The Verdict Is In: Rentboy Needs Help

[seaboy4hire]

If you are making millions with a gay escort website called RENTBOY in the United States, you MUST have a emergency fund (of millions)

But if the gov seizes your assets that fund is null and void. At least that's my understanding.

 

Hugs,

Greg

[JDXXX]

But if the gov seizes your assets that fund is null and void. At least that's my understanding.

 

Hugs,

Greg

 

Valid point, Greg. Very true.

[bigvalboy]

If you are making millions with a gay escort website called RENTBOY in the United States, you MUST have a emergency fund (of millions)

 

One would think....

 

http://lowres.cartoonstock.com/retail-bed-new_bed-save-saving-savings_account-rde0129_low.jpg

[seaboy4hire]

One would think....

 

http://lowres.cartoonstock.com/retail-bed-new_bed-save-saving-savings_account-rde0129_low.jpg

 

I did think of the above but I'm sure the gov would be watching closely where any major funds come from. If uncle Joey only makes 45k and gives Jeffrey a million bucks that will prob trigger some alarms.

 

Hugs,

Greg

[Guy Fawkes]

How many family members to you have? (Remember that each of them are allowed to receive gifts too.)

http://www.disdblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/spare-change.png

http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2013/11/01/the-2013-limits-on-tax-free-gifts-what-you-need-to-know/

1. Write a check for up to $14,000. The simplest way to subsidize others is by using the annual exclusion, which allows you to give $14,000 in cash or other assets each year to each of as many individuals as you want. Spouses can combine their annual exclusions to give $28,000 to any person tax-free – a process called gift-splitting. For example, a married couple with a child who is married and has two children could make a joint cash gift of $28,000 to the adult child, the child’s spouse and each grandchild – four people – providing the family with $112,000 a year. Gifts that exceed the annual exclusion count against the lifetime exclusion (currently $5.25 million).

[AdamSmith]

One would think....

 

http://lowres.cartoonstock.com/retail-bed-new_bed-save-saving-savings_account-rde0129_low.jpg

 

http://www.sitesatlas.com/Maps/Maps/527.gif

[bigvalboy]

http://www.sitesatlas.com/Maps/Maps/527.gif

 

LOL...well there is that.

 

OR...this

 

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-scy8BfEi7AY/Tn9JXAY_2rI/AAAAAAAAG3E/iQz3FeL2zH4/s1600/caymanIslandsmap-743257.jpg

[Kevin Slater]

http://www.sitesatlas.com/Maps/Maps/527.gif

 

LOL...well there is that.

 

Actually, no there isn't.

 

Kevin Slater

[+ quoththeraven]

Leaving aside the fact that offshore accounts are no longer what they're cracked up to be, under the circumstances the government would have taken transfers to an offshore account, even if merely to "protect" assets from potential seizure, as proof that something nefarious was going on, like money laundering. (Remember, it's not the crime that gets you; it's the cover up.) Plus how do they get payments for advertisements to their sekrit bank account? Seems to me like a conduit account is necessary, at which point you might as well not have a sekrit account.

 

The $1.6 million that was seized? That was Rentboy's rainy day fund. The government alleges that Rentboy grossed $10 million over the last five years. That's $2 million before expenses, including salaries and other personnel costs, which are the bulk of the expense in any service organization. I have no idea what the net was. I don't think anyone else here is privy to that information either. My experience is that most small closely held businesses live about as hand to mouth as most individuals. They are not rolling in cash.

[+ quoththeraven]

One more thing. While this looks and sounds like a GoFundMe account, it's not. The money is going into a client trust account at Hurant's law firm. Those trust accounts are fucking sacred. The easiest way for a lawyer to get disbarred is to mess around with client trust accounts.

 

The likelihood that this is a scam is infinitesimal. Of course, that doesn't mean anyone who doesn't want to contribute needs to do so to please anyone else. We all have our own opinions on this. But it's getting to the point that the continued rehashing of all the reasons those associated with Rentboy should be hung out to dry is disrespectful of those of us who feel differently. We're just talking past each other at this point.

[+ quoththeraven]

Sorry to post three times in a row, but I checked out the website of the law firm involved, and it is hella legit both in terms of credentials and expertise. One of the named partners was an Asssistant US Atttorney for the Eastern District of New York, the office that brought the charges, immediately prior to forming the firm in 2012. Another lawyer has defended against money laundering and RICO charges, and another specializes in First Amendment and internet law. The firm also has connections with and does pro bono work for the ACLU. Here's the link: http://www.shertremonte.com/sher-tremonte-llp/

 

No particular expertise with anti-prostitution statutes, but I wouldn't expect that from a firm that defends against white collar criminal charges.

 

So before people go spouting off about how something is a scam, how about doing some fact-checking first? The law firm's name is on the fundraising page. It's not difficult to use that to find the firm's website.

 

Just so people know, in my experience, in civil cases it takes at least $50,000 to take a case to summary judgment (disposition of the case by the judge based on the law and undisputed facts after discovery), and $100,000 to try it, and that's at New Jersey rates. For a NY law firm with these credentials in a criminal case like this, $250,000 doesn't seem out of line.

 

Also, by stating that any excess will go either to the other defendants or organizations that represent vulnerable communities (which sounds to me like a deliberately obscure way of saying "sex-worker advocacy groups"), the recipients of the funds are saying they can't be spent for Hurlant's living expenses or to benefit him in any way other than to pay his legal fees.

 

I'd also like to remind everyone that each defendant has his or her own lawyer and that at the time of arrest, some of them were represented by public defenders. They will almost certainly continue to be represented by separate counsel because of the possibility of a conflict of interest and impairment of attorney-client privilege if they share lawyers. But they may be under pressure to accept a plea deal to put this behind them, which would make defending the case in court (which the fundraising effort suggests Hurlant intends to do) more difficult for a host of reasons, including the likelihood that plea deals will include immunity deals requiring them to testify against Hurlant at trial.

 

I don't think I'm spilling the beans here when I say it is going to be difficult for anyone who worked at Rentboy to say "we had no idea that the men who advertised on our site were offering sex in exchange for money." We need to let go of the idea that charging for time alone or not mentioning specific sex acts is enough. (Sorrry, Daddy; I know you disagree with me on this.) Hiring with the expectation of sexytimes is the exchange of sex for money. Just because other things might happen is not a sufficient defense.

 

As for Heidi Fleiss, she was a madam, not the owner of a website, and she pled guilty. Irrespective of my opinion of the "it was only a website" defense, an argument like that wasn't a possibility for her. I also don't remember her assets being frozen. So her situation was not the same, and the suggestion that it was is superficially appealing but untrue.

 

Those of you who made it this far, thanks for your patience! I hope I've covered everything and don't feel the need to come back and add stuff or, God forbid, have to post a fourth time in a row.

[MiamiLooker]

Sorry to post three times in a row, but I checked out the website of the law firm involved, and it is hella legit both in terms of credentials and expertise. One of the named partners was an Asssistant US Atttorney for the Eastern District of New York, the office that brought the charges, immediately prior to forming the firm in 2012. Another lawyer has defended against money laundering and RICO charges, and another specializes in First Amendment and internet law. The firm also has connections with and does pro bono work for the ACLU. Here's the link: http://www.shertremonte.com/sher-tremonte-llp/

 

No particular expertise with anti-prostitution statutes, but I wouldn't expect that from a firm that defends against white collar criminal charges.

 

So before people go spouting off about how something is a scam, how about doing some fact-checking first? The law firm's name is on the fundraising page. It's not difficult to use that to find the firm's website.

 

Just so people know, in my experience, in civil cases it takes at least $50,000 to take a case to summary judgment (disposition of the case by the judge based on the law and undisputed facts after discovery), and $100,000 to try it, and that's at New Jersey rates. For a NY law firm with these credentials in a criminal case like this, $250,000 doesn't seem out of line.

 

Also, by stating that any excess will go either to the other defendants or organizations that represent vulnerable communities (which sounds to me like a deliberately obscure way of saying "sex-worker advocacy groups"), the recipients of the funds are saying they can't be spent for Hurlant's living expenses or to benefit him in any way other than to pay his legal fees.

 

I'd also like to remind everyone that each defendant has his or her own lawyer and that at the time of arrest, some of them were represented by public defenders. They will almost certainly continue to be represented by separate counsel because of the possibility of a conflict of interest and impairment of attorney-client privilege if they share lawyers. But they may be under pressure to accept a plea deal to put this behind them, which would make defending the case in court (which the fundraising effort suggests Hurlant intends to do) more difficult for a host of reasons, including the likelihood that plea deals will include immunity deals requiring them to testify against Hurlant at trial.

 

I don't think I'm spilling the beans here when I say it is going to be difficult for anyone who worked at Rentboy to say "we had no idea that the men who advertised on our site were offering sex in exchange for money." We need to let go of the idea that charging for time alone or not mentioning specific sex acts is enough. (Sorrry, Daddy; I know you disagree with me on this.) Hiring with the expectation of sexytimes is the exchange of sex for money. Just because other things might happen is not a sufficient defense.

 

As for Heidi Fleiss, she was a madam, not the owner of a website, and she pled guilty. Irrespective of my opinion of the "it was only a website" defense, an argument like that wasn't a possibility for her. I also don't remember her assets being frozen. So her situation was not the same, and the suggestion that it was is superficially appealing but untrue.

 

Those of you who made it this far, thanks for your patience! I hope I've covered everything and don't feel the need to come back and add stuff or, God forbid, have to post a fourth time in a row.

 

Thanks for an objective and informative post on the matter.

[+ honcho]

To stray mildly off-topic, daddy wrote (quoting forbes):

 

The simplest way to subsidize others is by using the annual exclusion, which allows you to give $14,000 in cash

 

A tax guy told me that if I pay a relative's bill (say with a credit card), that it does not count toward the

$14,000 / year limit. Was he mistaken?

[+ stevenkesslar]

Hiring with the expectation of sexytimes is the exchange of sex for money. Just because other things might happen is not a sufficient defense.

 

Actually, I'll disagree with you on this. I agree with Miami that you've provided an objective legal analysis. But you are not the judge and jury in this case, so I think that we actually don't know for sure - to state the obvious - what an actual judge or jury will conclude. We won't know that unless and until it goes to trial.

 

I do agree that - to state the obvious - anybody who thinks that Rentboy has a "sufficient defense" is kidding themselves. To use a phrase you've used that I like, this may not pass the "smell test."

 

Daddy's three rules - don't panic, know the law, follow the law - are correct. I don't think we know with 100 % certainty that a judge and jury will determine that "expectations of sexytimes" on the part of anyone "is" the same as "sex for money." To quote a famous ex-President, I think it depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

 

I also agree that it matters how plea bargains go. I'm not a lawyer, but what you are saying makes sense as one way this could go - that some of the defendants will plea bargain in return for testimony.

 

To me what all this brings us back to is political rather than legal. Even if we assume for purposes of discussion that 6 of the 7 Rentboy employees do plea bargain and do testify in a way that helps the government make their case, it still comes back to this question: why is the government making this case? To seize assets? To persecute Gay men? What is the crime committed when a Gay college student who is pursuing a PhD is hired by a Gay millionaire? That is one example, which I know to be real, of how Rentboy functioned. True, maybe not 100 % of the clients who hired off Rentboy were Gay men. But - duh! - almost all of them were. So if the "smell test" is the standard we are using - saying that Rentboy was not a Gay website and this trial is not an attack on Gays won't pass the "smell test" of a lot of Gay men. That's exactly why so many Gay men are so pissed off already. They feel targeted and attacked by a Democratic Administration that should have known better.

 

I researched the law firms website and like you I felt encouraged. I did not note any connection to the ACLU, as you did. I find that encouraging, too. To me, there is at least one way this is exactlly like same sex marriage. If we separate legal and political, we are fools. In order for the same sex marriage legal strategy to work, there had to be a same sex marriage political strategy tied to the action in court. In this case, it is exactly the same. If ACLU and Lambda Legal and a chorus of advocacy groups are involved in this and loud about it, it will make a huge difference. Whether their involvement is legal work, legal reserach, public advocacy, or seeking the support of newspaper editorial boards, among other things, is a good question. But to me the crying need is for a political coalition to emerge saying that this prosecution is a misdirected and invasive use of government resources that sets back the entire Gay community. It is also a perfect opportunity to raise questions about whether alleged prostitution should be decriminalized. Since groups like ACLU and Lambda Legal have already said that publicly, that is not an unreasonable hope.

[Lookin]

All interesting stuff but, at the end of the day, I don't feel the teensiest bit more secure that our Department of Homeland Security is wasting time and money on this. In fact, it makes me wonder what else they're squandering resources on.

 

Should the day come, Heaven forbid, that we do endure a preventable national security breach, I doubt anyone will fess up that their eyes were off the ball. All I expect to hear is that they were understaffed and underfunded and that they need more restrictions, more laws and more money.

 

Not sure who oversees DHS but, if it were yours truly, I'd ask for a list of open investigations and scores for how each one affects our national security.

 

I doubt Rentboy would peek much above zero. http://a.deviantart.net/avatars/k/i/kilroyplz.gif

[seaboy4hire]

All interesting stuff but, at the end of the day, I don't feel the teensiest bit more secure that our Department of Homeland Security is wasting time and money on this. In fact, it makes me wonder what else they're squandering resources on.

 

Should the day come, Heaven forbid, that we do endure a preventable national security breach, I doubt anyone will fess up that their eyes were off the ball. All I expect to hear is that they were understaffed and underfunded and that they need more restrictions, more laws and more money.

 

Not sure who oversees DHS but, if it were yours truly, I'd ask for a list of open investigations and scores for how each one affects our national security.

 

I doubt Rentboy would peek much above zero. http://a.deviantart.net/avatars/k/i/kilroyplz.gif

 

It's a bloated gov agency, there is no over site and accountability. And there prob will never be any accountability.

 

Hugs,

Greg

[tyro]

Sex work will be legal soon in the US.

 

 

I sure hope so. There's no good reason why it shouldn't be.

T