NY Gov Spitzer Admits Involvement in Prostitution Ring

Great Debates
181

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
He was just a John. Let’s not exaggerate. The bottom line is that all he did was order a hooker. It’s a trivial misdemeanor and it really isn’t even anyone else’s business.
[/QUOTE]

I agree with this. Spitzer was a John and nothing more. Johns are usually not charged. The Mann Act violations and other charges surrounding money schemes are clearly being used heavy handed. Spitzer should be charged for the crime he committed, not with creative indictments using old statutes that don’t reflect the spirit of the law. He should be treated fairly.

It wouldn’t surprise me if this entire investigation was politically motivated and not exactly the result of serendipity or coincidence.

Ultimately, Spitzer engaged in extremely reckless behavior and exercised bad judgment. It is mind boggling that a man as bright and ambitious as Spitzer would take such a huge risk with his political career.

182

[QUOTE=unconventional]
I agree with this. Spitzer was a John and nothing more. Johns are usually not charged. The Mann Act violations and other charges surrounding money schemes are clearly being used heavy handed. Spitzer should be charged for the crime he committed, not with creative indictments using old statutes that don’t reflect the spirit of the law. He should be treated fairly.

It wouldn’t surprise me if this entire investigation was politically motivated and not exactly the result of serendipity or coincidence.

Ultimately, Spitzer engaged in extremely reckless behavior and exercised bad judgment. It is mind boggling that a man as bright and ambitious as Spitzer would take such a huge risk with his political career.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think he’s being charged, or even possibly being charged, with a Mann Act violation. We are just throwing around things here he probably did.

What he may be charged with is structuring, which is not a “creative indictment using old statutes”. It is clearly an attempt by the feds to bust up a multi-state, million dollar prostitution ring, which agree or not, is far different that you paying the street walker $50 for a blow job.

This involves large cash transactions through the mail in furtherance of a huge criminal enterprise by a man who is the chief executive of a large state like NY. Not only that, but he has made it part of his career to go above and beyond to root out and punish criminal enterprises that do FAR LESS than what he is admittedly involved in.

IMO, besides that, he has disgraced himself, his wife, and his kids, and has outraged the sense of morality of most of the community (Dio excepted). As I said, I think prostitution should be legal (not sure about multi-state, high dollar, internet ads for it) but I take a dim view of a married man with kids who uses these services, spending as much money as many times as he did.

As such, his mandate for leadership is almost nothing, and for the sake of his office and his state, he needs to step aside to let someone in his office who can effectively govern.

And to say that this is politically motivated is ridiculous. When you advertise your prostitution services online, expect law enforcement to get involved.

Then they wiretapped the phones and, lo and behold, here is Spitzer calling. The feds had no idea Spitzer was a part of this. How could they? He was just a dolphin caught in a tuna net..

183

[QUOTE=jtgain]
…And to say that this is politically motivated is ridiculous. When you advertise your prostitution services online, expect law enforcement to get involved.

Then they wiretapped the phones and, lo and behold, here is Spitzer calling. The feds had no idea Spitzer was a part of this. How could they? He was just a dolphin caught in a tuna net..
[/QUOTE]

No this is incorrect. This was not an investigation of a prostitution ring that swept up Spitzer, this was an investigation of Spitzer that swept up the prostitution ring.

At the moment I’m failing to find a link at the moment, but this started, purportedly, as an investigation of suspicious financial transfers that the governer made. Investigators thought these involved some kind of public corruption, like disguising the source of bribes paid to him. The claim is they didn’t understand it was about prostitution until later, while listening to wiretapped conversations.

Personally, I’m curious whether there was some specific complaint by a banker, or whther maybe this whole thing was a product of “data mining” that simply popped out his name from a computer analyzing millions of transactions. It’s conceivable to me that this could be a product of the Patriot Act, but I have no actual evidence of this.

184

[QUOTE=Boyo Jim]

Personally, I’m curious whether there was some specific complaint by a banker, or whther maybe this whole thing was a product of “data mining” that simply popped out his name from a computer analyzing millions of transactions. It’s conceivable to me that this could be a product of the Patriot Act, but I have no actual evidence of this.
[/QUOTE]

According to the NY Post here (http://www.nypost.com/seven/03122008/news/regionalnews/eliot_slush_fund_blunder_101547.htm) It was a specific complaint after he transferred more than $10,000 to an account and then asked that his name be taken off the transactions and then:

185

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
A governor is not a lawmaker.
[/QUOTE]

I thought about that after the edit window closed, but he’s still someone who is a former Attorney General and now the head of our state. My opinion on his conduct still stands.

And I really do “give a shit about it” because it’s not like you or me breaking the law, it’s the leader of our state government. If he’s allowed to break the law and get away with it, then what kind of message does that send to the public?

186

George Bush tied to prostitution ring!

187

I first thought that this was silly, there isn’t any way that this could be politically motivated, but when you consider that the tip came from a bank, and you consider Spitzer’s campaign against Wall Street, then who knows, it’s not inconceivable that this is payback.

However, that said, this does not change the fact that the governor was out breaking laws. Were he to not have been hiring hookers, then his enemies wouldn’t have had the goods on him.

This is another reason why corruption isn’t good for elected officials.

For Diogenes the Cynic’s comment that it was his money, he could spend it as he wants, this couldn’t be further from the truth.

The money was going to a criminal enterprise, with about half of the take – according to one source – going to the pimps. Since they are going to be filing tax returns, then we’ve an elected official knowing, or should be expected to know, that his tens of thousands of dollars among the untold other incomes is being illegally earned and laundered.

The man who road into town claming to be the new sheriff winds up being just another bad guy. Disappointing.

188

[QUOTE=unconventional]
I agree with this. Spitzer was a John and nothing more. Johns are usually not charged. The Mann Act violations and other charges surrounding money schemes are clearly being used heavy handed. Spitzer should be charged for the crime he committed, not with creative indictments using old statutes that don’t reflect the spirit of the law. He should be treated fairly.

[/quote]

:rolleyes:

In case I didn’t mention it above, just last month, the Fourth Circuit handed down a decision upholding the conviction of one Singh, the owner of a West Virginia hotel. Singh offered reduced room rental rates to out-of-state prostitutes who agreed to come and work out of his hotel, with the proviso that they be out in time for him to re-rent the rooms in the evenings to more traditional guests. He was charged and convicted under the “old statute” that doesn’t “reflect the spirit of the law” and, as I say, the Fourth Circuit upheld it.

Nor is that an isolated case.

So what’s the basis for your view that the application of this law to Spitzer is in any way innovative or creative? It’s not.

189

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Anybody who ever takes a girlfriend to a different state or arranges or pays for a woman to come in from another state and meet them for sex is in violation of the Mann Act. I could have been prosecuted for it when I took a vacation on an out of state lake with my wife before we were married. I cite, once more Caminetti V. United States which ruled that the Mann Act applies to any consensual, non-marital sex. In fact, it applies not only to sex but to “any immoral purpose.” That’s why I’ve used the example of taking a girlfriend to Vegas for a weekend.

Please tell me why Spitzer merits prosecution but not me or Rudy Giuliani or probably 3/4 of the men on this message board.
[/QUOTE]

Because in your keen legal analysis of the issue, you have missed something. I know - shocking, considering your usually firm grasp upon these issues.

In 1917, the language of the Mann Act, as you say, forbid “any immoral purpose.”

Today, it does not. It proscribes prostitution or other sexually-related criminal acts, but no longer makes any effort to forbid “immoral” acts. The last possible nail in that coffin, then, came with Lawrence v. Texas, which removed from the criminal sphere consensual, non-commercial sexual activity between adults.

When you rely on a case to make your point, you need to Shepardize it, which means you discover: (1) Has the case been overruled by other cases, and (2) has the law the case relied upon been changed?

Answer: yes.

190

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Anybody who ever takes a girlfriend to a different state or arranges or pays for a woman to come in from another state and meet them for sex is in violation of the Mann Act. I could have been prosecuted for it when I took a vacation on an out of state lake with my wife before we were married. I cite, once more Caminetti V. United States which ruled that the Mann Act applies to any consensual, non-marital sex. In fact, it applies not only to sex but to “any immoral purpose.” That’s why I’ve used the example of taking a girlfriend to Vegas for a weekend.

Please tell me why Spitzer merits prosecution but not me or Rudy Giuliani or probably 3/4 of the men on this message board.
[/QUOTE]

You’re making the mistake of thinking there is just one legal principle here that must be followed, rather than multiple ones that sometimes conflict. The latter is usually the case.

Sure, there is Caminetti, and more importantly the Plain Meaning Rule that flowed from it. But older than Caminetti, and very well established, is the principle of de minimis. You want to wwave this away as selective prosecution - but this principle cannot be so easily dismissed.

Furthermore, de minimis applies to the court in general, and is a principle a judge is supposed to enforce. “Selective prosecution” would be an abuse by a prosecutor, not a court, since prosecutors decide to bring criminal matters to trial, not judges. If a couple were to be hauled into court after their weekend at a B&B, the judge would be within his rights to dismiss charges - and derelict in his responsibilities if he didn’t

I will point out that because of another principle, prosecutorial discretion, prosecutors have near unlimited power to decide what charges ought to be brought. So if not a lot of people are being charged for their weekends in Vermont, there probable is a sense among these professionals that no good would come of that.

So yes, Caminetti is on the books, and it is important in that it states that laws mean what they say. But other laws mean what they say too, about walking ahead of a horseless carriage while waving a red flag to warn passersby, or taking baths at least once a year. It doesn’t mean we’re all that hot to enforce these either.

191

[QUOTE=Bricker]
In 1917, the language of the Mann Act, as you say, forbid “any immoral purpose.”
[/QUOTE]

SENATOR (panting): Come with me on this fact-finding tour! I have congressional immunity, so you don’t need to worry about the Mann Act!

HONEYCHILE: Worry about it? Why, Senator, ah just adore it!

192

I see that Bricker answered this question rather more completely than I did by referring to Lawrence. However, even pre-Lawrence, nobody was going to get prosecuted for those non-prostitution related aspects of the Mann Act for the reasons I stated above.

193

He’s resigning in about an hour, so it’s all moot at this point.

194

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Because in your keen legal analysis of the issue, you have missed something. I know - shocking, considering your usually firm grasp upon these issues.

In 1917, the language of the Mann Act, as you say, forbid “any immoral purpose.”

Today, it does not. It proscribes prostitution or other sexually-related criminal acts, but no longer makes any effort to forbid “immoral” acts. The last possible nail in that coffin, then, came with Lawrence v. Texas, which removed from the criminal sphere consensual, non-commercial sexual activity between adults.

When you rely on a case to make your point, you need to Shepardize it, which means you discover: (1) Has the case been overruled by other cases, and (2) has the law the case relied upon been changed?

Answer: yes.
[/QUOTE]

It’s only your own theory that Lawrence would overturn Camenetti. That has not, as a matter of record, been decided (at least not that I can find). All you’re doing is presenting your defense theory (which isn’t bad) but since the Mann Act does not forbid the sex per se, but the “transportation” of ass across state lines, I’m not convinced that Lawrence would be on point. I certainly can’t find a case of any court ruling that Lawrence overturns Camentti. Can you cite me one?

195

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
It’s only you’re theory that lawrence would overturn Camenetti. That has not, as a matter of record, been decided. All you’re doing is preventing your defense theory (which isn’t bad) but since the Mann Act does not forbid the sex per se, but the “transportation” of ass across state lines, I’m not convinced that Lawrence would be on point. I certainly can’t find a case of any court ruling that Lawrence overturns Camentti. Can you cite me one?
[/QUOTE]

No need. Caminetti is no longer good law because CONGRESS CHANGED THE LAW UPON WHICH CAMINETTI RELIED.

The Court in Caminetti ruled that the Mann Act’s “immoral purpose” language applied in broad circumstances.

Listen (or read, actually) carefully: Congress subsequently removed that “immoral” language from the law. See how that works?

196

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
I see that Bricker answered this question rather more completely than I did by referring to Lawrence. However, even pre-Lawrence, nobody was going to get prosecuted for those non-prostitution related aspects of the Mann Act for the reasons I stated above.
[/QUOTE]

I’d like to see a cite for any court agreeing that Lawrence overrides Caminetti.

I’m also not buying the De minimus argument. The state has no more compelling interest in punishing consensual prostitution than punishing non-commercial, non-marital sex. What makes prostitution more “immoral” than adultery?

197

[QUOTE=Bricker]
No need. Caminetti is no longer good law because CONGRESS CHANGED THE LAW UPON WHICH CAMINETTI RELIED.

The Court in Caminetti ruled that the Mann Act’s “immoral purpose” language applied in broad circumstances.

Listen (or read, actually) carefully: Congress subsequently removed that “immoral” language from the law. See how that works?
[/QUOTE]

Why didn’t you say that in the first place? OK, I see that the wording has now been changed to "“any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.” I stand corrected.

It’s still a bullshit law (as is prostititution) and I still say he doesn’t get charged with shit.

198

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I’d like to see a cite for any court agreeing that Lawrence overrides Caminetti.

I’m also not buying the De minimus argument. The state has no more compelling interest in punishing consensual prostitution than punishing non-commercial, non-marital sex. What makes prostitution more “immoral” than adultery?
[/QUOTE]

One reason is the language in Lawrence makes a specifc disavowal of its own application to prostitution:

The Court thus limits its holding in Lawrence to “private conduct” between adults as distinguished from prostitution.

But please dump the “immoral” language from your analysis. As I explained, that’s not the way the law reads now.

199

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Why didn’t you say that in the first place? OK, I see that the wording has now been changed to "“any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.” I stand corrected.

It’s still a bullshit law (as is prostititution) and I still say he doesn’t get charged with shit.
[/QUOTE]

You may well be right. On both counts. But understand that he is chargeable, and convictable, as others have been on lesser acts. So it may be a bullshit law, but its not an unused law.

200

Did anyone catch The Daily Show last night? :smiley: