rentboy office raided

[+ quoththeraven]

This is a description and analysis of the (relatively recent) Supreme Court case I believe js515679 is referring to.

[Lankypeters]

I know you can be arrested if you are in the midst of negotiating payment for sexual acts. But can you be arrested for having done so in the past? It would seem to me that it would be very difficult to prove this.

[mike carey]

Tom, agree that is a great article. I see where both you and Dan are coming from on marriage and they aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, marriage is a legal construct with normative expectations, but I read Dan as saying people don't have to accept those expectations as defining their marriage. I read him as saying that people can make of their marriage whatever they want, and use the normative expectations to mask the reality of what their marriage is from others.

 

Now, to blow in your arse, I hadn't looked at your website before I commented on your post yesterday. My bad. Yesterday I said I haven't met you, I should have said I haven't met you yet!!

[+ stevenkesslar]

Just to balance out the last several comments let me add this diatribe.

 

Gay men have the right to protect themselves from witch hunts. This is a witch hunt. I read the complaint against Rentboy.com, and some of it reads like a thinly veiled attack on the sexual practices of gay men. It certainly is an attack on every male escort and every man or woman who has EVER hired one on a site like Rentboy.

 

I think Daddy is 1000 % right on what he is saying. The first and most important thing is to not panic. We are under attack, and we have to think and TALK about how we respond to that. Whether this is the best forum to talk about this attack is a good question. But we are under attack, people get it, and there are lots of conversations happening.

 

The second thing Daddy said is we need to understand the law. The advice above is also 1000 % correct. It does not make sense to TALK in ways that suggest we are doing anything wrong or that incriminate ourselves in any way.

 

We don't know yet how broad or big this witch hunt is going to be, but I think it is also very important than somebody says that when witch hunts occur, silence is NOT our friend. It is our enemy. The reason why people like McCarthy got away with his witch hunt is that a lot of good people who did nothing wrong were silent.

 

If you haven't read the whole complaint already, you should:

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/276080730/Rentboy-Complaint-Redacted

 

The part I personally find most horrific are the pages that lay out a laundry list of gay "sexual" practices like "vanilla" and "oral" and "kissing" and "spanking" (egads!!!!) listed on Rentboy.com, as if they are crimes. By way of explanation, the complaint spells out that " 'rimming' refers to the touching of the tongue to the anus." Thanks so much for helping me to understand that, DHS. Are you now saying doing that is a crime?

 

My guess is that this can only play out one way. Susan Ruiz, the author of this complaint on behalf of the The Department of Homeland Security, just gave a huge chunk of gay men in America a very specific and powerful reason to question the motives and effectiveness of the DHS. What we all should know is that gay men are in fact very smart, and what they just proved in a huge way is that we can use our political power with politicians and hire lawyers to go to court and use grassroots campaigns to do things like turn around a Millennium worth of bigotry and oppression against the LGBT community. I hope DHS is thinking about that as they plan their next steps against the gay community. This could end up backfiring against them. I would argue it already has, because like I said and will keep saying, the DHS has just given me and gay men all across America a very good reason to think DHS itself is out of control and on the attack against us, not the terrorists they are supposed to be hunting down.

 

This is the third thing that has happened that makes me feel strongly and deeply that the federal security apparatus that we put in place after 9/11 is incompetent, and is running amuk. THEY are the ones who need to be subjected to serious questions. The good news is they are.

 

In 2013, when Edward Snowden first went public with his broadside against the NSA, I got into a heated debate with a long term client who has now hired me for about 15 years and who agreed that it protects homeland security for the NSA to indiscriminately spy on the phone calls of all Americans. At the time, I got on the internet and the head of the NSA was saying that bulk data collection had stopped "dozens" of terrorist attacks. At the time, I conceded I was "wrong" and that if the spying stopped dozens of terrorist attacks, maybe it made sense.

 

That all turned out to be bullshit. The NSA lied to cover their ass:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-phone-record-collection-does-little-to-prevent-terrorist-attacks-group-says/2014/01/12/8aa860aa-77dd-11e3-8963-b4b654bcc9b2_story.html

 

Apparently Congress even feels that way, because this year they actually reined this indiscriminate and mostly useless form of spying in:

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-02/congress-limits-nsa-spying-two-years-after-snowden-revelations

 

Susan, dear, are you reading this? Do you understand that you just may have done something spectacularly stupid that is ultimately going to discredit the agency you work for?

 

The second thing that turned me against the federal security apparatus that is supposedly protecting me is they totally fucked up an appointment I had with a client in 2010. The TSA shut down LAX for several hours, disrupting God knows how many thousand of business travelers, and resulting in me being stranded in Phoenix for a day, and a day late for a week long appointment with a client. Since escorts like me are paid for their time, it is actually important that I show up on time, and the TSA prevented me from doing that, supposedly to protect our Homeland Security. No one at the TSA would tell me why they shut the airport down, or how doing so protected anyone from anything. So I researched the effectiveness of the TSA, and learned they are basically incompetent.

 

Here is just one recent article of many that detail the spectacular incompetence and failure to do their job of the TSA:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politics/tsa-failed-undercover-airport-screening-tests/

 

In case you don't want to read the article, read this one line from it: "According to a report based on an internal investigation, "red teams" with the Department of Homeland Security's Office of the Inspector General were able to get banned items through the screening process in 67 out of 70 tests it conducted across the nation." Escorts, think about it. We may not be the smartest guys in the room, but my guess is that we have enough smarts to do better then the incompetent people that now work for the TSA. Maybe if the DHS is looking to put us all out of business, we should just go get jobs at the TSA, If you do your homework, you will learn that we can't do much worse than they are already doing.

 

This latest revelation of incompetence actually led to the reassignment of the "Acting" Director of the TSA.

 

Susan, dear, are you reading this? Are you looking to be reassigned? Or did you simply not think through that your job is not to simply launch witch hunts, it is to be able to detail how people are actually doing bad things, and need to be stopped because they are actual threats to other people?

 

Which leads me to the newest and third thing that has turned me against the federal security apparatus that is supposedly protecting me: their harassment of Rentboy.com. I think we need to be TALKING and even SHOUTING that this is in fact an attack on the gay escort industry and the gay community in general.

 

I think we all know that there are real threats to Homeland Security. Let's just focus on the last few months. It would have been nice if DHS had stopped Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez from killing four Marines and a Navy sailor in Chattanooga in a crazy lone wolf attack. They didn't. It would have been nice if DHS had stopped a mass shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church that killed the senior pastor, a state senator, and a number of other completely innocent victims. The killer, Dylann Roof, confessed that he committed the murders in hopes of igniting a race war. In America in 2015, that is about as close to a threat to national security as you can get, in my book. It would have been nice if DHS had investigated and stopped this attack. They didn't.

 

While these murders against innocent Americans - military men serving their country, and religious people worshiping their God - were being planned and executed in recent months, what was DHS actually doing? Investigating Lady Coco!

 

Sorry to single her out, but my heart absolutely goes out to Lady Coco, who worked for Rentboy.com and was just arrested. I met her this Spring at a party I had at my house that was chock full of escorts and the men who hire them. She created a minor controversy as many of you know because she was the only woman who was invited to the party. Clearly THAT must be something you can relate to, Susan dear. And for the record, Susan, the party at my house was NOT intended to promote prostitution or anything else illegal. It was intended to bring together a bunch of nice people to have fun, which we did.

 

When I see the picture of Lady Coco being hauled into court, and when I think about the fact that she is now at risk of going to jail for years if this baseless collection of hearsay charges sticks, my heart goes out to her. It is completely unfair, and it is a travesty of justice. There are two words that describe this situation perfectly: WITCH HUNT.

 

Part of the reason I went into detail is that the good news is that everything we know about the DHS, the TSA, and the NSA suggests that they are NOT the smartest lawyers, the smartest investigators, or the best screeners. Sadly, they are not very good at doing their jobs. I will be surprised if a judge or jury go along with this WITCH HUNT. I don't think it will stand.

 

The DHS was created as a direct response to 9/11, which killed thousands of people in New York. Susan, dear, if you actually believe that what just went down in New York is somehow protecting us from another 9/11, you really need to start looking for a new job yourself.

 

What you just did sends an incredibly clear message to gay men all over America. The complaint you signed that goes into great detail about the supposedly lurid sexual practices of gay men is offensive, and will be taken as offensive. It is a repugnant attack. And we need to THINK and TALK about how we respond and stop out of control federal agencies from launching more attacks like this stupid one.

[+ FreshFluff]

JS is referring, I think, to Salinas v. Texas (2013). I remember being pretty surprised to read that opinion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/17/supreme-court-silence_n_3453968.html

 

JS, my understanding is that while you're invoking your 5th amendment right, you may also want to ask for an attorney. As I understand it, once you do that, LE must stop questioning you for at least two weeks, to give you a chance to find one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_v._Shatzer

 

Is that interpretation correct?

[js515679]

In response to quoththeraven and Lankypeters - yes, Salinas is the case and Orin Kerr's discussion of the law pre- and post-Salinas is excellent. A lot remains unclear. Salinas was a truly fragmented opinion, but the Court will likely continue to move to tighten up on criminal procedure cases in ways that assist the government.

 

With respect to Lankypeters question - yes, you can be prosecuted for offering or soliciting sex for money in the past, unless the statute of limitations has already passed in your jurisdiction. Therefore, it is not the case that you can only be prosecuted if you are actually caught either offering or soliciting sex for money from an undercover officer. It takes much more work to put a case together based on inferences drawn from web advertising, emails, reviews & etc., but it can be done. Proof here is harder, but far from impossible.

 

That said, there is a reason vice sections like the classic "cheap motel sting" so much. Budgets are limited. By luring many individuals in -- through ads once in the papers and now online -- they can make dozens/scores of arrests and get pretty much ironclad evidence at the same time. Despite the arrests made at Rentboy, it seems unlikely that they will pursue advertisers or clients in general, although some may end up being subpoenaed as witnesses. Anyone who is questioned, or receives a subpoena, should of course immediately consult legal counsel.

 

The real question here from my perspective is why Homeland Security was involved. They really do have more important things to do. Some have suggested money laundering, but the statutes referenced in the Complaint and Affidavit in Support of Arrest Warrants is the Travel Act and the general federal conspiracy statute. More charges could be added (I haven't seen reference to an indictment yet), but the amounts involved are relatively small for a serious federal money-laundering case.

 

My guess, and it is only speculation, is that taking Rentboy down is meant to put a shot across the bow of all such internet sites -- straight/gay regardless. This would explain why Rentboy, which has indeed been around a long time, was selected, although I have to admit that there are certainly straight sites that would have made a bigger splash. It would not surprise me if there was some sort of political pressure behind it, but at this point its impossible to know.

[+ quoththeraven]

In response to quoththeraven and Lankypeters - yes, Salinas is the case and Orin Kerr's discussion of the law pre- and post-Salinas is excellent. A lot remains unclear. Salinas was a truly fragmented opinion, but the Court will likely continue to move to tighten up on criminal procedure cases in ways that assist the government.

 

The real question here from my perspective is why Homeland Security was involved. They really do have more important things to do. Some have suggested money laundering, but the statutes referenced in the Complaint and Affidavit in Support of Arrest Warrants is the Travel Act and the general federal conspiracy statute. More charges could be added (I haven't seen reference to an indictment yet), but the amounts involved are relatively small for a serious federal money-laundering case.

 

My guess, and it is only speculation, is that taking Rentboy down is meant to put a shot across the bow of all such internet sites -- straight/gay regardless. This would explain why Rentboy, which has indeed been around a long time, was selected, although I have to admit that there are certainly straight sites that would have made a bigger splash. It would not surprise me if there was some sort of political pressure behind it, but at this point its impossible to know.

 

Thanks for the confirmation. I didn't remember the Salinas decision until I did a little digging because your description of the law as it stands surprised me. But the name of the case sounds familiar; I think I read about it but recalling it was superseded by the decisions in the voting rights and DOMA cases that occurred shortly thereafter.

 

I have my own theory as to why Homeland Security might have been involved that I expressed on another thread: http://m4m-forum.org/threads/rentboy-shut-down-7-emplyees-arrested.107025/page-5#post-995204. Take it for what it's worth. Irrespective, I still don't understand why Rentboy/Easy Rent was seeking an H-1B visa for an accounting position in Manhattan, of all places.

[gallahadesquire]

from wikipedia (that font of all knowledge that is good and correct):

 

Miranda Warning (United States)

You have the right to remain silent.

ANythign you say or do can and will beused against you in a court of law.

You have the right to an attorney.

If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you.

Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?

[+ Gar1eth]

from wikipedia (that font of all knowledge that is good and correct):

 

Miranda Warning (United States)

You have the right to remain silent.

ANythign you say or do can and will beused against you in a court of law.

You have the right to an attorney.

If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you.

Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?

 

 

What happens if you say 'no'?

 

Interesting little story. Several years ago I was reading about how (I think it was in the UK) American police procedural television shows were so popular that UK citizens thought they had the same rights we do-and I don't believe theirs were as expansive as ours.

 

Gman

[js515679]

Don't say no. You will have waived the right and, although you can later re-assert it, anything you say during that period can be used against you. As to the 14 day rule, that applies to in custody interrogations. If you have not been arrested, investigators can in theory continue to question in hopes that you will relent. Be polite but firm, and call a lawyer immediately.

 

I also heard about the UK story. A real tribute to the influence this country has around the world, but my understanding also is that their right is narrower than ours.

[+ stevenkesslar]

My guess, and it is only speculation, is that taking Rentboy down is meant to put a shot across the bow of all such internet sites -- straight/gay regardless. This would explain why Rentboy, which has indeed been around a long time, was selected, although I have to admit that there are certainly straight sites that would have made a bigger splash. It would not surprise me if there was some sort of political pressure behind it, but at this point its impossible to know.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but your advice sounds excellent, especially your advice that anybody questioned or subpoenaed should shut up and talk to a lawyer.

 

I do want to add to your speculation to reiterate my main point, which is simply speculation as well. Because as you point out making the case as we know about it now stick in court relies on "inferences," to use your word.

 

I think DHS intentionally chose Rentboy.com and is targeting the LGBT community in particular.

 

I don't think a judge or jury would react the same way if the "sexual" acts the complaint detailed included words like "cunnilingus" and "heterosexual intercourse." When most people think about those things, they probably don't think of them as crimes, or as gross things.

 

Since the case apparently relies on inferences, given what we know now, I think that it goes to great length to use words like "S & M" and "leather" and "sex sling" and "diapers" and "sneakers" in an attempt to engage emotion, assuming that a lot of people, even in the year we won same sex marriage for good, will react emotionally and feel, "Gross!" It all feels like a throwback to the idea that the gay community is a bunch of perverts that does perverted things and somehow this is all bad and we need to view it as a threat. Assuming a jury is involved, I don't know that a mostly heterosexual jury would feel the same way about a case that relied on proving that it is somehow a threat or crime that straight male business executives can read porn-like words on some website about eating out a hot woman.

 

Again, I'm just speculating. Regardless of what people I don't know actually intend, this is clearly an attack. The particular way they chose to attack suggests they know they have a weak case, and they are more than happy to dish out every old canard they can about gay men to do so. I hope every gay man in America responds the way I did when I read their case, which is to feel like this is a disgusting and discriminatory attack that is out of place in America today.

 

Since I doubt the judge and jury on this case will all be LGBT, this will be interesting to follow. The good news is that if the attack doesn't work, it probably won't be tried again. And as I said above, if you throw the NHS and DHS and TSA into the same bag, they hardly have a great track record.

[+ Gar1eth]

Don't say no. You will have waived the right and, although you can later re-assert it, anything you say during that period can be used against you. As to the 14 day rule, that applies to in custody interrogations. If you have not been arrested, investigators can in theory continue to question in hopes that you will relent. Be polite but firm, and call a lawyer immediately.

 

I didn't mean 'no' I wanted to waive my rights. But 'no' I don't understand it. What happens if you don't (or at least say you don't) understand the Miranda Rights?

 

I also heard about the UK story. A real tribute to the influence this country has around the world, but my understanding also is that their right is narrower than ours.

 

Yes, we definitely should be proud at the way we've exported police procedurals and fast food worldwide. :rolleyes:

 

 

 

 

Gman

[+ quoththeraven]

Don't say no. You will have waived the right and, although you can later re-assert it, anything you say during that period can be used against you. As to the 14 day rule, that applies to in custody interrogations. If you have not been arrested, investigators can in theory continue to question in hopes that you will relent. Be polite but firm, and call a lawyer immediately.

 

I also heard about the UK story. A real tribute to the influence this country has around the world, but my understanding also is that their right is narrower than ours.

 

I think Gman was asking what happens if someone replies, after a Miranda warning, that they don't understand the rights explained to them. [something confirmed by G-man's subsequent post to that effect.] While that may work once -- though I'm not sure what a police officer would do in response other than repeat the statement or, if s/he is smart, get someone from the DA's office involved pronto -- after that, I'm not sure it works any longer. We've all heard it many, many times on TV shows and the like. For someone who is fluent in English and of reasonable intelligence to claim not to understand is probably laughable and likely to be viewed as a stalling tactic. If the person being interrogated isn't fluent in English or of reasonable intelligence, the police have problems other than enforcing a Miranda waiver. Exercise your Miranda rights instead.

 

I do, however, have a little nitpick: It is my understanding that not all custodial interrogations occur after arrest. But I would not count 100% on investigators terminating questioning even when under the law they should.

[js515679]

You may well be right. Certainly, to make the case for arrest warrants -- which is all they were doing -- they put in a lot of unnecessary salacious detail. The underlying offense on which their Travel Act/Conspiracy theory depends is selling sex for money, and there it would have been more than sufficient to note the "prices" listed in ads for "incalls" and "outcalls," and that these two terms have a well establishing meaning in the "sex trade."

[js515679]

Sorry, I misunderstood. If you say I don't understand, they will likely give you the warning again, but unless there is a language issue or the individual being arrested is a minor or someone of obviously low IQ, saying I don't understand won't keep you from effectively waiving the rights. Gman is right that "custodial" can include more than arrests, but you do need to be effectively subject to the kind of restraint/intimidation that may involve. And, he is absolutely correct about investigators who may not terminate questioning when the law requires. Again, polite but absolutely firm. Also, for anyone who believes they may have exposure here, would not be a bad idea to at least find the name/number of a lawyer admitted to practice in New York who specializes in the defense of solicitation charges. Probably will never need it, but its one of those things that, when you do need it, you really NEED it.

[js515679]

Oops, quoththeraven is right about "custodial" and investigators who ignore legal requirements. Sorry about that.

[Rudynate]

My guess, and it is only speculation, is that taking Rentboy down is meant to put a shot across the bow of all such internet sites -- straight/gay regardless. This would explain why Rentboy, which has indeed been around a long time, was selected, although I have to admit that there are certainly straight sites that would have made a bigger splash. It would not surprise me if there was some sort of political pressure behind it, but at this point its impossible to know.

 

This is what I think. There was a similar takedown of a straight escort website earlier this year - April or May, I think. Arrests were made, the corporate officers were prosecuted. I read about it only the other day. I think I remember the site was called "Red Door" or something like it. It seems like the Justice Department has decided to go after internet sex.

[+ quoththeraven]

Oops, quoththeraven is right about "custodial" and investigators who ignore legal requirements. Sorry about that.

 

That's okay. I've been mistaken for G-man at least once before.

 

Second the call for anyone who feels they may have exposure to find the name and contact information for a lawyer admitted in NY who has experience in defending against solicitation charges. I'd go a little further and suggest looking for someone who's admitted to the federal courts in NY as well -- EDNY and SDNY at a minimum -- and is savvy about federal charges and federal bureaucracy. That may suggest someone who's more of a white collar defense attorney than someone who deals primarily with street crimes.

 

Also, "custodial" in this context means "has no intention of releasing you anytime soon, if at all." But someone being interrogated can't necessarily read their interrogators' intent. Assume any interrogation is custodial and invoke your rights, then keep your mouth shut except as necessary to invoke your rights again.

[+ FreshFluff]

I have my own theory as to why Homeland Security might have been involved that I expressed on another thread: http://m4m-forum.org/threads/rentboy-shut-down-7-emplyees-arrested.107025/page-5#post-995204. Take it for what it's worth. Irrespective, I still don't understand why Rentboy/Easy Rent was seeking an H-1B visa for an accounting position in Manhattan, of all places.

 

I think you're right.Maybe the accountant was a friend, or a friend of a friend, and they wanted to help him out.

[+ FreshFluff]

Don't say no. You will have waived the right and, although you can later re-assert it, anything you say during that period can be used against you. As to the 14 day rule, that applies to in custody interrogations. If you have not been arrested, investigators can in theory continue to question in hopes that you will relent. Be polite but firm, and call a lawyer immediately.

 

Thanks, that's an important distinction. I've also heard that it's important to ask "Am I being detained, or am I free to go?" in case the LEO has no grounds to detain you. Is that right?

[mike carey]

Welcome to the room, Kurtis. I understand that you might have some concerns with some posters here, that happens. Still, there's plenty of time to chat nicely here, it would be great if a good looking guy like you can do this.

[+ quoththeraven]

I think you're right.Maybe the accountant was a friend, or a friend of a friend, and they wanted to help him out.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the explanation was something along those lines. In which case he was "helped" into federal charges.

[Lookin]

I got a case of the willies the first time I even heard about a 'Department of Homeland Security'. Born in the hysteria of 9/11, it just seemed to me that it had the potential to morph into some kind of general purpose police force that could come after whatever the hell it felt like coming after.

 

The Rentboy raid has done little to assuage me of these concerns. http://www.prlekija-on.net/images/smeski/hm.gif

 

Curious about the current mission of DHS, I found it stated clearly in Secretary Jeh Johnson's introduction to the Department's 2015 budget:

 

The President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 Budget Request for $38.2 billion for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reflects our continued commitment to the security of our homeland and the American public. Homeland security is the most important mission any government can provide to its people.

 

DHS must be agile and vigilant in continually adapting to evolving threats and hazards. We must stay one step ahead of the next attack, the next cyber attack, and the next natural disaster. In the homeland security world, no news is good news, and no news is often the result of the hard work, vigilance, and dedication of the men and women of DHS who prevent bad things you never hear about, or at least help the public protect itself and recover from the storm we cannot prevent.

 

The basic missions of the Department of Homeland Security are, and should continue to be, preventing terrorism and enhancing security; securing and managing our borders; enforcing and administering our immigration laws; safeguarding cyberspace; strengthening national preparedness and resilience. The President's FY 2015 budget request provides the resources necessary to further strengthen these efforts.

 

 

Not finding anything about escorts there, I dug a little deeper to see what Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the DHS group that raided Rentboy, thought its charter was:

 

HSI’s 6,400 criminal investigators conduct transnational criminal investigations to protect the United States against terrorist and other criminal organizations that threaten public safety and national security and bring to justice those seeking to exploit our customs and immigration laws worldwide. HSI uses its legal authorities to investigate immigration and customs violations, including export enforcement, human rights violations, narcotics, weapons and contraband smuggling, financial crimes, cybercrimes, human trafficking and smuggling, child exploitation, intellectual property violations, transnational gangs, and immigration benefit fraud.

 

 

With the possible exception of a visa request for Rentboy's accountant, there's nothing about escorts there either.

 

Hmm. Either my worst fears about mission creep are coming true, or DHS has now taken an interest in weapons of ass destruction. http://www.boytoy.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif

 

One thing I learned in the aftermath of 9/11 was that, rather than having insufficient laws on the books to prevent it, we had insufficient attention being paid to the laws we already had. Sure seems like our attention is wandering once again. http://www.vnforum.com/forums/images/smilies/daydreams.gif

[js515679]

Thanks, that's an important distinction. I've also heard that it's important to ask "Am I being detained, or am I free to go?" in case the LEO has no grounds to detain you. Is that right?

Yes, this too is an important point. If law enforcement does seek to interrogate, you should ask politely (always giving no cause to claim you resisted) whether you are free to go. Also, if investigators suggest that "cooperation" will make things "better" for you remember that: (1) in federal cases the deals are going to made by the U.S. Attorney's office, not investigators and (2) if they want to make a deal for your cooperation they can cut it with your lawyer and then talk to you (and your lawyer) as part of the deal. If they really want to make a deal, they should have no problem with this at all. Indeed, they should be anticipating it.

[sincitymix]

Well that's very vile of you Killian. Couple things to note:

- You were responding to Zach's questions as well, so don't be a hypocrite.

- In a time like this you're bent on separating the entire community rather than uniting it. That's poisonous.

- Nothing in my answers were incrementing. Everything can be obtained from public sources and my recommendations are for anyone filing taxes and running a business or practice.

- If you were wanting to communicate the facts, you would have done so instead of harassing me and attempting to blackmail me via text messages all day yesterday.

 

When I was speaking with my lawyer about some civil cases I'm filing, I did ask her about this and was assured I'd have nothing to worry about. Don't go leaving a bag of flaming dog poo on DHS' door step, but other than that, all is well. On the other hand, Killian, I did show her your messages to me and she did advise I press charges immediately. I told her I'd give you another chance since I know you're not in your right mind at the moment and need a visit with your psychiatrist before I'd consider that.

 

If you'd like to discuss your issues civilly, you know how to get ahold of me.

 

To quote George Takei. " Oh My"