DOMINIQUE STRAUSS KHAN
GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT - Mr Strauss-Khan is absolutely right that once the media get hold of a case you are portrayed as guilty before any trial. If you think that is bad, in the UK the Sexual Offences Act has now been rigged that you do not need any evidence whatsoever to prove that what a woman or man accusing you of a sexual crime is true, to obtain a conviction. The normal protections that a Judge would previously give to a Jury in this regard have been arborogated - in other words, swept under the carpet - to obtain more convictions. It is thus a free for all for revenge purposes, and a virtual witch hunt.
You'd imagine with such a situation there would be other safeguards, but then the investigating officers are not interested in justice, but massaging figures so that they have an easy life and get promotion. This is contrary to the Criminal Procedure Orders and Codes of Conduct. Dominique was lucky that he could afford to pay for decent representation and that his case was not heard in the United Kingdom, where he would for sure have been convicted.
Should prostitution should be a criminal offence, rather than just those organizing sex? One cannot say that the one thing is divorced from the other, where the prostitutes know that their pimps are criminals, hence, by definition they are aiding and abetting the sale of sexual favours for money. Prostitutes must therefore be aiding and abetting a criminal act. The burning question then is: should prostitution be criminalized?
Sex is a strange subject. Without sex the human race would cease to exist. Nature provides the means to procreate with females who, just as with any other species, begin to produce eggs (seeds in plants) when they are at their physical peak, though women who no longer produce eggs that will give the best chance of a healthy child, continue to enjoy sexual intercourse well into the sixties.
The average age of menarche in humans is 12–13 years, but it is can be earlier in some females that are more advanced physically. The average age of menarche is about 12.5 years in the United States, 12.72 in Canada, 12.9 in the UK and 13.06 ± 0.10 years in Iceland. Factors such as heredity, diet and overall health can accelerate or delay menarche. The cessation of menstrual cycles at the end of a woman's reproductive period is termed "the menopause." The average age of menopause in women is 52 years. This is a built in evolutionary safety factor to allow a wider time-span than the more usual 'sell by date' just in case of natural catastrophe.
These facts are recognized in many cultures that do not have science to explain and confirm statistics, but know from experience that the healthiest children are born to females from 13 years of age. Conversely, the DNA degrades for every year, until after about 30-35 years of age, and egg is considerably more liable to cause birth defects. From a scientific point of view, couples should therefore aim to reproduce as soon as possible to get the healthiest children.
This is of course prevented in some countries, which are in effect degrading the human gene pool with laws prohibiting sex until as much as 18 USA years of age and 16 (UK) - and that goes some way to explaining higher figures for abnormal births and birth defects on those countries. Whereas, other more enlightened civilizations recognize 13 as being a sensible age from which to seek to reproduce for best results.
This of course means that some countries that have it all wrong in biological terms, also have it all wrong in legal terms. It is thought by many that this is typically engineered by older women who have passed their 'sell by date', as a means of prolonging their own sexual attractiveness.
Women may not like to admit it, but they enjoy and need sex every bit as much as men. Some women, especially those more active, like what is termed "rough sex." And some women like anal penetration, much as homosexual partners consider that to be the norm.
Why then would a prostitute, who should understand these facts, complain that some men like rear entry and a good hard sexual encounter. It seems to us that those giving testimony in sex cases tend to spice up what is after all a natural activity, to offset the fact that they are willing to sell their bodies in return for a large sum of money.
DOMINIQUE STRAUSS-KHAN - widely known as DSK, formerly France’s minister of the economy and finance, ex-director-general of the International Monetary Fund, frontrunner as Socialist candidate in the presidential elections of 2012, is a broken man. Or so it would seem.
He was acquitted last week by the Lille criminal court of aggravated pimping and organising an international chain of prostitution, but his reputation is nonetheless in ruins. Ever since he was taken off an Air France flight in handcuffs by New York police in May 2011, and charged with raping a maid in the Manhattan Sofitel — a case dropped after his accuser was deemed an unreliable witness — he has been living a nightmare.
No sooner was one charge dropped than another sprang up. Back in Paris, a young female journalist accused him of attempted rape during a magazine interview. When this case too was dropped on the grounds of insufficient evidence, the pimping investigation began. A parallel charge of gang rape, carrying a maximum sentence of 20 years, was withdrawn in 2012. But in preparation for the pimping trial, two examining magistrates spent four years transcribing hundreds of pages of text messages and emails. During the three-week trial, an extraordinary picture of DSK’s downtime emerged. Hours were passed in the company of a Belgian pimp called ‘Dodo la Saumure’, proprietor of ‘le Dodo Sex Klub’. Afternoons were spent arranging meetings on the Belgian frontier, or in Madrid, or in Washington, where expensive locations were hired and his friends including a Lille CID inspector flew in with what DSK called ‘the equipment’ (young prostitutes).
After almost all the evidence had been heard, the public prosecutor stood up in court and announced that he was going to ask the judge to acquit the principal accused. The court had heard no evidence that DSK had organised or benefited from any of the sexual encounters, he said, and there was no evidence that he had personally paid the girls. The trial had been distorted by the charging of Mr Strauss-Kahn. It had become a political and media event. The two examining magistrates who had conducted the preliminary investigation had been blinded by DSK’s eminence. The fact that he was a powerful man did not justify a presumption of guilt. The criminal court was not a court of morals. Mr Strauss-Kahn had already lost his job, his honour and his good name, and he should be acquitted. The judge followed this advice. And so Dominique Strauss-Kahn left the courtroom and repaired to Morocco, where he owns an agreeable villa. His parting words, according to some reports, were, ‘Is that it? What a lot of fuss.’
THE CARLTON AFFAIR
Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the former head of the International Monetary Fund, has been cleared by a French court of “aggravated pimping”.
Prostitution involving people over the age of 18 is not illegal in France, but pimping and living off the benefits is. Just as the Strauss-Kahn verdict came through, however, the French parliament voted in a second reading to criminalise prostitutes’ clients, making payment for sex punishable by a fine. The bill must now return to the senate for a further reading.
WHAT A STATE TO GET INTO
The People of the State of New York v. Strauss-Kahn was a criminal case relating to allegations of sexual assault and attempted rape made by a hotel maid, Nafissatou Diallo, against Dominique Strauss-Kahn at the Sofitel New York Hotel on May 14, 2011.
The charges were dismissed at the request of the prosecution which pointed out serious doubts in Diallo's credibility and inconclusive physical evidence. In a TV interview in September, Strauss-Kahn admitted that his sexual encounter with the maid was “a moral fault” and described it as “inappropriate” but that it “did not involve violence, constraint or aggression”.
It's difficult to stay focused with such allegations ruining your career and newspapers such as the Daily Mail describing you as ‘a rutting chimpanzee’.
On May 19, 2011, Strauss-Kahn was indicted by a grand jury and after posting $1 million bail and pleading not guilty he was placed under house arrest. On July 1, prosecutors told the judge that they had reassessed the strength of their case in the light of the housekeeper's diminished credibility, and the case against him was near collapse. On August 23, 2011, the judge formally dismissed all charges based on the prosecutors' assertions, including that the maid's "pattern of lies" had "made it impossible to trust her."
Get yourself a specialist lawyer, demand to see any evidence the police have before making any comment, that way you can evaluate the bullshit claims and take advice from a solicitor. All too often the cops ask a leading question, on a presumption that what they have been told is true, when in fact what they have been told is false and you may be in possession of factual information to disprove that allegation - but if you don't know what information the police have been given, how could you know what to say? However, sometimes it is better to keep your powder dry and force the old bill to charge you then simply make an application to the trial judge of no case to answer. Don't forget that the police are out to gain convictions, they are your enemy - they are not in it for justice and they won't investigate any leads that point to your innocence - despite the fact that their Code of Conduct, in investigations say that they must.
In one case we know of a man accused of a rape was in fact in New York at the time of the allegation - which he rather foolishly told them. Instead of dropping the case, the cops simply re-adjusted the date of the claim of rape - and believe it or not gained a conviction. If the chap concerned had kept his powder dry, he would have been charged with the date he could prove was a lie - hence no case to answer. The cops don't play fair.
If you want to keep your powder dry, tell the police that you do not want to comment at this time pending your own investigations as to the facts, and that you reserve the right to introduce evidence in your defence at any trial on a without prejudice basis - that it would not be fair to comment if not apprised of all the facts. Be careful here, or your silence when questioned may be held against you. A transcript of your interview will be given to a Jury. If you don't protect your defence in this way a judge may instruct a jury that you remained silent - and from that silence an adverse inference may be drawn.
If you want any free confidential advice on this subject, you can email us, or get your solicitor to email us to remain once removed. Ask your solicitor to see any email from us in full. Also, see: http://home.vicnet.net.au/~safari/
of the caselaw that Safari publish have has been invaluable. For example
check out the statistics of proven false allegation cases. Such
information must go before a jury - if they proceed. Any jury must be made
to realise that it is very likely that the allegation is false, as
supported by statistics. Sexual assault claims in the Metropolitan
Police are a good indicator of the true position - about 75% of which are
false. This raises the necessary reasonable doubt, which you'll need after
and other ministers took away your right to a fair hearing. Find out all
you can about your accuser. Why now? Was he promised compensation? You
This case is not a million miles away from something closer to home in the United Kingdom, that of a certain person challenging local authority, then being convicted unjustly of sexual charges - that if one looks at them closely, are completely out of character. It appears to us that given the opportunity, local and national authorities will use whatever is at their disposal to bury anyone who dares to question their administration. Freedom of speech? Yes, but for how long?
And don't forget that the system protects the claimant by hiding his or her identity, when very often that identity is the key to the public understanding why such an allegation has been made. Usually it is at the break up of a relationship, or some other event where the motive is revenge - typically, a woman who has been jilted will seek to attack the party jilting her, by making a false allegation. The sad fact is that under the present system, it matters not if someone is innocent or not. Put a person in the dock and make the accusation, especially some time after the claimed event, and there is no way of defending yourself. Then, with the judge not giving the jury guidance as to unsupported allegations, the bloke in the dock will be convicted.
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.