interests discussed in Lawrence."
State v. Green 989 N.E.2d 1088 (2013) state that Lawrence v Texas doesn't apply to prostitution. The courts ruled more than one time that Lawrence v Texas doesn't apply to prostitution. The reason is that commercial sex not protected by this ruling. This ruling only applies to noncommercial sex
State vs Green is a Ohio State case and is not the law of the land.
Lawrence vs Texas does not say a thing about prostitution laws other than the case does not address it.
That is left to another day to challenge.
The Ohio Court in fact ignored the part of Lawrence which ruled that laws can not be based on "morality"
I think your cite is wrong but assume your referring to State v. Green, 2013-Ohio-1197 decision of 3/29/13. It is a bad case but other lawyers believe there is a legitimate argument using the theory of Lawrence and expanding it depending on the particular State law wording. In Arizona the law is quite vague and could apply to a husband/wife or dating relationship.
The Ohio case also addressed only the solicitation law in Ohio. It concluded, " because the solicitation statute reasonably relates to the state’s interest in protecting public health, safety, morals and general welfare, we hold that R.C. 2907.24(A) is constitutional."
Note it included morals which under Lawrence broadly ruled that morality can not be a basis of any law.
Lawyers that are ready to fight (if get $100k fees) in the 9th Circuit realize they will probably lose in State Courts and a Federal issue has to be raised and be decided on the constitutional grounds in a Federal Circuit Court (most likely best chance in the 9th)