blog description

Topics relate to adult business, the War on Drugs, political prosecutions, censorship, and police, prosecutorial, and judicial misconduct

Smiling Faces - The Undisputed Truth

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

The NY Case of Anna Gristina: Mixed Messages

I am compelled to post on the recent indictment of Anna Gristina (AKA Anna Scotland) again today due to the many disconnected statements and the lone count charged of "promoting prostitution". What I am reading today leans towards her owning an escort service, except that there is no such thing as an in-call escort business. In-call operations are not any different than brothels and the mere existence of one anywhere except a list of counties in Nevada would be illegal.

Calling something an "in-call operation" is a polite way of stating "brothel" and nothing more. However, according to Anna Gristina's attorneys, this is not at all what she was operating. One attorney describes a plan (future) to open an online dating site, similar (but better) to No one describes what she was currently up to except the ADA.

I have also read that it was an attorney that helped her set-up her business. The exact allegation:

"The building is owned by a close confidant of Gristina’s, a lawyer who “invests her money, helped her set up her business and helps to launder her money,” prosecutors said.

Source: High-end madam busted for running upper East Side brothel is a suburban mom with four children

My main question about that statement is this allegation, also included in the article:

"The prosecutor added that Gristina hasn’t reported income to the government in a number of years, and that New York State authorities will also be charging her with tax evasion."
Someone please tell me how an attorney could help Gristina with all of that and not address tax-related issues? These two statements together make little sense to me. But of course that is not the only separation from reality in this new case.

The same article describes Gristina being in business (some sort of business) as far back as 2004 and 2005.

There are also a few wild allegations thrown-in for good measure. Apparently the State Attorney's Office has a confidential informant that claims to have been present when Gristina set-up an encounter between a client and minor(s). The exact (and quoted) allegation:

"“We have had at least one eyewitness account of someone that has been obviously present for a sexual encounter arranged by (Gristina) for one of her clients in which minors were involved in the encounter,” Assistant District Attorney Charles Linehan said at her Feb. 23 arraignment."
Also apparently, the DA doesn't necessarily believe this confidential informant as Gristina is certainly not charged with anything relating to minors. Informants will make anything up to get out of their own legal problems, so this makes sense to me, but then why bother stating it? To make the world despise her? It does work too: If minors were involved in the case I wouldn't have anything good to say and probably wouldn't even discuss the case. If you lose me, you're really going to lose in the case. I'm as open-minded on the topic of tryst arranging that you'll ever find, but do tend to jump ship if minors or drugs are involved.

So, prosecutors have Anna Gristina doing all of this bragging in wiretap recordings. What is normally done with this sort of 'evidence' (I use the term lightly), is to investigate further for evidence that the bragged-about events actually occured. Ironic, but in my case agents tried to cram it down my throat that I had help from an officer - Internal Affairs was even involved - but I just kept repeating the truth: No, he never helped me do anything whatsoever. This really angered them and the "investigation" gained steam resulting in my arrest 8 months later. In my case they were out to get the officer in question though - not discover one or many officers.

And who is the unnamed co-defendant? I have heard of unindicted co-conspirators in conspiracy cases, unnamed informants, and confidential informants, but never an unnamed co-defendant in a "promoting prostitution" case. Trust me - redacting the co-defendant's name in such a case is highly unusual. Look at the NY High Class Escorts case, also charged by the State of New York, if you doubt me.

And what of Gristina's husband in all of this? He almost looks like he was posing for the cameras in the images and videos I viewed. Prosecutors claim she was in business for 15 years and they have been married for 10, according to his statements. How could a husband not be aware of a business going on an hour away when there are children involved, or even without children for that matter? It is possible, but not probable.

How does anyone remain semi-active in real estate, take care of four children, rescue animals, have pot-bellied pigs and pit bulls on a farm, and operate an in-call that's more than an hour away? Such a business would require constant attention.

As for the black book of clients' names mentioned: Let's not pretend the DA's office would use it to prosecute anyone. Clients are never prosecuted. They certainly are used as witnesses though.

So far this is curious and confusing.


Anonymous said...

The bail is ridiculous vis a vis the charge.

Anonymous said...

So did this escort service have a name? I know the operator of the agency with the initials P.E. was named Annie. Is this the same person? Oh, and she hired a few of Jason's girls.

Vicky Gallas said...

The appropriate question would be, "So did this incall operation have a name?" OR did you not bother to actually read the article you're responding to?

Vicky Gallas said...

On the bail situation:

IF prosecutors actually have her on tape stating what they claim (money stashed to take-off if there's legal problems), then no, it is normal. However, I wouldn't just take their word for it and would require them to play the recording if I were the judge.

In my case (a State of Florida case) my co-defendant had a $900,000 bond, but when he went to a bond reduction hearing it was changed to "no bond" as in no amount of money could secure his release. Once he agreed to make a statement against me (many hours long rambling, ridiculous statement) he was given a $20,000 bond in exchange. Totally illegal from a constitutional perspective - but no one did anything about it. This is Florida and they get away with anything, literally.

My bond was $100,000. I later had it reduced to $50,000 so that my house could be removed and sold to pay another attorney. And my charges were Racketeering and RICO Conspiracy. But then I was not on a recording telling people I'd exit.

I do wonder if Anna Gristina actually is on tape making such a statement or if prosecutors are using the 'a confidential informant says she said that' strategy.

Anonymous said...

I just re-read your blog post and the daily news article and I don't still see a name for this agency. It says there were three tiers of service that start at $1K and names the tiers. Are those three agency names? It does not identify the name of the agency. Unless its P.E., I've never heard of this operation. Could be that i am not exclusive enough, but I run with a pretty in a pretty VIP brotherhood and something like this would have been talked of backchannel.

Vicky Gallas said...

My reference to reading the post is related to the question, "So did this escort service have a name?"

The first two paragraphs of the post state my thoughts clearly. This was not an escort service, at least not according to prosecutors. This was an incall operation or a brothel. There is indeed a difference.

Did she name the brothel? I have no clue, but I doubt it. All of this is probably why you've never heard of her or her operation, whatever it was.

Sorry - not intending to pick a fight with ya, but the labeling of everything from a street hooker to a brothel as an "escort service" is a particular pet peeve of mine.

Because of this strange phenomenon, I have suffered the accusations of owning a brothel - the accusations still continue by those that despise me for being acquitted. Hell, I have never had anything to do with any brothel.

Anna Gristina may have also had an outcall escort service, but that is not what she's charged with in this case.

Anonymous said...

Can you please explain the nuances between an escort service and brothel? I am of the opinion that an incall operation is merely a brothel, either temporarily in a hotel or more permanently in an apartment whereas an escort service would almost exclusively at the clients location. What are the legal nuances?

Vicky Gallas said...

There are serious differences, not "nuances" as you state it.

An escort service will always be an outcall operation with the escort dispatched to the client's location where they may go out (restaurants, shows, clubs etc...) or stay in at that location.

A brothel should be obvious to you. There are only legal brothels in Nevada in the US. Most other countries in Western Europe allow the operation of brothels in specific areas though. It is always prostitution as that is what a brothel is.

An incall operation will always be a client going to the business location. An incall operation will never be correctly called an "escort service" as no one is being escorted anywhere, ever. Some provide prostitution, but others provide no more than unlicensed massage or body rubs. Some are referred to as "spas" and others as "massage parlors".

Hope that helps. ;)

Anonymous said...

So if a provider runs an ad for incalls only, then she is really running an illegal brothel or unlicensed massage parlor? Why doesnt law enforcement go after them for breaking those laws versus a solicitation charge. It's my understanding those charges are more severs.

Duchess of Hackney said...

Vicky darling this makes my blood boil. To think 21st century America is doing this. I'm having flash backs to my own prediciment all those years in California.
BTW her alledged business partner is called Jaynie Mae Baker and I read on the NYPost site, she could be handing in her self as early as tomorrow.

$2million bail? Murderers get less than that.

I had $100,000 bail and when it was reduced to 50,000 the piece of human excrement detective that had INS place an Immigration hold on me, saying I was a flight risk and would return to London.

From the sounds of it they are salavating and preactically reamin' their panties over this one, it's just what they like.

What angers me is that the only ones who will get something out of this are the Lawyers. Anna is going to loose everything she worked so hard for.

I'm think they operated both in and out call.

Vicky Gallas said...


You may want to reread my response describing incall:

An incall operation will always be a client going to the business location. An incall operation will never be correctly called an "escort service" as no one is being escorted anywhere, ever. Some provide prostitution, but others provide no more than unlicensed massage or body rubs. Some are referred to as "spas" and others as "massage parlors".

So, what do you offer in your incall operation? What do you advertise that you offer? What does your business license state that you do?

Consider yourself lucky that LE in your area doesn't charge incall workers differently. They sure as hell do in Orlando. The case discussed in the link below was charged as a conspiracy, but there were many counts against each defendant, including using interstate communications for prostitution (telephone and email).

I deleted the other 15 posts about the case and all documents from this blog at the request of a family member. The defendants are all around 25 years and still have plenty in life to look forward to.

All that the 11 defendants were doing is posting ads on Backpage for massage - very tame ads at that. On a few occasions, prostitution was committed by several defendants. In Florida a "happy ending" or a hand release is considered prostitution, but that is all that any one of them did. I read every document in the case.

Contrary to any news reports on that case, none of the defendants were in the US illegally.

I have a friend that worked in a body scrub incall in Orlando back in 1997. Agents followed clients after they exited the place, threatened each with major charges, and each became a witness for the state. One claimed that my friend gave him a hand release on 3 separate visits and my friend was charged with 3 counts of "soliciting for the purpose of prostitution" and 1 count of "racketeering," punishable with up to 30 years in prison in Florida. She pled to the 3 soliciting counts and they dropped the other, but she has a serious record over the case and paid a major fine + several years probation.

The link to the one post left on the Orlando conspiracy case:

Vicky Gallas said...


I hope that you post on the topic later - I am going to and I'll link your post if you do.

Ah - did it all make you recall how unjust the US criminal justice system is? Trust me dear - I'd get the hell out of this country if it was at all possible, but sadly it is not for a few reasons.

Yep - I paid a $100K bond and mine was only reduced months later so that the bondsman would release my house as collateral so I could sell it and pay another attorney after the first one froze on me. It was reduced to $50K too. I was only in jail as long as it took them to process me though (18 hours).

I have seen defendants with no bond at all (my co-defendant), but of course I agree that it's fucked-up.

I have read about Anna's case evolving in the last two days. Got to compose a new post. One thing - Jason Itzler was interviewed and he claims Anna helped LE get rid of her competitors, BUT I'd bet my friggin' life that it is the other way around. Itzler may be the root cause of all of this. His bond is $200K, though the newspaper stated $500K.

LE always paints the victim to be the informant so that the actual informant sounds credible and continues in the game...

New post Duchess!

Duchess of Hackney said...

I've only had time to catch up with it today, but have beeing seeing it in my twitter feed since last week.

5 years investigation??? Why so long? As in cases like this, it's never black or white, something happened....what, I don't know.

Maybe a DA (or two) were involved, maybe someone stopped paying someone. You don't stay in business that long, making that kind of money, without paying someone off. Remember, NYPD is amongst the dirtiest of cops, you think a few people didn't want a cut of the pie? Something doesn't smell right here.

Another thing. The NYPost keep mentioning, she wanted to take her business on line and wanted it financed by her buddy at Morgan Stanley. BULL-CRAP, with the sort of money she was making, she could afford to pay a web designer.

Remember Madam Alex in Los Angeles? She greased cops palms for over 2 decades and when she stopped, along with Heidi Fleiss running her gob, they got her.