Someone, somewhere, please help...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobsticks

...me understand this.

Before'n y'all get up on yer high horses let me make this clear: this is not a query about the viability, legality, or any other aspect of prostitution. What I know about prostitution is that there are some that claim it a victimless crime but obviously there is a sex trade within this country that is rife with violence and oppression. This is not about that.

This is about judicial process.

Wtf is going on in Manhattan? After a five year investigation---yes, that's five years of tax payer money being spent on the investigative process---prosecutors have come up with a single D Felony charge against the "Millionare Madam" Anna Gristina.

How on earth can a judge levy a two million dollar bail on a single D Felony? Where is the ACLU on this?

Anyone?

---

Approximately 20-25 years ago we had a "madame", Theresa Brown who had been running a brothel out of her home and she did it for very, very long time before getting arrested (in San Antonio, TX).

During that time frame the local PD was really getting after the prostitution rings and were releasing names of the John's in the media. Well, when T.B. got arrested it was speculated that high ranking local politicians, PD, and high profile business men were on the list. In fact, a court order was issued prohibiting the release of the names! She got off easy on the charges and then left town.

I am speculating that maybe the NY madame is threatening to release names of high profile people and the judge sent a warning to her with that hefty bail amount.

[QUOTE=StevenSurprenant;379457]The judicial process is only part of the problem. It all begins with our representatives in office creating an ever increasing mountain of new laws to micro-manage every aspect of our lives. Many of these new laws are variations of laws that already exist and created to give them more power of arrest or increased punishment for the offender. In addition, the interpretation of these laws are left to the courts. To compound this problem is the fact that laws do not mention the reason these laws were created. [QUOTE]

Yes, though sometimes it's left not to the courts but to law enforcement officials. See HR347 :



The anti-protest bill signed by Barack Obama is a quiet attack on free speech. - Slate Magazine



"And that brings us to the real problem with the change to the old protest law. Instead of turning on a designated place, the protest ban turns on what persons and spaces are deemed to warrant Secret Service protection. It’s a perfect circle: The people who believe they are important enough to warrant protest can now shield themselves from protestors. No wonder the Occupy supporters are worried. In the spirit of “free speech zones,” this law creates another space in which protesters are free to be nowhere near the people they are protesting.

Consider that more than 6,700 people have been arrested at Occupy events since last September. Thus, while these changes to the law are not the death of free speech, they aren’t as trivial as the administration would have you believe. Rather, they are part of an incremental and persistent effort by the government to keep demonstrators away from events involving those at the top of the political food chain. "