As reported by Mark Scolforo in the AP, three high-ranking employees of the Pennsylvania State Police came under investigation after it was learned that they hired prostitutes when visiting Thailand.
For now, ignoring the issue of the ages of those involved, what is the big deal?
If this was in fact a consensual interaction why does any uninvolved third party think they have the right to possibly subject one of the parties to sanctions (per the “investigation”)? Shouldn’t two (or more) people have the right to enter into whatever voluntary arrangement for goods or services that they desire?
Ideally yes, that would be the norm. But today some folks act as if they have the right to initiate force against others when they engage in certain actions, despite those actions not causing a victim or damaging property. That includes not only those who did the investigation, but the three men – John Kruse, Brad Lawver, and Douglas Martin – being investigated.
That to me is the biggest take-away from this story – the hypocrisy of Krus, Lawver and Martin. They all subsist off others in Pennsylvania. That theft alone is reason enough to view them as ill-led. And if they thought their actions in Thailand not wrong, then why not engage in them in Pennsylvania?
They obviously realized that if caught, they could be caged, perhaps by their own colleagues. If an act is wrong in one place, can it become right in another place? This in and of itself shows the arbitrariness of the “law*” Kruse, Lawver, and Martin claim to uphold.
Charles Skurkis, who headed-up the “investigation” noted in deposition that:
California dispenses marijuana for medical use, Pennsylvania does not allow that. If a trooper goes to California and a doctor prescribes marijuana and he smokes it there, is he in violation of the law? That case has to be looked at, and there’s no immediate right or wrong answer.
Again, such a statement only proves the subjectivity of the “law”. Legislation created by man is not law, as is made clear by the inability to remain consistent on its application based on arbitrary political boundaries.
Moving on to the issue of age, that’s admittedly a sticky one. If the person(s) who reached a consensual arrangement with Krus, Lawver and Martin were 21-years-old would anyone object? What if they were 18? Or 16?
What is clear though, is that the “investigation” done was just a sham, as they merely took the word of those being investigated. From Francis Hacken:
The age of the prostitutes they were with was not a concern to Lt. Martin (because according to him, they all looked old enough)
This lack of a finding is not at all a surprise, seeing that the person conducting, like those who were supposedly “investigated”, operates via stolen coin and proffers that they have a “legitimate” right to initiate force. Those perverse incentives can never bring-about accountability.
Have some thoughts of your own about how this all unfolded? Feel free to share:
Pennsylvania State Police
- (717) 783-5599
- 1800 Elmerton Ave.
Harrisburg, Pa 17110
- John Kruse – executive service section
- Brad Lawver – legislative affairs
- Douglas Martin – bureau of liquor control enforcement
*For more on this angle see:
Details of Asian prostitution trips by 3 Pa. state police lieutenants surface in fed lawsuit
by Mark Scolforo, Associated Press, December 23rd, 2012
HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania — Three state police lieutenants — including the former head of the elite detail that guards the Pennsylvania governor — were investigated by the FBI and the state police for their involvement with prostitutes during successive personal vacations to Southeast Asia.
Records in a case pending in federal court in Pennsylvania say the lieutenants all admitted hiring the prostitutes on trips between 2002 and 2008.
An Associated Press review of the internal state police records shows the supervisors evaded significant punishment, and a Right-to-Know Law request found no evidence they were discharged or demoted, the state police said Wednesday.
The investigative records were disclosed in an employment discrimination lawsuit filed by retired Cpl. Joe Farthing, a former member of the Executive Service Section, which protects the governor, lieutenant governor and their spouses.
Farthing, an African-American who lives in Lancaster, claims state police brass concocted a racially motivated claim that he had improperly milked overtime while guarding then-Gov. Ed Rendell. He was not implicated in the Asian trips.
Farthing worked closely with one of the three, Lt. John Kruse, as the two top-ranking members of the Executive Service Section.
While it’s not clear what triggered the interest, the FBI by 2007 was investigating sex tourism trips by Kruse and Lt. Brad Lawver, who worked in legislative affairs. Kruse and Lawver told investigators they had been joined by a third member of state police brass, Lt. Douglas Martin of the Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement, according to state police documents.
The U.S. attorney’s office in Harrisburg said a federal investigation regarding the Asian sex tourism trips was closed without charges being filed, and prosecutors declined further comment.
Rendell told the AP he had heard rumors of the prostitution trips “through the grapevine, stuff about trips to Asia and sexual hijinks, but again, I didn’t know there was anything illegal about them.”
The three men told FBI agents that they hired prostitutes in Thailand and Vietnam, according to a February 2009 general investigative report regarding Martin filed by Sgt. Farzad Sharif with the state police’s Bureau of Integrity and Professional Standards. Kruse and Lawver had just retired at the time.
Court records describe an unspecified number of private trips to Thailand, Vietnam and Singapore that combined tourist outings with hiring prostitutes, in some cases for a week at a time. An FBI agent told a state police supervisor that during one trip the men — it’s unclear which of them — were seen by the FBI drinking heavily and entering what was believed to be a house of prostitution.
Farthing’s lawsuit was filed in February 2011, but the detailed disclosures about the lieutenants’ sex tourism trips, the alleged abuse of overtime by members of the Executive Service Section and evidence the unit was poorly run emerged in court documents this year. The state attorney general’s office sought unsuccessfully to have Farthing’s case thrown out.
As state police leadership and internal affairs looked into the sex trips, questions about the ages of the prostitutes arose repeatedly. The three state policemen have repeatedly insisted that none was underage, records show.
“There was no indication, wherever they went, that there was any children involved, which is what our concern was,” retired state police Maj. Charles J. Skurkis, who headed up internal affairs at the time, said in a deposition.
Child prostitution is a particular problem in Thailand and some other Asian countries.
“The age of the prostitutes they were with was not a concern to Lt. Martin (because according to him, they all looked old enough),” state police disciplinary officer Capt. Francis Hacken wrote. Hacken recommended in January 2011 that Martin be court-martialed, but Martin avoided it by retiring two months later.
Hacken wrote that Martin “indicated that prostitution is a culture that is accepted in Thailand.”
The now-retired state police commissioner, Col. Frank E. Pawlowski, described the lieutenants’ behavior as “sexual misconduct” during a September 2011 deposition.
“People suggested that they (prostitutes) were juveniles, but I was not privy to any of the evidence in the case that I could make my own conclusion,” Pawlowski said.
Doubts about the illegality of prostitution in Thailand arose during the investigation, with Skurkis likening the men’s conduct to someone visiting an area where medical marijuana is legal.
“California dispenses marijuana for medical use,” he said in the deposition. “Pennsylvania does not allow that. If a trooper goes to California and a doctor prescribes marijuana and he smokes it there, is he in violation of the law? That case has to be looked at, and there’s no immediate right or wrong answer.”
Skurkis did not return a phone message seeking comment.
At some point, the department’s own lawyers researched the matter and concluded the men’s actions “arguably” did violate Thai law. Hacken’s court-martial report for Martin said a customer soliciting a prostitute violates Thai law if the solicitation is done openly or shamelessly and causes a public nuisance.
A 1996 Thai law on prostitution prohibits buying minors for prostitution, soliciting prostitution activities in public places, and the buying or selling of sex “where people are available for prostitution,” said Janice Raymond, a board member of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women.
Those laws in theory would apply to the customers of prostitutes, but Raymond said the reality is that the women are the ones who end up arrested and charged.
As the FBI investigation was getting under way, the state police received a complaint from another trooper on the governor’s detail alleging Kruse and Farthing assigned themselves disproportionate amounts of overtime and accrued it under circumstances where it was not needed, or when they were not performing work for the pay.
The handling of the Asian sex scandal relates to Farthing’s lawsuit because he claims the department was harder on him, a black man, than it was when disciplining white employees, including the three white lieutenants in the unrelated case.
Farthing was pulled from the governor’s detail and assigned to duty at the lieutenant’s governor’s mansion while he was investigated for overtime abuse. He retired about a year later.
Farthing disputes that he abused overtime, and claims he was forced to retire in October 2008, believing he had been singled out for punishment because of the color of his skin.
The state police have denied racial animus was behind any actions taken against Farthing, but said management of the Executive Service Section has been improved, and the overtime issue has been addressed.
Farthing subsequently filed an employment discrimination lawsuit, which is pending before Magistrate Judge Henry S. Perkin in Allentown. His case was recently scheduled to go to trial next summer, with Rendell among the possible witnesses.
Documents filed in Farthing’s lawsuit show that the agency only moved to discipline him and Kruse for overtime misuse after they had both retired, rendering it meaningless.
Reached at his home outside Lewisberry, Kruse at first denied any knowledge of the matter, then declined to comment and referred questions to his lawyer, Jerry Russo, who did not return messages. Martin, who lives in Mechanicsburg, and Lawver, a Lewisberry resident, did not respond to requests for comment.
Farthing’s attorney, Harold Goodman, declined to discuss the case on the record beyond what is in the court file. The attorney general’s office, which represents the state police in the civil case, declined to comment for this story.
The overtime allegations against Kruse and Farthing were reviewed for potential criminal violations, but the local prosecutor took a pass. Kruse and Farthing ranked No. 1 and No. 2 within the detail in total overtime from 2002 to 2007, with each collecting well over $200,000.
In September 2007, Dauphin County Assistant District Attorney Fran Chardo told a state police internal affairs investigator that he believed Farthing had put in for overtime when he was not working, which “would support culpability for the offense of theft by deception.” But, he said, there was a lack of oversight and Kruse allowed it.
Chardo, who recently announced his candidacy for county judge, also declined to prosecute on overtime-related allegations against Kruse in March 2009, saying it was not in the public interest, partly because Kruse had agreed to retire immediately.
Kruse was denied an honorable discharge, and an internal state police report issued a few months later said “sustained overtime misconduct” practices would have justified court-martialing him and Farthing. Troopers who do not get an honorable discharge do not get to keep their badge or service hat, matters of great symbolic importance within the agency.
Kruse had been recommended for a two-rank demotion to trooper, a 25-day suspension and an involuntary transfer; Farthing a one-rank demotion and 20-day suspension, according to a declaration by the then-deputy commissioner, John R. Brown.
The state police found that total overtime in the 20-person Executive Service Section fell from $612,000 in 2006 — a busy election year for Rendell, and the year before the overtime abuse investigation began — to $474,000 in 2007 and $346,000 in 2008, when Kruse no longer ran the detail. It skyrocketed in Rendell’s final year of 2010, however, to $739,000, and reached $533,000 in 2011.
A good overtime year can yield dividends for the rest of a trooper’s life, because pension amounts are based on peak pay years. Farthing retired in October 2008 with a $130,000 lump payment and now has a $72,000 annual pension. Kruse retired in January 2009, collected $84,000 and gets a $45,000 pension.
Lawver and Martin apparently were not investigated for overtime abuse. Lawver retired in January 2009, received a $106,000 payment and collects a $63,000 pension; Martin retired in March 2011 — weeks after Hacken informed him he faced court-martial — collected $131,000, and has a $69,000 pension.