Why so many lawyers, Part 2--jeffOH pokes a crazy perso...

[Guest jeffOH]

RE: Why so many lawyers, Part 2--jeffOH pokes a crazy p...

 

This is the last sentence of my original BUSTED post, at the end of which I put the winky icon in JOKING reference to the whole Kristian, Defense Fund saga.

 

>If you're interested in contributing to my "Defense Fund", please e-mail me.<

 

Although I did get some very kind offers of financial assistance, I realized after some advice I got on here and from my Public Defender friend, that this was not one I would fight. Because, the ordinance does apply in my situation, and as is the language of the ordinance reads, the charges in the complaint are valid. That was not clear to me until I had done alot of research regarding this particular ordinance and the State ordinance that gives local governments the right to make their own rules pertaining to massage.

 

I simply WON'T have my words twisted to fit into this psycho's pathetic little game of GOTCHA, YOU HYPOCRITE!

 

So, anyway, as Flower says,

 

THAT'S MY STORY AND I'M STICKING TO IT!

 

JEFF [email protected]

[Flower]

RE: Why so many lawyers, Part 2--jeffOH pokes a crazy p...

 

>So, anyway, as Flower says,

>

>THAT'S MY STORY AND I'M STICKING TO IT!

 

[font color = "green"

] What? what? Someone mention my name? :7

[BewareofNick]

RE: Why so many lawyers, Part 2--jeffOH pokes a crazy p...

 

Speaking of lawyers, i am surprised Colin Quinn's haven't called you yet.

[Flower]

RE: Why so many lawyers, Part 2--jeffOH pokes a crazy p...

 

[font color = "green"

]

Hmmmm--I'm smart enough to know I'm missing sumpin--just not smart enought to know what--gonna clue me in? :+

[Guest Brazil Nut]

RE: Why so many lawyers, Part 2--jeffOH pokes a crazy p...

 

>[font color = "green"

>]

>Hmmmm--I'm smart enough to know I'm missing sumpin--just not

>smart enought to know what--gonna clue me in? :+ [/font]

 

Colin Quinn is the former SNL Weekend Update anchor who had as his "copyrighted" sign-off line "That's my story and I'm stickin' to it."

 

So presumably his lawyers would be contacting you about copyright infringement.

[Guest in yer face]

RE: Why so many lawyers, Part 2--jeffOH pokes a crazy p...

 

Jeff,

 

In case you havent noticed, there are a whole contingent of people on this board that really hate us. THey are more than happy to hire an escort. But they also need to make sure that we know what our place is in society.

 

I don't know why they are even here to be honest with you. Sometimes I wonder if some of these guys really hire. Or perhaps they treat this board like a reality show that they can be part of. Lots of drama, free interaction with cute boys, etc. If I sit and think too long about it, I get all tied up. ITs really sick and twisted.

 

You should just ignore these guys. Youve got your own plight in life. And whether Woodlawn, or any of the other old hooker hiring fat ass schmucks on this board realize, you are a person, and perhaps you are better than them. And besides, when you get involved in the BS, you are interacting for free, and we do get "paid for our time only" Right? ;-)

 

Good luck in court, I hope you land on your feet bud!

 

 

 

 

>This is the last sentence of my original BUSTED post, at the

>end of which I put the winky icon in JOKING reference to the

>whole Kristian, Defense Fund saga.

>

>>If you're interested in contributing to my "Defense Fund",

>please e-mail me.<

>

>Although I did get some very kind offers of financial

>assistance, I realized after some advice I got on here and

>from my Public Defender friend, that this was not one I would

>fight. Because, the ordinance does apply in my situation, and

>as is the language of the ordinance reads, the charges in the

>complaint are valid. That was not clear to me until I had done

>alot of research regarding this particular ordinance and the

>State ordinance that gives local governments the right to make

>their own rules pertaining to massage.

>

>I simply WON'T have my words twisted to fit into this psycho's

>pathetic little game of GOTCHA, YOU HYPOCRITE!

>

>So, anyway, as Flower says,

>

>THAT'S MY STORY AND I'M STICKING TO IT!

>

>JEFF [email protected]

>

[Guest jeffOH]

jeffOH Wed Apr-02-03 03:22 AM

Charter member

678 posts, 26 votes, 22 points

 

#49100, "RE: Why so many lawyers?"

In response to Reply #70

 

Woodlawn's Original Post:

 

>>"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."<<<

 

 

A Simple Request from jeffOH:

 

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

 

 

More from Woodlawn's Original Post:

 

>>"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 recognize) 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]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alert | IP

[Guest jeffOH]

RE: Why so many lawyers, Part 2--jeffOH pokes a crazy p...

 

Woodlawn's Original Post:

 

>>>>>"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."<<<

 

My simple request:

 

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

>SUPPORT

>>YOUR CLAIM.

 

 

Woodlawn's response:

 

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

 

Says alot.

 

 

>In case you havent noticed, there are a whole contingent of

>people on this board that really hate us. THey are more than

>happy to hire an escort. But they also need to make sure that

>we know what our place is in society.

 

in yer face

 

You're so right about this. I've just never been one to be put in my "place".

 

JEFF [email protected]

[Guest Bitchboy]

RE: Why so many lawyers, Part 2--jeffOH pokes a crazy p...

 

If it means anything to you, I'm a new member of the JeffOH fan club. You're a classy dude. Good luck.

[VaHawk]

RE: Why so many lawyers, Part 2--jeffOH pokes a crazy p...

 

>I don't know why they are even here to be honest with you.

>Sometimes I wonder if some of these guys really hire. Or

>perhaps they treat this board like a reality show that they

>can be part of. Lots of drama, free interaction with cute

>boys, etc. If I sit and think too long about it, I get all

>tied up. ITs really sick and twisted.

 

Well, I don't believe you have to wonder about it. Some have even stated that they don't hire. But I'm with you on this one, if you aren't a client or an escort, I don't know what you are doing here. But I wouldn't call it sick and twisted, as imo, that is a little strong. I guess in most cases they just found this site by chance and like to interact with others on this board. But those people should limit, imo, their comments to the general forum as they really have nothing to add to the relationship between escort/clients. BTW, where are all the cute "boys" we're interacting with? So far, the only ones I've seen are Benjamin, BenAJ and Bastian. And I use the term "boys" very loosely here and only in the sense that all 3 are in their eary 20's. They are in reality adult men, just as the older escorts who post here are.

 

>And whether Woodlawn, or any of the other old hooker

>hiring fat ass schmucks on this board realize, you are a

>person, and perhaps you are better than them. And besides,

>when you get involved in the BS, you are interacting for free,

>and we do get "paid for our time only" Right? ;-)

 

Well none of this is slamming the clients who come here, now is it? Very negative statements about people you have never met. So if it bothers you that much, one could in turn inquire as to why you come here and post. Do you have negative feelings about being an escort? If not, then why do you refer to yourself as a hooker, just curious? And why do you come here under a pseudonym, rather than your escort name like Rick, Franco, JeffOH, Benjamin and all the others? Do you do it just to deride the clients and if so doesn't that make you as bad as those who come here to hassle the escorts?

[Guest jeffOH]

RE: Why so many lawyers, Part 2--jeffOH pokes a crazy p...

 

>If it means anything to you, I'm a new member of the JeffOH

>fan club. You're a classy dude. Good luck.

 

Thanks Bitchboy, much appreciated.

 

JeffOH fanclub, LOL.

:-)

 

JEFF [email protected]

[AaronScottDC]

RE: Why so many lawyers, Part 2--jeffOH pokes a crazy p...

 

"Benjamin, BenAJ and Bastian, Rick, Franco, JeffOH, Benjamin and all the others?"

 

Ahhh, I feel hurt.... You didn't even mention little 'ol me.... I guess since my posts are usually fairly tame that it is easy to get overlooked. Humm, maybe I should try to be more outrageous in my future postings. }(

 

 

Aaron Scott DC

http://www.erados.com/AaronScottDC

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/aaronscottdc.html

[Guest jeffOH]

RE: Why so many lawyers, Part 2--jeffOH pokes a crazy p...

 

>I guess in most cases they

>just found this site by chance and like to interact with

>others on this board.

 

Then there are "others" who in every other post, demonstrate their contempt for escorts and ridicule the motives of those who hire us. They have no real desire to truly "interact" with anyone.

 

>But those people should limit, imo,

>their comments to the general forum as they really have

>nothing to add to the relationship between escort/clients.

 

Amen to that.

 

>They are in reality

>adult men, just as the older escorts who post here are.

 

"Older escorts"?? LOL I guess that would be those of us old enough to be daddy to some of those "boys".

 

>>And whether Woodlawn, or any of the other old hooker

>>hiring fat ass schmucks on this board realize, you are a

>>person, and perhaps you are better than them.

 

>Well none of this is slamming the clients who come here, now

>is it?

 

I agree, kind of a strong statement, although a SELECT FEW are more than deserving.

 

JEFF [email protected]