Ask A Provider Anything

I've already written on the Washington statute. I think that's even mentioned in this thread.

I've already written on the Washington statute. I think that's even mentioned in this thread. Originally Posted by ShysterJon

OK, but I think the main point is that they are twisting our innocent activities concerning writing reviews into promotion of prostitution. However, they one point everyone else has failed to note is that the undercover detectives met the guys in person, mainly to confirm identities, but also no doubt to further prove the elements of the crime.

That is the main reason it is not just for writing reviews, but it is damn close to it. I'm not meeting anyone from this board for any reason, unless she is a known prostitute, of course.

This is just flat wrong. Intent is ALWAYS an element of a criminal offense, even when not explicitly stated within the statute, unless the offense is a strict liability offense, such as a municipal code violation. Originally Posted by ShysterJon

I beg to differ again, Shyster. The Republican-controlled Congress has been holding the contrary views of yours. BTW, I believe I have never rendered any "legal opinions" to anyone on this board, so please do not accuse me of "thinking like a lawyer."


http://nytimes.com/2015/11/21/busine...rime.html?_r=0

Actually, DSK, that was my original point in this thread. Estella claims there is another set of charges on a group that wasn't part of the League. Those are the folks she claims did nothing more than write reviews. As far as I could tell (and I've not had time to research thoroughly), there has been another set of charges filed, but I couldn't find much in the way of explanation outside the blog post she cites.

I'm trained, please address the other points previous to that post concerning how writing a review meets the culpability for promotion of prostitution as ridiculously defined by the Sheriff and prosecutors in King's County in the State of Washington. Originally Posted by DSK

So what's your legal argument that "writing a review" is not an "actus reus", JL?

I beg to differ again, Shyster. The Republican-controlled Congress has been holding the contrary views of yours. BTW, I believe I have never rendered any "legal opinions" to anyone on this board, so please do not accuse me of "thinking like a lawyer."


http://nytimes.com/2015/11/21/busine...rime.html?_r=0 Originally Posted by andymarksman

You can't compare the two. These laws, as well as a number of others (such as certain AML statutes), are specific in their language that willful negligence is covered. SJ didn't cite the banking laws, but he did state that there are statutes where intent doesn't have to be proven.

OK, but I think the main point is that they are twisting our innocent activities concerning writing reviews into promotion of prostitution. However, they one point everyone else has failed to note is that the undercover detectives met the guys in person, mainly to confirm identities, but also no doubt to further prove the elements of the crime.

That is the main reason it is not just for writing reviews, but it is damn close to it. I'm not meeting anyone from this board for any reason, unless she is a known prostitute, of course. Originally Posted by DSK

There were people who just wrote reviews who did not meet any LE in person, join the league, or see K-Girls who were charged with this crime. That includes one individual who did not even post the review he wrote. He wrote the review and it was found on his computer, though it was never posted. He was still charged with felony "promotion of prostitution" and is the only man allowed to plea to a misdemeanor on the basis that he did not actually post the review. This is the equivalent of you thinking about committing a crime, not actually doing it, but still being charged with that crime.

My client which is involved in this latest "batch" of clients charged did not attend meetings with under covers, did not see K-girls or have anything to do with them, did not join the league. . .but posted 3 (non-graphic) reviews over 3 years ago. He was charged with the same felony "promotion of prostitution".

The LE involved in this case also wrote graphic reviews, encouraging others to see ladies they would later claim in the media were trafficked.

So, of the thousands and thousands of reviews posted, the police find some random guy, get a warrant to seize and search his computer, and charge him based on something that he never published outside of that computer? And, that's what they are basing their entire case on do this man? I'm sorry, but this is becoming less believable with every post.

I'm sorry, Estella, but until I see a reputable news source publish that story, or the court docs become available online, I can't just take the second hand account of one of your clients as gospel. He may be leaving out important details, or just let the cops bully him into accepting a deal because, hey, we can always drop the case if he pushes back hard enough.

That's not to say I don't appreciate the discussion, or that we should just ignore this story. KC appears to be taking an aggressive stance, and it bears watching. Our civil rights are constantly under attack, and this may be another case where prosecutors think the ends justify the means.

Lawmakers all over the country are trying to shut down websites in their fight against trafficking. They have this pesky thing called the 1st amendment that should limit their ability to go down the route travelled in other situations (see my comment regarding AML laws as one example). But that's not to say they won't try.

So what's your legal argument that "writing a review" is not an "actus reus", JL? Originally Posted by andymarksman

1. I'm not JL

2. It is covered by the 1st amendment, it is not a guilty act. Additionally, the authentication process is likely problematic. How does something I wrote on someone else's site prove I actually wrote it on my computer?
What if someone hacked my account and posted? That is why they met the people in person to authenticate.

Actually, DSK, that was my original point in this thread. Estella claims there is another set of charges on a group that wasn't part of the League. Those are the folks she claims did nothing more than write reviews. As far as I could tell (and I've not had time to research thoroughly), there has been another set of charges filed, but I couldn't find much in the way of explanation outside the blog post she cites. Originally Posted by TinMan

I believe you have reached the crux of the issue in that case. The authentication process via meeting in person for attribution of the reviews must be a critical part of it. The police meticulously filmed and recorded the actors to tie them to their reviews.

To be safe, do not meet with anyone you do not know and talk about your reviews. We all need to anonymously support anyone fighting these charges.

I'm sorry, Estella, but until I see a reputable news source publish that story, or the court docs become available online, I can't just take the second hand account of one of your clients as gospel. He may be leaving out important details, or just let the cops bully him into accepting a deal because, hey, we can always drop the case if he pushes back hard enough.

That's not to say I don't appreciate the discussion, or that we should just ignore this story. KC appears to be taking an aggressive stance, and it bears watching. Our civil rights are constantly under attack, and this may be another case where prosecutors think the ends justify the means.

Lawmakers all over the country are trying to shut down websites in their fight against trafficking. They have this pesky thing called the 1st amendment that should limit their ability to go down the route travelled in other situations (see my comment regarding AML laws as one example). But that's not to say they won't try. Originally Posted by TinMan

Perfectly stated and I completely agree.

Here is a question - what is your reaction if you see a client outside of a session and they recognize you? What if you are with people that may not know you are a provider and a client comes and says hi/tries to be friends? Is there a certain line that you don't cross?

These laws, as well as a number of others (such as certain AML statutes), are specific in their language that willful negligence is covered. Originally Posted by TinMan

So you are equating willful negligence with intent, did you vote for Hillary?

It is covered by the 1st amendment, it is not a guilty act. Originally Posted by DSK

You are well aware that writing terrorist threats on a note is not covered by the 1st amendment?