Boy, do I miss Rentboy

[rvwnsd]

I think that's why they read you the Miranda warning that talks about the right to remain silent, have an attorney, and anything you say can and will be used in a court.

Except that Miranda warnings are only required in certain circumstances. They can talk to you all they want without the warning.

My point is you have the right to remain silent, et al, and anyone who has so much as watched a crime show on TV should know thaat.

[+ Gar1eth]

Except that Miranda warnings are only required in certain circumstances. They can talk to you all they want without the warning.

My point is you have the right to remain silent, et al, and anyone who has so much as watched a crime show on TV should know thaat.

 

 

Everyone does know that including folks in the UK whose Miranda equivalent is different then ours. But all the Law and Order series are so popular, they think they have the same rights we do.

 

Gman

[rvwnsd]

Everyone does know that including folks in the UK whose Miranda equivalent is different then ours. But all the Law and Order series are so popular, they think they have the same rights we do.

 

Gman

LOL.

[+ quoththeraven]

My encounters with the Feds came about when I held the job of Director of Litigation for the Department of Insurance. We were handling many cases of fraud committed by over 65 insurance companies in the state and this required dealing with those scum (here I am referring to the US Attorneys and FBI agents). We would hand them cases with all evidence and they could not understand the evidence so they would concoct their on version and often convict people who needed to be convicted but they were convicted for the wrong crime. The Feds simply fudged the evidence and got co-conspirators to cop to lesser crimes if they said what the Feds wanted them to say. In my case they wanted me to testify that my boss had committed crimes which he had not. After I saw where this was all going, I just hired a good criminal defense lawyer and refused to speak to them. The intimidation tactics they use will make anyone have concern. Being dragged before a Federal Grand Jury is a bad experience at best and most unnerving even if you know you are innocent. If they file charges against you, even if you are cleared of all allegations, you will be financially devastated by defense costs. Thankfully, my lawyer was very good and I was never charged. I got by with a mere $12,ooo legal bill.

 

It is important when dealing with the Feds to ask them: Am I a witness, a subject or a target. By law they must tell you which category you fall into. Regardless of the answer, I would advise that you never speak to them without your lawyer present. Remember: They are out to get you and they do not play fair. I know that this must sound a bit paranoid but unless you are subjected to it you really can't understand the power of the Federal prosecutors and the FBI.

 

What's funny is that in my experience, sherriff's offices and local police are the worst, not the feds. But I may be prejudiced because I've worked with AUSAs from the Northern and Southern District of New York (if you were only dealing with the US attorney and never with the people in her or his office, you were uniquely privileged) as well as with Justice Department lawyers on tax crimes and other tax cases. I don't have direct experience with the FBI but consider it more incompetent than venal. The one case against an insider I know of was unfortunate but true and was even profiled Sixty Minutes.

 

But if you are a target, you may be right. Your comment about asking which you are is helpful advice. I'm glad the legal bill wasn't worse.

[buckguy]

Rentboy blundered int to their federal legal problems via a visa issue--I suspect there's no big federal effort in this area. Trafficking is the big area that intersects with sex work and involves many federal agencies, but the energy for trafficking is international and cross-border, not within the US. Local law enforcement, and in many places, the military always have some relationship with sex work, but it's usually the more organized (e.g., massage parlor) or vulnerable (e.g., street sex workers) who are targeted and the relationships vary---coercive stuff like payoffs, ownership of brothels (directly or via family/friends), etc. Clergy target the obvious street trade--there's a Protestant minister from a liberal congregation who has been pushing for stings with female and trans street workers in DC. Personally, I think the historical relationship between clergy (usually Protestant and not always fundie, it seems) and sex workers is probably not unlike priests and altar boys.

 

Rentboy always was a crappy operation---endless software problems, no effort to even the most minimal checks on the authenticity of guys esp. when Google made it easy to research images, etc. I suspect this may be part of why the boomlet in support of them has fizzled.