Rumor of Escort Bust

[Guest Bitchboy]

I sure haven't bothered to read all the posts here, but it seems pretty clear that Pickwick has the proverbial "hard-on" for you, Theron. No matter what you say, he's gonna come back with one of his pithy retorts. Perhaps if you "give him some", that will abate.

[Guest pickwick]

>I sure haven't bothered to read

>all the posts here, but

>it seems pretty clear that

>Pickwick has the proverbial "hard-on"

>for you, Theron.

 

 

No, no, Bitch! It's you, you, and only you that I want! Say you'll be mine! Or at least say you're making me the beneficiary of your life insurance policy.

[Bilbo]

Correct me if I am wrong, but in most states isn't gay sex per se still illegal? And isn't it true that you yourself enjoy having sex with prostitutes, but you know that your side of what you are doing is illegal, too? I would have expected from your obvious predilictions that you would be a natural allie to people such as me. If our allies do not care any more about what happens to us than you seem to, no wonder our liberation is still forty years away. If you are not willing to work for social reform, at least in your mind, what are you doing choosing the name of a Dickens character as your handle? I don't think that Charles would totally approve of your attitude here.

 

What I think you wanted to say is that as horrible as what happened to me is, there are worse things which could happen if one were to break other laws. Do you take that as a friendly ammendment?

[Bilbo]

I can see you wanting to do this privately, that makes sense. But why would you want to insist on talking to an attorney? What could possibly be wrong in privately telling Theron himself? Do you think that little of male geishas?

[Guest Bitchboy]

Alas, Pickwick, my heart belongs elsewhere. I can't be confined to a mere Dicken's novel. The whole world is my playground.

[Guest Theron]

>Correct me if I am wrong,

>but in most states isn't

>gay sex per se still

>illegal?

 

Hi Sweet :-)

 

Sodomy laws in most states have been repealed --but prostitution is still illegal in all states, including Navada, where it is legal in a few counties, and prostitution is also now legal in Canada.

 

>And isn't it true

>that you yourself enjoy having

>sex with prostitutes, but you

>know that your side of

>what you are doing is

>illegal, too? I would have

>expected from your obvious predilictions

>that you would be a

>natural allie to people such

>as me.

 

Concerning your question to Pickwick, I can only offer an opinion, in the form of a quote: "It is only those who are free inside who can help those around them." --Peter Abrahams

 

Hugs,

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

>I can see you wanting to

>do this privately,

 

Sorry Bilbo, but I don't... how is pointing out some journal citations indiscrete or compromising? I'm sure there are several attorneys among us and I'm equally sure that the interest extends beyond that subcommunity. Also, I think many of us are up to reading journals - legal or otherwise.

[Guest Theron]

>I don't... how

>is pointing out some journal

>citations indiscrete or compromising?

 

 

I totaly agree, T.Y. :-) It is just a matter of public record, and he says he has them readily availble to cite, so then why not do it?

 

Hugs :-)

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Guest jizzdepapi]

on the dl!!!

 

ssssssssshhhhhhhhh!!!! keep this on the downlow (dl) but i think picky might be fishing to see if there really is a lawyer.

 

just a thought,

jizz

 

p.s.: i think both picky and theron have good thoughts here--picky that it's good to be cautious re. escorting and theron that authorities need to be careful how they investigate/arrest alleged male prostitutes.

[Guest Theron]

RE: on the dl!!!

 

>ssssssssshhhhhhhhh!!!! keep this on the downlow

>(dl) but i think picky

>might be fishing to see

>if there really is a

>lawyer.

>

>just a thought,

>jizz

 

Hiya Jizz :-)

 

Interesting thought, but (1) He failed to provide me with an e-mail address where someone could contact him privately. As it is now the only way someone could do that would be to visit this site; and (2) How would receiving an e-mail address from someone saying they are a lawyer, in fact, prove that they are? See my point.

 

I think it is merely a smoke screen because he does not have the information he says he does. Think about it, people have been reporting the activities of sting operations and misdemeanor sex offenses, and telling people how to avoid arrest for more than twenty years; and in very HIGH PROFILE WAYS. Yet, we do not see people being charged with "obstruction of justice," as Pickwick implies they would be. If this were such a serious concern, why as flagrantly as that "supposed" violtio of law has been broken within the gay community there should be evidence of multiple arrests over the past twenty years for obstruction of justice.

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Guest pickwick]

>I can see you wanting to

>do this privately, that makes

>sense. But why would you

>want to insist on talking

>to an attorney? What could

>possibly be wrong in privately

>telling Theron himself? Do you

>think that little of male

>geishas?

 

Since you've asked me in a civil manner and without making any rude implications, Bilbo, I'll answer you. I've said several times that I think what is being discussed involves real legal risks for those involved. I am not willing to share those risks. I can't think of any reason why I should. From what I've seen of Theron, I don't trust either his honesty or his discretion. You may have a different opinion, but I'm just as entitled to mine as you are to yours, and it's my opinion that controls my actions. No one else gets a vote. If he would care to have one of the attorneys he mentioned email the address I have provided to users of this site, I'll give the names of the journals in which I read those articles to that person just as I said I would, assuming that I am satisfied with his bona fides. He can then research the subject if he cares to. If that's too much trouble for those involved, they needn't do it. It's no skin off my nose either way. I have nothing at stake here, and I'm going to keep it that way.

[Guest Theron]

Hi, Pickwick :-)

 

There is absolutely no reason, whatsoever, that you cannot cite case law here. However, since you ridiculously insist that you cannot, I just sent to you, by clicking on the e-mail icon next to your name, privately and with permission, the Name, Firm Name, Business Telephone Number, and E-mail address for an attorney you may pass this information along to.

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Guest Theron]

>I

>have nothing at stake here,

>and I'm going to keep

>it that way.

 

Hi :-)

 

Yes, you do. You have your word at stake. You have been persistently stating that it is likely that people will be charged with obstructing of justice for reporting information about sting operations and infoming people how to avoid arrest, where misdemeanor sex offenses are involved.

 

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Guest pickwick]

>There is absolutely no reason, whatsoever,

>that you cannot cite case

>law here.

 

My posts said nothing about case law. The fact that you don't understand the difference between that and what I did say is one reason why I will not discuss this with you.

 

 

However, since

>you ridiculously insist that you

>cannot, I just sent to

>you, by clicking on the

>e-mail icon next to your

>name, privately and with permission,

>the Name, Firm Name, Business

>Telephone Number, and E-mail address

>for an attorney you may

>pass this information along to.

 

I have already stated the procedure that I will follow and I will not deviate from it in any way. If you don't like it, too bad.

[Guest pickwick]

>Yes, you do. You have

>your word at stake.

>You have been persistently stating

>that it is likely that

>people will be charged with

>obstructing of justice for reporting

>information about sting operations and

>infoming people how to avoid

>arrest, where misdemeanor sex offenses

>are involved.

 

No, that is not what I said. Again, the fact that you do not understand the difference between your description and what I actually said is a very good reason why I should not discuss this with you.

[Guest pickwick]

Bilbo, sorry I didn't see your post earlier.

 

>Correct me if I am wrong,

>but in most states isn't

>gay sex per se still

>illegal?

 

 

I think the word "most" no longer applies.

 

 

>And isn't it true

>that you yourself enjoy having

>sex with prostitutes, but you

>know that your side of

>what you are doing is

>illegal, too?

 

I am certainly aware of the legal risks to myself, and if one of those risks materializes I won't show up here to complain about it. I think people should take responsibility for their own decisions.

 

>I would have

>expected from your obvious predilictions

>that you would be a

>natural allie to people such

>as me. If our allies

>do not care any more

>about what happens to us

>than you seem to, no

>wonder our liberation is still

>forty years away.

 

 

If being your ally means I'm not allowed to say what I think then I'll have to pass on the ally stuff. And who said I didn't care? I'm not happy you were arrested, but didn't you say that you only got probation, community service, and the loss of your license? And no registration requirement? And you're a gay escort in Texas? I think you were lucky that nothing worse happened.

 

 

If you

>are not willing to work

>for social reform, at least

>in your mind, what are

>you doing choosing the name

>of a Dickens character as

>your handle? I don't think

>that Charles would totally approve

>of your attitude here.

 

 

He's dead, remember? And what if he wouldn't approve? Does Tolkien approve of everything you do? I would think not.

 

>What I think you wanted to

>say is that as horrible

>as what happened to me

>is, there are worse things

>which could happen if one

>were to break other laws.

>Do you take that as

>a friendly ammendment?

 

No, I wanted to say and did say that there are worse things that could have happened to you for breaking the very law that you broke. And I'm glad they didn't.

[Guest Theron]

You have just completely exposed your lie.

 

(1) You refuse to cite case law here, but have insisted it exists; and there is absolutely no reason you cannot cite case law here;

 

(2) Finally, you have been provided with the fim name, name, business telephone number and e-mail address for an attorney.

 

You simply have refuse to step up to the plate. A suggestion: Next time to not state with fact things which you absolutely cannot support -- or go spread your gloom and doom somewhere else.

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Guest Theron]

>>There is absolutely no reason, whatsoever,

>>that you cannot cite case

>>law here.

>

>My posts said nothing about case

>law. The fact that

>you don't understand the difference

>between that and what I

>did say is one reason

>why I will not discuss

>this with you.

 

Yes, you are correct, my mistake, and I will give you that. Since you stated, with persistance, that I would be charged with obstruction of justice I asked you for case law. You then responded by refering to some journal references. And now you have been given an opportunity to STEP UP TO THE PLATE and provide them to an attorney. I hope that you do.

 

Theron

theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Guest curtenz]

>spoke

>with some friends of mine,

>(one who happens to be

>an assistant States Attorney, another

>an openly gay State Representative,

>and two activists, that combined

>have more than 30 years

>experience in the civil rights

>movement --one who works for

>a national organization in a

>position of leadership.) I

>also asked four other friends

>of mine, who happen to

>be publishers of gay weekly's,

>(one in Missouri, one in

>central Illinois, and two in

>Chicago), and have published articles

>in the past that provided

>details of active sting operations,

>and also informed people how

>they could avoid arrest.

>They were not aware of

>anyone who has been charged

>with obstruction of justice for

>this reason, either.

 

Hold on a sec. Isn't all that just "hearsay?" Are you the same guy who yelled at Regulation for posting "hearsay" to support something he said, or was that someone who stole your password? You wouldn't yell at someone for doing something and then do the same thing, right? Better change that password.

[Guest pickwick]

>You have just completely exposed your

>lie.

 

I think what I have done is to expose why no one would want to deal with you on any matter that is in any way confidential.

 

 

>(1) You refuse to cite case

>law here, but have insisted

>it exists; and there is

>absolutely no reason you cannot

>cite case law here;

 

None of my posts in this thread says anything about "case law." Not a single one. Assuming you understand what that term means, are you a liar for saying that one or more posts does? You are very quick to call other people liars so I suppose you shouldn't complain if you are treated the same way. Okay, you're a liar.

 

>You simply have refuse to step

>up to the plate.

 

I've already said what I would do, and if you don't like it that is just too bad. Nothing you can do about it but rant and rave, and you're going to do that anyway, it's your nature.

 

>A suggestion: Next time

>to not state with fact

>things which you absolutely cannot

>support -- or go spread

>your gloom and doom somewhere

>else.

 

 

Here's a suggestion for you: stop using legal terms of art that you don't understand. You are making a fool of yourself in the eyes of those who do understand them.

[Guest Theron]

>Hold on a sec. Isn't

>all that just "hearsay?"

>Are you the same guy

>who yelled at Regulation for

>posting "hearsay" to support something

>he said, or was that

>someone who stole your password?

> You wouldn't yell at

>someone for doing something and

>then do the same thing,

>right? Better change that

>password.

 

You are correct, it was hearsay, but when asked to back it up I stepped foward with the firm name, name, business address, telehone number and e-mail address for a licensed attorney. Regulation absolutely never supported his claim with proof about the hearsay information he provided about information that was relayed to him through a friend.

 

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Guest Theron]

That has been the basis for this debate, silly. I am part of a team conducting research the misdemeanor sex offense of prostitution, and arrests that are resulting via sting operations. The project will study and report information about those arrests, and inform people how they better avoid arrest. You have said that would result in obstruction of justice charges being filed.

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Guest pickwick]

>Yes, you are correct, my mistake,

>and I will give you

>that.

 

You are very quick with nasty accusations of lying when someone else makes a statement that you do not consider factual. You deserve to be treated in exactly the same way you treat others. You lied.

 

 

Since you stated,

>with persistance, that I would

>be charged with obstruction of

>justice I asked you for

>case law. You then

>responded by refering to some

>journal references. And now

>you have been given an

>opportunity to STEP UP TO

>THE PLATE and provide them

>to an attorney. I

>hope that you do.

 

I have stated "with persistance" the procedure I am willing to follow and will not deviate from it in any way. You have given no reason why that procedure cannot be followed, you have simply said you want something else. The answer is "No." If it's too much trouble, don't do it. After the hostile way you've behaved I can think of no reason why I should care what happens to you.

[Guest Theron]

>I think what I have done

>is to expose why no

>one would want to deal

>with you on any matter

>that is in any way

>confidential.

 

Are you on drugs? I'm just wondering if something alters your perceptions? I have not in any way done or said anything that would affect the confidentiality of anyone. Yet, you raise such a completely false claim when any person can read this entire thread and see in black and white that I have not done that.

 

 

>>(1) You refuse to cite case

>>law here, but have insisted

>>it exists; and there is

>>absolutely no reason you cannot

>>cite case law here;

>

>None of my posts in this

>thread says anything about "case

>law." Not a single

>one.

 

I have already given you that, and admitted that is my mistake. I asked you to cite case law, since you were persistent about the charges of obstructin of justice that could be filed. You responded by offering journal entries.

 

>>You simply have refuse to step

>>up to the plate.

>

>I've already said what I would

>do, and if you don't

>like it that is just

>too bad. Nothing you

>can do about it but

>rant and rave, and you're

>going to do that anyway,

>it's your nature.

 

But reasonable people will see that you have made a claim, and cannot support it. Reasonable people will see "if" you had the information you have insisted that you do...well you could have easily merely posted it here. Other posters have already pointed that out. Yet, you refused, and made the matter more complicated, and agreed to only provide the information to an attorney. So, I responded by providing you with the name, firm name, business telephone number, and e-mail address of a licensed attorney, and that still does not satisfy you.

 

Let's face it...you have been on here spreading your gloom and doom with your, "pithy" as I believe one poster called it, responses, stating facts that you simply cannot support, and you have been given every reasonable opportunity to do that. I even went out of my way to provide you with specific contact information for an attorney. So what is the deal? Do you just not like me, personally, and want to disagree with anything I say? Because it sure appears that way. If you wanted to jump in and make your gloomy statements about legal charges being filed against me, after I reported working on a project that would help escorts, then you should have had some facts to support it.

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Guest Theron]

After the way I behaved? There is really no reason, that I think you will get reasonable people to believe, why you merely could not have posted the information you said you have here --especially since it "supports" your persistent claim. Then, I behaved by going out of my way to provide you with the name, firm name, business telephone number and e-mail address of a licensed attorney who wants to talk to you about this -- but that is not good enough, either. Try and persuade reasonable people why it is not good enough.

 

No you suggest that someone e-mail you? What proof do you have that the person who sends the e-mail is an attorney? Anyone could send an e-mail claiming to be an attorney. I have removed all doubt that the person you can provide this information to is a licensed attorney by providing you with absolute and complete contact information.

 

This is the deal...it appears you have lied and have nothing to support what you have said. Every effort has been made to give you the opportunity to come forward with the information you say supports the statements you have made, and you have refused to do it.

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html