Cadence

I would also like to say that if someone calls ME then doesn't answer the phone when I call to get directions, I'm not making the trip. That does not qualify as an actual appointment if a client doesn't answer the phone to confirm, correct? Originally Posted by Allie_Kat

An appointment is defined as "an arrangement to meet someone or be somewhere at a set time". She would not ask you to drive her if she "never had an appointment".

Not making the trip without confirmation is understandable. But if there was a set time, then she has a responsibility to diligently try (more than once/more than one way) to let him know that she's not coming. If he is left waiting for her and she's not coming with no warning, then that's a NC/NS. (It is easy for someone to say "I tried to call and you didn't answer" after the fact.)

Most hobbyists will give a lady a day or two to provide an explanation. If the lady stops communicating, then that should be reported as a NC/NS.

She called him several times and wrote him e-mails. She was ready to go out there, I was ready to drive her. We were stuck sitting around waiting on him to respond. Other than that, I don't know how else she was supposed to try to contact him. Then, he wrote her a rude e-mail the next day. He obviously didn't WANT an explanation. He took the low road and offended her instead. He just wrote her off as another flakey provider which is NOT the case. I don't think he included his eccie handle so I don't know if it was Ostrich or not.
I just think that signals can get crossed, it's not always completely our faults when appointments don't go down as they are supposed to.

No offense Allie, but shouldn't SHE (Cadence) be defending herself since the appointment was made with her and not you? Its between her and Ostrich, not you and Ostrich or any other guys she MIGHT have NCNS, etc.

If she's worried about her business slowing down because of it, she'll speak up. If she doesn't, then oh well.

Normally I wouldn't put myself out there for just any provider, but Cadence is a good friend of mine and I know her to be a professional. Whoever had the appointment with her, be it Ostrich or not, they wasted my time as well since I was her ride. I'm sure we could've both found something more constructive to do then sit around waiting on someone to answer their phone or an e-mail that night.
I'm sure whenever she gets online again she will have her own say.

In keeping with the spirit of not wanting to offer offense, your admission in a public forum that you drive the lady is exposing you to potential liability in both Kansas and Missouri for promoting and facilitation. Her activity would be a misdemeanor, your driving her is a felony. Your driving her across a State line is a violation of the Mann Act (again, felony, but Federal). The "I didn't know where we were going and she doesn't have a car", defense doesn't hold water (is not a plausible defense).

I also agree that unless you've entered into a legal contract directly managing the lady, it may be better to hear from her when she has a chance to post . . .

Just a thought - something to keep in mind. I'm not trolling the situation, but sometimes less said is better.

Kisses,

- Jackie

Thanks Elena and Jackie, they posted how this should of been taken care of. This is between Cadence and Ostrich and others piled in, Elena and Jackie are just telling how it should be and what should happen.

Actually a friend of mine got arrested in Wyandotte county for facilitation, she drove someone, and it WAS a misdemeanor.

Actually a friend of mine got arrested in Wyandotte county for facilitation, she drove someone, and it WAS a misdemeanor. Originally Posted by Allie_Kat

Great! The prosecutor was an idiot or they had a good attorney! In Kansas you're right, § 21-3513, promoting prostitution is a class A person misdemeanor when the prostitute is 16 or more years of age. However, most all jurisdictions in Kansas now stack charges to include a felony charge under § 22-3901 since personal property (a vehicle) was / is involved and they want to seize the property (under nuisance abatement) - in most instances, your car is toast and you're not going to see it again once it is towed (this applies most often - however, perhaps your friend's vehicle had a large note owed on it and they would have lost it to the finance company or a private individual or it wasn't worth enough to process the paperwork). There is no provision in § 22-3901 that states the promotion has to be habitual (although it does immediately define habitual promoting after defing a single instance of promoting in the statute), it just has to be ONE instance (here is some case history [precedence] if you'd care to look it up: L. 1970, ch. 129, § 22-3901; L. 1990, ch. 114, § 1; L. 2002, ch. 18, § 1; L. 2004, ch. 1, § 4; L. 2006, ch. 194, § 11; L. 2009, ch. 32, § 43; July 1.) . . . then to top it all off, if you are charged under § 22-3901 you're looking at a charge under § 21-3302, conspiracy to commit said felony (the § 22-3901 charge), which is in itself ANOTHER felony.

Not to mention that if you provide aid to the person committing the misdemeanor (such as providing surveillance or security), that person (you, the driver) can be charged with an additional felony (if you'd like the specific citation and the case history I can provide that also) . . .

I'm not arguing that you've read the statute correctly or that your "friend" may have skated on a class A for driving . . . in most Kansas jurisdictions, just as in Missouri, they stack charges. There is a whole other discussion regarding this and similar issues in the "A Question of Legality" section here on ECCIE, but I would assume that since you feel that I was mistaken in my initial posting that you'll probably feel safe that all you are risking is a class A misdemeanor. In which case, great, the low hanging fruit always gets picked first.

In the least case scenario you've told LE that Cadence doesn't drive and if they make an appointment with her and get her to commit to the booking and she shows up, even if they leave it at a misdemeanor for her and the driver, they're still getting "two for one" - at worst, you've set her up to not be called as often for an appointment because most all gentlemen that read this board know that LE reads it more than they do (unless they are in a complete state of delusion) and now they know LE knows they're getting two for one on her and they have more reason to pay attention. So, unless she offers incall often, she might have a little too much heat follow her for most . . .

As I said, sometimes, LESS said is better, but you pushed it. Cadence could have just posted herself and none of the "driving her" issue may have ever surfaced, etc.

I've seen too much discovery to believe that in Kansas it is left as a misdemeanor very often, in fact, I'd be surprised if there wasn't an extenuating circumstance that ultimately led the prosecutor to only file the misdemeanor charge on your "friend".

I don't mean to sound harsh, but I feel that appropriate information should be disseminated. I apologize for not being more specific on how (and why) they want the driver to be charged at the felony level in Kansas in my initial response.

Sometimes, they want the driver more than the lady in the appointment. Depending on the situation, the driver is a better asset to be "developed" than the lady ("here's where I drove her last week", etc.).

Also, you say that you (as a driver) didn't know whom you were taking her to see . . . so you had no idea what you were driving into?

Kisses,

- Jackie

Let's please get this thread back on topic please. It is about a specific nc/ns not about drivers.

I'm sure whenever she gets online again she will have her own say. Originally Posted by Allie_Kat

This is an argument based on semantics, another he said and she said, but by her friend instead of her. Based on what I've read, I doubt she can say anything now that will change anyone's mind, so it might be best to apologize to ostrich and move on.

I never said that I drive her to ALL her meetings. I doubt LE will call and book an appointment with her on the off chance that they may arrest her driver as well. I don't know about all of you, but I do very rigorous screening so most of the time, I do know where I'm going and what I'm getting into. That is why I'm not worried about this possibility. But what do I know? I'm just low hanging fruit. I don't see why LE have to be brought into every thread that is posted on by a provider. We all know the risks and if we don't we can surely look them up ourselves.

I never said that I drive her to ALL her meetings. I doubt LE will call and book an appointment with her on the off chance that they may arrest her driver as well. I don't know about all of you, but I do very rigorous screening so most of the time, I do know where I'm going and what I'm getting into. That is why I'm not worried about this possibility. But what do I know? I'm just low hanging fruit. I don't see why LE have to be brought into every thread that is posted on by a provider. We all know the risks and if we don't we can surely look them up ourselves. Originally Posted by Allie_Kat

Allie, no, you didn't say you drive her to all her meetings, but you didn't say that you didn't, either. You did leave everyone with the impression that Cadence doesn't drive herself though, and I'm sorry, but Jackie's right. If you don't want to be called "low hanging fruit" (which you were not, it was stated that if you believed that all you were guilty of for driving was a misdemeanor, then yes, you'd be guilty of being "low hanging fruit" because you would be putting yourself - and another provider - Cadence -and anyone else that read your inaccurate statement and believed it, in this case - at great risk) then don't act like "low hanging fruit". You were too busy whiteknighting Cadence to realize the damage you were doing and have done. LE isn't brought up every time a provider posts on or in a thread, but when a provider - you - put people at risk by exposing things without thinking, it is wise to remind both hobbyists and providers alike that LE does indeed read this board and to think that they don't take notes is stupid.

LE looks for holes, and yes, it is totally within reason that now they will target your girl because of your posts. HELLO? Do you think they don't want EASY targets? You may have well painted it on her and walked her down Independence Avenue.

Then you go on to say that "most of the time" you do rigorous screening and know where you're going, etc. To use Jackie's words, great. So how many times does it take to get caught? ONE. And you screen well "most of the time". Those of us that REALLY know the risks screen well ALL of the time. And sweetie, we can look up the risks just as well as you, because everyone here can obviously read, but some people can't see the forest for the trees. That damn silver armor those knights wear and the glare gets in the way.

Either you are pimping her or doing her, becasue you have WAY too much an investment here. And guys aren't stupid. They know who is risky and who is not, and you're proving who is risky.

Now I see how you might be a little pissed at Jackie for her post, but ANYONE that has been around these boards for more than a minute knows that if you lay the gauntlet at Jackie on a legal matter, she's going to come out swinging, and she usually wins, becasue she doesn't talk out of the side of her ass, she was mentored by the best and she knows her stuff cold - I would have thought twice before taking that swipe, but that's just me.

Back on topic, still NOTHING from Cadence, and I would suppose as long as you're pulling the strings Allie, well, we'll never know who is really doing the posting - or the driving - I'm surprised you don't even run her appointments for her too, or do you??

Providers knighting providers, and clueless at that. Now I've seen just about everything.

PS....No male white knights need attack me and if you want to know why, just reread all the previous posts.

Even if you do screen you can have a situation like the one that occured last week where the hobbyist was leaving an appointment, questioned and then snitched the provider out. In additiion if you cross state lines driving her to an appointment you are subject to Federal charges, but personally I could care less if you listen to people who have been there, sometimes you have to learn from your own mistakes.

I'm closing this thread since no one seems to want to discuss Cadence / Ostrich any more. Feel free to start a new thread about drivers or whatever.