Ask A Provider Anything

[TinMan]

Other than the QofL thread I referenced, where else has SysterJon stated his opinion on this case? The way I read his comment, he drew the distinction between the Washington and Texas statute.

Plus, if defendants accept a plea deal before going to trial, how do we know the charges will stand up in court?

[rosspfinkle]

This is a cool thread, thanks for doing it! I've always wondered how management at brothels treat the girls. Do they expect services for free? Are they abusive in anyway? How does the interview process work? Are you expected to provide a session to the owner as an interview?

[CompanionEstella]

Originally Posted by TheEccie214

Be prepared for his "I do this for a living" reply...he can't handle being wrong.

To be fair, he is not the only one who was wrong. Like I said earlier, the owner of the board had worked with many lawyers to ensure the board and the reviews on it were legal. LE went rogue with a new and unfair approach and so far no one has been able to stop them.

Originally Posted by TinMan

Other than the QofL thread I referenced, where else has SysterJon stated his opinion on this case? The way I read his comment, he drew the distinction between the Washington and Texas statute.

Plus, if defendants accept a plea deal before going to trial, how do we know the charges will stand up in court?

Initially, the defendants (in particular those who were only guilty of a few reviews) wanted to go to trial due to not being offered attractive plea deals and the fact that the law specifically says it is NOT supposed to be used on people exhibiting normal customer behavior. However, upon learning this, the prosecutors shut it down by threatening them with "sexual motivation enhancers" which would have added years to the time they were facing. Most of them folded at that point.

Last I heard, there was at least 1 pushing forward to trial. Unfortunately, that is what we need to stop this. One person brave enough to go to trial.

Originally Posted by rosspfinkle

This is a cool thread, thanks for doing it! I've always wondered how management at brothels treat the girls. Do they expect services for free? Are they abusive in anyway? How does the interview process work? Are you expected to provide a session to the owner as an interview?

I was treated very well at Hof owned brothels and very poorly at one that wasn't owned by him. No, you do not have to service any of the owners for free and there is no interview process.

[TinMan]

I guess that's my argument against stating that prosecuting johns based solely on reviews is a long term winning strategy, if indeed that was the only thing they have on some of these men. KC may have had some initial success, but once they're exposed to the court system I find it hard to believe it will stand up.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by CompanionEstella

I am 24 years old.

100 men have been charged with "promoting prostitution", a felony, and will be arraigned on 12/14. A press release will follow their arraignment. However, this article (while long) tells you everything you need to know about what's going on up there. It is very sad to see so many lives ruined over simply writing reviews of their favorite ladies.

http://reason.com/archives/2016/09/0...ex-trafficking

I think that Shyster Jon, being a lawyer, hangs his hat on the thinnest of threads to say it is not "solely" for writing reviews, but having read all the online material, I believe it is so close to being just for writing reviews that it should more than mildly alarm anyone who believes in free speech and the immunity the BackPage executives relied upon and ultimately used to successfully fight very similar actions.

I have never met the elements of the stated crime since I have not met in a bar or at a social with any member of this board, but if I were to ever be charged, I hope I have the balls to fight it. America needs hooker boards more than ever.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by TinMan

I guess that's my argument against stating that prosecuting johns based solely on reviews is a long term winning strategy, if indeed that was the only thing they have on some of these men. KC may have had some initial success, but once they're exposed to the court system I find it hard to believe it will stand up.

It will take guys with the guts to fight it and not accept coercive plea deals to actually expose it to the court system and shut that kind of shit down.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by CompanionEstella

To be fair, he is not the only one who was wrong. Like I said earlier, the owner of the board had worked with many lawyers to ensure the board and the reviews on it were legal. LE went rogue with a new and unfair approach and so far no one has been able to stop them.


Initially, the defendants (in particular those who were only guilty of a few reviews) wanted to go to trial due to not being offered attractive plea deals and the fact that the law specifically says it is NOT supposed to be used on people exhibiting normal customer behavior. However, upon learning this, the prosecutors shut it down by threatening them with "sexual motivation enhancers" which would have added years to the time they were facing. Most of them folded at that point.

Last I heard, there was at least 1 pushing forward to trial. Unfortunately, that is what we need to stop this. One person brave enough to go to trial.

Does this gentleman have a defense fund that people can contribute to to aid in his defense?

[CompanionEstella]

Originally Posted by DSK

I think that Shyster Jon, being a lawyer, hangs his hat on the thinnest of threads to say it is not "solely" for writing reviews, but having read all the online material, I believe it is so close to being just for writing reviews that it should more than mildly alarm anyone who believes in free speech and the immunity the BackPage executives relied upon and ultimately used to successfully fight very similar actions.

I have never met the elements of the stated crime since I have not met in a bar or at a social with any member of this board, but if I were to ever be charged, I hope I have the balls to fight it. America needs hooker boards more than ever.

There were indeed some people charged who did more than just write reviews so he may be referring to that group. There may be some confusion which arises over the fact that three different 'types' of people were charged with the same crime. They ranged from people who were actually "pimping" the ladies (albeit they were nice pimps) to people who just wrote a couple of reviews. All charged with the same crime. According to KCPD, writing a review is the same as pimping.

However, when Tahoe Ted (owner of TRB) accepted his plea deal, he was forced to write a confession. That confession went something along the lines of, "I confess to writing 3 reviews". So while the fact that he owned the board may have contributed to their going after him, the act of review writing is what they are claiming is illegal. Tahoe Ted later committed suicide but that didn't make the morally reprehensible King County Police Department from continuing their crusade.

As to your question regarding a defense fund to contribute to, I believe they are in the process of setting one up and I'll try to post it when there is a verified one up and running.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by CompanionEstella

There were indeed some people charged who did more than just write reviews so he may be referring to that group. There may be some confusion which arises over the fact that three different 'types' of people were charged with the same crime. They ranged from people who were actually "pimping" the ladies (albeit they were nice pimps) to people who just wrote a couple of reviews. All charged with the same crime. According to KCPD, writing a review is the same as pimping.

However, when Tahoe Ted (owner of TRB) accepted his plea deal, he was forced to write a confession. That confession went something along the lines of, "I confess to writing 3 reviews". So while the fact that he owned the board may have contributed to their going after him, the act of review writing is what they are claiming is illegal. Tahoe Ted later committed suicide but that didn't make the morally reprehensible King County Police Department from continuing their crusade.

As to your question regarding a defense fund to contribute to, I believe they are in the process of setting one up and I'll try to post it when there is a verified one up and running.

The most important distinction cited by ShysterJon is below:

'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."

Almost all reviews, except mine, meet that ridiculous criteria.

Looking forward to the link for the defense fund.

[TinMan]

What would be interesting, though, is if they could prove intent. All those things may have been byproducts, but I could see a defendant saying, "I didn't care about any of that. I just wanted the PA credit" (if that board had such a thing).

[DSK]

Originally Posted by TinMan

What would be interesting, though, is if they could prove intent. All those things may have been byproducts, but I could see a defendant saying, "I didn't care about any of that. I just wanted the PA credit" (if that board had such a thing).

I don't believe intent is an element of the crime. The cops (undercover) met with the johns to prove identity, I think. Such a face to face meeting would also establish intent, if done appropriately and relevant.

[ShysterJon]

Originally Posted by DSK

I don't believe intent is an element of the crime. The cops (undercover) met with the johns to prove identity, I think. Such a face to face meeting would also establish intent, if done appropriately and relevant.

This is just flat wrong. Intent is ALWAYS an element of a criminal offense, even when not explicitly stated within the statute, unless the offense is a strict liability offense, such as a municipal code violation. In Texas, for example, if the required mental state is not stated within the penal statute, criminal negligence is read into the statute as the mental state.

I don't think you understand what intent is. It's the mental state (mens rea) the state is required to prove to prove up a violation of a criminal law. Please don't opine on criminal laws unless you're educated and trained to do so. Thank you.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by ShysterJon

This is just flat wrong. Intent is ALWAYS an element of a criminal offense, even when not explicitly stated within the statute, unless the offense is a strict liability offense, such as a municipal code violation. In Texas, for example, if the required mental state is not stated within the penal statute, criminal negligence is read into the statute as the mental state.

I don't think you understand what intent is. It's the mental state (mens rea) the state is required to prove to prove up a violation of a criminal law. Please don't opine on criminal laws unless you're educated and trained to do so. Thank you.

I'm trained, please address the other points previous to that post concerning how writing a review meets the culpability for promotion of prostitution as ridiculously defined by the Sheriff and prosecutors in King's County in the State of Washington.

PENAL CODE

TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

CHAPTER 6. CULPABILITY GENERALLY

Sec. 6.01. REQUIREMENT OF VOLUNTARY ACT OR OMISSION. (a) A person commits an offense only if he voluntarily engages in conduct, including an act, an omission, or possession.
(b) Possession is a voluntary act if the possessor knowingly obtains or receives the thing possessed or is aware of his control of the thing for a sufficient time to permit him to terminate his control.
(c) A person who omits to perform an act does not commit an offense unless a law as defined by Section 1.07 provides that the omission is an offense or otherwise provides that he has a duty to perform the act.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, Sec. 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1975; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 3, Sec. 1, eff. Feb. 25, 1993; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 6.02. REQUIREMENT OF CULPABILITY. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person does not commit an offense unless he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence engages in conduct as the definition of the offense requires.
(b) If the definition of an offense does not prescribe a culpable mental state, a culpable mental state is nevertheless required unless the definition plainly dispenses with any mental element.
(c) If the definition of an offense does not prescribe a culpable mental state, but one is nevertheless required under Subsection (b), intent, knowledge, or recklessness suffices to establish criminal responsibility.
(d) Culpable mental states are classified according to relative degrees, from highest to lowest, as follows:
(1) intentional;
(2) knowing;
(3) reckless;
(4) criminal negligence.

[ShysterJon]

Originally Posted by DSK

I'm trained....

Then you were trained quite poorly.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by ShysterJon

Then you were trained quite poorly.

That may very well be.....please address the other points...