E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Gregory Rec / AP
Mark Strong, right, talks with his attorney Dan Lilley on Jan. 25, after a lower court dropped most of the charges against him in connection with an alleged prostitution operation in Kennebunk, Maine.
Maine’s highest court has affirmed a judge’s decision to dismiss 46 charges against defendant Mark Strong, accused of helping a woman run a prostitution ring out of her Zumba studio in the resort town of Kennebunk.
All of the charges were related to alleged violations of privacy. Strong, 57, will still stand trial in York County Superior Court on 13 remaining charges, including promotion of prostitution. Dance instructor Alexis Wright, 30, has been charged with 106 counts, including engaging in prostitution. She is expected to go on trial later this year. Both Strong and Wright have pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Wright’s attorneys filed an amicus brief in support of Strong on Feb. 4 in which they stated that Wright had “a vested interest in the resolution of this appeal” due to the similarity of some charges between herself and Strong.
In January, Judge Nancy Mills decided to drop the invasion of privacy charges, which arose from allegations that Wright videotaped herself engaging in sexual acts with clients in her Pura Vida dance studio, as well as at two other locations. The alleged patrons “may have had a subjective expectation of privacy, but I can’t find an objective expectation of privacy that society would be prepared to accept,” Mills said in court last month.
Maine seeks to reinstate dropped Zumba prostitution charges
The decision may be a major blow to the case against Strong. The Supreme Judicial Court wrote that, “the circumstances of the court’s dismissal of the forty-six privacy counts present a reasonable likelihood that the state’s prosecution of Strong has been seriously impaired. The dismissed privacy counts constitute the majority of the criminal counts brought against Strong.”
Maine’s Supreme Judicial Court heard oral arguments earlier in the week, and affirmed the superior court’s dismissal in a unanimous decision on Friday.
“Places of prostitution and people who knowingly frequent them to engage a prostitute are not sanctioned by society,” Supreme Court Justice Jon Levy wrote in the court’s decision. “Accordingly, it is objectively unreasonable for a person who knowingly enters a place of prostitution for the purpose of engaging a prostitute to expect that society recognizes a right to be safe from surveillance while inside.”
Accused Zumba pimp: It wasn't 'love' with dance instructor
Strong’s trial has experienced repeated setbacks since jury selection began in January. It was expected that it would take a day to seat a jury, but that process stretched past a week before being stalled entirely when Mills dismissed the 46 charges against Strong. The Supreme Judicial Court was forced to make a separate ruling related to the case when a local newspaper filed an expedited appeal to open the closed-door jury selection to the public.
Jury selection has been on hold pending a decision on whether or not to drop the 46 criminal counts.
On Thursday, before the high court’s decision, Strong’s attorney Daniel Lilley filed a motion with Mills requesting that she lift an order barring him from speaking to reporters while the case is ongoing.
Lilley wrote that the court “has not considered whether even such a blanket prohibition against discussions with the media will be effective in seating a fair and impartial jury, particularly one in which the jurors have already been instructed to turn a blind eye and deaf ear to media reports concerning this case.”
Leave a Comment:
By the judge's logic, if someone is killed buying a joint, then the murderer cannot be charged as there is no expectation of safety while someone commits the crime of buying a joint.
This is just nonsense.......
jw101 - there is a difference here. It is never ok to murder someone, but it is ok to record someone. But when you are permitted to record someone depends on where you are, if the person is aware, etc. In this case, the law says it doesn't have to protect you with this privacy law when you are doing something illegal. It's not exactly the same as your analogy of someone being murdered.
Send in an accountant to figure out how much tax is owed. Write some checks for the assessed taxes. Promise not to record the "activities" unless the client wants it. Everyone is happy.
Getting to close to the big fish........
I'm betting the orders came from above to "Make this go away"
Notice the weekly "John" report stopped??
Maine prosecutors ----- Stop spending our money on this nonsense. You're too self righteous.
Who cares about this really? Prostituion, I can think of alot more criminal activity, drugs, gangs, illegals that should be policed, not a woman doing a business with no victims. The girls weren't being forced and no one was being robbed. Police you need to go after the real criminals in this country, not working folks.
I care, I care that they don't seem interested in going after the "Johns!" Just her and this guy. Must be some big powerful names on that list!!
Attention Maine prosecutors ---- You only need one juror who thinks like I do to wind up with very serious egg on your faces.
Covering up for all the politicians and wealthy men that used her services. Perhaps she passed along or one of her girls passed along a little something to remember forever~~ like an STD...
One of her girls?? Do you have some information the rest of us have not seen??
Just when us nobodies are fighting to get on the list...
Zumba, it's what's for dinner.
Here is a math question ...Sounds like 106 men had Zumba SEX with 1 Zumba Teacher
... and she got paid by 106 men ?? Do the math ... 106 men paid for illegal
Zumba SEX ( Guilty by Association) ... knowing it was illegal, she was caught
and brought in for 106 charges (no pun intended) and she did not pay the taxes
on the Zumba SEX ... and the men involved ... their names were in her Zumba SEX
book. So the questions is did she commit the Zumba SEX crimes and or did the
Men she had Zumba SEX with commit the very same crimes too? This is a really
good question because Zumba SEX is illegal ... It's illegal to be a John of
Zumba SEX and it is illegal to be the Zumba SEX teacher having SEX with the
Johns. Why is it there are no John's mentioned when it is illegal to have Zumba
SEX??
I am trying to figure out the legality of a one sided version of Zumba SEX
whereby no John's are being indicted. Where is the justice ... What is the
answer to this math question because nothing is adding up.
Your math question is flawed. She is also charged with other violations. (Think the men paid to be surrepttitiously filmed?
Thanks for playing.
Looks like someone got off. No charges? he should be arrested and thrown in jail.
San Diego Jail
so asking a simple question - what difference does it make TO YOU? They had NO CASE
13 other charges remain. Do you people read?
I love this nonsense!
If the accusations had been true so what?
Personally I think if dudes want to pay for sex that's their business, but as for me I don't like some other ape's sloppy seconds I'll take a virgin who I don't have to pay for!
Who Cares ?
I saw a Zumba studio today on my way home from work. The sign on the front said "ZUMBA FUN" Until I read about this case, that wouldn't have grabbed my attention.
I don't know who that mark is, but he must have some power.
So where these judges make visitations they shouldn't have? Does anyone actually live in Maine?
This is national news? Alert - No one in the rest of the country cares!! Why is it when something happens in the NE, the media thinks the rest of the world is concerned. This is a dumb story. Really - this has been head line news all day and there are like 40 comments. No one gives a crud.
I saw this story the other day with no place to comment after. I think they're wrong in dismissing it because of the faulty basis. The Prosecutors are right but they didn't properly prepare and present their argument. It's only "subjective" because the Judge and the Defense Attorney made and kept it subjective. The "objective" reasoning is in the "pre-meditation", [with intent, to invade privacy to "entrap" and for their own use, gain and benefit], before the actual crime took place and nobody was looking at that and only looking at "during and after" the crime, instead of before.
The appeal couldn't fly the way Prosecutors were presenting it because they were subjectively presenting it like a "defense" for the one's they were suppose to be "prosecuting", not "defending". It's egg on their face because it just shows and bolsters today's argument of Prosecutors' overzealous rush to prosecute without doing their homework and not knowing what they're doing, to Society's detriment. Too bad, because it could have set up some great precedent for "deliberate and blatant invasion of privacy is invasion of privacy", before whatever else happens after that, either Criminal or Civil.
Maybe the Prosecutors will appeal it further.
It's Only sex. No person should ever pay any penalty for consensual sex between Adults. The right wing puritans need to just go home and let humanity be free. Control control control. They are nothing but control freaks. they love to punish people. They want to put people in jail for sex, abortion, pot. free speech, for being gay, or anything else they have a problem with. Maybe we should just give them their own country and let them live under these foolish laws they make and we can finally be free.
Concise, very good comment! Fully agree! The Republicans say that they want to get government out of my life then they try to control everything.
Nice try but wrong george! It's the liberals who consider a woman, using her private parts to make money, abuse! SO it's ok to remove a dead baby from her vagina but she can't use it as a source of income? Why are liberal politicians in a ladies private parts?
Get your stories straight about who is for and against what.
george pauljohn, #18- It isn't "Only" sex. That is the subjective view of it. The "objective" view is that the only thing two Adults are consenting to is "knowingly and willfully breaking the Law". Then there's the element of "Exploitation" that enters in by the prior "criminal" Invasion of Privacy that was planned and set up to occur before any John entered the place. It doesn't "affect" or negate the John's part, BUT, it does go into the pan of the scale on the Defendants' part of the overall make up of the Problem. (that's how it figures into the equation).
Both the Judge, the Defense Attorney and the Higher Court have also wrongly used "subjective" reasoning that both the Defendants are not Innocent until proven Guilty of the alleged Crimes and wrongly stopped the Prosecution from bringing their case forward. All in all it really seems like the Court, right on up to the Highest are doing everything they can to "control the outcome", at least by maybe a mistrial, if not a total eradication of the trial before "select" Johns are named, so maybe they won't have to be, or something like that. Why would the Judge go to all that "special interest" in wrongly handling the Jury Selection Proceedings? And seemingly rather "blatantly", too. And with a Defense Attorney quietly letting it go on so he can get any possible conviction later overturned and now the Other's possible conviction is inextricably connected to the outcome of this one.
Kal. I don't understand your post. It is the Conservative politicians that are obsessed with lady parts. Things like trans vaginal sonograms, restricting birth control, defunding Planned Parenthood that millions of poor women rely upon for mammograms and pap smears. Restriction of legal and safe abortions. Sex education in the schools to lower teen pregnancy. The Republicans are obsessed with things that are private between a woman and her doctor.
DRONES - you do realize that Maine is a blue state, right?
There are RWNJs in every state.
We really need to cut our puritanical strings. If people want to exchange cash for sex, let them. If you don't want to, don't. Regulate and increase the tax base.
As I mention above it's liberals who see paying for sex as abuse and are appalled by it. Typical liberal hypocrisy.
@Kal, you really are full of manure today. Just look what the red states have done to women. Probes, no abortion, no birth control pills, etc etc.
Take your troll kool-aide some other place where someone who is low informed will believe you. Nobody here except you believe your excretment.
Kal, your very confusing. Please site a source for this "As I mention above it's liberals who see paying for sex as abuse and are appalled by it"
Victimless crimes are just plain ridiculous and have no place in a semi-free society.
Prostitution should be legal...no exposure to minors, regulated heavily, extremely limited advertising, and taxed like any other income and subject to being sued if negligent.
Marijuana should be legal to grow and sell and smoke....no exposure to minors, regulated heavily, extremely limited advertising, and taxed like any other income and subject to being sued if negligent.
Having sex, especially sex for recreational purposes, has never been totally free, not for either party. Someone almost always has paid a price. So, let the do-gooders please shut up, legalize prostitution, as it was for a great many centrury, and be done with it. In this case, prosecute ALL partakers! Or, failing that, none! As far as the "Johns" are concerned, maybe they were lacking something at home?
I agree, sex is never totally free. Anyone who thinks it is sure isn't thinking right. I also agree that everyone should be punished, or none. And if the 'johns' aren't getting any at home, that is a whole different story.
amazedandalarmed, #21- In a Nations of Laws, the "objective" view is that Society is the Victim when the Law is broken. It's not "Victimless". Prosecutors prosecute "for" the Victim, Society. (The Court specifically used "Society" as its basis in "possible victimization to" in purporting to use "objective reasoning" for its Ruling). Unfortunately, I think the Court erred and used "objective reasoning" to wrongly try and conjure and give merit to a negative. That being that that particularly named element of Society's expectation, at this time, did not have the merit to be part of the equation, to begin with; and the result of that error has thusly only and actually advanced and furthered the "victimization" to Society.
Since you bring it up, it's pretty much the same argument for the "illegal"-legalization of Pot that has already occurred in Washington and Colorado. AND, with what is going on in NY, to a degree, in what I saw the other day with posession of Pot-in-Public-view not considered to exist only if it's being smoked in Public. Same thing, NO MERIT TO ITS PURPORTED LEGITIMATE BASIS; but instead only conjuring to give overruling merit to a negative that is inconsistent with its purported legitimate basis. (even so much as to "undo" the purported legitimate basis). That was the Governor's thing. (The one who spoke about the intelligence of New Yorkers being insulted!)
AND YIKES! I just noticed after posting that I've again inadvertantly ended up on the wrong thread with my reply to #21!
This is why politicians, the connected, and the rich gets away with so much, not enough is said about it. Wanting to kill Dorner on different articles garnered 10k,+ posts, all everyone was screaming was "kill him, kill him!!!"
Here, you no doubt have a group of well connected men about to get a free pass, while they destroy this woman. Equal rights for women still has a long way to go in this country. she's practically guilty already, but the "John's" are barely known.
On the streets, cops set up prostitution sting operations to get the guy who makes $10.55 an hour, off the street when he tries to buy a little excitement. Interesting, isn't it.
LOL.....You sound like one confused republican hypocrite!!
Maybe she will realease the list of names on the 'John's list" she has. That would be an interesting list of names to a lot of divorce attorneys, as that most likely is what would happen to most of the johns, if they were married. Hope she lives long enough to have her day in court.
Man, talk about some powerful blackmail material, that list is it. And yes, always go after the woman, never the men who pay them. Gender equality anyone?
Oh, highly informed one - the list has already been made public. So much for your blackmail schemes.
You may be one of the least informed people to post on these threads - and that is saying something.
Can someone explain why it is OK to take a women out to a play and a fancy dinner at a cost of $200 then go to bed with her for some great sex but if I give her the $200 directly it is a criminal offense. It is a consensual act between two people.
JohnKaye, #25- Because it's not illegal to go out on a date, go to dinner and go to a play. (And that is where the monetary exchange occurs), not in the great sex that might follow. Might want to be careful with nurturing that reasoning, too, because it's been shown in the past to be just a hop, skip and jump from there over to "She was asking for it". (No offense intended :)
And for all the argument I'm making about victimization to Society, it just wouldn't be fittin', in my book anyway, to not bring up what's-his-name Straus-Khan and the grave injustice to Society dis-served by the District Attorney in NY letting him go.
Straus-Kahn is completely different as there is a question of consent. The opposite of my statement above is also true. I can go on Craigslist book an escort for the evening. Even if that escort is an undercover cop as long as it is a play and dinner there is no crime. The crime occurs when consensual sex is offered. It makes no sense to outlaw consensual sex whether money is involved or not. Does prostitution need regulation, of course, but an outright ban has never worked and will never work. Once again we have to look to Europe where prostitution has been legal in many countries for a long time. Society has not fallen apart.
JohnKaye, #25.2- There's no such thing as "consensual sex" being offered. Only the prospect of "sex" can be offered. "Consensual sex" only exists after it's happening. (seeking to have it happen, for money, is the issue (action) you're describing, I think). AND, I think the meaning of "consensual sex", maybe in the strictest sense of the Law, is changed by that "seeking" by and for monetary exchange. I'm not sure. I'd have to see the text of the anti-Prostitution Law for Maine.
That said, I'm basing all my arguments on [it], Prostitution being illegal, as it stands right now and when all this happened. Also, my reference to Straus-Khan had nothing to with the question of consent or not but everything to do with the DA furthering victimization to Society by his [in]action/s that did not translate to upholding his obligation to Society; and even in that case, went a step further and pre-judicially and wrongly used the alleged Victim to do it because he knew he didn't have the Prosecutorial Discretion to accomplish it. (She ended up getting a monetary settlement later on IS/WAS NOT a Judicially appropriate outcome, either).
Thank you, also, as it seems that you did not take offense to what I was saying to you, "proverbially", not personally, in the above post. (I guess you could also kind of call that speaking "objectively, not subjectively":) I'm just really sick to death of the RIGHTS VIOLATING RACKET that the Justice System and THE COURT has become. Including the Supreme Court where 12 out of 14 cases hailed for BUSINESSES OVER INDIVIDUALS.