Posting encounters - can I be prosecuted?

Yes, but in that situation, if you read the first part. The defendant answered a decoy ad on Backpage. He told the undercover officer he wrote reviews in order to establish his credibility. Then he made a deal to have sex for money and was cheap and inquired about a “review special.” Officer accepted and that was all they needed and for him to show up.

The review part was ancillary and included for sizzle factor. He wasn’t even targeted by police for writing reviews, which I do think happens.

(2) solicits another to engage in sexual conduct with another person for compensation. Originally Posted by papadee

There. That. A review can be construed as that. I don't know the case law on it, that's a lot harder to find than statutes, but if you walk into court with only the technical wording of the statutes to back you up, good chance you'll walk out wishing you were a provider. Then people would have to pay you when you get fucked that hard.

The review is an admission of a past encounter. Solicitation is a crime of the here & now.

I don't want you to think I'm insulting you, I'm just stating a fact. In years of listening to shade-tree attorneys telling me what words, obscure statutes, and loopholes can be used to commit any crime you feel like and then laugh in the face of any officer unlucky enough to try to arrest you, I can't think of any point anyone ever made that was dumber than that. Again, not an insult. Just.... Impressive that you managed to top them all.

Nearly every crime is of here and now. Because that's how time works in this universe. I've complained about it, but, you know. You do a thing. Then time moves forward, and you're no longer currently doing that thing. That thing you did is now in the past. But, and this is important, you can still be arrested for doing an illegal thing even if you weren't caught nuts-deep in the girl. Do you also think that if the cops bust into the room, but you pull out before they see you, they can't arrest you because you're not fucking her and they can't prove you did?

I papadee Originally Posted by B Three

I see how he'd seem smart if you're not paying attention. Lots of words, lots of technical definitions of words, lots of quoting statutes. But as I hinted at before. Case law will bend you over and fuck you till you bleed. And even his quoted laws don't exculpate him.

You can be arrested. Convicted maybe not. Mugshot will still be on google. I saw this..
https://www.koin.com/news/portland-m...tion/870094420
The undercover officers received several text messages from (snip) who claimed his name was "Jay." He claimed he wrote reviews on a website that allows prostitutes and purchasers to review each other, according to court documents.

Getting a review can supposedly add credibility to someone's profile, records said.

(Snip) reportedly asked the undercover officer to lower her "donation" price.

The decoy and (snip) agreed that instead of paying $125 per hour, the decoy would set her rate at $80 an hour for the review, according to court documents.

(Snip) agreed to meet the decoy at a Portland hotel. When he showed up, he was taken into custody. When officers moved in and arrested (snip), he was found to be in possession of $1,144, the cellphone that matched the number the undercover officers had been texting, 2 condoms and a packet of lubricant.

(Snip) was booked and then later released from the Multnomah County Detention Center.

He is scheduled to appear in court Friday for his arraignment. Originally Posted by Hot Yvette

Sounds like snip is a real amateur, snip used his RW phone and text all the wrong things, snip took $1,144 to go see a hooker? snip will learn his lesson the hard way and will keep his mouth/fingers shut from now on.

There. That. A review can be construed as that. I don't know the case law on it, that's a lot harder to find than statutes, but if you walk into court with only the technical wording of the statutes to back you up, good chance you'll walk out wishing you were a provider. Then people would have to pay you when you get fucked that hard.


I don't want you to think I'm insulting you, I'm just stating a fact. In years of listening to shade-tree attorneys telling me what words, obscure statutes, and loopholes can be used to commit any crime you feel like and then laugh in the face of any officer unlucky enough to try to arrest you, I can't think of any point anyone ever made that was dumber than that. Again, not an insult. Just.... Impressive that you managed to top them all.

Nearly every crime is of here and now. Because that's how time works in this universe. I've complained about it, but, you know. You do a thing. Then time moves forward, and you're no longer currently doing that thing. That thing you did is now in the past. But, and this is important, you can still be arrested for doing an illegal thing even if you weren't caught nuts-deep in the girl. Do you also think that if the cops bust into the room, but you pull out before they see you, they can't arrest you because you're not fucking her and they can't prove you did?


I see how he'd seem smart if you're not paying attention. Lots of words, lots of technical definitions of words, lots of quoting statutes. But as I hinted at before. Case law will bend you over and fuck you till you bleed. And even his quoted laws don't exculpate him. Originally Posted by dgc92

The review takes place after the solicitation. A review of that solicitation isn't the crime, the solicitation itself is.


You want to play tough guy and insult. But all of your postings gloss over a basic point. The review doesn't prove a crime happened. The state would have to find the provider, prove money was exchanged & sex took place. It can be used in support of other evidence that a crime occurred, but the review itself isn't a crime.


And I tend to use less words than you to state my case. The other words were not mine, but of sources I used, something you have yet to do.

This article, about a review board in Washington state, is well written, and somewhat frightening. Police in Seattle got search warrants to go after reviewers' "email accounts and the internet provider addresses that linked the pseudonyms to their real names."

https://projects.seattletimes.com/20...titution-bust/

A couple of snippets,

"After Bellevue police and King County sheriff’s deputies infiltrated and busted the group, prosecutors would charge its members not with the misdemeanor crime of patronizing a prostitute, but with promoting prostitution, a felony."

"The Review Board case drew the interest of law-enforcement agencies around the country. Over the past 18 months, Deputy Prosecutor Richey has been contacted by numerous jurisdictions wanting to know how King County prosecutors and law enforcement worked together to confront the explosion of prostitution activity generated by the online review boards that now exist in every major city."

The review takes place after the solicitation. A review of that solicitation isn't the crime, the solicitation itself is. Originally Posted by papadee

Well, first of all, you're the only one who thought the OP was talking about actually being prosecuted for the review, not the admission of the crime contained therein. You're hijacking this thread with technicalities, talking about the exact words he used instead of what he clearly meant. You know how I know what he meant? Because everyone EXCEPT you understood.

My original point, in answer to the OP's question, was yes, the review can be used as evidence that you solicited a prostitute. Then you sidetracked us with your "can't see the forest for the trees" approach. Which, again, I know is wrong because you're the ONLY one who misunderstood the OP. When you went off on your misinformed, barely related tangent, I addressed it. And now I will again.

(2) solicits another to engage in sexual conduct with another person for compensation. Originally Posted by papadee

A review is telling people to see a prostitute. Again, I don't know the case law involved. But even by the exact, specific wording of the statute YOU quoted, telling people they should see a prostitute could EASILY be seen as soliciting clients for a prostitute. So you see, I don't really need to come up with sources. Yours support me just fine.

And I only use lots of words when I'm arguing with someone who will take any opportunity to intentionally misunderstand what was said. You know, like you did with the OP, and now here we are arguing a point nobody in the history of human insanity would have thought he meant to ask about.

Since Pennsylvania was quoted here...

In PA, arrest records are NOT expungable. Once arrested the damage is already done.

Prostitution is one of the few M3 crimes in PA that is also NOT expungable.

The reality of what they do to you and what the law states are quite different. Can they charge you for writing a review...I'm sure they will squeeze it in some crack of some law, likely written in the 1950s, if they want.

In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania they were charging condoms as an "instrument of crime". Unless you blow it up and tie it over someone's head, I'm not sure how they were even doing this? Oh yeah, the cops do what they want.

BTW, condoms are no longer being charged as an instrument of crime in Allegheny county. However, cellphones are.

Well, first of all, you're the only one who thought the OP was talking about actually being prosecuted for the review, not the admission of the crime contained therein. You're hijacking this thread with technicalities, talking about the exact words he used instead of what he clearly meant. You know how I know what he meant? Because everyone EXCEPT you understood.

My original point, in answer to the OP's question, was yes, the review can be used as evidence that you solicited a prostitute. Then you sidetracked us with your "can't see the forest for the trees" approach. Which, again, I know is wrong because you're the ONLY one who misunderstood the OP. When you went off on your misinformed, barely related tangent, I addressed it. And now I will again.



A review is telling people to see a prostitute. Again, I don't know the case law involved. But even by the exact, specific wording of the statute YOU quoted, telling people they should see a prostitute could EASILY be seen as soliciting clients for a prostitute. So you see, I don't really need to come up with sources. Yours support me just fine.

And I only use lots of words when I'm arguing with someone who will take any opportunity to intentionally misunderstand what was said. You know, like you did with the OP, and now here we are arguing a point nobody in the history of human insanity would have thought he meant to ask about. Originally Posted by dgc92

Yes I tend to read words, not minds.


And a review is telling people what happened when the writer of the review saw the prostitute.


See, 2 sentences, 25 words to respond to your 4 paragraphs.


Edit: Thought I should add more words because I can't accept your premise.


The OP has been here 5 years, 27 posts, 5 encounters. Yet you believe he meant could he be prosecuted for solicitation.


Posting encounters - can I be prosecuted? Can a person be prosecuted for posting an encounter? If so, have you ever heard of this happening?
For the life of me, I don't understand how this doesn't mean exactly what it says. 2 simple sentences, If he meant something else, I hope he comes back & explains it.

Yes I tend to read words, not minds. Originally Posted by papadee

So the rest of us are psychics and/or geniuses? Or maybe you're just not as smart as you think. The rest of us got the point without having it hammered into our skulls several times.

And a review is telling people what happened when the writer of the review saw the prostitute. Originally Posted by papadee

And if you type "Yes" in the recommendation field, you're telling people they should see her. Soliciting clients for her. Hey, isn't there a law against that?

See, 2 sentences, 25 words to respond to your 4 paragraphs. Originally Posted by papadee

Wow, you really took that one little fragment of a point to heart, didn't you? I didn't say you shouldn't use lots of words. Try reading my words and not my mind next time.


Edit to respond to your edit:

You're the only one who thinks he meant that. But if he did, the point has been addressed, argued, and you're wrong.

Behave you two! There is nothing more boring than amateur lawyers arguing a case in front of a jury of pseudo-intellects...

I should know, I are one!!

A couple years ago, here in Maine they busted a Zumba dance instructor. The newspapers made like it was the biggest crime the state had ever seen. The investigation lasted for over 18 months, as the police tracked down all of her former clients. Originally Posted by RetiredSubmariner

Hmm.. what next? busting Lobsters for public fucking?

my head hurts from the long-winded Amateur Lawyer back-and-forth, so I decided to limit my contribution to this piece of snark, LOL

1. He started it.

2. Yes, I will be 5 years old forever.

1. He started it.

2. Yes, I will be 5 years old forever. Originally Posted by dgc92

You forgot "Did not - Did to"!!

I think a far more salient point is that I'm rubber and he's glue.

Be nice or I'll have you all arrested for your writings.