Streetwalker Reports

[Missionary Man]

G Spot is unavailable. Fun girl. Good Head.

Missionary Man.

[Grain 56]

I ran into her today. First time I've seen her as well. I was on my way to an appointment so not enough time to partake but I talked with her a while. Ended up buying her a burger and fries from checkers and helping hey across the street where she said she needed to go. From my chat with her I think the loss of the leg was somewhat recent. She didn't have a phone but took my number and said she would text when she gets one. Very pretty eyes, face and nice smile. I will partake when time allows.

Agreed on the assessment that it's somewhat a recent event on Madison's leg loss. She wasn't too fluid with operating the chair. Also, it looks like the scars across the wound are still kind of puffy. I don't know too much about why she is out there alone, but she seemed timid and unsure of street life in general. She was crying a lot off and on when she would talk to people and ask for money. Not in a JoJo the Beggar kind of way. Just light tears and lots of eye wiping as she went around.

The guy that was acting as my liason while I was talking to her was continually having to reassure her she (and that talking to me) was going to be alright. I am going to go back out tomorrow and see if she is still around. I want to try to get her to my safest place. I have a teak shower chair to allow her to shower, plus she looks like she'd be easy to carry around if needed.

Grain 56.

P.S. What's up with all those giant concrete balls lining the 30's up to Holden, especially are the corners? Looks like a good way to F-Up a car if you run up on a curb or cut a corner too tight. A couple of them were already uprooted from cars or a semi turning the corner. Supposed to be for aesthetic purposes I guess.

[Gslvs69]

After a hour long session with a regular I have on speed dial, I took a quick pass by through the Norther Half of the Trail. The Teen-Streets & 20's Streets were about as usual. A few of the regular slags and a few of the normal regulars. I saw Sharday (again) and Sherri B both out. I hadn't seen Sherri out in a while.

In the 40's I saw a few, especially around the 7-11 including something that made me do a double-take and made me regret I had just spent a pretty active hour with another provider and was not ready to go for round 3 at this moment.

I saw a smaller Hispanic girl with frizzy hair in a Wheel Chair rolling around the 7-11 area. She was missing her left leg, just below the knee. My first though was it was Jenny, but I knew that Jenny is currently on Vacation from a couple of days ago and this girl was dressed too nice and much healthier looking to be Jenny. I didn't know if this was a possibility to partake or was just a coincidence of it being a civi out and about. I rolled up on her as she was passing behind the 7-11 and when I saw it wasn't Jenny, I said, "oh, I thought you were Jenny" & "do you know Jenny"? She said no and quickly turned her head and her wheel chair away and started leaving my vicinity quickly. I pulled into the DG and asked her again. She fled and was now looking like she was crying. I think I spooked her.

I hung back for a bit with a few passes and saw how she moved around and would approach people for handouts and such. She would talk to some people through car windows, so now I knew I spooked her. I parked at 7-11 and watched her avoid my car like the plague.

I ran into her today. First time I've seen her as well. I was on my way to an appointment so not enough time to partake but I talked with her a while. Ended up buying her a burger and fries from checkers and helping hey across the street where she said she needed to go. From my chat with her I think the loss of the leg was somewhat recent. She didn't have a phone but took my number and said she would text when she gets one. Very pretty eyes, face and nice smile. I will partake when time allows.

[VincentGambini]

Freedom to loiter for innocent purposes is protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and is part of our personal liberty. The way the ordinance defines "loitering" is too vague. There are good reasons why a person might be standing on the street that might not be apparent to a police officer. Loitering laws are often challenged for vagueness and being overly broad.

A statute can be declared "void for vagueness" if it fails to inform the average person of what it is that the law prohibits in a clear and objective manner or fails to provide law enforcement officials with clear and objective standards for its implementation. And it may be declared unconstitutional due to overbreadth of intent and application if it prohibits activities unprotected by the Constitution but might also be used to prohibit constitutionally protected activities.

The first significant challenge to general loitering laws was Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville (1972).

Jacksonville, Florida, passed a law that prohibited loitering and defined loiterers as "persons wandering or strolling around from place to place without any lawful purpose or object."

Loitering laws can have chilling effect on First Amendment rights.

Based on Jacksonville's definition of loitering, the USA Supreme Court declared in a decision written by William O. Douglas that the law was simply too vague to allow the average person to discern what is prohibited and what is not. Taking a daily walk could be considered loitering, subjecting an innocent person to arrest. Such vagueness in the law raises a second concern: "the net is cast large," resulting in the individual police officer having virtually unlimited discretion to decide who is loitering and who is taking a walk.

With no objective standards of guilt, the law not only permitted but even encouraged police to apply the law in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner against "the poor and the unpopular. ".

The Court also found the laws to be overly broad. While the First Amendment does not specifically mention the right to walk or loiter, it does protect a right to free speech, a right to assemble, and a right to petition the government. Jacksonville's definition of loitering was so broad that it could be used to either deny these rights or to have a "chilling effect" on their exercise by threatening an arrest.

Some loitering laws have been rewritten, still been challenged. As a result of Papachristou, most loitering laws were rewritten to include specific offenses associated with loitering "loitering-plus" ordinances. Nevertheless, those revised laws are subject to the same judicial scrutiny as the previous, more generalized, loitering laws.

Therefore, as I have previously stated loitering is mostly an add on charge to another criminal offense. The law clearly states LOITERING FOR UNLAWFUL PURPOSE, not just LOITERING.

This means the LEO would have to have probable cause of that said UNLAWFUL crime. If it is prostitution that the LEO declares is the crime (which is assumed to be the majority of these arrests), then that LEO had better have proof of sex for money / something of value per statue. If that officer / deputy does not have the REQUIRED PROOF under that prostitution statue and makes the arrest anyway, then an illegal arrest has been made IE; a false arrest which is absolutely actionable. It is the job of LEO to know the law, that's what they get paid to do. Suing the county and LEO individually will help educate them and reward you for the suffering and embarrassment they put you through. It is everyone's duty to follow through with this and file a complaint with the DOJ.

That was a lucid, intelligent and well-thought out post. Reminded me of one of my better known trials: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DpMwDgxC-I.

I found your source online. Should anyone be interested in reading the full article, it's at this link, his post starts with the section titled as Loitering laws are often challenged for vagueness and being overly broad. Enjoy: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment...loitering-laws.

[VincentGambini]

If what you said was true they'd easily have hundreds of arrests by now under that law. Unlike you, I have actual experience in prosecuting 2 different sheriff depts in 2 different counties in Federal court. I bet you never filed a single suit there. So under your logic if I, or an Uber / Lyft driver picks up a "known prostitute" as you say, we go to jail or if a prostitute walks by the area to get food she goes to jail. How the fuck would an Uber driver even know? That would easily defeat a mens rea requirement. The WG has a federal / constitutional right to live and walk to the store, bus stop, friends place, etc. Use your fucking brain, you honestly think the poor WG can't walk or sit anywhere to eat her food? Sorry that's just wrong, not legal in the least bit and violating the most basic fundamental constitutional rights. Even one of the last guys commenting states it is not illegal even if she was a convicted prostitute and case law supports this. It does, he's right and so am I. A false arrest is the restraint or detention by one person of another without lawful justification. There is law, then there is case law. Many laws are not prosecuted that are on the book. Law Vs case law Ex; Per statue in FL I can't have Anything on or covering my license plate. Per case law I can indeed have a cover on my plate, even a tinted one, as long as you can read it at a certain feet. In the event the victims sue the county and the deputy under this loitering law, let's see it get dismissed by the judge, it won't be. If you were my attorney I'd fire you then sue you to get my money back. How about you actually sue the county or the Sheriff's dept then get back to us.

That's a rather interesting interpretation of my post. It appears you either did not read my posts all the way through or did not fully understand the examples and my comments. No problem, I'm happy to expand on it a bit.

You mentioned an Uber or Lyft driver being arrested for picking up a known prostitute. I never gave any such example. In fact, my examples were as to the provider being arrested, not the customer. Additionally, my examples listed some combination of allegations before effectuating an arrest. One such example was as to a known prostitute AND her loitering in an area known for prostitution. Conversely, your examples had a person that "walks by the area to get food" or "to the store, bus stop" or the like. Clearly those examples are lacking in an essential element of the crime.

You also stated that "one of the last guys" commented on the legality of the statute or ordinance and said that "case law supports this" argument. I wonder if you were referring to another one of my posts. Here's a portion of my earlier post:

It seems like legal challenges are more likely to prevail with city or county ordinances. I was at a pool hall in Tampa a few years back. The guy I was playing wanted to challenge a city ordinance. Seems Tampa had passed an ordinance outlawing loitering for purposes of prostitution. That ordinance made it unlawful to be standing by the roadway and talking to other people or waving at cars going by. As I was sinking the 8-ball and taking his money, I told him he had a great issue to challenge, the court should rule that the actions contemplated by the ordinance could easily be actions taken by normal, law-abiding citizens.

There was also a reference to statutes versus case law and an example of covering a license plate. Excellent example, thank you for that. Pursuant to Florida statutes, a LEO may well pull a person over and write a traffic citation for the license plate having some form of a cover. The driver may then set the citation for a hearing and, at the hearing, provide case law to show that he was not, in fact, in violation of the law. My point being, statutes and case law are often the difference between an arrest (or ticket) and an actual conviction. As I stated previously, an arrest most certainly does not equate to a conviction. Though, as I also stated previously, a charge being dismissed does not equate to an unlawful arrest or a viable lawsuit against LE.

The important lesson here (really, the most basic reason for this website) is that we should all educate ourselves, know what risks we are, or are not, willing to take and take action accordingly.

[Grain 56]

After a hour long session with a regular I have on speed dial, I took a quick pass by through the Norther Half of the Trail. The Teen-Streets & 20's Streets were about as usual. A few of the regular slags and a few of the normal regulars. I saw Sharday (again) and Sherri B both out. I hadn't seen Sherri out in a while.

In the 40's I saw a few, especially around the 7-11 including something that made me do a double-take and made me regret I had just spent a pretty active hour with another provider and was not ready to go for round 3 at this moment.

I saw a smaller Hispanic girl with frizzy hair in a Wheel Chair rolling around the 7-11 area. She was missing her left leg, just below the knee. My first though was it was Jenny, but I knew that Jenny is currently on Vacation from a couple of days ago and this girl was dressed too nice and much healthier looking to be Jenny. I didn't know if this was a possibility to partake or was just a coincidence of it being a civi out and about. I rolled up on her as she was passing behind the 7-11 and when I saw it wasn't Jenny, I said, "oh, I thought you were Jenny" & "do you know Jenny"? She said no and quickly turned her head and her wheel chair away and started leaving my vicinity quickly. I pulled into the DG and asked her again. She fled and was now looking like she was crying. I think I spooked her.

I hung back for a bit with a few passes and saw how she moved around and would approach people for handouts and such. She would talk to some people through car windows, so now I knew I spooked her. I parked at 7-11 and watched her avoid my car like the plague.

Now, she is probably the best looking person I had seen out there in ages. I mean she is cute as a button, nice petite build, wearing clean clothes, clean hands, clean feet (I mean foot), bright white teeth, the whole shebang. Now I knew I needed to find out more. I went inside the store to buy a soda and on my way out, I grabbed one of the Parking Lot Concierges. I asked him if the chick in the wheel chair tricks or what. First thing out of his mouth was, "she's got the cutest little titties"! He said she is up for play. I told him she thinks I am a cop, so she won't talk to me. He said she wouldn't think so and would talk to me if he told her to come over to me. He was insistent on going to get her right now. He also commented that she is fresh and ripe. LOL.

I told him I wasn't ready to make the snag right now, but wanted to know for later. I gave him a small gratuity for his help. I circled one more time and made it back to my parking spot. My concierge saw me again and without hesitation, went and got her to come close by my car. He told her I wanted to help her out and that I wasn't a cop. After a few reassurances, she opened up some. I asked her name. She said it was Madison. I asked her if she was from around here. She said no. I told her I would like to help her but can't right now. She asked my friend if he thought I wanted head or something? He told her I was safe and it's OK. I then told her I just wanted to make sure that she was going to be around later on.

After some more pleasantries and getting the intel, I tipped the concierge again and gave Madison a Lincoln.

The only thing I saw that was a concern was that she appeared she may have been candy sick / dope sick at that time. Just before she came up towards my car another patron bought her a soda. After he gave it to her and while my friend was talking with her about coming to see me, she kind of threw up some clear liquid. It wasn't food coming up, it was clear. Not a lot, just seemed strange. She started crying about it and was being consoled. I don't know if she was scared or actually sick. Either way, I had that concern.

I put this out there as if you are in that area and see a girl with one leg in a wheel chair (and it's not Jenny) and are bold enough to take a chance, I would recommend giving her a shot. Especially before the streets eat her up. I didn't see a handler with her or anywhere around her, so I don't know that status. I mentioned in an earlier report that I saw a very cute, petite Hispanic girl in a car the other day leaving the Zada, this could have been her.

I plan to go back and see what's what after I prepare my safest spot for a visitor, although this one's probably not going to run off with anything in my spot. LOL.

Grain 56.

[Missionary Man]

Working digits boss? Holy cow she's a seamen demon.

No digits.

Missionary Man.

[Mosby321]

Yesterday. Pickup was near 23rd & OBT. Nikki drained my balls with an excellent BBBJ. Shot a big load (CIM) & she gagged, coughed it up & spit it out. And here she is:

Working digits boss? Holy cow she's a seamen demon.

[Orlando Monger]

Freedom to loiter for innocent purposes is protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and is part of our personal liberty. The way the ordinance defines "loitering" is too vague. There are good reasons why a person might be standing on the street that might not be apparent to a police officer. Loitering laws are often challenged for vagueness and being overly broad.

A statute can be declared "void for vagueness" if it fails to inform the average person of what it is that the law prohibits in a clear and objective manner or fails to provide law enforcement officials with clear and objective standards for its implementation. And it may be declared unconstitutional due to overbreadth of intent and application if it prohibits activities unprotected by the Constitution but might also be used to prohibit constitutionally protected activities.

The first significant challenge to general loitering laws was Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville (1972).

Jacksonville, Florida, passed a law that prohibited loitering and defined loiterers as "persons wandering or strolling around from place to place without any lawful purpose or object."

Loitering laws can have chilling effect on First Amendment rights.

Based on Jacksonville's definition of loitering, the USA Supreme Court declared in a decision written by William O. Douglas that the law was simply too vague to allow the average person to discern what is prohibited and what is not. Taking a daily walk could be considered loitering, subjecting an innocent person to arrest. Such vagueness in the law raises a second concern: "the net is cast large," resulting in the individual police officer having virtually unlimited discretion to decide who is loitering and who is taking a walk.

With no objective standards of guilt, the law not only permitted but even encouraged police to apply the law in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner against "the poor and the unpopular. ".

The Court also found the laws to be overly broad. While the First Amendment does not specifically mention the right to walk or loiter, it does protect a right to free speech, a right to assemble, and a right to petition the government. Jacksonville's definition of loitering was so broad that it could be used to either deny these rights or to have a "chilling effect" on their exercise by threatening an arrest.

Some loitering laws have been rewritten, still been challenged. As a result of Papachristou, most loitering laws were rewritten to include specific offenses associated with loitering — "loitering-plus" ordinances. Nevertheless, those revised laws are subject to the same judicial scrutiny as the previous, more generalized, loitering laws.

Therefore, as I have previously stated loitering is mostly an add on charge to another criminal offense. The law clearly states LOITERING FOR UNLAWFUL PURPOSE, not just LOITERING.

This means the LEO would have to have probable cause of that said UNLAWFUL crime. If it is prostitution that the LEO declares is the crime (which is assumed to be the majority of these arrests), then that LEO had better have proof of sex for money / something of value per statue. If that officer / deputy does not have the REQUIRED PROOF under that prostitution statue and makes the arrest anyway, then an illegal arrest has been made IE; a false arrest which is absolutely actionable. It is the job of LEO to know the law, that's what they get paid to do. Suing the county and LEO individually will help educate them and reward you for the suffering and embarrassment they put you through. It is everyone's duty to follow through with this and file a complaint with the DOJ.

[Orlando Monger]

If what you said was true they'd easily have hundreds of arrests by now under that law. Unlike you, I have actual experience in prosecuting 2 different sheriff depts in 2 different counties in Federal court. I bet you never filed a single suit there. So under your logic if I, or an Uber / Lyft driver picks up a "known prostitute" as you say, we go to jail or if a prostitute walks by the area to get food she goes to jail. How the fuck would an Uber driver even know? That would easily defeat a mens rea requirement. The WG has a federal / constitutional right to live and walk to the store, bus stop, friends place, etc. Use your fucking brain, you honestly think the poor WG can't walk or sit anywhere to eat her food? Sorry that's just wrong, not legal in the least bit and violating the most basic fundamental constitutional rights. Even one of the last guys commenting states it is not illegal even if she was a convicted prostitute and case law supports this. It does, he's right and so am I. A false arrest is the restraint or detention by one person of another without lawful justification. There is law, then there is case law. Many laws are not prosecuted that are on the book. Law Vs case law Ex; Per statue in FL I can't have Anything on or covering my license plate. Per case law I can indeed have a cover on my plate, even a tinted one, as long as you can read it at a certain feet. In the event the victims sue the county and the deputy under this loitering law, let's see it get dismissed by the judge, it won't be. If you were my attorney I'd fire you then sue you to get my money back. How about you actually sue the county or the Sheriff's dept then get back to us.

It's not a false arrest where there's a statute or ordinance in place allowing such an arrest. Does not matter if said statute or ordinance is later overturned, if the law was in place at the time of the arrest, the arrest itself was still valid. Also, keep in mind that the loitering for purposes of prostitution would not necessarily require "sex for anything of value" to be mentioned. In theory, the arrest could come about based on a "known prostitute", meaning conviction within the past year, being in an "area known for prostitution, pretty much all of OBT, and waving at drivers as they pass by. Please keep in mind we're talking about an ARREST, not a CONVICTION. For the conviction to occur, certainly a prosecutor would want more.

Probably some truth to that first sentence about low hanging fruit. As I stated previously, LE often looks to effectuate an arrest even when there is not a certainty of conviction, after all, that gets the person off of the streets and, as Grain pointed out, it certainly may discourage the ladies from going right back to those some locations. As to the rest of your post, certainly debatable.

[Grain 56]

Was cruising through your town. Had heard a lot about obt and other streets in the vicinity. After some night scouting saw some sws, white and blavk. By the dolls strip club and torwards the mall...
...Did get a lot of valuable info. Will attenpt again soonish. No images as camera was buszed up.

Click on the "see original post" link in the post below to open up a layout of OBT by area. Not totally comprehensive but covers the main 7 mile stretch you may be interested in.

This post comes out of hibernation a couple times a year. It's not all inclusive but gives general guidance to those wanting to learn the Trail.

It's just a general overview. I am certain that many will see exclusions or may have additions. Some may not agree totally with the list as a whole and that's OK. This is for newcomers and visitors. This isn't meant to replace RTFF, as there are literally tons of info buried throughout the forum.

Grain 56.

P.S. Be careful this week, there's a big event in town and LEO may be out in force. Also, you mentioned some of the basic rules you saw trying to be violated, like asking to be paid in advance and won't get in the car, etc. , you are right to be leery, follow the rules and don't ever let your guard down.

[Sicilia21]

Was cruising through your town. Had heard a lot about obt and other streets in the vicinity. After some night scouting saw some sws, white and blavk. By the dolls strip club and torwards the mall. Originally didn't head to the mall that night. Had no gps and was searching and getting a layout of the land. Scooped up 2 bsws. But due to cop precense. Lavk of knowledge of spots and price negotiations. Didn't fuck any of them. They either wanted to hold the cash or more than what I was offering. The suply was there so I didn't budge on pricing. Early morning scouted the areas some more, did approach one but she didn't want a ride. Then saw on3 by the schools torwards downtown but cops and school crossing guards were in the vicinity and didn't partake. Did notice a SW but wasnt sure if they were trans so called off the search. Did get a lot of valuable info. Will attenpt again soonish. No images as camera was buszed up.

[VincentGambini]

I can assure you the only crime here was committed by the deputies which is called false arrest. They already pulled this shit by arresting girls during police checks where nothing was said except asking to see their little dicks. This does not meet the probable cause proof in any way as nothing about sex for anything of value was mentioned to remotely satisfy the requirements. Some of the girls arrested for these police checks were Sara, Green Eyed Jess, Barbie and our beloved Ice Pick Ashely (just to name a few). State refused to file charges on any of these girls arrested for prostitution as their police check did not meet the probable cause requirements even the slightest. Nor do the recent loitering arrests unless they admit to it. Loitering is usually a tack on charge for a crime that was done just like resisting arrest. It's rare to be charged with it alone unless the person arrested admitted to a crime. As for Tampa's loitering for purposes of prostitution charge to be valid short of the WG openly admitting / confessing to the crime they would have to prove they were hanging out to offer sex for anything of value; which is simply impossible unless the WG was holding a sex for sale sign or the LEO overheard a deal between a john.

It's not a false arrest where there's a statute or ordinance in place allowing such an arrest. Does not matter if said statute or ordinance is later overturned, if the law was in place at the time of the arrest, the arrest itself was still valid. Also, keep in mind that the loitering for purposes of prostitution would not necessarily require "sex for anything of value" to be mentioned. In theory, the arrest could come about based on a "known prostitute", meaning conviction within the past year, being in an "area known for prostitution, pretty much all of OBT, and waving at drivers as they pass by. Please keep in mind we're talking about an ARREST, not a CONVICTION. For the conviction to occur, certainly a prosecutor would want more.

That's why they target these poor drug dependent girls and other low hanging fruit. All false arrests are actionable and once the LEOs and county starts getting sued in the federal court and victims submit complaints to the DOJ and FBI's div of corruption things will change very rapidly, but not until then. Might even get a few LEOs arrested as well. It's in the constitution that you have the right to roam free. Fight these fucking assholes back.

Probably some truth to that first sentence about low hanging fruit. As I stated previously, LE often looks to effectuate an arrest even when there is not a certainty of conviction, after all, that gets the person off of the streets and, as Grain pointed out, it certainly may discourage the ladies from going right back to those some locations. As to the rest of your post, certainly debatable. As I stated above, if there is a statute or ordinance in place, these are NOT false arrests. Even if charges are dropped later, does not make it a false arrest. Huge difference between what LE needs, probable cause, and what a prosecutor needs, beyond any reasonable doubt. As to suing anyone in federal court, that is not an easy, or inexpensive, thing to do. These are second degree misdemeanor offenses. The provider gets arrested. She's taken to the county jail. She appears before a judge. The prosecutor says they'll offer the provider credit time served and she's done. Is the provider going to accept that offer and be released or is she going to stand her ground, dispute the charges and later on sue in federal court? COULD this happen? Sure. WILL it happen? Seems like the vast majority of people would take option 1, credit time served and done.

https://www.thecentersquare.com/cali...3198028c2.html

That's California. This is Florida. Governor there is a Democrat. Governor here is a Republican. I'd submit that they are complete opposites. I'd also point out that, in your article, he clearly states that they are NOT legalizing prostitution. Probably not the best article to support the argument for prostitution being on the cusp of legalization.

This is where the problem lies, few bother to fight and when you don't fight you lose every time. Unfair laws only get changed by fighting and challenging them. Admitting guilt to them only encourages to prosecute even more. Remember the counties that arrest for prostitution also do it as a money maker and once these cases start getting dropped by the state or won by the defendants in court it will become a liability. As mentioned before the burden of proof has to be met of an actual crime committed before any arrest is made, no one can be arrested just for nothing. Not legally anyway. At the end of the day it's going to be up to the jury. Do you think they give a fuck about 2 people fucking over money? I bet they'd be pissed to be there to hear such BS charges. It only takes 1 juror to side with you and with the majority these days believing this to be a non-criminal offense are really shitty odds for the prosecutor. During Prohibition, juries who disagreed with alcohol control laws often acquitted defendants who had been caught red handed smuggling alcohol. In reality it would never get to court with a competent attorney. Think the state has time to answer a ton of questions from the interrogatories? You'll never get the answers back on time. What about a depo for an entire day? Not happening on a 2nd misdemeanor charge as the prosecutors don't have time to even handle felony charges on their other cases. When was the last time a defendant with a competent attorney found guilty by a jury over prostitution charges in the last 10 years?

So right and so wrong all at the same time. True, laws get changed based on people challenging those laws. Also true that the prosecution has the burden of proof and that a defendant, or his attorney, need only convince one juror to avoid a guilty verdict. Otherwise though, I'd disagree with many of the comments. I'd suggest one issue is simply the reality of the court system. I had a cousin once (yep, a lot of cousins getting arrested) that was charged with prostitution. He had a great case, he never mentioned money or sex, never took off any clothes or exposed himself in anyway and never touched the UC in any sexual way. His attorney suggested he should go to trial because he believed he could get a not guilty verdict. However, my cousin had a plea offer for a reduced charge and decided to take that instead of going to trial. He made that decision because he didn't want to pay the attorney a trial fee and then be in court (you know, open to the public) where there would be testimony that he contacted a UC to get laid in exchange for money. He had a wife and kids and didn't want the embarrassment that could come from a public trial. And as to the comment of whether people give a fuck about people fucking over money, yes, plenty of people do. Rest assured, a fair portion of the jury pool will be staunchly religious, or they'll believe the hype about trafficking or they'll have some other reason, whether real or imagined, to think prostitution is morally wrong or, more relevant, legally wrong.

Bottom line, play smart, follow the rules we all know, including educating oneself with the shared information available on these boards and you should be fine, yes, SHOULD be fine. If you want a guarantee you'll never visit with Uncle LEO, probably time to change hobbies.

[Grain 56]

I made about 4 passes through the Greater Mall Area from Wendy's at Consulate to the Wawa up in the NQ, starting about 6:30 pm last night. I didn't see a single SW out in the Greater Mall Area from the OQ to Sand Lake. Not a BCBJC Member, not a local SW regular, not a stray DB, not a working soul! I only saw a few civi's. I even stopped at both Wawa's in the two quadrants.

Further to the north, it was a little better. I did see a few at Jordan in the NQ area and then as I continued even further north, I saw a handful in the 40's, 20's and Teen-Numbered Streets.

One thing I will say is that the 7-11 at 39th seems to be one of the places that some of the former OQ girls are hanging out these days. As I have mentioned before, they are centered at the Zada Hotel. Over the past week, I have seen some really decent looking, mostly BSWs that appear that they were formerly OQ regulars. Dressed up, flaunting openly, etc. There were 3 girls hanging out there earlier in the afternoon yesterday, all trying to get dates, that looked better than most of the advertisers you see on many of the sites.

They are pretty bold and blatant. I reported on a couple of them a few weeks back, out walking on 40th exposing a lot of skin. Yesterday, one of the girls out there, wearing a mini skirt, was fully squatting beside the dumpster with her knees spread and her goods on full display. As I passed, she didn't even flinch. At first, I though she was peeing, then I realized that she wasn't peeing and actually was too busy sucking on a glass candy stick to worry about me seeing her fully on display.

I also saw another HSW that looked pretty good across OBT with a handler in tow.

Grain 56.

[Bjceb]

They love to do this around big events, so totally makes sense. The bowls games is another time were they do sweeps of the area.

Makes perfect sense.

The Biggest Golf Event of the Year is in town this week. That may explain some of the heat turned up in the South End of the Trail.

Uncle seems to be doing some other clean up as well. For example, there is a family with 2 small children that literally have taken up "camp" in the swale along Sand Lake Road near the Publix on the West side of the road near Dr. Phillips. They have a large make-shift shelter made from various coverings set up on the swale and have been living there for months and months. They probably make big bank from donations of caring citizens, especially with all the upscale patrons that frequent that area. Anyway, unless I missed them being out there today when I passed by, I didn't see them or their tent. They were there earlier this week. I saw them twice. Quite odd.

My guess, knowing that the PGA is in town this coming week and Orlando will be on the World Stage (in that very same general area) plus knowing that some of the most high-end and popular restaurants are on that very strip, where they have their colorful shelter built along the road, is that they have been conveniently relocated. Maybe to an actual hotel for a period of time, all to get them from shedding such a horrible light on that high-end area for all to see.

Anyway, it's a big event week here in the city beautiful. Uncle usually sets up shop and many times goes after the providers as well as the mongers before and during the event. Stay safe, mind your P's & Q's.

Gran 56.