-- Woody Allen
- theaustinescorts
- 10-20-2010, 08:14 PM
I wouldn't want to belong to any club who would have me as a member.
-- Woody Allen
-- Woody Allen
- Guest120311-2
- 10-20-2010, 08:34 PM
I can never find a thing to wear! 
Tess
Tess
- John_TX
- 10-20-2010, 08:50 PM
my response to the questions asked, i hope this is not off-topic.
if my memory serves me correctly, we are currently in a mid-term election cycle. in fact we are like 2 weeks out from the elections, some of which are Sheriff's, not to mention the Gubernatiorial one. so if there was political pressure to bust a party in the past, why not one right now? makes great headlines.
Vice does not issue liquor licenses, the TABC does. Besides, a licensed alcohol premise (public or private club) can be inspected by any law enforcement officer at any time with or without a warrant. Why would they compromise their "undercover" operation by contacting the venue's management in advance? They can simply walk in the door because the law allows them to (see below). simple as that. sounds like a bunch of nonsense.
Source cites:
32.17 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code
http://law.onecle.com/texas/alcoholic/32.12.00.html
61.71 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code
http://law.onecle.com/texas/alcoholic/61.71.00.html
http://law.onecle.com/texas/alcoholic/101.04.00.html
So when did the door folks actually receive your guest list and when did they presumably hand it over to LE? By your account, LE did not show up until 8:20. 20 minutes later the bust occurred and somehow they knew who the 15 most responsible persons were, or the persons they were looking to question, and separated them? How did they know the faces of these people? Only three plausible explanations here:
1. They already had undercovers inside and figured out whose ASPD handle was who and radioed, text messaged, or phoned someone outside the 15 people's physical descriptions. - POSSIBLE, but if the undercovers were already inside why did they try to get more in who didn't pass muster?
2. Within the 20 minutes attempting to sneak in, they figured out ASPD handle (or name on the list) and somehow matched names to faces for 15 people, and disseminated that information to 25 officers who participated in the raid, all in 20 minutes. - NOT VERY POSSIBLE, too quick to collect and disseminate that information and to figure who they were really looking for.
3. Vice has been working ASPD all along and got wind of the social. They figured they would have a bunch of people they were already looking for in one room at one time and with their guard down - an easy bust. So they got search warrants to ASPD.net, got your posting handle's IP address, and figured out through the internet service provider the real names of the people they were actually looking for. Then with that they got your DPS Driver License photo or mugshot from a jail you had previously visited. - MOST POSSIBLE, this was a targeted event.
The point I am trying to make is that it doesn't matter how good the screening is, the police have right-of-entry into any public or private club if it's an alcohol establishment, and if it's not, but a place generally open to the public (say a restaurant that serves no alcohol), they have the right to perform a premise check without a warrant. Given the fact that scenario #3 above was the most likely scenario, they were indeed working a criminal investigation (reinforced by the fact that when they raided the place their faces were covered, so as not to compromise their undercover identity when they are attending future socials). They can easily get a search warrant for the premises - if you knew only how easy it is to get a search warrant signed. Even a city magistrate who is a licensed attorney can sign a search warrant (see Article 18.01 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure).
Just furthering my statement that the police aren't concerned with WHAT they can prove at the time of arrest. That is up to the prosecutor's office. So they arrested 12 and only 1 took a plea. That is a low conviction rate, and of course you'd think not worth their time to pay 25 police officers to make such a fruitless bust. Again, demonstrating my point that the police aren't overly concerned about whether or not a charge will stick. If you're one of the unlucky few you had to post bail, probably got your name in the news, and then had to hire an attorney to get yourself out of legal trouble. The cops can be wrong and the system simply drops the charge. You only have to be accused of wrongdoing once to ruin your life, both financially and socially. And remember the arrest stays on your criminal history forever - dropped or not. Anyone with publicdata.com can see that you've been arrested and for what. Not good when you are trying to get a job that requires a security clearance or background check. How do you explain that?
CK, the rules can only minimize the chance of the location leaking out to the wrong people. It cannot make it foolproof, and we both acknowledge the risk of attending. Remember, the police can raid with or without a warrant as they see fit (with a warrant if they can get a judge to sign a search warrant). The fact that you haven't been caught since Dec. 2009 (less than 12 months) doesn't mean you won't get caught again. Ask a true statistician what the odds are that you will not get busted at the next event? Does your prior track record of not getting caught play into those odds? As an example ask yourself the odds of the ball landing on red or black at a roulette table. Red can be busted, black can be not busted. If the ball has landed on black 100 times in a row, what are the odds on the next roll that the ball will land on red? Answer: 1 in 2 (assuming there is no green). Meaning, the odds of the ball landing on red or black on the NEXT roll have nothing to do (probability-wise) with the past 100 results.
In your example in Dec. 2009, by your own statistics of the dispositions of the 12 arrests, they sure as hell almost got zero results. They got one due to a plea bargain and got a deferred at that. So by your own example, your statement here is incorrect.
LE is not so dumb as to run a raid with visibly present officers. Your incident in Dec 2009 is such an example of how they would not do so.
How do you know that they didn't want to be there, did you ask them or did they tell you? They had their intended several targets, and ask yourself, how did they single these 15 targets out in advance? They didn't just run in and pick out a random 15. Those 25 officers made a decision to kick out the rest, but they could have easily detained everyone and made everyone produce ID. It was their option to kick everyone out, and I'm sure people ran like hell.
As for the other portions about CK's past on ASPD, they are deemed off-topic so no need to respond.
Some politico ordered vice to bust us. Originally Posted by ck1942
if my memory serves me correctly, we are currently in a mid-term election cycle. in fact we are like 2 weeks out from the elections, some of which are Sheriff's, not to mention the Gubernatiorial one. so if there was political pressure to bust a party in the past, why not one right now? makes great headlines.
Vice told the licensed "after hours'" venue that their liquor license would be compromised by LE if they didn't let LEOs in undercover to see what was going on. Originally Posted by ck1942
Vice does not issue liquor licenses, the TABC does. Besides, a licensed alcohol premise (public or private club) can be inspected by any law enforcement officer at any time with or without a warrant. Why would they compromise their "undercover" operation by contacting the venue's management in advance? They can simply walk in the door because the law allows them to (see below). simple as that. sounds like a bunch of nonsense.
Source cites:
32.17 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code
http://law.onecle.com/texas/alcoholic/32.12.00.html
§ 32.12. INSPECTION OF PREMISES. The acceptance of a private club registration permit constitutes an express agreement and consent on the part of the private club that any authorized representative of the commission or any peace officer has the right and privilege to freely enter the club premises at any time to conduct an investigation or to inspect the premises for the purpose of performing a duty imposed by this code.
61.71 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code
http://law.onecle.com/texas/alcoholic/61.71.00.html
§ 61.71. GROUNDS FOR CANCELLATION OR SUSPENSION: RETAIL DEALER. (a) The commission or administrator may suspend for not more than 60 days or cancel an original or renewal retail dealer's on- or off-premise license if it is found, after notice and hearing, that the licensee:
...101.04 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code
(14) refused to permit or interfered with an inspection of the licensed premises by an authorized representative of the commission or a peace officer;
http://law.onecle.com/texas/alcoholic/101.04.00.html
§ 101.04. CONSENT TO INSPECTION. By accepting a license or permit, the holder consents that the commission, an authorized representative of the commission, or a peace officer may enter the licensed premises at any time to conduct an investigation or inspect the premises for the purpose of performing any duty imposed by this code.
Since the venue was collecting all of the door fee, their door folks had our list and the hosts were inside enjoying. Originally Posted by ck1942
So when did the door folks actually receive your guest list and when did they presumably hand it over to LE? By your account, LE did not show up until 8:20. 20 minutes later the bust occurred and somehow they knew who the 15 most responsible persons were, or the persons they were looking to question, and separated them? How did they know the faces of these people? Only three plausible explanations here:
1. They already had undercovers inside and figured out whose ASPD handle was who and radioed, text messaged, or phoned someone outside the 15 people's physical descriptions. - POSSIBLE, but if the undercovers were already inside why did they try to get more in who didn't pass muster?
2. Within the 20 minutes attempting to sneak in, they figured out ASPD handle (or name on the list) and somehow matched names to faces for 15 people, and disseminated that information to 25 officers who participated in the raid, all in 20 minutes. - NOT VERY POSSIBLE, too quick to collect and disseminate that information and to figure who they were really looking for.
3. Vice has been working ASPD all along and got wind of the social. They figured they would have a bunch of people they were already looking for in one room at one time and with their guard down - an easy bust. So they got search warrants to ASPD.net, got your posting handle's IP address, and figured out through the internet service provider the real names of the people they were actually looking for. Then with that they got your DPS Driver License photo or mugshot from a jail you had previously visited. - MOST POSSIBLE, this was a targeted event.
The point I am trying to make is that it doesn't matter how good the screening is, the police have right-of-entry into any public or private club if it's an alcohol establishment, and if it's not, but a place generally open to the public (say a restaurant that serves no alcohol), they have the right to perform a premise check without a warrant. Given the fact that scenario #3 above was the most likely scenario, they were indeed working a criminal investigation (reinforced by the fact that when they raided the place their faces were covered, so as not to compromise their undercover identity when they are attending future socials). They can easily get a search warrant for the premises - if you knew only how easy it is to get a search warrant signed. Even a city magistrate who is a licensed attorney can sign a search warrant (see Article 18.01 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure).
Of the 15, 12 were taken downtown. 2 were agency girls here illegally and they were deported. Of the remainder, to my personal knowledge, one has pleaded out (deferred adjudication) and ALL of the rest of the cases have been dismissed. Originally Posted by ck1942
Just furthering my statement that the police aren't concerned with WHAT they can prove at the time of arrest. That is up to the prosecutor's office. So they arrested 12 and only 1 took a plea. That is a low conviction rate, and of course you'd think not worth their time to pay 25 police officers to make such a fruitless bust. Again, demonstrating my point that the police aren't overly concerned about whether or not a charge will stick. If you're one of the unlucky few you had to post bail, probably got your name in the news, and then had to hire an attorney to get yourself out of legal trouble. The cops can be wrong and the system simply drops the charge. You only have to be accused of wrongdoing once to ruin your life, both financially and socially. And remember the arrest stays on your criminal history forever - dropped or not. Anyone with publicdata.com can see that you've been arrested and for what. Not good when you are trying to get a job that requires a security clearance or background check. How do you explain that?
We have since then, had several gatherings in Houston, more than 15 in San Antonio, a half-dozen in Austin (there will be another Austin event in November), and I have attended more close to 10 events sponsored by others in Houston, Corpus and elsewhere. With nary an issue, because those who attend closely follow the rules. Originally Posted by ck1942
CK, the rules can only minimize the chance of the location leaking out to the wrong people. It cannot make it foolproof, and we both acknowledge the risk of attending. Remember, the police can raid with or without a warrant as they see fit (with a warrant if they can get a judge to sign a search warrant). The fact that you haven't been caught since Dec. 2009 (less than 12 months) doesn't mean you won't get caught again. Ask a true statistician what the odds are that you will not get busted at the next event? Does your prior track record of not getting caught play into those odds? As an example ask yourself the odds of the ball landing on red or black at a roulette table. Red can be busted, black can be not busted. If the ball has landed on black 100 times in a row, what are the odds on the next roll that the ball will land on red? Answer: 1 in 2 (assuming there is no green). Meaning, the odds of the ball landing on red or black on the NEXT roll have nothing to do (probability-wise) with the past 100 results.
But LE ain't stoopid. They don't waste precious resources trying to gather intel or make arrests when at the end of the day those activities pay off with zero or close to zero results. Originally Posted by ck1942
In your example in Dec. 2009, by your own statistics of the dispositions of the 12 arrests, they sure as hell almost got zero results. They got one due to a plea bargain and got a deferred at that. So by your own example, your statement here is incorrect.
To my personal knowledge, LE has been visibly present at only one venue in all of that time, and that was when we had the manager call them to remove some drunk (not one of ours) hanging around the front door. Originally Posted by ck1942
LE is not so dumb as to run a raid with visibly present officers. Your incident in Dec 2009 is such an example of how they would not do so.
The LEOs who swept into the Houston venue pretty much did not want to be there. They were firm, but very respectful, they had their intended several targets, and they told the rest of us to please leave the establishment while they did their business and that we could return if we wanted to. As if any of would want to. Originally Posted by ck1942
How do you know that they didn't want to be there, did you ask them or did they tell you? They had their intended several targets, and ask yourself, how did they single these 15 targets out in advance? They didn't just run in and pick out a random 15. Those 25 officers made a decision to kick out the rest, but they could have easily detained everyone and made everyone produce ID. It was their option to kick everyone out, and I'm sure people ran like hell.
As for the other portions about CK's past on ASPD, they are deemed off-topic so no need to respond.
- Jackie S
- 10-20-2010, 09:22 PM
While I am a Widower, I am still a business man, and I also have familly, including Grandkids. I doubt I would want them to see me being hauled off to jail.
I fly WAY under the radar, and that is the way I will keep it.
I always thought that this was what this was all about. Being able to share information about certain activities with complete anominity.
I fly WAY under the radar, and that is the way I will keep it.
I always thought that this was what this was all about. Being able to share information about certain activities with complete anominity.
- GneissGuy
- 10-21-2010, 02:08 AM
Never forget that ANYTHING hobby related carries a risk of some sort, even if it's just a risk of embarrassment.
You should not go to a social of any kind without considering the risks to you. Even if it's just you and a few guys you've met on the board going out for lunch. Or even visiting a web site like this.
As humans, we tend to take risks that make us nervous. Then after getting away with something a few times, we tend to get less nervous about that particular activity. Sometimes we let this make us stupid and forget about the real risks and then try something even more risky.
The hobby is risky. Many people perceive the rewards as being worth the risks. Some people get stupid.
Socials are definitely not worth the risks or perceived risks for everyone. If it's not worth it to you, DON'T GO.
You should not go to a social of any kind without considering the risks to you. Even if it's just you and a few guys you've met on the board going out for lunch. Or even visiting a web site like this.
As humans, we tend to take risks that make us nervous. Then after getting away with something a few times, we tend to get less nervous about that particular activity. Sometimes we let this make us stupid and forget about the real risks and then try something even more risky.
The hobby is risky. Many people perceive the rewards as being worth the risks. Some people get stupid.
Socials are definitely not worth the risks or perceived risks for everyone. If it's not worth it to you, DON'T GO.
- ck1942
- 10-21-2010, 07:52 AM
Staying on topic ... why folks go or don't go to an event ...
The possibility (slim or robust as it may be) of LE entering or just observing is always present.
Do I worry about it? No, I don't worry, I do have concerns and so I do publish the rules so all who attend (even with a badge) know that illegal activities are not allowed. And I insist that all present follow the rules even to the extent of reminding some folks as they enter.
As for risk, the organizer is always at risk since the venue operator usually wants some sort of personal guarantees from the organizer.
My assumption has always been that any LE who ever asks the venue operator who planned and arranged the event will be given my name and phone number. No warrant required, either.
I am usually the last person to leave the venue unless a few folks elect to remain after the event is done which is way before venue closing hours.
For those who have read Constitutional law just a bit, here's my take:
Meets-and-greets enjoy every bit as much the freedom to associate just as much as those of us who "meet" here in cyberspace or cyberplace.
Of course, wickets being as sticky as they can get, in person carries a different level of risk because "real people" are in the open (or closed) etc. ANY discussion one-on-one about services or fees is a real danger. The rule is simple: NEVER!
Simple answer to the "attending" question - if you don't feel secure at a venue, just leave. Or, if you don't think you will feel secure at an event, don't go.
End of that story.
As for events, themselves, close to 3,000 folks have been on my invite lists off or on since 2002.
I usually get some feedback from the participants, usually about the pluses or minuses of temperature of the venue, or the quality of the food or the smoke (or lack of smoke!) or sometimes the "hotness" of the babes or the quality/quantity of the guys or gals.
There's also a certain measure of feedback in the review threads, and the thank you notes from both ladies and gents.
And, fwiw, more than a few venue managers asking when do we get to do the next event! I guess because we spend too much money, not because folks "misbehaved."
I could expand and expound, but the fact of the matter is that any one's choice to consider attending or not devolves into asking me for an invitation which is what starts the process. And then getting vouched.
Infrequently we have asked the gents and the ladies, too, to suggest their play mates consider asking for an invite. But that's not a requirement for those who do attend to stay on the invite list. Although some folks have made that suggestion.
Speaking for suggestions, to all those currently on the Austin invite list, watch for the up-coming email regarding the November 2010 event, there's a question inside you'll want to answer.
The possibility (slim or robust as it may be) of LE entering or just observing is always present.
Do I worry about it? No, I don't worry, I do have concerns and so I do publish the rules so all who attend (even with a badge) know that illegal activities are not allowed. And I insist that all present follow the rules even to the extent of reminding some folks as they enter.
As for risk, the organizer is always at risk since the venue operator usually wants some sort of personal guarantees from the organizer.
My assumption has always been that any LE who ever asks the venue operator who planned and arranged the event will be given my name and phone number. No warrant required, either.
I am usually the last person to leave the venue unless a few folks elect to remain after the event is done which is way before venue closing hours.
For those who have read Constitutional law just a bit, here's my take:
Meets-and-greets enjoy every bit as much the freedom to associate just as much as those of us who "meet" here in cyberspace or cyberplace.
Of course, wickets being as sticky as they can get, in person carries a different level of risk because "real people" are in the open (or closed) etc. ANY discussion one-on-one about services or fees is a real danger. The rule is simple: NEVER!
Simple answer to the "attending" question - if you don't feel secure at a venue, just leave. Or, if you don't think you will feel secure at an event, don't go.
End of that story.
As for events, themselves, close to 3,000 folks have been on my invite lists off or on since 2002.
I usually get some feedback from the participants, usually about the pluses or minuses of temperature of the venue, or the quality of the food or the smoke (or lack of smoke!) or sometimes the "hotness" of the babes or the quality/quantity of the guys or gals.
There's also a certain measure of feedback in the review threads, and the thank you notes from both ladies and gents.
And, fwiw, more than a few venue managers asking when do we get to do the next event! I guess because we spend too much money, not because folks "misbehaved."
I could expand and expound, but the fact of the matter is that any one's choice to consider attending or not devolves into asking me for an invitation which is what starts the process. And then getting vouched.
Infrequently we have asked the gents and the ladies, too, to suggest their play mates consider asking for an invite. But that's not a requirement for those who do attend to stay on the invite list. Although some folks have made that suggestion.
Speaking for suggestions, to all those currently on the Austin invite list, watch for the up-coming email regarding the November 2010 event, there's a question inside you'll want to answer.
- nuglet
- 10-21-2010, 01:52 PM
Now that an "event" has been announced by CK, it will raise a few red flags due to past history. Thus a good reason NOT to attend some socials. The notice alone floats the flag that "something with Hobbyists and Providers" is being organized by someone. The last raid, being successful "on the books", will only confirm to LE that this is a function that would be fruitful to watch for. PASS!!!!
- John_TX
- 10-21-2010, 07:06 PM
Do I worry about it? No, I don't worry, I do have concerns and so I do publish the rules so all who attend (even with a badge) know that illegal activities are not allowed. Originally Posted by ck1942so you knowingly invite LE, and then you wonder how they figured out where, when, and who the players were?
im not a rocket scientist but even i can figure out where you screwed up!
- SofaKingFun
- 10-21-2010, 08:55 PM
Uhhh...maybe I'm being a little naive her but, if you're not doing anything illegal, isn't it kind of difficult to get your ass arrested?
Is escorting illegal? Are gatherings illegal?
Yeah, that's kinda' what I thought.
I have no idea how many of these events have been put on but I've been to at least 40 of them; most of which were put together by ck1942. Regardless, I accepted the risk each and every time so if I somehow fuck-up and get pinched, then I'm man enough to own it. I'm comfortable with his method of doing things and I've never felt that me or my identity have ever been compromised in any way; especially in San Antonio and Austin.
I've never attended the "Co-Hosted" Houston events for that very reason. That other Co-Host was WAY too noisy and WAY too out in the open about things and I truly believe that was one, if not the biggest reason why Elle gave it so much attention. You've got a city, the size of Houston and a post-ho promoting it in each and every one of his posts...yeah, I'mma' have to say that's probably going to draw some unwanted attention...do it month after month, post after post, after post, ad nauseam.. and yeah, I'd say you're probably gonna' have them focusing on shutting your ass up...and that they did.
This, of course is just my thincking on the matter and it's worth what it cost ya'.
Regards,
SKF
.
.
Is escorting illegal? Are gatherings illegal?
Yeah, that's kinda' what I thought.
I have no idea how many of these events have been put on but I've been to at least 40 of them; most of which were put together by ck1942. Regardless, I accepted the risk each and every time so if I somehow fuck-up and get pinched, then I'm man enough to own it. I'm comfortable with his method of doing things and I've never felt that me or my identity have ever been compromised in any way; especially in San Antonio and Austin.
I've never attended the "Co-Hosted" Houston events for that very reason. That other Co-Host was WAY too noisy and WAY too out in the open about things and I truly believe that was one, if not the biggest reason why Elle gave it so much attention. You've got a city, the size of Houston and a post-ho promoting it in each and every one of his posts...yeah, I'mma' have to say that's probably going to draw some unwanted attention...do it month after month, post after post, after post, ad nauseam.. and yeah, I'd say you're probably gonna' have them focusing on shutting your ass up...and that they did.
This, of course is just my thincking on the matter and it's worth what it cost ya'.
Regards,
SKF
.
.
- GneissGuy
- 10-21-2010, 10:57 PM
This thread brings out one of the reasons to avoid a social or other contact with hobbyists is the nutjob factor. Do you really want some of the nutjobs in the hobby to meet you face to face?
On the other hand, meeting the ladies face to face gives you a good way to figure out who the nutjob ladies are. A lot of the ladies can't really keep their inner psycho hidden face to face. You also get to see what they really look like.
Same thing for the ladies meeting the guys. You can often figure out that you don't really want to meet a particular guy once you meet him face to face. It's not a substitute for screening, but it's an additional chance to weed out the nutjobs.
On the other hand, meeting the ladies face to face gives you a good way to figure out who the nutjob ladies are. A lot of the ladies can't really keep their inner psycho hidden face to face. You also get to see what they really look like.
Same thing for the ladies meeting the guys. You can often figure out that you don't really want to meet a particular guy once you meet him face to face. It's not a substitute for screening, but it's an additional chance to weed out the nutjobs.
- John_TX
- 10-21-2010, 11:06 PM
Uhhh...maybe I'm being a little naive her but, if you're not doing anything illegal, isn't it kind of difficult to get your ass arrested?you should ask CK. in his post he said that 12 were arrested at the social in question in Dec. 2009. what they were arrested for i have no idea. it could have been for outstanding warrants, warrants generated from ongoing criminal cases they were working on thanks to ASPD, or even totally unrelated issues. i seriously doubt anyone was arrested for simply being in attendance.
Is escorting illegal? Are gatherings illegal?
Yeah, that's kinda' what I thought.
Originally Posted by SofaKingFun
i think you're confusing at least my point. i am in no way saying you will get arrested for simply attending a social. but if you are the target of LE for other things you may be involved in, you may want to consider this law:
http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/71.02.00.html
§ 71.02. ENGAGING IN ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. (a) Ai think that would definitely define something someone could get arrested for. that could include agency owners in attendance that LE has worked up a case on, and depending upon what the definition of "promotion" is....could very well be defined as a board moderator, or maybe someone who plays matchmaker between client and provider.
person commits an offense if, with the intent to establish,
maintain, or participate in a combination or in the profits of a
combination or as a member of a criminal street gang, he commits or
conspires to commit one or more of the following:
...
(3) promotion of prostitution, aggravated promotion
of prostitution, or compelling prostitution;
i think if anything, a social is great way for LE to gather intel on who is active in the escorting community, who is outspoken, and thus, who to target.
in anything they are targeting, they will go after leadership and ringleaders. the only reason why they'd go after a small fish is because (1) they have an obvious and easy case (like a street operation on Rundberg), (2) they want to interrogate the small fish to lead to a bigger fish, or (3) all they can get is a small fish. but to put a dent in the system and to scare the others they have to target a more important figure.
such is probably the reason why the 12 were targeted - either they already had reason to arrest them for prior acts, or they were targeted for their actions regarding the social (planning, procurement of providers, making money on the operation, etc).
CK was probably targeted because he was (1) a board admin, (2) high profile, and (3) was organizing the socials. nothing jars any group of people they are targeting more than going after the leadership. when LE took down Amazing John in Houston, they didn't stop at the girls. they leveraged the girls to go after him - testify on behalf of the government in exchange for leniency. for those of you who don't believe it, here is the news story:
http://www.kcra.com/r/4128132/detail.html
In exchange for testimony against the owners of the Wildflower Group and Escapes of Houston, authorities agreed to drop prostitution charges against all but one of the 50 women arrested during the Nov. 16 raids.for those of you who don't believe it's LE's strategy to attack the owners, not the low-level employees:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/3005716.html
Vice officers traditionally have targeted workers instead of the owners of the businesses where prostitution takes place... Though a single spa sting operation might net a few arrests, the businesses would remain open. Going after the owners required new tactics, authorities said.so what was Amazing John busted for? federal tax evasion, $666k worth. he pled guilty and the last i could find faced up to 5 years fed time and a $250k fine, in addition to having to repay that income tax.
here is the .gov link to that: http://www.justice.gov/usao/txs/rele...13009Jones.htm
so, is it bad to be flying above the radar? when the microscope is put upon you, i'd say it is.
- tron
- 10-21-2010, 11:31 PM
Uhhh...maybe I'm being a little naive her but, if you're not doing anything illegal, isn't it kind of difficult to get your ass arrested? Originally Posted by SofaKingFunI have had a LEO tell me: "Do you want me to write you a ticket just to show you I can do it?"
Ever hear the saying "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride" ?
Some people work in industries where background checks are either always a requirement or highly likely. Having anything show up can mean the loss of a job offer. This can be really annoying when you want to change jobs, and you are afraid to give notice on your current job, because your check has not passed for the next one. You could screw yourself royally if you are not careful.
As for the MAD (mutually assured destruction) theory, that doesn't always work - like if soeone who knows you is there, and they see you and leave before you see them, or they just see your car in the lot.
If they are in management, they might just decide to include you in the next layoff, instead of giving you a pass.
I might go to one in San Antonio or Dallas, though.
- SofaKingFun
- 10-22-2010, 12:10 AM
Yeah, I hear ya' guys, without question, a group offers a much tastier target for Elle to do their collecting, than that of a one-on-one meeting, however, as I stated,
Risk:Reward Every person MUST find their threshold in this or they'd best get the fuck out, STAT!
The 12 attendees arrested were charged with anything from being in the US illegally, drug possession charge, solicitation charges, (and I believe) maybe even a couple had outstanding warrants..
You've got to remember though, these peeps were popped for doing/or had done something illegal and that's how they came to be under the microscope, so to speak; NOT because of something to do with the event; because of their own illegal activities were they taken down.
What happened to the rest of the crowd that didn't do anything wrong/illegal?
...not a thang.
So what exactly was Elle's big paycheck in all of that and what exactly did they get in return for all of that effort? A couple of deportations and a plea-bargain.
The residents of Harris County should be proud.
Regardless, I accepted the risk each and every time so if I somehow fuck-up and get pinched, then I'm man enough to own it.If you can't handle the fallout which *could possibly* occur, then you're probably better off not attending. That's a no-brainer, isn't it?
Risk:Reward Every person MUST find their threshold in this or they'd best get the fuck out, STAT!
The 12 attendees arrested were charged with anything from being in the US illegally, drug possession charge, solicitation charges, (and I believe) maybe even a couple had outstanding warrants..
You've got to remember though, these peeps were popped for doing/or had done something illegal and that's how they came to be under the microscope, so to speak; NOT because of something to do with the event; because of their own illegal activities were they taken down.
What happened to the rest of the crowd that didn't do anything wrong/illegal?
...not a thang.
So what exactly was Elle's big paycheck in all of that and what exactly did they get in return for all of that effort? A couple of deportations and a plea-bargain.
The residents of Harris County should be proud.
- shazzan
- 10-22-2010, 03:23 AM
I value my anonymity too much to go to a social, though I'm sure I would have a blast. Also, some of us on the boards are licensed professionals, and being publicly disciplined by your professional board would suck. Not saying socials are risky, just that I don't want to be put on anyone's radar.
- Ready2Rock
- 10-22-2010, 06:45 AM
Ninety percent of the time, they coincide with my work schedule. That did not used to be the case, and I was fairly regular at both the Austin and SA events from 2003-06. Almost all were good times -- especially the ones in SA. I was able to try out a couple in mid-2009, but really wasn't impressed by the low turnout of ladies (both in SA and Austin). So, I spent most of my time chatting with old male buds at the SA event until one of our good provider buds arrived, at which time we left to shoot some pool. My provider friend in SA mentioned the Halloweenie event, but damned work reared its ugly head again. Oh well, maybe I'll make it down there one of these days soon. But, dammit, it's frustratin' to watch ol' SKF get all the wimmens!
Seriously, I understand why some guys stay away. For example, one friend's house is very close to one of the frequent Austin venues. And I know others with profiles on the high side -- it's just not worth the risk to them. But, for me, I've got nothing to fear -- and I'm not stupid enough to be askin' for BJs while attending such a function. Are risks real? Well, certainly there's always the chance you might be seen getting out of your car or hanging with the group if the event is held in a public place. That's one reason I always enjoyed the SA events more -- they were held in a private venue. Behavior has gotten out of hand a couple of times in my presence at an Austin event held in a public place. I recall one of the ladies getting carried away after over-imbibing, and that caught the attention of the wait staff. Also, I heard of one instance where one of our hobbyists (who should know better) invited a civvie lady he met downstairs in the restaurant upstairs to the gathering. That is WAY beyond foolish.
For the most part, they're good times. And it's always good to get first-hand looks before seeking a BCD meeting.
Seriously, I understand why some guys stay away. For example, one friend's house is very close to one of the frequent Austin venues. And I know others with profiles on the high side -- it's just not worth the risk to them. But, for me, I've got nothing to fear -- and I'm not stupid enough to be askin' for BJs while attending such a function. Are risks real? Well, certainly there's always the chance you might be seen getting out of your car or hanging with the group if the event is held in a public place. That's one reason I always enjoyed the SA events more -- they were held in a private venue. Behavior has gotten out of hand a couple of times in my presence at an Austin event held in a public place. I recall one of the ladies getting carried away after over-imbibing, and that caught the attention of the wait staff. Also, I heard of one instance where one of our hobbyists (who should know better) invited a civvie lady he met downstairs in the restaurant upstairs to the gathering. That is WAY beyond foolish.
For the most part, they're good times. And it's always good to get first-hand looks before seeking a BCD meeting.