NYC CRACKDOWN ON ESCORTS!!!

[+ Lucky]

It is so amazing that in the midst of high terror alerts the police would at all care about someone paying to get their rocks off.

[Guest nycbtm]

I think that this has less to do with sex and more with immigration issues. If an escort advertises as being from another country, especially a Central or South American one that sends a Red Flag. It might be a "selling point" from the client and escort's view,but from a Police perspective, chances are that the Escort/Dancer is here illegally and with the Homeland Security Act, Local Law Enforcement are now more actively involved in catching aliens who over stayed their visa. Sex Industry workers are an easy target; it's a cash business and it's common to use an alias.

I could see how the hot Latin escorts and the Gaiety Dancers (everyone knows that most are from Eastern Europe and Canada), would be police targets. When police do stings of "street walkers" they are either released on very little bail or "ROR" and back out on the street again in a few hours from arrest. If I owned a club that featured nude dancers, I would make sure I checked everyone's legal status just as if were a "main stream business", because the owners of a club would be fined and even closed for hiring illegal aliens.

[Guest nycbtm]

I think that this has less to do with sex and more with immigration issues. If an escort advertises as being from another country, especially a Central or South American one that sends a Red Flag. It might be a "selling point" from the client and escort's view,but from a Police perspective, chances are that the Escort/Dancer is here illegally and with the Homeland Security Act, Local Law Enforcement are now more actively involved in catching aliens who over stayed their visa. Sex Industry workers are an easy target; it's a cash business and it's common to use an alias.

I could see how the hot Latin escorts and the Gaiety Dancers (everyone knows that most are from Eastern Europe and Canada), would be police targets. When police do stings of "street walkers" they are either released on very little bail or "ROR" and back out on the street again in a few hours from arrest. If I owned a club that featured nude dancers, I would make sure I checked everyone's legal status just as if were a "main stream business", because the owners of a club would be fined and even closed for hiring illegal aliens.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>If I owned a club that featured nude dancers, I would make

>sure I checked everyone's legal status just as if were a "main

>stream business", because the owners of a club would be fined

>and even closed for hiring illegal aliens.

 

I've wondered about this. How does the Gaiety get around this issue? Or are they technically not hiring the dancers, but allowing them to appear (or is that even a valid distinction with regard to immigration issues)?

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>If I owned a club that featured nude dancers, I would make

>sure I checked everyone's legal status just as if were a "main

>stream business", because the owners of a club would be fined

>and even closed for hiring illegal aliens.

 

I've wondered about this. How does the Gaiety get around this issue? Or are they technically not hiring the dancers, but allowing them to appear (or is that even a valid distinction with regard to immigration issues)?

[Guest nycbtm]

Technically I would guess that are on a 1099 (independent contractor), however I do know that the labor law states that even that is the case and the person is "scheduled" at the workplace (meaning that they must be there at a certain time and for a certain duration) an I-90 form (work status) must be filled out and kept on file.

[Guest nycbtm]

Technically I would guess that are on a 1099 (independent contractor), however I do know that the labor law states that even that is the case and the person is "scheduled" at the workplace (meaning that they must be there at a certain time and for a certain duration) an I-90 form (work status) must be filled out and kept on file.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

Is this also true if they're not getting paid by the Gaiety? (I think I've heard before that the dancers aren't paid by the theater at all, but rely on tips and of course private shows. Is this true?)

[Guest DevonSFescort]

Is this also true if they're not getting paid by the Gaiety? (I think I've heard before that the dancers aren't paid by the theater at all, but rely on tips and of course private shows. Is this true?)

[Guest nycbtm]

I don't know what their specific situation is, however I do know that if an establishment makes a direct profit on the independent contractor's labor (they charge admission to see the boys) and the independent contractor is "scheduled" they are responsible to keep an I-90 form on file. This is different if you hire a handyman, say, to do some fix up work for your house and then you sell your house, that is "indirect profit" and that's why the handyman does not have to fill out a I-90 form

(everyone is considered an independent contractor, by default if a W-2 form is not filled out, whether they are paid or not and whether or not a 1099 is filled out)

[Guest nycbtm]

I don't know what their specific situation is, however I do know that if an establishment makes a direct profit on the independent contractor's labor (they charge admission to see the boys) and the independent contractor is "scheduled" they are responsible to keep an I-90 form on file. This is different if you hire a handyman, say, to do some fix up work for your house and then you sell your house, that is "indirect profit" and that's why the handyman does not have to fill out a I-90 form

(everyone is considered an independent contractor, by default if a W-2 form is not filled out, whether they are paid or not and whether or not a 1099 is filled out)

[Cooper]

>Is this also true if they're not getting paid by the Gaiety?

>(I think I've heard before that the dancers aren't paid by the

>theater at all, but rely on tips and of course private shows.

>Is this true?)

 

Devon, The dancers are paid by the Gaiety. They receive a minimum of $10 a show, 5 shows a day, for engagements running up to 10 days. Some of the featured dancers earn more per show. Earnings for a week can range from $300 and up. Tips and income from privates are separate.

[Cooper]

>Is this also true if they're not getting paid by the Gaiety?

>(I think I've heard before that the dancers aren't paid by the

>theater at all, but rely on tips and of course private shows.

>Is this true?)

 

Devon, The dancers are paid by the Gaiety. They receive a minimum of $10 a show, 5 shows a day, for engagements running up to 10 days. Some of the featured dancers earn more per show. Earnings for a week can range from $300 and up. Tips and income from privates are separate.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

Thanks for the scoop, Coop...:+

[Guest DevonSFescort]

Thanks for the scoop, Coop...:+

[Guest nhl-nbaguy]

Sorry, I had you confused with Lucky on the directed verdict point. I am happy you disagree with him.

 

On the rest, we are saying much the same now, I think. My point is that it would be wrong to advise escorts or clients to plan to prevail at trial with Lucky's directed verdict advice, and that your original statement about the law of entrapment is misleading. There is much criticism of entrapment here and in other common law jurisdictions, and that criticism has to do with predisposition. It is precisely the proof of predisposition that makes some (learned) people uncomfortable because it permits/encourages: (a) peace officers and prosecutors to lay charges when the facts in a particular case are less than clear (e.g., Marion Barry cocaine video); and (b) juries to convict based on circumstantial evidence in a particular case that would not be suficient without dubious proof of disposition (which is a different legal notion, than prior bad acts.) Folks can follow you or Lucky on this if they want, and for your sakes it is good that you don't have an attorney client relationship so they can sue you for malpractice after the fact.

[Guest nhl-nbaguy]

Sorry, I had you confused with Lucky on the directed verdict point. I am happy you disagree with him.

 

On the rest, we are saying much the same now, I think. My point is that it would be wrong to advise escorts or clients to plan to prevail at trial with Lucky's directed verdict advice, and that your original statement about the law of entrapment is misleading. There is much criticism of entrapment here and in other common law jurisdictions, and that criticism has to do with predisposition. It is precisely the proof of predisposition that makes some (learned) people uncomfortable because it permits/encourages: (a) peace officers and prosecutors to lay charges when the facts in a particular case are less than clear (e.g., Marion Barry cocaine video); and (b) juries to convict based on circumstantial evidence in a particular case that would not be suficient without dubious proof of disposition (which is a different legal notion, than prior bad acts.) Folks can follow you or Lucky on this if they want, and for your sakes it is good that you don't have an attorney client relationship so they can sue you for malpractice after the fact.

[woodlawn]

>Sorry, I had you confused with Lucky on the directed verdict

>point. I am happy you disagree with him.

 

I have no idea what point you are referring to, so I don't know whether I disagree with him or not.

 

 

>On the rest, we are saying much the same now, I think. My

>point is that it would be wrong to advise escorts or clients

>to plan to prevail at trial with Lucky's directed verdict

>advice,

 

Once again, I do not know what comments of his you are talking about. Please provide the post number.

 

>and that your original statement about the law of

>entrapment is misleading. There is much criticism of

>entrapment here and in other common law jurisdictions, and

>that criticism has to do with predisposition. It is precisely

>the proof of predisposition that makes some (learned) people

>uncomfortable because it permits/encourages: (a) peace

>officers and prosecutors to lay charges when the facts in a

>particular case are less than clear (e.g., Marion Barry

>cocaine video); and (b) juries to convict based on

>circumstantial evidence in a particular case that would not be

>suficient without dubious proof of disposition (which is a

>different legal notion, than prior bad acts.)

 

 

A couple of things.

 

First, although you keep referring to 'other common law jurisdictions' than the U.S. I fail to see what relevance those jurisdictions have to escorts or masseurs working in Texas or New York. Those are the jurisdictions that have come up in this thread.

 

Second, I know of no court decision that supports the concerns you've mentioned. I asked you to cite one earlier and so far you have not done so. A vague reference to the 'Marion Barry case' or some other case you heard about in the media won't do it. If many jurists have expressed the same concern you have, you should be able to cite an appellate decision or at least a journal article that bears that out. Can you do it or not?

 

 

Folks can

>follow you or Lucky on this if they want, and for your sakes

>it is good that you don't have an attorney client relationship

>so they can sue you for malpractice after the fact.

 

I have no idea what advice of Lucky's you are talking about. My advice is that legitimate masseurs who don't want to be convicted of prostitution should simply avoid the behavior that is the basis for such a conviction under their state's statute. I defy you to produce any case, article or other legal authority that contradicts that advice. I really don't think you can.

[woodlawn]

>Sorry, I had you confused with Lucky on the directed verdict

>point. I am happy you disagree with him.

 

I have no idea what point you are referring to, so I don't know whether I disagree with him or not.

 

 

>On the rest, we are saying much the same now, I think. My

>point is that it would be wrong to advise escorts or clients

>to plan to prevail at trial with Lucky's directed verdict

>advice,

 

Once again, I do not know what comments of his you are talking about. Please provide the post number.

 

>and that your original statement about the law of

>entrapment is misleading. There is much criticism of

>entrapment here and in other common law jurisdictions, and

>that criticism has to do with predisposition. It is precisely

>the proof of predisposition that makes some (learned) people

>uncomfortable because it permits/encourages: (a) peace

>officers and prosecutors to lay charges when the facts in a

>particular case are less than clear (e.g., Marion Barry

>cocaine video); and (b) juries to convict based on

>circumstantial evidence in a particular case that would not be

>suficient without dubious proof of disposition (which is a

>different legal notion, than prior bad acts.)

 

 

A couple of things.

 

First, although you keep referring to 'other common law jurisdictions' than the U.S. I fail to see what relevance those jurisdictions have to escorts or masseurs working in Texas or New York. Those are the jurisdictions that have come up in this thread.

 

Second, I know of no court decision that supports the concerns you've mentioned. I asked you to cite one earlier and so far you have not done so. A vague reference to the 'Marion Barry case' or some other case you heard about in the media won't do it. If many jurists have expressed the same concern you have, you should be able to cite an appellate decision or at least a journal article that bears that out. Can you do it or not?

 

 

Folks can

>follow you or Lucky on this if they want, and for your sakes

>it is good that you don't have an attorney client relationship

>so they can sue you for malpractice after the fact.

 

I have no idea what advice of Lucky's you are talking about. My advice is that legitimate masseurs who don't want to be convicted of prostitution should simply avoid the behavior that is the basis for such a conviction under their state's statute. I defy you to produce any case, article or other legal authority that contradicts that advice. I really don't think you can.

[+ Lucky]

What the hell you talking about? Where did I ever mention a directed verdict? All I am is confused by your gibberish as I quoted.

[+ Lucky]

What the hell you talking about? Where did I ever mention a directed verdict? All I am is confused by your gibberish as I quoted.

[+ Lucky]

The reason you don't know what this idiot is talking about re my post is that he has made the whole thing up. I simply quoted some very nonsensical writing of his. I think he is a complete idiot.

[+ Lucky]

The reason you don't know what this idiot is talking about re my post is that he has made the whole thing up. I simply quoted some very nonsensical writing of his. I think he is a complete idiot.

[Guest nhl-nbaguy]

If you are an attorney might I suggest you do a lexis search in the All Law Review database for the key words. You really show your ignorance if you don't know that there has been substantial criticism of the "entrapment" doctrine in the U.S. As for the references to other common law jurisdictions, that is only to point out that the view that you dismissed earlier is one shared by many learned people. At any rate, if any escort or client wants to follow your advice, I wish them luck. I'd be happy to compare my billable rate with yours any day!

[Guest nhl-nbaguy]

If you are an attorney might I suggest you do a lexis search in the All Law Review database for the key words. You really show your ignorance if you don't know that there has been substantial criticism of the "entrapment" doctrine in the U.S. As for the references to other common law jurisdictions, that is only to point out that the view that you dismissed earlier is one shared by many learned people. At any rate, if any escort or client wants to follow your advice, I wish them luck. I'd be happy to compare my billable rate with yours any day!