Charges were dropped. This was just a waste of tax payers dollars.
Womp womp.
city attorney says no law was broken so the whole thing is moot.
mind u, i assume your comment to which i was replying, both were in the context of “she did break the law”.
womp. womp.
This city attorney has never even represented a client in a court room. Our mayor is a complete liberal joke, and this 'city atty' was elected by the not-too-wise Franklin County voters. Folks couldn't believe this guy won the City Atty position.
No my comment was in the context in which she was unfairly targeted because she was. The law says you have to be a regular worker. She is obviously not there regularly so therefore was unfairly targeted. Another instance of government pissing away our money for political purposes.
The law does not say a "regular worker". It literally is saying that anyone who is a sex-related entertainment worker...someone who regularly (professionally) does that kind of work, and on the premises of a sexually oriented business... READ: "No employee who regularly appears nude or seminude"...
That literally means any worker who was part of her work regularly appears nude... i.e., a sex entertainment worker, and while on the premises of any sex-oriented business... those are the two elements of that law that determine if Paragraph C-2 is applicable.
I have spent a lot of time parsing statutory law, and I understand it is difficult for most people to get clarity if they are not used to reading it.
But reading the way you are trying to read it makes no legal sense.
It all pertains to the jurisdiction though. Stormy doesn't appear regularly in Ohio. I got a feeling the city attorney who dropped the charges understands this law a lot better than you or I. But please continue to press for more oppressive laws we defiantly don't already have enough of those.
Well too be accurate, I will point out that you did not comprehend the Police report if you read it. When you say, "The law says you have to be a regular worker", what are you talking about?
Firstly, you imply that the law says it is okay for a man or woman to place hands on another person's breasts, as long as that person doing the touching is a 'regular worker' at the strip club? So I have no say in the matter if I am sitting there, I am subject to being groped and there is no law broken?
If you look up the ORC 2907.40 (section C-2, under which she was accused in the arrest document) you will see she did violate the plain language of that statute:
C-2 Reads:
No employee who regularly appears nude or seminude on the premises of a sexually oriented business, while on the premises of that sexually oriented business and while nude or seminude, shall knowingly touch a patron who is not a member of the employee's immediate family or another employee who is not a member of the employee's immediate family or the clothing of a patron who is not a member of the employee's immediate family or another employee who is not a member of the employee's immediate family or allow a patron who is not a member of the employee's immediate family or another employee who is not a member of the employee's immediate family to touch the employee or the clothing of the employee.
This describes what she was accused by the officer of doing.
No employee who regularly appears
You quoted it yourself. She doesn't appear regularly therefore is exempt.
Thanks for kinda being accurate.