Security Reminders from the Perpetual Nag, ShysterJon

[ShysterJon]

Originally Posted by dietcokehead

Goddamn it!

I'm just starting out in this fucking hobby shit, and what you are saying should be obvious, but I messed up today. I just booked with a provider and did exactly what you said not to do through a PM (after asking her if it was OK). It wasn't even that important, but should I just cancel now for my safety?

It's up to you. I expressed my views regarding the law. It's up to you to apply my views to your particular situation.

btw, if you're going to hobby, you might consider having an attorney on retainer to ask questions and get answers quickly.

[grean]

Originally Posted by ShysterJon

I said don't discuss sex acts or money. You're asking me if it's okay to discuss sex acts but not money. What do you think my answer is? btw, if you ask me if it's okay to discuss money but not sex acts, my answer would be the same.

Homework: Look up the definition of "or."

The method of communication is irrelevant. If you're thinking about asking me if you used two paper cups and string, my answer would be the same. If you spoke in Russian, my answer would be the same. If you danced the twist while discussing specific sex acts or money, my answer would be the same.

Ha!

So IMs here are not thought of the same way reviews are?

A review could be used against you, but like you said in your "can a review be used against you" post, unless you admit you were the person who posted that review, it would be hard to.

If you take out the phone all together and just "show up".

Unless you talk about sex acts or money then, don't they still have to tie you back to the IM?

When they say you are Shyster Jon, don't you say " I am who?"

Wasn't me....

Red Flag. Turn around and walk if one party started talking about money or acts after TCB was completed online.

[ShysterJon]

grean, you're mixing apples and oranges. This thread is about communications before a provider-hobbyist encounter takes place where the concern is the provider or hobbyist COULD BE A COP. A review is a hobbyist's after-the-fact account of his encounter with a provider who was probably not an undercover cop. Why do I assume that? THE HOBBYIST WASN'T ARRESTED. I've never heard of a case in the history of the universe where LE read a "fantasy review" of a provider-hobbyist encounter and decided to bust one or both participants based merely on the review.

To further clarify: It's not that a hobbyist IMs "I want a blowjob" and the cops bust down his door; rather, it's the hobbyist who IMs "I want a blowjob" then goes to a hotel room and meets with an undercover faux hooker. He enters the room with flowers and candy in his hands. He exits the room with cuffs on his wrists.

[CompanionEstella]

Originally Posted by ShysterJon

grean, you're mixing apples and oranges. This thread is about communications before a provider-hobbyist encounter takes place where the concern is the provider or hobbyist COULD BE A COP. A review is a hobbyist's after-the-fact account of his encounter with a provider who was probably not an undercover cop. Why do I assume that? THE HOBBYIST WASN'T ARRESTED. I've never heard of a case in the history of the universe where LE read a "fantasy review" of a provider-hobbyist encounter and decided to bust one or both participants based merely on the review.

To further clarify: It's not that a hobbyist IMs "I want a blowjob" and the cops bust down his door; rather, it's the hobbyist who IMs "I want a blowjob" then goes to a hotel room and meets with an undercover faux hooker. He enters the room with flowers and candy in his hands. He exits the room with cuffs on his wrists.

I'm sorry but I'm a little concerned at your statement that you haven't heard of LE busting clients for writing the review. In Seattle, where I am from, they are charging hobbyists with FELONIES for review writing!

They are saying that writing a review (regardless of whether it is fantasy or true) is PROMOTING the lady involved and that they are therefore guilty of "promoting prostitution", a FELONY.

In most of the cases, the clients were not allowed to plea to misdemeanors and had to plea to reduced felony charges. One man committed suicide over the charges. All of this was over simple review writing and nothing else. And they are still rounding up people and charging them years later, even if they only wrote 1 or 2 reviews a few years ago.

Given the success LE has had with this method with no consequence for their despicable behavior, I cannot imagine what would stop Texas LE from following a similar path and charging Eccie members with FELONIES for review writing.

I am indifferent with review writing since I am not affected by it. However, I believe all clients should be aware of what they are risking when writing a review.

[NeilPeart]

Many thanks ShysterJon... Valuable information to help keep everyone safe...

[grean]

How difficult is it for LE to aquire a warrent or what ever they need to force eccie to hand over the account info and other data requested to track down the person behind the handle?

[ShysterJon]

Originally Posted by grean

How difficult is it for LE to aquire a warrent or what ever they need to force eccie to hand over the account info and other data requested to track down the person behind the handle?

That's not really the topic of this thread. If you'd like, you may start a new thread and ask your question. But chances are no one from Eccie will answer. The Laws read posts on Eccie, too.

[LoveNHorny]

Good to see you still grinding things out Jon. But damn, you must be slowing down for the holidays; I haven't seen you type this much since I-can't-fuking-remember-how-long.

Hope things are going well. Thanks for the contribution.

[gladius82]

SCSCHOLAR....the best way is to look at reviews to see what services other clients received. If you can't find a well reviewed girl you are taking a chance anyway.

[ShysterJon]

ShysterJon says: "I've never heard of a case in the history of the universe where LE read a 'fantasy review' of a provider-hobbyist encounter and decided to bust one or both participants based merely on the review."

CompanionEstella says: "[ShysterJon,] I'm sorry but I'm a little concerned at your statement that you haven't heard of LE busting clients for writing the review. In Seattle, where I am from, they are charging hobbyists with FELONIES for review writing!.... All of this was over simple review writing and nothing else."

Who's right?

I'm familiar with the TheReviewBoard.net busts in Seattle from reading news articles and articles in professional journals. Is CompanionEstella right that the arrests were based ONLY on writing reviews? No, she's not:

1. The hobbyists began meeting in bars to discuss providers.
2. The hobbyists formed a group called 'The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.'
3. "The men wrote glowing reviews to draw customers to their favorite women. That kept the women in town longer and encouraged the seven agencies supplying the women to send new prospects their way."
4. "'So they were really operating as pimps,' said Valiant Richey, a senior deputy prosecuting attorney for King County and one of the lead attorneys on the case. 'They're charged with promoting prostitution because they expanded the market, they facilitated visits to these women, they connected new buyers to the women and helped with the screening process." (Emphasis added.)
5. "Instead of charging the 16 league members with buying sex, a misdemeanor, they were charged with promoting prostitution — a felony."

See: Sasha Aslanian, "Battle against sex trafficking turns to prostitution review sites," Marketplace, September 16, 2016.

Moreover, 'The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen' drew the attention of LE because the providers involved were Korean nationals working in AMPs, and there were allegations of sexual slavery.

See: Amy Clancy, "Microsoft director, former Amazon director charged in prostitution sting," KIRO, May 13, 2016.

So, you see, there is no comparison to what the members of 'The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen' did in Seattle – pimping – to an individual writing a review on Eccie.

I stand by my statement.

[CompanionEstella]

Originally Posted by ShysterJon

ShysterJon says: "I've never heard of a case in the history of the universe where LE read a 'fantasy review' of a provider-hobbyist encounter and decided to bust one or both participants based merely on the review."

CompanionEstella says: "[ShysterJon,] I'm sorry but I'm a little concerned at your statement that you haven't heard of LE busting clients for writing the review. In Seattle, where I am from, they are charging hobbyists with FELONIES for review writing!.... All of this was over simple review writing and nothing else."

Who's right?

I'm familiar with the TheReviewBoard.net busts in Seattle from reading news articles and articles in professional journals. Is CompanionEstella right that the arrests were based ONLY on writing reviews? No, she's not:

1. The hobbyists began meeting in bars to discuss providers.
2. The hobbyists formed a group called 'The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.'
3. "The men wrote glowing reviews to draw customers to their favorite women. That kept the women in town longer and encouraged the seven agencies supplying the women to send new prospects their way."
4. "'So they were really operating as pimps,' said Valiant Richey, a senior deputy prosecuting attorney for King County and one of the lead attorneys on the case. 'They're charged with promoting prostitution because they expanded the market, they facilitated visits to these women, they connected new buyers to the women and helped with the screening process." (Emphasis added.)
5. "Instead of charging the 16 league members with buying sex, a misdemeanor, they were charged with promoting prostitution — a felony."

See: Sasha Aslanian, "Battle against sex trafficking turns to prostitution review sites," Marketplace, September 16, 2016.

Moreover, 'The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen' drew the attention of LE because the providers involved were Korean nationals working in AMPs, and there were allegations of sexual slavery.

See: Amy Clancy, "Microsoft director, former Amazon director charged in prostitution sting," KIRO, May 13, 2016.

So, you see, there is no comparison to what the members of 'The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen' did in Seattle – pimping – to an individual writing a review on Eccie.

I stand by my statement.

Hello,


I have a little more information than you are privy to on the incident and I also stand by my statement that dozens (if not hundreds) of men were charged based on review writing alone.

You received your information from an article you read where LE lies to the media in order to spin the truth. If you read the charging documents for many of the men involved, you will find that they were guilty of doing nothing other than writing reviews. Yes, some men joined the "League" and some men visited K-girls. However, many men did neither of those two things and were charged with felonies based off of review writing alone.

This quote:" they expanded the market, they facilitated visits to these women, they connected new buyers to the women and helped with the screening process" is a reference to review writing. They are using the very flawed logic that review writing expands the market, connects new buyers, and helps with the screening process.

100 more men will be arraigned for review writing on December 14th. More information on the men who have already been charged here: http://reason.com/archives/2016/09/0...ex-trafficking

[chicagoboy]

Corrected lincks:

The Truth About the Biggest U.S. Sex Trafficking Story of the Year

King County Sheriff Continues to Offer Distorted View of Seattle Sex Trafficking

[honeydavis]

Well said. I think everyone pretty much gets not talking about certain subjects. Actually following through is something most seem to have a problem with. If in doubt, just walk out.