Chuck Muth

(Chuck Muth) – Ever build a snowman?  You start with a small snowball you can hold in the palm of your hand.  Then you roll it in the snow until it becomes bigger and bigger, to the point that you can build a six-foot snowman.

Well, that’s exactly what’s happening with the idea that commercial sex between consenting adults should no longer be a jailable offense.

On May 31, 2019, Mexico City lawmakers voted 38-0 to legalize prostitution.

“It’s a first step that has to lead to regulation of sex work, to fight human trafficking and strengthen the rights of sex workers,” said Temistocles Villanueva.

Got that?  They’re LEGALIZING prostitution to FIGHT trafficking.

Which makes perfect sense.  Victims of actual sex trafficking are often scared to death to report their situation to authorities for fear of being arrested themselves.

But the idea of decriminalizing the world’s oldest profession isn’t just a new development in a foreign country.  The snowball effect is underway here in the United States, as well.

In Washington, DC – the nation’s capital – City Councilman David Grosso introduced a bill this month that could make DC “the first U.S. city to decriminalize prostitution involving consenting adults.”

The operative words are “consenting adults.”

As Councilman Grosso pointed out, his bill “does not change any of our laws regarding coercion or exploitation, which will continue to be prohibited in the District of Columbia.”

Mexico City and Washington, DC are two cities trying to get it right.  But the movement is growing even to the statewide level.

“In New York,” reported the New York Post last week, “a group of lawmakers vowed earlier this year to introduce a bill to legalize prostitution.”

Why?

“Backers of the proposed bill,” the Post noted, “said they believe that legalization would reduce sex trafficking and protect the women who rely on the industry to make a living.”

Reduce sex trafficking.  Protect the women.

And that’s EXACTLY the experience of several rural Nevada counties (but not the cities of Las Vegas and Reno), which legalized brothels almost 50 years ago.

The women work in a safe environment.  They are required to use condoms and are tested weekly for sexually transmitted diseases – which protects the public health.  Indeed, there has NEVER been a single case of HIV/AIDS in Nevada that can be traced back to a legal brothel.

And the women who work there do so voluntarily.  Not only do they have to apply for a job to work in a legal Nevada brothel, they are required to be finger-printed and undergo a rigorous FBI background check.

As such, Nevada’s legal brothel industry is an unqualified success story.

But the abolitionists aren’t going quietly into that good night.  They’re pitching a fit and force-feeding the public healthy doses of disinformation and Soviet-level false propaganda.

A former illegal prostitute out of Dallas, Rebekah Charleston, is all over the media these days claiming – without corroboration or verification – that she was “trafficked” by her pimp against her will in a pair of Nevada brothels.

Notably, she can’t (or won’t) tell anyone when this allegedly happened – though it appears to have been in the early 2000’s.  And, to the best of my knowledge, she’s never identified her alleged pimp and trafficker.

Seems odd not to rat out the man she claims forced her into prostitution against her will, doesn’t it?

There are also no employment records of Charleston working at those brothels and none of the people working there at the time remember her.  And there’s no record of her ever being issued a work card by the sheriff’s office – a license REQUIRED to work in a legal brothel.

No, we’re just supposed to take her word for it – even though she’s a convicted felon; not for prostitution, but for tax evasion and bank fraud.  Oh, and admitted in the NY Post article that she would “just sit around and get high (on meth) all day.”

Yeah, very credible.

Nevertheless, “Bekah” – as she wishes to be called now – continues to throw shade on Nevada’s legal, consensual, adult commercial sex workers; claiming they aren’t happy and shouldn’t be allowed “to do what she wants.”

A claim heartily rejected by the women actually working in Nevada’s legal brothels.

“We are human beings who chose to do sex work on our own free will,” says Kiki Lover.  “We get treated with respect and like family at the brothels. It’s a job just like any other job. We sell a service that all humans need.”

“I’m not ‘exploited.’ I’m not ‘trafficked.’ I’m not ‘brainwashed,’” adds Paris Love.  “I don’t need to be ‘saved.’  I’ve freely chosen this line of work, which is a legal, private transaction between consenting adults.”

Exactly.  As it should be.

Charleston is a born-again abolitionist-evangelist whose prohibition strategy has never worked and never will.  Just look at alcohol, gaming and marijuana.  As Alice Little of the Moonlite Bunny Ranch brothel notes…

“It’s ILLEGAL sex work that exploits children. It’s ILLEGAL sex work that traffics. It’s ILLEGAL sex work that sees women exploited and abused by pimps.”

Charleston’s foolish notion that criminalizing sex between consenting adults will “eliminate demand” for sex is absurd on its face.  Prostitution is currently illegal everywhere else in the country.  Has that diminished demand?

You’d have to be an idiot to think so.

Nevada is doing it right.  Mexico City is now doing it right.  Washington, DC is moving in the right direction.  As are a number of other states.

The Snowman (and Woman) Cometh.

Mr. Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a limited-government grassroots advocacy organization, and government affairs counsel to the Nevada Brothel Association

(Chuck Muth) – There’s a creepy lawyer/televangelist in Reno, Jason Guinasso, who’s on a moral crusade to shut down all of Nevada’s legal brothels.  He’s not only pressuring the Nevada Legislature to do so, but has filed a federal lawsuit asking Washington, DC to do it for him.

But there’s something even more sinister about what Guinasso is up to.

When you apply for a job, you fill out an employment application.  But when you apply for a job with a gaming, liquor or brothel business in Nevada, you must also fill out a separate application with the government in order to receive a “work card” allowing you to work in those industries.

And for two years now Guinasso has been badgering, pestering, threatening and berating Lyon County officials in an effort to force the local sheriff to give him copies of all the brothel work card applications for the past ten years.

And those applications contain a TON of highly personal information, including…

• Real name, as well as “stage” name
• Social Security number
• Home addresses for last three years
• Date and place of birth
• Passport number
• Child support information
• Race
• “Tattoos, piercings, marks & major scars”
• Emergency contact info (often provided w/o contact’s knowledge)
• Previous employers for past three years

This information – which individuals are required to provide the government in order to work – should never be made public for any private citizen seeking employment in any private business.  At the very least it makes them far more vulnerable to identity theft.

But it’s even more dangerous than that.

While there aren’t a lot of mentally unstable, potentially violent stalkers out there showing up at the homes and businesses of liquor store clerks and blackjack dealers, the same can’t be said for the women who work in Nevada’s legal brothels.

Just last week, brothel worker Tiara Tae posted the following on Twitter…

“A client came up to my personal door last night asking for sexual favors.  MY HOUSE DOOR.  MY HOME.”

In a separate incident, former brothel worker and UNLV researcher Christina Parreira tweeted the following – again, just a week ago…

“(T)his is still one of the creepiest things that can happen to a sex worker.  A man came up (to her current non-brothel place of employment), asked for me and did not give his name when I introduced myself; said he knew me from every Twitter account I have.”

And if you don’t think this sort of thing is not only creepy but extremely dangerous, consider the following warning notice that was posted at one of Nevada’s legal brothels last month…

“This guy frequents (brothel name redacted).  He is stalking one of the girls, waiting outside her home, chasing her thru the streets of Reno.  Has beat her up, knocked her teeth out, put sugar in her gas tank, calls her 100’s of x’s per day.  He needs to not to be allowed in, he’s dangerous.”

So there is a clear and present danger to these women should their personal information be made public through a public records request.

And whether you agree with legal brothels or not, I think we can all agree the women who work there shouldn’t have their teeth knocked out, right?

Oh, and just for the record, note that this attack happened OUTSIDE the brothel.  Inside the brothel the women are protected.  It’s on the street where the true danger lurks.

OK.  NRS 239.0105 declares that certain public records are considered confidential if they “contain the name, address, telephone number or other identifying information of a natural person” under certain specified circumstances.

Unfortunately, work card applications are not currently included. But a short 9-word “Brothel Work Card Confidentiality” amendment to the statute would fix the problem.

Simply change the language to state that records containing such personal information are considered confidential if the person is providing the information to a local government entity for the purpose of “Applying to work at a duly licensed legal brothel.”

Or similar words to that effect.

That would exempt brothel work card applications from Nevada’s public records law and shut Guinasso down in his tracks.

Unfortunately, it’s too late in this legislative session to introduce a new bill to amend NRS 239.  However…

It’s NOT too late to amend an existing bill to accomplish the same end.  The only criteria is that the amendment be “germane” – meaning it’s relevant to the subject matter of the bill under consideration.

Which brings us to SB388 – a bill sponsored by Sen. Mo Denis (D-Las Vegas) which was heard by the Senate Finance Committee on Monday.

The big question is this: Is the issue of making work card applications confidential “germane” to the bill?  Well, the bill’s title reads…

“AN ACT relating to public records; providing for the designation of certain public records and portions of public records as confidential…”

I don’t know how it could be any more germane, especially since the Legislature has Humpty Dumpty-like powers to make “germane” mean whatever they want it to mean.

SB388 amends NRS 239 to read as follows…

“Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, a record or portion of a record that contains personally identifiable information collected by automated means over the Internet or other digital network by a governmental entity as part of the electronic collection of information from the general public is confidential if the governmental entity determines that the disclosure of the personally identifiable information could potentially create negative consequences, including, without limitation, financial loss, stigmatization, harm to reputation, anxiety, embarrassment, fear or other physical or emotional harm, for the person to whom the information pertains.”

Now, the public disclosure of brothel work card applications absolutely could potentially create negative consequences such as stigmatization, anxiety, embarrassment, fear, or other physical or emotional harm for the women who seek to obtain such employment.

Seriously.  It just doesn’t get any more “germane” than that.

But here’s the problem…

Work card applications aren’t completed and submitted “by automated means” online over the Internet.  You still have to fill them out by hand and submit an old-fashioned paper-and-ink form.

But a simple tweaking of the text specifically declaring work card applications to be confidential regardless of how they are submitted would do the trick.

And the one person in Carson City with the ability to make this happen is Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro (D-Las Vegas).

Sen. Cannizzaro is a Deputy District Attorney for Clark County, so she’s more than familiar with the very real dangers sex workers face.

And as the Senate Majority Leader she has near-godlike power to declare a brothel work card confidentiality amendment – which really should include gaming and liquor work applications, as well – to be “germane” to SB388 and throw her full support behind it.

Without Sen. Cannizzaro’s support right now – before the bill’s final version is voted on and the 2019 session ends – the women who work in Nevada’s legal brothels risk having their personal information disclosed through a public records request from people like Guinasso and the guy who knocked one worker’s teeth out last month.

So if you want to see a “Brothel Work Card Confidentiality Amendment” added to SB388 (or any other “germane” bill that’s still out there), you need to contact Sen. Cannizzaro and let her know not only how important this is, but explain why the problem should be fixed now and not wait for two years until the next legislative session.

To ask for Sen. Cannizzaro’s help on this issue, you can contact her office by calling (775) 684-1475 or email her at Nicole.Cannizzaro@sen.state.nv.us.

But don’t wait.  Call or write TODAY.  There’s only a week to go before the end of session.  So speak now or forever hold your peace.

Mr. 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.

(Chuck Muth) – A pair of anti-brothel crusaders, Melissa Holland and Laila Mickelwait, inked a column on Friday that once again demonstrates exactly why they hide behind blog posts, social media and videos…

Like vampires, the light of day kills their arguments.

Indeed, when brothel-banner Julie Bindel went head-to-head against UNLV brothel researcher Christina Parreira in a BBC-hosted debate last month, Parreira cleaned Bindel’s clock. Shot down every one of her arguments like Tom Cruise shooting down those Russian MiG’s over the Indian Ocean in “Top Gun.”

It’s also why, during last fall’s campaign in Lyon County, Nevada to ban legal brothels there, the ballot question sponsors refused to debate the issue in a series of townhall meetings with Alice Little and Ruby Rae, a pair of legal courtesans at the Moonlite Bunny Ranch.

They KNEW Alice and Ruby would rip their arguments to shreds if they were actually forced to back up their misrepresentations and propaganda.

Which is why Holland, Mickelwait and others hide behind blog posts and videos.  Their arguments and claims simply can’t survive scrutiny and cross-examination.

For example, Holland and Mickelwait started off yesterday’s disinformation blog post thusly…

“Forty-eight years ago prostitution was legalized in Nevada and as a result, Nevada has developed into a breeding ground for sex trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation.  In fact, Nevada has the highest rate of prostitution in the country – its illegal sex trade is 63% higher than the next highest state.”

First off, prostitution wasn’t legalized in Nevada.  What actually happened is that Nevada allowed rural counties to legalize, license and regulate brothels if they so chose.  Brothels were NOT legalized in Clark and Washoe counties – where Las Vegas and Reno are located.

As such, it’s a darn-near criminal misrepresentation to claim that “Nevada” is a “breeding ground” for sex trafficking when those highly-questionable statistics are actually based on Las Vegas and Reno where legal brothels are banned.

Buy, hey, why let facts get in the way of a false argument designed to create mass hysteria, right?

Next comes the claim that “legal prostitution increases the demand for prostitution.”

Oh, puh-lease.  The nearest legal brothel to the Las Vegas Strip is almost 90 minutes away.  Which means most clients and providers of consensual adult sexual interaction opt for the risk of engaging illegally in their Las Vegas hotel room rather than spend three hours driving back-and-forth in a car.

The notion that a legal brothel located an hour-and-a-half away “increases the demand” for sex-for-fee services is laughable on its face.

Of course, no hysteria-inducing propaganda campaign is complete without invoking “the children.”

“In Nevada alone,” Holland and Mickelwait blubber, “there is a demand for over 20,000 innocent women and children sold online every year.”

Source?  Back-up?  Substantiation?

None.  Of course.

“In order to abolish sex trafficking, we must eliminate the demand for prostitution,” the Disinformation Duo continues.  “The demand elimination strategy is the only way to put pimps and traffickers out of business.”

First, you’re never going to “eliminate the demand” for paid sex.  That’s why it’s called the “world’s oldest profession.”

Secondly, the “demand elimination strategy” has never worked and never will.  Let history be your guide.  Remember “prohibition” on alcohol and gaming?  And how’s that “war on drugs” thing worked out?

You’re barking up the wrong tree, ladies.  As failed social experiments go, your “demand elimination strategy” is right there at the top of the list.

They did get one thing correct, though, when they argued that “women in prostitution shouldn’t be arrested.”  Which, ahem, is exactly the case when it comes to Nevada’s legal brothels – which they’re trying to shut down!

But then they go on to argue that, instead, the clients “should be arrested and their crimes should be felony-level offenses.”

Um, why should a consensual act between two adults be illegal for one party but not the other?  Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

This ridiculous proposal is what’s called the “Nordic model” – a thoroughly discredited idea that supporters trot out as some kind of silver bullet that’ll cleanse society and usher in a new Era of Moral Nirvana.

It’s a future best viewed through rose-colored glasses while riding a unicorn.

“Legal prostitution in Nevada has brought severe harm to the women and girls who’ve been pulled into prostitution over the last 48 years,” Holland and Mickelwait conclude.  “It’s time to end the toxic prostitution industry in Nevada. It has to stop. Now.”

Because (heads up Las Vegas Convention & Visitors Authority): “Nevada is not safe for women.”

Except…

That opinion isn’t shared by the grown, adult, consenting women who actually work in Nevada’s legal brothels.  Here’s just a small sampling of their take on the subject…

• “In the brothels, we have the choice, always, to say which clients we will say yes and no to. We have staff that would never let a man hurt us, and we have a clientele that do not come here to hurt us.” – Ruby Rae

• “I’m not ‘exploited.’ I’m not ‘trafficked.’ I’m not ‘brainwashed.’ I don’t need to be ‘saved.’ I’ve freely chosen this line of work, which is a legal, private transaction between consenting adults.” – Paris Envy

• “We are human beings who chose to do sex work of our own free will. We get treated with respect and like family at the brothels. It’s a job just like any other job. We sell a service that all humans need.” – Kiki Lover

• “Sex work is definitely not my last resort or my only option – it is my CHOICE. I’d like to continue to have the opportunity to make that choice legally.” – Christina Parreira

• “It’s ILLEGAL sex work that exploits children. It’s ILLEGAL sex work that traffics. It’s ILLEGAL sex work that sees women exploited and abused by pimps.” – Alice Little

Adds Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI)…

“If a consenting adult wants to engage in sex work, that is their right, and it should not be a crime. All people should have autonomy over their bodies and their labor.”

Exactly.

I thought we were supposed to trust women?  “My body, my choice,” right?  So, um, who’s gonna save these women from the “saviors”?

Mr. Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a limited-government grassroots advocacy organization, and government affairs counsel to the Nevada Brothel Association

(Chuck Muth) – “When police charged New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft with soliciting prostitution, the press said the police rescued sex slaves,” writes syndicated columnist John Stossel.  “We’re told this happens all the time.”

However…

“It’s bunk, says reporter Elizabeth Nolan Brown.”

Brown notes that at the time of Kraft’s arrest, law enforcement and the media claimed they had “busted up an international sex trafficking ring.”

“But now prosecutors acknowledge that there was no trafficking,” Stossel continues.  “The women were willing sex workers.”

“Ninety-nine percent of the headlines are not true,” Brown told Stossel in an interview. “Sex trafficking and prostitution are sort of used interchangeably.”

“Sex slavery is evil,” Stossel concluded.  “Authorities should do everything they can to stop it. But there is a big difference between slavery and sex work done by consenting adults.”

Amen.

Nevada legislators should keep this difference in mind as anti-brothel advocates continue their assault on Nevada’s legal brothels.

Click here to read Mr. Stossel’s full column

(Chuck Muth) – This is a long one, so grab a coffee refill before continuing.

There’s an obsessed man in Reno stalking legal sex workers – and the Nevada Legislature needs to stop him in his tracks…now.

ACR6 is a bill to study the “health and safety” of commercial sex workers in Nevada’s legal brothels over the next two years.

But the safety of these workers, as you’ll see detailed below, is at serious risk RIGHT NOW – and legislators shouldn’t wait two years to stop this man’s predatory behavior.

I’m talking about a creepy Reno lawyer named Jason Guinasso, who’s been on an 18-month religious crusade to shut down the brothels.

But it’s a particular legal tactic he’s using that jeopardizes the physical safety – and potentially the very lives – of these women that the Legislature needs to address before the end of the session next month.

And yes, it’s serious enough to warrant an “emergency” exemption to bring a short, new statute amendment forward.  Here’s what it’s all about…

For a year and half now Guinasso has been trying to force Lyon County to give him the full names and addresses of every legal sex worker in the county’s four brothels, as detailed in a public record request he submitted to the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) on December 1, 2017…

“I write to request a copy of all applications for registration as a prostitute filed with the Lyon County Sheriff for the last 10 years.  Please include all information on the application, including the address of the prostitute (my emphasis) and all addresses of the prostitute for the preceding three (3) years.”

For what nefarious purpose he wants this information, we don’t know.

What we do know is what happened afterwards, thanks to a public records request of my own I filed a few weeks ago which turned up multiple, previously-unknown communications between Guinasso and the county.

In a letter of response dated December 15, 2017, Lyon County District Attorney Steve Rye denied Guinasso’s request.  Some pertinent excerpts…

“When there is no statutory provision that explicitly declares a record to be confidential, there still may be common law limitations that justify restricting disclosure based upon a balancing of the private and public interests involved. In this case the privacy and law enforcement concerns are significant.

“First, in order to work as prostitutes, persons are required to file the application.  It is not a voluntary application with Lyon County.  The Sheriff undergoes a criminal background check of applicants, and as a result, applicants provide social security numbers, aliases, addresses for the last three years, alien registration number or passport number and other personal information, including tattoos, piercings and major scars.

“The applicant is also required to provide emergency contact information, and the name and contact information is often provided without that person’s knowledge.  The applicant also lists the criminal history, information which is generally viewed as confidential.

“This is all private information that should not be shared with the public.  Similar information is provided by gaming employees and such information should also be kept confidential.

“Law enforcement reasons also justify keeping the applications confidential.  Legal prostitution is highly regulated in Lyon County.  The names and identities of the workers needs to be protected so that customers and others are not able to identify addresses and other information for the prostitutes without their consent or knowledge.

“Prostitutes are more likely to be victims of crime (my emphasis) in many instances.  People may look up names and seek to contact those applicants at their residence.  This could lead to an increase in crime and a threat to the workers.  Release of the applications would likely subject the applicants to an unreasonable risk of harm.  Confidentiality of the identity of these applicants is paramount.”

Bravo to Mr. Rye.  But Guinasso didn’t give up. As I said, he’s obsessed.

In a letter of response dated June 8, 2018, Guinasso wrote that “we believe your office has erred in denial of production of the requested records,” arguing that the DA’s concern for the safety of sex workers was “conjectural at best.”

But Mr. Rye stood by his decision and did not provide the records.  So Guinasso did what people like Guinasso do when they don’t get their way: He filed a lawsuit.

On August 9, 2018, Guinasso sued Lyon County, arguing that Mr. Rye and the county “have no basis…to withhold the requested records.”

In a follow-up letter dated August 16, 2018, Lyon County Administrative Director Michael Carlson provided a cost estimate for providing copies of the work applications with all personal, private information REDACTED (blacked out).

“(W)e estimate the cost to be not more than $3,777.00,” Mr. Carlson wrote.  “The final product will involve redacting the following information: social security number, passport number, and/or alien registration number, date of birth, and emergency contact number.”

Guinasso had a cow…and not just because he had only offered to pay up to $45 for the cost to provide the records.

In a letter to Mr. Carlson dated September 12, 2018, Guinasso again claimed the DA’s office had “erred,” arguing that the applications “cannot be reasonably construed to fit the definition of a confidential record.”

“This office again requests to inspect all applications for registration as a prostitute filed with the Lyon County Sheriff for the last ten years pursuant to Lyon County Code 5.03.14.  Please include all information on the application, including the name, date of birth, social security number, passport number, alien number, address, and all addresses of the applicant for the preceding three (3) years.”

In an email dated September 19, 2018, Mr. Rye gave Guinasso a short answer…

“Your assertion that social security numbers are not confidential is contrary to Nevada and federal law.”

I’m no lawyer, but even *I* know that.

However, like Captain Ahab obsessively pursuing Moby Dick, Guinasso continued his pursuit.

And then a strange and alarming thing happened…

On November 13, 2018 – just a week after an anti-brothel advisory question was crushed in Lyon County, 80-20 percent, and Lyon County Sheriff Al McNeil, who was a secret funder of Guinasso’s ballot question, was defeated for re-election – Mr. Carlson flip-flopped and sent the following email to Guinasso…

“Based on discussions with Sheriff McNeil, we want to offer this option for your records request.  Your request asked for 10 years’ worth of records; however, we would like for you to consider revisiting your request to records since 2012.  If this is agreeable, we will not only go ahead and process your request, but do it at no cost to you.”

What the…?

“This is a reasonable resolution,” Guinasso emailed back later that afternoon.  “We accept your proposal.”

To which Mr. Carlson replied…

“Thank you, sir.  We will begin the processing this week and will possibly have it to you by the end of the next week.”

In return, on December 6, 2018, Guinasso withdrew his lawsuit.

But in a letter dated December 20, 2018, Mr. Rye over-ruled Mr. Carlson’s offer to provide the records at no cost, arguing that certain personal and private information HAD to be redacted so that “the records will contain no information to identify the individual applicant.”

Mr. Rye then went to additional great lengths to explain WHY this information on brothel workers must be protected…

“Often times, these workers do not want others to know their identity for protection.  Prostitutes are more likely to be victims of crime (my emphasis), including sex trafficking, sexual assault and other serious crimes.

“Prostitution continues to have negative connotations in society. … Release of the names and contact information for the prostitutes would not only threaten their safety (my emphasis) because of the risk of Johns or others trying to track them down outside of the legal brothel, but it would also expose these women to shame, ridicule, stigma and backlash from the community from their employment as prostitutes.

“This is a nontrivial privacy interest that the County must consider.  For these reasons, the Sheriff has determined it is necessary to redact all information but the date of application.”

Threaten their safety.  Expose them to public shame and ridicule.  Nontrivial.  Strong, valid reasons, indeed.

What is unclear here, though, is whether or not the sheriff referenced by Mr. Rye was the old sheriff – McNeil, who lost his bid for re-election – or the new sheriff who was elected in November to replace him.

In any event, Guinasso was having none of it.

In a letter dated February 1, 2019, Guinasso wrote that “we believe your office has erred in its decision to renege the previously agreed upon terms of disclosure of the requested records.”

He continued…

“As you are already aware, this office has withdrawn a complaint filed in District Court based on representations by LCSO Administration Director, Michael Carlson, that the requested records would be produced.  Please provide the requested records, or the records offered by M. Carlson on November 13, 2018, WITHIN 5 DAYS (his emphasis) or this office will file for relief from the District Court.”

Responding to Guinasso’s latest threat, Mr. Rye fired back in a letter dated February 13, 2019…

“After careful review, our office has determined the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office is not obligated to release these records to you.  Pursuant to your public records request for the same information, the Sheriff’s office has mailed you a redacted report summarizing the past three years of work card applications, including the first name of the applicant, the date of the application, and the agency issuing the work card.”

While a redacted report is certainly better than providing full unredacted copies of the applications, this concession in releasing first names of brothel workers is still cause for concern.  It’s a potential “camel’s nose under the tent.”

Mr. Rye then proceeded to cite a 2016 “balancing test” court decision which determined that “exotic dancers could use pseudonyms (stage names) and granted a protective order regarding disclosure of their true identities.”

Mr. Rye…

“(The court) considered a balancing of interests of the dancers’ privacy and threatened harm, with the potential prejudice and public interest in open courts, in deciding whether pseudonymity could be granted.  The court concluded that ‘the dancers have expressed legitimate privacy and social stigma concerns, and reasonable concerns that disclosing their identities would expose them to harm.’

“Similarly, release of identifying information of brothel workers create the same if not more legitimate concerns of privacy, social stigma, and threats of harm.  The personal privacy interest in this public records request, therefore, is nontrivial and significant.”

Mr. Rye continued…

“Second, your public records (request) does not assert a public interest other than a ‘public right to access.’ … 

“The fact that you are seeking the records ‘pursuant to an investigation in anticipation of litigation’ does not provide any insight into the public interest you think is significant nor how release of the records would advance the interest.

“In this case, the nontrivial risk of an increase in crime or harm to the applicants greatly outweighs the public interest asserted.”

That’s the last communication I received as part of my public records request.  But based on past history and previous behavior, it’s reasonable to assume Guinasso has or will continue his obsessive pursuit.

And while Mr. Rye has been a mensch thus far in protecting the safety and privacy rights of brothel workers, that’s not to say another DA in another county would do the same under similar circumstances if Guinasso moves his “great white whale” pursuit outside Lyon County.

Nor does that mean a judge won’t interpret the situation differently from Mr. Rye should a Guinasso lawsuit reach his or her court.

Indeed, as Mr. Rye noted in his very first response to Guinasso’s request, “there is no statutory provision that explicitly declares” brothel worker applications “to be confidential.”

And that’s what legislators need to fix before adjourning.

All the Nevada Legislature needs to do is amend the current public record statute to explicitly declare that the work card applications for commercial sex workers in Nevada’s legal brothels are confidential, just like gaming employees.

That would put an immediate end to Guinasso’s crusade in Lyon County and prevent him from expanding it into other counties.  It would also remove a “gray area” in law that could potentially result in a court overruling District Attorney Rye.

Guinasso’s obsessive fishing expedition poses an immediate and ongoing danger to the health and safety of the women working in legal brothels.  It’s a threat that legislators should eliminate now – while they’re still in session – not wait for the completion of a two-year study.

So let it be written; so let it be done.

Mr. Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a limited-government grassroots advocacy organization.

 

(Chuck Muth) – On April 3, 2019, the State of Nevada submitted its response to a frivolous lawsuit to overturn the state’s brothel law, filed earlier this year by Reno attorney and anti-brothel televangelist Jason Guinasso, asking the court to dismiss it outright.

And after reading the state’s smackdown of the lawsuit’s merits, you have to wonder how Guinasso ever received a license to practice law in the first place.

Some highlights and observations…

1.) The state starts 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 notes 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 notes that the illegal conduct alleged by Guinasso’s clients is already illegal “under both Nevada and federal laws that criminalize sex trafficking,” and that Nevada’s law allowing legal brothels does not preempt those 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 notes that Guinasso claims “Nevada advertises as a sex tourism state.”  However, as Mr. Zunino points 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 points 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 notes that a “motion to dismiss must be granted when a plaintiff fails to plead a cognizable legal theory, or fails to plead sufficient facts to support such a legal theory.”

He added that the Court “must ignore unsupported conclusions, unwarranted inferences, and sweeping legal conclusions couched as factual allegations.”

As such, Guinasso’s lawsuit should be kicked to the curb.

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 (State of Nevada); and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury.”

As such, Mr. Zunino argues…

“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.  Ms. 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 an imminent harm as a result of Nevada law.”

He concludes 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.”

8.)  The state notes 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.

In this case, the motion notes, “the State of Nevada has not waived that immunity.”

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

9.)  As for Guinasso’s demand that the Court force Nevada to “set aside not less than $2 million in a fund to assist victims of sex trafficking,” Mr. Zunino argues that the Tenth Amendment bars the federal government from compelling a state government “to expend funds from its treasury for a specific purpose.”

10.)  Continuing with the argument that Guinasso’s lawsuit against the state is 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.”

11.)  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 has run to the Court with this feeble lawsuit is that he’s thus far been thwarted at every turn in efforts to outlaw prostitution through ballot initiatives and legislation.

Hoping for a little judicial activism is nothing but a desperate Hail Mary.

Let’s hope the Court takes the Attorney General’s arguments to heart and tosses this lawsuit rather than waste any more of the Court’s time or the taxpayers’ money.

To read the full motion to dismiss, click here