"Solicitor William Walter Wilkins III, on behalf of the State of South Carolina, claims strippers performed “lewd and lascivious” acts, including oral sex, touching themselves and then putting fingers in front of customers’ noses and in their mouths, as well as putting their mouths on customers’ clothed genitals. Strippers also allegedly offered sexual intercourse inside and outside of club and offered oral sex for money."
I'm shocked! Shocked!
WWWIII ?
Easy target in the public eye for LE to make it look like they are doing something. Thing is, who is the victim? Every person there was there because they wanted to be, and no one forced them. But I gues if you are a lazy police department that dosent want to go after real criminals (drug dealers, rapists, pedifiles, murderers, etc.), or an over zealioust district attorney that is up for reelection, why not go after a bunch of people just trying to earn a living. And why now? I'm sure that from day one they knew what was going on in there, so why now? Did someone forget to make their monthly donation to the police retirement fund or the district attorney reelection campaign?
@jack - Thanks for the update...As Atre Johnson would say, "Very Interesting!"...Only us old farts that remember the TV show "Laugh In" would get it. Poor old Arte tried for years to get "extras" off Ruth Buzzi on the park bench.
My dancer friend in Columbia left me a message on my answering machine Saturday saying that things were still the same at the 2 clubs there and the dancers are hurting.
Rowan and Martins Laugh In.Oh that Fickle Finger of Fate.
Of course it ain't right to try and hold the club responsible for what happens outside the club.
For myself though, I think it would be better to get rid of the alcohol. I would never operate any kind of a drive to business and then have it serve alcohol. If I got hit by a drunk coming from such a place, I would sue the business owner.
But beyond this, usually "lewd and lascivious conduct" is only enforced when there is actual prostitution going on, as that is how lewd and lascivious conduct is defined.
You can get completely around this by making it a members only club. Anyone who wants in has got to provide ID and pay a one time membership fee and sign a contract. This exempts the club from any and all restrictions on public nudity and sex acts. It becomes just like a swinger's club. BYOB only too.
But as far as the prostitution allegation I didn't read any statement that they actually know there is prostitution going on. Did I miss it?
Seeing sex acts, used condoms, and cash, does not prove that there is prostitution going on.
They have some people saying that there is prostitution going on. But these statements would not even be admissible in a criminal trial.
To have such evidence, you would have to be privy to a conversation which involves the making of a contract. Usually there are only two parties to such conversations. And so unless one of them is a cop, and a cop who did not engage in entrapment, then they aren't going to have anything.
I explained this before. Sorry Shadowcat if I did not make myself clear. Unless dancers are openly engaging in verbal solicitation, then there really isn't going to be any evidence.
What happens though is that when LE is hands off for a long time, dancers do start to openly solicit. This is how when Camille Harris replaced Terrance Hallinan as San Francisco DA, she was able to send cops into Market St. Cinema and right away make 8 arrests.
But even if some dancer's are soliciting, this doesn't necessarily mean that the club is responsible.
I think what it comes down to is just the political climate. When Diane Feinstein was trying to shut down MBOT, the newspapers mocked Feinstein and the police. They called the police the Pussy Posse, and made fun of the sorts of investigations they must be doing. Cops can't stand this.
So they came in and arrested people, including customers. So Jim Mitchell got in front of the story. He closed MBOT himself. He announced, "I don't want to sell a ticket to some guy who comes out here from the Midwest and then have him die of a heart attack because of the S.F.P.D."
In those days MBOT was seen as bring the Sexual Revolution to places which were behind the times. That feed the dancers' esprit de corps too. A girl who is happy to be playful while sitting on your lap for $1 per minute can do that. Much better than the booths and extras model today where the girl doesn't have to relax and open up.
Now Diane Feinstein was committed to the premise that sex oriented businesses caused rapes. So on her office wall she had a map with stick pins in all the places where a rape had occurred.
So on their theater marquis, Jim Mitchell put, "For Showtimes Call Mayor Feinstein", followed by her home telephone number. She would change her phone number over a dozen times, and Jim always had it up on the marquis within hours.
What finally came of this was a court order not to violate the law. So this was a victor for Jim and Artie and MBOT. But it all comes down to the local political climate and which side the media takes.
SJG
Anybody Seen My Baby youtube.com
Obviously this is bad for the clubs and the state. But I wonder, is takeout more readily available cause the girls can't make $ ITC? Of course that is one thing they got sued for, but how can management really stop it?
I thought some comments on the newspaper site were interesting. Some sound like they came from you guys.
On Rowan and Martin I always lived the Farkel Family with their dozen or so red-haired, freckled kids. Also liked their "trusted friend and neighbor", the red-haired, freckled Feed Birfel.
I've seen this happen before. Wether or not this actually goes to court, perception is to the locals that this is a bad place. If your a patron you might want to go somewhere else, LEO (and actually the whole community) is now watching who is comming and going. And how many dancers have already moved on to a different club just because they don't want to get caught? In the end it's really just to economically hurt the business to the point they hopefully either close or sell.
I sent them my post, text and TUSCL link, though their web site. They should have acted to get in front of the problem as soon as the first arrest was made.
If anyone has an actual email address for them, send them a link to this thread, and you also might PM the address to me.
SJG
Baby Doll is in the tub doing her nails.I walked in to take a leak and all she said was,"Nice".You gotta love when the whip comes down at local stripclubs.
A judge will decide Friday if Platinum Plus can remain open while a lawsuit seeking to shut down the strip club goes to trial.
The hearing is scheduled for 11:30 a.m. before Judge Charles B. Simmons at the Greenville County Courthouse.
The motion for a temporary injunction was filed by 13th Circuit Solicitor Walt Wilkins, whose civil suit claims the club on Frontage Road is a public nuisance and venue where illicit sex acts and prostitution routinely occur.
The suit, which names Elephant Inc. and Frontage Road Associates as individual respondents, is seeking to shutter the business and has requested a temporary court order to close Platinum Plus until the case goes to trial.
The lawsuit contends that two undercover Greenville County deputies have been investigating reports of illegal prostitution at the club since last April. The Sheriff's Office has declined to comment, citing the ongoing investigation.
Undercover agents in the suit describe seeing strippers lead men to the upstairs Champagne Room with promises they "would not leave sexually frustrated."
Strippers were alleged to have performed sex acts on themselves and customers for money and to having been encouraged to do so by club incentives, including a contest for the stripper who could get the most Champagne Room dances.
Sworn statements to law enforcement by hostesses, strippers and others are included as exhibits in the lawsuit. The statements allege managers knew strippers were having sex in the Champagne Room but did nothing to stop the acts.
The suit lays out how these acts were arranged, detailing the process as a business transaction in which customers would first pay $300 to buy a bottle of champagne, then negotiate with the strippers an amount of money for an hour of their time.
Wilkins, along with Andrew Scott Culbreath and Lane Whittaker Davis, are listed as the plaintiff attorneys in the suit.
Attorneys for Elephant Inc. and Frontage Road Associates, the entities responsible for owning and operating Platinum Plus, weren't listed in court records.
"Solicitor William Walter Wilkins III" is a dick of the 3rd degree
I wonder if the club in question is on desirable real-estate that either the city or other private investors want to get their hands on?
I have heard this kinda thing being alleged in other areas.
It's Taps for all PP Colas.
Can you supersize that?
Wait, what?! There IS sex in the champaign room?
What is a nuisance as defined by the police? Any large business they have to visit? Watch out Walmart and all other large public businesses open to the public. The police might decide to shut you down next or the solicitor might.
I always thought the expensive champagne rooms weren't worth it. Still don't though. I kind of like just going to strip clubs seeing hot girls and just getting some dances. Sounds like I might have to go back to date each girl, sleep with her, then move on to the next and just meet up at regular bars, church, or wherever females hang out at. It's a lot harder to not get mixed up with married girls at regular events. Oh well. I guess the soliticer wants everyone to start doing that. Regular girls want to have sex right away. Strippers, nyet.
To answer Papi's question, the PP Club is located right within view of traffic on I-385 a main artery into the city of Greenville from all points south such as Columbia, the state capital. I would guess that not only is it prime real estate property, but is probably rankles the "morality police" that many people see it as they enter our city. As to the question of "why now", my itel suggests that up to this point a group of Greenville County Sheriff Deputies had a business that cleaned the carpets there and would offer the added service of tipping off the management of any vice raids. Apparently the group got busted and PP was left exposed. I fear the worse unless someone pays someone off at a higher level.
Meanwhile in another small city not that far from me the cops are a lot smarter, they tell the city council they will need 4 additional deputies to handle all the extra activity due to another large business in town. I guess Greenville wants to go backwards.
Large public busineses usually generate a certain number of calls like shoplifting, burglaries, vandalism, etc, depending upon how big the business is and how many people visit.
Then there is the question of demand versus supply. With the demand for entertainment high, where will a new big strip club open up? I wouldn't mind a large new nude club that is byob. I might end up spending more money though.
Well I finally read the news article without my iPad crashing. I'm shocked. I'm shocked I missed all that. Although I did fall asleep on a couple of locations and probably looked as active as many other customers in the club. I guess it's possible a stripper could have molested me while I fell asleep. I think that would have woken me up though. I slept with one eye open so no one noticed.
occassions not locations, stupid autocorrect did it again.
@SJG you talk like someone who thinks she is a lawyer just because she watched Legally Blond...
The statements are wholly admissible in that the allegations contend POs were the ones who observed the transactions. They are more than welcome to testify about what they observed.
It's not entrapment if you were not coerced by law enforcement into committing a crime you would not have engaged in but for the coercion
Nonetheless, the allegations that the strip club/management actively encouraged sex for money is purely speculative. The Champagne Room in of itself is not illegal - a contest as to who can generate the most Champagne revenue does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the management encouraged prostitution.
Now it may be the case that mgmt did condone and reward such acts - that would be a problem. But as I see it, there's nothing presented that establishes that with a reasonable certainty.
@SaintSnuff, registered April 2015 and above being your first post,
What prompted you to register and for how long have you been following discussions on TUSCL, and do you have any other handles?
Contentiousness over the unconstitutionality of attempts to enforce the prostitution law is not new. When I was in our high school model legislature class, the first bill introduced was from a girl who shocked us by wanting to legalize prostitution along Netherlands lines. Though completely surprised, we did debate her bill. To me what was most interesting was seeing who took one side or the other, and the kinds of arguments they advanced.
Both San Jose and San Francisco used to have vibrant street hooker scenes, though the ones who worked San Francisco were always better looking. Back then, the 1970's, conventional wisdom was that it was impractical to enforce laws against prostitution, because it was impossible to make a clean bust, and so the cops were only hurting themselves, while the number of street hookers remained constant.
Then a newer breed of cops and prosecutors came in, ones who were less concerned about constitutional protections on due process and reasonable search and seizure. They found ways to start making busts even before any laws have been broken, and judges and journalists have let them get away with it.
But still, even today, just someone, cop or otherwise, saying "prostitution is going on", as it is reported in the newspaper article, is not admissible evidence.
If a cop invites you to engage in an illegal act, without any coercion, that is most definitely entrapment.
As for closing down businesses, San Jose is doing this in the civil court on a regular basis. It is dicey. Usually it is not over prostitution, but over other things.
Usually lewd and lascivious conduct are only defined relative to prostitution, and so usually there are only prosecutions done when there is also an actual charge of prostitution.
Here in this South Carolina case, we don't seem to have that evidence. Nevertheless, there is clear evidence that the authorities have decided to close this club by any means necessary, so it is a problematic situation.
I posted way back that it is these local ordinances regulating strip clubs and adult entertainment, and these types of civil court actions, which do more harm to strip clubs than does the state penal code 647b.
In John Hubner's book about Jim and Artie Mitchell, "Bottom Feeders" he chronicles the 20 years worth of criminal and civil court actions they had faced. The biggest threat to their club was not the penal code, it were these Victorian era "Red Light Abatement" laws. But because they never capitulated and hired good lawyers, they were able to prevail.
Finally the state supreme court, under Rose Bird, struck down all those old laws. But in the years since, many communities have come up with new ones, ones which are arguably just as unconstitutional as the ones they are replacing.
If the authorities are alleging prostitution, then there should be actual defendants and a coming jury trial. If the defendants are well represented, then the chances of conviction are not that great. A jury is not likely to be that vindictive against an actual defendant. But most of the time it never comes to this. The chances that a civil court judge will decide in favor of club closure, with very little evidence and much in question about it's propriety, can be quite high.
Jim and Artie Mitchell were able to stand up to this by getting a court to decide that in such a case they are still entitled to a jury trial. We will see how much of a stomach for this the PP owners have, and how supportive the local journalists are. I am not optimistic about this. These civil enforcements are treacherous.
These are not new issues. Where I live this stuff has been going on for as long as I can remember. And now, someone is trying to get the prostitution law itself declared unconstitutional.
SJG
Deep Purple 1972 youtube.com
I think william was dreaming and forgot to wake up