| "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
HOME | Top | Archive Index |
Copyright © 1997-2004 World Sex Guide® and The World Sex Bank® and World Sex Links®
are trademarks of First Global Communications, Inc.
User Agreement |
Legal Notices