Litigate, Educate, Liberate!

http://www.gofundme.com/litigatetoemancipate

Our courtcase sponsored by ESPLERP.ORG
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwBbtUu_oTI

 
In addition to our impact lawsuit challenging California's criminal code for enabling government intrusion into the private spheres of consenting adults, we continue to advocate against California regulations prohibiting erotic service providers from receiving Victim Compensation funds after an assailant is found guilty of sexually assaulting her or him. We also continue our campaign to provide individuals charged with prostitution and related crimes with a motion to dismiss charges when their circumstances warrant this option, and are about to embark on a wider campaign to a similar effect: educating public defenders on options for their clients other than accepting shoddy plea deals or diversion programs that ultimately do more harm than good.

Erotic service providers are targeted, arrested, stigmatized, and subjected to high levels of harassment and violence, often by police. And in November 2012, Proposition 35 became the law in California – a law-enforcement appropriation so toxic that the California legislature refused to propose it, so a small number of political vultures spent millions on propaganda to convince California voters that this was somehow good and necessary.

Prop 35 contains ZERO services for the so-called victims of sex trafficking. It does, however, lower the burden for law enforcement to violate the privacy of consenting adult Californians, throwing open bedroom doors all over the State for the government to intrude and incarcerate adults and minors – all under the guise of "rescue".  

This, in addition to the fact that Prop 35 attempts to criminalize conduct that was already a crime under federal and state law. With the State under US Supreme Court orders to reduce its prison population down to 135% of capacity – that is, a prison system currently overburdened by much more than 135% – and with FBI "Operation Rescue" stings arresting adults and children at a rate to 8:1 (and minors being "rescued" by getting thrown into the criminal justice system) ... we have our work cut out for us.

Your donation is anonymous and tax-deductible.

Do you have any links to speed up the due diligence process?

Ie overhead?percentage that goes to the actual cause? Etc assuming they pass muster, I would be happy to send a check, I think it's a good a and worthy cause to support, and one that hits close to home for most of us here

Every dime goes right to the attorney for the court case, and we have already paid the attorney a retainer.  If you email Maxine at [email protected] she can give you the info to even pay the attorney directly if that would make you more comfortable.  All donations are tax deductible as we are a 501 c 3.  Its time the adult community takes a stand and CHALLENGE the laws that allow them to arrest ertotic service providers and our customers.
We already have our 3 plaintiffs picked out.  On is a disabled man that wants the right to buy sex.  Another is a legal brothel worker in Nevada that doesn't want to have to leave her home state of CA just to go to work.  And the 3rd was a escort that was raped and beaten in her home, and even though they had the DNA they released the guy and refused to prosecute and then to make matters worse they refused to allow her victim assistance services as they claimed she was a criminal.

Thank you for your support, and i am more than willing to answer more questions.

Based on the geographical location

CA won't have much choice once a court rules these laws unconstitutional.  It worked in Rhode Island in 1979 when Margo St.James filed suit "Coyote vs roberts", we were decriminalized from 1979 until 2009 when law enforcement swore the only way they could investigate trafficking was to criminalize us. Ironically they still haven't found one case of trafficking in Rhode Island.

Prop K was on the ballot in SF in 2008 and they almost won to decriminalize with 41% of the vote, and that was the hard work of esplerp.org

Even the anti prostitution pledge was recently struck down as being unconstitutional.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/20/supreme-court-nixes-prostitution-pledge-aids-funds/?page=all

CHANGE WILL NOT OCCUR IF WE DON'T GET A LEGAL CHALLENGE INTO THE COURTS.

 

.

Even if it it turns out to be a losing fight, the fact that you are still "fighting the good fight" is enough for me to cut loose with a few bucks, anyone else here care to put their money where their mouth is?

So I will have to pass. Like you said I'm glad to see Gina continuing to "fight the good fight".

I'd like to see people who donate private money to political campaigns get on board. Perhaps some do, but we won't know about it.

You are affluent enough to have seen at least a few providers in your life, somehow I doubt you would miss a paltry twenty bucks or so, but I am not  here to be anyone else's conscience. I simply think what they are doing is worthy, and I for one don't mind putting my money where my mouth is.

BTW I don't donate to political parties as I don't think any of them truly represent my interests. Most of my charitable donations are limited to food banks, The Red Cross, and direct contributions to an occasional person in need.

...and they don't pay me to write fortune cookies.

 
I don't think I have ever donated to charity, with exception of giving things to Goodwill that I would have otherwise thrown away.

Which is why I rarely, if ever give to large, well organized charities with high overheads. They rob of of the god feeling I get by giving by making me feel like a sucker instead of a giver.

Thank you GaGambler, and bigvern, for your support.  We are working hard to secure our labor rights and the rights of all consenting adults.  Has anyone seen the recently released film, American Courtesans?   I am featured in it as Gina Robinson, and we have already won 4 awards at the film festivals.  

However NY daily news refused to allow us to buy advertising as they claim the film is too salacious even though they haven't seen it.  The expect it to be viewed by over 100 million people worldwide, and this the first time in history that we are not being censored as the film is right from the mouths of the escorts themselves.

See www.americancourtesans.com to watch the trailer,  

GINA"S THOUGHT OF THE DAY!

Its time to change the social perception that she wasn't a person, she was a "prostitute". No one wants to feel a sense of community or sameness with her. She was something other than us and therefore we don’t need to feel fear or grief at the fact or the manner of her death."

vs a corporate "charity" who pays people to do administrative work. Those organizations are a business, and I would feel like a sucker giving to them.

prostitution laws were unconstitutional nor did it cause the legislature to partially decriminalize some forms of prostitution.

        In fact, the Coyote lawsuit was dismissed as moot bc, while it was pending,  the legislature amended the prostitution statute to delete the general prohibition against prostitution, although the new law prohibited street walking and pimping. Many observers believe the deletion – which effectively decriminalized indoor prostitution - was an oversight by legislators who did not read all the bills on which they voted. In 2009 this oversight was corrected.

       Any notion that the Supreme Court would broadly rule that prostitution statutes are unconstitutional is a pipedream because there are legitimate policy reasons to outlaw brothels (aka incall), pimping, and of course trafficking.  Indeed, in the Williams case, where the Court struck the Texas sodomy statute, the Court was careful to note that its ruling did not invalidate prostitution statutes. Only a very narrow attack – alleging that criminalizing outcall prostitution between consenting adults is unconstitutional – has any chance of succeeding

GaGambler deserves a bigger thank you than I.

 
...but I'm not going to hold his hand and sing kumbaya LO

Legalized prostitution works just fine in most of the rest of the world,and is much safer for both customer and sex worker alike. One of those many places is Costa Rica which is where I am at this very moment enjoying the many benefits of legalized prostitution. You should really get out of the US every once in a while to see how others do things firsthand before passing judgment, you might be very pleasantly surprised that many of the perceived potential problems that you seem to be worried about simply don't exist in the real world where legalized prostitution works just fine

Coyote vs Roberts was dismissed because they came to a compromise, the legislators were so scared all the laws surrounding prostitution were going to be ruled unconstitutional, that they agreed to make public prostitution go from a felony to a misdemeanor and therefore it left the loophole for indoor sex work to be decriminalized.  (30 years of freedom was well worth the legal fight and in REALITY it was a win, because the indoor sex workers were FREE + with out REGULATIONS)

There was NO OVERSIGHT they knew exactly what they were doing, and there were still active laws against pimping, and trafficking, but it did result in them separating indoor consensual sex work from trafficking,
( The Craigslist killer was caught because after he killed the girl in Boston he went to Rhode Island and robbed a escort and she dialed 911 and he was caught.  

Coyote original complains were
1) What right did the state have in the sex lives of consenting adults that met in private (as prostitution laws were created as public nuisance ordinances to "stop a women from showing her wares in public"  They were never INTENDED to stalk citizens down and police their sexual activities.

2) They were only arresting the women ( over 80% of all prostitution related arrests are still for the women (which makes the original complaint still relevant and valid)

To further prove that this HYSTERIA over trafficking has ALWAYS BEEN UNFOUNDED and goes back over a century to the Mann act of white slavery,  See Here we go again....http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2010/08/26/here-we-go-again/ …

more proof here about how we have proved that the Justice dept + FBI are lying abut how many victims there are (all minors and illegal immigrants are classified as trafficking victims) In 2012 they only found 347 victims nationwide which is much different than these inflated reports that claim 300,000 teens are being exploited in the US.  This research was taken right off federal websites so we WELCOME GOING TO COURT + PROVING OUR CASE.  http://www.policeprostitutionandpolitics.com/pdfs_all/Truth_about_sex_trafficking/Cops_prostitutes_child_sexual_exploitation_Sex_Trafficking.pdf

There is no legitimate policy reasons to keep indoor prostitution between consenting adults criminalized even the UN and the world health organization has suggested we decriminalize prostitution for over a decade. If a women works from home or a hotel that is not a brothel nor is it trafficking and it is the same thing, as doing outcall.

We have the right to LABOR and the laws are a human rights violation as well as a civil rights violation, and they can't even find  a judge that will shit down BP, as 2 federal judges already ruled that crap unconstitutional.  

Further more here is another ruling recently, that says you can't force someone into faith based programs, so all the escorts and clients that are being forced into faith based deferment programs, get READY because we are going to take legal action.  

  Atheist Barry Hazle Must Be Paid For Jailing Over Refusal Of Faith-Based Rehab,  http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/athesit-barry-hazle-must-be-paid-jailing-over-refusal-faith-based-rehab-court-rules# …

Have no doubt I have done my research, over 8,000 hours worth and have consulted with activist, academics, and researchers from all over the world.

To learn more follow us on FB at https://www.facebook.com/groups/coyoteri

END OF MESSAGE

A 40.94% "Yes" vote to decriminalize is encouraging.

-- Modified on 8/27/2013 3:58:08 PM

2 ur local foodbank. even $10 or $20 can help

This post is about whether prostitution can be struck as unconstitutional, not whether legalized prostitution is "much safer for both customer and sex worker alike."

       If there is a rational basis for a state law prohibiting prostitution, then the law is going to be upheld as constitutional. There are rational reasons to prohibit prostitution and that is why these statutes in our country have uniformly been upheld against constitutional attack. Part of the problem is clueless groups like Coyote who seek complete decriminalization of all laws, including pimping laws, instead of a more narrow attack as I have suggested.

      If you say there is no rational basis to support prostitution that may be your opinion but if you went to court on that theory you would be clobbered just as the OP's group will be.  As you see, even in the Netherlands there are plenty of critics who say decrim has been a disaster and the government has in fact tighten regulations.

So have a good time in Costa Rica but don't take it for granted. Decrim will not happy here in our lifetime.

1/2 million US sex workers arrested in the past 6 years + 62% are female which makes the Coyote Vs Roberts original complaints still relevant.

 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhBymvNPNdmXdDE0Y09rRElwUVhhU1ByYnQzclpIZGc&output=html&gid=4

http://coyoteri.org/index.php

When I support myself, I become less of a burden to society. Then the resources that are available can go to those in need.

 
I could donate my tim

Coyote sought atty fees claiming their lawsuit had caused the amendment. The judge held a hearing on this and the legislative counsel by affidavit said this was untrue. The judge then found Coyote was not the cause of the amendment:

 
Nothing in the affidavit even indicates that COYOTE played any part in the introduction or passage of this amendment. Mr. Kelaghan further attested that, "The first issue was whether `johns' should be treated the same as prostitutes and charged with a petty misdemeanor, or be treated the same as `pimps' and be charged with a felony. The final decision was to have them charged with a petty misdemeanor, and for that reason, the bills were amended by adding the words `for pecuniary gain' to § 11-34-5 of the General Laws of Rhode Island. By doing this, `johns' would not be subject to § 11-34-5."

I do not find that the plaintiffs' "conduct" played any significant role in the amendment of § 11-34-5.

    So your opinion is ocntrary to what the judge actually found.

“There is no legitimate policy reasons to keep indoor prostitution between consenting adults criminalized even the UN and the world health organization has suggested we decriminalize prostitution for over a decade.”

          Again you have been mis-advised. All you have to do is look at the busts of Desert Divas, Miami Companions, the DC Madam, and most recently Ahphrodite. These agencies were not busted because of prostitution but of all the other crimes they committed in carrying out your “prostitution between consensual adults.” Agencies are a magnet for criminal activity.  And you can look to the Netherlands where they are having all kinds of problems.

       So stop following the company line. Educate yourself as to the problem and then you will see why the current approach is doomed to failure and a more narrow approach is the only chance

They would luv for you to help out. Please call them

Why not whore friendly?

-- Modified on 8/27/2013 4:07:10 PM

Along with the misconception all whores are coerced and trafficked.

California might actually be whore friendly, but such an attitude would counter productive to policy.

You seem to be getting all your info from the anti trafficking agenda.  In New Zealand the number of prostitutes has not increased since they DECRIMINALIZED nor have they had even 1 case of trafficking in over 5 years.

COYOTE has never supported trafficking, but our laws say our drivers, and bookers, and boyfriends are pimps, as they do not want us to have the right to associate, that was what Prop 35 was all about.

Legalization is as bad as criminalization as it makes some workers legal and others illegal, and it sets the stage for more discriminations and police abuse towards the sex workers.

You keep mentioning all these attempts to rule indoor sex work between consenting adults as unconstitutional, and there haven't been any attempts that I know of other than COYOTE.

Each state has the right to make its own prostitution laws, and we have the PROOF that Dr Melissa Farely who happens to get 30% of her annual budget from the justice dept is a FRAUD, even her own colleagues have filed complaints against her and the Canadian courts would not listen to her testimony as she admitted she already came to her conclusion that all sex work is rape, before she even started her research.

I suggest if you want to be apart of the adult community that you stop REPEATING the anti trafficking narrative, as they already have custody of it in the media.  Unless you want to go on the list of my favorite abolitionist.

Enclosing their are plenty of critics worldwde and these religious groups have more money than GOD but we have the FACTUAL research to prove our case, and more research coming out from UNLV.

Dear Negative Nancy, while I am just  dump whore without a law degree, I did spend several hours to find the actual document that PROOFS Coyote vs roberts did result in their att fees being paid.

 

This being the case, based upon the available
unrebutted evidence, the factual conclusion must be
drawn that the plaintiffs' lawsuit was a significant factor
in at least helping to provoke the change in the
enforcement policy of the Providence Police Department.
This satisfies the causation-in-fact prong of Nadeau's
"prevailing party" test as to the defendant City under 42
U.S.C. § 1988. Nadeau, supra.
I conclude that the plaintiffs should be awarded
reasonable attorneys' fees from the City 3 unless special
circumstances would render such an award unjust.
S.Rep.No. 94-1011, reprinted in (1976) U.S.Code Cong.
& Admin.News, pp. 5908, 5912. Cf. Williams v. Miller,
620 F.2d 199 (8th Cir. 1980). Defendant City has failed
to demonstrate any special circumstances that would
justify the withholding of reasonable attorneys' fees in
this [**22] case.
3. The Court is referring to the Chief of Police
in his official capacity; therefore, the judgment is
to be paid out of appropriate City funds. See
Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 699-700, 98 S. Ct.
2565, 2578-79, 57 L. Ed. 2d 522 (1978).
An appropriate order will be prepared by the
plaintiffs in keeping with this Supplemental Opinion.

 
https://mail-attachment.googleusercontent.com/attachment/u/0/?ui=2&ik=74c0dbb891&view=att&th=140c320a66fdff6c&attid=0.1&disp=inline&safe=1&zw&saduie=AG9B_P9gZfGfisR_RjZGv4uXhWr0&sadet=1377663508050&sads=zV0qW6Kc-Q4XidMEL6J70Hwu6Ns&sadssc=1

against the City with the claim against the state that the prostitution statute was unlawful.  Coyote claimed that city were arresting more girls than johns and their lawsuit did persuade the city police to stop this discrimination. So they received atty fees for the time spent litigating this claim, not the claim we were talking about against the state.

       So your notion that the state deleted the prostitution statute bc they feared Coyote would win is simply wrong as the first part of the very opinion you quoted explains.