Ask A Provider Anything

[ElBombero]

Originally Posted by CompanionEstella

A person should always have a right to know the risks of something before they do it. My position is that clients should understand the risks and make their own decision. I do not have a no-review policy, I have a "do whatever you want, at your own risk" policy.

Thanks for helping us stay safe. We're all too stupid to understand the risks without information like this.

[CompanionEstella]

Originally Posted by TinMan

Estella, I'm just getting back into that story after not following it for awhile. The guys that pled to felonies appear to be members of the League. The cops had a lot more on them than simply writing reviews. They were at social gatherings with undercover cops, etc.

It does look like a fresh batch of charges have been filed against another group of guys. It's not clear to me yet what the details are behind those charges...they may be the review writers to which you are referring.

Many people were charged in this.

A few were charged with promotion of prostitution in the way the law was intended to be used: For running K-girl agencies and operating as pimps. Though, by all accounts, the K-girls were treated very well and were very happy. . .it is still illegal to live off of the proceeds of prostitution so those folks were properly charged and not treated unfairly. They were charged with promotion of prostitution and plead to felonies.

A few were charged with promotion of prostitution because of some of their actions within the League like promoting K-girls and attending meetings, etc. They were charged with promotion of prostitution and almost all (with the exception of about 2) have plead to felonies. Those two have still not been offered a misdemeanor and are going forward to trial.

Here is the important part: Many were charged with promotion of prostitution without ever attending a meeting on the basis of review writing alone. This includes the 911 operator who was charged with the same felony despite the fact that he never posted the review he wrote! This is the man that later pled to a misdemeanor. All others were forced to plea to felonies. They were never offered misdemeanor pleas.

The latest batch appears to be purely review writers charged again with felonies. If they actually posted the reviews they wrote, they are likely to be offered the same felony plea deals everyone else was. My client is a member of this new batch and he was charged with felony promotion of prostitution because he wrote three non-explicit reviews three years ago.

I was surprised to hear there was only 12 in this batch as I heard from a reliable source there was 100 more to come. (Anyone who doubts me can refer to posts I made a few days ago alluding to more surfacing on December 14th. I'm not a psychic so I must know something, right?)

This means that at least 88 more people will be dragged into this and they don't know it yet. I just want everyone to know what really happened because of the pure, vitriolic lies LE told in the media and the fact that I have some knowledge of the legal system and know this is likely to happen again.

Everyone here is an adult and can make their own decisions. But they have the right to know the truth and the risks they are taking before they make that decision. That's all.

[TinMan]

I guess I have to dig farther to find that last group. So far the articles I've found only reference the first two groups, and the newly charged.

Has this case been a topic of discussion in any of the other eccie forums? I'm particularly interested in the analysis of folks like Shyster Jon. He in particular has a lot of experience in Texas case law as it relates to the hobby.

[TheEccie214]

Originally Posted by Shep3.0

theeccie214 has 2 felonies
tinman has 84 felonies
chicagoboy is only one that is innocent. :/

I will never engage in pillow talk with you again, I thought that conversation was private. If we're sharing pillow talk everyone should know Shep has a major addiction to the tv show Glee. Watching the show repeatedly from his DVD collection and the music on his iPhone.

[TinMan]

Here's a short discussion of the Washington case in the Question of Legality forum.

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1837284

Might be interesting to see if any opinions have changed after a few more months. It appears that the "advancing of prostitution" provision of the Washington state code is broader than similar statutes in other states.

[CompanionEstella]

Originally Posted by TinMan

Here's a short discussion of the Washington case in the Question of Legality forum.

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1837284

Might be interesting to see if any opinions have changed after a few more months. It appears that the "advancing of prostitution" provision of the Washington state code is broader than similar statutes in other states.

The owner of TRB (who has committed suicide over the trauma over being charged over writing three reviews) was in frequent contact with top lawyers and shut the board down several times in order to make sure that it (and the reviews on it) would be legal in the opinions of the lawyers. NO, he was not charged for owning the board. He was charged for writing 3 reviews on it and specifically wrote that in his confession for the plea.

The lawyers held the same opinion as Shyster John that the board and the reviews on it were legal and could not be prosecuted but that did not stop LE.

The Washington state law actually specifies that customers cannot be charged under that statute if they are only guilty of "displaying normal customer behavior". I feel that writing reviews is normal customer behavior but that did not stop LE.

The Federal government has decided that the owners of websites cannot be held responsible for what third parties post on it but the owners of Backpage were arrested and charged. Luckily, that was thrown out. But do you have the money to afford the same legal team as Backpage?

You have to consider these things. That's all I'm saying.

[ElBombero]

Weren't there supposed to be a lot of indictments today? Any info on that?

[Sir Lancehernot]

Here's a pretty good recap from a libertarian point of view: http://reason.com/archives/2016/09/0...ex-trafficking

Though most will say TLDR, I find it fascinating in several areas.

[ElBombero]

Originally Posted by Sir Lancehernot

Here's a pretty good recap from a libertarian point of view: http://reason.com/archives/2016/09/0...ex-trafficking

Though most will say TLDR, I find it fascinating in several areas.

Thanks. That one was posted earlier. I was looking for an update on the actions that were supposed to have taken place today.

[CompanionEstella]

Originally Posted by ElBombero

Thanks. That one was posted earlier. I was looking for an update on the actions that were supposed to have taken place today.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/12/13/12...stitution-case

[chicagoboy]

Originally Posted by Shep3.0

theeccie214 has 2 felonies
tinman has 84 felonies
chicagoboy is only one that is innocent. :/

With this handle.

[TinMan]

Originally Posted by CompanionEstella

http://reason.com/blog/2016/12/13/12...stitution-case

That was from yesterday. The arraignment is today. Probably won't see anything before tomorrow.

[TinMan]

I posted the 12/13 blog link in the QofL thread I referenced earlier. That's more likely to get a diverse group of folks addressing the potential impact beyond the KC case than what we will get in this thread.

[CompanionEstella]

Originally Posted by TinMan

That was from yesterday. The arraignment is today. Probably won't see anything before tomorrow.

He was just being obnoxious and trying to imply that I was wrong about the arraignment happening today when I posted about it several days ago. That article proves him wrong so he should pipe down now.

[TinMan]

Ah. Sorry I missed the point.

I'm not sure I'm at the level of "very concerned" about this case, but I do appreciate you pressing it in this thread since I had tuned it out after reading about the League. I'd like to see more discussion, as awareness (not panic) is important to all of us.