Posted on 02/12/2023 1:46:09 PM PST by nickcarraway
Larry Flynt, considered by some to be the penultimate pornographer and defender of first amendment free speech rights, is revered by many Americans both alt and mainstream. But they didn’t know Larry like Julie Moya, one of his ex-employees who stripped at his club!
At age 15 — and living in a home for wayward youth — Julie alleges that a fellow resident offered to bring her to the club where the girl herself was working so Julie could earn a few dollars. Yes, Jools was only 15. But she was a fully-developed and very pretty natural blond. Mr. Flynt would surely hire her.
Ms. Moya wasn’t sure exactly what she was getting herself into — but acclimated to the champagne hustle environment quickly — and moved to an apartment upstairs from the club on Walnut Street in Cincinnati. Larry himself was living in one of the other apartments in the same building. All Julie cared about was being out of the home, into her own apartment, and making money. Life had definitely taken a turn for the better.
As a young man with a young man’s libido, Larry dabbled with his employees. Generally, he’d order up one of the club’s girls a few times a week for a romp. Julie alleges got the call at age 16!
Asked if Larry knew Julie was underage, Ms. Moya reported that it was well-known throughout the club that she was a minor. In fact, the girls used to joke with her “Hey Julie! Are you 18 yet?” Jools had the body of a Playboy bunny — tender age notwithstanding.
Moya reports that upon watching the Hollywood feature “The People Versus Larry Flynt,” she couldn’t help but laugh at the scene in which Larry was portrayed as a man who never employed underage women. Says Moya: “I certainly wasn’t the only underage girl in the club. There were several of us. And Larry knew we were minors.”
With respect to Larry’s sexual predilections, Julie recalls that she actually “saw” him on four different occasions, and contends that he was a rough, coarse, and “dominant trick.”
She was too young to understand the dynamics of S & M at the time. But in retrospect, Julie now realizes he tended toward that world — and adds that the younger Larry Flynt was not physically disgusting — in that he wasn’t hygenically-challenged nor repulsive to look at naked. Her interaction with him wasn’t that stuff of PTSD. He just wasn’t that special guy she fell for or looked forward to seeing on a habitual basis.
At some point during her employment at the club, a couple of the club's customers approached her and some other girls with an offer that spelled the end of her employment with Flynt.
The guys were giving out cards and telling girls if they came to Tennessee and worked for them, they could make a ton of money in their organization. And some of the girls who went for the bait traveled to Tennessee and were never heard from again!
Sooner than later, Julie was questioned by the FBI and offered a witness protection deal she couldn’t refuse. After taking the witness stand in the pursuant court case, Ms. Moya was farmed out to Minnesota with a new name and a job selling Pappagalo shoes at a local department store. And thus ended her relationship with Mr. Flynt.
Asked how she feels about her ex-employer in retrospect, this reporter got the impression that Julie felt nothing. Alas, he really hadn’t left a meaningful impression positive or negative on her. Julie, now in her 60s, has worked a lot of clubs — and run at least one brothel — in her life.
In the world of sex for sale, men come and go with alarming regularity. And Larry was just another guy with a libido. Nothing remarkable either way.
Yep
penultimate pornographer and defender
Penultimate means next to last, so there’s that.
carve out a place for his image on Mount Rushmore.
At the base, on the left side(?), is a tree frequently used as a urinal .
That’ll work.
No. People need to understand that the legal community has been lied to (deceived) and therefore continues in the lies about Marbury and what it really means. Before the lies were promulgated there was little interest in the ruling because it actually stood in the way of growing the power of the Court. This is because Marbury was NOT about the obligation to review statutes relative to the Law but about the only methodology for review that was legitimate.
First off, it was NOT Marbury where it was considered proper to review statutes relative to the Law, which Marshall himself takes pains to note in the opinion. Rather that happened earlier with a controversy involving revolutionary war pensions where jurists were improperly assigned administrative branch functions and responsibilities to manage these pensions.
Moreover to understand Marbury’s structure you need to realize that because Marshall was the Secretary of State involved in the incident of the “Midnight Judges” in addition to clearly laying out the precedent that review of laws was proper he set forth the case that Mr Marbury deserved his Writ of Mandamus to basically demonstrate his fitness to render the opinion despite his prior involvement.
The actual meat of the ruling only begins after these considerably long preliminaries AFTER Marshall writes: “This, then, is a plain case of a mandamus, either to deliver the commission, or a copy of it from the record; and it only remains to be inquired, Whether it can issue from this court.”
It is here, finally, that we see Marshall lay out the justification for review of statutes that arises because Justices are made to take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution and characterizes it as “worse than a solemn mockery” to make them take such an oath and yet require them to turn a blind eye to the Constitution and see only statutes.
Review is not a power but an obligation rooted in fidelity to the Constitution ... and here I would note that Marshall takes pains to address the exercise of the original right to make Law that lay only with those that Ratified it, what THEY AGREED to is the Law, nothing else. That is why it is important when the original right is exercised ... the whole theory of the modern Court, how it operates acting as if the mere appearance of words on paper only matters but leaving their meaning up to the mores and passions of the time, is fundamentally in error.
You may also note that the power of review IS NOT addressed by Article 3 at all, and is not an enumerated power of the Court. It is only because they are charged to be faithful to the Law as it was agreed to that they can stand in judgment of statutes.
And Marshall expressly notes that others in other departments take similar oaths.
So if it is worse than a solemn mockery to require Justices to close their eyes to the Constitution and only see statute the what is it to require others to close their eyes to the Constitution and only see the opinions of the Court where it has proverbially scribbled in the margins with their crayons?
Review is only destructive, not constructive. It cannot make something that was not speech “speech”, it cannot lawfully depart from what those that Ratified agreed to ... it cannot lawfully hold to just the mere appearance of words on paper, form without substance or function and by deciding new meanings to the words construct new powers for the federal or remove old powers from the States or the people that have never been enumerated to the federal.
The modern Court are thieves of powers, they have not built a tower of jurisprudence but dangled a shanty of usurpations out over the abyss of Arbitrary government.
The financial and national ruin we face is the nation falling into that abyss.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.