LE and Reviews

[Guest121212]

Originally Posted by enderwiggin

Seems like a helluva lot of work for a Class B misdemeanor.

I haven't seen / heard of a lady being charged only with a Class B in a LONG time in Missouri . . . they stack charges, prostitution is a class B misdemeanor - promoting prostitution in the third degree is a class D felony . . . 567.070. 1. A person commits the crime of promoting prostitution in the third degree if he knowingly promotes prostitution . . . did the lady run an advertisement? Boom - two charges, one felony.

Does the lady work doubles? Does she share an incall location or travel with another lady? Boom, another felony . . . 567.060. 1. A person commits the crime of promoting prostitution in the second degree if he knowingly promotes prostitution by managing, supervising, controlling or owning, either alone or in association with others, a house of prostitution or a prostitution business or enterprise involving prostitution activity by two or more prostitutes. 2. Promoting prostitution in the second degree is a class C felony.

Precedent in Missouri for supporting stacking the charges . . .(1981) A prostitute, if warranted by the particular facts and circumstances, can also be charged for the promotion of prostitution. State v. Linder (A.), 613 S.W.2d 918.

They take it a lot more seriously in KC . . and they're relentless. A little off topic, but I don't want the impression given that all a lady has to worry about is a misdemeanor . .

Kisses,

- Jackie

[Guest121212]

Originally Posted by Dstorm

Perhaps KC's Tech crimes unit is willing to go the extra mile for a bigger budget or bragging rights.

Talk about hitting the nail on the head . . . KC and surrounding Missouri jurisdictions are practically falling over themselves all chasing the million dollar Federal human trafficking grant money that is available . . . funny thing about that grant, it doesn't say how the funds have to be used specifically within the department - so throw enough resources (which in MO are already VERY limited in most jurisdictions) at it and find a few true instances of trafficking (which I find repugnant and I applaud when they yank someone promoting a lady against her will or promoting an underage female) and win the lottery . . . in the process, everyone pays the price with increased prosecutions and overzealous investigations.

Kisses,

- Jackie

[Guest121212]

Originally Posted by mca9276

Jackie,

"It is really this simple (this is how they did it to ASPD) - they take the time stamp on the review, contact the upstream ISP for a log of all IP addresses routed to that server or down that pipe at that specific time . . they wash those through a geotagged database and use other resources to narrow down to within usually four or five IP addresses that may have been responsible for the posting. They then contact those respective ISPs specific to those IP addresses they suspect and ask for subscriber information. They then look for someone with a prior or in a database on a watch list, etc. (client, provider, etc.) and then they drive to their house and knock on the door. Amazing what a gentleman will say when his child answers and Mommy is looking from behind the curtains while uniformed officers are on the lawn."

I'm not questioning your information, I'm just trying to understand the process.

The first question that comes to mind is why don't these review sites stop time stamping reviews? Instead of stamping the review as 01/10/2010 7:45pm, why not just stamp it with the date 01/10/2010? That would at least make it much more difficult to trace. Or even just have a policy of stamping it with the week that it was posted (01/03/2010 thru 01/09/2010). It sounds like the timestamping by the review site is the major problem here.

Another question is about the IP addresses that they narrow it down to. If me and 30 other people in Pittsburgh are viewing ECCIE at a certain time and someone else from Pittsburgh posts a review at that time then how would they know which of the 32 people posted that particular review unless they got the review site logs?

It seems like they wouldn't be able to narrow it down that much, wouldn't they have to question all 32 people? Even then they wouldn't know who posted the review unless the person confessed. Is that the key element, harassing clients in the hope that they will confess? It really seems like unless they contact the review web site and get their logs then there's no way to definitively identify the reviewer unless they confess.

It seems like a lot of legwork for LE and to identify 1 reviewer they would have to potentially embarrass 31 others in the process.

Like someone else pointed out, if the cops show up to question you just say nothing. It's your right and it's also the best thing you can do in that situation. I saw a lecture in a law class, part of it was given by a cop, he actually gave that same advice.

I agree that the timestamps should be changed, however, if they DO go after the Website's records and not just the upstream ISP's log files, they're still going to match you . .

Plus, please gentlemen, don't misunderstand me, I specifically stated this wasn't a common practice, just that it exists and that they've been known to do it . . yes, usually to support other charges or to follow a string of crumbs up the ladder to trafficking, drugs, racketeering, etc. My statement was "Do I believe it happens regularly, no. Does it happen, absolutely. Will they do this to support just one case hit or miss, no, probably not - but in support of a larger investigation, I've read discovery where they have done just as I have outlined."

What they look for in Platte County (which was in the report that was made public to a local alternative newspaper), are IP addresses of people already on paper or with a license plate that frequents certain areas or recorded at local hotels, motels etc.

MOST people (even though they claim to know their rights) just talk . . they don't (can't) just say NOTHING (pardon my English).

Kisses,

- Jackie

[Guest021010-2]

I never post a specific date nor time nor place of a session.
Without those details, is it possible to identify a specific event to measure against the statute as a crime?

But then, you may beat the rap, but you will not get out of the ride -- and life is never the same after they pick you up at home or at work --

So it would seem best to say nothing, and if they take you in, wait until your atty arrives to say anything. As I said, life is never the same. At that point it becomes about survival and damage control.

rr

[yardape]

Jackie's very much up to speed watching the bouncing ball, IMHO. The economic times we're living in drive institutional behavior as much as individual behavior. The gloves have a way of coming off when LE depts and prosecutors decide to chase new dollars, whatever it takes, wherever it leads. Politicians can come back at election time and brag about how much $ they returned to taxpayers apart from what they spent.

[Guest032514-1]

Keep in mind:
There is less than 10 ISP's in any given area.
LE does not do the search themselves. They plug the relevant info into a search warrant, serve the ISP's and the ISP's do the search.

Google DC Madam.

[DEAR_JOHN]

"Well officer, these reviews never happened. I was trying to keep my BCD and made up these stories."

[Guest121212]

Originally Posted by DEAR_JOHN

"Well officer, these reviews never happened. I was trying to keep my BCD and made up these stories."

[johnnybax]

Originally Posted by DEAR_JOHN

"Well officer, these reviews never happened. I was trying to keep my BCD and made up these stories."

Isn't there a disclaimer on the sign up page or somewhere when you login that states all reviews are fictional and for entertainment purposes only?

[AustinBusinessTraveler]

Originally Posted by DEAR_JOHN

"Well officer, these reviews never happened. I was trying to keep my BCD and made up these stories."

Wrong answer. The only thing worse than confessing to anything is to lie to the officers. That never plays well with judges, juries, or other officers. It puts anything and everything you say into question. The correct answer is simply:

"Officers, let me direct you to my attorney". Here's the catch... make sure you have an attorney. This is common sense for anyone. Call a local criminal defense attorney, set up a consultation and you can tell them you're just looking to build a relationship should anything happen. Hell, put a small retainer on hand with them (500 or 1000) bucks so you have attorney-client confidentiality and explain exactly what you are doing.

This way, should you ever be asked about questioning, you really do have an attorney whom you have at least met. This isn't just advice for the hobby, everyone should have an attorney.

[Dstorm]

Dont even admit you are "johnnybax", it's their burden to prove. You dont have to explain anything or answer any questions.
People, in an attempt to explain things (sometimes innocently), or minimize involvement or guilt, usually screw themselves with their words.
Even if you are well versed in interrogation techniques, the law etc. It's best not to attempt to explain anything.

[Guest121212]

Best advice I ever got . . . can be downloaded!

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/racialjusti...g_20090929.pdf. Print this out and keep it in your wallet . . .

Kisses,

- Jackie

[johnnybax]

Originally Posted by Dstorm

Dont even admit you are "johnnybax", it's their burden to prove. You dont have to explain anything or answer any questions.
People, in an attempt to explain things (sometimes innocently), or minimize involvement or guilt, usually screw themselves with their words.
Even if you are well versed in interrogation techniques, the law etc. It's best not to attempt to explain anything.

I would say one thing- gimme my lawyer!

[scottytaylor]

The law is the law ! And they can make and break the rules

[mpreviews]

Originally Posted by marco2007

I've been considering posting a couple of reviews about recent sessions and it occurred to me that there might be some danger in doing so. Isn't it possible for law enforcement to use reviews against the hobbyist and against the provider? We all know LE is lurking on the boards. The issue was really brought to light with the recent bust in Houston and subsequent postings on ASPD.

Any thoughts?

Well, I can tell you most LE won't go to the trouble to find the reviewer. I doubt there is even any info to give out. Even an IP so what, if that really bothers you there are programs that will change your IP, then you are safe.

Last remember when anyone writes a review it's for entertainment and none of it is real, only make believe. Hope that helps?