Crime Stormy Daniels arrested *UPDATE* charges dropped within 24 hours

[Darkballs]

.

...And then the judge says "no, counsel, your client is clearly an 'employee who regularly appears nude or seminude,' and I'm not construing the statute in a way that arbitrarily makes an exception for out-of-state guest strippers like your sleazy client." Or you could instead argue that it's vague as applied and perhaps win the motion.

Then the judge in your hypothetical is a retard. No matter how the court chooses to define "regular," it certainly means more than fucking once. Or am I missing something here?

 

[Darkballs]

In addition to what I wrote above, read the immediately preceding provision at § 2907.40(C)(1):



Now, why would the Ohio legislature place upon all strip club patrons an absolute prohibition on touching "any employee while that employee is nude or seminude?" Could it be that it only applies to "regular" strippers? If so, it's not mentioned in there. Or perhaps non-"regular" strippers (like Stromy Daniels) are allowed to touch patrons, but the patrons aren't allowed to touch them back? No, of course not – that would be silly. Section 2907.40(C)(2) is clearly supposed to be a reciprocal provision to section 2907.40(C)(1). Looks like Mr. Klein straight up misinterpreted the law in order to help Stormy Daniels. Boom.

No boom there champ. The statute clearly distinguishes between patrons and performers, and states the illegal conduct for both. If the word "regular" is irrelevant, then why did the state legislature put it there? Discounting the word because another provision talks about what is illegal for patrons, isn't sound.

You can try to wish the language away, but it's there.

 

[JamesRussler]

Then the judge in your hypothetical is a retard. No matter how the court chooses to define "regular," it certainly means more than fucking once. Or am I missing something here?

Judges get it wrong all the time, so you might not be wrong about that.

But upon reviewing parallel provisions of the same statute, I am now convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that Stormy Daniels was actually guilty. All patrons are prohibited from touching all dancers, and the parallel provision applicable to strippers is obviously meant to be reciprocal. There’s no exception for non-“regular” strippers. See my other post above. The words “employee who regularly appears nude or semi-nude” are meant to be construed together as a noun phrase.

 

[JamesRussler]

No boom there champ. The statute clearly distinguishes between patrons and performers, and states the illegal conduct for both. If the word "regular" is irrelevant, then why did the state legislature put it there? Discounting the word because another provision talks about what is illegal for patrons, isn't sound.

You can try to wish the language away, but it's there.

Go back and read both sections again. Read them together. Then read them once more. Then read that Sixth Circuit case which discusses the “no touch” provisions at length. It might take a few minutes, but it will hit you eventually. Pastrami Daniels is as guilty as the other two strippers who were cited that same night.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Oh' look, more daddy dick defense from you. Shocker.

Trump was the fakest Christian ever. Corinthians two! He can't even fake his shit properly.

Maybe you shouldn't be such a hack for another countries leader, especially when that leader shits down the mouth of your country and insults it. Pathetic!

 

[Darkballs]

Go back and read both sections again. Read them together. Then read them once more. Then read that Sixth Circuit case which discusses the “no touch” provisions at length. It might take a few minutes, but it will hit you eventually. Pastrami Daniels is as guilty as the other two strippers who were cited that same night.

Nice that you still jump to conclusions despite everyone involved telling you you're wrong.

The law in question had various subparts addressing conduct for patrons, and separate conduct for performers. The argument that because the description for patrons does not make the distinction for "regular" vs "non-regular" strippers does not mean that there is not such distinction in the other provision. It written right there.

You can't argue the inverse: that the exception for patrons (that they can touch nude strippers if they're a family member) somehow applies to the other provision. But that would be nonsensical. Why? Because the two provisions contain different language and are clearly addressing different people and conduct.

At best, you have a poorly drafted law, but the correct decision of the court would not be to charge someone of a crime that the plain language of the bill exempts them from. The correction should come from the legislature, if they really feel they made a mistake in the drafting.

The bottom line is that this retarded law clearly requires the accused to have been a "regular." Daniels was not. There's not way that you're going to land a conviction there and have it survive appeal on the grounds of legislative intent that cuts in the opposite direction of the language used. To suggest otherwise is just plain retarded.

 

[AndroidRage]

Trump is too busy Making America Great to be banging side sluts. Besides, he’s got an 11 at home he can bang as often as he likes!

Now, go back to jerking it to Trump’s sloppy seconds...

A mail ordered bride and a woman paid for sex.... a prostitute. Also Melania hates his orange guts lmao.

 

[Smok3r]

A mail ordered bride and a woman paid for sex.... a prostitute. Also Melania hates his orange guts lmao.

You kidding me, Bro? He probably told her how hard he was gonna give it to her in this photo! Look at her expression! These two crazy kids are MADLY in love!

 

[The Diplomat]

So, you can’t make up your mind? Pathetic.

Which is more honest - to say "I don't know", or to have faith in something you can't possibly prove right now?

 

[cincymma79]

The hero of the democrats





















Titty slaps people for dollar bills

2020 y’all

 

[ToxicShocker]

The hero of the democrats

Where did you hear that?

 

[JonesBones]

Stormy did of course, and took a polygraph. Donald is still saying that he didn't bang her (which even his most adamant and bellicose supporters don't believe) or bang Karen McDougle (which even his most adamant and bellicose supporters don't believe).

Polygraphs are junk science. Stormy Daniels is a whore.

 

[Edgy Brah]

Polygraphs are junk science. Stormy Daniels is a whore.

Polygraphs are junk science. Stormy Daniels got paid for sex but put it on the internet and therefore is not a whore.

 

[cincymma79]

Where did you hear that?

Where did you hear that?

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-kno...sent-stormy-daniels-with-key-to-the-city?amp=

Key to the city for one but let’s not act like she hasn’t been celebrated by Democrats. Google it if you like

 

[Deleted member 457759]

This is an obvious political stunt. Her hit job wasn't being covered any more so they pulled this.

Hilarious and desperate.

 

[ToxicShocker]

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-kno...sent-stormy-daniels-with-key-to-the-city?amp=

Key to the city for one but let’s not act like she hasn’t been celebrated by Democrats. Google it if you like

"google it" is never an appropriate answer when someone's claim is already unsupportable.

What does it mean to "celebrate" stormy daniels.

Dialogue is more constructive without puffery.

 

[cincymma79]

"google it" is never an appropriate answer when someone's claim is already unsupportable.

What does it mean to "celebrate" stormy daniels.

Dialogue is more constructive without puffery.

Only a hermit or a troll hasn’t heard or read any of this. I’m not rehashing it. It’s boring. I gave the worst example in my opinion. The rest is up to you

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

Polygraphs are junk science. Stormy Daniels is a whore.

and @Edgy Brah

Yes, she has sex for money, and Donald Trump stuck his penis in her vagina without protection. And yes polygraphs are not reliable lie detectors, but are you saying that you don't think Trump had sex with her at all and is telling the truth, or just that he didn't have unprotected sex with her? I have not heard anyone but Rudy G say that he (Trump not Rudy) didn't bang Stormy, and all of his bible thumping supporters are just assuming he is lying and are giving him a "mulligan" about Stormy, and Karen McDougle, and everything else he lies about regularly.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

You kidding me, Bro? He probably told her how hard he was gonna give it to her in this photo! Look at her expression! These two crazy kids are MADLY in love!

 

[JamesRussler]

Nice that you still jump to conclusions despite everyone involved telling you you're wrong.

The law in question had various subparts addressing conduct for patrons, and separate conduct for performers. The argument that because the description for patrons does not make the distinction for "regular" vs "non-regular" strippers does not mean that there is not such distinction in the other provision. It written right there.

You can't argue the inverse: that the exception for patrons (that they can touch nude strippers if they're a family member) somehow applies to the other provision. But that would be nonsensical. Why? Because the two provisions contain different language and are clearly addressing different people and conduct.

At best, you have a poorly drafted law, but the correct decision of the court would not be to charge someone of a crime that the plain language of the bill exempts them from. The correction should come from the legislature, if they really feel they made a mistake in the drafting.

The bottom line is that this retarded law clearly requires the accused to have been a "regular." Daniels was not. There's not way that you're going to land a conviction there and have it survive appeal on the grounds of legislative intent that cuts in the opposite direction of the language used. To suggest otherwise is just plain retarded.

Bruh, I made up my mind on my own, based upon my review of the law. I could be wrong, but you haven’t rebutted my argument, and you’re never going to convince me of anything by bandwagon appealing to “everyone involved.” If you want a second opinion, I’d suggest @alanb, because he’s an experienced appellate attorney.

Alan, compare 12 O.R.C. §§ 2907.40(C)(2) and 2907.40(C)(1). Stormy Daniels got arrested under subsection (C)(2) for touching strip club patrons while dancing nude. However, the City Attorney (probably after talking with Michael Avenatti) dismissed the charge on grounds that Stormy didn’t “regularly appear” at that particular strip club.

Upon reviewing subsection (C)(2), it appears the words “employee who regularly appears nude or semi-nude” are meant to be taken together as a noun phrase describing what normal people call a “stripper.” I think the words “regularly appears” correspond with “nude or seminude,” and not “on the premises.” As a result, § 2907.40(C)(2) prohibits strippers from touching patrons while performing nude or semi-nude. By contrast, @Darkballs would interpret this section to create an exception for strippers who don’t appear “regularly” at a strip club. That makes no sense to me, and I think it’s probably the wrong interpretation of the statute (I could be wrong, but I doubt it).

My interpretation is supported by the parallel provision contained in § 2907.40(C)(1), which prohibits patrons from ALL touching of ANY nude or semi-nude performer. The world “regularly” appears nowhere. Why would the Ohio legislature make an exception to allow non-“regular” strippers to touch patrons, but categorically prohibit patrons from touching them back? The answer is that subsections (C)(1) and (C)(2) were likely meant as RECIPROCAL provisions, prohibiting BOTH strip club patrons and strippers from touching each other during strip performances.

On top of all that, the Sixth Circuit analyzed the same statutory scheme and noted that it "prohibits any performer who is nude or semi-nude from touching or being touched" (the panel included Judge Raymond Kethledge, who was recently considered for SCOTUS). The Court made no mention of an exception for strippers who don’t “regularly appear” at a particular strip club. I think that’s because it was fairly understood that the legislature sought to “prohibit[ ] any performer who is nude or semi-nude from touching or being touched.”

The upshot of all this is I believe Pastrami Daniels was actually GUILTY, but the Columbus City Attorney (Zach Klein) let her off the hook because he’s anti-Trump, and he didn’t want to prosecute a person so closely associated with “The Resistance.” That’s just my opinion.

What do you think @alanb ? Was Pastrami Daniels properly exonerated, or is she another GUILTY liberal being given a pass because of her politics?