NYC CRACKDOWN ON ESCORTS!!!

[Guest nhl-nbaguy]

Apologies to you too. It was Flower who had the directed verdict point. Unfortunately all 3 of you morph into one on this board.

[Guest nhl-nbaguy]

Apologies to you too. It was Flower who had the directed verdict point. Unfortunately all 3 of you morph into one on this board.

[+ Lucky]

Thanks for the apology ad rian.

[+ Lucky]

Thanks for the apology ad rian.

[Guest LOVEHANDLE27]

This post using this venue is not meant to scare anyone, but to alert a lot if not all escorts who may have to go through what my friend had to go through. It is never pleasant to be caught breaking the law, and we know that these masseurs are not breaking "major" laws. There are rapists, murderers, and lawyers not to mention accountants who still roam this earth freely despite their misdeeds and are still enjoying their sort of freedom at other peoples' expense: sometimes at our own expense. I enjoy hiring masseurs and escorts and will continue to do so. These foreign born escorts give us the variety that otherwise we would have to travel for just to know to be able to enjoy them...I just felt that everyone, client or escort should be very careful. This may very well be a flash in the pan, sooner or later they'll move on to other Giuliani's "quality of life" offenses!!!

[Guest LOVEHANDLE27]

This post using this venue is not meant to scare anyone, but to alert a lot if not all escorts who may have to go through what my friend had to go through. It is never pleasant to be caught breaking the law, and we know that these masseurs are not breaking "major" laws. There are rapists, murderers, and lawyers not to mention accountants who still roam this earth freely despite their misdeeds and are still enjoying their sort of freedom at other peoples' expense: sometimes at our own expense. I enjoy hiring masseurs and escorts and will continue to do so. These foreign born escorts give us the variety that otherwise we would have to travel for just to know to be able to enjoy them...I just felt that everyone, client or escort should be very careful. This may very well be a flash in the pan, sooner or later they'll move on to other Giuliani's "quality of life" offenses!!!

[woodlawn]

>If you are an attorney might I suggest you do a lexis search

>in the All Law Review database for the key words.

 

If you have a brain in your head you should realize how silly it is for you to suggest that I do research to find authorities to support YOUR position. If you have any such authorities, let's see them. If not, I don't see why you would expect anyone to take your view seriously.

 

 

>You really

>show your ignorance if you don't know that there has been

>substantial criticism of the "entrapment" doctrine in the U.S.

 

 

I have heard plenty of criticism of the "entrapment" defense from police officers and prosecutors, but I have not heard defense counsel make the point you seem to be making, which is that it somehow permits cops to put a case on a defendant based on "dubious facts." Once again, if you contend that is a widely held view you should know of some scholarly commentary to that effect. This is the third time I have asked you to produce some. Apparently you can't. If you've never read any cases or articles about this then how do you know about it -- did it come to you in a dream?

 

 

> 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.

 

Then it should be very, very easy for you to refer me to the work of those "many learned people." Well?

 

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!

 

My advice to legitimate masseurs is very simple: just don't commit the crime and you should be okay. I'd really love to hear you explain what is unsound about that advice. As for my rate, since I'm giving the advice for nothing it's hard for me to see how you could provide a better deal.

[woodlawn]

>If you are an attorney might I suggest you do a lexis search

>in the All Law Review database for the key words.

 

If you have a brain in your head you should realize how silly it is for you to suggest that I do research to find authorities to support YOUR position. If you have any such authorities, let's see them. If not, I don't see why you would expect anyone to take your view seriously.

 

 

>You really

>show your ignorance if you don't know that there has been

>substantial criticism of the "entrapment" doctrine in the U.S.

 

 

I have heard plenty of criticism of the "entrapment" defense from police officers and prosecutors, but I have not heard defense counsel make the point you seem to be making, which is that it somehow permits cops to put a case on a defendant based on "dubious facts." Once again, if you contend that is a widely held view you should know of some scholarly commentary to that effect. This is the third time I have asked you to produce some. Apparently you can't. If you've never read any cases or articles about this then how do you know about it -- did it come to you in a dream?

 

 

> 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.

 

Then it should be very, very easy for you to refer me to the work of those "many learned people." Well?

 

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!

 

My advice to legitimate masseurs is very simple: just don't commit the crime and you should be okay. I'd really love to hear you explain what is unsound about that advice. As for my rate, since I'm giving the advice for nothing it's hard for me to see how you could provide a better deal.

[Guest nhl-nbaguy]

No, I thought the consensus was that Ad Rian was IM Moore?

[Guest nhl-nbaguy]

I practice law for a living. I post on this Board when I am bored. If you want to retain me, if you can afford my fees, I would be happy to do legal research for you. I think you misunderstand the purpose of a message board if you think everytime you want legal research done you can pout your lips and stamp your feet. On this, I agree with Bilbo.

[woodlawn]

>I practice law for a living. I post on this Board when I am

>bored. If you want to retain me, if you can afford my fees, I

>would be happy to do legal research for you.

 

No thanks. In just this brief discussion you have already attributed statements to both me and Lucky even though, as you later admitted, we never made those statements. That is not the kind of behavior that inspires confidence in your professional abilities.

 

 

>I think you

>misunderstand the purpose of a message board if you think

>everytime you want legal research done you can pout your lips

>and stamp your feet. On this, I agree with Bilbo.

 

I think you misunderstand the nature of a message board if you think you can claim to be aware of legal precedents but refuse to cite them and still have your audience believing that you know what you're talking about. It's obvious to everyone who has followed this discussion that you don't have anything to back up the position you've taken. If you did, it would be the work of a couple of minutes for you to prove it. It would require only a fraction of the time you've already spent accusing posters of saying things they never said.

 

I think you "agree with Bilbo" in at least one way. Both of you have posted statements that in no way help or clarify the situation of any of the people who are concerned with the subject of this thread. I wish you would find some way to alleviate your boredom that does not involve misleading people who have real concerns about their legal situation.

[Guest nhl-nbaguy]

>I think you misunderstand the nature of a message board if you

>think you can claim to be aware of legal precedents but refuse

>to cite them and still have your audience believing that you

>know what you're talking about.

 

I have made it clear how/where anyone can find what I am talking about. Go to lexis, library All law reviews and plug in the key word entrapment and predisposition. Anything more than that, I am afraid, you will have to pay for, if you can afford to. Frankly, it is more important that my paying clients believe I know what I am talking about than a few washed up second rate legal minds on this Board. Anybody who chooses to follow you or Lucky or Flower or what ever name you choose to post under at any given point in time can take their chances. Let's compare billable rates some time!

[woodlawn]

>I have made it clear how/where anyone can find what I am

>talking about.

 

All you have made clear is that you have no idea whether there is any support for your position or not. If you knew of any such support, you would have posted it long ago.

 

>Frankly, it is more important that my paying

>clients believe I know what I am talking about than a few

>washed up second rate legal minds on this Board.

 

 

Considering the fact that your intellectual abilities are not sufficient to allow you to remember which of the people you're talking to said what, there is a certain irony in your habit of casting aspersions on the abilities of others.

 

>Anybody who

>chooses to follow you or Lucky or Flower or what ever name you

>choose to post under at any given point in time can take their

>chances.

 

Speaking of irony, ad rian, it is more than a little ironic for you to be accusing anyone else of posting under multiple screen names.

 

As for "following" me, I have no hesitation in advising anyone who wants to avoid prosecution for prostitution on the best and surest method for doing so: don't do the crime. That is exactly what the ABA rules of ethics require an attorney to tell people in that situation. Of course, if you really were an attorney you'd know that without my having to remind you.

 

 

 

 

Let's compare billable rates some time!

[Guest nhl-nbaguy]

>As for "following" me, I have no hesitation in advising anyone

>who wants to avoid prosecution for prostitution on the best

>and surest method for doing so: don't do the crime. That is

>exactly what the ABA rules of ethics require an attorney to

>tell people in that situation. Of course, if you really were

>an attorney you'd know that without my having to remind you.

 

Interesting, but good lawyers make money by finding solutions, not identifying problems, within the Rules of Professional Ethics of course. If you were a succesful and profitable attorney, you'd know that without my having to remind you.

[woodlawn]

>Interesting, but good lawyers make money by finding solutions,

>not identifying problems, within the Rules of Professional

>Ethics of course.

 

Uh, it's a little alarming if I am the first person to explain this to you, but the ABA rules do not allow an attorney under ANY circumstances to advise a client on how to commit a crime without being prosecuted. No matter how many ways you can think of to do it, it simply is not permitted.

 

>If you were a succesful and profitable

>attorney, you'd know that without my having to remind you.

 

Not that I am suggesting you do this, but in all the posts you have inserted into this thread I have not seen any advice that you are providing to the people who are concerned about the legal risk that is the thread's subject. Basically, there are two questions here: how can a legitimate masseur avoid prosecution for prostitution, and how can escorts protect themselves against sting operations. My answer to the former is, avoid the behavior that is forbidden by your state's prostitution statute. If the statute says that sexual contact consists of touching certain areas of the body, don't touch them. My answer to the latter is, they can't. I have not seen you come up with any answer to either question. Your only purpose here seems to be to throw dirt at other people. For a change.

[Guest nhl-nbaguy]

>Uh, it's a little alarming if I am the first person to explain

>this to you, but the ABA rules do not allow an attorney under

>ANY circumstances to advise a client on how to commit a crime

>without being prosecuted. No matter how many ways you can

>think of to do it, it simply is not permitted.

 

And no where have I suggested counselling a client on the commission of a crime. The difference between corner store lawyers who wear threadbare clothes and those who work in office towers and wear designer suits is that the former counsel clients about problems, while the latter find legal solutions. It's pretty revealing about the kind of lawyer you are if you don't understand that.

[Bilbo]

I hate to seem rude or a coward, to have helped to create such a storm and then ignored it. But I did warn y'all that I was not going to be able to give this the time it deserves. How about this - instead of everyone arguing about who should go ahead and post actual references (it really being no one's job to do so), I will go ahead withing the next week and contact the state of Texas licensing people and then post the parts of the law that I consider relevant? That should be in what, two to four weeks? Shall we declare a moritorium, both sides backing off without losing any more face until I (or someone else if anyone wants to beat me to it) actually posts the law we're trying to argue about without looking it up?

 

As far as any complaint about hijacking a thread - since when is it new around here to hijack one, especially when it appears that the actual discussion isn't going anywhere and the hijacking involves a subject at least tangential to it?

[woodlawn]

>And no where have I suggested counselling a client on the

>commission of a crime. The difference between corner store

>lawyers who wear threadbare clothes and those who work in

>office towers and wear designer suits is that the former

>counsel clients about problems, while the latter find legal

>solutions.

 

 

Really? So what's the "legal solution" to the problem of someone who wants to get paid for having sexual contact with other men?

 

Don't tell me, let me guess. You really know the solution, but you refuse to tell us because you make your living finding "legal solutions" and you expect to be paid for doing so. I'm sure everyone will believe that.

[woodlawn]

>I hate to seem rude or a coward, to have helped to create

>such a storm and then ignored it.

 

There is no "storm" here. What is going on is that ad rian pretended to know about an area of the law of which he actually knows nothing. I suspect Flower is right about him; he's probably in some area of civil practice. Around people who know nothing of criminal law he can toss around a few legal buzzwords and seem like an expert, but when he runs into people who actually know the field it becomes clear very quickly how little he knows about it. I called him on it and he reacted with namecalling and insults, as usual.

 

 

>But I did warn y'all that I

>was not going to be able to give this the time it deserves.

>How about this - instead of everyone arguing about who should

>go ahead and post actual references (it really being no one's

>job to do so), I will go ahead withing the next week and

>contact the state of Texas licensing people and then post the

>parts of the law that I consider relevant?

 

Ad rian and I are not arguing about Texas law on massage therapists, a subject of which he knows no more than you do. We're talking about certain ramifications of the entrapment defense, which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue you raised.

 

If you're still interested in the massage issue, why don't you just drop by your local public library, where they probably have a complete collection of the Texas Civil Statutes, open up the volume that has the index, look up the law on licensing massage therapists, and read the fucking thing? It should take about twenty minutes. If you really made a substantial part of your living as a massage therapist I can't understand why you didn't do that a long time ago. If you had, you wouldn't have posted that misinformation.

 

While you're in there, you might as well look up entrapment and read that statute as well. Then you will finally understand what that word means. Look, if it makes you feel better about your own arrest to think that it was the result of entrapment, go ahead and think that. But I really cringe whenever I see you and others using that word on this board in a way that may mislead escorts into thinking they can raise that defense if they are caught in an ordinary police sting operation. The two are not, not, not, repeat not, the same thing.

[woodlawn]

>I will go ahead withing the next week and

>>contact the state of Texas licensing people and then post

>the parts of the law that I consider relevant?

 

 

Please don't bother. I took five minutes out from some other stuff I was doing and looked it up. The relevant statutes are in the Texas Occupations Code, Chapter 455, sections 455.152 and 455.352. It is provided that anyone convicted of prostitution or another sexual offense or who enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or receives a deferred adjudication with respect to such an offense is ineligible for registration as a massage therapist. It is also provided that anyone who accepts a fee for providing message therapy without being registered as such is guilty of a misdemeanor. The statutes say nothing about automatic conviction for prostitution. Happy?

 

If you'd like to learn something about entrapment, the Texas statute on that subject is found in the Texas Penal Code, Title 2, Chapter 8, section 8.06. Enjoy.

[Bilbo]

Mainly to Woodlawn (or should I say Regulation?) -

 

First, it is nice to know that there is no storm going on here. However, your very paragraph declaring that also included a bit more thunder.

 

Interesting that my declaration of being about to look it up actually spurred you to finally do it. About time.

 

I have already said that I know that when I say "entrapment" and when the law says "entrapment" we do not agree with each other on the meaning of the word. And, unless I missed it, I have not seen anyone post a word which they suggest that I use instead for shorthand for "someone lying, an immoral act, in order to enforce their definition of proper morals". And it is their definition, whether it is the one taught to them by society and its laws or not. Until I hear of a satisfactory substitute, I shall continue to use the word as I see fit, knowing full well that it is not the legal profession's definition of the word.

 

Daddy has already warned us that he feels that there are people on here who ask leading questions so as to use that information against us. I personally warn everyone that while I still hope that you are genuine I strongly suspect that there are people on this board who sole purpose here is to make sure that we do not have an easy time of organizing to help one of our favorite pastimes ( a "pursuit of happiness") - escorting/whoring/whateveryoumaycallit - become more stylish, more accepted, and ultimately more legal.

 

There may come a time when I will post excerpts from the state massage law - on another thread. I am not even sure why your postings hit me the wrong way, but they did, and I will ignore this thread from now on. If you want a part of me, you'll have to start another one. }(

[woodlawn]

>Mainly to Woodlawn (or should I say Regulation?) -

 

 

Call me whatever you like. As we both know, raising the screen name issue is just a way of avoiding dealing with the substance of what another poster says.

 

>Interesting that my declaration of being about to look it up

>actually spurred you to finally do it. About time.

 

 

"About time?" I have no real duty to correct the misinformation you post on this board, I do it out of the goodness of my heart. If anyone has a duty it's you, a duty to make sure you know what you're talking about before you post something that could scare people unnecessarily, or in the alternative give them a false sense of security.

 

 

>And, unless I missed it, I

>have not seen anyone post a word which they suggest that I use

>instead for shorthand for "someone lying, an immoral act, in

>order to enforce their definition of proper morals".

 

Yes, you missed it. I said before that what happened to you, so far as I can tell from the facts you posted, is a common, garden variety police sting. All such operations by definition involve a deception in which police officers pretend to be someone else.

 

>I shall continue to use the word as I see fit,

>knowing full well that it is not the legal profession's

>definition of the word.

 

My concern here is that you may mislead other people into thinking that the entrapment defense could protect them from conviction in a situation in which it actually will not. Apparently you don't care about that.

 

>I personally warn everyone that while

>I still hope that you are genuine I strongly suspect that

>there are people on this board who sole purpose here is to

>make sure that we do not have an easy time of organizing to

>help one of our favorite pastimes ( a "pursuit of happiness")

>- escorting/whoring/whateveryoumaycallit - become more

>stylish, more accepted, and ultimately more legal.

 

I don't see how anything anyone says on this board could prevent you from petitioning or asking others to petition legislators to change the law you want changed. There is nothing illegal about that.

 

At the same time you should realize that not all gay men think prostitution is a good idea or should be legal, and they have as much right to their opinion as you do.

[johnnysneakers]

Look, you guys, all I want to know is what the situation is in NCY. I am going there tomorrow and that is it! I want to have some serious fun. Am I safe or not?

 

Lets cut the BS and get to the simple facts here.

[Guest Smoothee]

>Am I safe or not?

 

As long as you stick with a well reviewed escort, you'll be just fine.