I am fairly shocked on this one ??? Anyone actually in "the know" can tell you that tricks were being turned right and left in the Tampa Pony ::)
I guess it good for the local clubs in one way but not so good in another :-\
Printable View
I am fairly shocked on this one ??? Anyone actually in "the know" can tell you that tricks were being turned right and left in the Tampa Pony ::)
I guess it good for the local clubs in one way but not so good in another :-\
i hate the owners. Too bad. Well, not all the owners.. but
I'd like to see the trial transcripts on this one -- I mean how could they not find him guilty? Everyone in town knew that the Pony was run almost exclusively as a brothel ::)
Dang, gotta go there ;D
The reason why they found him not guilty (and, btw, where exactly did it say this, Tigerlily?) is that the charges were not in relation to the prostitution going on at the clubs, but they were trying to charge him with racketeering, which, as far as I knew, he wasn't doing. (Other mgrs, maybe, but not the GM.)
I didn't know this was true of the Tampa Pony, as well.
The Daytona Pink Pony is the most flagrant extras club there, by far. The management and DJs refer to the dancers routinely as "sluts' amongst themselves, as opposed to "dancers", "girls", or even "bitches". The general manager is a great big shaggy slob who makes new dancers blow him on a regular basis, though I have known a few who escaped this honor.
I have heard the other Ponies are better, but have only been to the Atlanta club many years ago.
wow..
Crazy. To tell you guys the truth, i worked there 1/2 a night after all the busts took place.
There was a bouncer watching closely, and as far as i could see nothing was happening at pony of tampa.
I hear that before it was more of a brothel? Who knows??
the owner of goldrush is who i dont like.. well maybe not the owner, but the night manager!
stuff still happens there...
And in other news - the Pink Power Ranger is....well....
http://www.megapage.org/amy_jo_johns...son4292003.jpg
Wow.
I meant to answer your question earlier Christy, sorry it slipped my mind-- I saw this on the news, I'll check the Trib and see if there is anything still there and post a link for you if I find anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Christy link=board=27;threadid=10460;start=msg129954#msg12 9954 date=1088484496
This particular manager was charged with profiting from prostitution which seems to me like an open and shut case to me. I understand there are 5 staff members who will be tried ( don't know their charges) I would love to see the trial transcripst so I could see what evidence was presented on this because it was common knowledge that if a guy wanted a BJ or sex Pink Pony was a sure shot. I remember talking to some dancers from the Atlanta Pony who cam down for SuperBowl and ended up working with me at Scarlett's because they were appauled at what they saw going on at the Tampa Pony. They were like scared rabbits when they first got to Scarlett's afraid that all Tampa clubs were like Pink Pony. Even though I knew of the rep the Pony had I was still shocked at what they had to say about the place.
I don't see how Pony management could have been unaware of the prostitution going on in their club when pretty much every other person in town knew it as common knowledge for years and years. And if they knew , they sure didn't stop it so that means they were profiting from it.
WOAH!! Holy shit! Not the pink power ranger!!!! I freakin' LOVED that show (have three seasons of it on tape--those guys were HOTTT!!!!!).
In regards to Tigerlilly's comments, yes he was accused of profitting from prostitution (racketeering), but apparently the state didn't have enough evidence to back up that fact. You see, if I remember the necessities about proving racketeering correctly, you first have to prove that there was an illegal act occuring on the property (i.e. prostitution) and THEN prove that the management in question was profitting monetarily from that. (Simply allowing it to happen is not enough to porve they were profitting from it under the RCIO statute.) What I think the problem was in this case was that a lot of the "evidence" they had was legally only hearsay and not admissible as testimony in a court of law, and I think that was why the G.M. got off- not that he wasn't doing anything illegal, but that the state didn't have enough evidence to convince a jury he had.