Why so many lawyers?

taylorky · March 29, 2003

>>AMEN! I grew up in a lower middle class blue collar family

>>and would not limit the chastisement to just doctors and

>>lawyers but all white collars.

>

>And AMEN to that!

>

>my sophomore year of college my parents cut off all financial

>support(after I confirmed my homosexuality AND switched from

>Pre-Law to Clothing and Textiles)and I started working a 2nd

>job to pay for school and support myself.

ahha cletus now i see the reason for your hostility towards attorneys.you my boy are just another lawyer wannabe that couldn't make it..........wanted to be an attorney ended up a seamstress ahhhhhhh. and all because mommy and daddy didn,t love you because your a fruit...... boo hoo fucking hoo. get over it ,grow some balls and quit whining like a little bitch.jeeeessssssh what a nebbish. oh by the way that will be your assignment for today........look up the word nebbish...find it's origin and meaning (you did so well with noble)it gives me a warm feeling inside knowing that i can help you fill the void in your life,you know something to make those gray lonley hours pass more quickly.taylor (willonedaybewhatyoucouldn't)@13:21-03/29/03

taylorky · March 29, 2003

>Second, as a 20 year-old gay boy living in KENTUCKY, exactly

>how many hookers, porn stars do you know? Please tell us how

>you know exactly what they do in their private lives? Upon

>what, if any, firsthand experience can YOU possibly base this

>opinion?

>

hmmmmm yep i am a boy (will try to hold that distinction as long as i can..oh yeperoo gay and very happy and content to be so.uhhhh you left out jewish...about that i'm a little ambivalent (about being jewish).and nope don't know any hookers,ditto for people in pornography.i also have folks that love me for who i am,soooooo lets see who would i rather be..............me an average lil' ol gay jewish hillbilly boy ...........or jeffoh a for hire dialated butt hole failed wanna be attorney with a police record.....let's see ding ding ding dong dong dong ding times up ..............and the answer is meeeeeeeeeeeeee.........taylorky@13:47-03/29/03...gotta go now peace march downtown at 15:00 y'all play nice now

March 29, 2003

you my boy are just another lawyer wannabe that

>couldn't make it..........

Whoa, dude, I was doing quite well, thank you, I just realized that I didn't want to pursue a career in law.

>wanted to be an attorney ended up a

>seamstress ahhhhhhh.

Wrong again, my friend. I was searching for something that really interested me. I've found that.

>and all because mommy and daddy didn,t

>love you because your a fruit...... boo hoo fucking hoo. get

>over it ,grow some balls and quit whining like a little

>bitch.

First of all, it's you're not "your" a fruit, secondly, I moved out of my parent's home at the age of 18 and have totally supported myself since the age of 19, because I chose to live my life as I saw fit, not according to the wishes of my parents. I have gotten over it and have grown balls big enough to gag more than one idealistic, young lad.

)it gives me a warm feeling inside knowing that i can

>help you fill the void in your life,you know something to make

>those gray lonley hours pass more quickly.

Thanks, but no thanks. I don't live at home with my parents in Kentucky posting on the message board of an escort review site, so there's no "void" or "gray lonely hours" in my life, which is quite busy...seeing clients, running a gym and spending time with my diverse group of friends.

JEFF [email protected]

March 29, 2003

>hmmmmm yep i am a boy (will try to hold that distinction as

>long as i can..oh yeperoo gay and very happy and content to be

>so.uhhhh you left out jewish...about that i'm a little

>ambivalent (about being jewish).and nope don't know any

>hookers,ditto for people in pornography.i also have folks that

>love me for who i am,soooooo lets see who would i rather

>be..............me an average lil' ol gay jewish hillbilly boy

>...........or jeffoh a for hire dialated butt hole failed

>wanna be attorney with a police record.....let's see ding ding

>ding dong dong dong ding times up ..............and the answer

>is meeeeeeeeeeeeee.........

It's good to see that your "noble" parents have passed along such "noble" qualities to you.

JEFF [email protected]

woodlawn · March 29, 2003

>>To quote another escort who posts here frequently, you have

>no

>>idea what I think or feel.

>

>Sorry to imply that you think or feel.

The next time you have it in mind to criticize anyone for using childish insults or personal attacks on this message board, remember what you said above. You can bet I will.

>Don't they count? Aren't they human beings? Don't they

>have

>>any right to say what should go on in their community?

>It's their supposed "morality" that has been codified, not

>mine.

And it's their community. As you pointed out, you don't live there or vote there. They do.

>Yes, but their "community" shouldn't extend to our

>bedrooms, wombs, or any other private setting in which 2 or

>more consenting adults are involved.

Obviously, they don't agree. And it is their community.

>I don't subscribe to any one religion. God talks to me, just

>as he does to Pat Robertson and that old man in the

>Vatican.

That explains a lot.

>>And what does any of that have to do with laws against

>>operating a sex business without a license?

>Plenty, these are "crimes" that normally occur out of sight of

>the community. The community would normally never know about

>them otherwise. In order to enforce most of these ordinances,

>ESPECIALLY when applied against individuals and not actual

>businesses located in

>physical structures, an individual's privacy is violated.

It's an interesting point you make, but it doesn't jibe with the facts of your case. If the local authorities didn't know people were coming into their community to operate sex businesses outside their statutory scheme, why did they set up the elaborate sting operation you described to us? Obviously they did know. So whatever has been going on there has not been kept private.

>Yet another invitation to enter the MAZE, no thanks!

Don't be afraid. I will let you out. Eventually.

>My privacy WAS violated. Otherwise this would have been yet

>another situation between consenting adults which should have

>been of no concern to anyone else in the world.

I suppose anyone who operates a business could claim that attempts by government to regulate it constitute an invasion of his privacy. Thank goodness the courts don't accept that argument for the most part.

>You're so locked into a rigid framework of laws/words and into

>your own belief system that it limits your ability to see

>situations from a truly authentic perspective.

I'm not sure what is "authentic" about your perspective. Although you refer to certain Supreme Court rulings regarding a general right of privacy as a basis for your view on that issue, the truth is the Court has consistently held that right does not prevent the states from regulating sex businesses. If that's your perspective, it's bogus, not authentic.

As for my "rigid framework of laws," you live within the same framework I do. You can pretend it isn't there if you like, but the result of pretending is the arrest you just went through.

>You're making that up. I NEVER said I would ask Hooboy to

>disable my reviews. I was POLITELY responding to Flower's

>suggestion. I said I would "consider" it, I did and I'm NOT

>asking Hooboy to disable my reviews.

So you were just jerking Flower around? Sorry, I thought you were being sincere. My mistake.

>I did NOT say that if "someone" is "duplicitous" he would make

>a good attorney. Quote me word for word where I say this. I

>said this was a quality that my ex exhibited in our

>relationship and expressed my opinion that this may benefit

>HIM as an attorney.

And why would it benefit him as an attorney?

>What am I "reading into" that?

>Who knows?

You're the one who said so, so I assumed you did. Evidently not.

>He charges people less rent than he could get otherwise.

He should be commended for this.

>I meet a lot of people who are involved in crime. The vast

>>majority of them fit a particular mold.

>>I have yet to see

>>anything on this board to suggest that the opinions I've

>>formed as a result of this experience are inaccurate.

>That's not likely to ever happen.

How cynical!

March 29, 2003

jeeeessssssh what a nebbish. oh by the way that will be

>your assignment for today........look up the word

>nebbish...find it's origin and meaning

Sorry, I don't speak Jew or more specifically Yiddish, but as a big fan of The Nanny, Fran Fine and her hilarious relatives have introduced some new words to me, so I had heard the word "nebbish".

Main Entry: neb·bish

Pronunciation: 'ne-bish

Function: noun

Etymology: Yiddish nebekh poor, unfortunate, from Czech nebohý

Date: 1951

: a timid, meek, or ineffectual person

- neb·bishy /-bi-shE/ adjective

And this word applies to me how? I came out when I was 19 years-old going to school at Morehead State University in KENTUCKY! in 1982!, meanwhile you were either not born, or still shitting and pissing in your diaper.

Timid, meek, ineffectual, huh? Let's see, I've been outspoken regarding my sexual orientation for the past 20 years. Also, I've appeared on TV and been interviewed by a local paper regarding my work as an escort. If anything, I'm just slightly less confrontational than I used to be. Anyone who knows me would laugh at anyone who called me a "nebbish", I know I certainly did.

It certainly has been a cool, gray, depressing day today, but the laughter provided here has really brightened things up.

Thanks kid!

JEFF

[email protected]

March 29, 2003

>>>To quote another escort who posts here frequently, you

>have

>>no

>>>idea what I think or feel.

>>

>>Sorry to imply that you think or feel.

>

>The next time you have it in mind to criticize anyone for

>using childish insults or personal attacks on this message

>board, remember what you said above. You can bet I will.

>

>>Don't they count? Aren't they human beings? Don't they

>>have

>>>any right to say what should go on in their community?

>

>>It's their supposed "morality" that has been codified, not

>>mine.

>

>And it's their community. As you pointed out, you don't live

>there or vote there. They do.

>

>>Yes, but their "community" shouldn't extend to our

>>bedrooms, wombs, or any other private setting in which 2 or

>>more consenting adults are involved.

>

>Obviously, they don't agree. And it is their community.

>

>>I don't subscribe to any one religion. God talks to me, just

>>as he does to Pat Robertson and that old man in the

>>Vatican.

>

>That explains a lot.

>

>>>And what does any of that have to do with laws against

>>>operating a sex business without a license?

>

>>Plenty, these are "crimes" that normally occur out of sight

>of

>>the community. The community would normally never know about

>>them otherwise. In order to enforce most of these

>ordinances,

>>ESPECIALLY when applied against individuals and not actual

>>businesses located in

>>physical structures, an individual's privacy is violated.

>

>It's an interesting point you make, but it doesn't jibe with

>the facts of your case. If the local authorities didn't know

>people were coming into their community to operate sex

>businesses outside their statutory scheme, why did they set up

>the elaborate sting operation you described to us? Obviously

>they did know. So whatever has been going on there has not

>been kept private.

>

>>Yet another invitation to enter the MAZE, no thanks!

>

>Don't be afraid. I will let you out. Eventually.

>

>>My privacy WAS violated. Otherwise this would have been yet

>>another situation between consenting adults which should

>have

>>been of no concern to anyone else in the world.

>

>I suppose anyone who operates a business could claim that

>attempts by government to regulate it constitute an invasion

>of his privacy. Thank goodness the courts don't accept that

>argument for the most part.

>

>>You're so locked into a rigid framework of laws/words and

>into

>>your own belief system that it limits your ability to see

>>situations from a truly authentic perspective.

>

>I'm not sure what is "authentic" about your perspective.

>Although you refer to certain Supreme Court rulings regarding

>a general right of privacy as a basis for your view on that

>issue, the truth is the Court has consistently held that right

>does not prevent the states from regulating sex businesses.

>If that's your perspective, it's bogus, not authentic.

>

>As for my "rigid framework of laws," you live within the same

>framework I do. You can pretend it isn't there if you like,

>but the result of pretending is the arrest you just went

>through.

>

>>You're making that up. I NEVER said I would ask Hooboy to

>>disable my reviews. I was POLITELY responding to Flower's

>>suggestion. I said I would "consider" it, I did and I'm NOT

>>asking Hooboy to disable my reviews.

>

>So you were just jerking Flower around? Sorry, I thought you

>were being sincere. My mistake.

>

>>I did NOT say that if "someone" is "duplicitous" he would

>make

>>a good attorney. Quote me word for word where I say this. I

>>said this was a quality that my ex exhibited in our

>>relationship and expressed my opinion that this may benefit

>>HIM as an attorney.

>

>And why would it benefit him as an attorney?

>

>>What am I "reading into" that?

>

>>Who knows?

>

>You're the one who said so, so I assumed you did. Evidently

>not.

>

>>He charges people less rent than he could get otherwise.

>

>He should be commended for this.

>

>>I meet a lot of people who are involved in crime. The vast

>>>majority of them fit a particular mold.

>>>I have yet to see

>>>anything on this board to suggest that the opinions I've

>>>formed as a result of this experience are inaccurate.

>

>>That's not likely to ever happen.

>

>How cynical!

>

March 29, 2003

>The next time you have it in mind to criticize anyone for

>using childish insults or personal attacks on this message

>board, remember what you said above. You can bet I will.

No bet necessary, you've proven time and again this elephant-like quality. Happy to give you something to do.

>It's an interesting point you make, but it doesn't jibe with

>the facts of your case. If the local authorities didn't know

>people were coming into their community to operate sex

>businesses outside their statutory scheme, why did they set up

>the elaborate sting operation you described to us?

Uh, well, duh, it's an easy way for them to make some money. Takes a little less effort to sit around a motel room setting up hookers than to be out investigating actual crimes with real victims.

>>Yet another invitation to enter the MAZE, no thanks!

>

>Don't be afraid. I will let you out. Eventually.

Thanks, but that was the ex's game also. Perhaps I could introduce you two and you can discuss nothing until one of you dies.

>>You're so locked into a rigid framework of laws/words and

>into

>>your own belief system that it limits your ability to see

>>situations from a truly authentic perspective.

>

>I'm not sure what is "authentic" about your perspective.

I'll tell you what's "authentic" about it. My opinions and perspectives aren't directly linked to an ego-driven need to be right about everything all the time. My opinions have evolved over the years because I actually can hear what others are saying, I can empathize with how they're feeling. Allowing experiential knowledge to help form my opinions, as opposed to locking myself into a belief system (based upon laws and/or religion or through another person's understanding) only prevents you from experiencing the world as it actually is. I understand, alot of people cling to anachronistic religions, beliefs, concepts because they are afraid to question them too much. It would totally undermine the precarious house of cards that is such a big part of who they believe themselves to be. Jeez, they might actually have to "think and feel" without a guidebook.

>As for my "rigid framework of laws," you live within the same

>framework I do. You can pretend it isn't there if you like,

>but the result of pretending is the arrest you just went

>through.

Dude, I've been more of a rebel than you could ever hope to be. I've thought outside of the box my whole life. I decided LONG ago that I wasn't going to play this game called life the way it was set up.

>>You're making that up. I NEVER said I would ask Hooboy to

>>disable my reviews. I was POLITELY responding to Flower's

>>suggestion. I said I would "consider" it, I did and I'm NOT

>>asking Hooboy to disable my reviews.

>So you were just jerking Flower around? Sorry, I thought you

>were being sincere.

I thought about it and realized it wasn't necessary. I SINCERELY appreciated the constructive advice Flower offered.

>My mistake.

How traumatic for you!

>>I did NOT say that if "someone" is "duplicitous" he would

>make

>>a good attorney. Quote me word for word where I say this. I

>>said this was a quality that my ex exhibited in our

>>relationship and expressed my opinion that this may benefit

>>HIM as an attorney.

>And why would it benefit him as an attorney?

He's good at lying and omitting the truth. Are you saying that this is something attorneys NEVER do?

>>What am I "reading into" that?

>

>>Who knows?

>

>You're the one who said so, so I assumed you did. Evidently

>not.

I've never said that ALL, some or even a few attorneys are "duplicitous". You assumed that was my implication and you're wrong.

>>He charges people less rent than he could get otherwise.

>

>He should be commended for this.

I'll tell him you said so. It'll mean so much.

>>I meet a lot of people who are involved in crime. The vast

>>>majority of them fit a particular mold.

>>>I have yet to see

>>>anything on this board to suggest that the opinions I've

>>>formed as a result of this experience are inaccurate.

>

>>That's not likely to ever happen.

>

>How cynical!

Exactly, CYNICAL because I question the sincerity of your motives when you enter into any discussion on this message board. And I doubt that you will EVER read or hear ANYTHING that will make you realize that even ONE of your tenaciously held opinions is "inaccurate".

JEFF [email protected]

taylorky · March 30, 2003

hey hey bucko glad to see you can follow directions.good boy.but you are not completley right ........the common usage of the word nebbish is meant to imply that the person it is being directed towards is......"pitiful".as in a pitiful person.. and be careful your prejudices are showing.......nobody speaks jew......not even us jews.......taylor@20:45-03/29/03

+ *Lucky* · March 30, 2003

Careful jeff, next thing he will be calling you anti-semitic!

March 30, 2003

>but you are not completley right ........the common usage

>of the word nebbish is meant to imply that the person it is

>being directed towards is......"pitiful".as in a pitiful

>person...

Ah yes, "pity" the downtrodden, well, hey if it makes you feel better about yourself, have at it. The "noble" qualities must be hereditary.

>and be careful your prejudices are

>showing.......nobody speaks jew......not even us

>jews.......

Whoa, Jewbilly, I know the language is Hebrew. I'm sorry, "I don't speak Jew" is an expression I use when my Jewish friends use a Hebrew or Yiddish word with which I'm not familiar in conversation.

JEFF [email protected]

woodlawn · March 30, 2003

>No bet necessary, you've proven time and again this

>elephant-like quality. Happy to give you something to do.

The more hypocrisy I find, the busier I am. You and other posters here provide a seemingly inexhaustible supply.

>Uh, well, duh, it's an easy way for them to make some money.

>Takes a little less effort to sit around a motel room setting

>up hookers than to be out investigating actual crimes with

>real victims.

As I've pointed out again and again, there are real victims here. Although a lot of people who post here like to repeat that bullshit about cops who bust hookers wasting their time and the taxpayers' money, the truth is that sting operations to bust prostitutes are almost always set up in response to citizen complaints, not by cops trying to think of some way to fill their empty hours. Complaints may come from neighborhood groups who don't want streetwalkers around their homes and shops or from apartment dwellers or hotel managers who don't want hookers in or around their buildings. They are the victims, and they go to their local councilman or to the community service officer of their police department and complain. That's what motivates 90% of these undercover operations. I know you would prefer to pretend that there are no "real" people behind this, but that's bullshit.

In my city there is a community group trying to get hookers out of their neighborhood, which had been in bad shape but is now gentrifying. Not only do they constantly pester the local police department to make more busts, but they actually have people attending the arraignments to demand that the judges set high bails. They show up wearing big red buttons with the acronym of their group on them so the judge will see them and realize that there are voters who will remember his actions when the next election comes around.

>Thanks, but that was the ex's game also. Perhaps I could

>introduce you two and you can discuss nothing until one of you

>dies.

No thanks. I draw the line at taking seconds from a hooker.

>>I'm not sure what is "authentic" about your perspective.

>

>I'll tell you what's "authentic" about it. My opinions and

>perspectives aren't directly linked to an ego-driven need to

>be right about everything all the time. My opinions have

>evolved over the years because I actually can hear what others

>are saying,

But your ability to "hear" what others say seems to disappear whenever they say anything that doesn't support what you want to do. So you could hear what the Court has said about a general constitutional right to privacy, and you trumpet that as a justification for your position, but you can't hear what it has said about the legitimacy of state regulation of sex businesses. Your hearing, in other words, is highly selective.

>Dude, I've been more of a rebel than you could ever hope to

>be.

Since I have never really wanted to be a rebel, that isn't saying a whole hell of a lot. I realized a long time ago how precious our democratic political system is, because I've spent some time in places where there is no such system. And I also realize that our system can only work to the extent that those who lose the debate over a given political issue are willing to go along with the result nevertheless.

>I thought about it and realized it wasn't necessary.

For what -- except to conceal the truth -- could it possibly be necessary? Why was any thought required?

>>And why would it benefit him as an attorney?

>

>He's good at lying and omitting the truth. Are you saying that

>this is something attorneys NEVER do?

Nope. I asked you how it would BENEFIT him as an attorney.

>I've never said that ALL, some or even a few attorneys are

>"duplicitous". You assumed that was my implication and you're

>wrong.

Now why do I find that so hard to believe?

>I'll tell him you said so. It'll mean so much.

Please don't bother. I only half believe that such a person really exists.

>Exactly, CYNICAL because I question the sincerity of your

>motives when you enter into any discussion on this message

>board.

You're right, that is indeed a sign of cynicism on your part. I do hope you'll remember to mention that the next time you see your therapist. It's something you really need to work through.

March 31, 2003

>As I've pointed out again and again,

Yes, like a broken record!

>there are real victims

>here. Although a lot of people who post here like to repeat

>that bullshit about cops who bust hookers wasting their time

>and the taxpayers' money, the truth is that sting operations

>to bust prostitutes are almost always set up in response to

>citizen complaints, not by cops trying to think of some way to

>fill their empty hours. Complaints may come from neighborhood

>groups who don't want streetwalkers around their homes and

>shops or from apartment dwellers or hotel managers who don't

>want hookers in or around their buildings. They are the

>victims, and they go to their local councilman or to the

>community service officer of their police department and

>complain. That's what motivates 90% of these undercover

>operations.

>I know you would prefer to pretend that there are

>no "real" people behind this, but that's bullshit.

First of all, there are no streetwalkers in the city of Reynoldsburg.

Second, the majority of sting operations in hotels aren't set up to bust streetwalkers.

>In my city there is a community group trying to get hookers

>out of their neighborhood, which had been in bad shape but is

>now gentrifying. Not only do they constantly pester the local

>police department to make more busts, but they actually have

What this has to do with "escorts" who aren't out walking the streets, but operating discreetly, I have no idea.

There have always been laws throughout this U.S. history that were WRONG! Laws that were rooted in ignorance and/or religion. There have also, thank GOD, people who were ahead of the curve and enlightened enough to see this. They broke these laws and fought for changes that eventually led to such laws being struck down.

>>I thought about it and realized it wasn't necessary.

>

>For what -- except to conceal the truth -- could it possibly

>be necessary? Why was any thought required?

Because I hadn't even considered it until it was mentioned. I VERY briefly thought about it and decided it wasn't necessary.

>>>And why would it benefit him as an attorney?

>>

>>He's good at lying and omitting the truth. Are you saying

>that

>>this is something attorneys NEVER do?

>

>Nope. I asked you how it would BENEFIT him as an attorney.

>>I've never said that ALL, some or even a few attorneys are

>>"duplicitous". You assumed that was my implication and

>you're

>>wrong.

>

>Now why do I find that so hard to believe?

Because, I believe that these are tactics that SOME attorneys may use in the courtroom, BUT I don't necessarily believe that all, most or even a large number of attorneys carry those tactics over into their private lives. Don't try to tell me what I'm thinking or feeling.

>>I'll tell him you said so. It'll mean so much.

>

>Please don't bother. I only half believe that such a person

>really exists.

How convenient for you. Dismissing my assertion that prostitutes are just as capable of altruistic acts as anyone else allows you to cling to your precious little opinion that prostitutes have criminal minds and are incapable of such good deeds. He does exist and has been one of my best friends for nearly as long as I've been escorting.

Exactly, CYNICAL because I question the sincerity of your

motives when you enter into any discussion on this message

board. And I doubt that you'll EVER see,read or hear anything that will cause you to question ANY of your tenaciously held opinions.

Really, a so-called "conversation" with you is akin to "pokin' a crazy person with a stick" as my mother used to say. Even the perverse pleasure in that quickly fades.

JEFF [email protected]

woodlawn · March 31, 2003

>>As I've pointed out again and again,

>

>Yes, like a broken record!

Repetition is sometimes necessary when dealing with people who have a problem following simple logic. I knew that before I found this website, but if I hadn't known it then, dealing with you and a few others here would have made it quite clear to me.

>Complaints may come from

>neighborhood

>>groups who don't want streetwalkers around their homes and

>>shops or from apartment dwellers or hotel managers who don't

>>want hookers in or around their buildings. They are the

>>victims, and they go to their local councilman or to the

>>community service officer of their police department and

>>complain. That's what motivates 90% of these undercover

>>operations.

>First of all, there are no streetwalkers in the city of

>Reynoldsburg.

>Second, the majority of sting operations in hotels aren't set

>up to bust streetwalkers.

I didn't say they were. When sting operations are set up in hotels it's usually because the management, either on their own initiative or in response to guest complaints, has contacted the cops about hookers using the hotel.

>>In my city there is a community group trying to get hookers

>>out of their neighborhood, which had been in bad shape but

>is

>>now gentrifying. Not only do they constantly pester the

>local

>>police department to make more busts, but they actually have

>What this has to do with "escorts" who aren't out walking the

>streets, but operating discreetly, I have no idea.

Try to follow this: an elaborate sting operation such as you described is set up because the cops already know hookers are using that hotel or hotels in that area. How do they know this? Because someone told them. Who told them? Nine times out of ten it's the hotel management. How does hotel management know? Because one of their people noticed or because they got a complaint from a guest, or both. So while you may imagine you and the others are being very private and discreet, you are wrong. Someone noticed what you or your colleagues have been doing there and went to the cops. Clear?

>Because, I believe that these are tactics that SOME attorneys

>may use in the courtroom, BUT I don't necessarily believe that

>all, most or even a large number of attorneys carry those

>tactics over into their private lives. Don't try to tell me

>what I'm thinking or feeling.

Far from trying to tell you, I'm trying to get you to tell me why you stated that a duplicitous nature would be of any help to someone in pursuing a career at the bar. Unless you believe that being duplicitous is an important part of such a career, your statement makes no sense whatsoever.

>Really, a so-called "conversation" with you is akin to "pokin'

>a crazy person with a stick" as my mother used to say. Even

>the perverse pleasure in that quickly fades.

No one asked you to respond to my original post in this thread, which was not addressed to you but to the thread author. You decided to do it all by yourself, and now you're whining about it. Typical.

Matt_Vancouver · March 31, 2003

Remember, next time you're in the City,

>we're doing a three-way with Kirk. I want to be the filling

>between two poodles. As I've told you, he's big fun -

>contrary to what you read here.

Gladly: ) maybe I could fuck some sense into that boy: )

matt(not a poodle)

March 31, 2003

>Repetition is sometimes necessary when dealing with people who

>have a problem following simple logic. I knew that before I

>found this website, but if I hadn't known it then, dealing

>with you and a few others here would have made it quite clear

>to me.

Sounds frustrating to me, but apparently pointing these things out gives you something to do. Happy to do my part!}(

>No one asked you to respond to my original post in this

>thread

Your post referenced the thread I started and you misrepresented the nature of the thread saying I was "trying to wriggle out" of the charge, when actually I was trying to ascertain the validity of the charge and how to proceed. You as usual, characterized the thread to fit into your own little agenda. TYPICAL!

>which was not addressed to you but to the thread

>author.

And you said NOTHING regarding "Why so many lawyers on this site", which was the title of the thread, wasn't it? And THEN you attempted, through your parsing of words, to turn a smart-alecky remark made in reference to my EX into something else. TYPICAL!

>You decided to do it all by yourself, and now you're

>whining about it.

Nope, not whining, just "pokin' the crazy person with a stick!"}(

JEFF [email protected]

woodlawn · April 1, 2003

>Sounds frustrating to me, but apparently pointing these things

>out gives you something to do. Happy to do my part!

As I said above, I never asked you to respond to my post. And I'd be just as happy if you ignored everything I post on this board from now on. Pretending that you engage in these arguments for any reason but to please yourself is incredibly dishonest.

>Your post referenced the thread I started and you

>misrepresented the nature of the thread saying I was "trying

>to wriggle out" of the charge, when actually I was trying to

>ascertain the validity of the charge and how to proceed.

Oh? So when you said that if you had been charged with prostitution you would fight it, what was the meaning of that? You did go to that hotel to commit an act of prostitution, right?

If your career as a prostitute is really all about being a "rebel" and civil disobedience, how can you serve that goal by denying what you did when you get caught? Wouldn't it make more sense to do as Gandhi did and tell the magistrate that if he really believes in the law he's enforcing he should give you the maximum possible sentence?

>You

>as usual, characterized the thread to fit into your own little

>agenda. TYPICAL!

My little agenda is to point out the hypocrisy of people who slam lawyers for being "duplicitous" but who are only too glad to use "duplicitous" tactics to save their own ass when they get into trouble. Which is exactly the situation here.

>And you said NOTHING regarding "Why so many lawyers on this

>site", which was the title of the thread, wasn't it?

My post had to do with comments that several other people had already made in response to the thread author's original remarks. Are you saying that violates some rule? Which rule would that be?

>And THEN

>you attempted, through your parsing of words, to turn a

>smart-alecky remark made in reference to my EX into something

>else.

And what "else" can it be turned into? Still waiting for you to explain why you say that being duplicitous would help someone is his career as a lawyer.

>Nope, not whining, just "pokin' the crazy person with a

>stick!"

Did you say that's an expression of your mom's? What expression does she use to describe prostitutes?

April 1, 2003

>As I said above, I never asked you to respond to my post.

I don't need your permission, YOUR HIGHNESS, to address you.

>And

>I'd be just as happy if you ignored everything I post on this

>board from now on.

Of course if that's what you want, I'll do just the opposite.

>Pretending that you engage in these

>arguments for any reason but to please yourself is incredibly

>dishonest.

You have NO idea of why I engage you at all, really, you can play your little word games with others on here all the time, but you just can't stand the idea of anyone fucking with you, can you? Because, you have this Superior Attitude that comes through over and over, regardless of what handle you're using. I think it's time for another name change, you've just about worn this one out!

>Oh? So when you said that if you had been charged with

>prostitution you would fight it, what was the meaning of that?

Because, IF that had been the case, I knew that they DID NOT have what is needed to make an arrest for prostitution. Also, I would fight a prostitution charge, because I believe such laws are WRONG!

Fighting this "massage without a license" charge would have cost me more to hire an attorney than what it would be to pay the fine. Plus, this is a lesser charge than prostitution and I don't believe it to be worth the fight.

>If your career as a prostitute is really all about being a

>"rebel" and civil disobedience,

I never said that "my career as a prostitute is ALL about being a rebel", this is yet another of your mischaracterizations.

>how can you serve that goal by

>denying what you did when you get caught?

I haven't denied anything, if you'd read what's written instead of molding it to fit YOUR agenda, you'd have realized that I NEVER said I didn't do what they said I did. I'd never heard of an ordinance being applied the way that they're doing. Once I realized that the charge was legitimate according to their ordinance AND the State ordinance that allows local governments to make their own rules regarding licensing for massage. I've never denied that I was not there for prostitution, I'm not being charged with that.

>Wouldn't it make

>more sense to do as Gandhi did and tell the magistrate that if

>he really believes in the law he's enforcing he should give

>you the maximum possible sentence?

You know, what I'll do is Plead NO CONTEST, pay the fine and go right on doing what I've been doing all these years. Fight the fight as I see fit, by being open and honest about being a hooker, changing one mind at a time.

>My little agenda is to point out the hypocrisy of people who

>slam lawyers for being "duplicitous" but who are only too glad

>to use "duplicitous" tactics to save their own ass when they

>get into trouble. Which is exactly the situation here.

Pretending that it is, doesn't make it so. It's EXACTLY how you've forced it to fit into your "little agenda", in your USUAL pathetic attempt to feel intellectually and morally superior to others.

>>And you said NOTHING regarding "Why so many lawyers on this

>>site", which was the title of the thread, wasn't it?

>

>My post had to do with comments that several other people had

>already made in response to the thread author's original

>remarks.

Well, that's not what you said, you said your post was addressed to the author of the thread, NOT to any subsequent posts by anyone else.

>>And THEN

>>you attempted, through your parsing of words, to turn a

>>smart-alecky remark made in reference to my EX into

>something

>>else.

>

>And what "else" can it be turned into? Still waiting for you

>to explain why you say that being duplicitous would help

>someone is his career as a lawyer.

I think EVERYONE but YOU, understood that I was comparing my EX to a STEREOTYPE of an attorney and didn't think I truly believed this to be true of all, most or some attorneys. I didn't create the negative stereotype of an attorney, I was merely using it for comic effect.

Seeing that you have NO sense of humor, I'm not surprised that you didn't get it.

>>Nope, not whining, just "pokin' the crazy person with a

>>stick!"

>

>Did you say that's an expression of your mom's?

Yes, one among many! I'm sure if you'd been raised by humans instead of wolves, you'd have some fond memories of things your mother said also.

>What

>expression does she use to describe prostitutes?

Well, she believes prostitution should be decriminalized. Although, she initially had a problem with HER son being a hooker and the whole gay thing, she's now come around. See, there's hope for EVERYONE.

HAPPY APRIL FOOL'S DAY!}(

JEFF [email protected]

woodlawn · April 1, 2003

>>As I said above, I never asked you to respond to my post.

>I don't need your permission, YOUR HIGHNESS, to address you.

But you whine and complain about the result of YOUR decision to do so. It seems to be part of a pattern in which you blame others for the consequences of your own actions. First the cops, now me.

>Of course if that's what you want, I'll do just the opposite.

Machts nichts to me. If you should fall into a well tomorrow, there will still be plenty of people posting hypocritical crap on this board. You're just one among many.

>You have NO idea of why I engage you at all, really,

Logic tells me it's because business has been slow lately.

>but you just can't stand the idea of anyone fucking with you,

>can you?

Don't get carried away. I wouldn't let you near me even if your entire body was covered in latex, rather than just your dick.

>Because, you have this Superior Attitude that comes

>through over and over, regardless of what handle you're using.

>I think it's time for another name change, you've just about

>worn this one out!

If I ever want advice from a hooker, I will be sure to ask for it. Not from you, of course.

>>Oh? So when you said that if you had been charged with

>>prostitution you would fight it, what was the meaning of

>that?

>

>Because, IF that had been the case, I knew that they DID NOT

>have what is needed to make an arrest for prostitution. Also,

>I would fight a prostitution charge, because I believe such

>laws are WRONG!

But how could it possibly be other than "duplicitous" to deny your guilt in a case in which you are unquestionably guilty? The fact that the cops didn't obtain admissible evidence that a particular offense occurred doesn't mean that it didn't occur. Acting as though the two are the same thing is exactly the sort of behavior that causes so many people to accuse lawyers of being "duplicitous." When Dr. King was arrested for leading a march without a parade permit from the local authorities, did he pretend that he had a permit?

>>If your career as a prostitute is really all about being a

>>"rebel" and civil disobedience,

>

>I never said that "my career as a prostitute is ALL about

>being a rebel", this is yet another of your

>mischaracterizations.

You did say that it was a form of civil disobedience, correct?

>>how can you serve that goal by

>>denying what you did when you get caught?

>I've never denied that I was not there

>for prostitution, I'm not being charged with that.

But if you were charged with that offense you would still fight it? Isn't that what you told us?

>>Wouldn't it make

>>more sense to do as Gandhi did and tell the magistrate that

>if

>>he really believes in the law he's enforcing he should give

>>you the maximum possible sentence?

>You know, what I'll do is Plead NO CONTEST, pay the fine and

>go right on doing what I've been doing all these years. Fight

>the fight as I see fit, by being open and honest about being a

>hooker, changing one mind at a time.

Open and honest with everyone except the cops and the judge?

>Pretending that it is, doesn't make it so. It's EXACTLY how

>you've forced it to fit into your "little agenda", in your

>USUAL pathetic attempt to feel intellectually and morally

>superior to others.

I'll let you in on a little secret: it's very easy to feel morally superior to people who claim they're engaging in civil disobedience but who try to wriggle out of the charges when they get nailed, who slam lawyers for being "duplicitous" but who seem to feel honesty is a bit overrated when concealing or denying the truth will help them out of a jam.

>>My post had to do with comments that several other people

>had

>>already made in response to the thread author's original

>>remarks.

>Well, that's not what you said, you said your post was

>addressed to the author of the thread, NOT to any subsequent

>posts by anyone else.

It's time for a remedial English course. A post can be addressed to one person yet still be about remarks made by someone else.

>I think EVERYONE but YOU, understood that I was comparing my

>EX to a STEREOTYPE of an attorney and didn't think I truly

>believed this to be true of all, most or some attorneys.

So taylor isn't part of "everyone"?

>Yes, one among many! I'm sure if you'd been raised by humans

>instead of wolves, you'd have some fond memories of things

>your mother said also.

If my mother ever talked about teasing or abusing the insane, I'd be too embarrassed to mention it to anyone.

April 1, 2003

>But you whine and complain about the result of YOUR decision

>to do so.

This is how you've chosen to characterize it, because you're already made up your mind as to what it's all about.

>It seems to be part of a pattern in which you blame

>others for the consequences of your own actions.

I long ago accepted the risks of being a prostitute. One of which is the potential of being arrested. The cops play these little word games to set you up and you can be DAMNED sure that I'm not going to help them. The thread I started regarding my citation was one of advice in determining the appropriateness of the application of the ordinance.

>First the

>cops, now me.

The ONLY thing I can blame you for is for continuing to provide me with endless fodder to root out ARROGANT KNOW-IT-ALLS. I have just as much authority as you to self-appoint myself to do so.

>Machts nichts to me. If you should fall into a well tomorrow,

>there will still be plenty of people posting hypocritical crap

>on this board. You're just one among many.

More fodder. Thanks!

>>You have NO idea of why I engage you at all, really,

>

>Logic tells me it's because business has been slow lately.

Hardly, I've seen 6 clients in the past week, another scheduled for this evening and one for tomorrow night. Plenty to pay my fine when I go to court.

>If I ever want advice from a hooker, I will be sure to ask for

>it. Not from you, of course.

Dude, you'll NEVER ask anyone for any advice on ANY THING, because, really now, nobody else's opinion matters to you but your own.

>>>Oh? So when you said that if you had been charged with

>>>prostitution you would fight it, what was the meaning of

>>that?

Uh, well, it means that IF I had been charged with prostitution, I would have fought it. I would believe that to have been a worthy fight both financially and philosophically.

>But how could it possibly be other than "duplicitous" to deny

>your guilt in a case in which you are unquestionably guilty?

I believe "duplicitous" tactics are quite appropriate when the LAW is WRONG and there are NO ACTUAL VICTIMS. Such as personal drug use and private sexual acts between consenting adults.

>The fact that the cops didn't obtain admissible evidence that

>a particular offense occurred doesn't mean that it didn't

>occur.

Dude, it's called the LEGAL LANGUAGE GAME, as the ordinance is written, prostitution DID NOT occur, otherwise they would have charged me with that.

>You did say that it was a form of civil disobedience, correct?

Correcto mundo, continually breaking prostituition laws for nearly 12 years is what I call "civil disobedience".

>But if you were charged with that offense you would still

>fight it?

Yes, I would. I would deem it to be a fight worthy of my energy and money.

>Isn't that what you told us?

Yes.

>Open and honest with everyone except the cops and the judge?

They don't make the laws.

>I'll let you in on a little secret: it's very easy to feel

>morally superior to people who claim they're engaging in civil

>disobedience but who try to wriggle out of the charges when

>they get nailed, who slam lawyers for being "duplicitous" but

>who seem to feel honesty is a bit overrated when concealing or

>denying the truth will help them out of a jam.

Once again, this is still your own pathetic attempt to characterize a situation as something it isn't in your sad little obsession to point out illogical and hypocritical behavior in others.

> A post can be

>addressed to one person yet still be about remarks made by

>someone else.

Your post specifically referred to the thread I'd started and comments made on that thread and in the process YOU mischaracterized the whole thing to fit your WRONG assumption that I was trying to "wriggle" out of anything or that I was making remarks about attorneys across the board.

>>I think EVERYONE but YOU, understood that I was comparing my

>>EX to a STEREOTYPE of an attorney and didn't think I truly

>>believed this to be true of all, most or some attorneys.

>

>So taylor isn't part of "everyone"?

No, he's not. He's most likely related to you.

>If my mother ever talked about teasing or abusing the insane,

>I'd be too embarrassed to mention it to anyone.

It's nothing more than a humorous reference to the futility of trying to engage "crazies" in a rational conversation. It's metaphorical humor.

HAPPY APRIL FOOL'S DAY!}(

JEFF [email protected]

woodlawn · April 1, 2003

>This is how you've chosen to characterize it, because you're

>already made up your mind as to what it's all about.

Yup. It's all about you bewailing the results of your own actions.

>The ONLY thing I can blame you for is for continuing to

>provide me with endless fodder to root out ARROGANT

>KNOW-IT-ALLS. I have just as much authority as you to

>self-appoint myself to do so.

In case you haven't noticed, neither I nor any of the other people you insult has in any sense been "rooted out." We are all still here, and there is nothing you can do about it except continue to rant.

>Hardly, I've seen 6 clients in the past week, another

>scheduled for this evening and one for tomorrow night. Plenty

>to pay my fine when I go to court.

I wonder if any of them knows where their money is going. It's an amusing thought.

>Dude, you'll NEVER ask anyone for any advice on ANY THING,

>because, really now, nobody else's opinion matters to you but

>your own.

It's a mistake to judge everyone else by yourself. Just because your opinions are nothing but a lot of self-justifying crap doesn't mean everyone else's are the same.

>Uh, well, it means that IF I had been charged with

>prostitution, I would have fought it. I would believe that to

>have been a worthy fight both financially and

>philosophically.

But a very dishonest fight -- since you were indeed guilty.

>>But how could it possibly be other than "duplicitous" to

>deny

>>your guilt in a case in which you are unquestionably guilty?

>I believe "duplicitous" tactics are quite appropriate when the

>LAW is WRONG and there are NO ACTUAL VICTIMS. Such as personal

>drug use and private sexual acts between consenting adults.

I think I'm finally getting a grip on your philosophy: although committing a series of petty crimes for your own financial benefit is in your mind a form of civil disobedience, you don't take the "civil disobedience" rationalization so far as to be honest with the authorities about your actions and motives, the way civil rights leaders throughout history have done. Instead, you're quite prepared to lie your way out of it if you're caught. Okay.

On the victim issue, I believe I've already demonstrated that there must have been people who felt victimized by what you were doing. If no such people had contacted the cops, there would have been no sting operation set up in the first place.

>>You did say that it was a form of civil disobedience,

>correct?

>

>Correcto mundo, continually breaking prostituition laws for

>nearly 12 years is what I call "civil disobedience".

That's what I thought you said. See above.

>>Open and honest with everyone except the cops and the judge?

>They don't make the laws.

This response is very unclear.

>>I'll let you in on a little secret: it's very easy to feel

>>morally superior to people who claim they're engaging in

>civil

>>disobedience but who try to wriggle out of the charges when

>>they get nailed, who slam lawyers for being "duplicitous"

>but

>>who seem to feel honesty is a bit overrated when concealing

>or

>>denying the truth will help them out of a jam.

>Once again, this is still your own pathetic attempt to

>characterize a situation as something it isn't in your sad

>little obsession to point out illogical and hypocritical

>behavior in others.

You've already explained that you don't mind using "duplicity" to get yourself out of a criminal charge even if you are unquestionably guilty of that charge. That is exactly the position I've taken since my very first post in this thread, and it is pleasing to finally obtain your admission that I was correct.

>Your post specifically referred to the thread I'd started and

>comments made on that thread and in the process YOU

>mischaracterized the whole thing to fit your WRONG assumption

>that I was trying to "wriggle" out of anything or that I was

>making remarks about attorneys across the board.

There was no mischaracterization of any kind. My remarks have been completely accurate.

>>So taylor isn't part of "everyone"?

>

>No, he's not. He's most likely related to you.

The only way in which we are related is that neither of us cares to hear someone characterize the legal profession as "duplicitous" when he himself is perfectly prepared to use duplicity to save his own ass.

Speaking of duplicity, it's mighty duplicitous of you to claim that everyone agrees with you when there is a whole series of exchanges between you and another person in this very thread that shows just the opposite is true. But it's what one has come to expect from you.

April 2, 2003

>>"This is a mighty funny thread. There's another recent thread about an escort who got busted in a sting operation and who, according to his own account, is unquestionably guilty as charged. There's a lot of talk from him and other posters in that thread about how he can wriggle out of the charge with the help of a "duplicitous" lawyer."<<

>>>"There's a lot of talk from him... in that thread about how he can wriggle out of the charge with the help of a "duplicitous" lawyer."<<<

PROVIDE A OUOTE FROM ONE OF MY POSTS IN THAT THREAD TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM.

>>"Seems to me that a lot of people enjoy bashing lawyers for helping guilty clients escape the consequences of their crimes, but when anyone gets arrested the first thing he thinks of is how he can get a lawyer to help him do the exact same thing."<<

I asked for help in figuring out exactly what this charge was about, what the ordinance meant and if it applied in this situation.

Getting a client off who's guilty of a charge where there are ACTUAL VICTIMS who can demonstrate that they were victimized physically or financially and getting a client off of a charge where the LAW is WRONG (any laws regarding sex between consenting adults in private and personal drug use) and there are NO VICTIMS are NOT the "exact same thing".

______________________________________________________________________

>Yup. It's all about you bewailing the results of your own

>actions.

Nope, it's not and no matter how many times you say it is, it simply is not so. It's your OPINION and a minority opinion at that.

>In case you haven't noticed, neither I nor any of the other

>people you insult has in any sense been "rooted out."

Rooted out as in exposed, not eliminated. Same goes for the supposed "hypocritical" people you continue to rant about. They're still here. I'm very selective as to who I insult and the VERY few who I've insulted have all been more than deserving.

>>Hardly, I've seen 6 clients in the past week, another

>>scheduled for this evening and one for tomorrow night.

>Plenty

>>to pay my fine when I go to court.

>

>I wonder if any of them knows where their money is going.

>It's an amusing thought.

It's really none of their business, nor yours what I do with my money.

Happy to amuse you, nevertheless.

>It's a mistake to judge everyone else by yourself. Just

>because your opinions are nothing but a lot of self-justifying

>crap doesn't mean everyone else's are the same.

If only you could look at yourself as critically as you do others.

Yet another of your posts showing your over-inflated sense of self-importance.

>-- since you were indeed guilty.

Under the ordinance they said I was in violation of, not for prostitution.

>But a very dishonest fight...<

I'd gladly wage a "dishonest" fight against a prostitution charge, since I believe "codified morality" ordinances regarding sexual conduct between consenting adults in private or personal drug use that are rooted in ignorance and/or religion to be WRONG!

>I think I'm finally getting a grip on your philosophy:

No you're not, you're just being your usual patronizing self.

>although committing a series of petty crimes for your own

>financial benefit is in your mind a form of civil

>disobedience

It is. If no one was breaking the prostitution laws, do you really think they would EVER be struck down. We, who are breaking these unfair laws, are causing law enforcement to keep setting up their little sting operations and the courts to have to hear the cases which take up resources that could be better used elsewhere. Eventually, someone will wise up and realize that trying to ban such activities creates more problems than there would be if they were decriminalized and regulated like other businesses.

>Instead, you're quite prepared

>to lie your way out of it if you're caught.

If I say I'm guilty of a prostitution charge, there's no trial. It would be a done deal. They'd give me a fine to pay. In talking to my PD friend, most people who plead guilty to prostitution or who are found guilty at trial, DON'T go to jail. They're most often given a fine to pay and that's it. It's a revolving door SCAM, where bail bondsmen get their money, the attorney gets his, the court gets its and the hookers are right back out on the streets. Really does alot to protect all those "victims", huh?

>On the victim issue, I believe I've already demonstrated that

>there must have been people who felt victimized by what you

>were doing.

If it were truly about people feeling victimized, then why not decriminalize and regulate it and provide a true measure of protection for these poor victims.

>>>Open and honest with everyone except the cops and the

>judge?

>

>>They don't make the laws.

>

>This response is very unclear.

The cops don't make the laws. The judges don't make the laws. City and state governments pass these ordinances and approves money to enforce them.

>You've already explained that you don't mind using "duplicity"

>to get yourself out of a criminal charge

And you so conveniently have left out the qualifiers I've stated, which obviously don't fit into your little smear campaign. When the LAW is WRONG, when it's intrusive, when it's a "codified morality" charge and when there are NO REAL VICTIMS. This is when I could see the use of "duplicity".

>That is exactly the

>position I've taken since my very first post in this thread,

>and it is pleasing to finally obtain your admission that I was

>correct.

You really can't see a distinction between using duplicitous tactics in a court to get someone off who's guilty of the charge where there is a real life victim and using such tactics to fight a charge based upon an ordinance that is WRONG and victimless?

>There was no mischaracterization of any kind. My remarks have

>been completely accurate.

Over and over, from your very first post, you've mischaracterized the whole thing. I NEVER asked for any help to "wriggle out" of my situation. I even said once I understood the charge, the complaint was indeed accurate according to the ordinance.

>The only way in which we are related is that neither of us

>cares to hear someone characterize the legal profession as

>"duplicitous" when he himself is perfectly prepared to use

>duplicity to save his own ass.

I NEVER said that the "legal profession was duplicitous". I compared my EX to a STEREOTYPE OF AN ATTORNEY (that whether you like it or not is one that MOST people would recoginize) because he embodies some of the stereotypical qualities in his personal life and would have NO problem employing such tactics in a court of law. It was a JOKE, period, I don't believe ALL, MOST or even a large percentage of lawyers are "duplicitous" in the courtroom or in their personal lives. I do believe, that as with most stereotypes, there are some who embody these negative qualities IN and OUT of the courtroom and unfortunately they taint the whole. I would say that most of the attorneys I know DON'T fit the stereotype.

>Speaking of duplicity, it's mighty duplicitous of you to claim

>that everyone agrees with you when there is a whole series of

>exchanges between you and another person in this very thread

>that shows just the opposite is true.

Sorry, but it's easy to dismiss someone who's said that I have a "dialated asshole" and I'm 'pathetic'. My mistake, you're in such good company.

JEFF [email protected]

woodlawn · April 2, 2003

>>>>"There's a lot of talk from him... in that thread about how

>he can wriggle out of the charge with the help of a

>"duplicitous" lawyer."<<<

>PROVIDE A OUOTE FROM ONE OF MY POSTS IN THAT THREAD TO SUPPORT

>YOUR CLAIM.

What's in it for me if I do?

>Getting a client off who's guilty of a charge where there are

>ACTUAL VICTIMS who can demonstrate that they were victimized

>physically or financially and getting a client off of a charge

>where the LAW is WRONG (any laws regarding sex between

>consenting adults in private and personal drug use) and there

>are NO VICTIMS are NOT the "exact same thing".

As I've pointed out again and again, if there was no one who felt victimized by what you or other hookers in that area were doing, there would have been no sting operation. In these days of shrinking state and municipal budgets, only an idiot would imagine that a local police department would detail half a dozen officers and deploy video and audio recording equipment to a sting if they were not pressured to do so by citizens.

>Nope, it's not and no matter how many times you say it is, it

>simply is not so. It's your OPINION and a minority opinion at

>that.

And you took a poll of the 2000 active members here to determine that? Of course you did.

>I'm very selective as to who I insult and

>the VERY few who I've insulted have all been more than

>deserving.

I'm sure they feel the same way about you.

>It's really none of their business, nor yours what I do with

>my money.

Except when you choose to start a thread all about your troubles in a bid for sympathy?

>If only you could look at yourself as critically as you do

>others.

Who says I don't? All you know is that unlike you I don't choose to go on and on and on talking about myself and my life and my troubles and my feelings on this message board.

>Yet another of your posts showing your over-inflated sense of

>self-importance.

A stupid lie. You can't find a single post of mine stating that I am more important than anyone else.

>Under the ordinance they said I was in violation of, not for

>prostitution.

Whoa! You are now saying that you DID NOT go there to commit an act of prostitution? This is new.

>But a very dishonest fight...<

>I'd gladly wage a "dishonest" fight against a prostitution

>charge,

Yes, I know you would. This is the position I've taken since my first post in this thread. You accuse others of being duplicitous, yet you don't mind using duplicitous tactics yourself if they will benefit you.

>>I think I'm finally getting a grip on your philosophy:

>No you're not, you're just being your usual patronizing self.

Oh yes I am getting a grip on it. It took a while, but you finally admitted (see above) that you are quite prepared to lie your way out of a criminal charge under certain circumstances.

>>although committing a series of petty crimes for your own

>>financial benefit is in your mind a form of civil

>>disobedience

>It is.

Exactly my point. Thanks for agreeing.

>If no one was breaking the prostitution laws, do you

>really think they would EVER be struck down. We, who are

>breaking these unfair laws, are causing law enforcement to

>keep setting up their little sting operations and the courts

>to have to hear the cases which take up resources that could

>be better used elsewhere. Eventually, someone will wise up and

>realize that trying to ban such activities creates more

>problems than there would be if they were decriminalized and

>regulated like other businesses.

LOL! How many generations has this been going on without even the slightest sign that this "strategy" of yours is working? We are currently in a period in which state and local government budgets are under more strain than at any time since WWII, and on top of that we are facing the greatest threat to our domestic security in our modern history, and yet government is STILL devoting significant resources to enforcing these laws. If they're not going to stop doing it under these circumstances, they never will.

>If I say I'm guilty of a prostitution charge, there's no

>trial. It would be a done deal.

Not exactly. If you were really interested in airing your views on the moral or constitutional defects of this law you could admit what you did but ask the court to set aside the law on those grounds.

>Really does alot to

>protect all those "victims", huh?

I think I mentioned in a previous post that one victims group is not only badgering the cops to make more arrests but actually going to court to badger the judges to keep the prostitutes locked up. I doubt they are under the illusion that any judge will lock up the hookers forever. They want to send a message that any hookers who get caught in their neighborhood will have problems, and if they keep it up I expect it will work. Word does get around.

>If it were truly about people feeling victimized, then why not

>decriminalize and regulate it and provide a true measure of

>protection for these poor victims.

Because that isn't what the victims want. They want the hookers out of their neighborhoods, they don't want them coming into their neighborhoods with the blessing of the state.

>>>They don't make the laws.

>>This response is very unclear.

>

>The cops don't make the laws. The judges don't make the laws.

>City and state governments pass these ordinances and approves

>money to enforce them.

So that means it's okay to be dishonest with the cops and judges? That's the part of your response I find unclear.

>>You've already explained that you don't mind using

>"duplicity"

>>to get yourself out of a criminal charge

>And you so conveniently have left out the qualifiers I've

>stated, which obviously don't fit into your little smear

>campaign. When the LAW is WRONG,

Meaning when YOU decide the law is wrong, correct? So according to you anyone who feels that a law is wrong should feel entitled to use duplicity to get out of a criminal charge if he gets caught. Or is that license reserved for you?

>and when there are NO REAL

>VICTIMS. This is when I could see the use of "duplicity".

But there obviously are people who see themselves as victims of what you're doing. You have simply decided that they are not "real" victims, so their beliefs and feelings in the matter just don't count, right?

>You really can't see a distinction between using duplicitous

>tactics in a court to get someone off who's guilty of the

>charge where there is a real life victim and using such

>tactics to fight a charge based upon an ordinance that is

>WRONG and victimless?

Well, the problem I have is this: who gets to decide that the law is "wrong" and that the people who are complaining about the criminal conduct in question are not "real" victims? If your answer is that it's the defendant who gets to make the decision, then you're saying that every defendant in every criminal case has license to use duplicitous tactics to get off.

>I NEVER said that the "legal profession was duplicitous".

But if you don't believe that duplicity is a key to success in the legal profession then your statement about your ex makes no sense.

>It was a JOKE, period,

Oh, I see. You didn't really mean it. Splendid.

>Sorry, but it's easy to dismiss someone who's said that I have

>a "dialated asshole" and I'm 'pathetic'.

But you've called me and others "pathetic" also, isn't that true? So where do you get off looking down on others for saying that?

>My mistake, you're in

>such good company.

I enjoy taylor's posts. I know of nothing that can be said against him. His only crime seems to be that he doesn't like you.

April 2, 2003

>>>>>"There's a lot of talk from him... in that thread about

>how

>>he can wriggle out of the charge with the help of a

>>"duplicitous" lawyer."<<<

>

>>PROVIDE A OUOTE FROM ONE OF MY POSTS IN THAT THREAD TO

>SUPPORT

>>YOUR CLAIM.

>

>What's in it for me if I do?

THANKS!}(

JEFF [email protected]

+ *Charlie* · April 2, 2003

If I had known where this thread was going, I would never have started it.

Sign In

Why so many lawyers?

Recommended Posts

taylorky

taylorky

Guest jeffOH

Guest jeffOH

woodlawn

Guest jeffOH

Guest jeffOH

Guest jeffOH

taylorky

+ Lucky

Guest jeffOH

woodlawn

Guest jeffOH

woodlawn

Matt_Vancouver

Guest jeffOH

woodlawn

Guest jeffOH

woodlawn

Guest jeffOH

woodlawn

Guest jeffOH

woodlawn

Guest jeffOH

+ Charlie

Archived

Recently Browsing 0 members

Contact Info:

Help Support Our Site

Additional Resources

About Us

Forums

Reviews

Gallery

Discover