The way I see it, by the time they have enough evidence to support a warrant, you're already screwed. A review would just be icing. The exception, as has been said over and again, would be if you were in the middle of or somehow got caught up in something much larger.
I don't think there is anything an individual can do to beat the system once you come under the microscope of the authorities. But keeping you mouth shut is the best way to minimize the damage.
One quick word about protecting yourself by exerting you right to remain silent. You cannot engage with the cops AT ALL, not about the weather, not about the Super Bowl.
Let me tell you about this friend of mine. If you asked her if she'd screwed Bob, she'd say "I don't kiss and tell." But if you asked her if she screwed Roger, she'd say "Oh Hell no. Who would screw Roger?"
If you only answer what you consider "safe" questions, you give the cops a short list of where to concentrate their next questions and their investigation.
I realize that this was slightly off topic, but I wanted to share my experience to hopefully help someone avoid stepping on their....tongue.
- guest071411
- 01-14-2010, 08:12 PM
- HoneyRose
- 01-15-2010, 07:13 AM
(wrong thread)
- flinde
- 01-15-2010, 11:58 AM
the odds of LE going after you as a john, subpoenaeing your IP address from a review site, purting on proof that you wrote the review are slim to none. To many easier ways to develop a case against a john.
But there is always the slight chance of being charged with something and being confronted by reviews as a piece of evidence againt you. I dont think the "this is all a fantasy" defense would work well. The surest defense (besides not reviewing) is to not mention money or other consideration in review.
100 "roses" 100 "bananas" --even a Bexar county jury could se through that.
DJ, I respectfully disagree with your "if it hasn't happened it won't" post above. Things in general getting more conservative esp in TX, LE and prosecutors getting more "net savvy" re making cases--busts--the famous Houston infiltration bust is proof of that.
It doesnt hurt to be cautious.
But there is always the slight chance of being charged with something and being confronted by reviews as a piece of evidence againt you. I dont think the "this is all a fantasy" defense would work well. The surest defense (besides not reviewing) is to not mention money or other consideration in review.
100 "roses" 100 "bananas" --even a Bexar county jury could se through that.
DJ, I respectfully disagree with your "if it hasn't happened it won't" post above. Things in general getting more conservative esp in TX, LE and prosecutors getting more "net savvy" re making cases--busts--the famous Houston infiltration bust is proof of that.
It doesnt hurt to be cautious.
- sofiaofhouston
- 01-15-2010, 01:25 PM
OK so, if the tables were turned.....and i started a website of the cops that were jerks because they pulled me over...., and other people chimed in on how NOT FAIR their ticket was.....Then we all decided to take it to internal investigations or the DA, would they act on it with just the website and not us? ......How could they do it...? Without actual people to stand there and back it up...
Anyone can steal my IP address and I'm not the only one to use this computer. What are they going to do, put a warrant on my MAC AIR IP? They can take it......But they can't prove who has and has not been on it........I did buy it used......
Anyone can steal my IP address and I'm not the only one to use this computer. What are they going to do, put a warrant on my MAC AIR IP? They can take it......But they can't prove who has and has not been on it........I did buy it used......
- Dstorm
- 01-15-2010, 07:02 PM
the odds of LE going after you as a john, subpoenaeing your IP address from a review site, purting on proof that you wrote the review are slim to none. To many easier ways to develop a case against a john.You could leave out the year on the date and claim the statute of limitations had expired on that particular act, or leave out the state/city and challenge whether the DA has jurisdiction.
But there is always the slight chance of being charged with something and being confronted by reviews as a piece of evidence againt you. I dont think the "this is all a fantasy" defense would work well. The surest defense (besides not reviewing) is to not mention money or other consideration in review.
100 "roses" 100 "bananas" --even a Bexar county jury could se through that.
DJ, I respectfully disagree with your "if it hasn't happened it won't" post above. Things in general getting more conservative esp in TX, LE and prosecutors getting more "net savvy" re making cases--busts--the famous Houston infiltration bust is proof of that.
It doesnt hurt to be cautious. Originally Posted by flinde
Leaving out any talk of $$ in any form would be the easiest. Guys who like your eview are free to contact the girl for rates.
- JohnnyFarangly
- 01-15-2010, 07:12 PM
I did a quick review of the 'Desert Divas' case.
There is no data suggesting reviews or a review site were involved.
I was the bust of a ring and all the major players copped a plea.
A list was found. It seems most clients were named John Smith.
""A client list from Arizona's largest known prostitution ring has been released to the public by Phoenix police.
The list from Nighttime Entertainment Partners - Desert Divas was obtained after authorities raided the service last fall, police said.
No arrests have been made based on 600 page list, and Phoenix Sgt. Andy Hill said investigators had not yet made contact with any of the people on it.
"The names on the 'client list' are not suspects," Hill said in a news release. "Our investigators are still working on the organization members involved in felonies and have not yet had the time to get to any of the 'clients' which involved ""
There is no mention of reviews or a review site being involved
http://www.abc15.com/content/news/ph...77DG3ycyQ.cspx
http://www.sexwork.com/legal/PhxBust2008.html
There is no data suggesting reviews or a review site were involved.
I was the bust of a ring and all the major players copped a plea.
A list was found. It seems most clients were named John Smith.
""A client list from Arizona's largest known prostitution ring has been released to the public by Phoenix police.
The list from Nighttime Entertainment Partners - Desert Divas was obtained after authorities raided the service last fall, police said.
No arrests have been made based on 600 page list, and Phoenix Sgt. Andy Hill said investigators had not yet made contact with any of the people on it.
"The names on the 'client list' are not suspects," Hill said in a news release. "Our investigators are still working on the organization members involved in felonies and have not yet had the time to get to any of the 'clients' which involved ""
There is no mention of reviews or a review site being involved
http://www.abc15.com/content/news/ph...77DG3ycyQ.cspx
http://www.sexwork.com/legal/PhxBust2008.html
- Guest121212
- 01-16-2010, 01:15 AM
Johnny . . . you're citing incomplete data (and being misleading through omission) by not completing more than a cursory Internet search and reading two articles (you cite only two). I'm not desiring to engage you in an argument regarding the facts of the matter in Arizona (Desert Diva's, hereafter "DD"), as it is common and accepted knowledge throughout the industry that one of the salient (prominent) points was, as mentioned by others here in this thread, the fact that there were "pay for positive review" activities between Agency contractors and / or the Agency and their clients. In fact, it was that very activity that was a starting point in developing / beginning the investigation and leading directly to prosecutions. Some review Websites and other Websites that rely on reviews for traffic are so sensitive to the matter they have removed entire discussions of the case as they feel it sets a precedent that could negatively impact their business model. For instance, P411 will not allow you to mention the case in any manner on their Website in support of an "NRP" (no review policy) or mention it in their forums. You may want to do some more checking . . . there were various discussions on other national boards regarding specifics of this case (corroborated by prosecutions and public records). There were, for a time, numerous threads on ASPD that followed the matter . .
You state: "There is no mention of reviews or a review site being involved" - well, I beg to differ, in fact, in the first press release from the Phoenix Police, Chief Jack Harris states specifically "The operation was based in midtown Phoenix and also included a pornographic Web site which showed "Escort Reviews" . . " (KPHO.com POSTED: 11:58 am MST August 5, 2008).
The reviews were integral to the prosecution from the beginning . . . later in the investigation, when David Elms was arrested on other charges through a connection with the DD investigation, it was finally being made "public" by the Phoenix Police Department which "Review" site was integral to their investigation . . . "Elms founded 'The Erotic Review.' The Web site, which is mentioned numerous times in the Desert Divas case, allows men to rate escorts on a scale of 1-10." (KPHO.com POSTED: 10:27 pm MST February 16, 2009). There are a myriad of other resources online that will point you to ALL of the "review" sites connected to the DD case.
You state: "A list was found. It seems most clients were named John Smith." - there's only ONE "John Smith" (a physician) entry on the list as was supplied to KPHO TV via a Freedom of Information request . . . if you would like the link to the .pdf file detailing all the client names, you can find it easily by doing a little "more" than a quick review . . . I will admit I relied on a text search of the document (all 172 pages) and I didn't read each entry . . .
Further, not all the "major players copped a plea" . . . in fact, charges against persons continue to this day . . . the largest being as recently as last year (May 8, 2009) in which 19 arrests were made in a 122 count indictment. Reports leaked to news outlets cite sources as saying that up to another 150-200 individuals have been charged independently as a result of information garnered from that last "public" mass arrest. To my knowledge, NONE of those cases have a disposition, several are headed to trial, and the Phoenix PD in cooperation with the FBI has stopped releasing information regarding further developments in the case as they have now convened a Federal Grand Jury and their investigation continues.
Best,
- Jackie
You state: "There is no mention of reviews or a review site being involved" - well, I beg to differ, in fact, in the first press release from the Phoenix Police, Chief Jack Harris states specifically "The operation was based in midtown Phoenix and also included a pornographic Web site which showed "Escort Reviews" . . " (KPHO.com POSTED: 11:58 am MST August 5, 2008).
The reviews were integral to the prosecution from the beginning . . . later in the investigation, when David Elms was arrested on other charges through a connection with the DD investigation, it was finally being made "public" by the Phoenix Police Department which "Review" site was integral to their investigation . . . "Elms founded 'The Erotic Review.' The Web site, which is mentioned numerous times in the Desert Divas case, allows men to rate escorts on a scale of 1-10." (KPHO.com POSTED: 10:27 pm MST February 16, 2009). There are a myriad of other resources online that will point you to ALL of the "review" sites connected to the DD case.
You state: "A list was found. It seems most clients were named John Smith." - there's only ONE "John Smith" (a physician) entry on the list as was supplied to KPHO TV via a Freedom of Information request . . . if you would like the link to the .pdf file detailing all the client names, you can find it easily by doing a little "more" than a quick review . . . I will admit I relied on a text search of the document (all 172 pages) and I didn't read each entry . . .
Further, not all the "major players copped a plea" . . . in fact, charges against persons continue to this day . . . the largest being as recently as last year (May 8, 2009) in which 19 arrests were made in a 122 count indictment. Reports leaked to news outlets cite sources as saying that up to another 150-200 individuals have been charged independently as a result of information garnered from that last "public" mass arrest. To my knowledge, NONE of those cases have a disposition, several are headed to trial, and the Phoenix PD in cooperation with the FBI has stopped releasing information regarding further developments in the case as they have now convened a Federal Grand Jury and their investigation continues.
Best,
- Jackie
- JohnnyFarangly
- 01-16-2010, 04:41 AM
Johnny . . . you're citing incomplete dataDavid Elms, founder of 'TER' was arrested in charges completely unrelated to 'DD'. To have included him is this discussion is completely misleading:
The reviews were integral to the prosecution from the beginning . . . later in the investigation, when David Elms was arrested on other charges through a connection with the DD investigation, it was finally being made "public" by the Phoenix Police Department which "Review" site was integral to their investigation . . . "Elms founded 'The Erotic Review.' The Web site, which is mentioned numerous times in the Desert Divas case, allows men to rate escorts on a scale of 1-10." (KPHO.com POSTED: 10:27 pm MST February 16, 2009). There are a myriad of other resources online that will point you to ALL of the "review" sites connected to the DD case.
(do you see anything 'prostitution' related in these charges?)
Originally Posted by jackie@sintropolis
""Suspect: Elms, David; A/M; DOB 4/09/71; booked into Maricopa County Jail for one count of conspiracy to commit murder; one count of conspiracy to commit aggravated assault; one count of conspiracy to possess narcotic drugs for sale; one count of conspiracy to commit misconduct involving weapons; one count of possession of drug paraphernalia""
(do you see anything 'prostitution' related in these charges?)
He also allegedly tried to blackmail providers. But, once again that has nothing to do with 'DD' or imaginary reviews being used as evidence to convict.
FYI, I reviewed dozens of sites and the CSV john list. The 'John Smith' was a joke, the john list was obtained off the 'DD' computers and again, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REVIEWS.
Gossip of the site being 'mentioned' in a case is not the same a facts we should use in making decisions concerning reviews.
- Omahan
- 01-16-2010, 10:22 AM
[never mind]
- Guest121212
- 01-16-2010, 11:57 AM
David's prosecution was precipitated DIRECTLY by the DD investigation. Absent the DD investigation and its direct ties to reviews, it is generally accepted that there would have probably never been a mention of David and he may have gone unnoticed. In exchange for immunity from prosecution, an Escort that had been charged in the DD matter (with her reviews being used to bolster evidence supporting said charges), along with another person indicted in the DD case (a principal) both turned CI/CW (confidential informant - cooperating witness) based on the connection between DD and the TER Website, revealing David's other "legal issues". After David's arrest, the Phoenix police made public the fact that TER reviews were used as a basis for pursuing prosecutions against both principals in the DD "veil" of companies, Escorts and clients - and they did so in the form of statements to the media, release of supporting documentation detailing the initial DD arrests and by the initial indictments being made public revealing the connection between the review Websites and both the DD case and how that led them to David. Further, absent the reviews that led the Phoenix police down a path leading to DD, the client list would have never have been made public . . . separating the chain of events that followed from an investigation begun by looking into reviews of Escorts would be imprudent, they all have the same point of origin and are fruit of the same investigation.
FACTS (not gossip) are that TER reviews (along with reviews from other Websites, including those placed on a Website directly owned and controlled by DD - which were "pay [discount] for review", and that practice was extended to other review sites, such as TER) were (and still are being) used extensively in the prosecution of the DD case. I've had the opportunity to visit with several local attorneys in the Phoenix area (if you read the postings within this thread then you'd realize I have more than a passing interest in these prosecutions - I have first hand experience) - I've read discovery in the cases, I've read trial transcripts, and I've seen those pleadings that have been made public (many are sealed). Precedent now exists in Maricopa county in at least two instances where both the Escort and the client were convicted (at trial) of engaging in prostitution being charged under A.R.S. §13-3214(A) as defined by A.R.S. §13-3211(5) and convicted of conspiracy to engage in a criminal enterprise and conspiracy to commit criminal acts based in part on A.R.S §13-1003(A-D) solely upon the basis (evidence) of a pattern of reviews. Those choosing to go to trial and in instances of their subsequently being found guilty are being forced to register as sexual offenders - see A.R.S. §13-3821(C) - therefore, most take the "deal" when it is offered to avoid the possibility of being forced to register as a sex offender.
Your "joking" (specifically regarding the client list) and making statements with no basis in fact in regard to such a serious matter would lead me and probably most any rational person to wonder if your comments are based solely on conjecture. The substantive statements you made in your initial posting were impugned by objective factual references. I do agree with your statement that "Gossip of the site being 'mentioned' in a case is not the same a facts we should use in making decisions concerning reviews." In that case, I would point you to the public records that are supportive of the site (TER) and others being used as an basis of evidence and probable cause to pursue individual charges (specifically, just read the indictments that have been unsealed, the indictments mention five review Websites).
I don't have an agenda, I'm not a "no review proponent", even aside from my personal preferences of having a "no review policy". I fully realize they are necessary (read all my previous postings in this thread and take them in context) but as I mentioned, I feel a working professional should limit their risk (exposure) by tightly controlling their reviews. I do, and it has served me well. Others have a different outlook. Which is correct? Whichever stance you feel makes you most comfortable!
One unfortunate fact regarding this thread is the difficulty to separate the discussion of client's liability (the party placing the review) from the provider's liability (the party subject to review) as the initial question was posed looking for opinions on both . . . it may have been less confusing to have one thread with discussion regarding client liability and another discussion regarding Escort / provider liability . . .
Best regards,
- Jackie Devlin
FACTS (not gossip) are that TER reviews (along with reviews from other Websites, including those placed on a Website directly owned and controlled by DD - which were "pay [discount] for review", and that practice was extended to other review sites, such as TER) were (and still are being) used extensively in the prosecution of the DD case. I've had the opportunity to visit with several local attorneys in the Phoenix area (if you read the postings within this thread then you'd realize I have more than a passing interest in these prosecutions - I have first hand experience) - I've read discovery in the cases, I've read trial transcripts, and I've seen those pleadings that have been made public (many are sealed). Precedent now exists in Maricopa county in at least two instances where both the Escort and the client were convicted (at trial) of engaging in prostitution being charged under A.R.S. §13-3214(A) as defined by A.R.S. §13-3211(5) and convicted of conspiracy to engage in a criminal enterprise and conspiracy to commit criminal acts based in part on A.R.S §13-1003(A-D) solely upon the basis (evidence) of a pattern of reviews. Those choosing to go to trial and in instances of their subsequently being found guilty are being forced to register as sexual offenders - see A.R.S. §13-3821(C) - therefore, most take the "deal" when it is offered to avoid the possibility of being forced to register as a sex offender.
Your "joking" (specifically regarding the client list) and making statements with no basis in fact in regard to such a serious matter would lead me and probably most any rational person to wonder if your comments are based solely on conjecture. The substantive statements you made in your initial posting were impugned by objective factual references. I do agree with your statement that "Gossip of the site being 'mentioned' in a case is not the same a facts we should use in making decisions concerning reviews." In that case, I would point you to the public records that are supportive of the site (TER) and others being used as an basis of evidence and probable cause to pursue individual charges (specifically, just read the indictments that have been unsealed, the indictments mention five review Websites).
I don't have an agenda, I'm not a "no review proponent", even aside from my personal preferences of having a "no review policy". I fully realize they are necessary (read all my previous postings in this thread and take them in context) but as I mentioned, I feel a working professional should limit their risk (exposure) by tightly controlling their reviews. I do, and it has served me well. Others have a different outlook. Which is correct? Whichever stance you feel makes you most comfortable!
One unfortunate fact regarding this thread is the difficulty to separate the discussion of client's liability (the party placing the review) from the provider's liability (the party subject to review) as the initial question was posed looking for opinions on both . . . it may have been less confusing to have one thread with discussion regarding client liability and another discussion regarding Escort / provider liability . . .
Best regards,
- Jackie Devlin
- Guest121212
- 01-16-2010, 01:02 PM
Never-mind.
- Guest030911
- 01-16-2010, 02:52 PM
Frankly, the press scares me much more than LE does. The press reads this stuff and does not have any of the same rules to follow that LE does. They can do their own investigations or obtain info from LE and publish or air what they want. When your friends, family, co-workers, clients, business associates, etc. learn about it, you are "guilty" with no recourse. The consequences can be far more devastating than a misdemeanor arrest.
Prostitutes who write books or appear on TV or otherwise embrace the press and simultaneously claim discretion is key seem to be in conflict with my ideas of a discrete professional.
Prostitutes who write books or appear on TV or otherwise embrace the press and simultaneously claim discretion is key seem to be in conflict with my ideas of a discrete professional.
- mysterioso77
- 01-16-2010, 05:20 PM
This thread has been a great read but I am still undecided whether to buy premium access and expose my cc info as I did BCD with ASPD or write some reviews for premium access and thereby record some of my 'dream/fantasy' acts for posterity. I guess I need to just take a chance on one.
In an unrelated note - is it just me or does the beautiful Jackie Devlin bear a striking resemblance to classic 80's pornstar Tracey Adams? Jackie, I would appreciate a heads-up PM if you ever tour Houston...
In an unrelated note - is it just me or does the beautiful Jackie Devlin bear a striking resemblance to classic 80's pornstar Tracey Adams? Jackie, I would appreciate a heads-up PM if you ever tour Houston...
- Guest121212
- 01-16-2010, 11:11 PM
This thread has been a great read but I am still undecided whether to buy premium access and expose my cc info as I did BCD with ASPD or write some reviews for premium access and thereby record some of my 'dream/fantasy' acts for posterity. I guess I need to just take a chance on one.You could always use a "reloadable" untraceable credit card obtainable from most any convenience store and join using an anonymous email address . . . If I ever get to Houston I'll look you up. I've seen Tracey's films, I do better. But, thank you for the compliment!
In an unrelated note - is it just me or does the beautiful Jackie Devlin bear a striking resemblance to classic 80's pornstar Tracey Adams? Jackie, I would appreciate a heads-up PM if you ever tour Houston... Originally Posted by mysterioso77
Buy access to this Website or add to the review count, I like ECCIE and they could use good members - most everyone believes I'm just a "tin foil hat wearing nutty b!#$%" anyway!
Kisses,
- Jackie
- mysterioso77
- 01-17-2010, 01:25 AM
Yes, I was PM'd that advice. Can't believe I never thought of that myself!