NYC CRACKDOWN ON ESCORTS!!!

[Guest LOVEHANDLE27]

Just got a frantic call from my Brazilian escort friend telling me that the cops are knocking on escorts/masseurs homes after making appts with them over the phone. As soon as they get the addresses, (my friend said he got the same call but since he got the license as a CMT, he wasn't taken in for questioning: they did show up at his door!) they would immediately identify themselves as cops and ask for licenses. His roommate got the same call and was arrested for prostitution and is now in jail. He is now being charged with operating without license for massage, along with prostituting and was told that eventually with immigration violations since he is here on student visa that have expired. Please, brace yourself, and for everyone out there: be careful!!! No more horror stories like these, please!!! Scary!!!

[ad rian]

A regular of mine also told me that the police i NYC are running stings in medium-priced hotels. He told me that he regards both low-priced and high-priced joints as safe - the latter because of police budgets, and the former because they are too obvious. I have no independent verification of this. I was a little surprised to hear this from this particular escort. Anyone else share his view?

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>Just got a frantic call from my Brazilian escort friend

>telling me that the cops are knocking on escorts/masseurs

>homes after making appts with them over the phone. As soon as

>they get the addresses, (my friend said he got the same call

>but since he got the license as a CMT, he wasn't taken in for

>questioning: they did show up at his door!) they would

>immediately identify themselves as cops and ask for licenses.

>His roommate got the same call and was arrested for

>prostitution and is now in jail.

 

I'm confused. The police call someone who advertises massages. They show up, knock on the guy's door and ask for his massage license. The guy says, "I don't have one.", and then they police arrest him for PROSTITUTION? How can they do that? I can understand them FINING him for operating without a license but how can they make the leap to prostitution? There has to be more to this story.

 

Skeptically yours,

 

FFF

[VaHawk]

Is your regular also here on a visa? Perhaps, this is just some more fallout from the homeland security crackdown. If so, just another example of Bush's disregard of due process of law!

[Guest rick7nyc]

There are two hotels in mid-town where stings regularly take place: the Marriot Marquis on 46th and the Milford Plaza on Eighth. I was wary of those places even during my street hustling days. I haven't yet hooked online because I have no control over who has contact. Two friends in Vegas has gotten tagged that way.

 

Rick

[Bilbo]

In many states, including Texas, anyone practicing massage without a massage license is ipso facto a prostitute by law. I wouldn't mind being corrected by one of our lawyers, but I think that that is the truth. I think it has something to do with putting one's hands all over a naked or nearly naked body for an hour and the assumptions jumped to based on that by people still yoked into the worst parts (instead of the better) of our Pilgirm heritage.

[Guest fukamarine]

>In many states, including Texas, anyone practicing massage

>without a massage license is ipso facto a prostitute by law. I

>wouldn't mind being corrected by one of our lawyers, but I

>think that that is the truth. I think it has something to do

>with putting one's hands all over a naked or nearly naked body

>for an hour and the assumptions jumped to based on that by

>people still yoked into the worst parts (instead of the

>better) of our Pilgirm heritage.

 

I'm confused.......... How can they consider a person to not be a prostitute if they have a license and a pro if they don't. Doesn't the licensed person also have their hands all over a naked body for an hour?

 

This sounds like Bush/Asscroft logic to me!

 

fukamarine

[Flower]

>In many states, including Texas, anyone practicing massage

>without a massage license is ipso facto a prostitute by law. I

>wouldn't mind being corrected by one of our lawyers, but I

>think that that is the truth.

 

That would be a very strange and probably unconstitutional law Bilbo, and I truly think it a misconception.

 

Prostitution is a SPECIFIC INTENT crime in ANY State, that is, there has to be the "specific intent" of the alleged prostitute to give sexual pleasure or perform a sex act for money as opposed to, say accidentally rubbing an erogenous zone as he walks by

 

The prosecutor MUST prove the intent in order to even get the case to a jury as opposed to having a judge direct a verdict in the defendant's favor at the end of the prosecutor's case in the event he doesn't prove specific intent.

 

Damn, I hate to agree with FFF, but there has to be more. If what this guy was doing would have been legal with a CMT license, then simply the lack of a license will NEVER make it prostitution--just practicing MT without a license :+

[Guest in yer face]

I agree. Theres more holes in this story than there is on the website.

 

 

 

 

>I'm confused. The police call someone who advertises massages.

>They show up, knock on the guy's door and ask for his massage

>license. The guy says, "I don't have one.", and then they

>police arrest him for PROSTITUTION? How can they do that? I

>can understand them FINING him for operating without a license

>but how can they make the leap to prostitution? There has to

>be more to this story.

>

>Skeptically yours,

>

>FFF

[ad rian]

>Prostitution is a SPECIFIC INTENT crime in ANY State, that is,

>there has to be the "specific intent" of the alleged

>prostitute to give sexual pleasure or perform a sex act for

>money as opposed to, say accidentally rubbing an erogenous

>zone as he walks by

 

Are you practising law without a license again? What nonsense! These are factual questions for a jury. I am afraid most of your neighbors would regard a guy advetising for massages on-line, in a hotel with someone he never met before, a sack full of condoms and a huge bottle of lube as sufficient proof of intent!

>

>The prosecutor MUST prove the intent in order to even get the

>case to a jury as opposed to having a judge direct a verdict

>in the defendant's favor at the end of the prosecutor's case

>in the event he doesn't prove specific intent.

[duke37]

Has this story been confirmed by appearing in a newspaper account? Surely one of NYC's 3 daily papers prints a police blotter column.

 

Thanks

 

Jeff

[Guest Flyguyxoxo]

Oh Great!!! I plan on staying @ the Milford Plaza during my upcoming visit to NYC. Should I try to meet the escort at their place instead? Bummer! :-( One of the guys I was gonna hook up with only does outvisits. Someone .... please advise.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Call the escort now. Tell him your concern. If he has concern then offer to meet him elsewhere nearby 'to get acquainted' first. Then go back to your room.

[Guest Emily Litella]

What's all this I hear about a NYC escort's crack? Does every thread here have to be about Rick Munroe?! That's just ridiculous! x(

[Rick Munroe]

Umm...Miss Litella, the story was about a crackdown on escorts, not an escort's crack.

[Guest Emily Litella]

Oh, well, that's very different. Never mind.

 

Back to you, Cheddar. :+

[Guest Flyguyxoxo]

Are you saying it is safer if I meet the escort and walk up to my room together? (Sorry to be such a small-town hick, but I am. :-( ) Thanks for the advice ... very nice of you to take the time and tell me

[Flower]

>Are you practising law without a license again? What

>nonsense! These are factual questions for a jury. I am

>afraid most of your neighbors would regard a guy advetising

>for massages on-line, in a hotel with someone he never met

>before, a sack full of condoms and a huge bottle of lube as

>sufficient proof of intent!

 

Well now, that just shows your ignorance (or inexperience). You have NOW thrown other facts into the mix ("a sack full of condoms and a huge bottle of lube") that are based on your assumptions but were not in the original post--your typical style.

 

While you are partly correct, intent is usually a factual question for the jury to decide based on the evidence, THE JUDGE IS REQUIRED TO DISMISS THE CASE SUE SPONTAE (Latin for on his own motion) or at least on motion of the defense at the end of the prosecutor's case -- IF THE PROSECUTOR HAS NOT PROVEN HIS CASE AS A MATTER OF LAW -- which of course requires the SPECIFIC intent to be proven also!. This procedure, evidently unknown to you, is called a directed verdict in case you are unfamiliar with trial terms or their meaning.

 

There is an old saying you should memorize--maybe write on your forehead--"Don't even try to take ground you can't hold :+ which means in this case, don't pretend to know or speak about things you are either unqualified to argue or too inexperienced to know about, or both.

 

While your reasoning exhibited in various posts would indicate you probably never did (or should) pass a bar exam, you throw in a few terms now and then indicating some familiarity with the process. I would bet you are a civil attorney and have never tried a case to a jury or at least never a criminal case--otherwise you would not have made such an absurd comment. You could possibly be a law student, which makes much more sense considering your unreasoned passion in other posts and utter arrogance in general--problem is, your posts also make you sound old, so if you are a law student, then it will be a second career if you make it.

[Guest justus]

Come on now, Mr. Flower, you may not like the guy, but I think his point was pretty clear. I don't think you are helping either clients or escorts out by suggesting they wait to be vindicated after a trial, as opposed to avoiding a charge.

 

> Well now, that just shows your

>ignorance (or inexperience). You have NOW thrown other facts

>into the mix ("a sack full of condoms and a huge bottle of

>lube") that are based on your assumptions but were not in the

>original post--your typical style.

 

And maybe he doesn't practice in California. Directed verdicts are not common across all jurisdictions.

 

>While you are partly correct, intent is usually a factual

>question for the jury to decide based on the evidence, THE

>JUDGE IS REQUIRED TO DISMISS THE CASE SUE SPONTAE (Latin for

>on his own motion) or at least on motion of the defense at the

>end of the prosecutor's case -- IF THE PROSECUTOR HAS NOT

>PROVEN HIS CASE AS A MATTER OF LAW -- which of course

>requires the SPECIFIC intent to be proven also!.

 

I think the guy has shown over many posts here that he is an attorney doing international work. I bet he does business law and never goes near a court. Maybe that's how he can afford to hire escorts so often.

 

>I would bet you are a civil attorney and have

>never tried a case to a jury or at least never a criminal

>case--otherwise you would not have made such an absurd

>comment.

[jaynnj]

>In many states, including Texas, anyone practicing massage

>without a massage license is ipso facto a prostitute by law. I

>wouldn't mind being corrected by one of our lawyers, but I

>think that that is the truth. I think it has something to do

>with putting one's hands all over a naked or nearly naked body

>for an hour and the assumptions jumped to based on that by

>people still yoked into the worst parts (instead of the

>better) of our Pilgirm heritage. I would,nt make such a statement

saying " anyone practiceing massage without a License is a

prostitute by law." I do,nt have a License it is not yet

required in the State of NJ I am however a Certifed Massage therapist

with means I went to a Massage school . I had to pass a test with over

250 questions Plus have over 650 hours of schooling in order to

practice Massage. NJ Is trying to get a law past but Myself along with many others that have been to a NJ approved Massage school will

be covered by the grandfather clause. I never have done sexual massage nor do I want to.

[Luv2play]

As I understand it, these stings involve cops posing as clients and inviting escorts to their hotel rooms. If your escort knows you it is no problem; if you made arrangements from an out of town location, even if he hasn't met you before, he knows you are not a NYC cop, so still no problem. I stayed at the Milford Plaza last summer and had escorts visit me and there was no problem. There is a security post just before the bank of elevators but it is such a large hotel that crowds of people are constantly passing by. If your escort is nervous, and you can only do an outcall, meet him at the front entrance and go up together.:-) Have fun!

[Flower]

>Come on now, Mr. Flower, you may not like the guy, but I

>think his point was pretty clear. I don't think you are

>helping either clients or escorts out by suggesting they wait

>to be vindicated after a trial, as opposed to avoiding a

>charge.

 

Justus, it was never my intent to advise anyone -- I was just commenting originally on the fact that a lot had to be missing from the information we had and thus wasn't adding up to the results stated -- I pointed out what was needed for a conviction and old whatshisname then attacked--I wasn't even talking to him.

 

As far as I know, EVERY state does provide for a directed verdict or similar procedure -- and would be very interested in knowing of such a jurisdiction thta doesn't.

 

BTW, if I were asked how to avoid the consequences talked about, that'd be a whole different post and not one I'd enter into lightly--I think such "general" advise given in situations where people might depend on it for their specific situation is dangerous

 

If my post was unclear or my intent misinterpreted, thanks for pointing that out -- hope this clears it up.

 

Your post was interesting and your insight of old whatshisname being an international attorney or business attorney never going to court seemed insightful -- some have speculated that he was you -- is this possible? Just curiouis }(

[Guest justus]

Oh, heavens no, perish the thought. I am just an officer of the court seeking to clarify the analysis and uplift the debate.:-)

 

>Your post was interesting and your insight of old

>whatshisname being an international attorney or business

>attorney never going to court seemed insightful -- some have

>speculated that he was you -- is this possible?

[MiamiLooker]

>I think the guy has shown over many posts here that he is an

>attorney

 

ya think so? :7

[Guest Flyguyxoxo]

Thanks Luv2play

 

Your suggestion makes perfect sense -- even for the guys who do both in/out calls. I mean ... I got the hotel room for several nights, I got my eye on several hot escorts ... and I dont feel like getting a cab or riding the subway to meet them ... I much prefer to have them come to me. (As long as they dont have hidden cameras in the room, I should be OK ... this is still America is it not?) Thanks for helping to relieve some of my anxiety. I dont get to the Big Apple very often and I wanna have fun while I am here