A public message to frontman667

[ShysterJon]

This forum is intended to exchange information on legal issues, mostly related to the hobby, with the intent to make members safer.

frontman667, I have recently browsed some of the numerous threads that you have posted here the past few months. It is obvious to even my casual reading that your posts in no way further the intent of this forum -- in fact, your ignorance of the law, lack of common sense, and obvious political agenda lead you to write posts full of misunderstandings, misinformation, and abjectly stupid advice. You are living proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

I'm sick of the drivel you post here. You're an idiot and I want you to stop shitting in my beloved legal forum. You may leave voluntarily or you may leave involuntarily with my figurative boot up your ass -- your choice.

To everybody else: Please do not encourage this fool's behavior by replying to his posts. Let's get him the fuck out of here so we can start talking intelligently about legal issues again.

[frontman667]

Just listen to ShyterJon. PLEASE IGNORE ME AND MY POSTING. I will go away after this posting because it is not worth it to argue with a crowd that cannot accept my information. I don't want to waste time arguing back and forth. It is NOT worth it.

ShysterJon is a better source of legal info for a crowd that cannot accept my info. I did not have this problem with other hobby boards. My conclusion is that my info is not for Texans for some reason. You will be better served with ShysterJon than by me. ShysterJon is your leader!!!

by frontman667

[Grouchy]

Uh, damn right Shyster John is our leader. And it's not just a Texas thing. You suck in Louisiana too.

[LNK]

Originally Posted by Grouchy

Uh, damn right Shyster John is our leader. And it's not just a Texas thing. You suck in Louisiana too.

And Nebraska.

Thanks SJ, I was basically ignoring the nutjob, but thanks for booting him out before someone got into trouble thinking they could "work the system" according to his cherry-picking/misreading/misinterpretations.

Would be nice if a mod could collect all his many ramblings into a single thread, since they all say approximately the same thing, and are worth a little less than what we paid for them.

[bigdaddyhm]

Thank you Shyster....well stated, best public message I have seen in a while. We appreciate you and your knowledge.

[frontman667]

I found a new home on conspiracy theories boards. I don't need to express myself on this board anymore since the crowd is not accepting me. In general, the conspiracy theorists accept me so far.

I don't recommend anyone to walk around thinking that you will not get arrested and charged with prostitution. Even though the laws are not written correctly, there is a loophole, or you interpret it differently than most people, you can be arrested and charged. I don't want anyone to based their decisions on my legal theories.

Goodbye forever!!!

[jframe2]

+1 to SJ.

[hotindallas]

Good God, THANK YOU, Shyster John. You said what I've been thinking all along, but it needed to come from you, a respected member who actually KNOWS the law.
:th umbup:

[LNK]

Originally Posted by frontman667

I found a new home on conspiracy theories boards. I don't need to express myself on this board anymore since the crowd is not accepting me. In general, the conspiracy theorists accept me so far.

You do realize who runs those boards, right? ijs.

I don't recommend anyone to walk around thinking that you will not get arrested and charged with prostitution. Even though the laws are not written correctly, there is a loophole, or you interpret it differently than most people, you can be arrested and charged. I don't want anyone to based their decisions on my legal theories.

The problem is, though, that you put your "legal theories" out there as if they might be legitimate. If you didn't want anyone to base their decisions on your "legal theories", why the fuck did you post them?

Goodbye forever!!![

Don't let the door hit you in the ass!

[Californiahobbyist1000]

I studied frontman667 posting. I want to congratulate him on his hard work. I went to the law library and research some of his stuff about state law. He is right on-on some of the stuff!!! Yes, his Lawrence v Texas legal theory on warrant may be far fetch.

The court cases he presented about mistress-lovers relationship is right on. That is what the judges said. ShysterJon CANNOT overrule what the judges said in case laws. When he said that Frontman667 stuff is _____________, he did NOT say what.


On the beginning of the state law book it said that the law is written in plain language. There is fair warning of criminal conduct. There are no hidden grammar rules or code words.

Yes, I can see how his interpretation of some of the prostitution laws especially Texas may be not as solid and may be far fetch. But his findings for California, Rhode Island, and New York prostitution laws requirements are right on. Yes, the words “another” and “other” makes a difference in communication. Also the word “return” makes a big difference.

I have been reviewing news article for this past week about prostitution sting. The police and the prosecutors are following Frontman667 advice. (To the best of my knowledge.) They are not reckless like they used to be. They will back the prostitution sting with complaints and warrant in one case. In the other case I examine, they went to bust an escort offering two girls special. If Frontman667 is absolutely WRONG, then they will do the usual. Now I don’t see they do sting mill operations in news articles like I used to because they have to follow the law.


Frontman667 never tries to claim that he is absolutely right. He wanted people to question the law. He said not to base your decision on thinking that you will not get arrested or charged with prostitution. He wants you to discuss these theories with your attorney or consider using it in pro se litigation, if you get caught. Frontman667 is reasonable in his political beliefs that indoor prostitution should be regulated by home business regulation. I believe his political beliefs.


I understand that ShysterJon want to protect his profession. But it was not only the attorneys that were reading the law wrong. Also police officers, prosecutors, judges, etc. did not read it correctly too. This just shows how adults don’t read in America and take action based on what they were told to.


If Hitler was alive and famous in America today and told police officers, prosecutors, judges, etc. to do prostitution sting, prosecute prostitution cases, or allow for prosecution of such cases, they will do it even if the evidence doesn’t meet the legal definition. Many of Americans will use the same excuse that the Nazi officers used; “I was following orders.” That is a dam shame.

It is a dam shame that this prostitution war have to lasted this long because adults don’t take time to read and study the law.


Yes, sometimes the experts don't see it or find the truth. Sometimes amateur finds things experts overlook. I am an amateur astronomer and it is known in my community that sometimes amateurs find stuff that professional astronomers miss.


I am lucky to live in California. Now I feel that 50 tons of bricks are lifted off my shoulders after studying Frontman667 postings on the other hobby board. I don’t have to live in fear with seeing a provider for companionship. I don’t have to live in fear that a provider snitch on me, or I am being spy on for doing something lawful.


I realize that if you live in TX or come here to hobby, you are fair game to get stung. So glad that I don't live in Texas.


Frontman667 is a hero that I will never forget. I want to show my support to him. Too bad he decided to leave forever.

[Californiahobbyist1000]

Originally Posted by ShysterJon

frontman667, I have recently browsed some of the numerous threads that you have posted here the past few months. It is obvious to even my casual reading that your posts in no way further the intent of this forum -- in fact, your ignorance of the law, lack of common sense, and obvious political agenda lead you to write posts full of misunderstandings, misinformation, and abjectly stupid advice. You are living proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
.

That is ShysterJon legal opinion. It is just like going to a doctor. One doctor said you have cancer, and the other said you don't.

If the law CANNOT be understand by the lay person, no one is responsible for a crime. The only one can be responsible is the person that graduated from law school.

Since ShysterJon gave his legal opinion, then I will say that "I don't understand the prostitution charges", to the judge. He confuse me more about the law. So how can I know what I am doing is legal or not. The legal system is based on something that cannot be found in a law library. Since I did not get fair warning, then it is no crime. ShysterJohn show me that the legal system can disregard legal research, court cases, and legal definitions by issuing an legal opinion on a man that done his legal research and back up his theories with law journal articles, court cases, legal dictionary definitions, and statutes.

I cannot understand the legal system that ShysterJon works for so how I am I responsible to such system.

He is not showing by court cases, legal definitions, or legal definition that Frontman667 is wrong. Frontman667 did his legal research.

The law is designed to be for the non-law school graduate. Yes, you need to go to law school to do certain legal work. But the understanding of the law doesn't take a law degree.

Frontman667 is NOT giving legal advice. He already said that the judges will have to decide some of the issues.

If you want to rebut frontman667, show some court cases or some legal definition in the law dictionary that he IS WRONG!!! Not based on the fact that he doesn't buy into the popular propaganda that all sex for money transaction is illegal except Nevada.

So what Frontman667 is WRONG. Let the judges decide that his legal theories are WRONG!! It doesn't harm to bring it up in a case. Frontman667 already said not to go around thinking that you will not get arrested or charged with prostitution.

Yes, I agree when frontman667 was wrong on a few points when he first began. But when he did more research, he came closer to understanding the law. He made less mistakes. He was not aware at first with the Cannon of Construction so he made the mistake of implying hidden meaning in the word "prostitution."

The court cases on mistress-lovers and social companionship are right on. His break down of state statutes and showing what it mean by breaking the wording down is right on. The OK and AL statutes are not for sure.

That is the lawmakers job to correct these mistakes. He have every right to bring up these mistakes. Do we have an open government in America with the First Amendment?

[LNK]

FFS. Welcome back, frontman667.

[Californiahobbyist1000]

I give credit to ShysterJon for making peace on this hobby board. It was getting out of control with the arguments and multiple threads. That what I thank ShysterJon for doing.

I think that ShysterJon should state that this is law as he understand as and this is how the law is enforced. There are grey areas of the law concerning this issue and needs to be decided by the courts. If frontman667 is wrong on an issue, then point it out by referring to a law book, journal article, legal definition, or court case. He can also rebuke frontman667 for arguing and starting new threads. I am fine with that. That is a better way than saying that Frontman667 is wrong. Grey areas and new discovery will exist in law. That why the legal system has litigation and courts. No two situation is alike.

Look what happen. The woman who agree to trade tickets for sex was let go. So most people understood the law differently than what the judges said on the appeals court.

http://bensalem.patch.com/groups/pol...-tickets-woman

[Californiahobbyist1000]

Jesus Christ was labeled as a nut because he teaches the law without being a Pharisees. His method was soo simple that they think that what he saying is not true. How can a man teach the law without ever stepping a foot into law school?

Apostle Paul was a son of a Pharisee so he got exposed to the law at an early age. Apostle Paul went to law school as an adult. His law professors taught him to insert the common propaganda into his reading of the law. So when he read the law, he thought that Jesus Christ is not the Messiah.

His reading of the law was totally off so he thought he was doing God’s will by persecuting Christians.

Jesus appeared to him. He finally woke up to the fact that he was blinded by the common propaganda of his day.

Paul was Israel’s top lawyer. He became the follower of a law professor who never step foot into a law school; Jesus Christ.

[ShysterJon]

Buh-bye.