This has been a very good read, and I will clarify:
Jackie, you hit the nail on the head. Yes, reviews can and have been used as evidence in a trail that lead to conviction. Rules of evidence are based on the intent of the content, not the delivery or type of medium.
Someone posted: “When it comes to solicitation LE has to be involved directly at the time and in a sense witness the crime as it's occurring. I don't think they can arrest you for admitting that you solicited someone else in the past. In other words I think LE has to catch the client in the act of solicitation.”
That is absolutely not true. Please Google “Statute of Limitations “
If you think you are going to get away with implying the reviews are a fantasy, or use a fantasy defense; you will be laughed out of court. Even the worst public defender would not recommend this type of defense. Not to mention, any judge ever allowing a fantasy defense in the courtroom.
Does LE need a warrant to obtain reviews? The answer is NO, there are several Federal information acts that allow the collection, monitoring and storage of data concerning websites that promote and foster the planning of illegal activities. Through cooperation of Government agencies, the posts and reviews are routinely collected and cataloged.
Private data brokers will have old website data that was taken down years ago, and are contracted by Government agencies. If you put it on the internet, “it is in the public domain” that is a grey area, because it does not apply situations. The 4th amendment does not protect LE from buying private information from data brokers. This workaround saves LE the hassle of getting a warrant, and then requesting records from your local ISP, who in many cases only hold IP address / web surfing records for a few days.
I will disagree with one point Jackie made; I was unable to confirm reviews were used as primary evidence in a trial. Good old fashion good cop / bad cop, loading up the charges to intimidate suspects, and testimony / confessions; I found turned out convictions. The overwhelming majority of people take a plea, and do not go to trial….
Some things to remember:
District Attorneys, police, detectives, and prosecutors are allowed to do the following to get a confession or information from an individual.
1. Lie to you about, confessions / testimonies others made relating to your involvement in a suspected crime.
2. Waive evidence in front of you that is not admissible in court to intimidate you.
3. Fabricate evidence during an “interview / interrogation”
4. Lie about cutting you an immunity deal. ( if it’s not in writing you just got screwed )
5. Tell you “this is off the record” There is no such thing as “off the record”
6. Deferred Adjudication is a conviction! The arrest is not expunged; you have to petition for that separately. The conviction and arrest will show up on a background check for a minimum of 2 years for a misdemeanor, and 5 years for a felony. The reality is, the arrest and conviction are still visible for up to 10 years, and in some cases never go away depending on what type of future employment you apply for.
- something99
- 01-17-2010, 03:18 PM
- Guest072311
- 01-17-2010, 03:37 PM
This has been a very good read, and I will clarify:This and the link to the wallet "what to do" card would be great to "sticky" or at least repost in each forum?
Some things to remember:
District Attorneys, police, detectives, and prosecutors are allowed to do the following to get a confession or information from an individual.
1. Lie to you about, confessions / testimonies others made relating to your involvement in a suspected crime.
2. Waive evidence in front of you that is not admissible in court to intimidate you.
3. Fabricate evidence during an “interview / interrogation”
4. Lie about cutting you an immunity deal. ( if it’s not in writing you just got screwed )
5. Tell you “this is off the record” There is no such thing as “off the record”
6. Deferred Adjudication is a conviction! The arrest is not expunged; you have to petition for that separately. The conviction and arrest will show up on a background check for a minimum of 2 years for a misdemeanor, and 5 years for a felony. The reality is, the arrest and conviction are still visible for up to 10 years, and in some cases never go away depending on what type of future employment you apply for. Originally Posted by something99
- Guest072311
- 01-17-2010, 03:42 PM
- Guest121212
- 01-17-2010, 03:43 PM
I will disagree with one point Jackie made; I was unable to confirm reviews were used as primary evidence in a trial. Good old fashion good cop / bad cop, loading up the charges to intimidate suspects, and testimony / confessions; I found turned out convictions. Originally Posted by something99It was / is my understanding (in Arizona) that they (reviews) have only been used as primary evidence when previously affirmed (the validity of the substantive content of the review) in statements by the accused to the investigators, or confirmed to the prosecution by another source (including use of IP addresses and ISP or Website logs to corroborate), and then subsequently disclaimed by the accused at trial. There have been instances here locally (in KC, specifically, Kansas City, Kansas) where reviews have been the sole evidence provided as proof of intent and prior bad acts (as I outlined previously) but there has always been the overt act of the Escort or provider at least showing up to a call that has prompted the arrest or citation . . . it isn't as though they have been "plucked from the street" solely on a review (I apologize if I wasn't more clear in those statements or made an omission unintentionally that had led someone to draw an incorrect conclusion).
Yes, good cop / bad cop works most every time . . . that and your attorney when they look at you and say, "well, they're charging you with so much shit that it is going to cost upper five figures to defend you, take the deal or let me work out the best deal you can get".
Kisses,
- Jackie
- something99
- 01-17-2010, 04:26 PM
Jackie,
Thank you for the clarification that does make sense to me now.
Reviews would be considered “Documentary evidence” This means, the evidence documented a crime that supposedly took place. For Documentary evidence to be allowed in court, it has to be authenticated, and that is usually by testimony, eyewitness, confessions, forensics, and or computer / ISP records.
Overzealous prosecutors have taken charging suspects with multiple offenses to a new level.
Thank you for the clarification that does make sense to me now.
Reviews would be considered “Documentary evidence” This means, the evidence documented a crime that supposedly took place. For Documentary evidence to be allowed in court, it has to be authenticated, and that is usually by testimony, eyewitness, confessions, forensics, and or computer / ISP records.
Overzealous prosecutors have taken charging suspects with multiple offenses to a new level.
- jessiejeanne
- 02-08-2010, 08:31 PM
jackie has hit the spot in my book on reviews and le
knowing the risk I will be disconnecting any reviews from my web site and will request a no review policy from here on out thanks jackie you the bombshell girlie GIRLZ RULE
knowing the risk I will be disconnecting any reviews from my web site and will request a no review policy from here on out thanks jackie you the bombshell girlie GIRLZ RULE
- Guest121212
- 02-08-2010, 10:14 PM
jackie has hit the spot in my book on reviews and leDon't misunderstand my postings, I certainly feel that reviews are necessary (as I stated, previously) and I wouldn't want anyone to make a decision regarding their position on reviews based solely on my opinions. I have the luxury of having a well established client base and I work in markets where reviews (or lack of them) don't impact my regular business - this may not be true in other parts of the country . . .
knowing the risk I will be disconnecting any reviews from my web site and will request a no review policy from here on out thanks jackie you the bombshell girlie GIRLZ RULE Originally Posted by jessiejeanne
A working professional has to balance liability with exposure (in this case reviews - we didn't even touch on advertising) and decide which policy is best. There are ways you can ask for reviews to be written that would strike a balance between that which may be actionable (a review that may be detrimental) and that which would afford you the opportunity to keep receiving benefit of a "good" review without leaving you exposed . . . it is all in the wording.
Kisses,
- Jackie
- lawyerhobbyist
- 02-10-2010, 12:25 PM
Can't believe I missed this thread but I've been too busy to keep up with all my sites lately.
Lawyer with some experience speaks: First off, prostitution isn't a misdemeanor everywhere -- some places it is indeed a felony (NY and NJ come to mind immediately).
Reviews don't usually lead client hobbyists into danger but they can leave providers in some danger. Although you can't be arrested on the strength of reviews alone, LE does read forums and reviews, and often flags them to decide what providers they want to set up. (They also do the same with ad sites -- some jurisdictions target Eros, some in my area Escorts.com, and Craigslist is now monitored everywhere. I have a new client who just got busted in another jurisdiction, where LE was targeting Backpage.com.)
As for why they do this "when there are real problems to target", LE has vice squads that need something to do. Vice squads don't get to arrest terrorists, serial killers, or anything else useful; they have to prove they have a reason to exist by setting up busts, which are easier for them than bringing in child molesters and kiddie porn distributors... who are usually brought in by the feds anyway, which doesn't help the vice squad guys. Add to that election years, when the incumbent DAs want to prove they're tough on crime by getting local LE to make as many easy busts as possible.
In states where prostitution's a misdemeanor, the occasional bust is treated, properly, as an intermittent occupational hazard for providers, and sometimes easy enough to get dropped, or turned into a disorderly conduct charge. Where it's a felony, matters become much more serious.
Because explicit and/or detailed reviews give LE the most information about how to approach a specific provider, what to say/request to sound like a legitimate client, etc., the best reviews for providers are less detailed and more general, although it's not what most readers want. That's why, fpr many ladies, the best reviews are no reviews, just positive comments about them on the various forums, etc.
Do NOT be misled into believing that disclaimers ("reviews are works of fiction", etc) will protect you. They don't. There's only been one major case recently, in NY, that's accepted the "compensation is for companionship and time only, no sexual activities are implied or offered" disclaimer, either... and consider that reviews that say a provider charged $$$ and did xyz completely contradict the provider's claim in HER disclaimer that sex wasn't offered. The whole disclaimer routine is nothing more than a false sense of security -- it will NOT hold up in court most of the time.
Be careful out there.
Lawyer with some experience speaks: First off, prostitution isn't a misdemeanor everywhere -- some places it is indeed a felony (NY and NJ come to mind immediately).
Reviews don't usually lead client hobbyists into danger but they can leave providers in some danger. Although you can't be arrested on the strength of reviews alone, LE does read forums and reviews, and often flags them to decide what providers they want to set up. (They also do the same with ad sites -- some jurisdictions target Eros, some in my area Escorts.com, and Craigslist is now monitored everywhere. I have a new client who just got busted in another jurisdiction, where LE was targeting Backpage.com.)
As for why they do this "when there are real problems to target", LE has vice squads that need something to do. Vice squads don't get to arrest terrorists, serial killers, or anything else useful; they have to prove they have a reason to exist by setting up busts, which are easier for them than bringing in child molesters and kiddie porn distributors... who are usually brought in by the feds anyway, which doesn't help the vice squad guys. Add to that election years, when the incumbent DAs want to prove they're tough on crime by getting local LE to make as many easy busts as possible.
In states where prostitution's a misdemeanor, the occasional bust is treated, properly, as an intermittent occupational hazard for providers, and sometimes easy enough to get dropped, or turned into a disorderly conduct charge. Where it's a felony, matters become much more serious.
Because explicit and/or detailed reviews give LE the most information about how to approach a specific provider, what to say/request to sound like a legitimate client, etc., the best reviews for providers are less detailed and more general, although it's not what most readers want. That's why, fpr many ladies, the best reviews are no reviews, just positive comments about them on the various forums, etc.
Do NOT be misled into believing that disclaimers ("reviews are works of fiction", etc) will protect you. They don't. There's only been one major case recently, in NY, that's accepted the "compensation is for companionship and time only, no sexual activities are implied or offered" disclaimer, either... and consider that reviews that say a provider charged $$$ and did xyz completely contradict the provider's claim in HER disclaimer that sex wasn't offered. The whole disclaimer routine is nothing more than a false sense of security -- it will NOT hold up in court most of the time.
Be careful out there.
- Buonas
- 02-10-2010, 12:55 PM
this may be a little of topic, but:
Why have there never been motions to drop these arcane laws in this country?
if you think about it, the fact that there are laws such as solicitation for... put that type of service business into the realm of illegality or at least the grey zone. this in turn opens up the door for exactly the thing such laws were put into force (apart from some morality bs about lifestyle choices):
namely, to stop human trafficking and people forced into a form of slavery. the countries, where these laws were dropped and the business regulated in aspects as zoning laws, health code and so forth have far fewer issues with human trafficking and the influx of organized crime. also, the correlation between substance abuse and the sex industry is much smaller.
considering that this business creates a cash flow of up to 10% of the GDP, it is amazing that there is no interest group that is able to put motions into the parliaments.
considering that this business creates a cash flow of up to 10% of the GDP, i find it simply stupid to not regulate this as a normal business with proper safety checks put in place and miss out on the tax revenue and cost saving in terms of le having to assign resources to this and the judicial system picking up the costs for the penalties.
Why have there never been motions to drop these arcane laws in this country?
if you think about it, the fact that there are laws such as solicitation for... put that type of service business into the realm of illegality or at least the grey zone. this in turn opens up the door for exactly the thing such laws were put into force (apart from some morality bs about lifestyle choices):
namely, to stop human trafficking and people forced into a form of slavery. the countries, where these laws were dropped and the business regulated in aspects as zoning laws, health code and so forth have far fewer issues with human trafficking and the influx of organized crime. also, the correlation between substance abuse and the sex industry is much smaller.
considering that this business creates a cash flow of up to 10% of the GDP, it is amazing that there is no interest group that is able to put motions into the parliaments.
considering that this business creates a cash flow of up to 10% of the GDP, i find it simply stupid to not regulate this as a normal business with proper safety checks put in place and miss out on the tax revenue and cost saving in terms of le having to assign resources to this and the judicial system picking up the costs for the penalties.
- Gollum
- 02-10-2010, 08:12 PM
this may be a little of topic, but:I think we all agree with your sentiment, but this is another topic for another thread. Basically it all goes back to our Victorian morality (hypocritical as it is) and the excessive influence that religion has on law and politics in American society. Religion and pragmatism/common sense never go together.
Why have there never been motions to drop these arcane laws in this country?
if you think about it, the fact that there are laws such as solicitation for... put that type of service business into the realm of illegality or at least the grey zone. this in turn opens up the door for exactly the thing such laws were put into force (apart from some morality bs about lifestyle choices):
namely, to stop human trafficking and people forced into a form of slavery. the countries, where these laws were dropped and the business regulated in aspects as zoning laws, health code and so forth have far fewer issues with human trafficking and the influx of organized crime. also, the correlation between substance abuse and the sex industry is much smaller.
considering that this business creates a cash flow of up to 10% of the GDP, it is amazing that there is no interest group that is able to put motions into the parliaments.
considering that this business creates a cash flow of up to 10% of the GDP, i find it simply stupid to not regulate this as a normal business with proper safety checks put in place and miss out on the tax revenue and cost saving in terms of le having to assign resources to this and the judicial system picking up the costs for the penalties. Originally Posted by Buonas
It is more likely that marijuana will be legalized/decriminalized before prostitution ever is.
- honorable1
- 02-10-2010, 10:06 PM
I agree with every point made by lawyerhobbiest. Particularly that disclaimers, as well as other folklore such as "calling it a 'donation,' or "put in on a table instead of in my hands," etc. are not founded in law, but in ignorance and mimickry.
These laws differ from state to state and are enforced differently within each state depending on the practices and policies of law enforcement, and prosecutors in particular, in each county and city involved.
The one thing I would add, and feel rather strongly about this, is that it is not only fruitless, potentially foolhearty, but also wrong-headed to rail against the existence of these laws.
These laws, archaic though they appear to us, don't appear foolish to many, even the majority, in many places.
Even though we personally may not know many such people, and might regard their opinions with derision, they are the society that we find ourselves living in. If it's the opinion of a majority in any particular place that this activity offends them deeply, in the absence of a constitutional protection of it, then their opinon will prevail. And in a democracy maybe that's the way it should be.
The only thing that we can hope for in good faith, IMHP, is that prosecutors and police do not over-step their authority and go on crusades in which they are the law-breakers in this affair.
I have chosen to practice my hobbying in a venue where law enforcement tolerates it within certain bounds, and that's because public opinion there permits such.
These laws differ from state to state and are enforced differently within each state depending on the practices and policies of law enforcement, and prosecutors in particular, in each county and city involved.
The one thing I would add, and feel rather strongly about this, is that it is not only fruitless, potentially foolhearty, but also wrong-headed to rail against the existence of these laws.
These laws, archaic though they appear to us, don't appear foolish to many, even the majority, in many places.
Even though we personally may not know many such people, and might regard their opinions with derision, they are the society that we find ourselves living in. If it's the opinion of a majority in any particular place that this activity offends them deeply, in the absence of a constitutional protection of it, then their opinon will prevail. And in a democracy maybe that's the way it should be.
The only thing that we can hope for in good faith, IMHP, is that prosecutors and police do not over-step their authority and go on crusades in which they are the law-breakers in this affair.
I have chosen to practice my hobbying in a venue where law enforcement tolerates it within certain bounds, and that's because public opinion there permits such.
- youngatheart
- 02-10-2010, 11:38 PM
To those of you who think LE has better things to do, don't kid yourself, they don't. To those who say LE won't bother with us (the reviewer), don't kid yourself, they will. To those who think it's too much trouble to bother going after reviewer's, don't kid yourself, it's not. We have Bush and his wiretapping authority to thank for this. No one believed the free speech activists when they said there will be no more privacy, everyone will be a suspect. Guess what, they were right! Everything you write is on the net. Go ahead and search your SN on google see if your reviews show up. Been there, experienced the embarrassment.
- Buonas
- 02-11-2010, 05:00 PM
the sex industry comprises of a cash flow of 10% GDP. weed is a lot less.
just from a financial point of view my perspective is clear. legalizing weed will rise the same issues as tobacco about long term damages and the impact of THC on neurochemistry, of which we do not even understand all.
so as a word game it would make a greater stimulus package than borrowing trillions from the Chinese through shady gnomes in Zürich.
i don't think the function of a 21st century nation is to cement moral views of a certain part of society. the secularization was a step that occurred 400 years ago and one of the products of that period (renaissance, rationalism) is democracy and separation of powers. people who think that the voting plenum has a right to overturn that have not understood the basics this country is founded on and therefore are just as bad as fundamentalists in other corners of this planet.
just from a financial point of view my perspective is clear. legalizing weed will rise the same issues as tobacco about long term damages and the impact of THC on neurochemistry, of which we do not even understand all.
so as a word game it would make a greater stimulus package than borrowing trillions from the Chinese through shady gnomes in Zürich.
i don't think the function of a 21st century nation is to cement moral views of a certain part of society. the secularization was a step that occurred 400 years ago and one of the products of that period (renaissance, rationalism) is democracy and separation of powers. people who think that the voting plenum has a right to overturn that have not understood the basics this country is founded on and therefore are just as bad as fundamentalists in other corners of this planet.
- honorable1
- 02-12-2010, 01:12 PM
Illegal wiretapping since 9-11 is conducted by Federal authorities only, and they have nothing to do with enforcing vice laws in the various states.
It is well known that local authorities do illegal wiretaps, but they do so to gather information on high-value targets when putting everything they have into pursuing an investigation. They don't do this to nab a few Johns.
There can be no question but that hobbying does not comprise 10 percent of the GDP of any economy, except maybe for that of Swaziland. Similar "guessimates" about the scope of narcotics are without foundation, but it is likely that all amounts spent on enforcement of narcotics laws outweigh the financial scale of the industry itself.
I would not say that democracy is the product of the philosophic eras cited. The first Republic founded since then, this one, was intended as a Republic like Greece and Rome, with very limited participation by property-owning men ONLY. Our current democracy has more to do with the struggles for all peoples to be included since then than in the philosophic movements of the eighteenth century and before.
Come on guys, let's hear some informed opinions and facts, not ideology and fond ideas.
It is well known that local authorities do illegal wiretaps, but they do so to gather information on high-value targets when putting everything they have into pursuing an investigation. They don't do this to nab a few Johns.
There can be no question but that hobbying does not comprise 10 percent of the GDP of any economy, except maybe for that of Swaziland. Similar "guessimates" about the scope of narcotics are without foundation, but it is likely that all amounts spent on enforcement of narcotics laws outweigh the financial scale of the industry itself.
I would not say that democracy is the product of the philosophic eras cited. The first Republic founded since then, this one, was intended as a Republic like Greece and Rome, with very limited participation by property-owning men ONLY. Our current democracy has more to do with the struggles for all peoples to be included since then than in the philosophic movements of the eighteenth century and before.
Come on guys, let's hear some informed opinions and facts, not ideology and fond ideas.
- Buonas
- 02-12-2010, 03:39 PM
regarding the global impact of the sex industry:
http://sisyphe.org/article.php3?id_article=965
http://sisyphe.org/spip.php?article2475
GDP and sex industry:
http://www.aegis.com/news/ips/1998/IP980803.html
http://www.morssglobalfinance.com/ti...-sex-industry/
there are no studies of the ratio of GDP to revenues generated in the sex industry.
estimates are between 2 - 14% depending on various factors. the higher end being in developing countries in south east Asia.
my guesstimate of 10% is therefore too high for the US and the EU.
for Europe, because i know that situation better, i would estimate 6% and the US probably lower. I suggest 4 - 5%.
as to the cash flow regarding narcotics, the reference to morssglobalfinance has a list of numbers. it is around 2 trillion annually. I do not believe that expenditures to enforce narcotics laws exceeds that. as I said, the subject then becomes off topic.
ditto regarding the origin of democracy. my country was founded in 1291 and it can be argued that it is the first modern form of democracy. if one says that the declaration off independence is the foundation of the US, then 1776 is the beginning of democracy here. European countries that are NOT constitutional monarchies implemented their democratic constitutions in the mid-19th century or then after WW2.
looking at the philosophical development, I find that the ideology that is the basis of the founders of the US is the Age of Enlightenment. Technically the current political form of this country is a representative Democracy.
what I say refers to my view of how the constitution of this country was born. I believe that you, honorable1 and me can agree on this statement.
I disagree on what you say regarding Greece and Rome being the intent of the foundation of the US:
Antique Greece was an assembly of city states where only noblemen had voting rights. the laws of the US have specific checks that prevented the establishment of aristocracy. this is a result of the founding fathers traveling through Europe and seeing the state of decadence aristocracy instilled on the rest of the public in Europe.
Only roman noblemen with citizenship in the city of Rome had voting rights during the republican period of Rome. with the rise of emperors to absolute power (starting with Gaius Iulius Caesar) Rome became a centrally ruled empire.
I believe that you and me can agree that the US is not an empire with the president having absolute power and that that never was the intent of the founders.
If that were true, all the Americans losing their lives on the battlefields of Europe in the 40s would have died for nothing.
and I would probably not have been born because my parents would not have fit the racial rules for marriage under Nazi rule.
http://sisyphe.org/article.php3?id_article=965
http://sisyphe.org/spip.php?article2475
GDP and sex industry:
http://www.aegis.com/news/ips/1998/IP980803.html
http://www.morssglobalfinance.com/ti...-sex-industry/
there are no studies of the ratio of GDP to revenues generated in the sex industry.
estimates are between 2 - 14% depending on various factors. the higher end being in developing countries in south east Asia.
my guesstimate of 10% is therefore too high for the US and the EU.
for Europe, because i know that situation better, i would estimate 6% and the US probably lower. I suggest 4 - 5%.
as to the cash flow regarding narcotics, the reference to morssglobalfinance has a list of numbers. it is around 2 trillion annually. I do not believe that expenditures to enforce narcotics laws exceeds that. as I said, the subject then becomes off topic.
ditto regarding the origin of democracy. my country was founded in 1291 and it can be argued that it is the first modern form of democracy. if one says that the declaration off independence is the foundation of the US, then 1776 is the beginning of democracy here. European countries that are NOT constitutional monarchies implemented their democratic constitutions in the mid-19th century or then after WW2.
looking at the philosophical development, I find that the ideology that is the basis of the founders of the US is the Age of Enlightenment. Technically the current political form of this country is a representative Democracy.
what I say refers to my view of how the constitution of this country was born. I believe that you, honorable1 and me can agree on this statement.
I disagree on what you say regarding Greece and Rome being the intent of the foundation of the US:
Antique Greece was an assembly of city states where only noblemen had voting rights. the laws of the US have specific checks that prevented the establishment of aristocracy. this is a result of the founding fathers traveling through Europe and seeing the state of decadence aristocracy instilled on the rest of the public in Europe.
Only roman noblemen with citizenship in the city of Rome had voting rights during the republican period of Rome. with the rise of emperors to absolute power (starting with Gaius Iulius Caesar) Rome became a centrally ruled empire.
I believe that you and me can agree that the US is not an empire with the president having absolute power and that that never was the intent of the founders.
If that were true, all the Americans losing their lives on the battlefields of Europe in the 40s would have died for nothing.
and I would probably not have been born because my parents would not have fit the racial rules for marriage under Nazi rule.