Paying Not To Tell

[Rudynate]

 

Another old joke - Do you know how to make hookers moan? Don't pay them.

 

 

That's not quite it:

 

Q: How do you make a whore moan ( get it- hormone?)?

 

A: Don't pay her!

[+ Funguy]

I'm just pre-reimbursing him for the dinner he is taking me out to!

[+ Avalon]

That's not quite it:

 

Q: How do you make a whore moan ( get it- hormone?)?

 

A: Don't pay her!

 

Thanks! ;-)))

[+ Travis69]

But they don’t crack up when you agree to pay them “for their time only”?

It is just as silly. Yet that is the only way they legally advertise, if you are in the US.

I have never used the term "for their time only". I think it's ridiculous. I would crack up if I had to use it. Same with the "donation" idea.

[TruthBTold]

Another part of the question is whether the the jury/judge are going to believe your statements that you were only being paid for not saying anything, i.e., not being paid for having the sex. If you were having consensual sex, then you simply do not speak about it. No contract need be drawn up so that one party will not talk. If indeed one side feels a contract must be drawn up, it can be seen as extortion.

[+ Tarte Gogo]

If indeed one side feels a contract must be drawn up, it can be seen as extortion.

I respectfully disagree, it is completely legal for me to tell the world who I had sex with, as long as I am not lying. And so asking for money in exchange for not doing something that I am absolutely in my right to do, is not extortion. It is just a contract between 2 consenting parties.

[TruthBTold]

I respectfully disagree, it is completely legal for me to tell the world who I had sex with, as long as I am not lying. And so asking for money in exchange for not doing something that I am absolutely in my right to do, is not extortion. It is just a contract between 2 consenting parties.

 

That is true. However, as someone else has noted, paying someone so that they will not make our illegal act known is probably conspiracy. You do no have a right to do illegal acts and you do not have a right to pay someone not to tell.

[+ Tarte Gogo]

That is true. However, as someone else has noted, paying someone so that they will not make our illegal act known is probably conspiracy. You do no have a right to do illegal acts and you do not have a right to pay someone not to tell.

I never said I ever did anything illegal and I am not planning to, all I do is having sex, which is legal, and insinuating otherwise will wake up my lawyer, so don’t.

[+ quoththeraven]

I respectfully disagree, it is completely legal for me to tell the world who I had sex with, as long as I am not lying. And so asking for money in exchange for not doing something that I am absolutely in my right to do, is not extortion. It is just a contract between 2 consenting parties.

The freaking contract doesn't protect you is the idea that people (some of whom have a passing knowledge of law) are trying to explain here. You don't agree, fine.

[+ Tarte Gogo]

The freaking contract doesn't protect you is the idea that people (some of whom have a passing knowledge of law) are trying to explain here. You don't agree, fine.

That is fine, the contract does not protect me (just like the "for my time only clause"?), but there is no extortion, that is the point I was making in the post you quoted.

Edited May 6, 2018 by Tarte Gogo

[Rudynate]

Another part of the question is whether the the jury/judge are going to believe your statements that you were only being paid for not saying anything, i.e., not being paid for having the sex. If you were having consensual sex, then you simply do not speak about it. No contract need be drawn up so that one party will not talk. If indeed one side feels a contract must be drawn up, it can be seen as extortion.

 

 

Where's the intent?

[+ Tarte Gogo]

Ok, so let's dissect this because it is seriously bugging me:

 

Realistic scenario:

 

I am a hot young 25 yo guy who loves to have sex with older men and then talk about it. I live in the US.

I have sex with literally thousands of older men in many years.

Statement 1: Having sex with many, many older men is not illegal, as long as I am 18 and regardless of their age.

Statement 2: I am protected by the first amendment to talk about each encounter as long as I don't lie. The number of "outings" I am allowed to make is not restricted by law.

Statement 3: Each of these men is legally allowed to buy my silence individually, if and only if they want to. No extortion, they don't have to buy my silence. But if they don't buy my silence, I am allowed to speak to anyone who will listen about it.

 

Are any of the statements here above wrong?

 

Now, please assume we are dealing with a rational and logical, highly competent judge that just tries to apply the law to the facts brought to him by the police. All the police brings is that

A) I had sex many, many times, and each time I received some money.

B) All my clients (who are rational beings and not stupid) explain that they paid me to keep quiet, not to have sex.

 

The prosecutor is accusing me of both extortion and prostitution, in case one fails, then he hope to get me for the other one.

Our lawyers are competent and do not screw this up.

 

Question 1: What if it is not the older guy that brings up the "buying my silence" part, but it was me instead, after the sex. Is that extortion in any/all US jurisdictions?

Question 2: What if I bring up the hush agreement before the sex? Does that change anything? I feel it shouldn't, because bringing it up afterwards is more dishonest than bringing it up beforehand. Beforehand means at least the older guy can back out.

Question 3: Does writing the hush agreement down changes anything for our rational and logical judge?

Question 4: Would a rational and logical judge accept the claim from the prosecutor that all these people were "thinking" of doing prostitution, even though we all claim the opposite, we verbally agreed on the payment for the hush agreement only, and there was no witness to prove that we said anything of the contrary? Basically, what is the criteria in criminal court for knowing what someone was thinking when there are 2 possibilities? Do the police need to provide material evidence, or it is ok for the judge to claim to be a mind reader?

I am not from the US, and I don't claim to know the law, but I do claim to be able to reason.

[Rudynate]

I don't think the intent is there for extortion. You aren't threatening to reveal that you and the other guy had sex if he doesn't pay you. He is offering you consideration in return for you voluntarily forgoing your right to talk about your sexual encounter. Essentially this is an NDA with payment of hush money. In the Stormy Daniels case, nobody is questioning the legality of such agreements. Daniels's position is that the agreement is inoperative for a number of reasons. Nobody is questioning the legality of paying hush money.

 

But on the question of prostitution, the totality of circumstances may well reveal an intent to exchange money for sex, in spite of the signed agreement.

[instudiocity]

LOL

 

Another old joke - Do you know how to make hookers moan? Don't pay them.

And, “What’s the difference between a vitamin and a hormone?… You can’t make a vitamin!

[+ peterhung85]

Very nice. I think it might if the Trump case as stated by Giuliani is accepted and Trump doesn’t get into trouble for paying her.

We could even draft a standard contract that would be based on this premise. And use it every single time! Then this business is suddenly legal!

Seriously? You would be comfortable giving out your personal information to every client to make your operation "fully legal"? As you know, such contract is full of with your personal information.... I don't think that's a wise move, but for each of its own...

[+ Tarte Gogo]

but for each of its own...

It is up to the client. And if it not written down, just a verbal agreement, you don’t have to give any more info than you do now.

[+ Avalon]

And, “What’s the difference between a vitamin and a hormone?… You can’t make a vitamin!

 

LOL

[+ peterhung85]

It is up to the client. And if it not written down, just a verbal agreement, you don’t have to give any more info than you do now.

I don't get this... you said you would do an NDA with a client so he pays for you not talking about the encounter and that would make it all legal. A contract has at the very least your full legal name (if not more). So how is it not giving more information than I do now? Because I certainly don't give out my full name to anyone .... just trying to understand the point you were trying to make...

[+ StLouisOct]

Ok, so let's dissect this because it is seriously bugging me:

 

Realistic scenario:

 

I am a hot young 25 yo guy who loves to have sex with older men and then talk about it. I live in the US.

I have sex with literally thousands of older men in many years.

Statement 1: Having sex with many, many older men is not illegal, as long as I am 18 and regardless of their age.

Statement 2: I am protected by the first amendment to talk about each encounter as long as I don't lie. The number of "outings" I am allowed to make is not restricted by law.

Statement 3: Each of these men is legally allowed to buy my silence individually, if and only if they want to. No extortion, they don't have to buy my silence. But if they don't buy my silence, I am allowed to speak to anyone who will listen about it.

 

Are any of the statements here above wrong?

 

Now, please assume we are dealing with a rational and logical, highly competent judge that just tries to apply the law to the facts brought to him by the police. All the police brings is that

A) I had sex many, many times, and each time I received some money.

B) All my clients (who are rational beings and not stupid) explain that they paid me to keep quiet, not to have sex.

 

The prosecutor is accusing me of both extortion and prostitution, in case one fails, then he hope to get me for the other one.

Our lawyers are competent and do not screw this up.

 

Question 1: What if it is not the older guy that brings up the "buying my silence" part, but it was me instead, after the sex. Is that extortion in any/all US jurisdictions?

Question 2: What if I bring up the hush agreement before the sex? Does that change anything? I feel it shouldn't, because bringing it up afterwards is more dishonest than bringing it up beforehand. Beforehand means at least the older guy can back out.

Question 3: Does writing the hush agreement down changes anything for our rational and logical judge?

Question 4: Would a rational and logical judge accept the claim from the prosecutor that all these people were "thinking" of doing prostitution, even though we all claim the opposite, we verbally agreed on the payment for the hush agreement only, and there was no witness to prove that we said anything of the contrary? Basically, what is the criteria in criminal court for knowing what someone was thinking when there are 2 possibilities? Do the police need to provide material evidence, or it is ok for the judge to claim to be a mind reader?

I am not from the US, and I don't claim to know the law, but I do claim to be able to reason.

 

SOME COMMENTS FOR YOU IN ALL CAPS

Statement 1: Having sex with many, many older men is not illegal, as long as I am 18 and regardless of their age. IF THOSE GUYS ARE PAYING YOU FOR SEX IT’S PROSTITUTION SO IT’S ILLEGAL IN MOST STATES.

 

Statement 2: I am protected by the first amendment to talk about each encounter as long as I don't lie. The number of "outings" I am allowed to make is not restricted by law. YES YOU CAN TALK ABOUT IT. YOUR REASONING ISN’T ENTIRELY CORRECT, BUT I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO WHEN AND WHY THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES OR DOESN’T APPLY.

 

Statement 3: Each of these men is legally allowed to buy my silence individually, if and only if they want to. No extortion, they don't have to buy my silence. But if they don't buy my silence, I am allowed to speak to anyone who will listen about it. THEY CAN MAKE A CONTRACT WITH YOU AND PAY YOU $130,000 OR WHATEVER. IF YOU WEREN’T PAID FOR SEX (AS IN THE CASE OF TRUMP AND STORMY) THE CONTRACT IS ENFORCEABLE. BUT IF YOU’RE GETTING PAID, IT’S PROSTITUTION AND THE CONTRACT WOULD LIKELY BE UNEFORCEABLE. THE LAW/PUBLIC POLICY DOESN’T ALLOW A PERSON COMMITTING A CRIME TO ENTER INTO SUCH A CONTRACT AND BE ABLE TO ENFORCE IT. NO DIFFERENT THAN IF YOUR CLIENT COMMITTED A MURDER AND WANTED YOU TO KEEP QUIET. HE CAN PAY YOU A MILLION DOLLARS AND THE COURT WOULD STILL SAY IT’S UNENFORECABLE.

 

Now, please assume we are dealing with a rational and logical, highly competent judge that just tries to apply the law to the facts brought to him by the police. All the police brings is that

A) I had sex many, many times, and each time I received some money. PRETTY GOOD EVIDENCE OF PROSTITUTION

B) All my clients (who are rational beings and not stupid) explain that they paid me to keep quiet, not to have sex. IF YOU’RE GETTING PAID EACH TIME I BET THE JURY WILL AGREE THAT YOU’RE A PROSTITUTE.

 

The prosecutor is accusing me of both extortion and prostitution, in case one fails, then he hope to get me for the other one. THE EXTORTION ISSUE IS BOGUS IF YOU’RE ROUTINELY ACCEPTING MONEY FROM THOSE YOU HAVE SEX WITH. IT’S MONEY FOR SEX.

 

Question 1: What if it is not the older guy that brings up the "buying my silence" part, but it was me instead, after the sex. Is that extortion in any/all US jurisdictions?

Question 2: What if I bring up the hush agreement before the sex? Does that change anything? NOT IN YOUR CASE BECAUSE YOU ROUNTIELY CHARGE FOR YOUR SERVICES. ON THE OTHER HAND, MR. TRUMP’S WOMEN (AS FAR AS WE KNOW) WEREN’T CHARGING. THEY WERE HAVING SEX WITH A POWERFUL MAN WHO CAN MAKE THEM SIGN A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT TO KEEP THEM FROM DAMAGING HIS INTERESTS. NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT – EXCEPT WHERE THERE MAY BE A POTENTIAL VIOLATION OF CAMPAIGN FINANCING LAWS, BUT TIME WILL TELL ON THAT POINT. I feel it shouldn't, because bringing it up afterwards is more dishonest than bringing it up beforehand. Beforehand means at least the older guy can back out.

 

Question 4: Would a rational and logical judge accept the claim from the prosecutor that all these people were "thinking" of doing prostitution, even though we all claim the opposite, we verbally agreed on the payment for the hush agreement only, and there was no witness to prove that we said anything of the contrary? Basically, what is the criteria in criminal court for knowing what someone was thinking when there are 2 possibilities? Do the police need to provide material evidence, or it is ok for the judge to claim to be a mind reader?

I am not from the US, and I don't claim to know the law, but I do claim to be able to reason. AGAIN, IMMAGINE YOU’RE ON A JURY AND THE EVIDENCE IS THAT THIS YOUNG GUY FUCKS OLDER MEN AND GETS MONEY AFTERWARD OR BEFOREHAND. THE YOUNG GUY CAN COME UP WITH ALL SORTS OF THEORIES, BUT JURIES OFTEN LOOK AT FACTS AND APPLY LOGIC. MY BET IS THAT THEY’D SAY “NICE TRY WITH TH BOGUS ARGUMENTS, BUT WE KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON -- GUILTY AS CHARGED.”

[+ Tarte Gogo]

SOME COMMENTS FOR YOU IN ALL CAPS

Statement 1: Having sex with many, many older men is not illegal, as long as I am 18 and regardless of their age. IF THOSE GUYS ARE PAYING YOU FOR SEX IT’S PROSTITUTION SO IT’S ILLEGAL IN MOST STATES.

 

Statement 2: I am protected by the first amendment to talk about each encounter as long as I don't lie. The number of "outings" I am allowed to make is not restricted by law. YES YOU CAN TALK ABOUT IT. YOUR REASONING ISN’T ENTIRELY CORRECT, BUT I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO WHEN AND WHY THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES OR DOESN’T APPLY.

 

Statement 3: Each of these men is legally allowed to buy my silence individually, if and only if they want to. No extortion, they don't have to buy my silence. But if they don't buy my silence, I am allowed to speak to anyone who will listen about it. THEY CAN MAKE A CONTRACT WITH YOU AND PAY YOU $130,000 OR WHATEVER. IF YOU WEREN’T PAID FOR SEX (AS IN THE CASE OF TRUMP AND STORMY) THE CONTRACT IS ENFORCEABLE. BUT IF YOU’RE GETTING PAID, IT’S PROSTITUTION AND THE CONTRACT WOULD LIKELY BE UNEFORCEABLE. THE LAW/PUBLIC POLICY DOESN’T ALLOW A PERSON COMMITTING A CRIME TO ENTER INTO SUCH A CONTRACT AND BE ABLE TO ENFORCE IT. NO DIFFERENT THAN IF YOUR CLIENT COMMITTED A MURDER AND WANTED YOU TO KEEP QUIET. HE CAN PAY YOU A MILLION DOLLARS AND THE COURT WOULD STILL SAY IT’S UNENFORECABLE.

 

Now, please assume we are dealing with a rational and logical, highly competent judge that just tries to apply the law to the facts brought to him by the police. All the police brings is that

A) I had sex many, many times, and each time I received some money. PRETTY GOOD EVIDENCE OF PROSTITUTION

B) All my clients (who are rational beings and not stupid) explain that they paid me to keep quiet, not to have sex. IF YOU’RE GETTING PAID EACH TIME I BET THE JURY WILL AGREE THAT YOU’RE A PROSTITUTE.

 

The prosecutor is accusing me of both extortion and prostitution, in case one fails, then he hope to get me for the other one. THE EXTORTION ISSUE IS BOGUS IF YOU’RE ROUTINELY ACCEPTING MONEY FROM THOSE YOU HAVE SEX WITH. IT’S MONEY FOR SEX.

 

Question 1: What if it is not the older guy that brings up the "buying my silence" part, but it was me instead, after the sex. Is that extortion in any/all US jurisdictions?

Question 2: What if I bring up the hush agreement before the sex? Does that change anything? NOT IN YOUR CASE BECAUSE YOU ROUNTIELY CHARGE FOR YOUR SERVICES. ON THE OTHER HAND, MR. TRUMP’S WOMEN (AS FAR AS WE KNOW) WEREN’T CHARGING. THEY WERE HAVING SEX WITH A POWERFUL MAN WHO CAN MAKE THEM SIGN A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT TO KEEP THEM FROM DAMAGING HIS INTERESTS. NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT – EXCEPT WHERE THERE MAY BE A POTENTIAL VIOLATION OF CAMPAIGN FINANCING LAWS, BUT TIME WILL TELL ON THAT POINT. I feel it shouldn't, because bringing it up afterwards is more dishonest than bringing it up beforehand. Beforehand means at least the older guy can back out.

 

Question 4: Would a rational and logical judge accept the claim from the prosecutor that all these people were "thinking" of doing prostitution, even though we all claim the opposite, we verbally agreed on the payment for the hush agreement only, and there was no witness to prove that we said anything of the contrary? Basically, what is the criteria in criminal court for knowing what someone was thinking when there are 2 possibilities? Do the police need to provide material evidence, or it is ok for the judge to claim to be a mind reader?

I am not from the US, and I don't claim to know the law, but I do claim to be able to reason. AGAIN, IMMAGINE YOU’RE ON A JURY AND THE EVIDENCE IS THAT THIS YOUNG GUY FUCKS OLDER MEN AND GETS MONEY AFTERWARD OR BEFOREHAND. THE YOUNG GUY CAN COME UP WITH ALL SORTS OF THEORIES, BUT JURIES OFTEN LOOK AT FACTS AND APPLY LOGIC. MY BET IS THAT THEY’D SAY “NICE TRY WITH TH BOGUS ARGUMENTS, BUT WE KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON -- GUILTY AS CHARGED.”

Wow, the all caps was intense, I felt I was being shouted at the whole time.

 

So in short the jury is allowed to claim that they read my mind.

 

@quoththeraven is right the only solution is to resolve the underlying issue. Decriminalise or legalise or both, or move to a better country.

Edited May 8, 2018 by Tarte Gogo

[+ Tarte Gogo]

I don't get this... you said you would do an NDA with a client so he pays for you not talking about the encounter and that would make it all legal. A contract has at the very least your full legal name (if not more). So how is it not giving more information than I do now? Because I certainly don't give out my full name to anyone .... just trying to understand the point you were trying to make...

Yes verbal contracts exists. And they don’t include everyone’s name. Every time you buy a coffee at Starbucks you enter a sales contract of goods (coffee) and services (making it right for you).

 

These rarely get disputed in court, because they are not important enough, but when they are disputed, they are still enforceable.

 

It is not what lawyers recommend though, for obvious reasons.

 

See here: https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-contracts-forms/what-contracts-are-required-to-be-in-writing.html

[+ StLouisOct]

Wow, the all caps was intense, I felt I was being shouted at the whole time.

 

So in short the jury is allowed to claim that they read my mind.

 

@quoththeraven is right the only solution is to resolve the underlying issue. Decriminalise or legalise or both, or move to a better country.

On the other hand, CAPS are a very good way to have the answer stand out from the pre-existing text. Sorry you felt yelled at.

[Guy Fawkes]

I felt the same way. Perhaps the use of "B" (Bold) would be less invasive.

 

On the other hand, CAPS are a very good way to have the answer stand out from the pre-existing text. Sorry you felt yelled at.

[+ Tarte Gogo]

I felt the same way. Perhaps the use of "B" (Bold) would be less invasive.

We also have colored text.

(Here I assume no users are reading on a monochrome screen :-))

[TruthBTold]

SOME COMMENTS FOR YOU IN ALL CAPS . . . .

Statement 3: Each of these men is legally allowed to buy my silence individually, if and only if they want to. No extortion, they don't have to buy my silence. But if they don't buy my silence, I am allowed to speak to anyone who will listen about it. THEY CAN MAKE A CONTRACT WITH YOU AND PAY YOU $130,000 OR WHATEVER. IF YOU WEREN’T PAID FOR SEX (AS IN THE CASE OF TRUMP AND STORMY) THE CONTRACT IS ENFORCEABLE. BUT IF YOU’RE GETTING PAID, IT’S PROSTITUTION AND THE CONTRACT WOULD LIKELY BE UNEFORCEABLE. THE LAW/PUBLIC POLICY DOESN’T ALLOW A PERSON COMMITTING A CRIME TO ENTER INTO SUCH A CONTRACT AND BE ABLE TO ENFORCE IT. NO DIFFERENT THAN IF YOUR CLIENT COMMITTED A MURDER AND WANTED YOU TO KEEP QUIET. HE CAN PAY YOU A MILLION DOLLARS AND THE COURT WOULD STILL SAY IT’S UNENFORECABLE. . . . .

 

"If you weren't paid for sex (as in the case of Trump and Stormy) the contract is enforceable . . ." I have always questioned this assumption. I have absolutely no evidence that there a payment for the sex but I have seen no discussion about a perusal of her bank records. Sure, there is a possibility that she was a youngish woman who wanted to have sex with an older gentleman but even in her interviews it does not sound like that.