Supereloquent's Reports - Camden

[Supereloquent]

More from my Philly thread about solicitation-related LE ticketing in Camden:

Fantasy vs. Reality in Camden

[Supereloquent]

I recently posted this in my Philly thread, but it directly relates to the discussions here in Camden regarding the ticketing of mongers for violating various solicitation-related local ordinances.

I haven't been mongering in Camden recently and the prevalence of all the potential legal hassles is a big part of the reason.

Monday Morning Quarterbacking

[Supereloquent]

I appreciate all of your comments. I wish when this happens to you that you could remember all the legal stuff, but I was nervous as hell.

It is VERY easy to Monday morning quarterback a thing like this. It is a lot tougher to actually be there with the bubble gum machine flashing and officers grilling you hard. You actually don't need to remember "all the legal stuff." BUT, two things should be straight in your head whenever you decide to monger on a known stroll: a plausible story for why you are there and/or with the SW in your vehicle, and NOT giving up your 5th amendment rights and making ANY statements that might tend to incriminate you.

I don't think she was stopped or any statement was taken from her because he pulled around the corner and came after me while she was walking the other direction. Unless there was another car in the same area she was gone by the time he was done.

Without a statement from the SW or with her as a "witness" there was only a suspicion of what you may have done. Even with a SW "witness" it is your word against hers even if they got her to flip on you. In court it would be the word of a SW with likely a record of arrests and convictions against a fine and upstanding citizen (assuming you have no priors). With a weak case like that the cops may have let you go with a verbal warning. Even with a ticket, the DA may have dropped it for insufficient evidence.

Like I said, I was nervous as hell and did not want to lie so I basically agreed with him.

Cops will always have you think it will go better for you if you just come clean and agree with them regarding your "crime." It's what they are trained to DO! It makes their job easier. They MIGHT cut you some slack and they might not if you are straight up with them, but once you have admitted wrongdoing it is within their discretion to decide to arrest/ticket you or cut you loose. I personally don't think it is ever worth that risk. If they intended to give you a hard time in the first place, why give them the ammunition of a personal statement admitting your guilt? They can get "angry" all they want if they "think" you are not being totally truthful, but better that than incriminating yourself. Much badder dudes than you lie to cops all the time and manage to get off without having an arrest stick.

He asked what I was doing there and I told him I was coming from Phila. at a friends house and was driving through.

There are at least a dozen better and more plausible excuses. You need to have it prepared in advance. A tiny example: make a non-SW friend in Camden near Broadway. If LE grill you on why you are there you were attempting to visit him/her, and you can provide details if absolutely necessary, like name, address and phone number. Your story that you were just picking up the SW as a hitch-hiker was a good one. There may still be an ordinance against that, but it is more likely going to be a moving traffic violation. An even better story would have been to pre-arrange with her the tale that you both met in such and such diner or restaurant or store and she asked you for a ride: no laws were being broken there whatsoever, and there was no way you could have known she was a SW even if LE did. There is no law against giving someone a ride, regardless of her criminal arrest record.

He knew from my drivers license that driving through was not needed to get anywhere other than Camden. He said "so you decided to drive throught to pick up a hooker" and I just nodded and said I know it was stupid but I'm not going to lie to you.

That is the problem with a bad excuse; it can be doubted and questioned, But your BIGGEST mistake was agreeing to committing a crime. You supplied him with both your intent and the admission of the act.

That may not have been smart to do, but at the time I could'nt recite my laws and rights to myself so maybe I was dumb for being extermly nervous.

You don't need to recite any laws or rights or be a legal smart-ass. Just don't ever admit to LE that you have committed a crime, no matter how pissed off they get. It's easy to say. It's understandable that you were very nervous. But, without your admission, they had no case, only a suspicion. They still may have been assholes and slapped you with a ticket, but the case would have been far easier to defend.

After waiting about 10 min. he gave me a ticket for visiting a disorderly place for an unlawful purpose.

You ADMITTED to doing exactly that. I suppose you are lucky they didn't go for a higher charge like solicitation of prostitution. But, lucky or not, your case will be a bit*ch to defend with a self-admission of your guilt. Just get a good attorney that specializes in sex-related offenses and cross your fingers that he/she can get the case dropped and your record expunged.

[Supereloquent]

I have been reading with great interest the recent unfortunate incident involving Johnboy and a ticket from Camden LE for "MC 395-5 "Visiting a disorderly area for an unlawful purpose (prostitution)."

I was never aware of this ordinance, although I was aware of the state and Camden municipal laws regarding "loitering for the purposes of prostitution."

It would seem to me, as others have pointed out, that all of Camden is a disorderly area! On that basis, anyone simply driving through town is committing a crime.

I am no lawyer, but it would seem to me that a charge involving this ordinance would require evidence to stick in court. The only evidence I can think would make it stick would be self-admission of the crime or solid evidence that you knowingly picked up the SW for sex. Knowing what I know about 5th amendment rights, always be polite to LE and answer their questions to the degree absolutely necessary, but NEVER, EVER give up your right to NOT make a statement or answer a question that would tend to incriminate you; it WILL be used against you in a court of law, especially, and apparently in Camden. It seems to me that, even if they got a statement from the SW involved, and used her as a witness, that it is still a he said/she said type of situation. It's a matter of credibility, his vs. some previously arrested/convicted SW they might try to flip on him. For all they know he was giving her a ride. There is no crime in that. It's not like they caught them in the act or anything.

Regardless of whether this rap can be beaten, it is a royal pain in the ass to defend, and involves a not inconsequential commitment of time and money. I think that is the point of the citation. With all the stings and busts in Camden vs. the K in Philly, they must be hell bent on driving mongers away. Philly LE seems to have bigger fish to fry on the criminal front. They seem to concentrate more on the SWs and the drug trade than on the mongers. And, there is plenty of robbery and violent crime to keep them more than busy.

I have a friend who shared with me in a PM a similar thing that happened to him just off the K in Philly. LE rolled up behind him at night without his noticing, as he was parked with a SW. He had his pants down, and the SW was fully undressed, and was sucking his cock as they shone their searchlight into his car! You don't get caught much more red-handed than that! Yet, after an interrogation and paperwork check and a verbal warning, the SW was cut loose to walk away, and so was he to drive away. Talk about a difference in handling prostitution between two neighboring cities!

Maybe Camden LE will get it's wish, because mongering there has turned downright risky. It's time perhaps to stick with digit dates and drop-offs and pickups FAR from any known strolls.

[Trashed201]

With all due (or undue) respect Super E, it's one thing to post thousands of pics of the "ladies" you pick up, pay, and actually get permission to shoot. Lurking behind tinted glass and snapping shots of an innocent mother with her kid going about their legitimate business to post on a site such as this is just plain wrong. I'm glad she didn't turn to face your camera for her sake.

Not interested in starting any sort of war, I'm a fan of this site and many of your posts. That one just struck me as shameless.

Wrong?, Shameless? Give me a freaking break!! All Super has done is give us some eye candy. Nothing more nothing less. At no point does he state or imply this lady is a prostitute. Nobody with an IQ over 90 would think otherwise. The site she's on doesn't imply differently!!! Beside's she's out in public making her fair game to an amatuer photographer. Nothing illegal here. I can go to the shore tommorrow and take 100's of pics of honey's on the beach post them anywere I want and not be concerned about who sees them. Lurking?! He's not a criminal so get off your ridiculous moral high horse! Your blowing this up way out of proportion to say the least. My only regret Super is we didn't see her probably lovely face!! Better luck next time!!

[Fbtom]

I too can see both points of view on this topic.

I think that SuperE was doing an honorable deed by clearly mentioning that she was NOT a sw. I consider not showing her face as a good thing in this type of instance.

It would not bother me if I found a friend or relative's pic on this forum in this manner. It would only bother me that someone who didn't read the report might try to engage in a pick up attempt with her. That is why I'm thinking that a covered face pic, such as sunglasses or no face in pic might be proper etiquette with civi pics.

Now I personally won't post unknowns.

[Supereloquent]

As others have already stated, there are numerous cases of photos of non or potentially non working ladies being posted. I've posted some 'eye candy' shots myself.

Like SE, I've stated up front they are not working and even add that statement to my photos.

On your side, there is something to be said for us not posting photos of non working girls. Some of us mongers are less than honorable, or don't read the posts but just look at the pictures, and would go up to any lady they've seen posted on the site and try to pick them up.

You have responded in a well-reasoned manner and admitted to at least one "eye candy" posting yourself. As you pointed out, there are obviously two sides of the issue of posting pics of random eye candy that you happen to snap in public. My contentions are that it happens all the time in here and that it often happens with no known personal evidence or acknowledgment that the object of the photo was NOT a working girl. I see many photos of girls on known strolls in Philly who I suspect are not working, and are just unsuspecting civilians. Kensington Ave, for example, is a busy commercial street with a bus and an elevated subway line, and many legitimate shoppers just going about their business. I know the Ave and most of the girls who work it, and I see many street photos taken on the Ave of girls I suspect are civilians, and are being labeled as SWs in pic postings here.

I take many pictures and post them here. The total is now in the thousands. So, I don't understand someone who would get their panties in a wad over my posting TWO eye candy pics! There are far many other members who post far more public pics than I do. At least I made it very clear that the gal was public eye candy, and did not imply nor state that she was a working girl. That is a LOT better than most of the other public pics posted here.

On the other hand, I see the point someone might make about posting pics of some innocent civilian on a site dedicated to finding women for sex. However, IMHO, if purists want to keep eye candy photos out of this site, then they should be fair about it and petition the Admin to make it a rule that one must have personal knowledge that the pics one posted are of females one KNOWS to be available for sex. That would mean one would at least know her name and/or the circumstances in which one has experienced this woman. Just being on a known stroll or standing on a hot corner isn't enough to prove anything. Are you telling me that every gal standing or sitting or walking at the Huntingdon Station is a SW, and not just a civilian waiting for a bus, or just planning to enter the El or meet a friend at the station? I would think that taking a public pic of a civilian there, or anywhere on Kensington Ave, or any known stroll, and then labeling her as a SW, when you don"t even know FOR SURE that she is a SW, is FAR, FAR worse than what I did! And that goes on ALL the time in here all over the country. If you have your undies in a twist about public eye candy pics, then complain about that before you knock my two pics, which were VERY CLEARLY identified as NOT being a working girl.

I took two eye candy pics, and already I have taken flak for it. That comes with the territory of posting a lot of reports and pics. The biggest targets attract the most attention, positively or negatively. But, I have not been convinced that I have done anything in posting these pics that others have not done, and done in MUCH greater volume. If you have a problem with eye candy pics, then you should also have a problem with any unidentified pics, and your fight about this should be with EVERYONE who does it and NOT JUST ME, or get the rules in here changed regarding public pics.

I have a firmly established pic taking MO that CLEARLY involves women available for sex. However, if I choose to deviate from that MO from time to time and take some eye candy pics and/or girls on a known stroll in public then I will do so, and disclose the circumstances, so there are no misunderstandings about what I know and what I only think I might know.

[Seva Lurker]

With all due (or undue) respect Super E, it's one thing to post thousands of pics of the "ladies" you pick up, pay, and actually get permission to shoot. Lurking behind tinted glass and snapping shots of an innocent mother with her kid going about their legitimate business to post on a site such as this is just plain wrong. I'm glad she didn't turn to face your camera for her sake.

Not interested in starting any sort of war, I'm a fan of this site and many of your posts. That one just struck me as shameless.

As others have already stated, there are numerous cases of photos of non or potentially non working ladies being posted. I've posted some 'eye candy' shots myself.

Like SE, I've stated up front they are not working and even add that statement to my photos.

On your side, there is something to be said for us not posting photos of non working girls. Some of us mongers are less than honorable, or don't read the posts but just look at the pictures, and would go up to any lady they've seen posted on the site and try to pick them up.

[Eddy Fine]

Hi. I post mostly on the WV board, where I'm a Senior Member but I happened to notice this over here off the photo gallery. If this were a "girl-watching site" then maybe you might be right about taking random pics of attractive gals you just so happen to see and think look good in public places. But this site is about discussion, commentary and exchanging information on prostitutes, strippers, escorts, massage parlors -basically the world of sex for compensation and favors. If you photograph a random woman - a "civilian" in the parlance - a woman who is not of this world, and post it here, that then associates that woman with this world. She may not BE associated with this world OR MAY NOT WANT to be associated with this world. So any LEGAL recourse she might take against you or this site might be justified. Yes there are plenty of pics of gals out on the street, but they're in areas known in those locales for prostitution and it's obvious by their dress and patterns of activity what they're doing. Just because you've seen a few others on here do the same stupid thing doesn't justify it either. Again, this is a site about prostitution. Stay on that subject. I'd say you're lucky that gal didn't provide a shot of her face or you could be in trouble.

[Supereloquent]

With all due (or undue) respect Super E, it's one thing to post thousands of pics of the "ladies" you pick up, pay, and actually get permission to shoot. Lurking behind tinted glass and snapping shots of an innocent mother with her kid going about their legitimate business to post on a site such as this is just plain wrong. I'm glad she didn't turn to face your camera for her sake.

Not interested in starting any sort of war, I'm a fan of this site and many of your posts. That one just struck me as shameless.

If you are going to go on a campaign condemning public pics posted in here as "shameless," then you have your work cut out for you.

Here is just ONE other example of literally hundreds posted on this site, a girl descending on an escalator:

http://www.usasexguide.info/forum/at...&stc=1&thumb=1

Or this one and hundreds of others like it where the poster implies she is a SW and readily admits he doesn't even know who she is!

http://www.usasexguide.info/forum/at...&stc=1&thumb=1

It sure doesn't seem like there was too much "permission" going on for the escalator pic and hundreds of other public pic shots in here.

I see all kinds of pics taken in public in here: pics on street corners, pics of women walking, pics on the beach, whatever. I don't see any criticism of them. We don't know if they were SWs or whether there was "permission" to post them here or anything else for that matter. Many of the pics identified as SWs could be unsuspecting civilians for all we know. Even celebrity photos are posted here. So, if I disclose the circumstances of a pic, is that worse than others who do not? Was it the "mother" thing that crossed the line? For all I know the kid belonged to one of the other many adults in and around the pool. It's not like I took a deposition to find out. I made an assumption. However, she actually looked awfully young to have a kid that age. Maybe I assumed incorrectly.

My point is that if you want to criticize me for posting public pics, then you should be criticizing the HUNDREDS of others in here as well. Go for it crusader! It will be a full time job.

[Badlarry76]

With all due (or undue) respect Super E, it's one thing to post thousands of pics of the "ladies" you pick up, pay, and actually get permission to shoot. Lurking behind tinted glass and snapping shots of an innocent mother with her kid going about their legitimate business to post on a site such as this is just plain wrong. I'm glad she didn't turn to face your camera for her sake.

Not interested in starting any sort of war, I'm a fan of this site and many of your posts. That one just struck me as shameless.

[Supereloquent]

When I recently took Pixie Jessica for a date at a nice motel, I noticed there was a pool in the center of the place. While I was checking in I saw a young spinner MILF (her kid splashing in his inner tube nearby) in the pool. She was built like a brick shit-house. I saw her at first from the front, and she was awesome: very pretty, blonde hair pinned up, nice tits, incredible shape, and wearing a striking striped bikini. When she turned around I noticed she had a tramp stamp on her lower back and a killer ass. But, by the time I discreetly tried to set up my camera to suppress the flash, get high resolution and set the lens for a long-distance shot, she had turned her back to me and stayed that way for whatever reason (I am sure she didn't see me because the sliding doors to the pool area were tinted). So, I was left with taking a few shots from the back. I hope you appreciate them. Man, would I have loved to tap that yummy morsel!

[Supereloquent]

I agree with Tom and SuperE that Jessica is a keeper in Camden. She always provides top notch service and does it with a smile.

Keep that smile on her face and don't share her contact information with newbies and other assholes who could fuck up a one car funeral. See my recent posting on such a disaster in my Philly thread. Even so-called Senior Members seem capable of abusing valuable SW contacts.

Tom, we have very similiar taste for the same women. It's a shame Leigh just "disappeared" and we both know why Pita isn't out on the stroll but I'm sure she'll be back sooner than later.

I never had the pleasure of being with Pita, but Leigh was an absolute treasure!: an absolutely gorgeous SW in face and body who loved to pose, please and fuck! I miss her!

[Fbtom]

The my last few visits to Bway, I noticed a very aggressive leo presence. Not enough to deter my interests, but a good reminder to not let your guard down!

[Johnboy]

When I got back to Broadway there was a knockout WSW hanging out mid-stroll. I saw two tinted window SUVs nearby with two male passengers each which made me very cautious. But, some bonehead in a late model car pulled right over on Broadway, and she started talking to him through his window. In a minute or two the SUVs converged on him and he was soon leaning against his car and getting the pat-down. I beat it the hell out of there. If there was one good looking LE decoy there were more than one, and I was looking for steak and not hamburger. I would save my appetite for filet mignon for another day, and feast on it a LOT more discreetly than the cretins who don't pay attention to what is going on around them.

I don't know about decoy SW but the undercover LE has been pretty bad lately. I have seen black Crown Vic with tinted windows and the SUV with people pulled over. The girls say they are being harassed more than normal which would explain the heavy vice presence. Now is definatly not the time to pull rookie moves like the one you witnessed.
Be safe
JB