I am amazed at how my comment is being read. My second post explicitly stated that it is LEO that would be violating the Mann Act, not the provider. And, it has no relevance whatsoever to a client. If you read the recent case law on the Mann Act, what constitutes "transporting" is being interpreted differently in different jurisdictions. Again, do not get caught up in the technicalities of the law. I have people (clients and providers) PM me all the time wanting to know if they do this, or don't do that, can they beat a prostitution charge. I usually say, "maybe". I could hold a day long trial, call witnesses and have my client sullied in open Court, and for probably $7,000 to $10,000 get him, or her off the charge. OR, for $1,000 I can get the prostitution charge amended to disorderly conduct (misdemeanor) and pay a 7 or 8 hundred dollar fine and its a done deal.Unless can guarantee that LE will never use a similar tactic in a sting against clients, I think it does have relevance to clients. If LE starts using a similar tactic, then the client has to distinguish at the time of the call whether it is a true escort or an LE sting. Given the fluidity in how the Mann Act is being interpreted in different jurisdictions, that could be a very tricky decision for a client to make.
Why this works is not because of a technicality in the law, but because I put the prosecutor in an untenable position. If s/he listens to the tape, and if there is mention of crossing a state line for prostitution, they have to turn it over to FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office can decide whether paying for transportation costs constitutes "transporting". The local prosecutor cannot chance listening to the tape for fear they have to turn their police over to the FBI for investigation. So it is not a technicality, its a ploy, and its worked pretty well so far. Originally Posted by lawyerinjeans