Escort Agency Incall Facilities

[Guest ncm2169]

Well, it may not be the old red light in the window, but I'm discovering more and more escort agencies with "incall facilities." By my count, they now exist in PA, OH, VA and CT (just the ones I know about), and they plainly advertise on their websites that they offer incalls at their "condo" or whatever. }(

 

For those of you who are "learned in the law", talk to me. What's the legal status of these facilities? I realize laws and enforcement thereof differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but is there a trend here?

[taylorky]

hmmmmm whore houses and bordellos in OHIO.........the cops still kill unarmed black people in the streets,but at least they may be lightening up on there sexual hangups............cool.....taylorky@23:53-05/08/09

[Flower]

[font color="green"

] Funny thing--after reading one of the reviews recently I almost wrote a similar post, but decided not to. As for your question, however, It violates any of the statutes that I know of concerning maintaining a house of prostitution--unless there are some special exceptions in those states.

 

My thought was that due to the open advertising of their "incall" pad, that possibly there was some exceptions--but certainly in California and most western states that'd draw Vice's attention very quickly:o

[Guest jeffOH]

>I realize laws

>and enforcement thereof differ from jurisdiction to

>jurisdiction, but is there a trend here?

 

The escort agency I worked for when I first got into escorting offered incall service out of the owner's condo. He ended up getting arrested twice, moved to Las Vegas for a couple years and is now back in Columbus operating yet another agency out of his home.

 

I know of several agencies here in Columbus (male and female) that operate out of the agency "owner's" home/apt/condo. Most are way too obvious for a neighbor to notice or easy for the police to surveil.

 

They're illegal.

 

JEFF

jeff4men@hotmail.com

[Jeff]

I always wondered about that too. There are two places in Los Angeles that has in-call facilities, one that I've been to and was quite nice and comfortable. It's in an office/warehouse-type center, and they do move it seems about once every year to somewhere else in the same general area. It looks like a little office with a waiting area, etc., but each room has a sofa, TV, porn, lube, and towels. There's a nice little fountain in the waiting area. And a lock on each door.

 

Plus doesn't Premiere in Philly have in-call too?

 

How do they get away with this without ever getting caught? I'm happy for them as I want them to succeed of course! While I'm at it, how is it that places like Campus and Premier, both of which I absolutely love, continue able to run for so many years without being the subject of stings, etc.?

[axebahia]

>Plus doesn't Premiere in Philly have in-call too?

>How do they get away with this without ever getting caught?

>I'm happy for them as I want them to succeed of course!

 

Are you sure they offer the same in-call and out-call services?

 

>While

>I'm at it, how is it that places like Campus and Premier, both

>of which I absolutely love, continue able to run for so many

>years without being the subject of stings, etc.?

 

I think these Agencies rely on their disclaimer about the escorts being models, and any sex is not negotiated by them or remunerated by them, and is solely consensual between two adults. From my experience, Campus, Chelsea and A-List don't go into much detail over the phone unless or until they have established that you are a legit client. So a cop would have to go through with the act a few times (lucky him) in order to get them. Cops can't do that so at most the escort would get stung not the Agency.

 

If the ecort tried to turn on the Agency it would probably be difficult to get around the contract between the Agency/Escort and Agency/Client (through the disclaimer). However, it does seem that if cops really wanted to go after an Agency, and could convince a disgruntled escort to wear a wire of sorts, and if an Agency were not careful about casual conversation then there might be a potential for a problem.

[Jeff]

As for your question whether the services are the same between in- and out-calls..... yes..... believe me, they are very much the same.

 

Thanks for your thoughts. It just seems that if the cops wanted to, they could bring them down easily despite these "precautions"; I know too many instances in which agencies are sloppy.... like discussing things with me on the phone even though they don't really remember that I had visited the year before.... but even despite that, everyone knows what these agencies do, even from reading boards like this one, so it's strange to me that they can survive so long. That being said, I'm happy they have and that they've been left alone, thus far.

[Flower]

[font color="green"

]Jeff--you're absolutely correct! These "disclaimers", agency-escort "contracts" and any of the other self-serving verbiage that they put on their web sites have absolutely NO LEGAL VALUE whatsoever and provide NO PROTECTION. If, as it appears, there is no lessening of the prostitution laws in the states where they advertise in-call facilities, then it is only for bigger fish to fry or lack of interest or both that they aren't busted. Believe me, if their statutes were similar to those in the western states, then it'd be easy to prosecute, regardless of the verbiage.

[axebahia]

>These "disclaimers",

>agency-escort "contracts" and any of the other self-serving

>verbiage that they put on their web sites have absolutely NO

>LEGAL VALUE whatsoever and provide NO PROTECTION.

 

This may come down to a defense vs. prosecution perspective, but it seems to me that one would need more to have a succesful prosecition against an agency as opposed to an escort. Yes, if the agency is sloppy, I agree they are susceptible, but if not, I don't really see how a prosecutor could proceed. It would depend where the trial took place, and what/who the trier of fact turned out to be, but I think it's a bit bold to say that the internet disclaimers and agency/escort contracts are of no value or offer no protection. If that were true, I think we would have seen at least some attempted prosecutions by now of Jeff's examples, but I can't think of any.

[Guest Merlin]

Some agencies say over the phone that the agency charge is, for example, $100 and that only massage and posing is involved, no sex, and that the model only make the amount of his tip. The $100 must be paid up front. When the "model" shows up he says he is required to collect the $100 before any other discussion takes place. So you pay it. Then the model says he will do more than massage but he usually gets at least $____tip. Under these circumstance, it seems to me the agency has a pretty good argument that the agency was not involved in any payment for sex. I have dealt with one agency which discussed the fee and sex, but was very clear that there was to be no discussion with the model, or payment, until the service was over. Not a perfect system, but almost any cop would insist on drawing the model into a conversation of sex for money. If the model follows what I assume are his instrucions and leaves in a huff when money is discussed, contrary to instructions, the system probably works.

[Flower]

If that were true, I think we would have seen at

>least some attempted prosecutions by now of Jeff's examples,

>but I can't think of any.

[font color="green"

]

Like I said, they have bigger fish--and rightly so. But prosecuting this type of case isn't rocket science--trust me.

 

Any web page that list multiple escorts with stats and information such as vers-bottom, 10" UC, an hourly rate, and the escort is even "reviewed' somewhere, has an up hill battle if the prosecutor decided to shut them down. Like I said, a piece of cake prosecution--I've done it btw, but many years ago and before the word escort and Internet were popular. You add the "in-call accommodations" and a baboon could win the case!

 

Do you really think a few words of disclaimer are going to sway a jury when there is SO MUCH evidence of INTENT??

 

These places are not prosecuted because there is too much other stuff with greater priority. Personally, I think it should be decriminalized, and many prosecutors feel that way also, which is another reason they choose not to do so. But don't delude yourself into thinking you can put verbiage on a web page saying there is "no money for sex here" or that "what the escort does when you meet with him is up to him" will save anyone!

 

It certainly doesn't fool the clients, does it? :+

[VaHawk]

>Do you really think a few words of disclaimer are going to

>sway a jury when there is SO MUCH evidence of INTENT??

 

Absolutely not! No way am I an attorney, but if I remember correctly from my business law class in college, this is kind of like a parking garage posting a sign that they are not responsible for damage or theft to your car if you park there. Most people buy into this bs, but it doesn't really hold up in court?????

>

>It certainly doesn't fool the clients, does it? :+

 

Nor would it fool anybody on a jury!

[Jeff]

I would think that all a prosecutor has to do is to strongarm an escort who works for the agency into saying what the agency is, and that's not so hard. Plus if one isolated escort went beyond what the agency "allows," that's one thing, but if most of them do, as they do, it should be pretty easy to persuade a judge/jury that the agency is implicitly involved.

 

I wish it were decriminalized, but as it's not, I guess we're always taking a chance.....

[axebahia]

>Like I said, a

>piece of cake prosecution--I've done it btw, but many years

>ago and before the word escort and Internet were popular.

 

You have succesfully prosecuted an Agency that had a disclaimer, and a agency/escort contract? Which one?

 

>You

>add the "in-call accommodations" and a baboon could win the

>case!

 

I agree with you on the in-call part. That is consistent with the scenario I wrote above.

 

>Do you really think a few words of disclaimer are going to

>sway a jury when there is SO MUCH evidence of INTENT??

 

Intent to do what? That's the question. If the Agency does not get careless, the only intent I see is to put two adults together. I am not sure that it is all that different than on-linedating services that describe their cllients and their preferences.

 

>But

>don't delude yourself into thinking you can put verbiage on a

>web page saying there is "no money for sex here" or that "what

>the escort does when you meet with him is up to him" will save

>anyone!

 

Actually, I think you underestimate the impact of both the escort/agency contract and the on-line agency/client disclaimer. And VAHAWk, these kinds of commercial disclaimers do stand up in a wide variety of contexts. One thing that an Agency probably should do, however, is routinely ask over the client to acknowledge "notice" of the terms and conditions of use. Of course, in writing would be better than orally, but none of us would like that and just as with airline tickets purchased over the phone, the disclaimer would probably stand up.

[VaHawk]

Thanks for the clarification axe, as I said I'm not an attorney and it has been years since I was an undergrad in college. I appreciate your advice.

[axebahia]

>I would think that all a prosecutor has to do is to strongarm

>an escort who works for the agency into saying what the agency

>is, and that's not so hard.

 

Well it would not be as easy as you suggest. My guess is that an escort would be a great witnesss to cross-examine from the point of view of credibility or lack thereof, and then there would be his signed employment contract saying that he was not to have sex and if he did it was without compulsion from the agency.

 

As I said above, to break the Agency would require something more like a taped conversation contradicting the contractual terms. My bet is that the better Agencies are pretty careful with escorts and clients until they have developed some record of experience.

 

There is a risk here. That's true, but the bigger bang and much easier bang for the prosecution buck is still on stinging the escort. I think that's why we see that far more often.

 

Actually, the part of this question that interests me is whether Agencies are ever used to sting clients. That's why outside of Amsterdam or Brazil, I would not be inclined to do an in-call. I seem to recall last year that Hired Help in New York was advertising some very, very young guys with very very high prices. That set off a lot of red flags with me.

[Flower]

>Intent to do what? That's the question. If the Agency does

>not get careless, the only intent I see is to put two adults

>together. I am not sure that it is all that different than

>on-linedating services that describe their cllients and their

>preferences.

 

[font color="green"

]

 

Well, for starters, they are facilitating prostitution if they have KNOWLEDGE of what is reasonably going to happen and they get paid for it and in fact "put two adults together." That's called a CONSPIRACY Axe -- and only needs the overt act of facilitation, or collecting the money, etc. Their disclaimer means nothing whatsoever, since their intent is to bring together a client and escort for paid sex. Without paid sex, they'd not be in business.

 

I guess my impatience with you is that somewhere I thought it was said you were an attorney. That's hard for me to believe, and would actually be a relief if you told me you weren't. But if you are not, then I apologize for the impatience.

 

But you obviously deal with contract law in some capacity, since you place so much importance in it. However, a "contract" means nothing to a prosecutor. What you are saying here is akin to a burglar writing a note and wearing it around his neck saying "It is not my intent to enter these premises to commit a felony" as he crosses the threshold--his writing is self-serving and meaningless as is the Agency's "disclaimers" and "contracts." The burglar gets convicted despite the note he wrote as would the agency if a prosecutor wanted to.

 

While you may deal with contracts, I'll guarantee you do not do criminal work. But if you do, and you get a case like this, save yourself the embarrassment of going into court and say "your honor, my client cannot be guilty since he wrote this disclaimer" :+

 

I'm not so concerned by your misunderstandings in the area as I am about your MISINFORMATION here--unfortunately, an escort could read what you say and figure Axe knows of what he speaks and put that silly and meaningless disclaimer on his own web page and have a false sense of security as to his legality. just as Vahawk read your explanation and walked away thinking you knew what you were talking about

 

Contract law does not influence criminal law at all, nor do all the disclaimers or contracts written to SELFSERVE the parties--the law deals with intent -- not self-serving writings.

 

And yes, I have prosecuted cases like this -- many years ago--all straight escorts and agencies well before Al Gore invented the Internet }( The word escort was not really in vogue then, however.

 

One of many such cases was very close to the facts here--it involved several bars, bar owners, and bartenders who would only give out a phone number to johns that asked--the john paid the bartender $50 and with the phone # called the escort and a meeting for sex obtained, where he paid her directly "for her "time."

 

The bartender NEVER promised any sex or specific acts and was very, very vague--just said "for $50 here is a number you might call." With that and the fact of the subsequent sex acts and similar activity over a period of weeks, solicitation, conspiracy, pimping and other charges were successfully prosecuted. There was a series of bars that were taken down and the investigating agency was the Cal. ABC (Alcoholic Beverage Control) and I prosecuted for a very large county in Southern California--but like I said, a long time ago, but the laws are the same today for the most part.

[axebahia]

>Well, for starters, they are facilitating prostitution if they

>have KNOWLEDGE of what is reasonably going to happen and they

>get paid for it and in fact "put two adults together."

 

Yes but that would have to be proven from the facts and surrounding circumstances. Some how, you would need to prove that the intent was to put them together for sex. That's the part that you would have to prove, and to do so you would have to overcome the defense provided by the contracts, and an escort as witness who probably lacks credibility.

 

>That's

>called a CONSPIRACY Axe -- and only needs the overt act of

>facilitation, or collecting the money, etc.

 

Conspiracy to do what? You still would have to prove the intent to commit the underlying "crime"? I don't doubt that prosecutors might see it as you do, but I can assure you that as one who is intimately acquainted with the law of "conspiracy", a defense attorney would be happy to confront any prosecutor who sought to prove a conspiracy without proof of an underlying crime.

 

>Their disclaimer

>means nothing whatsoever, since their intent is to bring

>together a client and escort for paid sex. Without paid sex,

>they'd not be in business.

 

So dating or match-making agencies would not be in business? You still have to prove the intent, my friend.

 

>But you obviously deal with contract law in some capacity,

>since you place so much importance in it. However, a

>"contract" means nothing to a prosecutor.

 

That's true, but that's why prosecutors are not the trie of fact. In this case, the contract will mean everything to the defense attorney and the trier of fact (but I will grant you that the choice of venue of the case could affect the outcome.)

 

>What you are saying

>here is akin to a burglar writing a note and wearing it around

>his neck saying "It is not my intent to enter these premises

>to commit a felony" as he crosses the threshold--his writing

>is self-serving and meaningless as is the Agency's

>"disclaimers" and "contracts." The burglar gets convicted

>despite the note he wrote as would the agency if a prosecutor

>wanted to.

 

No, because in your example, there would be sufficient proof of an intent to commit the underlying crime. In this case, there would not be, unless you can show the intent to exchange sex for money, and as I suggested that would probably require something like a taped conversation contradicting the contract.

 

>Contract law does not influence criminal law at all, nor do

>all the disclaimers or contracts written to SELFSERVE the

>parties--the law deals with intent -- not self-serving

>writings.

 

We agree on that, but you have to prove the intent, buddy, and that would mean that you would have to rebut the presumption provided by the contract and disclaimer. BTW, do you habe any knowledge of criminal antitrust law or any other corporate criminal statutes, or are you just basing this on your poor man's law practice?

 

>One of many such cases was very close to the facts here--it

>involved several bars, bar owners, and bartenders who would

>only give out a phone number to johns that asked--the john

>paid the bartender $50 and with the phone # called the escort

>and a meeting for sex obtained, where he paid her directly

>"for her "time."

 

Great, but what I asked you was if you ever prosecuted an agency with an escort/agency contract and an agency/client disclaimer? If so, which one? Without that, the facts of the case you present here are not at all close.

[Justice]

My first encounter with an escort was at an agency's in-call location. It was in a small apartment building in New York. As I was leaving, I ran into one of their neighbors. It may have only been my overactive imagination, but I could have sworn that he gave me one of the dirtiest looks I've ever seen. I resolved then and there never again to use an agency for an incall. Too many risks, imho.

 

>Actually, the part of this question that interests me is

>whether Agencies are ever used to sting clients.

 

A couple of years ago, I read somewhere that an gay escort agency in Houston was raided by the cops, who then set up prospective clients by continuing to answer the phone. I'm not sure of the outcome. The mere thought of what may have happened is too frightening for words.

[eastbayguy]

Hi,

 

>A couple of years ago, I read somewhere that an gay escort

>agency in Houston was raided by the cops, who then set up

>prospective clients by continuing to answer the phone. I'm not

>sure of the outcome. The mere thought of what may have

>happened is too frightening for words.

 

Oh, it can get much more frightening than that. A few years ago, a rather notorious SF agency had an in-call location. Somehow or other, they kept it open for years. They actually advertised the location in the BAR!! How brazen of them. I was going to go, just for the vicarious thrill, but didn't.

 

Am really glad I didn't. Turned out the agency owners were apparently paying off the right people. Prices were surprisingly low. Rich, famous, politically connected and otherwise powerful people got special, red carpet treatment.

 

The advertising featured very, very young guys. Apparently, for the right price, after they knew you, underage escorts were sometimes offered.

 

It all blew up. In worse ways than anyone could have imagined. According to press reports at the time, the owners had multiple video cameras hidden, recording who came and went. Video (and audio) records were kept of who did what and with whom, what they did, what they paid and all manner of stuff was recorded.

 

Once a sufficient amount of tape was recorded, the agency owners were blackmailing more than a few of their clients. When the house was eventually shut down, all sorts of good dirt came out in the papers. Seems the neighbors figured out what was going on, and had complained to the police for years. The police not reacting was made to seem highly suspicious by the media.

 

While the investigation was going on, there was a lot of high drama. Every whisper from the investigation team was big news. Eventually, it all became a bit of a fizzle. No big prosecutions came of it, one guy plead guilty to something, did a bit of time. None of the tapes ever made TV. Even the list of who was there really never came out.

 

So, if you go to an incall location, and you get this odd feeling of being on a film set, well, maybe those inner voices are worth heeding.

 

--EBG