Prostitution Stings and my arrest!

[Guest YFSC]

>Jeff - I too applaud your actions - you have incredible guts,

>and I wish more people had your willingness to speak out. I

>know you're also aware of the possible consequences, and I

>hope you're able to keep yourself together through all of

>this.

>

>For those arguing the relative meaning of it all in a world

>view - is there really a point to that? Tragedy can and does

>happen on many levels at once.

>...

>Anyway - my point being - whay can't we support Jeff in a

>rather dark hour in his life AND keep in mind what else is

>going on in the world at the same time? Perspective is one

>thing - belittling someone's personal trials is another thing

>altogether. I don't consider getting arrested a trivial thing,

>especially in a case like this.

>

>My prayers are with you, Jeff.

 

Hear, hear!

Well said.

[Guest YFSC]

RE: The usual suspects

 

Hear this one, too!

[Guest YFSC]

>It would be the opposite of "democratic" for the Police

>Department to simply decide on its own that laws which were

>enacted DEMOCRATICALLY are not good laws and therefore won't

>be enforced.

 

Well, that's now the second time you have made that argument in this thread.

As one of your favorite Texans likes to say, "That dog won't hunt."

 

The police and prosecutors do EXACTLY that EVERY DAY. There is a huge number of ridiculous and unenforced laws on the books of (I'll wager) every jurisdiction that the police choose not to enforce. All those laws were "enacted DEMOCRATICALLY" and the authorities -- police and prosecutors -- "simply decide on <their> own" that they "are not good laws and therefore won't be enforced."

 

There are many lists of those laws, in books, on the internet and in other places, and even if some of them are apocryphal, many others are not. Here are just a few of the relevant ones:

 

•In Michigan, married couples must live together or be imprisoned.

 

Go ahead... tell me that this one isn't being violated, and/or that the cops send squads of detectives around to check, or set up stings to catch the miscreant husbands and wives who are living apart, for whatever reason.

 

•California law prohibits a woman from driving a car while dressed in a housecoat. (This one can't be too old, since it talks about driving.)

•In California, a law created in 1925 makes it illegal to wiggle while dancing.

•In Philadelphia, you can't put pretzels in bags based on an Act of 1760.

•Alaska law says that you can't look at a moose from an airplane.

•It is against the law to mispronounce the name of the State of Arkansas in that State.

•In Memphis, Tennessee, a woman is not to drive a car unless a man warns approaching motorists or pedestrians by walking in front of the car that is being driven.

•In Oklahoma, no baseball team can hit the ball over the fence or out of a ballpark.

•In San Francisco, there is an ordinance which bans the picking up and throwing of used confetti.

•In Cleveland, Ohio, it is unlawful to leave chewing gum in public places.

•In Massachusetts, it is against the law to put tomatos in clam chowder.

•In Tennessee, a law exists which prohibits the sale of bologna (sandwich meat) on Sunday.

•In New Jersey, cabbage can't be sold on Sunday.

•In West Virginia, one can't cook sauerkraut or cabbage due to the odors and the offender is subject to imprisonment.

 

The same goes for all of those. They are violated all the time and the authorities CHOOSE to ignore them, although "All those laws were 'enacted DEMOCRATICALLY'." And the police certainly don't set up sting operations with 8 detectives to catch the miscreant offenders.

 

And please don't try to tell me that they are unenforced because of the right of privacy. That could apply to, e.g., cooking sauerkraut in West Virginia, but not to selling cabbage in New Jersey. (Aside from which, many who espouse the same position that you bave espoused here decry the courts' "activist" extension of that precise right of privacy.)

 

Also a few real gems:

 

•In Rochester, Michigan, the law is that anyone bathing in public must have the bathing suit inspected by a police officer.

The task of inspection no doubt falls to the vice squad. Depending on what the local bois look like, I might just be interested in changing jobs.

 

•In Texas, it's against the law for anyone to have a pair of pliers in his or her possession.

I suppose they send out the "vise squad" for that one.

 

•In Virginia, the Code of 1930 has a statute which prohibits corrupt practices or bribery by any person other than political candidates.

This one is just too funny for words. Not necessarily germane here, but I just had to include it.

 

•In Singapore, it is illegal to chew gum.

According to reports, this one is ACTUALLY ENFORCED!! A truly wise use of police resources and taxpayer money!

 

> It's humorous to see people here, on the one

>hand, criticizing the Police, but on the other hand, insisting

>that the Police should have the power to decide which laws

>they will enforce and which ones they won't.

 

It may be "humorous" to you, but that's just what they do.

So what it really comes down to is "Whose choice of which laws to ignore is better?"

The authorities have one list and many others, including people here, have another. Since the authorities are "in power," they get to force their list on everyone else. But that doesn't make their list better. So please spare us your taking umbrage and hiding behind "democratically enacted," because "democratically enacted" laws are being ignored by the police in every jurisdiction every day.

[woodlawn]

>>Actually, I suspect their first reaction to the content of

>>this board would be to suggest that men who hire male

>hookers

>>and the male hookers they hire should be used by the

>military

>>for target practice.

>

>Well, I know a lot of men who serve in the military, and none

>of them would suggest any such thing. Nor do I think they'd

>appreciate your attributing such murderous, hate-filled

>sentiments (projections of your own feelings, no doubt) to the

>young men and women who are serving in Iraq.

 

No, you don't know a lot of men who serve in the military. You know a very small percentage of active-duty personnel, and the percentage you know gets even smaller if one includes Guard and Reserve personnel (and as we all know the distinction between active-duty personnel and Guard and Reserve personnel is getting smaller and smaller these days). So your opinion about what armed forces personnel in general think based on the tiny number you know isn't worth shit. It's just another example of your habit of making statements that are unproven or unprovable and demanding that the rest of us treat them as facts. A far more reliable indicator is the research done by the Pentagon under both Cohen and Rumsfeld showing a steady rise in anti-gay harassment in all brances of the service. The American military is not a gay-friendly environment, to put it mildly. You shouldn't mislead people about that. I'm sure you can find some other way of venting your frustration about the fact that the vast majority of our fellow Americans disapprove of prostitutes and prostitution.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>It's just another example of your habit of making statements

>that are unproven or unprovable and demanding that the rest of

>us treat them as facts.

 

I didn't make any statements that I demanded you treat as facts, troll. I merely pointed out that your morbid fantasy was just that -- a morbid fantasy, which you're now trying to get the rest of us to take seriously linking it "research done by the Pentagon under both Cohen and Rumsfeld."

 

>The American military is not a gay-friendly environment, to put it >mildly.

 

No one said it was. You're just indulging in your usual habit of claiming I said something I didn't say so that you can take issue with it and call "misleading." It's even more pathetic on this thread than when you usually do it. But don't let me detain you; I'm sure there are dozens of threads left for you to go compare unfavorably in importance to the war in Iraq. Who cares whether it has any relevance to the topic under discussion?

[woodlawn]

>>It's just another example of your habit of making

>statements

>>that are unproven or unprovable and demanding that the rest

>of

>>us treat them as facts.

 

>I didn't make any statements that I demanded you treat as

>facts, troll. I merely pointed out that your morbid fantasy

>was just that -- a morbid fantasy, which you're now trying to

>get the rest of us to take seriously linking it "research done

>by the Pentagon under both Cohen and Rumsfeld."

 

Here we go again with the puerile, hateful namecalling. Just a few weeks ago you started that "Pity me! Pity me!" thread in which you were pleading for sympathy because VaHawk and a couple of others said something critical about you. Now you're back to your usual habit of throwing shit at others, the same behavior of which you were complaining so bitterly then. When I read the "Pity me!" thread I knew it was just a matter of time until you reverted to type.

[Guest jeffOH]

A big HUG of THANKS to Rick and Devon!:-)

 

Now, the rest of the story...

 

This most definitely would have resulted in more than just a fine had I pled No Contest at my first court appearance on Friday the 12th. Contrary to what I erroneously said in my original post I was arrested March 3 not the 11th, the 11th was the day my letter to the editor hit the paper--the day before my arraignment.

 

I'd been talking to a reporter from NBC4 who'd done the interview with vice at the hotel where I was "stung". She wanted to interview me and do a follow-up story. Nearly 30 people (clients/escorts)had been arrested in this particular weeklong sting and several of them were to be arraigned on the same day as I. When she said she wanted to have a camera crew there, I thought she meant OUTSIDE the courtroom. But that wasn't the case, they were IN the courtroom and obviously Judge Anne Taylor wasn't happy about it. She came in, saw the camera, walked over and asked what they were doing there, she looked at some paperwork they had...the camera stayed.

 

They ask if you'd like to talk to an attorney, I said that I did and while talking to a public defender, she told me that the judge was imposing jail time and a fine for these offenses because she did not want to appear lenient on camera, otherwise she's one of the most liberal judges in municipal court and would have just issued fines. So, she brought 8 people up at once, all charged with "solicitation" and gave them all 3 days in jail and a fine. My charge was "engaging in prostitution". The public defender advised me to get a continuance and get an attorney, which I did.

 

Fortunately Judge Pollitt, who's a Republican, is just as liberal as Judge Taylor (a Democrat) usually is in these cases. My incriminating statement in my letter, the response from Vice to my letter 2 days before my appearance made me a high-profile case. So, there was no way the city prosecutor was going to make any sort of a deal and let me plead to a lesser charge. Fortunately, this time, there were no cameras or media present. They were all busy covering the capture of the sniper.

 

Off meds, I don't handle stress very well at all. It's a major trigger of the manic-depression. I was also experiencing major panic-attacks. I just wanted to get the whole matter resolved as quickly as possible, get back on meds and get stabilized. I'm back on Wellbutrin XL and Depakote, which can take a couple of weeks or so to get to the necessary level in the bloodstream. The Xanax though, immediately helped. I was able to sleep better, the anxiety level dropped and no more panic-attacks.

 

I'd had an overdose last summer on a combination of anti-depressants, Lexapro, Serzone, pot and then when I started to get a headache, I took some Advil which made things even worse by interacting with the Lexapro. After a few hours of puking my guts out, thinking my head was going to explode and nearly passing out. I called my sister at 6am and she took me to the Emergency Room. So, for several months now, I'd been once again trying to deal with this bipolar shit on my own and not very successfully either. I'm much more prone to go on drug binges when I'm in hypomania, depression or in what is called "mixed-state" manic-depression where the mania and the depressed state are basically happening simultaneously--you literally want to claw your way out of your body. That's when anything I can do to take control of my mood is appealing, including coke,crystal, ghb, pain pills and ketamine, but these are all temporary fixes and usually result in increased hypomania and deeper, longer depressions.

 

If someone thinks it's being dramatic or whining to simply be sharing the truth, then so be it. Some people never share anything of any real significance about themselves on this site and most likely don't anywhere else either. I'm not scared of simply being human, of being vulnerable. I'm also not afraid to publicly admit to being a prostitute and I'm not ashamed to admit that I have a mental illness. I don't think that it's in any way helpful to try to diminish or invalidate someone else's feelings regarding a stressful situation. I've seen firsthand how sharing such things can be helpful to others who may be trying to deal with the same or similar illness, but were afraid others would judge them negatively. The more we talk about such things-- thereby lessening the stigma, the more likely others will be able to seek help they may need.

 

The support and expressions of love I've received have meant alot to me.:-)

 

JEFF

[Chuck50]

Jeff with out even knowing you I love you for being honest about you and who you are and what you are dealing with. HUGS Chuck50:P :P

[Guest DevonSFescort]

Another awesome post, Jeff. One question I've been meaning to ask is: did your lawyer explain how your statement in the letter to the paper that you'd been an escort for twelve years and never had a problem "incriminated" you? Is merely referring to yourself as an escort considered tantamount to a statement that you have sex in exchange for money? If so, wouldn't having run an escort ad in the first place have been incrimination enough? Or is the idea that you'd be convicted either way and your statement about how long you'd been in your profession would merely influence the court to impose a tougher sentence?

[VaHawk]

RE: The usual suspects

 

So DAMN GOOD to see your pom poms aren't gathering dust in some closet!

 

Don't you JUST LOVE how the prozac sob sisters, feel it is PERFECTLY OKAY to castigate others for having nothing new to say, while they moan the same old fucking blues! Did you "wake up this morning, went out and got a gun, as your mother always said you were the chosen one" ?

[VaHawk]

RE: The usual suspects

 

?Thankfully, you have wisely decided to stay uninvolved with

>the bitch slap fest that this thread has become.

 

With all due respect, I FAIL TO SEE where this thread has degenerated into a "bitch slap session" as you state. Unless of course you are talking about your personal little, holier than thou bitch slapping as engaged by you on this post.

 

>Every one of them ran out of new material long ago.

 

I sure as hell hope you INCLUDE yourself in this sanctimonious judgement, as any regular poster with 1/10th of a brain can surely attest that you are so guilty of engaging in that, which you accuse others of engaging in!

[Guest]

As a doctor, I feel it my duty to chime in and say that all of the amphetamines, cocaine, and so forth, really screw up your brain chemistry, specifically your neuroreceptors for catecholamines (i.e. norepinephrine)and serotenergic agents. You may think you're a clever neuropsychiatrist, but let me assure you that those drugs are screwing up your limbic system even more. Keep doing illegal drugs and your brain may end up being beyond help. Speed and coke also age your body fast (both inside and out). I don't know if you've had an EKG or echocardiogram taken recently. And there'll come a point where people will no longer be willing to pay for your services so that you can support your habit...

[VaHawk]

LOL! Isn't that the WHOLE FUCKING POINT???? :7

[flguy]

JEFF, I have been following this thread and just want to lend my support and prayers for your situation. It's a shame when people are just being honest and get shot down for that. My best to you in getting your illness under control. We have met before and you truly are an honest, straight forward person, a rarity at best in the gay world.

[Guest jeffOH]

Speed and coke also age your body fast

>(both inside and out). And there'll come a point

>where people will no longer be willing to pay for your

>services so that you can support your habit...

 

Thanks Unicorn, I appreciate your comments. As I stated in my post, these were "binges" that amounted to one day/night maybe once or twice a month, not daily use, not weekly use, hardly amounting to a "habit". My pot usage would qualify as a "habit". Also, once I'm stabilized on the Wellbutrin, Depakote and anti-anxiety meds, any desire to binge on the illegal drugs is pretty much gone, including the pot. I've seen the physical effects you've described happen with friends, so I'm well aware of not only the aging effects of not only "speed and coke", but also alcohol (which I gave up in '88).

 

Thanks again for the advice.

:-) JEFF

[Guest jeffOH]

Or is the idea that you'd be convicted

>either way and your statement about how long you'd been in

>your profession would merely influence the court to impose a

>tougher sentence?

 

Devon--

 

The thing is that should it have come to trial, my statement would have come up. Really though, I'd been running escort ads for a dozen years with the same phone # for over a decade. I know they'd tried to set me up in the past, so they've known I've been around for a while. I just confirmed it publicly. Often, deals are made with the prosecutor to plead guilty to a lesser degree misdemeanor, such as disorderly conduct, but this wasn't going to happen in my case. For all I know, they could have come into court with a stack of my reviews, my ads and who knows what else in addition to the taped evidence and the testimony of the cop who allowed me to "manually stimulate his penis", as was humorously described in the complaint. They couldn't have convicted me on my admission alone, but it would have become part of the evidence against me.

 

JEFF

:-)

[Boston Guy]

>We have

>met before and you truly are an honest, straight forward

>person, a rarity at best in the gay world.

 

I don't want to detract at all from the warm sentiments you were sending Jeff's way. It was nice of you to post and support him.

 

But I would like to say that it's been my experience that the gay men I've met have been as honest and straight-forward as any other group of people. Actually, I read your post a few times and ended up feeling a bit sad as I wondered what hand life had dealt you that would lead you to the conclusion that gay men are neither honest nor straight-forward.

 

BG

[JamesK840]

Woodies' secret identity...

 

>No, you don't know a lot of men who serve in the military.

>You know a very small percentage of active-duty personnel, and

>the percentage you know gets even smaller if one includes

>Guard and Reserve personnel...

 

And he knows them all! In fact, Woodlawn is really Secretary Rumsfeld! Explains his penchant for making up bizarre things to answer instead of sticking to the subject, doesn't it?

 

>It's just another example of your habit of making statements

>that are unproven or unprovable and demanding that the rest of

>us treat them as facts.

 

Priceless, as followed by:

 

>A far more reliable indicator is the

>research done by the Pentagon under both Cohen and Rumsfeld

>showing a steady rise in anti-gay harassment in all brances of

>the service.

 

But you can't provide citation because it's actually top secret, only you, Dr. Rice, and the President have access to all the info...

[woodlawn]

RE: No Shortage of Idiots

 

>And he knows them all! In fact, Woodlawn is really

>Secretary Rumsfeld! Explains his penchant for making up

>bizarre things to answer instead of sticking to the subject,

>doesn't it?

 

Who the fuck appointed you to decide what people can discuss in this or any other thread? Do I ever complain about the way you go on and on and on and on and on and on at every opportunity about all the money you save hiring amateurs from Craig's list instead of pros, long after it's clear that no one else wants to hear about it? No, I do not.

 

>A far more reliable indicator is the

>>research done by the Pentagon under both Cohen and Rumsfeld

>>showing a steady rise in anti-gay harassment in all brances

>of

>>the service.

>

>But you can't provide citation because it's actually top

>secret, only you, Dr. Rice, and the President have access to

>all the info...

 

Why don't you start with this? It's a good introduction to the subject for someone like you who obviously doesn't know shit about it.

 

http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/EAD/htmldocs/RMM07697.html

[HooBoy]

Jeff, I apologize, but I have not had the time to get into this involved thread, but you have been around this dump for a long time and I just want you to know I appreciate your input and ability to fasten your seatbelt for the bumpy rides.

 

My best wishes to you.

__

 

The above written as a regular guy, not the owner of a website and has no official meaning, just unofficial BS.)

__

 

--GARBO the hoo

[HooBoy]

Jeff, I apologize, but I have not had the time to get into this involved thread, but you have been around this dump for a long time and I just want you to know I appreciate your input and ability to fasten your seatbelt for the bumpy rides.

 

My best wishes to you.

__

 

The above written as a regular guy, not the owner of a website and has no official meaning, just unofficial BS.)

__

 

--GARBO the hoo

[woodlawn]

RE: No Shortage of Idiots

 

>>A far more reliable indicator is the

>>>research done by the Pentagon under both Cohen and Rumsfeld

>>>showing a steady rise in anti-gay harassment in all brances

>>of

>>>the service.

>>

>>But you can't provide citation because it's actually top

>>secret, only you, Dr. Rice, and the President have access to

>>all the info...

 

And anyone else who can read. I guess that lets you out.

 

http://newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/3/25/62853

[Guest jeffOH]

>The above written as a regular guy, not the owner of a website

>and has no official meaning, just unofficial BS.)

 

Regardless whether it was written as a "regular guy", the "owner of the website" or the ever elusive "Garbo", your words do carry alot of meaning.

Thank you!

 

JEFF

[Doug69]

>But don't let me

>detain you; I'm sure there are dozens of threads left for you

>to go compare unfavorably in importance to the war in Iraq.

>Who cares whether it has any relevance to the topic under

>discussion?

 

In Hooboy's e-mail section from a couple days ago, he posted an e-mail someone had written to him complaining that the reveiw he sent in was not yet posted. The e-mail wasn't particularly pleasant and was somewhat pointed (although it wasn't unusually rude at all), and it essentially voiced the complaint that he thought it should have been up by now. Here was Hooboy's response:

 

<<Dear Robert, Luke's review was supposed to go up last night but the new software we are using did not get his review up as promised. I apologize for the embarrassment I put you through., Now, I'll just take another Pepto Bismol tablet and thank you for writing. And just remember there were thousands of people who were killed on trains in Spain. How does that rank with your vitriolic complaint?>>

 

Hooboy's point is clear and simple: while the reviewer's annoyance at not having his review posted more quickly may be perfectly justified and understandable, it's hardly something to get so exercised over, as it really ain't that big of a deal in the scheme of things. To illustrate this, Hooboy invoked the incident in Spain to demonstrate what real problems are in order to illustrate to the complaining reviewer that his problem wasn't something to get so hysterical over.

 

Making such a comparison is a common - and quite effective - tool used by many people in many contexts; it is used to show someone that the problems they have which they self-centeredly think are tragic and apocolyptic are, when compared to true tragedy, actually quite small and manageable. Comparing one problem to another, "unrelated" problem can provide context and perspective to the problem being discussed, and it can even help a person who is distressed to realize that it's not as bad as they think.

 

Woodlawn did nothing other than invoke this very standard and accepted method for making this point about Jeff's arrest. Jeff was screaming that this event sent him into the worst manic depression of his life; that it was the worst nightmere he has ever had; that he was going to retire from escorting because of it; and that his life has been hell for weeks over this. Woodlawn -- quite compassionately and movingly, I thought (who's surprised? that's just Woodlawn) -- tried to make Jeff see that the hysteria and world-is-collapsing hysteria in which he (and then others) seemed to be drowning when he describe what occurred is really not warranted by the magnitude of what actually occurred.

 

A lot of people love nothing more than to wallow in other people's problems and sadness. I recall after 9/11, when many people wanted to start taking action in response to it, whereas so many others seemed to have this perverse enjoyment and need to bond eternally in endless rituals of grief and crying and weeping, as though a paralyzed communion of sadness was formed.

 

That's all that's happening in this thread - Jeff shared his experience, threw in the whole bit about his manic depression and meds, and so now it has become Mandatory Orthodoxy that the only permitted sentiments that anyone can express in this discussion is to bond in sadness over Jeff's tragic plight and to express nothing but unadorned praise and emotional support for anything he says. Jeff's the victim, and we're the "support group," whose only role is to offer him oh-so-empathetic and uncritical love in his time of great need. (Incidentally, but not unrelatedly, that was the same dynamic you sought to impose on the thread where Ryan said he had friends who had HIV and used drugs).

 

Thus, anyone who says anything in this thread which deviates even slightly from this "Oh-we-are-so-sorry-for-you-and-we-do-so-care-for-you" script is, by definition, an evil, trouble-creating monster who is just engaging in "bitch slapping" and negativity. Hence, your reaction to Woodlawn's perfectly routine and benign point that what happened to Jeff, while not fun, is not exactly some mammoth tragedy. Woodlawn's doing so deviated from the Love-and-Comfort-the-TroubledOne-Unconditionally-in-His-Time-of-Need dictate, and so you, and others, decreed that the innocuous point Woodlawn raised is so unkind and irrelevant.

 

Nobody criticized Jeff's conduct in any way. The first post I wrote in this thread was to commend Jeff for his courage in writing those letters, which I thought were commendable. But when the thread starting transforming away from a discussion of the issues raised by his experience into some sort of group therapy centered on Jeff's tragedy, it was more than appropriate to point out that what actually happened to him, while undesirable to be sure, warrants neither the rhetoric nor the enforced Code of Sweetness which, as is so often the case here, was sought to be imposed by the self-anointed Guardians of All that is Nice and Good.

 

Ironically, Woodlawn's point for which he was excoriated is far more likely to help Jeff than any of the others posters who thought they were being so kind and helpful. As Jeff himself described, this incident sent him into a severe psychological fall, in part due to an emotional (rather than rational) response that what happened to him was worse than it really was. Woodlawn stepped in to take Jeff's hand and show him that it wasn't really as bad or threatening as he was believing. The rest of the posters were too lazy to take the stand for Jeff that Woodlawn took, and instead just became enablers for Jeff's exaggerated view of the threat he faced.

 

It's usually the case that those who seek to help others by courageously dissenting from prevailing orthodoxies are castigated by those who are themselves unwilling to help. This thread, and the direct and indirect attacks on Woodlawn for coming to Jeff's aid, perfectly illustrate that ugly dynamic.

[Rick Munroe]

>Jeff was screaming that this event sent him into the worst

>manic depression of his life

 

Come on, Doug. Jeff never used ALL CAPS or exclamation points!!!, which are tools people use to "scream" online. His posts have been calm, levelheaded, reasonable, factual and brutally honest. I don't personally know Jeff so it's not like I'm defending a friend; I just don't think it's right to mischaracterize anything he's posted here as "screaming" or complaining or whining.