SaintSnuff

I didn't pick it...but yes I know

@JS69 I could go into how we have an ethics code we are bound to but....yeaaaa who are we kidding

@SJG stop saying those statements are not admissible at trial because it is

@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.

I'm always polite during home invasions - I find that the freightened family is much easier to tie up that way