Chuck Muth

(Chuck Muth) – I’m sure you’re familiar with the term “Midas Touch.”  It refers to someone with the seeming ability to turn everything he or she touches into a success.

But unless you have kids you might not be familiar with the polar-opposite term, “Cheese Touch.”  It comes from the “Diary of a Wimpy Kid” movies and refers to someone who touches a piece of moldy, rotten cheese and is forever tainted by it.

Creepy Reno lawyer Jason Guinasso has the Cheese Touch.  Everything he touches seemingly turns into failure.  A brief history…

• Guinasso ran for the Nevada State Assembly in 2016 and was accused of not living in the district he was running for. He lost.
• He then tried to derail the State Assembly candidacy of famed brothel owner Dennis Hof in 2018. But Hof won his Republican primary and went on to win the seat in the general election in a landslide – three weeks after he passed away.

Dennis Hof had the Midas Touch!

• Guinasso also tried to gather enough signatures to put a question on the ballot to ban legal brothels in Nye County last year. He failed.
• He also tried to pass a brothel-ban ballot question in Lyon County last year. The question was crushed by a whopping 80-20 percent.  Epic fail.
• He supported a bill this year to outlaw Nevada’s legal brothels statewide. The bill never even got a hearing, let alone a vote.
• Earlier this year he lost a high-profile lawsuit in which his client was found to have violated the state’s public records law.
• In July he was dumped by Gov. Steve Sisolak as chairman of the Nevada State Public Charter School Authority.
• And this week his federal lawsuit seeking to void Nevada’s legal brothel law was tossed out of U.S District Court, with Judge Miranda Du ruling that Guinasso failed “to establish standing to confer jurisdiction upon this Court.”

Fail, fail and fail again.  Yes, Jason Guinasso has the Cheese Touch!

In response to his lawsuit earlier this year, the State of Nevada absolutely shredded Guinasso’s claims so badly that one has to wonder how he ever received a license to practice law in the first place.

From the motion-to-dismiss, here are the Top 10 reasons why Guinasso’s lawsuit was destined for another Cheese Touch failure…

1.) The state started right off the bat noting that the debate over the “merits of legalized prostitution” should be a policy debate, not a federal court action.

“If Congress desired to criminalize prostitution,” Gregory Zunino wrote on behalf of the Nevada Attorney General’s office, “it could easily do so.  But it has not.”

2.)  Mr. Zunino noted that the federal Mann Act, cited by Guinasso in his lawsuit, prohibits individuals from engaging in prostitution or any other sexual activity “for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.”

But since no one working in one of Nevada’s legal brothels can be “charged with a criminal offense” for working there – providing they passed their FBI background check and obtained a sheriff’s work card – there can be no violation of the Mann Act.

3.) Mr. Zunino pointed out that the conduct alleged by Guinasso’s clients was already illegal “under both Nevada and federal laws that criminalize sex trafficking” and that Nevada’s law allowing legal brothels does not preempt existing laws in this regard.

“In sum,” Mr. Zunino wrote, “Nevada outlaws the very activity that is the subject of Plaintiff’s amended complaint: sex trafficking.”

4.) The motion to dismiss further noted that Guinasso complained that “Nevada advertises as a sex tourism state.”  However, as Mr. Zunino pointed out, the examples Guinasso himself submitted “consist of advertisements by private entities, which have no nexus to the State.”

5.)  Guinasso also submitted “a number of articles exploring whether there is a connection between legalized prostitution wherever it is practiced and increases in sex trafficking.”

But as Mr. Zunino pointed out…

“Plaintiffs never allege factual allegations demonstrating a nexus between these articles and their allegations against the State. The only relevance these articles could have is to an outright federal ban on legalized prostitution, which Plaintiffs concede is not federal law.”

6.) Mr. Zunino noted that a “motion to dismiss must be granted when a plaintiff (Guinasso’s client) fails to plead a cognizable legal theory, or fails to plead sufficient facts to support such a legal theory” and that the Court “must ignore unsupported conclusions, unwarranted inferences, and sweeping legal conclusions couched as factual allegations.”

The State argued that Guinasso’s lawsuit failed in this regard.

7.) The State continued…

“To seek injunctive relief, a plaintiff must show that he is under threat of suffering ‘injury in fact’ that is concrete and particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury.”

As such, Mr. Zunino argued…

“Here, none of the Plaintiffs individual allegations meet the requirement that they are realistically threatened with a repetition of the conduct that they allege is the violation of federal law. Charleston, Ms. Delgado-Williams, and Ms. Albright-Byrd all reside in Texas.  Each of the Plaintiffs allege they were victims in the past of sex trafficking, but no Plaintiff alleges that she is realistically threatened with imminent harm as a result of Nevada law.”

He concluded that the Plaintiffs “were not injured by Nevada’s approach to prostitution, nor are their injuries from sex trafficking fairly traceable to Nevada’s laws.”  Further, “Nevada law did not injure Plaintiffs because the traffickers conduct that injured Plaintiffs was illegal in Nevada as well as federal law.”

Judge Du agreed…

“Plaintiffs claim that because of the conduct of Defendants’ unspecified agents and employees they continue to suffer potential unspecified injury to their health and safety. This is entirely too abstract to establish standing.

“At most, Plaintiffs – who all presently reside in Texas – allege that they continue to suffer severe and dehumanizing emotional consequences from being victims of sex-trafficking and contend that they have ‘reasonable expectation’…that they would be subjected to revictimization.

“But ‘The emotional consequences of a prior act simply are not sufficient basis for an injunction absent a real and immediate threat of future injury by the defendant.’ … The Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate injury in fact to establish constitutional standing in this case.”

8.)  The state noted that the 11^th Amendment “generally bars the federal courts from entertaining suits brought by a private party against a state” unless the state waives its sovereign immunity.  But, the motion to dismiss advised, “the State of Nevada has not waived that immunity.”

“Accordingly,” the Mr. Zunino wrote, “there is no legal basis upon which Plaintiffs may sue the Governor, much less the state of Nevada, for damages in this Court.”

9.)  Continuing with its argument that Guinasso’s lawsuit against the state was wrong-directed…

“Plaintiffs failed to allege any affirmative conduct by the State that placed them in danger. Plaintiffs allegations pertain to conduct by private individuals, sex traffickers, who violated federal law, and Nevada law, by using force or threats of force to coerce Plaintiffs into prostitution.  Plaintiffs do not allege any affirmative conduct by a state officer with a nexus to any particular instance of sex trafficking alleged by Plaintiffs.”

10.)  In his conclusion, Mr. Zunino wrote…

“People of good intentions can disagree as a policy matter whether prostitution should be criminalized; however, such policy debates are reserved for the legislative chamber rather than the courts. There is no conflict between federal law and Nevada law here because federal law does not criminalize prostitution and both Nevada law and federal law criminalize sex trafficking wherever it occurs in Nevada.  To the extent that there may be tension between Nevada law and federal law, Plaintiffs improperly seek an advisory opinion from this Court and a judicial remedy for a policy dispute properly committed to the legislative branches of government.”

Of course, the reason Mr. Guinasso ran to the Court is that he’s thus far been thwarted at every turn in his efforts to outlaw prostitution through ballot initiatives and legislation.  Hoping for a little judicial activism was his desperate Hail Mary.

And he lost again.  Big time.  Jason Guinasso has the Cheese Touch.

Unfortunately – like his namesake, serial killer Jason Vorhees (“Friday the 13^th”) – Guinasso, the serial loser, will surely be back to continue his nightmarish stalking of Nevada’s working girls in legal brothels – where can get tricks AND treats.

Happy Halloween. 

Mr. Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a limited-government grassroots advocacy organization, and adviser to the Nevada Brothel Association.  His views are his own.

(Chuck Muth) – A government mandated “lockdown” policy proposed for sex workers in Nye County’s legal brothels – forcing them to remain on the premises round-the-clock with only a six-hour window of freedom for every ten-day period – has sparked outrage among the women and civil libertarians.

Alice Little, a politically active sex worker at the Moonlite Bunny Ranch in Lyon County, described the proposal as a “medieval dark time of policy.”

“What we’re talking about here,” Little said in an interview, “is the government locking down and restraining the freedom of adult women working in a legal business to come and go as they please even when not working.”

According to a report by Miranda Willson of the Las Vegas Sun last Friday, Nye County Commission Chairman John Koenig said “A working draft of the proposal was crafted over the last two years and completed last month.”

He added that “No sex workers were included in conversations about the proposed changes.”

“The proposed changes,” Willson reported, “were decided by a group of local stakeholders, including brothel owners, ‘madams’ of the brothels, the district attorney’s office, lawyers and other county officials, Koenig said.”

“(The changes) were proposed mainly by the owners and the people who run the brothels. That’s how they wanted it written, so that’s what we did,” Koenig said.

According to the story, Commissioner Koenig said that courtesans “could have unprotected sex when they are off the premises for long periods of time.”  But others reject that argument.

They note that no other county government has such a draconian “lockdown” policy inscribed in law, and there’s never been a public health problem related to sexually transmitted diseases traced back to sex workers in Nevada’s legal brothels where condom use is mandatory.

And in a separate story by Amy Alonzo of the Mason Valley News, Alien Cathouse owner Raman Sharma – who said he, too, was not consulted over the drafting of the new ordinance – noted that “If you’re (restricting hours) for the safety or well-being of people or clients, even if it’s one hour, it takes only 10 minutes or 10 seconds for someone to get contracted (with an STD).”

Meaning the six-hour “freedom window” is arbitrary at best.  At worst, it’s akin to “yard time” for prisoners.

“I think it reinforces this thought that sex workers are these dirty, disgusting women that have to be kept from the public and be locked up,” said Christina Parreira, who previously worked in Nye County brothels and is doing her doctoral dissertation at UNLV on the industry.

Barbara Brents, author of The State of Sex: Tourism, Sex and Sin in the New American Heartland, “questioned whether Nye’s proposed amendment is legal.”

“I can’t imagine any other group of workers who would be limited on when they could leave the workplace by the county,” Dr. Brents told the Sun.  “So, this seems on the face of it to be … a step backwards.”

In his interview with the Sun, Commissioner Koenig said opponents of the ordinance provision “are welcome to reach out to him and discuss it.”  With that in mind, Parreira drafted an “Action Alert” which provides email contact information for Mr. Koenig and the other Nye County Commissioners.

The full ordinance, including the proposed “lockdown” provision, is expected to be introduced at the commission’s October 15^th meeting.

Mr. Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a limited-government grassroots advocacy organization and an adviser to the Nevada Brothel Association.  His views are his own.

(Christina Parreira) – The Nye County (NV) Commission is considering the adoption of a new rule in their brothel ordinance that would force women who work at these legal establishments to be “locked down” on the property for days at a time.

The actual proposed language reads…

“Courtesans are allowed to leave the Brothel Premises for six (6) hours per ten (10) day medical clearance period during the hours of 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.”

In a Las Vegas Sun article about this outrageous proposal, Nye County Commissioner John Koenig admitted that the lockdown provision was “proposed mainly by the owners and the people who run the brothels” and that “no sex workers were included in conversations about the proposed changes.”

How can you pass a law that so abusively harms these women without even talking to them?!!

And why aren’t state legislators, women’s rights activist and civil liberty organizations speaking out against this proposal?

The absurd “health safety” argument for this lockdown policy is that a woman who leaves the brothel might pick up a disease that could be spread to customers upon return.

Can you imagine “locking down” doctors and nurses inside hospitals for 10 days out of fear they might pick up a disease that could be spread to patients?

Or “locking down” waitresses, cooks and bartenders for 10 days out of fear they might pick up a disease that could be spread to diners?

Here are three reasons why this proposed new government “lockdown” rule is so wrong…

1.)  If the concern is really public health, and not to continue the stigma against professional sex workers, then why even allow them to leave for six hours?  You can get an STD in six seconds!

2.)  Condom use in brothels is MANDATORY, so brothel customers are already well-protected whether the workers leave the premises or not.

3.)  No such “lockdown” rule is imposed in any other county that licenses and regulates legal brothels and there has never been a sexually transmitted disease (STD) outbreak that’s been traced back to any of them.

Professional sex workers in legal brothels should be able to come and go as they please when not working, just like every other worker in every other legal business in Nevada.

ACTION ALERT

This “lockdown” rule is a PROPOSAL only at this point.  It still must be approved by the members of the Nye County Commission.  It’s scheduled to be introduced on October 15 and tentatively scheduled for a vote in November.

NOW is the time to voice your OPPOSITION.

Here’s how to share your opinion with the five county elected officials who will make the final decision…

Commission Chairman John Koenig
jkoenig@co.nye.nv.us

Commissioner Lorinda Wichman
lawichman@gmail.com

Commissioner Donna Cox
coxdonnac@msn.com

Commissioner Debra Strickland
dlstrickland@co.nye.nv.us

Commissioner Leo Blundo
lfblundo@co.nye.nv.us

IMPORTANT

Bear in mind we have no idea, at this time, what the position is of any of the Commissioners on this “lockdown” proposal.  DON’T assume they’re for it.

Simply state in your email that you are opposed and urge them to oppose it, as well.  Be firm, but respectful.  And let’s kill this thing.

Ms. Parreira is a former Nye County courtesan who is doing her doctoral dissertation at UNLV on the industry.  Her views are her own.

(September 11, 2019) – Bree Zender of KUNR inked a new article on Tuesday related to Nevada’s legal brothels and the moral crusade of a particularly creepy Reno lawyer who wants to shut them down.

As Ms. Zender notes, because Las Vegas is promoted as “Sin City” – including its iconic slogan of “What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas” – many tourists believe prostitution is legal on the Las Vegas Strip.

It’s not.

Sex-for-fee legal and regulated brothels only exist in a handful of rural Nevada counties – not the major urban counties of Clark (Las Vegas) and Washoe (Reno).

But in an absurd leap of tortured logic, Jason “Creepy” Guinasso, and a handful of former sex workers are trying to make the case that the existence of legal brothels FAR from the Strip and America’s Biggest Little City “attracts illegal sex trafficking to the state.”

Which is like saying the existence of Walgreen’s and CVS attracts illegal drug dealers.

In any event, these moralist crusaders – who just can’t bring themselves to live and let live – have filed a federal lawsuit claiming Nevada’s legal brothels violate the federal Mann Act prohibiting interstate travel for “immoral purposes.”

One of the plaintiffs making this claim, Rebekah Charleston (a.k.a. Rebekah Kay Dean, a.k.a., Nicole A. Wilson), has been claiming – without proof or corroboration – that while she was working as an illegal prostitute in Dallas and Las Vegas her street pimp sent her to work in legal Nevada brothels as a form of punishment.

Although no one can find any record of her EVER working in a legal brothel, here are the facts…

To work in a legal brothel adult women need to apply for a work card from the local sheriff and subject themselves to a rigorous FBI background check, including fingerprinting.

IF … and that’s a big *if* … Charleston-Dean-Wilson was ever forced by her street pimp to work in a legal brothel she would have had to lie on her work applications.  The same way she lied to the IRS on her tax returns which resulted in time behind bars.

By the way: Isn’t it curious that Ms. Charleston-Dean-Wilson never says specifically when she supposedly worked in a legal brothel and never names her alleged trafficker even though she’s been free from him for over a decade?  Her story just doesn’t add up.

In any event, if she lied to the sheriff and lied to the brothel you can’t blame the sheriff or the brothel.  And that is decidedly NOT a reason to shut down Nevada’s legal, licensed, regulated and SAFE brothels.

As for Guinasso, Ms. Zender notes that he’s “attempted to ban brothels in multiple Nevada counties through ballot questions and petitions, though those attempts have failed.”

In an effort to explain his multiple failures, Guinasso burbled, “I think there’s a reluctance of men… especially men who are willing to buy sex.”

Nice try.  But here’s another inconvenient truth: Guinasso’s initiative to ban brothels in Lyon County last year was crushed at the ballot box, 80-20 percent.

Now, truth be told, I haven’t looked at the census numbers for Lyon County.  But I’m willing to bet it’s not made up of 80% men and 20% women!

Lance Gilman, owner of the Mustang Ranch in rural Storey County, defended Nevada’s legal brothels against Guinasso’s and Charleston’s ridiculous claim that they “encourage trafficking.”

“The reason the ladies come to legal brothels primarily is because they are safer,” Gilman said. “If they are on the illegal side of the industry, in any city in the nation… and they’re there everywhere… there’s really no safety from the predators.”

EXACTLY.

In fact, FOX Business published a story just a couple weeks ago about “rampant sex trafficking” in Atlanta that took place in well-established hotel chain franchises, including Red Roof, La Quinta and Extended Stay.

In a lawsuit recently filed against the hotel chains, four unidentified women – including two who say they were underage at the time – allege that hotel employees “were paid by traffickers to turn a blind eye” to what was going on and “act as lookouts for the Johns.”

From the FOX report…

“In Chamblee, a victim at the Suburban Extended Stay told an employee she had been attacked ‘in an attempt to escape,’ the suit alleges, but the worker relayed the information to the trafficker – who then assaulted the woman for doing so.

“At La Quinta Inn in Alpharetta, a victim was beaten so viciously by her John over the course of six hours that blood riddled the walls and surrounding areas of the hotel room, the suit states.”

Please, Mr. Guinasso and Ms. Charleston-Dean-Wilson, explain how forcing these women to work illegally in Atlanta is safer for women than working in a legal brothel?  And especially the fact that the legal and regulated system PREVENTS underage girls from working in them.

Or, closer to home, consider this story by Michelle Rindels of the Nevada Independent last month…

“Sandy Anderson, director of the Nevada State Board of Massage Therapy… believes that among the nearly 1,000 licensed establishments in the state, about 25 in the Reno area and 150-200 in the Las Vegas area may be fostering illegal prostitution or sex trafficking activity.”

And that comes on the heels of this report a week earlier by Rio Lacanlale of the Las Vegas Review-Journal…

“The FBI recently rescued 14 child sex trafficking victims and arrested 33 suspected traffickers in Las Vegas, the highest total in the U.S. during a nationwide sweep in July known as Operation Independence Day.”

Which came out just a few days after this story by Sabrina Schnur of the Las Vegas Review-Journal…

“Two men were arrested in July on domestic battery and sex trafficking charges in Las Vegas after punching their girlfriends, who both admitted to being prostitutes working for the men, according to police reports.”

One of the women reported that her trafficker, Wesley Cherry, “had forced her to work as a prostitute for the past five years and she wanted to get away from him.”  In retaliation, he “hit her in the face and broke her phone.”

“If she did not work, she told police, ‘Cherry would become violent with her by choking her and slamming her on the ground.’

“It was just easier to place the ads online and go out and perform sexual acts for money than to deal with the beatings,” she told police.

Note again: Brothels are NOT legal in Reno and Las Vegas.  Yet that clearly hasn’t stopped prostitution, violence against women and sex trafficking – including of minors – in those communities.

It’s almost as if “prohibition” doesn’t work.

Yet Guinasso, Charleston-Dean-Wilson and other prohibitionists continue their crusade to outlaw the handful of legal brothels in rural Nevada where the women are grown adults who freely choose to work there and are exceedingly safe.

During the 2019 legislative session, the Legislature approved an interim study of the working conditions at Nevada’s legal brothels.  Fair enough.

But if the brothel study committee REALLY wants to protect the health, safety and welfare of women in the commercial sex industry in Nevada, it ought to expand its examination to the working conditions for women working where brothels remain illegal.

THAT’S where the real problems lie.

Chuck Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a limited-government grassroots advocacy organization, and government affairs counsel to the Nevada Brothel Association.  His views are his own.