Theiving Escort

[+ glutes]

RE: Theiving Escort, Luke of SF

 

Mr. Flower, please check out the Masseur section. Mr. William is prevelant if you use the search function, http://www.mm-nw.com is his creation...

[woodlawn]

>> When a person in any legitimate occupation feels he has

>>not been paid what was agreed for his services, he tries to

>>reach an agreement with the other party that will satisfy

>>both, or if that is not possible he simply declines to do

>>business with that party again. A lawsuit is rarely a

>>practical option, certainly not when the amount in question

>is

>>only a few hundred dollars, and the police do not collect

>>debts. A legitimate businessperson does not collect an

>amount

>>he thinks he is owed by picking someone's pocket. That is

>>what one would expect of a professional crook.

 

 

>It would be enlightening for me if you could draw a

>distinction between self help by Luke and a Bank repossessing

>a car for lack of payment--or mortgage company foreclosing on

>a home, kicking out widows and crying kids

 

If you were really a lawyer, you'd know the distinction without having to ask. In both cases you cite, the parties have an agreement in which the borrower has consented to the use of those collection methods in the event he defaults. No one who has ever practiced on the civil side could possibly be ignorant of that.

 

Self help is

>a long recognized remedy and is even taught in law schools.

 

Bullshit.

 

 

>Oh, and could you make this distinction without going on and

>on about the illegality of prostitution, blah blah blah, or

>distinctions between written and oral contracts!

 

I just did, you stupid schmuck.

 

 

>I sit as a small claims judge

 

Let me guess -- you're Judge Judy?

 

 

 

in our local court system about

>once every 6 months--no big deal because every attorney in the

>county is asked to volunteer time for it (please don't waste a

>lot of our time and your answer about how you couldn't care

>less about this

 

In truth, I don't give a fuck about it. And I also don't give a fuck about wasting the time of a nasty, lying hypocrite like you. Do the people upon whom you sit in judgment know about how you deceived and betrayed your own wife? If they did, do you think they'd consider you fit to judge others?

 

 

>So when you say: "A lawsuit is rarely a

>practical option, certainly not when the amount in question is

>only a few hundred dollars"

> Nothing could be further from the

>truth!

 

Your brain must be made of mush. The truth is that it is extremely rare for such small cases to go to court. And since you have no way of knowing what percentage of such disputes actually wind up in court -- because there is no record of the ones that don't -- you have no way to dispute that.

 

 

>Now I'm sure you didn't intend to tell Hawk a fib just to make

>a point to the rest of us, but you are, to put it as nice as I

>can, simply incorrect.

 

To put this as nicely as I can, you are a lying piece of shit.

 

 

>Further, have you ever heard of COLLECTION AGENCIES?

 

>Well they exist almost exclusively for the benefit of

>"legitimate" businesses of all sizes, and if a small

>"legitimate" business person doesn't want to bother with a

>lawsuit, small claims or otherwise, he certainly has NO

>compunction about turning it over to a collection agency to do

>the dirty work

 

 

What "dirty work," you stupid fuck? There is nothing collection agencies can do to recover a debt except nag the debtor. If the amount involved doesn't justify a suit by the lender, it doesn't justify one by an agency either. They don't get a discount when it comes to court costs.

 

>So again, possibly you

>could enlighten us as to your frame of reference for your

>patently absurd statements:

 

I can best enlighten you by telling you to stick your pompous, self-important pontifications up your flabby, pockmarked ass.

[Trixie]

RE: handcuffs, blindfolds...

 

Mais mon cher... I am serious!

Miss Trix

[Flower]

>I can best enlighten you by telling you to stick your pompous,

>self-important pontifications up your flabby, pockmarked ass.

 

:7 You're comical when you try to bluster your way through questions, the answers to which you know nothing about, but don't want to admit it.

 

Your "responses" above demonstrates your ignorance.

 

One more time for you woodbrain:

this is your brain x( ....This is your brain on drugs

 

I'll show you the courtesy you probably don't show your 9th grade students and briefly restate the obvious--so stay with me here:

 

1. There need be no prior agreement, written or otherwise, for the use of small claims court or a collection agency, before an agrieved party may enlist their services. With me so far sweetie?

 

2. In fact collection agencies and small businesses clog the small claims court system much the same way as your self anointed bullshit clogs the MC. Even you should be able to understand that.

 

Much like you do to recalcitrant middle-school students in your English and History classes, I can only recite to you the simple facts--small businesses use the small claims system and collection agencies (who in turn use the small claims court) extensively to try and collect these small amounts of money ($200-$300) you claim are forgotten and written off by profit conscious small business men. (repitition here is for your benefit cutie) :+

 

Talk about academics being out of touch--next semester, however, ask your principal if you can study business law over summer vacation, and then teach it to your 9th graders -- the you too will be able to reflect back on these posts of yours and see what bullshit you spew on this board--or simpler, just confine your posts to things you actually know something about, althoulgh that would probably be too limiting:+

[woodlawn]

>>I can best enlighten you by telling you to stick your

>pompous,

>>self-important pontifications up your flabby, pockmarked ass.

 

You're comical when you try to

>bluster your way through questions, the answers to which you

>know nothing about, but don't want to admit it.

 

And you're a fucking liar.

 

There is nothing comical about the fact that you come to this board pretending to be a lawyer, when your ignorance of basic legal principles shows that you are not one.

 

You challenged me to explain the difference between an escort who seizes a client's money to satisfy a debt he believes he is owed, and a lender who repo's a borrower's car or forecloses on a borrower's house. As anyone who actually graduated from an American law school would know, the difference is that in the case of the lender the two parties have entered into an agreement in which the borrower has explicitly consented to those methods of collection. Before signing the agreement the borrower has been informed of what will happen if he defaults. He has the option of either consenting or refusing to sign the agreement.

 

Suppose Luke put up an ad in which he stated, in addition to his rates and other information, the following:

 

"In case of any dispute regarding my fee, I reserve the right to collect any amount I believe I am owed by taking your money out of your pants pocket while you are in the shower and then leaving. By engaging my services you consent to this condition."

 

Okay, let's see a show of hands. How many people would be willing to hire him under that condition?

 

>Your "responses" above demonstrates your ignorance.

 

I have just shown that you don't understand the most basic principles of secured transactions such as car loans or home loans. You're a fool. Anyone reading this thread can see that.

 

It's not surprising that in your last post you skated over the fact that I tore your ridiculous "challenge" to pieces. To acknowledge that would be to acknowledge that you've been lying about being a lawyer.

 

 

>1. There need be no prior agreement, written or otherwise, for

>the use of small claims court or a collection agency, before

>an agrieved party may enlist their services. With me so far

>sweetie?

 

Well actually, you stupid, lying sack of shit, there can be no debt to enforce, either in small claims court or otherwise, without a prior agreement, written or otherwise. Again, that is something everyone who goes to law school learns in his first year.

 

>2. In fact collection agencies and small businesses clog the

>small claims court system much the same way as your self

>anointed bullshit clogs the MC. Even you should be able to

>understand that.

 

Let me try to explain this one more time for you, shit-for-brains. No matter how many small claims court cases there are, there is no way to know what percentage of small business disputes go to such courts because there is no record of the disputes that do not go to such courts. Therefore, asshole, the cases that go to court may, for all you know, be no more than 2% of the actual disputes. That's why it is so stupid for you to assert that such disputes often go to court. Because you have no way of knowing whether they "often" do or "rarely" do. You don't have to be a lawyer to figure that out. You just have to master basic algebra.

 

 

>confine your posts to things you actually know something

>about, althoulgh that would probably be too limiting

 

Stop pretending that you're a lawyer. Even for those of us who despise you for the liar and cheat that you are, it's getting painful to watch as your lie is exposed again and again.

[Doug69]

>You're comical when you try to

>>bluster your way through questions, the answers to which you

>>know nothing about, but don't want to admit it.

>

>And you're a fucking liar.

 

Typical Woodlawn argument - how elevated and substantive.

 

>There is nothing comical about the fact that you come to this

>board pretending to be a lawyer, when your ignorance of basic

>legal principles shows that you are not one.

 

You're the one whose ignorance of the legal system got exposed - yet again. You began yapping about how businesses which have only small amounts of money stolen from them can't really sue because how impractical it is - even though there's an entire court, called Small Claims Court, reserved for exactly such cases which are, in virtually every jurisdiction, filled to the capacity of their docket. This proves just how viable that option is.

 

You also stupidly said that calling the Police isn't an option for such businesses because "Police don't collect debts" - even though the Police absolutely pursue people, such as Luke's client, who take goods and services without paying, since that's called stealing, which is a criminal offense. Go into a restaurant, order a full course meal, then try to leave without paying - see if that falls within the jurisdiction of the Police.

 

So I think it's clear which creature has displayed its gross ignorance of all matters legal before the Board, and its name (at least this month) is Woodlawn.

 

>Suppose Luke put up an ad in which he stated, in addition to

>his rates and other information, the following:

>

>"In case of any dispute regarding my fee, I reserve the right

>to collect any amount I believe I am owed by taking your money

>out of your pants pocket while you are in the shower and then

>leaving. By engaging my services you consent to this

>condition."

 

This isn't what happened, so it's irrelevant what would occur if he had such a clause. All he is saying is: "If you steal from me, I will not simply walk away." I don't think he or any other business has to say that, since it's pretty fucking self-evident and is implied in every transaction.

 

>Well actually, you stupid, lying sack of shit, there can be no

>debt to enforce, either in small claims court or otherwise,

>without a prior agreement, written or otherwise. Again, that

>is something everyone who goes to law school learns in his

>first year.

 

Yes - and Luke advertisers his services at $200/hr., which means if you hire him, a contract is formed where you agree to pay him that, and it's a contract, like all other contracts, upon which you he could sue if it weren't for the nature of the services provided.

 

>Let me try to explain this one more time for you,

>shit-for-brains. No matter how many small claims court cases

>there are, there is no way to know what percentage of small

>business disputes go to such courts because there is no record

>of the disputes that do not go to such courts. Therefore,

>asshole, the cases that go to court may, for all you know, be

>no more than 2% of the actual disputes. That's why it is so

>stupid for you to assert that such disputes often go to court.

 

A huge number of such disputes end up in such courts, proving that it is a viable option for many businesses. One need not know how many businesses refrain from this course of action in order to squarely negate your initial statement was on this topic.

 

>Stop pretending that you're a lawyer. Even for those of us

>who despise you for the liar and cheat that you are, it's

>getting painful to watch as your lie is exposed again and

>again.

 

I'll guarantee you that Flower is a lawyer. The fact that he isn't exactly brilliant hardly precludes him from being a lawyer. If you knew anything about the legal system, that's the first thing you would know.

[woodlawn]

>>You're comical when you try to

>>>bluster your way through questions, the answers to which

>you

>>>know nothing about, but don't want to admit it.

>>

>>And you're a fucking liar.

 

>Typical Woodlawn argument - how elevated and substantive.

 

LOL! This from one of the most vicious, foul-mouthed posters ever to grace this board with his presence! Want me to paste here some of your more "elevated" offerings, asshole?

 

 

>>There is nothing comical about the fact that you come to

>this

>>board pretending to be a lawyer, when your ignorance of

>basic

>>legal principles shows that you are not one.

 

>You're the one whose ignorance of the legal system got exposed

>- yet again. You began yapping about how businesses which have

>only small amounts of money stolen from them can't really sue

>because how impractical it is - even though there's an entire

>court, called Small Claims Court, reserved for exactly such

>cases which are, in virtually every jurisdiction, filled to

>the capacity of their docket. This proves just how viable

>that option is.

 

All the above proves is how stupid you are. And how you can never resist repeating your pattern of making statements that are unproven and demanding that the rest of us treat them as facts. The truth is, neither you nor your idiot sidekick has the slightest idea what percentage of small commercial disputes actually ends up in small claims courts. For all you know, it could be less than 1%. Which would prove the exact opposite of what you are asserting.

 

 

>You also stupidly said that calling the Police isn't an option

>for such businesses because "Police don't collect debts" -

>even though the Police absolutely pursue people, such as

>Luke's client, who take goods and services without paying,

 

Are you really such a fucking imbecile that you don't understand the difference between collecting a debt and arresting someone for theft? Tell us, imbecile, what the police do when they arrest someone for theft of services. Go ahead, tell us. Tell us how they take the arrestee's wallet and take out the necessary cash and give it to the service provider. What's that you say? They don't do that? Then how exactly do the police see to it that the service provider gets his money? If you weren't so fucking dishonest, you'd have to acknowledge the true answer: they don't. The criminal justice system does not take responsibility for making thieves compensate the people they rob. Why do you want to lie about that?

 

>So I think it's clear which creature has displayed its gross

>ignorance of all matters legal before the Board,

 

Yes. It's you and your fellow idiot, Flower.

 

> and its name

>(at least this month) is Woodlawn.

 

What's that? After lashing out at people who accuse you of having used different screen names you are now doing the same thing they did? Jeez, what a fucking hypocrite it is!

 

 

>>Suppose Luke put up an ad in which he stated, in addition to

>>his rates and other information, the following:

>>

>>"In case of any dispute regarding my fee, I reserve the

>right

>>to collect any amount I believe I am owed by taking your

>money

>>out of your pants pocket while you are in the shower and

>then

>>leaving. By engaging my services you consent to this

>>condition."

 

>This isn't what happened,

 

Yes, you fucking liar, that is exactly what happened. Why lie about it?

 

>I don't think he or

>any other business has to say that, since it's pretty fucking

>self-evident and is implied in every transaction.

 

I don't think you will ever let go of your habit of making shit like that up, I really don't.

 

 

 

>

>>Well actually, you stupid, lying sack of shit, there can be

>no

>>debt to enforce, either in small claims court or otherwise,

>>without a prior agreement, written or otherwise. Again,

>that

>>is something everyone who goes to law school learns in his

>>first year.

 

>Yes - and Luke advertisers his services at $200/hr., which

>means if you hire him, a contract is formed where you agree to

>pay him that, and it's a contract, like all other contracts,

>upon which you he could sue if it weren't for the nature of

>the services provided.

 

Right. But since Luke is committing a crime by entering into such an agreement, he can't. Something that he presumably knew before he got into it in the first place.

 

>>Let me try to explain this one more time for you,

>>shit-for-brains. No matter how many small claims court

>cases

>>there are, there is no way to know what percentage of small

>>business disputes go to such courts because there is no

>record

>>of the disputes that do not go to such courts. Therefore,

>>asshole, the cases that go to court may, for all you know,

>be

>>no more than 2% of the actual disputes. That's why it is so

>>stupid for you to assert that such disputes often go to

>court.

 

>A huge number of such disputes end up in such courts,

 

Gee, is that the same "huge number" as the "huge number" of HIV patients who are now even healthier than they were before they seroconverted, despite the fact they take drugs that can cause severe damage to major organs? Or is it a different "huge number"? Your propensity for bullshit never abates.

 

>I'll guarantee you that Flower is a lawyer.

 

I wouldn't take a guarantee from you that the Atlantic contains water. After all the lies you've told on this board, I doubt anyone would.

 

>The fact that he

>isn't exactly brilliant hardly precludes him from being a

>lawyer. If you knew anything about the legal system, that's

>the first thing you would know.

 

If you knew anything about the law or lawyers, you'd know that no one can get through law school or pass the bar without knowing the most basic principles of contracts -- which he obviously does not. He may be able to fool drooling idiots like you, but that's about it.

[VaHawk]

Well, Woodlawn, I'm certain that Flower is indeed, an attorney. I believe he was a prosecutor at one time, but practiced criminal law.

As you well know, there are many areas of the law and many attorneys that specialize in those areas, and thus aren't as informed or experienced in the other areas. As such, they are relying basically on what they recall about those areas from law school.

 

I sincerely believe that you are also an attorney but one, that specializes in business law and thus are very experienced and knowledgeable in regards to contracts. As such, I believe your points on this issue are probably the most accurate.

 

IMO, a client/escort agreement is illegal under the law and thus unenforceable. Also, it would be an oral contract, which are the most difficult to enforce.

 

An illegal oral contract for an illegal business. No one can have any recourse, but to deal with the results as such.

[giovoni]

I've had something similar happen before. A client for massage a few years ago claimed that he thought I did massage for fun and that I wouldn't be charging him. At that time I kept a list of phone numbers from clients with their names and things they did that I thought needed to be corrected before I would see them again (this list was never more then 2 or 3 numbers long in 7 years of working). Of course this person had NO reason to think this as he had mentioned my web site which clearly listed my prices and had spoken to me on line and through email several times before the appointment.

 

Some months later he tried to schedule with me again thinking perhaps that I would forget about him and see him again. At this point if you're a massage therapist or escort or any service provider, if you're good at your job the best punishment for this kind of person is to never see them again. The alternative is to clearly state that you feel you were taken advantage of and won't see them again until they make up what you feel is owed to you. If you really have confidence that your services are desirable you should expect that the desire for a client to see again will enforce whatever debts you're owed. If they're not you're probably better off not dealing with them in any way.

 

Gio in Denver

[Flower]

>Before signing the agreement the borrower has been informed of what

>will happen if he defaults. He has the option of either

>consenting or refusing to sign the agreement.

*****

>I have just shown that you don't understand the most basic

>principles of secured transactions such as car loans or home

>loans. You're a fool. Anyone reading this thread can see

>that.

 

Woodbrain, you are an example of a little bit of knowledge being dangerous, and the frustration you demonstrate not only here but wherever you post, is indicative of one pretending to be something he is not and when challenged, yells and becomes obnoxious and loud hoping to overcome his technical deficiencies with cursing and filibuster.

 

There is nothing wrong with being a 9th grade business law teacher at some middle school and in fact quite noble--I just don't understand why you are ashamed of it and try to hide it. But being a business law teacher has it's limitations.

 

First, one does NOT have to sign a paper agreeing to the type of remedy that will be used by the lender/seller in the event of a default, to allow the lender/seller to be able to bring a small claims court action or use a collection agency, if the claim is within the jurisdictional limit of that court--in california and many other states $5,000 or less. You are simply wrong and misunderstand the law in that regard. It may very well be that there are some commercial remedies where that is required, but not for using small claims court --any landlord, small business man, non-business man may and do in fact use small claims court and collection agencies extensively.

 

If you write an NSF check to a merchant, there is nothing you have signed nor have to sign allowing that merchant to sue you in SCC. He may use it if he wishes and usually does. Think about it (for a change).

 

If you go to your doctor and fail to pay the bill, he most likely assigns it to a collection agency and they may and usually do sue you in small claims court--and you NEVER signed a document authorizing that nor is that required.

 

For the most part, these type of transactions are not even considered "commercial transactions" as real attornies would use the term. Commercial Transactions, as definded in most commercial codes, are almost uniformly governed by the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) or a particular states variation of it--such as the CCC in Calif. (California Commercial Code). But if you want to call what we are talking about here, commercial transactions, that's OK, because I understand what you are trying to say.

 

You may have a few of the people here fooled by your pretext, but not all of us--but then I couldn't care less what you are--just object to you spreading misinformation under the guise of "knowledge."

 

So while you are correct, that when you sign a contract with the bank for a loan, or with a mortgage company for a loan/mortgage on your home, the remedies are spelled out, including how they will be enforced, that is not the same for the smaller (as you say) commercial transactions with small merchants who do in fact go after the $200-300 debts in court. Banks are heavily regulated and governed, among other codes, by the UCC (see above woodie for a reminder of what that is), and therefore, your examples are really not on point, but good try. Mortgages for instance need be UCC compatible since they are sold and resold nationwide.

 

>>1. There need be no prior agreement, written or otherwise,

>for

>>the use of small claims court or a collection agency, before

>>an agrieved party may enlist their services. With me so far

>>sweetie?

>

>Well actually, you stupid, lying sack of shit, there can be no

>debt to enforce, either in small claims court or otherwise,

>without a prior agreement, written or otherwise.

[interesting how you can get so upset and vile over this subject. I mean if you are gong to lose your cool, do it about something you should get emotional about, not this! Be that as it may, you incorporate my words, but then go and misapply the meaning. One of your better talents, but must really confuse your students who are reading the same book as you.

 

If you read what I said again, it's simply that the either party can go to small claims court as a remedy without advance written permission in the contract, written or oral. Oral contracts are just as valid as written, but proving the existence usually is harder and there are more defenses to oral contracts--but they are valid and a big part what goes on in small claims and other courts.

 

No one except you has brought in percentages of disputes going to court, simply because no one knows, so what your point there? The fact of the matter is, that most small claims courts are filled to capacity and the majority of those plaintiffs are landlords, small businessmen, and collection agencies--most of whom NEVER HAD THE RIGHT TO USE SMALL CLAIMS COURT WRITTEN INTO THEIR CONTRACT!

 

So rant and rave, call your names and puff yourself up all you want, but you simply know not of what you speak :+

[woodlawn]

>Well, Woodlawn, I'm certain that Flower is indeed, an

>attorney. I believe he was a prosecutor at one time, but

>practiced criminal law.

 

Why are you certain of it, because he says so? As you know, he has also said on this board that he deceived and betrayed his own wife. If he'll lie to someone to whom he made a solemn vow of trust, do you think he'd hesitate to lie to a bunch of total strangers on a message board?

 

>As you well know, there are many areas of the law and many

>attorneys that specialize in those areas, and thus aren't as

>informed or experienced in the other areas. As such, they are

>relying basically on what they recall about those areas from

>law school.

 

You are quite right. But let me point out to you that the principles of which Flower has demonstrated ignorance in this thread -- that the right to foreclose on a mortgaged property derives from an agreement between the parties, for example -- are so basic that it is impossible for me to believe that he actually went to law school. A psychiatrist is a graduate of medical school. As such he was required to take a course in human anatomy. He may not have any need to use that information in his practice, but if you asked him where the liver is located, do you think he wouldn't know? The ignorance Flower has demonstrated is similar to that.

 

>I sincerely believe that you are also an attorney but one,

>that specializes in business law and thus are very experienced

>and knowledgeable in regards to contracts. As such, I believe

>your points on this issue are probably the most accurate.

 

I have never made any claims on this message board about my occupation or education. As you know, I don't provide personal information on message boards. If others want to, that's up to them.

 

My comments about the so-called "self help" remedies that Flower keeps talking about are completely accurate. Flower referred to repossession of a car by the lender and foreclosure on a house by the mortgagee as instances of "self help" similar to what Luke did. As I pointed out, however, the borrowers in those cases sign agreements in which they specifically agree to the use of such collection methods in the event that they default. I doubt very much that Luke's client ever agreed that Luke could recover any disputed amount from him by taking it out of his pants pocket secretly.

 

You will note that as soon as I fulfilled Flower's request that I "enlighten" him about the difference between those transactions, he stopped talking about them in his subsequent posts. I tore up the point he tried to make, but he is not honest enough to admit that.

 

More broadly, I know of no law in any state providing that one party to a commercial dispute has the right to recover the disputed amount from the other party by seizing the other party's money or property without the other party's knowledge or consent. I would be interested to see Flower cite such a law. I would be surprised if he can. Even with regard to car repossession, it is my understanding that in most states the law is that if the owner is present and objects when the repo man shows up, the repo man is not permitted to proceed with the repossession. That, among other reasons, is why Flower's analogy is so flawed.

 

 

>IMO, a client/escort agreement is illegal under the law and

>thus unenforceable. Also, it would be an oral contract, which

>are the most difficult to enforce.

 

Both of those statements are quite accurate.

 

>An illegal oral contract for an illegal business. No one can

>have any recourse, but to deal with the results as such.

 

True. As you know, this is not the first time various people on this board have tried to legitimize an escort's seizure of money from a client without his consent in case of a dispute about the fee. They keep trying to legitimize it by making analogies to the legal remedies sellers of goods or services (or lenders) employ to recover monies they assert are owed to them. But as I have pointed out again and again, these analogies simply do not hold up to scrutiny. The law does not really provide any procedure in which the seller can seize the buyer's money without his knowledge or consent when there is a dispute about what the seller is owed. When there is theft of services from an hotel or restaurant, for example, the seller can detain the buyer until the police arrive to arrest him, but the seller has no right to seize the buyer's money to pay the bill, and despite Doug's stupid remarks to the contrary the police will not do that either. When a merchant catches a shoplifter trying to leave the store without paying, he also can detain the culprit for the police. But he can't take the culprit's wallet and take the money to pay for the merchandise. The people who keep trying to make these analogies simply do not know what they are talking about.

[Doug69]

>>IMO, a client/escort agreement is illegal under the law and

>>thus unenforceable. Also, it would be an oral contract,

>which

>>are the most difficult to enforce.

>

>Both of those statements are quite accurate.

 

YES - this is the whole fucking point!!!! Because Luke (due to the nature of the transaction) can't resort to suing or to calling the Police - the 2 options which legal businesses could puruse when they are stolen from this way - his ONLY recourse for righting this wrong was to do what he did. That is precisely why so many people in this thread have expressed approval for what he did - because there was nothing else, short of letting the their get away with it, that he could have done (Actually - he had other options, such as bashing in the skull of the thief, but to his credit, he chose the most non-violent means available to him).

 

>When there is theft of

>services from an hotel or restaurant, for example, the seller

>can detain the buyer until the police arrive to arrest him,

>but the seller has no right to seize the buyer's money to pay

>the bill, and despite Doug's stupid remarks to the contrary

>the police will not do that either.

 

I said no such thing. I simply pointed out - accurately - that legal busiensses which are stolen from (as Luke was) have the option to call the Police, since that behavior is criminal. Such complaints are therefore within the jurisdiction of the police. I never said the police would come and take the money away and give it back to the victim, so I don't understand why you're lying and claiming that I did say that.

 

Under these circumstances, legal businesses could do 2 things: (1) sue to get their money that was stolen from them; or (2) call the Police and have the thief arrested. Because of what he does, Luke could do neither, so his best recourse against the thief was to do what he did.

 

You're free to disgaree with that, but you should stop lying about and distorting what others have said in order to do so.

[woodlawn]

>>>IMO, a client/escort agreement is illegal under the law

>and

>>>thus unenforceable. Also, it would be an oral contract,

>>which

>>>are the most difficult to enforce.

 

>>Both of those statements are quite accurate.

 

>YES - this is the whole fucking point!!!! Because Luke

>(due to the nature of the transaction) can't resort to suing

>or to calling the Police - the 2 options which legal

>businesses could puruse when they are stolen from this way -

>his ONLY recourse for righting this wrong was to do what he

>did. That is precisely why so many people in this thread have

>expressed approval for what he did -

 

Here we go again. "So many people." How many? Is it your favorite expression, a "huge number"? As I see it, more people than not have expressed discomfort with what Luke did -- even he himself did so. Are you going to argue with him too?

 

"His only recourse"? Why couldn't he sit down with the client, state his position, and try to reach an agreement? Clearly the client wanted to keep seeing him. So what stopped him from doing that? You'll say he couldn't negotiate with a thief, but that simply reflects your bias and refusal to consider the possibility that there was an honest difference of opinion here. You always judge other people by yourself.

 

>>When there is theft of

>>services from an hotel or restaurant, for example, the

>seller

>>can detain the buyer until the police arrive to arrest him,

>>but the seller has no right to seize the buyer's money to

>pay

>>the bill, and despite Doug's stupid remarks to the contrary

>>the police will not do that either.

 

>I never said the police would

>come and take the money away and give it back to the victim,

>so I don't understand why you're lying and claiming that I did

>say that.

 

In MY post to which you replied, I stated "the police do not collect debts." In YOUR post you disputed that statement. But it is completely and totally accurate. Why lie and deny what is on the board for all to see?

 

>Under these circumstances, legal businesses could do 2 things:

> (1) sue to get their money that was stolen from them; or (2)

>call the Police and have the thief arrested. Because of what

>he does, Luke could do neither, so his best recourse against

>the thief was to do what he did.

 

No. He could have tried to resolve the matter amicably. Had he done so, he might now have a good repeat client instead of a bad reputation. You will note that more than one poster here who said he would have recommended Luke now says he will not do so.

 

 

>You're free to disgaree with that, but you should stop lying

>about and distorting what others have said in order to do so.

 

You are the one who is lying. It's something you simply can't stop doing. You even lie about events that are public knowledge -- like the fact that Arnold DIDN'T get a majority of the vote. Lying is your nature.

[Doug69]

>Here we go again. "So many people." How many? Is it your

>favorite expression, a "huge number"?

 

I didn't count how many did, but I know there were many. Count if you want to.

 

As I see it, more

>people than not have expressed discomfort with what Luke did

>-- even he himself did so. Are you going to argue with him

>too?

 

This isn't a straw poll. I didn't comment on how many condemned him, only on the number who defended him.

 

>"His only recourse"? Why couldn't he sit down with the

>client, state his position, and try to reach an agreement?

 

Luke made clear that he tried to do just that at the end of his appointment. Luke told him he was owed more and why. The client refused to pay more, dishonestly claiming he thought it was for the whole appointment. Thus, the negotiation ended and Luke left angry. Didn't you read the review on which you're opining?

 

>Clearly the client wanted to keep seeing him. So what stopped

>him from doing that? You'll say he couldn't negotiate with a

>thief, but that simply reflects your bias and refusal to

>consider the possibility that there was an honest difference

>of opinion here. You always judge other people by yourself.

 

Actually - it's you who are judging the thieving client by yourself. Only a complete moron would believe that an escort's $200 rate isn't for the hour, but instead, entitles you to spend as much time as you want, hours and hours and hours and hours and hours if you choose, with the escort for a flat fee of $200. Anyone who claims that this was their understanding - PARTICULARLY a regular client of escorts, as this client said he was - is either being dishonest or totally stupid. You believe it's the latter because you're judging the client by yourself.

 

>In MY post to which you replied, I stated "the police do not

>collect debts." In YOUR post you disputed that statement.

>But it is completely and totally accurate. Why lie and deny

>what is on the board for all to see?

 

Re-print the sentence or paragraph where I said that the Police will come and take the money away from a thief and give it back to the victim. An honorable person would retract the claim if they couldn't do that, which is exactly why I know there will be no forthcoming retraction from you - only more lies and smoke.

 

I know full well that the Police don't do anything like that, and I never said they did. You just lied when you claimed I said this, and you know this now. But you can never admit you made a mistake or that you lied, even though you do both constantly, and that is one of the things - though only one - that makes you so disgusting.

[MiamiLooker]

>Actually - it's you who are judging the thieving client by

>yourself. Only a complete moron would believe that an

>escort's $200 rate isn't for the hour, but instead, entitles

>you to spend as much time as you want, hours and hours and

>hours and hours and hours if you choose, with the escort for a

>flat fee of $200. Anyone who claims that this was their

>understanding - PARTICULARLY a regular client of escorts, as

>this client said he was - is either being dishonest or totally

>stupid. You believe it's the latter because you're judging

>the client by yourself.

 

You've never had an escort stay beyond the agreed upon time without an expectation of more money? I've never thought it that unusual when an escort has stayed longer; even spending the night sometimes. I've never kept any of them from leaving nor asked any of them to stay. I've never paid more nor been asked for more than the originally agreed upon amount.

 

Of course, I've also had those that left 10 or 15 minutes earlier than what I paid for. I guess I should set up another appointment with them (an incall, though I prefer outcalls) so I can try to sneak out with a toaster or a lamp from their apartment to make up for the shortage.

[woodlawn]

>>Here we go again. "So many people." How many? Is it your

>>favorite expression, a "huge number"?

 

>I didn't count how many did, but I know there were many.

>Count if you want to.

 

Uh, no, I don't think I will. I think I'll wait until you come up with some facts to justify your statement that "so many people" supported what Luke did. I'll check back next August and see if you've done it yet.

 

>As I see it, more

>>people than not have expressed discomfort with what Luke did

>>-- even he himself did so. Are you going to argue with him

>>too?

 

>This isn't a straw poll. I didn't comment on how many

>condemned him, only on the number who defended him.

 

If numbers don't matter, what is the significance of your statement that "so many" endorsed his actions? Now that you are called on to defend it you are scuttling away from it. As usual.

 

 

>>"His only recourse"? Why couldn't he sit down with the

>>client, state his position, and try to reach an agreement?

 

>Luke made clear that he tried to do just that at the end of

>his appointment. Luke told him he was owed more and why. The

>client refused to pay more, dishonestly claiming he thought it

>was for the whole appointment. Thus, the negotiation ended

>and Luke left angry. Didn't you read the review on which

>you're opining?

 

 

It is not at all clear to me from what he said that he did try to resolve the matter amicably at any time. It certainly IS clear that he did not attempt to do so AFTER the first appointment ended. Why not?

 

 

>>Clearly the client wanted to keep seeing him. So what

>stopped

>>him from doing that? You'll say he couldn't negotiate with

>a

>>thief, but that simply reflects your bias and refusal to

>>consider the possibility that there was an honest difference

>>of opinion here. You always judge other people by yourself.

 

>Actually - it's you who are judging the thieving client by

>yourself.

 

Nope. I'm willing to consider the possibility that he really didn't understand he'd have to pay more. Lying and cheating are second nature to you, so you assume that he is lying and cheating too. I don't.

 

 

>Only a complete moron would believe that an

>escort's $200 rate isn't for the hour, but instead, entitles

>you to spend as much time as you want,

 

Isn't there another poster in this thread -- perhaps it is guyinsf? -- who recounts for us that he too often has escorts stay for extra time without feeling obligated to pay more? Is he a complete moron too? Or is it just that everyone who disagrees with YOU about anything is a complete moron?

 

 

>>In MY post to which you replied, I stated "the police do not

>>collect debts." In YOUR post you disputed that statement.

>>But it is completely and totally accurate. Why lie and deny

>>what is on the board for all to see?

 

>Re-print the sentence or paragraph where I said that the

>Police will come and take the money away from a thief and give

>it back to the victim.

 

But if you DON'T disagree with my statement that "the police don't collect debts," why didn't you say so -- instead of saying in your Post #51 that the police DO "pursue people" who don't pay what is owed? Why do you insist that calling the police IS an option for someone who wants to collect a debt when you know full well it is NOT? Well?

 

> An honorable person would retract the

>claim if they couldn't do that, which is exactly why I know

>there will be no forthcoming retraction from you - only more

>lies and smoke.

 

A filthy hatemonger like you has no business using the word "honorable." Someone who urges escorts to increase their income by taking advantage of the befuddlement of meth addicts is telling us what an "honorable" person would do? What's next, a lecture on compassion from Hitler?

 

 

>I know full well that the Police don't do anything like that,

>and I never said they did. You just lied when you claimed I

>said this, and you know this now.

 

If that ISN'T what you meant then why did you insist, and continue to insist, contrary to what I said, that calling the police "isn't an option" for an aggrieved seller because "the police don't collect debts"? What possible good can do it the seller to have the buyer arrested when that gets him absolutely nothing?

 

>But you can never admit you

>made a mistake or that you lied, even though you do both

>constantly, and that is one of the things - though only one -

>that makes you so disgusting.

 

A vicious, hateful creature like you deserves no reaction but derisive laughter when he has the colossal nerve to criticize others for bad behavior. You have nothing to offer -- except your bile.

[woodlawn]

>Anyone who claims that this was their

>>understanding - PARTICULARLY a regular client of escorts, as

>>this client said he was - is either being dishonest or

>totally

>>stupid. You believe it's the latter because you're judging

>>the client by yourself.

 

>You've never had an escort stay beyond the agreed upon time

>without an expectation of more money? I've never thought it

>that unusual when an escort has stayed longer; even spending

>the night sometimes. I've never kept any of them from leaving

>nor asked any of them to stay. I've never paid more nor been

>asked for more than the originally agreed upon amount.

 

Many of us have had that experience, but even if Doug has too he'll never admit it. To admit he's done much the same thing as a person he just branded a thief? Don't hold your breath waiting for that. Gibraltar will crumble to dust before dear old Doug takes up honesty as a regular habit.

 

>Of course, I've also had those that left 10 or 15 minutes

>earlier than what I paid for. I guess I should set up another

>appointment with them (an incall, though I prefer outcalls) so

>I can try to sneak out with a toaster or a lamp from their

>apartment to make up for the shortage.

 

A splendid idea. By Doug's logic, those of us who've had an escort leave before time (but get paid full price) have every right to set up another appointment to rip off the escort, since we have NO OTHER RECOURSE for collecting what we are owed.

[Doug69]

>You've never had an escort stay beyond the agreed upon time

>without an expectation of more money?

 

No - and neither have you. You are obviously one of this slimy, creepy pigs who plots to get a few free squeezes of an escort's cock by keeping them longer and then not paying. I'm sure you tell yourself that the escort stayed voluntarily because he really liked you and wanted to spend time with you for free - but the escort leaves hating you and thinking that you are a cheap cunt who agreed to an hourly rate, but were so lonely and needy and cheap that you kept him substantially longer than that time and then didn't pay.

 

Ask any escort, not the walking advertisements here who will not speak ill of clients, but ask escorts when they can speak freely what they think of heinous old pigs like you who keep them hours and hours beyond the initial hour and then pay only the one-hour rate, and I think the delusion that you pathetically try to cling to that they stay for free because they want to be with you so badly will be burst.

 

It's one thing to go a few minutes over, 10 minutes or whatever because you're not staring at the clock. But to keep the escort substantially longer than the hour (such as, say, 3 times as long as the escort with Luke did) - and then sickeningly refuse to pay - is just stealing.

 

I've never thought it

>that unusual when an escort has stayed longer; even spending

>the night sometimes. I've never kept any of them from leaving

>nor asked any of them to stay. I've never paid more nor been

>asked for more than the originally agreed upon amount.

 

So you hire escorts based upon some published hourly rate, have them overnight, and then refuse to pay more than an hour? You belong in a prison cell with that client who stole from Luke - or in a psychiatric ward being treated for serious delusional problems. I've heard of pig clients who want to pretend that escorts aren't there for the money, but keeping a client overnight, paying him one hour, and telling yourself the escort wanted to stay for free is outright fucking certifiable.

 

>Of course, I've also had those that left 10 or 15 minutes

>earlier than what I paid for. I guess I should set up another

>appointment with them (an incall, though I prefer outcalls) so

>I can try to sneak out with a toaster or a lamp from their

>apartment to make up for the shortage.

 

Here are 2 situations which, self-evidently, are quite different but which, frighteningly, you seem not to be able to distinguish:

 

(1) You go into a restaurant and order from the $87 fixed-priced menu which lists the speciic appetizer, entree and dessert you get. You order that, plus 2 bottles of Dom Perrignon, a Chardonnay, cavier and 4 or 5 other items not listed there. You eat and drink all of it. The bill comes for $733, and you say you can't pay and thought that it was all included.

 

(2) You go into a restaurant and order from the $87 fixed-priced menu which lists the speciic appetizer, entree and dessert you get. You order that, but only eat the appetizer and part of the entree, but not the dessert, because you're not hungry. You then demand to pay only $52 because you didn't eat everything you ordered.

 

You are comparing these two situations even though they are completely different. In situtation (1) you are a thief (that's what you do with escorts) and you clearly owe the restaurant (escort) money, and not paying is stealing. In situtation (2) you are an idiot thinking that the restaurant (escort) owes you money because you didn't consume everything you ordered.