Last month the adult entertainment industry received a great victory and was able to takea great sigh of relief.  The case of the United States v. John Stagliano John Stagliano, Inc. and Evil Angel Productions, Inc. went to trial in the District of Columbia before U.S. District CourtJudge Richard J. Leon for charges that they had sent obscene material by common carrier acrossstate lines to the District of Columbia.       At the inception of this case, the case had all of the trapings of being a hallmark, if not alandmark decision, in obscenity prosecutions.  The case was brought by the Justice Department'sObscenity Prosecution Task Force Representing the defendants were represented by  some of ourpersonal friends, H. Louis Sirkin, Paul Camberia, Alan Gelbart and Robert Corn-Revere.     The reason why this case could have been, if not a landmark decision, but a hallmarkdecision, was depending on the verdict this case would have made a statement to either the pro-censorship people within the government or to First Amendment advocates outside of thegovernment.  The defendants were represented by fine attorneys defending the material andclaiming that they were not obscene in Washington, D.C.  Supposedly a crack government legalteam was on the other side.  The case was being watched by the adult entertainment industryalong with prosecutors nationwide.  A victory for the prosecutors would have sent a chillingeffect throughout the adult entertainment industry.  A finding that the material was not obscenewould have emboldened those of us who champion the First Amendment and believe in the rightof adults to view contents that they desire.     As any trial attorney will tell you, the future of a case can never be predicted and casestake on lives on their own.  During this trial, there were missteps by the United StatesGovernment such as a corrupted recording of a DVD that caused the Judge to throw out countsthat dealt with the "trailors" of the movies.  There also was a misspoken statement by one of thefederal agents while testifying, where the agent testified that the Judge had told him to review theevidence before he testified.  This made the Federal District Court Judge irrate and required anaffidavit to be signed by the U.S. Attorneys for the jury's review stating in fact their own witnesswas mistaken.       However, the biggest shock came when the defense argued their Rule 29 motions.  Theseare motions in Federal Court after the government rests its case, to have the charges thrown outbecause the government has not put on a prima facia case to the standard where a reasonablejuror could come back and find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  These motions are seldomgranted but to everyone's surprise Judge Leon in fact granted the Defendant's motions and threwout all of the charg... [More]

     Many of you probably remember exactly where you were when you first learned about theterrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.  What most of us have forgotten is what those attacks didto the American psyche at the time.  The United States that we knew prior to September 11, 2001was not the United States we knew after.  Our sense of invincibility was gone, our belief in thesecurity of this country was forever shaken, and our knee-jerk reaction was just that, a knee-jerkreaction.       Attacking Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein who had nothing to do with the 911 attacks,somehow got justified.  Interning people without due process of law became patriotic and voicingdissent to those actions became unpatriotic.  We were under attack and our moral compass bedamned, we needed to fight those bastards.  In that frame of mind, the United States Congresspassed the  ("Patriot Act") which was quickly signed into law by George W. Bush.  Most of theCongressmen and Senators that voted for the Bill, never read it in its entirety and those that hadproblems with specific provisions were cowed into submission as being weak or terroristsympathizers.  Many knew that there were unconstitutional provisions within the "Patriot Act"but because of political expediency voted in favor of it relying on the Courts in the future tostrike down those provisions.     One of the provisions of the "Patriot Act" makes it a crime to provide "material support"which includes advise and training to terrorist organizations.  Material support includes expertadvice or training.  To be a terrorist group one only has to be designated as such by the UnitedStates State Department.     In June, the United States Supreme Court ruled on this provision of the "Patriot Act". Ralph Fertig brought suit challenging the constitutionality of the Act based upon FirstAmendment grounds.  Mr. Fertig  an advocate of Kurdish rights, argued that the words "advice"and "training" should not be read broadly to cover those who advised others to steer away fromviolence and terrorism.     In a six to three decision, the Supreme Court ruled that in fact giving advice to a terroristgroup to settle their disputes peacefully was in fact advice covered by the law and would makesomeone guilty of violating the "Patriot Act".  The Supreme Court held that the FirstAmendment did not protect such speech and agreed with the United States Government that"providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization - even seeminglybenign - bolsters terrorists of that organization".     The ramifications of this case will go on for years.  It will silence those who try to bringthe outlawed into the lawed.  In essence, once an organization is declared to be a terroristorganization by the State Department, American ... [More]

     A few months ago we wrote on a Bill before the Kansas Legislature dealing with adultentertainment.  At that time we related that the Bill had passed the Kansas House ofRepresentatives and was now in front of the Kansas State Senate.  We explained that DanielAaronson, Jeff Levy and Dr. Judith Hanna were called to testify on behalf of the "EqualEntertainment, Group, Inc." in opposition to the legislation.       Since that article, and the legislation getting out of the House Committee and beingapproved by the House of Representatives as a whole, a lot of finger pointing and blame has beenpassed around.  Jeff Levy has come under fire for his testimony.  Supposedly, it inflamed someof the religious right on the committee and therefore his testimony caused the legislation to getout of committee and ultimately be passed on the House floor.     Jeff Levy a practicing Catholic pointed out, after testimony by representatives of theChristian Coalition slandering adult entertainment establishments, that priests and clergy are atthe forefront of child abuse.  He stated his credentials as having worked as a high school teacherfor the Archdioceses of New York for a number of years, and that adult entertainment wasn't thisterrible venture as the ultraconservatives on the committee would have one to believe.     No one will ever know the real total truth of what happened.  It seems highly unlikely thatone person's testimony in opposition to the Bill could have inflamed so many, when not one ofthem even made a comment about it at the hearing.  Rather more likely, is that one or two wereoffended and decided to get their pound of flesh by putting the blame on Mr. Levy.     After his testimony, a number of members of the House of Representatives Committeeapproached him and thanked him for his candor and established relationships  with him.  Theyhave reported that his testimony had nothing to do with the passage of the Bill out of Committeeor  the vote on the House of Representative floor.   According to them it  was a forgoneconclusion that it would pass.     Yet, as he was taking the blame and more appropriately said, having the blame put uponhim, Jeff Levy never stopped his dedication to the First Amendment, adult entertainment and todefeat the legislation in Kansas.  He continued to foster his relationships with those members ofthe House of Representatives who were impressed with what he had to say.  He spoke with themand encouraged them to speak with their friends and colleagues in the Senate as to why thislegislation should not get out of the Senate and why it was not good for the State of Kansas.  Henever stopped fighting the fight.  If he is going to be given blame for the legislation getting out ofthe House of Representatives in the State of Kansa... [More]

     Title 18 U.S.C. Section 48 criminalized for up to five years in prison anyone whoknowingly created, sold, or possessed a depiction of animal cruelty if it was done for commercialgain.  The statute did not address the underlying acts that were harmful to animals, but onlyportrayals of such conduct.  In that statute, animal cruelty was defined as "in which a livinganimal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed", if that conduct violatesFederal or State law where "the creation, sale or possession takes place".     Robert J. Stevens was engaged in a business called "Dogs of Velvet and Steel" and had awebsite where he sold videos of pit bulls engaging in dog fights and attacking other animals. Three of his videos came under the scrutiny of the Federal authorities and Stevens was arrestedand indicted on three counts of violating Section 48.     At the Federal trial level Stevens was convicted after Motions to Dismiss that he filed hadbeen denied.  The case then went to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals where the entire Circuitdeclared that Section 48 was unconstitutional and that it violated the First Amendment to theUnited States Constitution.  The case then was appealed by the government to the United StatesSupreme Court.     At the Supreme Court, the United States Government argued among other points, thatdepictions of animal cruelty should be a new form of unprotected speech outside of the FirstAmendment to the United States Constitution; or that Section 48 would only be applied to thoseinstances in which the videos portrayed "extreme cruelty"; and lastly that the Court shouldconstrue the Statute in a way that made it constitutional.  For his part, Stevens contended that theStatute was overbroad, meaning that many forms of videos or depictions that were not intendedto be covered by the Statute would fall under possible prosecution; and that this method ofspeech no matter how repungnent was constitutionally protected.     Last month, the United States Supreme Court rendered its decision in the United States v.Stevens.  In an eight to one opinion, Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Courtwhich was that 18 U.S.C. Section 48 was unconstitutional as it was overbroad and violated theFirst Amendment to the United States Constitution.  As part of the rationale, the Court also notedthat given the wording of the Statute it would be almost impossible for someone to know whenthey were violating the law.  As the law was based upon an act that would be criminal in either aState or a Federal jurisdiction, the Court noted for example that hunting is illegal in the Districtof Columbia while it is legal in many other places.  Therefore, depictions of animals dying in thehunting process would be legal if taken in some jurisdictions but illegal if taken in the District ofColumbia.&... [More]

     The Broward County Courthouse has been the subject of many editorials and newspaperarticles dealing with the alleged improprieties of many of the Judges.  In addition to those articlesin the mainstream press, there is also a blog that is run by purportedly some lawyers that centersaround the going ons of the courthouse.  This blog has recently come under scrutiny by theBroward County Bar Association.  The reason why it has come under scrutiny is that some of theposts on this blog have been quite derogatory as to the judicial system and many of the Judges.       Quite candidly, many of the blogs posts boarder on defamation and others of the posts arenothing more than scandalous.  Because of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the BrowardCounty Bar Association believing that the blogs and the website is run by lawyers should comeunder its scrutiny as to whether it is appropriate.       Before we go any further, we need to point out that one of our associates has beenpreviously the subject of some of the blogs and as a subject of it what was written about himcertainly has not been flattering.  On a personal note, we have found many of the things writtento be offensive, vile, untrue, and given the anonymity of the writers somewhat cowardly.  To saythat we are fans of this blog could be nothing further from the truth.     It seems that the purpose of this blog was to reveal the inappropriateness of some of therelationships between the attorneys within the Broward County practicing area and the Judgesthat they come before.  Supposedly, this blog was going to unmask and therefore clean up thecourt system to the benefit of the public.  In reality, what it has done is set up those who maintainand control the blog to having now their own power base.  What they sought to destroy, theyhave created in themselves.       This blog, somehow takes the high and mighty attitude that they are above the fray andthat truth will illuminate the dark.  Yet, this is the same blog that for no apparent reason took ayoung Jewish lawyer's picture and had it morphed into a picture where he was wearing a Naziuniform.  How this in anyway is news worthy, is enlightening in the judicial system is beyondour ability to comprehend.  What it was, was a shameful attack on a detractor of those in control.     Again, many of the posts are done anonymously.  With anonymity comes power as youcan say what you want to say without repercussions of being accountable for what is said.  Withanonymity comes the bravado to say things that one would not have the courage to say if theirnames were attached.  With anonymity comes the ability to slander and liable without the fear ofbeing held accountable to such acts.       With these things in mind, the Browar... [More]

     It looks like the new hot spot and battle ground for First Amendment freedoms and adultentertainment rights is going to be the State of Kansas.  The Legislature for the State of Kansashas flirted with a Bill for several years that would regulate adult entertainment in numerousfashions.  For example, it would require adult entertainment establishments to have certain hoursof operation,  more restrictive than the present.  It would prohibit nudity in adult dance clubs andrequire distance separations from dancers who are seminude and patrons.  It also would affectadult bookstores, including viewing booths and manners of operation.In addition to the hours of operation and restrictions inside the club, the KansasLegislation would also require distance separations from adult establishments and schools,churches and other sensitive receptors.  In essence, the Kansas Legislation is designed to put astake in the heart of First Amendment freedoms and adult entertainment within the State ofKansas.  Last month, Daniel Aaronson, Dr. Judith Hanna and Jeff Levy were asked to travel toKansas by the Equal Entertainment Group, Inc. in order to present testimony before a committeeof the House of Representatives.  The nature of the testimony was to impart to this committeewhy this Bill should not get out of committee and not go to the House of Representative's floor.Dr. Judith Hanna spoke about the aspects of modern dance and nude dancing being acommunicative message.  She highlighted how nude dance and the need for nudity is part ofexpression.Jeff Levy testified as to other institutions causing more harm to children than does adultentertainment establishments.  He further testified as to his experiences within the adultentertainment industry and the thousands upon thousands of hours that he has spent in adult clubswithout observing the alleged horrors of adult entertainment.Daniel Aaronson testified in response to some of the proponents who were for the Bill. Specifically those proponents talked about the secondary effects caused by adult entertainmentand introduced into the record the reports from Dr. Richard McLeary and testimony of attorneyScott Bergthold.Mr. Aaronson pointed out that much of the testimony presented by the proponents of thebill was inaccurate.  He pointed out that Kansas being in the  Tenth Circuit and the leading casewithin that Circuit Court of Appeals would indicate that the State's endeavor may beunconstitutional.  He further testified as to the fact that both Dr. McCleary and Mr. Bergtholdpainted pictures of the ease that these type of bills are held to be constitutional is not in actualitythe case.  In fact, Mr. Aaronson was able to point out cases both in the Tenth Circuit and theSeventh Circuit Court of Appeals in which Dr. McCleary's methodology and testimony wasbasically called junk science and Mr. Bergthold's advocacy of the same defeated.Dan... [More]

     The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press along withother freedoms.  Yet, there has always been a conflict between freedom of speech and freedom ofthe press and our educational system.  For example, does freedom of speech allow a student tosay whatever he or she wants to say in class and disrupt that class?  Does freedom of the pressallow a student to pass out handbills in the classroom denigrating the teacher and the teacher'smessage?  Does the school newspaper have the right to criticize the administration of thatschool?  On one hand freedom of speech would dictate the right of the student or the studentnewspaper to challenge those in power and to point out the failings of the teacher or theadministration.  On the other hand orderly conduct and cohesiveness are essential to the publiceducation system.  As to what goes on, on campus, the courts have routinely sided the mandate ofthe educational system to provide education over the rights of the dissenting students to dissenton campus and in school related media.  There are always some exceptions.However, a few years ago a high school student in the State of Florida set up herfacebook page with criticisms of one of her teachers.  Because of those criticisms, she wassuspended from school.  The offending language on her facebook page was simply "Ms. SarahPhelps is the worst teacher I ever met".  She further provided on that facebook page "those selectstudents who have had the displeasure of having Ms. Sarah Phelps, or simply knowing her andher insane antics: here is the place to express your feelings of hatred.".Apparently Ms. Phelps was not as unpopular as the student Katherine Evans thought. Three people responded to her facebook page criticizing her and supporting the teacher.  Afterthat, Evans removed the page.Because of this transgression, Ms. Evans was suspended for three days although she hadbeen an honor student.  Her behavior was classified as disruptive.  She was also removed fromher advance placement classes and put in regular classes.  Being put in regular classes instead ofadvanced placement classes would have affected her GRADE POINT AVERAGE along withmaking her credentials less attractive to colleges.  This could have had a profound effect on herfuture.Last month, U.S. Magistrate Barry Garber ruled that Ms. Evans' First Amendmentconstitutional rights had been violated by the school and has allowed her lawsuit against theschool to move forward.  The ruling was based upon the fact that Ms. Evans' conduct wasoutside of the classroom, did not disrupt the activities of the classroom and was not dangerousconduct.  Ms. Evans is not seeking substantial damages but only to have her named clear, hersuspension removed from her file and to have her rights vindicated.This case points out that just because one is a student that student does not lose their... [More]

     The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, expression, along with freedom of thepress.  Since the advent of the electronic media, radio, television and the like have been given byand large the same protections and freedoms.  In a venue where one would expect that therewould be First Amendment protections for mass media television and other videocommunications, that being in Federal Courthouses, and more specifically federal courtrooms,there actually is not.  Although almost all of the States have made allowance for television cameras to be in thecourtroom, the Federal Courts have not made the same provision.  Until recently no cameraswere allowed in United States District Courts, (the trial court level).  The appellate court level,that being the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals had the vast majority opposed to allowingcameras in their courtrooms and only two of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals allowcameras.  The Supreme Court of the United States have blanketly rejected cameras in theircourtroom.There are many philosophies as to why cameras should not be allowed in the courtroomsin the Federal system.  Some Supreme Court Justices, enunciated that it was their belief thatputting cameras in a courtroom makes the courtroom into a show and therefore distracts fromjustice.  Others have argued that cameras in the courtroom affects the accused's right to get a fairtrial and his right to get a fair trial is paramount.  As has been said, most of the States haveallowed cameras in the courtrooms for a number of years without justice breaking down.Recently, the Ninth Circuit which encompasses most of our western States including theState of California has chosen to implement on a trial basis a procedure where non-jury trialsinvolving civil matters would be videoed.  The procedure requires the head of that particularDistrict within the Ninth Circuit along with the trial judge to decide on a case by case basiswhether or not this is a trial that should be videoed.Last month, in San Francisco U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that videocameras would be allowed in his courtroom during the trial of the Proposition 8 matter in hiscourtroom.  The Proposition 8 matter is a trial involving an attempt by gays and lesbians andtheir supporters to show that they and other minorities suffer from prejudice and bigotry thatrequires a remedy from the Courts.  Proposition 8 a law voted on in California outlawed samesex marriages along with  curtailment of other liberties for gays and lesbians.Before the case could be started, Judge Walker's decision to allow cameras in hiscourtroom and a live internet feed  was struck down by the United States Supreme Court.  TheCourt ruled 5 to 4 that they worried that opponents of gay marriage and their paid witnesseswould be subjected to "harassment as a result of public disclosure of their support" forPropos... [More]

Well it has almost been a year since President Barack Obama was sworn into office.  As the First President of the United States who is not a member of the White Male Only Men’s Club, many of us thought that the change in this Country would be sweeping and that we were entering into a new era, one unchartered, with monumental changes.  Those on the political right were scared, “what has happened to this great Country, where will it go”?  Those on the political left waited with anticipation that a new vibrant America, one without social injustices and an era where the United States would once again rise up to be the envy of all the world would come forth.  Yet, after a year in office the fears of the right have not come to pass and the hopes of the left remain unfilled.  Some on the left thought that with the election of Barack Obama that the political abuses, governmental abuses of the Bush Administration would be rectified immediately and there would be a reformation in justice in this Country.  Yet, that has not come about.  Numerous United States Attorneys throughout the Country, who were Bush appointees, still remain at their posts.  Countless Federal Judgeships remain vacant and the Justice Department keeps ticking the way it did under the Bush Administration. One example that illustrates this best is the case of Governor Don Siegleman from the State of Alabama. Governor Siegleman was prosecuted by the Busch Justice Department on basically trumped up charges.  One of the most conservative Courts in the Country, that being the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned his conviction.  The overturning of his conviction was a sign that even the most of conservative judges thought that Busch Justice Department was being used as a political tool.  One used for political retribution to unseat a governor and indict and convict him on criminal charges. Yet, just recently, the Obama Justice Department filed a brief with the United States Supreme Court in the Siegleman matter.  Instead of acknowledging the wrongs of the Siegleman prosecution which was pointed out by not only the 11th Circuit but by 60 Minutes and other news organizations, the Obama Justice Department filed its brief in support of the Siegleman conviction.  Under the Obama Justice Department, injustice in this Country seems to be the same as under Bush. The corruption and malfeasance of the banking sector along with the insurance companies and other economic engines of this Country, many expected when Obama became President would be righted.  The hundreds of billions of dollars that were given to the banks as bailouts and economic incentives under the Bush Administration that seemed to go nowhere, still seem to go nowhere.  Loans are just as hard to get and the banks seem to do just what they want to do like they always have done.  The economy still lags and jobs are still hard to fi... [More]

     Last month, Daniel Aaronson  flew up to New Jersey to speak in front of the New JerseyAdult Cabaret Association (NJACA).  Along with Daniel Aaronson, Brad Shafer from Michigananother First Amendment attorney  and attorney John Williams from New Jersey were the guestspeakers.  Although Jeff Levy, the Executive Director of the NJACA, sent out countless noticesof this event, the event still drew the usual players, the ones who are truly interested in theNJACA and the ones who care about their and your First Amendment and adult freedoms.  There were club owners from all the various parts of the State of New Jersey inattendance.  But, to our dismay there were very few fresh faces in the audience.  Our industrysuffers from the belief that the Big Boys, the ones with the big clubs will fight our battles andprotect us from the government and others who are trying to put down and destroy our industry. Although these big boys have stepped up to the plate countless times, they can't solely be reliedupon, and not just in New Jersey but in every State.   All of you small club owners must startattending your State Chapter meetings and get involved in protecting your industry, your rightsand your First Amendment freedoms.For those of you who were in attendance, we take our hats off to you.  For those of youwho were not in attendance, you missed some incredibly informative information.  For example: Brad Shafer spoke for no less that forty-five minutes on the difference between dancers beingemployees, independent contractors, licensees, or some other form of agreement to dance.  Hisknowledge of the different tax ramifications and how the IRS views each classification isunparalleled nationwide.  Mr. Shafer presented a power point lecture that was worth thousands ofdollars of advice for those who attended.As part of his presentation, Mr. Shafer explained the different tests used by the IRS andState governments in determining what to classify your dancer as.  He pointed out the little thingsthat could persuade a Judge, if necessary, that your dancers fall into one category as opposed tothe other.  He highlighted some common misconceptions and pitfalls that our industry falls intowhen having dancers dance at a club.John Williams, Esq. made the State of the Organization's Address.  He talked about somerecent decisions in New Jersey affecting the State and how those decisions affected adultentertainment within New Jersey.  Mr. Williams is counsel is counsel for the NJACA.Daniel Aaronson was the last to speak.  Mr. Aaronson's presentation dealt with UnitedStates Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  He also spoke about amendments tolegislation in New Jersey that the NJACA was instrumental in getting passed, along with updatesand some of the cases that he is handling within the State.As to ICE, which is a part of the Department of Homeland Securi... [More]