LE and Reviews

Speaking as a well reviewed lady I will say that I am paid for my time and companionship only. There is a joke in the hobby that you don't pay for the companionship itself, what you're paying for is for the lady in question to go away and not bother you afterward. This thread may cause me to amend that joke to something along the lines of, "You're not paying for companionship, you're paying for me to not bother you afterward *and* for permission to write whatever you please in your review of me." In other words, you're paying for the right to tell whatever fanciful story your little heart desires because as we all know, providers can't access the details of the reviews anyway, right? It's something akin to the humor I use while dancing and am asked if there is really "Sex in the champagne room." My reply is invariably "No but for 300.00 you can come out here and tell everyone that there was."

. . . because as we all know, providers can't access the details of the reviews anyway, right? Originally Posted by wynterstark

You owe me for a new keyboard as I laughed so hard the soda I was drinking just flew out of my nose . . . okay, I should have never have written that, just wait, I'll get a PM with someone saying that is a fetish they have . . .

Yes, we NEVER know the details . . . "yeah, that's the ticket".

Kisses,

- Jackie

I often joke with my photographer that we're going to start a website called 'It's somebody's fetish.com" and just put the strangest things that we can think of on that site. It's bound to be a money maker even if people only subscribe out of sheer morbid curiosity right? In my time as a dancer I will say that I've seen more strange "fetishes" than I can possibly count. I've run into a man that would bring pepper into the club because his idea of a good time was getting the stripper to start sneezing, I've seen men come in regularly and beg the strippers to beat them, men that wanted to be trampled, be allowed to brush you hair, play with your feet and eat fruit that you had walked on. I'm of the opinion that there is very little to do with the sexual industry that would faze me if I heard it was indeed somebody's fetish. I think that the reason I do so well in this industry is in part that it all fascinates me and I try to keep a marvelous sense of humor about it all. Why bother getting pissed off when you can laugh about it instead? If the worst thing to happen to me all day is a man at a strip club asks me if he can lick my shoes... well then it's probably going to be a pretty good day for me, eh?

"Instances of convictions based SOLELY on a review (of both the client and the Escort) exist now as precedent in cases related to that specific "incident".

Man, that is hard to believe. Did the girls just plead out or did those cases actually go to trial? I guess it is Maricopa after all and Arpiao doesnt play around!

I know some clients were convicted for supplying favorable reviews in exchange for reduced rates. The DA equated this as an exchange of sex for "something of value", in this case the valuable review. Other clients were pulled in because they were accused of working in concert with the girls by writing reviews and promoting them online and BCD. I guess LE claimed this blurrred the line between client and pimp/promoter.

It would be interesting to read some of the material from the case versus news hype, I mean "reports".

"Instances of convictions based SOLELY on a review (of both the client and the Escort) exist now as precedent in cases related to that specific "incident".

Man, that is hard to believe. Did the girls just plead out or did those cases actually go to trial? I guess it is Maricopa after all and Arpiao doesnt play around!

I know some clients were convicted for supplying favorable reviews in exchange for reduced rates. The DA equated this as an exchange of sex for "something of value", in this case the valuable review. Other clients were pulled in because they were accused of working in concert with the girls by writing reviews and promoting them online and BCD. I guess LE claimed this blurrred the line between client and pimp/promoter.

It would be interesting to read some of the material from the case versus news hype, I mean "reports". Originally Posted by Dstorm

As hard as it may be to believe, it is true . . . I won't "out" a provider or a client by naming names (I am after all, in the business of keeping secrets, as a professional choice) . . . you can easily do minor legwork yourself, and matters of public record are matters of public record . . . the names are published and the case histories are online. You can even get them to send you the complete transcripts of a trial electronically for a small fee.

I have a direct connection (through family, by marriage - my aunt's husband - not mine, I relieved myself of my husband long ago) to one of the defendants . . . there have been convictions arising from Desert Divas that have been both plea arrangements and guilty verdicts at several trials. At trial, regardless of the remuneration for the favorable review, convictions were obtained by admission that the writing of the review (which was worded as a "dream") was actually an accounting of an overt act . . that's the kicker . . . a lot of gentlemen writing these reviews will roll right over when offered immunity (or admission of guilt to a lesser charge) and a chance to keep their name out of the paper and affirm the review was a detailed accounting of an act of prostitution, which, of course, results in the conviction of the lady. There were / are at least two instances that went to trial in that county that in which both the client and provider disclaimed the review and were found to have been guilty of conspiracy to commit prostitution by a jury of their peers, regardless of their testimony that the act never took place - the pattern of reviews was enough for the jury to convict. For the most past though, people are people and they take the path of least resistance - they'll roll, you can't blame them . . . but had the review not been written initially, the prosecutor's office would have had no accounting of an act to investigate, no IP record to subpoena and no way to trace the review to the source.

If you followed the KC forums on ASPD or some of the national boards you probably ran into or read a posting by Master Dennis (Handsome Dennis) owner of Plaza Escorts who passed away in November of this last year. He had numerous newsletter entries and postings following that case and others in various jurisdictions . . . Dennis was a strong proponent of no review policies (or stricter guidelines regarding what statements should be used in a review) . . and some would argue for good reason - others would argue Dennis' tin foil hat was too tight . . . but they never got him on RICO, and it was acknowledged (by LE) after his death that his Agency having an NRP was a primary consideration to not attempt the prosecution (well, attempt it again - he beat them once).

Maricopa County isn't the only jurisdiction where a review has been the basis for prosecution - in fact, as I posted in a thread here on eccie.net in the KC forum, the Unified Government of Wyandotte County, Kansas City, Kansas (KCKPD) will routinely will clip a girl for simply walking into an outcall based SOLELY on reviews as prior bad acts and charge her with intent (conspiracy) to commit prostitution (in some instances conspiracy carries a heftier weight turning a simple misdemeanor into a felony). This has occurred even in instances when the lady has never even spoken to the "client" LEO - it was an outcall screened and arranged by a call taker and passed as an Agency booking. Rules of evidence in their county allow questions about prior bad acts of a witness to impeach credibility where, in the court's discretion, they are probative of truthfulness (in this case, a review). Of course, the lady will disclaim the review, however, if the lady denies the act, it may be proved by other evidence (a different review) - as the act to be proved has some relevance to the case that is independent of its bearing on credibility. There is "at trial" precedence, subsequently upheld (affirmed) on appeal of prosecutors successfully doing just that . . . obtaining (winning) a guilty verdict based SOLELY on a review (or patterned series of reviews).

Reviews are a double edged sword for everyone involved . . . and perhaps a necessary evil, but one that a professional can limit and manage her risk by tightly controlling or limiting their number. We all assume a bit of exposure in this endeavor . . . to think otherwise is folly and you should get out now if you feel immune (I'm not directing that comment at you Dstorm, I am just making an observation).

Stay safe!

Kisses,

- Jackie

Very interesting indeed. The local climate, at least at this time, is not that aggressive. Gents are routinely let walk after a simple check for warrants, if that, when found in an AMP or spa that is busted.
Even in strips clubs, when BCD is going down, LE seems more interested in busting the girl than the guy.
That's why I try to stay on top of whats going on, so if it changes I can know what I need to do to stay safe.
I am always interested in LE/DA procedures and what is the "minimum" you need to do to be on the wrong side of LE.
I have heard in Vegas that girls just showing up to an outcall client can be busted based on their ads, even if they seem tame compared to Houston, and even if the girl never saw the ad and was dispatched by an agency or call center.
I see KC is on the same frequency.
Thanks for the information Jackie.

I have heard in Vegas that girls just showing up to an outcall client can be busted based on their ads, even if they seem tame compared to Houston, and even if the girl never saw the ad and was dispatched by an agency or call center.
I see KC is on the same frequency.
Thanks for the information Jackie. Originally Posted by Dstorm

Vegas (where I occasionally find myself as I contract for a referral Agency there) is a WHOLE other thread . . . they are notoriously changing the "rules of engagement" when it comes to prosecuting this endeavor. For a time last year, they even began waiving issuance of citation - basically ignoring the hobby all-together - and then they went right back to their old ways, but with more enthusiasm.

You do bring up another valid issue, away from the discussion of reviews, and it may be a great topic for its own thread . . . and that is the use of "terms" and "acronyms" specific to the hobby in an advertisement. Here locally (greater KC metro) it is not at all uncommon for a lady to suffer arrest for placing acronyms (GFE, etc.) in her advertisement and then show up for a call . .

The climate in KC right now is very, very cold. And it isn't just the snow on the ground outside my window.

Thank you for sharing a bit of insight into how things are to the south . . maybe a road trip is in order.

Kisses,

- Jackie

Interesting thread, I had no idea that in some parts of the country they actually have used reviews to arrest the provider and/or the client. The big question I have is how did they find out about the client?

Did LE trace his IP and get his personal info from his Internet Service Provider? Getting the client's info from an ISP is a lot of trouble and most ISPs don't give out that kind of info easily.

In Pittsburgh LE isn't that aggressive or creative. Occassionally they will bust providers. They make it a point to do it around election time, but other than that it's not that often. Other than a streetwalker sting I can't remember ever hearing about clients getting busted.

I'm sure there's still a risk because you never know when some DA is going to get creative. I guess the amount of risk really does depend on your specific area.

At what point does a review cross the line and become evidence? I've seen some reviews that read like a letter to Penthouse, while other reviews were very vague and didn't provide any specific details about the session.

Do they need specific details or known acromyms to use a review as evidence? Or do they just assume that some type of sex ocurred because it's a review on a provider review site?

What if location, price, session length, and description of the girl were given but no specific details about the session? Just comments like I had a really good time and enjoyed the session or I didn't enjoy the session, she had a bad attitude. Could that be used as evidence?

Personally I don't need specific details or blow by blow accounts. I usually skip over the letters to Penthouse and just look for the bottom line in reviews.

As I sit and ponder this thread and the many like it I've seen in the past...I have some thoughts that eluded me before.

Wouldn't the sources best suited to chime in on this question be any of the moderators, administrators, and/or owners of this site? From their infinite wisdom and experience on this and whatever other boards they cut their teeth on, wouldn't they know how often, if ever, a subpoena is presented to obtain identifying records and information on its members? Am I correct in my assumption that the only way for outside sources to obtain this type of information is to present a subpoena or related court order to those powers that be (owners, admin, mods)?

I have no legal background, and I don't know what information they would be at liberty to discuss. I'm also certain that we won't hear specific details of these situations, however, I just think it would be great to hear what type of advise our fearless leaders would/could provide on the subject from their unique perspective.

I don't know what you people talking about here ??? No one watch TV ??
Cops have much more thing to do then go after hobby or marijuana. Country is in recession, 2 wars , crime , terrorism and you think they spending OUR tax money on sites like this .... No way that will not be responsible government.

Yeah right

As I sit and ponder this thread and the many like it I've seen in the past...I have some thoughts that eluded me before.

Wouldn't the sources best suited to chime in on this question be any of the moderators, administrators, and/or owners of this site? From their infinite wisdom and experience on this and whatever other boards they cut their teeth on, wouldn't they know how often, if ever, a subpoena is presented to obtain identifying records and information on its members? Am I correct in my assumption that the only way for outside sources to obtain this type of information is to present a subpoena or related court order to those powers that be (owners, admin, mods)?

I have no legal background, and I don't know what information they would be at liberty to discuss. I'm also certain that we won't hear specific details of these situations, however, I just think it would be great to hear what type of advise our fearless leaders would/could provide on the subject from their unique perspective. Originally Posted by lionheart

That would be interesting indeed. Often a subpoena is accompanied by an order not to divulge that one was issued or what was obtained. Especially in criminal scenarios.
There isnot alot a board could do to not turn over info. Stall with a motion to quash, but that would only buy you some time.
Keeping minimal records and encouraging anonymity would be better options.

That would be interesting indeed. Often a subpoena is accompanied by an order not to divulge that one was issued or what was obtained. Especially in criminal scenarios.
There isnot alot a board could do to not turn over info. Stall with a motion to quash, but that would only buy you some time.
Keeping minimal records and encouraging anonymity would be better options. Originally Posted by Dstorm

From intel we have been able to gather locally here in KC, LE doesn't necessarily even ever approach the Website for logs. They go to the ISP (whoever is providing the hosting or the port access for the line). Platte County, Missouri's sheriff has a very active computer unit (they actually do a lot of good taking pedophiles and trafficking victims off the streets) and a few documents on their standard operating procedures were leaked last year.

It is really this simple (this is how they did it to ASPD) - they take the time stamp on the review, contact the upstream ISP for a log of all IP addresses routed to that server or down that pipe at that specific time . . they wash those through a geotagged database and use other resources to narrow down to within usually four or five IP addresses that may have been responsible for the posting. They then contact those respective ISPs specific to those IP addresses they suspect and ask for subscriber information. They then look for someone with a prior or in a database on a watch list, etc. (client, provider, etc.) and then they drive to their house and knock on the door. Amazing what a gentleman will say when his child answers and Mommy is looking from behind the curtains while uniformed officers are on the lawn.

It sucks, big time, but it happens - and the Website never knows . . the ISP is a common carrier, they cannot by law make LE's request known to the Website.

So, we in the know all KNOW it is (can) be happening . . . a site owner or mod is oblivious to the machinations of LE in most cases.

Of course, not all jurisdictions are as savvy as we may have here in the KC area and other jurisdictions may not have the resources or manpower to investigate things as they do here - but departments are sharing info and techniques . . . it is easier and more cost effective for them everyday.

Do I believe it happens regularly, no. Does it happen, absolutely. Will they do this to support just one case hit or miss, no, probably not - but in support of a larger investigation, I've read discovery where they have done just as I have outlined.

Kisses,

- Jackie

From intel we have been able to gather locally here in KC, LE doesn't necessarily even ever approach the Website for logs. They go to the ISP (whoever is providing the hosting or the port access for the line). Platte County, Missouri's sheriff has a very active computer unit (they actually do a lot of good taking pedophiles and trafficking victims off the streets) and a few documents on their standard operating procedures were leaked last year.

It is really this simple (this is how they did it to ASPD) - they take the time stamp on the review, contact the upstream ISP for a log of all IP addresses routed to that server or down that pipe at that specific time . . they wash those through a geotagged database and use other resources to narrow down to within usually four or five IP addresses that may have been responsible for the posting. They then contact those respective ISPs specific to those IP addresses they suspect and ask for subscriber information. They then look for someone with a prior or in a database on a watch list, etc. (client, provider, etc.) and then they drive to their house and knock on the door. Amazing what a gentleman will say when his child answers and Mommy is looking from behind the curtains while uniformed officers are on the lawn.

It sucks, big time, but it happens - and the Website never knows . . the ISP is a common carrier, they cannot by law make LE's request known to the Website.

So, we in the know all KNOW it is (can) be happening . . . a site owner or mod is oblivious to the machinations of LE in most cases.

Of course, not all jurisdictions are as savvy as we may have here in the KC area and other jurisdictions may not have the resources or manpower to investigate things as they do here - but departments are sharing info and techniques . . . it is easier and more cost effective for them everyday.

Do I believe it happens regularly, no. Does it happen, absolutely. Will they do this to support just one case hit or miss, no, probably not - but in support of a larger investigation, I've read discovery where they have done just as I have outlined.

Kisses,

- Jackie Originally Posted by jackie@sintropolis

Seems like a helluva lot of work for a Class B misdemeanor. I'm sorry, but I can't see a police department expending that amount of time, money and effort to issue one, low-level citation. If they're coming after you that aggressively, its because they suspect something else, narcotics, organized crime, violence, etc.

Maybe they have that kind of time and boredom in KC to actively pursue low-level offenses and, like I said before, I don't doubt that the capabilities exist. But its costly in terms of funding and man-hours, and the pay-off is the issuance of one Class B misdemeanor?

I'm not trying to be cavalier about this. Obviously caution and discretion are the key to a long and happy hobbying life. I would never endorse any course of action that I thought would lead to trouble for anyone.

From intel we have been able to gather locally here in KC, LE doesn't necessarily even ever approach the Website for logs. They go to the ISP (whoever is providing the hosting or the port access for the line). Platte County, Missouri's sheriff has a very active computer unit (they actually do a lot of good taking pedophiles and trafficking victims off the streets) and a few documents on their standard operating procedures were leaked last year.

It is really this simple (this is how they did it to ASPD) - they take the time stamp on the review, contact the upstream ISP for a log of all IP addresses routed to that server or down that pipe at that specific time . . they wash those through a geotagged database and use other resources to narrow down to within usually four or five IP addresses that may have been responsible for the posting. They then contact those respective ISPs specific to those IP addresses they suspect and ask for subscriber information. They then look for someone with a prior or in a database on a watch list, etc. (client, provider, etc.) and then they drive to their house and knock on the door. Amazing what a gentleman will say when his child answers and Mommy is looking from behind the curtains while uniformed officers are on the lawn.

It sucks, big time, but it happens - and the Website never knows . . the ISP is a common carrier, they cannot by law make LE's request known to the Website.

So, we in the know all KNOW it is (can) be happening . . . a site owner or mod is oblivious to the machinations of LE in most cases.

Of course, not all jurisdictions are as savvy as we may have here in the KC area and other jurisdictions may not have the resources or manpower to investigate things as they do here - but departments are sharing info and techniques . . . it is easier and more cost effective for them everyday.

Do I believe it happens regularly, no. Does it happen, absolutely. Will they do this to support just one case hit or miss, no, probably not - but in support of a larger investigation, I've read discovery where they have done just as I have outlined.

Kisses,

- Jackie Originally Posted by jackie@sintropolis

That would be one way around involving the site and tipping your hat that LE activity is going on.
As Enderwiggin mentioned, it does seem like alot of trouble for a class B, but it's doable from a tech standpoint and could definitely get you a ride downtown from a legal standpoint. Good info to know and take into consideration.
Perhaps KC's Tech crimes unit is willing to go the extra mile for a bigger budget or bragging rights. You also have to factor in community wants and DA aggresiveness. If the community does not care about something even if it's illegal (like homosexuality in Texas pre Lawrence), you wont see the DA going after it hard, because juries will likely give the defendant a walk. Cops wont pursue cases a DA wont prosecute, because it wastes their resources. Why bust someone to have the charges dropped?
Jackie, you are just a treasure trove of info! I am a fan of topics like this and hopefully there will be more of them in the future. A popular service was busted here last year and I was able to read a .pdf of the search warrant and arrest warrant that someone obtained. It was a treasure trove of info on how things realy went down and it was interesting.
Unfortunately, there are still girls out there that think if the ask a guy if he's LE, and he is he has to tell them!! I used to try to explain why that was crap, but realized it was useless, so I just play along and tell them they are right.

Jackie,

"It is really this simple (this is how they did it to ASPD) - they take the time stamp on the review, contact the upstream ISP for a log of all IP addresses routed to that server or down that pipe at that specific time . . they wash those through a geotagged database and use other resources to narrow down to within usually four or five IP addresses that may have been responsible for the posting. They then contact those respective ISPs specific to those IP addresses they suspect and ask for subscriber information. They then look for someone with a prior or in a database on a watch list, etc. (client, provider, etc.) and then they drive to their house and knock on the door. Amazing what a gentleman will say when his child answers and Mommy is looking from behind the curtains while uniformed officers are on the lawn."

I'm not questioning your information, I'm just trying to understand the process.

The first question that comes to mind is why don't these review sites stop time stamping reviews? Instead of stamping the review as 01/10/2010 7:45pm, why not just stamp it with the date 01/10/2010? That would at least make it much more difficult to trace. Or even just have a policy of stamping it with the week that it was posted (01/03/2010 thru 01/09/2010). It sounds like the timestamping by the review site is the major problem here.

Another question is about the IP addresses that they narrow it down to. If me and 30 other people in Pittsburgh are viewing ECCIE at a certain time and someone else from Pittsburgh posts a review at that time then how would they know which of the 32 people posted that particular review unless they got the review site logs?

It seems like they wouldn't be able to narrow it down that much, wouldn't they have to question all 32 people? Even then they wouldn't know who posted the review unless the person confessed. Is that the key element, harassing clients in the hope that they will confess? It really seems like unless they contact the review web site and get their logs then there's no way to definitively identify the reviewer unless they confess.

It seems like a lot of legwork for LE and to identify 1 reviewer they would have to potentially embarrass 31 others in the process.

Like someone else pointed out, if the cops show up to question you just say nothing. It's your right and it's also the best thing you can do in that situation. I saw a lecture in a law class, part of it was given by a cop, he actually gave that same advice.