This story was today’s Dallas Morning News and Speaks For Itself. I was unable to find much about Diamond Cabaret. When you Google Diamond Cabaret, several Dallas Myspace pages do come up. What a shock!

By TANYA EISERER / The Dallas Morning News
teiserer@dallasnews.com
The mere fact that a 12-year-old girl danced nude at a northwest Dallas strip club isn’t enough to close its doors.

That’s because the city ordinance that regulates sexually oriented businesses does not allow authorities to revoke the license of such a business for employing someone under the age of 18.

The sixth-grader danced at Diamonds Cabaret over a two-week period late last year, authorities say. They also say they found a 17-year-old girl working in the club in January.

Diamonds Cabaret
“If they’re not shut down, it’s like they’re giving them permission to have underage girls dancing and working in that club,” said the mother of the 12-year-old. The mother is not being named because her daughter, a runaway at the time of the incident, is considered a sexual assault victim.

Operators of the Diamonds Cabaret at 2444 Walnut Ridge Street did not return calls for comment. Their sexually oriented business license expires in November.

Demonica Abron, 27, who worked as a stripper in the club, and David Bell, 22, are facing charges in connection with the 12-year-old girl’s dancing in the club. Mr. Bell does not appear to have been employed by the club.

Police officials are continuing to investigate whether the club’s management knew she was underage.

The 23-page city ordinance does allow revocation of a club’s license if, for example, the club knowingly allows prostitution, the sale or use of drugs at the club, or if there are two convictions for sex-related crimes at the club within a 12-month period.

The department also can suspend, but not revoke, the license of an escort agency for up to 30 days if it has employed anyone under 18.

But the ordinance does not give the department similar power over adult cabarets such as Diamonds Cabaret.

“There’s a laundry list of things we can use to deny or revoke a license, but having a 12-year-old dancing in their establishment is not one of the things that automatically enables us to revoke their license,” said Lt. Christina Smith, a vice unit commander who oversees licensing of such establishments.

The mother of the 12-year-old girl said her daughter ran away in early November. She said the family frantically began looking and her husband finally found their daughter in late November. She was then interviewed by police.

According to court records, the runaway gave the following account:

Mr. Bell and Ms. Abron, who went by the stage name ‘Jewel,’ offered the runaway shelter. Mr. Bell told her that she would be stripping at a club called “Diamonds.”

Mr. Bell dropped them off at the club one day and introduced her to a man named “David” in the club’s office.

“Suspect David asked complainant if she had ever danced before, she said no,” the court records state. “David” then gave her an application, which she filled out with a fake name. She also told him that she was 19.

When “David” asked to see her identification, she told him that she didn’t have one. He told her to bring one when she came to work as a dancer.

“Complainant couldn’t think of a fake birthday, so she told suspect ‘David’ she forgot her birthday,” the records state. “Suspect ‘David’ gave her a funny look and told her she would have been born in 1988 if she was 19.”

A couple of days later, Mr. Bell drove Ms. Abron and the victim back to the club where Ms. Abron introduced her to a man named “Steve.”

“Suspect ‘Steve’ told” the girl “to take her clothes off to see if she was too shy to dance nude,” the records state. He told her she would have to pay a fee ranging from $10 to $30 each time she danced nude.

She danced that night and made about $100, of which she gave $30 to “Steve,” the records state.

The court documents are unclear on how many nights she danced.

The mother of the 12-year-old says she believes the club must have known her daughter was underage.

“I think they just didn’t care,” her mother said. “She’s 12, but she’s got the body of a 20-year-old. All they were thinking about was the money she could bring in.”

She said her daughter is now living with her grandmother in Arlington and again attending school.

Ms. Abron and Mr. Bell were indicted in late February on one count of felony sexual performance of the child in connection with making the 12-year-old work at the club. Both are also accused of engaging in organized crime.

Mr. Bell is accused of two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child and aggravated kidnapping. He is still being held in the Dallas County Jail in lieu of $450,000 bail.

Ms. Abron, who also faces a prostitution charge, has been released on bail from jail.

If someone asked me two days ago what “Safe Surrender” was, I would have said,  ” I saw that in a war flick the other night, the guy carried a white flag across the battlefield to surrender.” 

What kind of idiot would I have looked like?  How many people reading this know what “Safe Surrender” is?  

Since I won’t get an answer and wouldn’t expect to, I certainly won’t ask how many people reading this have taken advantage of “Safe Surrender”. I am very embarrassed on two levels in not knowing what it is. The first is that I am an attorney so you would think I would know. Secondly, Texas was the very first state to pass “Safe Surrender” Legislation. 

For those who don’t know “Safe Surrender” is a law which allows a mother of a newborn baby to basically drop that baby off within a certain time period after birth at an approved emergency station (firehouse, certain types of hospitals) and face no criminal liability for abandoning her child. This law generally does NOT apply to fathers. Is this a good or a bad thing? There are a lot of arguments on both sides.

There are no hard stats on safe surrender or abandoned babies in general other than related to HIV abandonment. It is estimated that approximately 20,000 babies of drug addicted or HIV positive women are abandoned every year. As of the writing of this blog, 47 states have “safe surrender” legislation in place which allows the mother to drop her newborn off with a designated third party and for all intensively purposes, walk away back into her now “baby free” life. Good or bad?

Texas was the very first state to pass safe surrender legislation in 1999. (The Baby Moses Laws) It was passed “knee jerk” in response to a wave of baby abandonments occurring in the Houston area the year before. Well it could not have been too knee jerk. Look at all the states that followed suit.

Individuals usually make decisions to abandon newborns in part out of fear that others will discover the pregnancy. In response to this fear, safe haven laws are designed to explicitly or implicitly provide an anonymous way for parents to relinquish their babies. Only two states require havens to actively seek the identity of the babies’ parents, and 12 states specifically provide anonymity.

Experience has also shown that individuals usually make decisions spontaneously and in situations of crisis soon after the birth of an unexpected or unintended baby. As a result, state laws usually restrict the age of babies that individuals can legally relinquish. The most commonly designated lapse of time between birth and surrender is 72 hours.

Protection for parents who surrender their babies is another obvious

The American Civil Liberties Union has come out in favor of safe surrender in that these laws do not infringe on a women’s basic right to reproduce. They did have this to say however:

“In general, we support the concept of safe surrender, but we have several words of caution. First, these laws provide an after-the-fact safety net, not a solution to the problems of unintended pregnancy or inability to care for a child. Virtually every case of infant abandonment signals that the health care and social service system has failed a woman and her baby, for surely a well-functioning system would enable a woman either to prevent unwanted pregnancy, to end it safely and early, or, if she decided to carry to term, either to keep her child or to place it, again safely and swiftly, for adoption. Moreover, it is not clear whether safe surrender laws will accomplish their purpose. No infants were surrendered under Texas’s law until December 2000, 17 months after the law’s enactment. And, since the law took effect, 13 infants in Texas have been illegally abandoned.”

I am amazed that for once I find myself in agreement with the American Civil Liberties Union. I have been often critical of them in taking a position of “being right for the sake of being right” without regards to the consequences and the overall effect on those affected by whatever issue they are challenging.

While I morally view safe surrender as a cop out to parental responsibility and just another way for people to throw their problems on to the state but I also am pragmatic about it. I would rather the state bear the cost of hopefully helping a child be raised in a better adoptive environment than see that child raised into the same life of irresponsibility that its mother (and father if applicable) showed in abandoning it. If they would abandon their child to total strangers, doesn’t that indicate the type of life that child would have if no safe surrender was available? 

Does this law promote sexual irresponsibility? Don’t know, can’t find any stats. I doubt it. I also doubt you will see any analogies on the level you are seeing of the “morning after pill” or the proposed mandatory HPV vaccination.

One thing that bothers me as an attorney, is what about the father? I have a real problem with a mother being able to unilaterally terminate a father’s parental rights but I think most statutes would address this issue and even if not…..  better a searching father than a baby in the dumpster……………. I believe Safe Surrender is a good

 I’ve said it before. I believe Sears Holdings is toast as we know it.  The writing has been on the wall and is still being written. Eddie Lampert’s change to self contained profit centers is sleight of hand simply to categorize value and manage assets in preparation for a gradual sell off. 

What value does Sears really have now other than intellectual property/brand name?  We will not even talk about Kmart.  It has sunk below completely irrelevant.  It is not that it is not savable.  It is more simplistic than that.  Eddie Lampert will never ever ever invest the capital in Kmart that is needed to save it and he should not. 

It’s like that 100 year old deteriorating home in an up and coming neighborhood.  If it has not been kept up over the years, it eventually becomes so broken down than it would cost more to renovate than you could ever re-coup in your investment.  It is a “tear-down”.  That is what Kmart is… a tear-down.  The big difference is that a tear downs generally maintain its good real-estate value.   That’s why you tear it down.  Whatever you re-build re-coups the investment. The value of Kmart real-estate has been decimated.  The precise thing that made Eddie Lampert look like a genius in is now an albatross around his neck.  A bunch of junk real estate that nobody wants.  Unfortunately, the biggest Albatross around the neck of Sears is Eddie himself.

 Kmart does have some very good talent at the top. I have met some of them. Very smart guys. Unfortunately things have gotten to the point where nothing but an “immaculate resurrection” will do the trick and as good as these guys may be on paper, none of them walk on water.

So why should Wal-Mart purchase Sears.   Sears has some kick ass brand names that pretty much defines its value, particularly in the hardware/tool department.  Wal-Mart could do wonders with these brands.   Of course there is also the issue of whether these brands would want Wal-Mart who takes a draconian approach to their suppliers.

Eddie should do it now while   there is still intrinsic value to the operation.

I generally try to keep all  my blog content original and don’t repost articles but this was too good to pass up and speaks for itself….   This appeared in the Austin American Statesman.  Having been watching the great HBO mini-series “John Adams“,  I can’t help but think he would have approved….

Lawyer jailed over lewd gesture at judge Man detained briefly while representing DWI client.

By Steven Kreytak
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Friday, March 21, 2008

An Austin defense lawyer was jailed last week after being accused of making a lewd gesture at a judge while in court representing a client on charges of driving while intoxicated.

Adam Reposa, 33, was held in contempt of court by County-Court-at-Law Judge Jan Breland for his “intentional and contumacious conduct during the court’s review of the plea bargain offer to his client before jury trial.”

Reposa, who could not be reached for comment, “made a simulated masturbatory gesture with his hand while making eye contact with the court in response to an objection by the state to his interference with the court plea bargain inquiry,” Breland wrote in a judgment of criminal contempt of court filed March 11.

Breland, who also could not be reached, noted that she and prosecutor Richard Gentry witnessed the gesture and “acknowledged so on the record.”

Breland ordered Reposa taken into custody and returned to court the next morning for a sentencing hearing. Handwritten on the bottom of the order above the initials “JB” was: “No bond without my approval.”

However, Reposa was released later that day on a personal bond signed by state District Judge Charlie Baird, who said the law requires that judges set bond in lawyer-contempt cases.

It does not appear from court records that further action on the case has occurred since his release.

skreytak@statesman.com; 912-2946