This may be the end for Greenville Platinum Plus.
shadowcat
Atlanta suburb
A Greenville strip club is under scrutiny again — this time for allegedly violating the terms of a consent order with the 13th Circuit Solicitor's Office.
The order stems from a lawsuit Solicitor Walt Wilkins filed against Platinum Plus last April after a year-long Sheriff's Office investigation.
In a petition filed Thursday, Wilkins alleged Platinum Plus has violated that consent order on "multiple occasions."
Dancers are accused of exposing bare breasts without pasties and fondling and touching their breasts as well as engaging in simulated sex acts, according to court records.
The petition alleges dancers deliberately tried to hide their "prohibited activities while in the Couch Room and Champagne Room by positioning themselves and their customers outside the view of the surveillance cameras."
Those efforts happened after Platinum Plus was notified of inadequate video converge inside the Champagne Room, and rather than installing an extra camera as suggested, the club stopped seating customers in the farthest booth from the camera, court documents allege.
The petition requests that the defendants — identified as Elephant Inc. and Gregory Kenwood Gaines — appear in court to determine if they violated the consent order. If they're found in contempt, the petition asks that they be "sanctioned to the maximum extent allowed by law in order to "permanently abate all conduct creating a nuisance. "
Within the lawsuit's 100 pages filed last year, undercover agents described seeing strippers lead men to the upstairs Champagne Room with promises they "would not leave sexually frustrated."
Strippers were alleged in the suit to have performed sex acts on themselves and customers for money and to having been encouraged to do so by club incentives. The suit contended Platinum Plus was a public nuisance and sought a permanent injunction to shutter the business.
But before going to trial, Elephant Inc. and Frontage Road Associates, the entities responsible for owning and operating the club, agreed to close the club through Nov. 8, 2015, and entered into a consent order with the Solicitor's Office.
"There's absolutely no privacy in the club any more," Wilkins said while announcing the settlement last year. "All their activities are being monitored by law enforcement."
The order stems from a lawsuit Solicitor Walt Wilkins filed against Platinum Plus last April after a year-long Sheriff's Office investigation.
In a petition filed Thursday, Wilkins alleged Platinum Plus has violated that consent order on "multiple occasions."
Dancers are accused of exposing bare breasts without pasties and fondling and touching their breasts as well as engaging in simulated sex acts, according to court records.
The petition alleges dancers deliberately tried to hide their "prohibited activities while in the Couch Room and Champagne Room by positioning themselves and their customers outside the view of the surveillance cameras."
Those efforts happened after Platinum Plus was notified of inadequate video converge inside the Champagne Room, and rather than installing an extra camera as suggested, the club stopped seating customers in the farthest booth from the camera, court documents allege.
The petition requests that the defendants — identified as Elephant Inc. and Gregory Kenwood Gaines — appear in court to determine if they violated the consent order. If they're found in contempt, the petition asks that they be "sanctioned to the maximum extent allowed by law in order to "permanently abate all conduct creating a nuisance. "
Within the lawsuit's 100 pages filed last year, undercover agents described seeing strippers lead men to the upstairs Champagne Room with promises they "would not leave sexually frustrated."
Strippers were alleged in the suit to have performed sex acts on themselves and customers for money and to having been encouraged to do so by club incentives. The suit contended Platinum Plus was a public nuisance and sought a permanent injunction to shutter the business.
But before going to trial, Elephant Inc. and Frontage Road Associates, the entities responsible for owning and operating the club, agreed to close the club through Nov. 8, 2015, and entered into a consent order with the Solicitor's Office.
"There's absolutely no privacy in the club any more," Wilkins said while announcing the settlement last year. "All their activities are being monitored by law enforcement."
7 comments
Here's my legal analysis of what's going on in case anyone cares.
They wouldn't have any problem getting a local judge to shut the club down from the beginning. But they are worried about such an order being overturned on appeal, especially an appeal in federal court. It is easier to defend a shut down order on appeal if the club got a "second chance" and allegedly failed to comply. This is why the government handled it this way so they can claim to have bent over backwards to try and help the club stay in business. It is of course complete bullshit. And yes this strategy was developed by lawyers. Dishonest little fuckers. Sadly though I admire their creativity, but only on a professional level.