General Information

[Wallie]

I am still very irritated that the cop tried to lay a guilt trip on me for exercising my constitutional right to remain silent. The fact that the cop gave some lie about how the SW admitted to solicitation makes me very angry. I knew this was a line of bull and the SW later told me that the cop tried the same line. I realize this is goes on all the time with cops, but is very unethical. The cop also gave me some line about how he arrest me and see if it flew in court.

Unfortunately, that is standard MO. They try to get you to confess to something to make their life easier. Otherwise, all they can do is threaten and cajole.

Wallie

[Hizark21]

If you answer any question it's possible that it could be bogusly construed as obstruction of justice since the officer may try to claim you were lying to him. If you tell him you are choosing the right to remain silent this another matter altogether. If the officer tell you he is arresting you for obstruction of justice then tell him you want his captains name and you are going to file a complaint. Also tell him you want a lawyer.

This will probably stop him unless he is dumb and a jerk.

[Orlando J]

I had the same problem. The officer charged me with obstruction of justice for not answering questions and because I did not answer the questions fully he considered me lying!
As the lawyer told me this was a BS charge because he did not find anything.
J

[Hizark21]

I am still very irritated that the cop tried to lay a guilt trip on me for exercising my constitutional right to remain silent. The fact that the cop gave some lie about how the SW admitted to solicitation makes me very angry. I knew this was a line of bull and the SW later told me that the cop tried the same line. I realize this is goes on all the time with cops, but is very unethical. The cop also gave me some line about how he arrest me and see if it flew in court.

[Wallie]

Thanks for info PsyberZombie, but can you be more specific please..??

I am assuming that the cop was asking if "i have been arrested?" Then this could have been used as probable cause for something else..?

You always have the Right to Remain Silent. You don't have to answer any questions asked of you. (Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.)

Your protection of any of your Rights can not be converted into a crime. ("The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.)

The Right to Privacy includes the "Individual interest in avoiding discolsure of personal matters". (Whalen v Roe, 429 US 589 (1977).)

You may refuse to provide LE with ID or Information. (US v Brown, 731 F2d1491 (1984); Moya v US, 761 F2d322 (1985); Brown v Texas, 443 US 47 (1979)

Specifically though as to whether a previous arrest for solicitation could be used against you... In court, probably, but maybe not. There are many cases which deal with "prior bad acts", and some have allowed such evidence in, under the theory that it shows a pattern, other cases have severely limited introduction of "prior bad acts" as evidence. An interested one, found here: http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/...2006/14652.pdf, involves a murder case, and the court considers the various "prior bad acts" cases, and the court found against the use of it as presented in that case. IMHO, your best bet is to do what you did, and not answer at all.

However, a previous "bad act", again, IMHO, has nothing to do with why you were stopped "today" if you will. I say this because an Officer's questions must relate to the purpose of the stop, or detention is unreasonable. (US v Barahona, 990 F2d (1993).)

Wallie

I am not an attorney, and this was not legal advice.

[Hizark21]

Thanks for info PsyberZombie, but can you be more specific please..??

I am assuming that the cop was asking if "i have been arrested?" Then this could have been used as probable cause for something else..?

[PsyberZombie]

I was stopped by a cop for talking to a SW.. The cop asked me if I had been arrested for solicitation and I did not answer because I was busted back in the 80's when I was a new to the game. So I refused because I thought this could be used against me . Am I required to answer this question..?? I don't believe so under my miranda rights. If I had answered yes then how or can this be used against me...?

http://www.usasexguide.info/forum/sh...&postcount=419

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/c...ns-faq(2).html

[Hizark21]

I was stopped by a cop for talking to a SW.. The cop asked me if I had been arrested for solicitation and I did not answer because I was busted back in the 80's when I was a new to the game. So I refused because I thought this could be used against me . Am I required to answer this question..?? I don't believe so under my miranda rights. If I had answered yes then how or can this be used against me...?

[IrishMale]

I think you missed my point, Broome. It wasn't that the person arrested would be released, it is about the fact that every time this happens, the journalists take the boiler plate press release from the police and don't even make an attempt to see what the other side has to say. In any other issue that would make it into the press they would fall all over themselves to get a quote from the person arrested and if they couldn't get a quote they would make note that they tried but the person declined. The unmentioned point is that LE has been proven to lie in these situations in the past and seem to have carte blanche with the press to say anything, whether it's true or not. I would just like to see one newspaper article or TV news story in which the journalist made an attempt to at least ask the person arrested if they are an illegal alien, if they are being forced to work in this business, and if they are forced to stay in the businesses day and night. And I'd like to see just one journalist have the testicular fortitude to ask one if any of the officers patronized the place or accepted any of the services offered. It's not a big deal, but it's a pet peeve of mine that those in the media seem disinterested in seeing if the other side might or might not have something to say.

I would think that the accused would not want the publicity of doing an interview. I mean why go on tape and say something that might come back to haunt you? Its not like the DA is going to read the article and release her just because she says she is innocent. To my suprise I did see a AMP owner on the TV news recently talking about the bust that just took place at their establishment. This was following a bust in Milan IL that you can read about in the Quad city forum in the Iowa section (Its right on the border). My only guess on why the officers had to go back several times is that they didn't get what they were after the first or second time. I have been lucky and always got what I wanted on the first visit, but I have read reports from guys that were told to come back and it would be more fun the next time. The other possibility is that the provider was real good and the UC wanted another piece before he took her down. Who knows?

[Broome333]

I would think that the accused would not want the publicity of doing an interview. I mean why go on tape and say something that might come back to haunt you? Its not like the DA is going to read the article and release her just because she says she is innocent. To my suprise I did see a AMP owner on the TV news recently talking about the bust that just took place at their establishment. This was following a bust in Milan IL that you can read about in the Quad city forum in the Iowa section (Its right on the border). My only guess on why the officers had to go back several times is that they didn't get what they were after the first or second time. I have been lucky and always got what I wanted on the first visit, but I have read reports from guys that were told to come back and it would be more fun the next time. The other possibility is that the provider was real good and the UC wanted another piece before he took her down. Who knows?

That's pretty much my understanding too, Broome. My curiosity is if, as the article says, LE went there SEVERAL times before the bust then what were they doing when they were there? And, if they would let the provider touch them but not orgasm, weren't the providers thinking there was something strange about it? But to my original question, I just don't understand why these writers who call themselves journalists don't attempt to interview those arrested. I have yet to read an article or column where a provider was interviewed to get the other side of the story. And, if by some unusual chance the writers are attempting to get an interview but are denied, why aren't they noting in the article or column that the provider(s) declined to comment? As long as the various writers around the country write just what LE wants them to write, it will always be a lopsided story that is not necessarily filled with facts.

[IrishMale]

That's pretty much my understanding too, Broome. My curiosity is if, as the article says, LE went there SEVERAL times before the bust then what were they doing when they were there? And, if they would let the provider touch them but not orgasm, weren't the providers thinking there was something strange about it? But to my original question, I just don't understand why these writers who call themselves journalists don't attempt to interview those arrested. I have yet to read an article or column where a provider was interviewed to get the other side of the story. And, if by some unusual chance the writers are attempting to get an interview but are denied, why aren't they noting in the article or column that the provider(s) declined to comment? As long as the various writers around the country write just what LE wants them to write, it will always be a lopsided story that is not necessarily filled with facts.

I'm by no means a lawyer, but my impression is it depends on the rules of the specific jurisdiction what they are and are not allowed to do. I remember reading of one case where the accused got off because the officer went to far with the transaction. Specifically he was allowed to have sex to a certain point to prove guilt beyond any doubt but was not allowed to orgasm (but did). Other jurisdictions don't allow the officer to have any contact making it very hard for them to be convincing as a UC. Most fall somewhere between the two. Of course we all know that LE doesn't always follow their own rules, much less the law they claim to uphold, so I would not be suprised if he did bust her after he got a piece or two.

[Broome333]

I'm by no means a lawyer, but my impression is it depends on the rules of the specific jurisdiction what they are and are not allowed to do. I remember reading of one case where the accused got off because the officer went to far with the transaction. Specifically he was allowed to have sex to a certain point to prove guilt beyond any doubt but was not allowed to orgasm (but did). Other jurisdictions don't allow the officer to have any contact making it very hard for them to be convincing as a UC. Most fall somewhere between the two. Of course we all know that LE doesn't always follow their own rules, much less the law they claim to uphold, so I would not be suprised if he did bust her after he got a piece or two.

A report on the York forum describes the bust of Tranquility Spa. In reading the names of those arrested it would appear that this was a spa staffed by American women. There was a very interesting statement in the newspaper article referred to in one of the posts:

"The current investigation took several months, and included trips to the spa by undercover officers who allege they were offered sexual services with massages for extra cash."

OK, so does that mean the officers did or did not accept the services? If they did not accept the services were the ladies not curious about it? If the UCs did accept services will the defendants raise that issue at some point before or at trial?

One has to wonder if the writer of the article attempted to interview the defendants. There is no indication in the article whether interviews were attempted. Wouldn't you think that a journalist would be very interested in asking the women if the UCs actually took advantage of the alleged services offered?

Just some food for thought.

[Wallie]

A report on the York forum describes the bust of Tranquility Spa... ...There was a very interesting statement in the newspaper article referred to in one of the posts:

"The current investigation took several months, and included trips to the spa by undercover officers who allege they were offered sexual services with massages for extra cash."

OK, so does that mean the officers did or did not accept the services? If they did not accept the services were the ladies not curious about it? If the UCs did accept services will the defendants raise that issue at some point before or at trial?

In that case, who knows. However, UC LE can, and will, break the law when undercover. After all, that's often times the only way to get an officer deep UC during, say, a drug investigation. UC (and non-UC Officers, can legally lie when working.) After all, as we all know, the "are you a cop" question so often asked by SWs after being picked up offers absolutely no protection at all.

Or, they may have actually participated and left, both happy, and with "evidence" of the "crime".

Check this out: http://www.unknownnews.org/060214stinkybadges.html. I have seen other stories like this one before, this was the just the first I found doing a quick Google search. This does contain a nice discussion about the "right" and "wrong" of pursuing a Prostitution Arrest by having sex with the accused though. Some good stuff in there.

Now, as to whether the charges will stick if the UC did have sexual contact with the masseuse or not, that is a different question. A skilled attorney could probably get the masseuse off (no pun intended) with an entrapment, or coercion defense, unless, of course, the UC had a wire of some kind, (digi-tape recorder, wireless mic, etc.) planted in their clothes, say, in a pocket of their jeans, which captured any negotiating that may have gone on before the sex took place.

Wallie

[IrishMale]

A report on the York forum describes the bust of Tranquility Spa. In reading the names of those arrested it would appear that this was a spa staffed by American women. There was a very interesting statement in the newspaper article referred to in one of the posts:

"The current investigation took several months, and included trips to the spa by undercover officers who allege they were offered sexual services with massages for extra cash."

OK, so does that mean the officers did or did not accept the services? If they did not accept the services were the ladies not curious about it? If the UCs did accept services will the defendants raise that issue at some point before or at trial?

One has to wonder if the writer of the article attempted to interview the defendants. There is no indication in the article whether interviews were attempted. Wouldn't you think that a journalist would be very interested in asking the women if the UCs actually took advantage of the alleged services offered?

Just some food for thought.

[IrishMale]

Just a couple of recent cases on income tax. Check out the video from google videos.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...29127738729234
It's what happened when asked to show the law that says you have to pay taxes. And heres another one.

http://www.unknownnews.org/030812VerniceKuglin.html

If you do a search for Vernice Kuglin or Whitey Harrell you will find these cases most interesting because the core of there defense was the same , just show me the law , not the code the actual law. Seems they were both found innocent.

In reference to the first link, which is a video clip of the jury foreman explaining why they found the defendant not guilty, there was nothing in the information provided proving there is no law requiring one to pay income taxes. What the information did explain, in my opinion, is that the judge was irresponsible and arrogant in relating to the jury. To simply say you have everything you need - as he did - with no further explanation ignores the question and fails to recognize the jury was struggling with trying to issue a just verdict. When a jury does not know what a law is but is told to issue a decision based on that law, and requests to see the law, it seems to me they truly do have an obligation to find in favor of the defendant.

In the second link, it’s clear that it was a criminal trial for tax evasion. The defense attorneys wisely used the fact that the defendant had requested more than once a copy of the law but never received it. Consequently, the element of intent was not present and the defendant was found not criminally responsible. However, that does not relieve the defendant of the responsibility of paying the taxes she did not pay. According to her own attorney, she will probably be civilly tried or at the very least an attempt will be made to collect the money prior to a civil trial. As the article stated, “The five-day trial did not resolve whether she must make the tax payment."I think it is safe to assume the IRS will attempt civil collection, but she is not guilty of tax evasion," said defense attorney Robert Bernhoft.”

Both cases revolve around the fact that the government, which sometimes forgets that it is of the people, by the people, and for the people - and therefore serves the people - arrogantly and irresponsibly failed to act in a way that a rational and reasoned person would act. The government failed to respond to a request for help in both issues and consequently lost in both instances, as they should have.

In previous posts, it has been inferred that there is a difference between a code and a law. Sometimes that is so and sometimes it is not. Below is a legal definition taken from http://dictionary.law.com/. Now, before all the sea lawyers get on my case and insist that Black’s Law dictionary is the standard in the field of law, I am fully aware of that. However, I have no desire to go out and buy it or run to the nearest college library to obtain Black’s definitions. For the purposes of this discussion, the definitions below are sufficient to show that sometimes the word code does mean a law and sometimes it doesn’t. (Note that within the definition that laws are often frequently changed by legislative bodies, some codes that are not laws have the force of law, and don’t forget that case law can often further refine, define, or overturn a law.)

code
n. a collection of written laws gathered together, usually covering specific subject matter. Thus, a state may have a civil code, corporations code, education code, evidence code, health and safety codes, insurance code, labor code, motor vehicle code, penal code, revenue and taxation code, and so forth. Federal statutes which deal with legal matters are grouped together in codes. There are also statutes which are not codified. Despite their apparent permanence, codes are constantly being amended by legislative bodies. Some codes are administrative and have the force of law even though they were created and adopted by regulatory agencies and are not actually statutes or laws.


law
n. 1) any system of regulations to govern the conduct of the people of a community, society or nation, in response to the need for regularity, consistency and justice based upon collective human experience. Custom or conduct governed by the force of the local king were replaced by laws almost as soon as man learned to write. The earliest lawbook was written about 2100 B.C. for Ur-Nammu, king of Ur, a Middle Eastern city-state. Within three centuries Hammurabi, king of Babylonia, had enumerated laws of private conduct, business and legal precedents, of which 282 articles have survived. The term "eye for an eye" (or the equivalent value) is found there, as is drowning as punishment for adultery by a wife (while a husband could have slave concubines), and unequal treatment of the rich and the poor was codified here first. It took another thousand years before written law codes developed among the Greek city-states (particularly Athens) and Israel. China developed similar rules of conduct, as did Egypt. The first law system which has a direct influence on the American legal system was the codification of all classic law ordered by the Roman Emperor Justinian in 528 and completed by 534, becoming the law of the Roman empire. This is known as the Justinian Code, upon which most of the legal systems of most European nations are based to this day. The principal source of American law is the common law, which had its roots about the same time as Justinian, among Angles, Britons and later Saxons in Britain. William the Conqueror arrived in 1066 and combined the best of this Anglo-Saxon law with Norman law, which resulted in the English common law, much of which was by custom and precedent rather than by written code. The American colonies followed the English Common Law with minor variations, and the four-volume Commentaries on the Laws of England by Sir William Blackstone (completed in 1769) was the legal "bible" for all American frontier lawyers and influenced the development of state codes of law. To a great extent common law has been replaced by written statutes, and a gigantic body of such statutes have been enacted by federal and state legislatures supposedly in response to the greater complexity of modern life.2) n. a statute, ordinance or regulation enacted by the legislative branch of a government and signed into law, or in some nations created by decree without any democratic process. This is distinguished from "natural law," which is not based on statute, but on alleged common understanding of what is right and proper (often based on moral and religious precepts as well as common understanding of fairness and justice). 3) n. a generic term for any body of regulations for conduct, including specialized rules (military law), moral conduct under various religions and for organizations, usually called "bylaws."