Last month the adult entertainment industry received a great victory and was able to take
a 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 Court
Judge Richard J. Leon for charges that they had sent obscene material by common carrier across
state 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 a
landmark decision, in obscenity prosecutions.  The case was brought by the Justice Department's
Obscenity Prosecution Task Force Representing the defendants were represented by  some of our
personal 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 hallmark
decision, 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 the
government.  The defendants were represented by fine attorneys defending the material and
claiming that they were not obscene in Washington, D.C.  Supposedly a crack government legal
team was on the other side.  The case was being watched by the adult entertainment industry
along with prosecutors nationwide.  A victory for the prosecutors would have sent a chilling
effect throughout the adult entertainment industry.  A finding that the material was not obscene
would have emboldened those of us who champion the First Amendment and believe in the right
of adults to view contents that they desire.

     As any trial attorney will tell you, the future of a case can never be predicted and cases
take on lives on their own.  During this trial, there were missteps by the United States
Government such as a corrupted recording of a DVD that caused the Judge to throw out counts
that dealt with the "trailors" of the movies.  There also was a misspoken statement by one of the
federal agents while testifying, where the agent testified that the Judge had told him to review the
evidence before he testified.  This made the Federal District Court Judge irrate and required an
affidavit to be signed by the U.S. Attorneys for the jury's review stating in fact their own witness
was mistaken. 

     However, the biggest shock came when the defense argued their Rule 29 motions.  These
are motions in Federal Court after the government rests its case, to have the charges thrown out
because the government has not put on a prima facia case to the standard where a reasonable
juror could come back and find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  These motions are seldom
granted but to everyone's surprise Judge Leon in fact granted the Defendant's motions and threw
out all of the charges.  His ruling was not based upon the fact that the material was not obscene
but rather that the defendants could not be hooked up and linked to the interstate transportation of
the matter.  Regardless of why he ruled, this case was a great victory for the First Amendment
and First Amendment advocates and a crushing defeat for the U.S. government in its war on
people's freedoms.

     After the trial, John Stagliano apparently voiced some misgivings of the proceedings.  He
was certainly thrilled that he was no longer facing time in jail, but as a fighter for the First
Amendment it seemed that he very much wanted a victory wherein the jury would have found the
matters to not be obscene.  If that occurred, it would have sent shockwaves throughout the United
States government that adults want to be left alone, that adults want the rights to view and not
have the government interfere in what they watch.

     Again, a victory is a victory.  Those of use who champion First Amendment freedoms
could not be happier and could not be more proud of our compatriots who went through the fight.
Having been involved in cases with Paul Camberia and H. Louis Sirkin we know what quality
work was done on the defendants' behalf and we know what passion was given in that
representation.  We send our truest congratulations and appreciation to the defendants and to the
defense team.

     In order for material or even performances to be obscene they must fail the Miller test.
The essence of the test is that the:  average person applying contemporary community standards
finds the matter taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest; it depicts sexual activity in a
patently offensive manner; and lacks serious artistic, literary, scientific or political value.

     To many of us, this definition is no definition at all.  It gives no guidance and we believe
it is unconstitutionally vague.  Because of this belief, we were waiting for the Supreme Court to
weigh in on their belief of the constitutionality of the "honest services fraud" cases.  We had
hoped that if the Supreme Court struck down that crime on vagueness grounds, we would have
ammunition to do the same for the obscenity test.

     Unfortunately in the case of Skilling v. United States the Supreme Court did hold "honest
services fraud" to be vague, but its reasoning does not help our First Amendment fights against
the Miller test.  The Supreme Court seemed to indicate that a definition as vague as the Miller
test would have saved the "honest services fraud" statute.

     A few months ago we wrote on a Bill before the Kansas Legislature dealing with adult
entertainment.  At that time we related that the Bill had passed the Kansas House of
Representatives and was now in front of the Kansas State Senate.  We explained that Daniel
Aaronson, Jeff Levy and Dr. Judith Hanna were called to testify on behalf of the "Equal
Entertainment, Group, Inc." in opposition to the legislation.  

     Since that article, and the legislation getting out of the House Committee and being
approved by the House of Representatives as a whole, a lot of finger pointing and blame has been
passed around.  Jeff Levy has come under fire for his testimony.  Supposedly, it inflamed some
of the religious right on the committee and therefore his testimony caused the legislation to get
out of committee and ultimately be passed on the House floor.

     Jeff Levy a practicing Catholic pointed out, after testimony by representatives of the
Christian Coalition slandering adult entertainment establishments, that priests and clergy are at
the forefront of child abuse.  He stated his credentials as having worked as a high school teacher
for the Archdioceses of New York for a number of years, and that adult entertainment wasn't this
terrible 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 that
one person's testimony in opposition to the Bill could have inflamed so many, when not one of
them even made a comment about it at the hearing.  Rather more likely, is that one or two were
offended 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 Committee
approached him and thanked him for his candor and established relationships  with him.  They
have reported that his testimony had nothing to do with the passage of the Bill out of Committee
or  the vote on the House of Representative floor.   According to them it  was a forgone
conclusion that it would pass.

     Yet, as he was taking the blame and more appropriately said, having the blame put upon
him, Jeff Levy never stopped his dedication to the First Amendment, adult entertainment and to
defeat the legislation in Kansas.  He continued to foster his relationships with those members of
the House of Representatives who were impressed with what he had to say.  He spoke with them
and encouraged them to speak with their friends and colleagues in the Senate as to why this
legislation should not get out of the Senate and why it was not good for the State of Kansas.  He
never stopped fighting the fight.  If he is going to be given blame for the legislation getting out of
the House of Representatives in the State of Kansas, then he also must be given that exact same
amount of credit for the Bill and legislation dying at the State Senate.

     Yes, this legislative Bill that would have made Kansas equal to the State of Missouri in
adult entertainment repression ended up dying in session with a 20 to 20 vote in the Senate.  A tie
means that the legislation does not get passed and therefore for the year 2010 this terrible
legislation is still not law in the State of Kansas.

     Reports are that one of the major reasons why the legislation did not pass in the State of
Kansas has to do with the fact that the State is as much as seven hundred million dollars in debt.
Daniel Aaronson during his testimony pointed out that passing this legislation would cause the
State of Kansas in order to defend it in excess of seven figures.

     So, why this legislation didn't pass in the Senate, again, nobody will ever really know.
However, those of us who speak for a living, know that every time a word exits our lips that it
has the ability to be misinterpreted and thrown back in our face.  We know that every statement
can be a faux paux and every syllable can be fodder for someone to hang their hat on as to why
they disagree with what we have to say.

     We who fight for adult freedoms should always stay united.  We should not let our
adversaries single one of us out as a culprit and get us to buy into it and therefore divide
ourselves.   We need to remember that as adversaries they do not have our best interests in mind,
and we cannot trust what they say.  

     Mr. Levy understood this and even as some turned their backs on him, he never turned his
back on the cause.  And maybe, just maybe, and we will never know, he might have not been the
villain but the hero.   But at a minimum he has been a friend always to adult entertainment.

     For the past two years we have periodically written to you about the two bookstores
within the City of Lauderhill, that the City classified as adult establishments and tried to close
down.  The first establishment, University Video Enterprises, Inc. was only shut down for a
matter of hours by the City, while Thee Fantasy Shoppe II was permanently closed. 
    
Both entities filed suit against the City of Lauderhill.  In the case of University Video
Enterprises, Inc., their suit involved an injunction to keep them open and not have the city's adult
entertainment code applied to them, while challenging  the constitutionality of that code.  As to
Thee Fantasy Shoppe II, since they had been permanently closed by the City, their suit involves
damages along with a declaration that the City's Adult Entertainment Code, licensing
requirements, licensing suspension revocation hearing and zoning were unconstitutional.

In the case involving University Video Enterprises, a settlement was reached with the
City approximately 8 months ago where University Video Enterprises was not going to be
classified as adult entertainment and was going to be allowed to continue to operate in the
manner that it had been.  Further, University Video Enterprises, Inc. received attorneys' fees for
their troubles from the City.

Since Thee Fantasy Shoppe II was suing for damages, this case has not been settled.
However, on June 27, 2008, the Honorable Joan A. Lenard, United States District Court Judge
granted most of Thee Fantasy Shoppe II"s Motion for Summary Judgment.  In her ruling, Judge
Lenard found for Thee Fantasy Shoppe II on numerous grounds.

Judge Lenard found that the City's adult entertainment licensing scheme was
unconstitutional as it vested too much discretion in the City officials and allowed for
unacceptable delay by the City in granting a license.   Further, the City requiring that adult
entertainment be located in an I-1 zone was also unconstitutional as a special exception was
needed to located in the I-1 zone.  Judge Lenard found that the requirements of the special
exception also gave the City too much discretion and also allowed for unacceptable delay. 

The Court also ruled on the City's requirement that the proposed establishment not be in
violation of any provision of the City's Code, or any building, fire or zoning code, statute,
ordinance or regulation.  The ruling as to this matter was that this was also unconstitutional
because it would allow the City to decide which statutes or ordinances it wanted to apply to adult
entertainment and allow the city to make the unilateral determination whether those codes or
statutes had been violated.  In addition, other provisions of the licensing scheme were also
declared unconstitutional. 

Judge Lenard also found that the defects in the licensing scheme for adult entertainment
were so pervasive, that she was unable to sever the unconstitutional parts and leave remaining
those parts that were constitutional.  Rather, because of how pervasive the unconstitutional parts
were, she declared the entire licensing scheme unconstitutional.

Although Judge Lenard ruled on behalf of Thee Fantasy Shoppe II, on almost all grounds,
she still has set the issue of damages to be determined through mediation.  If mediation does not
come to a resolution of the matter, then a trial will be held on the issue of the proper damages.
Regardless of the amount of damages, Thee Fantasy Shoppe II should also be awarded attorneys'
fees.

Lastly, on due process grounds, other than First Amendment grounds, the Court ruled that
the City's suspension revocation of business licenses prior to a hearing being held was also
unconstitutional.  The Court noted, that the City's interest in closing businesses that did not have
licenses or valid licenses according to the City, was overshadowed by the business's rights to
have a due process hearing before their businesses were taken away.

We will keep you informed of what transpires as to the damages part of this case in the
upcoming months.  However, in early September, Club Eden is scheduled to go to trial on its
challenges to the Town of Davie's zoning, licensing and adult entertainment scheme.  Many of
the arguments ruled on by Judge Lenard in Thee Fantasy Shoppe II are similar to those presented
in the Eden litigation.  We will keep you informed of what transpires in that litigation as that
comes to past.
                      
For those of you who follow the intricacies of First Amendment law and adult
entertainment juris prudence, you might remember the case of Alameda Books v. City of Los
Angeles.  This case made it all the way up to the United States Supreme Court, where the Court
ruled for the first time that the adult entertainment establishment had the right to contest the
city's factual finding as to whether or not adult entertainment establishments caused adverse
secondary effects.  The Supreme Court ruling in Alameda Books led to the wonderful decision in
Daytona Grand v. City of Daytona Beach, at the District Court level which unfortunately was
overturned by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  Other good decisions for adult
entertainment from around the country also were based upon the dictates of the Alameda Books
case at the United States Supreme Court. 

The Alameda Books case was remanded by the United States Supreme Court back to the
Federal District Court for the District Court to have a trial based upon the Supreme Court's
decision.  However, prior to trial Judge Pregerson granted Alameda Books Motion for Summary
Judgment, relying upon Justice Kennedy's ruling at the United States Supreme Court. 

Justice Kennedy's decision pointed out that there must be proportionality.  In essence,
what Justice Kennedy was saying was you can easily do away with all adverse secondary effects
of adult entertainment, by closing down all adult entertainment.  However, there would be no
First Amendment expression left and therefore the remedies of clearing up adverse secondary
effects would not be in proportion to the harm to the First Amendment.

Judge Pregerson who found in Alameda at the trial level, that the city's regulation for
preventing two types of adult uses even if owned by the same business or if a part of the same
business could not be in the same structure was unconstitutional.  The Judge found that adult
arcades based upon the city's ordinances would not survive and the city would have no adult
arcades.  Therefore, since adult arcades and this form of First Amendment expression would not
survive, the ordinances lacked proportionality.

In the next month Daniel Aaronson and James Benjamin will travel to San Francisco to
the First Amendment Lawyers Association Summer Meeting.  We will have the opportunity to
speak with the lawyer responsible for this victory in Alameda Books and learn the intricacies of
the decision and how it came to pass.  In addition, James Benjamin will be attending the
Gentlemen's Club Exposition in Las Vegas, Nevada at the end of August.

In the upcoming editions, we will certainly inform you of what transpired at these two
events. 

     Last weekend we attended the EXXXCOTIA Convention at the Miami Beach Convention
Center.  For Benjamin & Aaronson, it was a time to see some old friends and make some new
ones.  Most aspects of the adult entertainment industry were present in some form or another.
New porno stars, veterans, distributors, club owners, and even our friends at Xcitement magazine
were displaying nubile young things covered only in delightful body paint or other skimpy attire!
Merchandise made of everything from glass, leather, metal, and gel were sold.  Thousands of
fans were ogling at the adult wares.

The Miami Beach Convention Center collected mega money from the promoters of
EXXXOTICA and we bet that they stuffed hundreds of thousands of dollars into the coffers of
the City of Miami Beach. In an elegant office surrounded by pictures of himself and hundreds of
the famous people who have befriended him, sits Leroy Griffith who owns and operates
"Madonnas" and has been involved in the adult entertainment industry since before most of you
were born.  Leroy is quite frustrated.  His club has nudity, but it not allowed to serve alcohol. 
Those same city officials who stuck their treasury fat from the proceeds of the EXXXOTICA
convention will not allow Leroy to serve alcohol and have his entertainers perform nude on the
same Miami Beach.

It is hilariously ridiculous but understandably not so funny to Leroy.  Here, in one of the
great convention cities in America, it is OK to look at tintalating flesh in the Convention Center,
but not on the stage at Madonnas should he serve alcohol..  What a crazy place!  Those stubborn
city officials don't realize that a nude club with alcohol  on Miami Beach would do more to
attract more convention groups than possibly any other attraction other than the sand that Miami
Beach could offer.

   For the past several years, three adult book and video stores in Miami-Dade County have been fighting the county in order to keep doors on their video viewing booths.  The case originally was before Judge Aldaberto Jordan, United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of Florida, who close to two years ago declared that the Miami-Dade County Ordinance was constitutional.

The bookstores took the fight up to the next level, that being the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals out of Atlanta.  Just last month, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Jordan’s ruling thereby validating Miami-Dade County’s Ordinance to requires doors off booths.

The bookstores still have the opportunity to take the fight to the United States Supreme Court.  Whether this will be done or not will depend on each individual bookstore as to whether they want to continue the fight.  If the fight is not continued and the ruling stands, doors off the booths in Miami-Dade County will be the order of the day.

In other news, as reported earlier, Daytona Grand  has decided to take their fight up to the United States Supreme Court.  For those of you who do not remember or are unfamiliar with the matter, this is the case out of Daytona Beach in which originally Federal District Court Judge John Antoon, III declared the Daytona Beach nudity and alcohol nudity ordinances to be unconstitutional.  Unfortunately, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed his decision.  In doing so, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals enunciated new standards of law, totally changing the landscape for the states of Georgia, Alabama and Florida.

The Daytona Grand case, not only conflicts with decisions out of other circuits, but also conflicts with decisions within the Eleventh Circuit.  There is no way to reconcile the Daytona Grand case with the Peek-A-Boo and Flanagan cases also out of the Eleventh Circuit.  Based upon these conflicts within the Eleventh Circuit and with conflicts with other cases from other circuits, it is hoped that the Supreme Court will exercise jurisdiction.  Last term the Supreme Court declined to hear cases from around the country dealing with similar  issues involved in Daytona Grand.   It is now hoped that the Supreme Court will recognize that the state of law is so varied throughout the country that it is time that they addressed the issue of adverse secondary effects in regards to adult entertainment and what level of proof is needed for a city to prove those adverse secondary effects.

Lastly, we wish all of you a happy holiday season, good health and a happy New Year.

    The highlight of the local scene is the bold attempt by the City of Miami to interfere with the First Amendment rights of an internet based adult business called Cocodorm run by a local company called “Flava Works, Inc.”.  All of the excitement started sometime in May when packages containing downloads from the internet and allegations of adult entertainment and unsafe sex were distributed to the neighbors surrounding the private house in Miami where the residents lived.  These packages were also distributed to all of the media outlets.  It is assumed that these packages were created by a hostile competitor who wants to bring down this popular adult website.

The house itself sits in a residential area in an old part of Miami just north of downtown.  Within eyesight of the house, prostitutes regularly sell their wares and drug deals happen on the street corners.  It is a typical near inner city type of community.  When one looks at the residence itself, all you see is a single family residence.  There are never multiple cars parked there.  There are never large parties or large groups of individuals there at any time.  There are simply a group of gay single men who live there. 

The only difference between this house and any other house in this or any other community is that it is wired with numerous internet cameras throughout the house.  The images that are captured on those cameras are sent out through the internet.  People can buy a subscription to the website and obtain access to what the cameras in the house show.  What they show are a group of individuals living there, having sex and doing all of the other things that people do in the privacy of their own home.  Not one person from the public goes to the actual geographic location of the residence to obtain any adult entertainment whatsoever.  There is no commercial enterprise on the premises.  People buy the content of the website either through the internet or by obtaining DVD’s either through the internet or by sending a check to a company office located elsewhere. 

The overbearing, dictatorial, bullying, and unreasonable code enforcement staff of the City of Miami decided that they wanted to get rid of Cocodorm.  After the initial violations were alleged by the City, James Benjamin was hired to represent Cocodorm.  Immediately upon the violations being alleged, Benjamin attempted to contact the City and explain that this issue had already been decided by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia almost seven years ago.  In that case, fellow First Amendment lawyer Luke Lirot of Tampa, handled the case for a company called Voyeurdorm.  The case was exactly the same as the one facing the folks at Cocodorm here in Miami.  In that case, Lirot was able to persuade the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that all the business activity that took place, took place in “cyberspace” over the world wide web and not at the physical location of the Voyeurdorm in Tampa.  The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that zoning ordinances did not apply to a situation that was a mirror image of Cocodorm.

Jamie Benjamin told the administrators of this case and even sent a copy to the Assistant City Attorney who prosecutes cases before the Code Enforcement Board.  They completely ignored clear and concise Federal law right on the subject.  In fact, Miami’s Director of Code Enforcement, De Mola arrogantly testified in Court that he did not even consult with the City Attorney concerning the Voyeurdorm case he received from Jamie Benjamin before continuing with the prosecution and attempt to close down Cocodorm.  During over twenty-four hours of hearings that spanned several weeks, it was evident that neither the Board nor the City Attorney, nor the attorney advising the Board had a clue of what they were doing or how to apply this clear law to the exact same set of facts presented to them.  The Assistant City Attorney and the staff of the Code Enforcement Department for the City of Miami bullied their way through the hearings in front of a Board made up mostly of lay people who were not well versed in how to apply law.

It was embarrassing that any City government should be run this way.  One of the reporters who was in attendance commented to Jamie Benjamin that she had never in her life seen a more unprofessional City Attorney or a more biased Board.

The results from this Board were not unexpected.  These type of issues are not usually won at this level of quasi-governmental,  far from judicial hearings.  The place to be is the United States District Court.  We are going to be there very soon and a Federal District Court Judge will simply take the Voyeurdorm case previously decided on these issues themselves and apply it to Cocodorm.  The boys at Cocodorm will be able to continue on in their constitutionally protected activities forevermore. 

This should be some sort of warning to those of you who intend to continue operating First Amendment constitutionally protected businesses and are attacked by local authorities be it City or County Code Enforcement or the police themselves.  First Amendment practitioners like Benjamin & Aaronson or others that concentrate in the area of protecting your First Amendment rights are indeed Liberty’s last champion.  We will make sure the government does not trample on your rights.

On January 20, 2006, United States District Court Judge Antoon for the Middle District of Florida, gave Daytona Grand d/b/a Lollipops possibly the most significant victory for adult entertainment in this country in a number of years. Unfortunately, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision at the end of June, 2007. This reversal, sets a standard that is almost impossible for an adult entertainment establishment to meet as far as whether adult entertainment establishments cause adverse secondary effects. Further, the Court’s ruling on zoning issues, also means that it will be rather difficult for adult establishments to find places to locate, that are economically and physically viable.

All hope is not lost. The decision by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals is not final. In fact, Daytona Grand represented by Daniel Aaronson and Gary Edinger out of Gainesville have filed a Motion for Reheairng En Banc. What this means, is that instead of allowing a three judge panel to make the decision for the Eleventh Circuit, rather Daytona Grand is asking for all of the judges of the Eleventh Circuit to make the ruling. The Petition for this Rehearing En Banc in pending in front of the Eleventh Circuit and since many of the rulings within Daytona Grand now conflict with the cases of Peek-A-Boo and Flanagans out of the Eleventh Circuit, there is great hope that in fact the entire Eleventh Circuit panel will take the case.

If the Eleventh Circuit’s entire panel takes the case, the ruling in Daytona Grand at the Eleventh Circuit is subject to being changed by the entire panel including being overturned. Therefore, all hope is not lost and there is still a chance that Judge Antoon’s decision at the District Court level will be upheld.

Why is there hope? The three judges that ruled at the Eleventh Circuit on the Daytona Grand case, were not any of the judges that had been party to the rulings in both Peek-A-Boo and Flanagans. In fact, one of the judges was a visiting judge from an international commerce court. Therefore, only two of the judges of the entire Eleventh Circuit have actually put their names to the Daytona Grand decision. It is sincerely hoped, that the judges that put their names on the Peek-A-Boo and Flanagans decisions will be as outraged as we are with this decision, vote to have it heard en banc, and ultimately reaffirm Judge Antoon’s decision.

In essence, the nails are not in the coffin, there is still hope and there is the chance that Daytona Grand will have the chance to fight again in front of the Eleventh Circuit. If that does not occur, and the Eleventh Circuit does not decide to hear this matter en banc, Daytona Grand is more than willing and able to take this matter up to the Supreme Court of the United States. In fact, regardless of how the Eleventh Circuit ultimately rules as to whether they want to hear this matter en banc or not, and whether they overturn the previous ruling by the three judge panel, it is anticipated that one of the sides in this litigation will try to take this case up to the United States Supreme Court.

So all in all, the ruling from the three judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit was not good news, yet the fight is not over. Daytona Grand intends to have its rights vindicated along with the rights of the citizens who live in the Eleventh Circuit of Florida, Georgia and Alabama.

It is hard to forget the day after William Jefferson Clinton was elected to be President of the United States in November of 1992. While we were driving to work, the next morning, Rush Limbaugh was on the air. He was going through a mantra of the winners and losers on the previous night elections. As to who was the biggest winner on that day, he voiced, that it was him. He explained that with Clinton being in office, he would have between four and eight years of material to work with and that his job would be much easier.

Remembering what Rush Limbaugh said, we can only fee the same way about having George W. Bush as our President. There never has been a lack of something to write about. There has always been material, as his presidency has been the most outrageous possibly in U.S. history. The problem is, it is almost like information overload. With the war in Iraq; with countless violations of the Constitution; with usurping of people’s rights, with flagrant disregard for international law and treaties, on any given day what do we write about. The answer is it is hard to write about any of them when you want to write about all of them.

This article is supposed to be about First Amendment issues and First Amendment freedoms. However, with this Administration there has been an assault on everyone of our rights and all of our freedoms. We have had our phones and computers wiretapped. We have had our treaties with other nations broken in the name of security. We have attacked another country that posed no threat to us and have done it on the basis of lies, conjuncture and theories that did not pan out. We have had an Administration that has grabbed more power than any Executive Branch in the history of this country. It flaunts the rule of law and creates its own law. In fact, Vice President Cheney has now established himself as outside of the Executive Branch of government; outside of the Legislative Branch of government and somehow a fourth branch of government with responsibility over all and answering to none.

We have had to watch an administration out a CIA operative in the name of political vendetta. We have watched an administration official be convicted of obstruction of justice and perjury only to be pardoned by the President who ultimately he was protecting by his perjury and obstruction of justice. We have watched an Attorney General blatantly lie to Congress.

We even have had a Supreme Court that for the first time has decided not to protect a woman’s health by allowing her to have an abortion, but rather now has mandated that that abortion procedure would be criminal even if it saves her life. That same Supreme Court on a case by case basis has sided with government over people, corporations over people but never with people.

We have a Senate and Congress that continually expresses its doubt for this war in Iraq and the President’s actions, but never steps up to the plate with binding resolutions or legislation to thwart the administration’s grab for power and zest for endless war. We have a Congress that seems to flex its muscles, only to be constantly bullied by the President which causes them to slink away in defeat.

The President and this administration believe in the unitary executive. They would have you believe that that means believing in a strong President as one of the three branches of government. In actuality what they mean is that they believe in a dictator elected by the people but with all the powers of a king. That is exactly what they have tried to set up George W. Bush as. King George.

Since our legislators seem to be too weak to fight the king and the Courts having been stacked by the King, it is now up to us the people to demand our democracy back. We don’t really know how it is done, because efforts like what we are asking for, just seem to grow on their own. But somewhere, somehow it is time that the American people at the grassroot level decided to take back this country. It is time that those of us who read our history books and civics books while going to school actually made this country become what we read about as being. Those civic and history books were not written for the fun of it but rather to teach us how our government was supposed to behave. It is time that we remembered our lessons of the sixth grade and forced this country to become a democracy once again and not this republican totalitarian regimen.

Although there is no Earth shattering news on the local First Amendment or adult front, there are cases still progressing through the Court systems here in South Florida dealing with those issues.  In the case out of the Town of Davie, Eden v. The Town of Davie, by the time this article is read, discovery will have been completed by all sides in the case.  In fact, depositions have been taken of all of the witnesses including experts in central Florida and California.  The trial is scheduled in April 2007 on this case.

Shortly after you read this article, discovery is to be completed in the two cases out of Lauderhill involving “The Fantasy Shoppe II” and “University Video Enterprises, Inc.”.  In those cases, the City of Lauderhill unilaterally determined that both of these establishments were adult entertainment establishments and in the case of “The Fantasy Shoppe II” closed their doors causing them to never to be reopened again.  In the case of “University Video Enterprises, Inc.” code citations were handed out although the City has subsequently backed away from those allegations.  In those cases, a central issue will be what is the definition of an adult bookstore in the City of Lauderhill and is it a constitutional definition.  The two stores have contended that it is not constitutional as it furthers no substantial governmental interest and by its own terms it is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.

As to the case involving doors on or off booths in Miami-Dade County, as we reported months ago, the three adult bookstores lost at the District Court level, but the case is pending before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals with Briefs due shortly.

Lastly, as to updates on important cases that affect South Florida, oral argument is scheduled for mid March in the case of Daytona Grand v. The City of Daytona Beach.  Although this is not a Southern District of Florida case but rather a Middle District case, the impact of this ruling will not only be felt in the Middle District or the Southern District of Florida, but actually across the country.  For those of you who do not recall, this is a case in which the adult dance establishment won and the City is appealing that victory to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  A victory at the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals will show governments that they cannot trump up false justifications for infringing upon adult entertainment and First Amendment freedoms.

On another note, we would be remiss if we did not mention the University of Florida football team winning the National Championship.  We traveled out to Phoenix for the game, and although our luggage was lost, James Benjamin came down with the flu, we had middle seats throughout our trips from and to Phoenix, we had to travel from Phoenix to Milwaukee to Fort Lauderdale to get back, it was still a wonderful trip.  At the game, there had to be at least two to three to one Ohio State fans versus Gator fans.  The Gator fans were very quiet before the game with the Ohio State fans acting as if  they had already won the National Championship and that we did not belong in the game playing against them.

Obviously, they were wrong.  However, the saying he who laughs last, laughs best did not apply.  By the time the game ended there was little opportunity to gloat.  The sea of scarlet and grey had vanished and all that was left was orange and blue.  It was a great night.  A great trip.  A great season.  Go Gators!!

   The City of Miami Beach has a unique take on adult entertainment.  Their Code provides that having just one piece of adult material on the premises makes the location an adult book and video store.  Yet, the City has chosen to interpret their own Ordinance more liberally and allows up to 150 square feet of floor space to be devoted to adult products before an establishment is classified as adult.

What is more unique about the City’s determination of an adult store versus a non-adult store, is that it does not matter how large the store is.  Therefore, a retail establishment with 10,000 square feet is only allowed to have 150 square of adult fare before it is considered to be adult entertainment.  Yet, a store of 3000 square feet can have almost half of its square footage dedicated to adult material and not be considered an adult store.  The rationale behind this 150 square foot line of demarcation must be the belief that regardless of the size of the establishment, having more than 150 square feet of adult material causes adverse secondary effects and having less that 150 square feet of adult entertainment does not cause adverse secondary effects.  Although this analysis strains logic, it is what it is.

Yet, during the weekend of June 9 through June 11, the Miami Beach Convention Center was home to the adult entertainment industry show “Exotica”.  Not only did the City give its approval to this convention, police officers could be seen throughout the Convention Center providing security.  Not only did the City of Miami Beach give approval to this convention, but the Miami Beach Convention Center is run by the City of Miami Beach.

So although the City of Miami Beach believes having more than 150 square feet of adult fare causes adverse secondary effects, they apparently believe that having thousands of square feet of adult fare in their own convention center does not cause adverse secondary effects.  The truth of the matter is, that their second position is correct.  There were no adverse secondary effects caused by having Exotica at the Miami Beach Convention Center.  No additional crime occurred around the Convention Center or in the neighborhoods nearby.  There was no outbreak of lewdness.  The jail cells were not full of prostitutes as those who are opponents of adult entertainment would have you believe would occur.  No, rather an adult oriented convention went off without hitch in the City of Miami Beach.  The people that attended were like the attendees to all other conventions on Miami Beach.  They brought business to the local community.  They put funds in the local economy.  They went and enjoyed the exhibitions without causing any trouble. 

Rather than putting down the city for allowing Exotica, we applaud the City for its assistance in allowing the convention to take place.    With this successful convention behind them, it is now time that the City of Miami Beach and all other municipalities in South Florida realize that adult entertainment does not cause adverse secondary effects.  It is now time for city commissioners throughout South Florida to be intellectually honest and acknowledge that their opposition to adult entertainment is not based upon adverse secondary effects, but upon moral grounds.  It is now time that the municipalities throughout South Florida realized that adult entertainment actually brings in money to the community as opposed to taking money out of the community.  It is now time that the government officials in South Florida realized that although they may make some political points by attacking adult entertainment, they in actuality are weakening their economic base, causing unneeded litigation and spend tax payer’s money when there is no need to do so. 

On other notes and in other  news, in South Florida, currently pending are suits by Eden against the Town of Davie, and two bookstores in Lauderhill who have sued the City over determinations that they are adult and must be closed.  As the litigation in these suits proceed, we will keep you more informed and let you know of the progress in each.  For those of you who do not remember, there also is the current suit by Hustler of Hollywood against the City of Miami Beach, believe it or not, involving that 150 square foot rule.

    It seems that there are a number of months that go by that we have nothing to report to you as to what is going on on the adult entertainment/First Amendment front in South Florida.  Then a month like this comes by and there is a whole slew of things that have occurred that we wish to keep you abreast of. 

Some of you may remember, that Curves Cabaret sued the City of West Palm Beach in the summer of 2005.  We probably told you in the past, that a preliminary injunction hearing was heard in front of U.S. Magistrate James Hopkins in West Palm Beach.  Some of you may even remember that we reported that Magistrate Hopkins ruled on seven of the eight grounds in favor of Curves Cabaret against the City of West Palm Beach.  The other ground, the eighth, Judge Hopkins did not rule against Curves, but rather decided that there was no need to go into that issue as Curves had won on all the other issues.

Since that time, the parties have been trying to work out a settlement to avoid this case going any further.  Benjamin & Aaronson is happy to announce, that a settlement has been entered into and one that is quite favorable for Curves.  Based upon the settlement, Curves Cabaret no longer has to worry about its grandfather status and is in fact grandfathered in for nudity along with alcoholic beverages in the City of West Palm Beach.  Further, the City will not interfere with Curve’s occupational license and Curves will be receiving the same.  Most importantly, although Curves only has a 2COP license at this time, nothing in the settlement prohibits Curves Cabaret from suing the City if necessary to obtain a 4COP or for Curves to negotiate with the City in the future to have its 2COP changed to a 4COP. 

In essence, almost everything that Curves was seeking in its Federal lawsuit, Curves received.  As to whether or not Curves ever receives it 4COP alcoholic beverage license, we will keep you informed of that in the future.  Hopefully, the news that Curves has a 4COP will be one that will come shortly by way of negotiation.  However, if it does not come this way, Benjamin & Aaronson is prepared to refile that part of the Federal lawsuit dealing with the 4COP license, forge ahead and ultimately achieve victory.

On other matters in South Florida, the Federal Courts are heating up with suits from adult entertainment establishments against various cities.  Last month, Hustler of Hollywood, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, contending that the City of Miami Beach’s definition of an adult bookstore was unconstitutional.  Further, Hustler of Hollywood also contended that the City does not even follow its own definitions of adult entertainment thereby being in further violation of the First Amendment.  Benjamin & Aaronson has been hired as local counsel for Hustler of Hollywood working with Hustler’s law firm out of Buffalo, New York.  As this case progresses, we will keep you informed of what is going on, how the case is progressing, and of course ultimately with anticipated news of victory.

For those of you who do not know, a new dance club opened up in the City of Davie.  Club Eden opened up for business in the Town of Davie as a nightclub and shortly therefore, filed suit to have the Davie Code declared unconstitutional on several grounds.  On behalf of Eden, Benjamin & Aaronson, filed a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, contending that the Town of Davie had a virtual zone out of adult entertainment establishments, making their Code unconstitutional, that their special exception procedures were unconstitutional, that the requirements of where adult entertainment had to locate was unconstitutional and that their moratorium that no adult entertainment could locate in Davie was also unconstitutional.  Again, this suit is at its earliest stages and when more information arises in this suit, we will be happy to inform you about it.

The City of Lauderhill has also found itself in federal court.  Benjamin & Aaronson on behalf of University Video Enterprises, Inc. filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Lauderhill contending that various provisions of the City of Lauderhill Code were unconstitutional.  Included in those provisions that Benjamin & Aaronson believed were unconstitutional, were not only the adult entertainment code provisions, but also the City’s code enforcement and licensing provisions.  This suit was brought about, not by University Video Enterprises, Inc., but rather by the City of Lauderhill who after years of having no problems with University Video, all of a sudden decided that University Video was now an adult store and therefore needed to be closed down.

Among other parts of the lawsuit, Benjamin & Aaronson on behalf of University Video has contended and are contending that the City’s code enforcement procedures that they are trying to use to close down University Video, are unconstitutional and therefore cannot even be employed.  Further, Benjamin & Aaronson has also challenged the definitions of adult establishments in Lauderhill believing that they are all unconstitutional.

As noted above, most of these lawsuits that have just been filed, are at their earliest stages.  As these litigations proceed, Benjamin & Aaronson will keep you informed of their progress.  But one thing is for sure, looking at what has transpired over the last month or so,  the adult entertainment industry in South Florida is tired of being kicked around and has made up its mind that it is going to fight back.