Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Department of Justice Misogyny

The latest details revealed in the sentencing of one of the women involved in the former Gov. Eliot Spitzer scandal highlights the pervasive nature of the misogyny of the Department of Justice . . .

The New York Times reported yesterday that:
“The records unsealed on Monday at the sentencing of the booker, Temeka Rachelle Lewis, 33, included the prosecution’s letter detailing her “substantial assistance” to their investigation and her defense lawyer’s sentencing memorandum. In the memorandum, Ms. Lewis’s lawyer, Marc Agnifilo, wrote that she “provided the government with the names of hotels, the approximate dates of meetings, the names of women the governor saw, different names the governor utilized and different ways the governor paid for these sessions.” . . . He said information his client had provided helped prosecutors determine that Mr. Spitzer had not used government or campaign money to pay for sex, and thus helped lead to the government’s decision not to charge him.”
Wait a minute: Neither the money laundering laws nor the Mann Act (which bans the interstate transport of females for “immoral purposes”) require that “government or campaign money” be involved in the transaction. Hence, even a first year law student’s analysis of these statutes would necessarily reveal that former Gov. Eliot Spitzer repeatedly violated the law.

Thus why no prosecution? The reason is that it is the express policy of the Department of Justice that: “Unless minors are victims, prosecutions under [the Mann Act] should generally be limited to persons engaged in commercial prostitution activities, even though commerciality is not an element of the offense.” Stated in English, Johns don’t get charged.

And why is that? I, for one, can’t answer this misogynist policy’s rationale.


Vicky Gallas said...

Glad that you are back Montgomery!

Yes, this misogynist policy of most law enforcement agencies is why I burned the client books long before they banged down the door - I knew they would use every one of them against me or the escorts. The clients are always excused for the momentary lapse of judgment (ha) while the escorts and the service owners are attacked. Here is a link to an article concerning the Nan O'Reilly case in Grand Junction, Colorado - the police set-up a hotline so that the clients could contact them privately as each is considered a witness. Unbelievable!


SP Biloxi said...

And let me add:

1. Ashley Dupree, the prostitute who had the tryst with Spitzer and who got some much airtime in the media was not charged.

2. Government revealed Spitzer as Client 9 yet the rest of the clients were never exposed and the judge sealed their names. In Jeane's case, the government were going to expose all of female employees of Jeane but Judge Robertson sealed the names because Robertson had received an anonymous letter from a former, unnamed escort, who stated she would commit suicide, if the names were released publicly.[this information was shared to me by Jeane in her April 18, 2008 email]

3. Four individuals involved in the Emperor VIP Club probe were charged under state stature for prostitution. Jeane was charged under RICO and federal stature [which is the first prostitution case charged under federal stature] for running prostitution business.

One male client was exposed (Spitzer) and wiretapped and the others are protected in the Emperor VIP Club. Still Spitzer's case was political motivation.

But the bottom line is that Bush's Department of Justice picked and choosed who to target. And wiretapping was a tool to use to target those who are a threat to the WH agenda. We still don't why Jeane was targeted by the Bush government but we do know how: wiretapping. Nevertheless, the prostitution cases of Emperor VIP Club case and Pamela Martin & Associates are worth examining.

Post a Comment

Play nice!