Legal Discussions / Raids / Busts

**Nobecz** · 05-16-12 21:55

I'm curious: How many times have you had to draw your piece or draw on martial arts to defend yourself from attack? And of those instances, how many could have been diffused without force, if force weren't the first option? I'm a relatively old guy, and I've never once been assaulted or in a situation where talking my way through it didn't work. Of course, the only criminals I frequent are the petty sort. Mostly tax cheats, who I consider friends, and purveyors of sex for cash, who I choose very carefully. And, I stay in great shape running, lifting, and bicycling. Which helps dissuade folks from mistaking me for an easy mark. Generally I view carrying heat like health. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Also, if you avoid criminals, what brings you to this board?

Originally Posted by AUniqueName [View Original Post]

One does not carry in order to go into a bad situation. One carries in order to try to get out of a bad situation.

There's no way to know what's going to happen when you leave the house, no matter what you're doing or where you're going. That's why I have emergency supplies in the truck. That's why I always strap on my cell phone and pistol when I leave the house. That's why I studied taekwondo. That's why I'm always scanning the surroundings as I go about my daily business. I'm quite confident in my ability to defend myself should the need arise. If you want to go through life as one of the sheep, that's your choice, but don't keep calling my decision to be prepared for what life throws at me "stupid."

You keep preaching "awareness and avoidance." Yeah, I'm aware Escorts are criminals, so I avoid Them. It's always best not to deal with the criminal element. And that Is much cheaper than either lawyers or funeral arrangements.

**Toytiger** · 05-16-12 09:33

Legal,

Whats the latest in the 1501 case? Any ruling on the "list" yet?

**AUniqueName** · 05-05-12 20:28

One does not carry in order to go into a bad situation. One carries in order to try to get out of a bad situation.

There's no way to know what's going to happen when you leave the house, no matter what you're doing or where you're going. That's why I have emergency supplies in the truck. That's why I always strap on my cell phone and pistol when I leave the house. That's why I studied taekwondo. That's why I'm always scanning the surroundings as I go about my daily business. I'm quite confident in my ability to defend myself should the need arise. If you want to go through life as one of the sheep, that's your choice, but don't keep calling my decision to be prepared for what life throws at me "stupid."

You keep preaching "awareness and avoidance." Yeah, I'm aware Escorts are criminals, so I avoid Them. It's always best not to deal with the criminal element. And that Is much cheaper than either lawyers or funeral arrangements.

Originally Posted by Kyowa [View Original Post]

You have my reply in p'm' but you're welcome to copy_&_paste it here if you'd like to discuss it further on the public forum?

My main point: why would anyone choose to deliberately go into ANY situation that has a very high probability of ending badly for him (in any of several ways: including getting his gun stolen from him, & maybe even being killed himself) just because he is carrying his pistol with him?

Awareness & Avoidance are much cheaper & much more discreet than hiring Attorneys!

Play safeR & stay safe; sincerely: A K.

**Sunycide** · 05-05-12 11:08

Originally Posted by Kyowa [View Original Post]

You have my reply in p'm' but you're welcome to copy_&_paste it here if you'd like to discuss it further on the public forum?

My main point: why would anyone choose to deliberately go into ANY situation that has a very high probability of ending badly for him (in any of several ways: including getting his gun stolen from him, & maybe even being killed himself) just because he is carrying his pistol with him?

Awareness & Avoidance are much cheaper & much more discreet than hiring Attorneys!

Play safeR & stay safe; sincerely: A K.

If you knew you were walking into a bad situation, you wouldn't go. If I knew I was going to have a car wreck on Tuesday, I wouldn't drive.

Sometimes you can't foresee walking into a train wreck. Being prepared for anything isn't a crime. How you choose to react to it can be (which is your point I believe) , but being prepared is not.

**Kyowa** · 05-05-12 02:26

You have my reply in p'm' but you're welcome to copy_&_paste it here if you'd like to discuss it further on the public forum?

My main point: why would anyone choose to deliberately go into ANY situation that has a very high probability of ending badly for him (in any of several ways: including getting his gun stolen from him, & maybe even being killed himself) just because he is carrying his pistol with him?

Awareness & Avoidance are much cheaper & much more discreet than hiring Attorneys!

Play safeR & stay safe; sincerely: A K.

Originally Posted by AUniqueName [View Original Post]

http://www.usasexguide.info/forum/sh...=1#post1440534

Just in case it goes any further. Beats being dead. There's obviously no argument to be made against anything you said, but still. It beats being dead.

**AUniqueName** · 05-04-12 18:57

Continued from.

http://www.usasexguide.info/forum/sh...=1#post1440534

Just in case it goes any further.

Originally Posted by Kyowa [View Original Post]

carrying a gun could get You arrested & charged with 1 or more serious Felonies,

Beats being dead. There's obviously no argument to be made against anything you said, but still. It beats being dead.

**Legal Eagle** · 03-10-12 13:56

Originally Posted by MissFancy [View Original Post]

[I KNOW]Who owned the places because I worked there. I know my employers. I took the time last night to read your posts and it's obvious why you are on here. I got on here to put the truth out. Since I was in the business I know from first hand experience. While I was working several law enforcement guys were customers believe or not I have continued that relationship with some and know what I am talking about and not frivolously spewing inaccurate information. I had a personal interest in knowing whether what you were saying was true. It's not.

T sat in the office most days with us and other than the one he dated he never had relations with any of us. He would regularly get calls from other providers wanting to work at the stadium.

Put up or shut up. Show some proof. The other owners and workers have been arrested, if there was proof as you say, he would be too. You argue that you are not involved with the case so how do you know what proof they have? Being a excellent provider as I was we have ways of getting to the real information and I know that they are not concerned about him.

As the other guy said on here about T calling so what? He might be a monger just like you. I guarantee providers aren't turning him away. They will see anyone with a pocket full of money.

Again mongers it is clear there is an agenda with these guys. Legal even threatened T's kids on here. What kind of person does that? They are little kids. Do I have an agenda? Yes. I'm thinking of getting back in the business and want to set the record straight. I have no reason to move to another site because I won't continue to argue with this "man".

Let us approach this discussion operating on two basic assumptions, Miss Fancy:

1. You are who and what you claim to be: a former provider who has worked with The Troy, and.

2. The information you obtained is from law enforcement and from providers at both the stadium and the former 1501 locations.

It would be simple, exceptionally so, to dissect what you have stated and explain how and where you are wrong in your assertions, Miss Fancy. Rather than doing that, I would pose a couple of questions and await your response. If I am wrong in my assertions about The Troy's business relationship with Deleon:

1. Why did information about their business relationship turn up during the interviews of people associated with the My1501 investigation?

2. What is the motive of the former 1501 girls to lie about Troy's antics?

3. Why did the media think this information important enough to reference in their news coverage?

If you begin your recitation with a rejection of the idea that "T" and the "Troy" referred to in the article are two different people, you will instantly lose credibility, Miss Fancy. There is not a single rational, intelligent hobbyist on this board that believes this to be the case. There is far too much evidence supporting the common identity of the two. If you have read the various posts about Troy's personal relationship with Deleon, you understand and accept this to be the case. The "Troy" described in the article is your "T." Whether you accept the assertions made against him as true is a separate matter.

My final question is this, Miss Fancy. We have all had friends surprise us with their hidden conduct. We initially defend them, but privately look to see whether accusations made against them have any merit. Sometimes they are vindicated, and sometimes they stand convicted. Either way, we still hold them out as friends. Defending them is one thing. Covering for them is something altogether different. Your attack against me is personal, Miss Fancy; on the same level as that of The Troy himself.

4. If you and "T" are simply friends and co-workers, why is it so important to you that the information surfacing about him be wrong?

**Ralphisit** · 02-16-12 18:57

Marisa's court date was Valentine's Day, did anyone hear any news? Valentine's Day, was that planned?

**Doctor Z** · 02-16-12 06:52

You mean those chicks are still saying they not guilty? Whats that about?

**Legal Eagle** · 02-13-12 04:01

Originally Posted by Ralphisit [View Original Post]

Just stumbled onto this on some weird blog."here's the status of the wimmens' cases: Marisa R. Requested a PD. But denied. Set for PTC on valentines day. Kristen N, and Donna L, PTC on March 7 Abigail P. Case pending. Ivan D. And Jeana K. Have no charges." and down the thread was this:Though I comment from time to time as 'The Dalai let me, ' for the amusement of my friends, I am a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney in Clark County. My name is Matthew let me. I invite any interested person to check the link above. There are rules of professional conduct for all attorneys and some that are particular to prosecutors. If a person were charged with a single offense and were found to be in possession of a list of names, it may invite suspicion that the named persons participated in some criminal activity. If a person was charged with trafficking drugs, a list of names would might be seen as drug users. With 100 names on the list, it might suggest that the person charged with a single incident of drug dealing had actually committed 100 crimes. I believe it would be improper for a prosecutor to release such information as it would be viewed as a statement as to the character of the accused that is not permitted under the rules. It's not permitted, because it's not fair. Evidence of the credibility and reliability of the list would have to be established before it would be admissible as evidence in court. It is certainly improper for a prosecutor to take information that he or she knows to be inadmissible at trial, and release it to the media.

There is no way for any person to prevent themselves from being placed on someone's 'list. ' If one's true name (not a made up alias or screen name) is on such a list, where can they go to get their reputation back? Where can they go and clear their name? All that is left is 'blog justice. ' For a Prosecutor to lend the credibility of the authority of his office by providing a list suggesting criminal acts on the part of uncharged persons is wrong on its face.

Releasing any 'list, ' (I have never seen such a list) without evidentiary support, would be unfair to persons charged and unfair to persons named.

All persons charged are presumed to be innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.

As an initial matter, it is unlikely the prosecutor on the case engaged in extra-judicial commentary on a blog post. The typical response-other than to established news agencies-is "no comment." These are not the words of the assigned prosecutor.

Furthermore, the list itself is hearsay without supporting testimony. It would never be used absent witness corroboration, and would only be offered into evidence during a court hearing. A prosecutor would not take the time to explain the improprieties and consequences of a circumstance (leaking potential evidence) that would never occur in the first place. Consider how and why the comment was posted and that will give you some idea of who is behind its publication.

**Varoom** · 02-12-12 14:31

Originally Posted by GreatCatHunter [View Original Post]

I wondered why she even came forward, its not liked he murdered or raped anyone.

She was in the county jail last spring or summer. Reading the local county paper, she spots the picture of this dude she knows as "Mike". Upon reading further she realizes that "Mike" is really named AW, and on top of that a County Commissioner. So the witch decided to try to reduce her sentence or affect the outcome of her case, not sure. Several months later (Sept-Oct 2011) she introduces him to another gal, who is a local dancer and provider. This gal wears the wire and sets him up with a recorded session with LE for a narcotic exchange for sex. The actual sexual meeting didn't happen but the recording of enough evidence did, plus "mike" got suspicious and called off the deal, but had already provided some substance to the provider. Busted. The identity of girl # 2 has not yet surfaced, but it will.

I look for these two gals to head out of Cincy, somewhere like the ville, Indy or Lex, so be on your toes.

**GreatCatHunter** · 02-09-12 23:04

Originally Posted by Ralphisit [View Original Post]

Talk about talking too much.

http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/AB...es?odyssey=tab

|topnews|text|News

I wondered why she even came forward, its not liked he murdered or raped anyone.

**Ralphisit** · 02-09-12 18:37

Talk about talking too much. http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/AB...es?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|News

**Ralphisit** · 02-05-12 23:55

Just stumbled onto this on some weird blog."here's the status of the wimmens' cases: Marisa R. Requested a PD. But denied. Set for PTC on valentines day. Kristen N, and Donna L, PTC on March 7 Abigail P. Case pending. Ivan D. And Jeana K. Have no charges." and down the thread was this:Though I comment from time to time as 'The Dalai let me, ' for the amusement of my friends, I am a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney in Clark County. My name is Matthew let me. I invite any interested person to check the link above. There are rules of professional conduct for all attorneys and some that are particular to prosecutors. If a person were charged with a single offense and were found to be in possession of a list of names, it may invite suspicion that the named persons participated in some criminal activity. If a person was charged with trafficking drugs, a list of names would might be seen as drug users. With 100 names on the list, it might suggest that the person charged with a single incident of drug dealing had actually committed 100 crimes. I believe it would be improper for a prosecutor to release such information as it would be viewed as a statement as to the character of the accused that is not permitted under the rules. It's not permitted, because it's not fair. Evidence of the credibility and reliability of the list would have to be established before it would be admissible as evidence in court. It is certainly improper for a prosecutor to take information that he or she knows to be inadmissible at trial, and release it to the media.

There is no way for any person to prevent themselves from being placed on someone's 'list. ' If one's true name (not a made up alias or screen name) is on such a list, where can they go to get their reputation back? Where can they go and clear their name? All that is left is 'blog justice. ' For a Prosecutor to lend the credibility of the authority of his office by providing a list suggesting criminal acts on the part of uncharged persons is wrong on its face.

Releasing any 'list, ' (I have never seen such a list) without evidentiary support, would be unfair to persons charged and unfair to persons named.

All persons charged are presumed to be innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.

**Legal Eagle** · 01-07-12 05:19

A quick status check of the cases indicates that all the defendants are set for a court review on January 19, 2012. Perry's case has not been indicted, so it appears that she may resolve her action along with the remaining co-defendants. This is a positive development in so far as it suggests that the cases may be settled without a trial.