Prostitution, Prostitutes, Escorts, World Sex Guide

"Jacguar" Johns And Call Girls United Against Repression

There is an interesting article in the August '94 issue of COSMOPOLITAN
Magazine titled: "An Intimate Look at the Life of a Call Girl." This
article consists of a series of interviews with one particular call girl.

Now, if you want the views of a client, There is a FAQ which has just been
prepared concerning the "john's" organization: "Johns And Call Girls United
Against Repression." Here it is.


JACGUAR is the acronym for Johns And Call Girls United Against Repression.
This organization was incorporated as a Not-for-Profit Corporation under
Section 402 of the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law of the State of New York,
on October '78.

This corporation was originally formed as a satellite group in support of
COYOTE (Call off Your Old Tired Ethics), which was, at that time, the
principle organization in the United States supporting the cause of
decriminalization of prostitution.

The purposes for which this corporation were formed are stated as follows
in our Certificate of Incorporation:

(a) To work for the repeal of all laws penalizing prostitution and the
patronizing of adult prostitutes.

(b) To dispel the notion that there is anything reprehensible or immoral in
being a prostitute whose customers are adults, or in being the customer of
an adult prostitute.

(c) To instill in adult prostitutes and their adult customers a sense of
self-respect.

(d) To safeguard the civil liberties and civil rights of adult prostitutes
and their adult customers by any and all legal means possible.

(e) To speak out on public issues affecting prostitutes and their
customers.

(f) To hold meetings and social events for the better realization of the
aforementioned purposes set forth in (a) through (e) above, and to achieve,
ultimately, the complete liberation of adult prostitutes and their adult
customers from all injustices visited upon them as such, that they may
receive ultimate recognition as free and equal members of the human
community.

----------------------(end of statement of purposes)---------------------

I, Fred Cherry, am the Chairman of the Board of JACGUAR and one of the
three original incorporators. I have been a guest on several national T.V.
talk shows. My favorite T.V. talk show was the Morton Downey, Jr. talk
show. I was a guest on that show three times.

On June '84 I sued in New York State court for the purpose of having the
laws penalizing prostitution declared unconstitutional. The complaint in my
case is shown below the long dashed line. I lost the case on the grounds
that I hadn't been arrested. Go to any law library and look up the case of
Cherry v. Koch, 491 N.Y.S. 2d 934 & Cherry v. Koch, 514 N.Y.S. 2d 30.

By the way, the "@" symbols print out as Section symbols. Don't ask me to
explain that. The complaint was originally printed out on my Juki 6100
doozy wheel printer.

--------------------------------snip--------------------------------------

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE
OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF KINGS
-----------------------------------x
FRED CHERRY and MARGO ST. JAMES,   :
                                   :
                      Plaintiffs,  :
                                   :
                                   :          AMENDED
             -v-                   :     VERIFIED COMPLAINT
                                   :
                                   :
EDWARD I. KOCH, in his official    :
capacity as Mayor of the City      :
of New York;                       :
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, in her         :
official capacity as District      :
Attorney for the County of Kings;  :
and BENJAMIN WARD in his official  :
capacity as Police Commissioner    :
of the City of New York,           :
                                   :
                      Defendants.  :
-----------------------------------x


                     I. PREFATORY STATEMENT


       1.  Plaintiffs FRED CHERRY and MARGO ST. JAMES  bring this
action, pursuant to CPLR @3001, seeking a judgment declaring that
New  York Penal Laws @@230.00 and 230.03 are unconstitutional  on
the grounds that they intrude upon plaintiffs' fundamental  right
to   privacy,   and  are  arbitrary  and  capricious,   depriving
plaintiffs  of rights guaranteed under the due process clause  of
the  Fourteenth  Amendment  to the  Constitution  of  the  United
States,  and  the  due  process  clause of  Art.  1,  @6  of  the
Constitution of the State of New York,  and deprive plaintiffs of
equal  protection  of  the  laws,   in  violation  of  the  equal
protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States and the equal protection clause of  Art.  1,
@11 of the Constitution of the State of New York.

       2.  On October 22,  1984, the Supreme Court, Kings County,
per Hirsch,  J.,  dismissed this complaint for failure to state a
cause  of  action,  because plaintiffs failed to state where  and
under  what  circumstances  they had  violated  and  intended  to
violate New York Penal Law @@230.00 and 230.03. The court granted
plaintiffs leave to submit an amended complaint.


                           II. PARTIES

       3. FRED CHERRY

          a.  Plaintiff  FRED CHERRY is an adult resident of  the
State of New York, residing in Kings County.

          b.  Plaintiff  CHERRY suffers from a medical  condition
known as malabsorption syndrome (also known as celiac disease).

          c.  Said  medical condition causes plaintiff CHERRY  to
suffer from emaciation and extreme fatigue,  making it impossible
for  him  to  engage  in normal social activities  that  lead  to
meeting women and sexual relationships.

          d. After many years of unsuccessful attempts to develop
a  sexual  relationship with a  non-prostitute  woman,  plaintiff
CHERRY  first  had  sex,  at the age  of  thirty,  with  a  woman
prostitute.

          e.  Because  of  the  aforesaid  disability,  plaintiff
CHERRY   has  had  to  rely  on  women  prostitutes  for   sexual
gratification, thus violating Penal Law @230.03.

          f. Plaintiff CHERRY has maintained sexual relationships
with  women prostitutes to the present time,  and has never had a
sexual relationship in New York State with a non-prostitute.

          g. As the affidavit of Plaintiff CHERRY, annexed hereto
as  Exhibit A demonstrates,  plaintiff has patronized prostitutes
in Kings County.  His solicitation of prostitutes took place both
in  privately-owned clubs and through telephonic  communications.
His patronage of prostitutes took place in private residences. He
intends  to  continue  to meet prostitutes in  Kings  County,  in
privately-owned  clubs or over the telephone,  and  to  patronize
them in private residences.

       4. MARGO ST. JAMES

          a.  Plaintiff  MARGO ST. JAMES  is an adult resident of
the State of California and the State of New York.

          b.  Plaintiff ST. JAMES  is a prostitute by choice, and
desires  to  practice this occupation while she  resides  in  New
York, but is prevented from doing so by Penal Law @230.00.

          c.   Plaintiff  ST.   JAMES  has  previously  practiced
prostitution  in  Kings  County.  These acts took  place  at  her
residence,  or  the residences of her clients.  She made  contact
with potential clients at private parties, private clubs, or over
the telephone. She intends to continue to engage in prostitution,
as described above, in Kings County.

       5. EDWARD I. KOCH

          a.  Defendant  EDWARD I.  KOCH is the Mayor of New York
City.  As  such,  he is the Chief Executive Officer of  New  York
City,  responsible for law enforcement, and the allocation of law
enforcement resources.

           b. He is being sued in his official capacity.

       6. ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN

          a.   Defendant  ELIZABETH  HOLTZMAN  is  the   District
Attorney for the County of Kings. As such, she is responsible for
initiating  and  overseeing prosecutions for violations of  Penal
Laws @@230.00 and 230.03.

          b. She is being sued in her official capacity.

       7. BENJAMIN WARD

          a.  Defendant  BENJAMIN WARD is the Police Commissioner
of  the  City  of  New York.  As  such,  he  is  responsible  for
initiating  and  overseeing the arrests of  persons  who  violate
Penal Laws @@230.00 and 230.03.

          b. He is being sued in his official capacity.


                           III. FACTS


       8. N.Y. Penal Law @230.00 provides:

             A  person is guilty  of prostitution  when
         such  person  engages or agrees or  offers  to
         engage  in sexual conduct with another  person
         in return for a fee.

           Prostitution is a class B misdemeanor.

       9. N.Y. Penal Law @230.03 provides:

             A  person  is  guilty  of  patronizing   a
         prostitute  in  the  fourth  degree  when   he
         patronizes a prostitute.

           Patronizing  a  prostitute  in  the   fourth
         degree is a class B misdemeanor.

       10. N.Y. Penal Law @230.02 Provides:

         1. A person patronizes a prostitute when:

            (a) Pursuant to a prior  understanding,  he
         pays  a fee to another person as  compensation
         for  such  person  or a  third  person  having
         engaged in sexual conduct with him; or

            (b)  He  pays  or agrees to pay  a  fee  to
         another  person  pursuant to an  understanding
         that in return therefor such person or a third
         person will engage in sexual conduct with him;
         or

            (c) He solicits or requests another  person
         to engage in sexual conduct with him in return
         for a fee.

         2.  As  used in this article,  "person who  is
         patronized"  means  the person with  whom  the
         defendant engaged in sexual conduct or was  to
         have engaged in sexual conduct pursuant to the
         understanding, or the person who was solicited
         or  requested  by the defendant to  engage  in
         sexual conduct.



                        CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

                             COUNT I

       11.  Sections  230.00 and 230.03 of the New York Penal Law
deny  plaintiffs  the right to engage  in  sexual  relations,  an
aspect  of  the fundamental right to privacy,  violating the  due
process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States,  People v. Onofre,  51 N.Y. 2d 476 (1980), and
the  due process clause of the Constitution of the State  of  New
York.


                            COUNT II

       12.  Sections  230.00 and 230.03 of the New York Penal Law
are arbitrary and capricious,  violating plaintiffs' rights under
the  due  process  clause  of the  Fourteenth  Amendment  to  the
Constitution of the United States,  and the due process clause of
the Constitution of the State of New York.

       13. Said sections are arbitrary and capricious in that the
state  has  no  legitimate purpose in regulating  private  sexual
behavior  between  consenting adults,  whether that  behavior  is
characterized  as "commercial," "recreational," or a  combination
of both.

       14.  The popular justifications for @@230.00  and  230.03,
adumbrated  in  paragraphs 12-14,  are wholly without  merit  and
merely reflect an antiquated and hypocritical Victorian morality.

       15.  There  is  no evidence to suggest  that  prostitution
provides  a  source  of income for organized crime or  for  other
criminal activities.  Exhibit B at 189; Exhibit C at 467-68 & nn.
210-214.

       16.  There is no evidence that prostitution leads to other
criminal activity,  such as robbery and assault.  In fact,  legal
commentators  have  suggested that it is the  criminalization  of
prostitution  that  "increases  the  danger  of  these  ancillary
crimes,"  as  "{p}rostitute  and patron alike  are  easy  victims
because  their  participation  in the illegal  act  renders  them
unlikely  to  report incidental crimes." Exhibit C at 468  &  nn.
215-217; Exhibit D at 556-557 & nn. 25-30.

       17.  Although  prostitution,  like  all  forms  of  sexual
activity,  contributes  somewhat  to  the incidence  of  venereal
disease  (approximately 5%),  it is  nonprofessional,  nonmarital
sexual  conduct,  primarily between teenagers,  that accounts for
the greatest portion of this problem. Exhibit C at 469 & nn. 220-
221;  Exhibit  D  at 556 & nn.  22-24,  559-560.  In  any  event,
criminalization  of  prostitution  is  an  irrational  method  of
controlling   venereal  disease,   actually  discouraging   those
afflicted  from  seeking  teatment.  Public  health  regulations,
similar  to those enacted for other service professions,  are the
most   rational   method  of dealing with  problems  of  disease.
Exhibit E at 605.

       18.  (a)  Sections  230.00 and 230.03  either  criminalize
behavior that can go on between lawfully married persons, or said
Sections  do  not  criminalize behavior that can  go  on  between
lawfully married persons.

       18. (b)  If  Sections  230.00  and  230.03  were  used  to
penalize sexual activity,  in exchange for a fee, between husband
and wife,  then said Sections would infringe upon the fundamental
right  to privacy,  violating both the due process clause of  the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and
the  due  process clause of the Constitution of the State of  New
York. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).

       18. (c) If, on the other  hand, Sections 230.00 and 230.03
are  considered  to  be inapplicable to persons  married  to  one
another,  then  said Sections violate both the  equal  protection
clause  of  the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution  of  the
United States and the equal protection clause of the Constitution
of  the  State of New York.  People v. Onofre,  51  N.Y.  2d  476
(1980).


                            COUNT III

       19.  Section  230.03  deprives plaintiff CHERRY  of  equal
protection  of  the laws,  in violation of the  equal  protection
clause of the  Fourteenth  Amendment to the Constitution  of  the
United   States,   and  the  equal  protection  clause   of   the
Constitution  of the State of New York,  by denying him the right
to engage in sexual activities,  while granting that right to the
non-handicapped.


                            COUNT IV

       20.  Section  230.03  allows someone to pay  a  woman  for
sexual  services,  provided  that  the  woman does  not  sell her
services  "indiscriminately."  See  People  ex  rel  Colletti  v.
Morehead,  50  N.Y.S.  2d 78 (1944).  At the same  time,  @230.03
denies  plaintiff  CHERRY the right to purchase services  from  a
woman  who  is  willing  to provide  these  services  to  several
different   men.   This  distinction  between  those  who  "keep"
"mistresses"  and those who patronize "prostitutes" is  arbitrary
and capricious,  denying plaintiff CHERRY equal protection of the
laws,  in  violation  of  the  equal  protection  clause  of  the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and
the equal protection clause of Art. 1. @11 of the Constitution of
the State of New York.


       WHEREFORE,    plaintiffs    respectfully   request    a
declaratory judgment, declaring that N.Y. Penal Laws @@230.00 and
230.03  violate the Constitution of the United States of America,
and  the Constitution of New York State,  and  enjoining  further
enforcement of said Sections.


                                       Respectfully submitted,


                                       WILLIAM M. KUNSTLER
                                       RONALD L. KUBY
                                       Kunstler & Mason
Dated: New York, N.Y.                  13 Gay Street
                                       New York, N.Y. 10014
                                       (212) 924-5661

------------------------------snip--------------------------------------

I recommend that anyone interested in the subject of decriminalization of
prostitution go to a law library and look up the case of In Re P, 400
N.Y.S. 2d 455, decided on 12/5/77. Also, look up all the citations in that
case that are available. I also recommend, in most law libraries, the
following law review article: "Commercial Sex and the Rights of the Person:
A Moral Argument for the Decriminalization of Prostitution", by David A. J.
Richards, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Volume 127, No 5, May,
1979.

Fred Cherry, a.k.a. john1@panix.com, a.k.a. themadmailer@bix.com




Prostitution, Prostitutes, Escorts, World Sex Guide


HOME | Top | Archive Index |


Copyright 1997-2013 WSG Properties User Agreement | Legal Notices