News and Media Reports

**Cephlapod Love** · 03-07-13 12:44

Originally Posted by CookyJar [View Original Post]

Hummm! Very Good! But! Don't things change just a wee bit if a News Article is written and CJ in exposed? Does CJ have the right to face the commenters who have accrued him of being a, gun toting drug dealing child molester?

Thanks for your contribution.

CookyJar

Dude? You OK? Since yer a marine I know yer not rattled.

But that post! If I were a UPenn grad, I'd send the grammar police after you! LOL!

Goodness knows I've got no standing to point fingers.

Either one of yer ladies took up the pen in your defense or I'm detecting a 'change' and that is concerning.

Hope all is well? You OK?

**CookyJar** · 03-07-13 11:16

Originally Posted by Bigtime Monger [View Original Post]

Let me get this straight. A person is posting photos here under an alias that none of his real-life friends, family or associates knows. When he is criticized by someone else here with a similarly anonymous alias he wants to call a lawyer and sue?

I don't understand that at all. Libel is the defamation of a person in writing, where that person is known and therefore can have a reputation to be damaged. Hello? Who here knows who CJ is in real life? Who in the entire world knows who CJ is? What "business" is CJ running here that is defamed or may lose money as a result of some online insults?

Hummm! Very Good! But! Don't things change just a wee bit if a News Article is written and CJ in exposed? Does CJ have the right to face the commenters who have accrued him of being a, gun toting drug dealing child molester?

Thanks for your contribution.

CookyJar

**Bigtime Monger** · 03-06-13 23:04

Let me get this straight. A person is posting photos here under an alias that none of his real-life friends, family or associates knows. When he is criticized by someone else here with a similarly anonymous alias he wants to call a lawyer and sue?

I don't understand that at all. Libel is the defamation of a person in writing, where that person is known and therefore can have a reputation to be damaged. Hello? Who here knows who CJ is in real life? Who in the entire world knows who CJ is? What "business" is CJ running here that is defamed or may lose money as a result of some online insults?

**Ozzypie** · 03-06-13 21:24

Originally Posted by StormRanger [View Original Post]

Edbassmaster is a youtube prankster who plays several very funny characters in his youtube videos. Last week he was "Skippy" handing out roses for Valentine's Day in the Kennsinton Ave area. Really funny at 2:12 of the video when 'Courtney' WSW gets a rose and asks if he's a cop. LOL You got to see this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3voJ_tk-jk

SR

Thanks for posting this, it's even funnier when you know her, LOL.

On a more serious note though, Courtney's house burned in a serious fire Sunday night and I was wondering if anyone knew if she or any of the others taken to the hospital were all right.

Here's a link to the story with some photos;

http://phillyfirenews.com/firewire/view/7687/

**Mmppt** · 02-20-13 20:10

Originally Posted by StormRanger [View Original Post]

Edbassmaster is a youtube prankster who plays several very funny characters in his youtube videos. Last week he was "Skippy" handing out roses for Valentine's Day in the Kennsinton Ave area. Really funny at 2:12 of the video when 'Courtney' WSW gets a rose and asks if he's a cop. LOL You got to see this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3voJ_tk-jk

SR

That's some dedication to the job. You wouldn't catch me dead walking around the K, much less doing stuff like that. Funny though.

**StormRanger** · 02-17-13 22:44

Edbassmaster is a youtube prankster who plays several very funny characters in his youtube videos. Last week he was "Skippy" handing out roses for Valentine's Day in the Kennsinton Ave area. Really funny at 2:12 of the video when 'Courtney' WSW gets a rose and asks if he's a cop. LOL You got to see this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3voJ_tk-jk

SR

**CookyJar** · 02-07-13 08:30

Thanks DirtyDeeds, you have brought up some interesting points.

Originally Posted by DirtyDeeds38 [View Original Post]

… I suspect, however, the nature of CJ's interest out there has nothing to do with LEO, but rather of a civil nature. I. E. One of these, or a few of these girls got their hands in an attorney and are seeking 'damages" for their photos showing up here. I do not believe LEO would have a solid case for prosecution unless several girls were willing to tesify that he did in fact pay for sex. And even if they were, it's still not likely to amount to a felony. Seems like a waste of tax payer resources, but who am I to judge?

There is no law prohibiting the taking of pictures. If you have a camera you can take a picture. It's what you do with that picture. If I had post pictures of fully clothed people on Facebook or some other popular site, no one would be bitching. (I take that back. Some people would bitch Regardless. Facebook does not allow nudity.)

Right to privacy goes right out the window once they willingly posed. If their pictures were taken fully clothed and then somehow their clothing had been magically removed from the pictures without them knowing it and then posted – that would be a problem. But, these girls knew they were naked. If a hidden camera was used and their pictures taken without their knowing it - that would be a problem. If their pictures were used to financially exploit them in some way - that would be a problem. If the pictures were used to slander them – that would be a problem. As it stands, there is no problem and no civil action obtainable. They knew they were being photographed and they knew their photographs would likely be viewed by others.

Before I take a girls picture, we discuss what I intend to do with her pictures. It's a private discussion between adults. To date I have tried to keep every promise made and agreed to during these discussions.

Even if they could get a dozen girls to swear on a mountain of bibles that I paid them for sex, it would still be their word against mine.

I'm no judge either, but I agree – it would be a waste of every ones money and time.

CookyJar

**CookyJar** · 02-07-13 00:07

Originally Posted by Super Ignorant [View Original Post]

Yes, I don't understand! I've been following this thread for a month and I hope someone can clarify a few questions. CJ does wonderful camera work. But I'm wondering.

1) After several folks suggested CJ pay less attention to troll posts (and he agreed?) why is the whole issue being brought up again. Did I miss a new development?

2) Why isn't this topic being played out at the Daily News website where it originated?

3) How can anyone come on here and say he doesn't pay for sex? If payment is only for photos taken, then aren't stories about threesomes in bed and great BBBJs simply lies to us fellow mongers? It seems such a disservice to newbies here to imply that you can solicit a girl on Kensington Avenue and get sex for free.

4) How can "only solicitation" not be considered serious. Go back and read Zaphod II's post about his arrest. New members here need to realize the risk involved in picking up street providers.

5) How can anyone imply to readers here that posting photos in the past doesn't make a girl's identity available to the general public? Doing a search on "Melissa Kensington" now is no different than doing it after the forthcoming (dreaded) expose.

6) Do any of us really believe the front page of the Inquirer will soon be plastered with lame quotations from addicts who posed for porn?

WOW! I've been away for a few days. While I've was gone, suddenly the joint got jumping.

I cannot make you understand, if you don't want to. Nothing I say to you is going to make a difference.

1. I never agreed to stop posting. Look up sarcasm. It was suggested that I was the one posting in the daily rags and I said, 'Wow! Now that I know it was me doing it, I feel much better. I'll stop and we can all go back to normal. We can keep everything within the confines of the USASexGuide community. Thank you, JGarth. ' So here I am keeping everything within the confines of the USASexGuide community.

2. Why can't it be played out here? Is there some rule against playing it out here that I am not aware of?

3. I don't pay for sex. It locker room bull crap. Men have been doing it for years. Some people will read the stories and take them as gospel. Others won't. You and the newbies are free to believe what you want. That's the nice thing about this country. The truth? Hell if I know what it is.

4. Compared to rape, murder, robbery, stealing, coveting you neighbor's wife, crossing the street in the middle of the block, going swimming right after eating and etc, solicitation is pretty low on the totem pole. I currently have a clean record. Been to court lots of times. Never been charged with a crime. (Knock on wood.) If I've got to take a hit, I hope it for a minor something like solicitation and not any of the bigger ones.

5. Right now this is a relatively unknown site. Few people know about it. The more publicity, the more people who know about USASexGuide, the more exposure, the more. Oh Hell, figure it out for yourself.

6. Nope. But stranger things have happened.

I hope this helps to clear things up for you. I doubt if it will. You don't like me. I don't know why, but nothing I can say is going to change that.

CookyJar

**Barry Manilow** · 02-05-13 14:35

Originally Posted by Cephlapod Love [View Original Post]

I can't answer what some creative prosecutor can dredge up to stop one individual, but thinking one is safe behind the law seems a bit dangerous from this perspective.

Speaking of creative prosecutors, did anyone notice who posted the 2nd comment under the Daily News article that started all this?

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/d...arrowgate.html

If I were you CJ, I'd go back to Viet Nam and hide in the jungle (next to SuperE). LOL.

**Cephlapod Love** · 02-05-13 13:13

Originally Posted by CookyJar [View Original Post]

No! Please! I appreciate your opinion. And! I totally agree with what you've said.

If LE wants me there is little I can do. When it comes to charges however, there is very little they can do. Unless they trump-up a charge. What have I done? Even if I'm found with a girl; it's only solicitation. I don't pay for sex. I don't carry a gun. I've never threatened, like alone hit a girl. I am not a pimp. I don't cuss. I pay my taxes. I treat all women with respect. I get at least eight hours of sleep each night. I'm your average guy and I like to take pictures.

What are they going to do to me? Tell my mommy and daddy, send me back to Vietnam or maybe banish me to bed without supper.

If the commenters get their way, USASexGuide. Com will get some much needed publicity, I will be pissed-off and every girl who has a picture posted on USASexGuide. Com, by me or anyone else, will have her identity made available to the general public.

Sure, I could change venues, move to another country or simply stop posting and I would if I thought it would make the slightest difference. Unfortunately, what's been done is done and cannot be undone.

CookyJar

Maybe you should eat your vegetables too and get the right amount of fiber as well?

But no, I get what you are sayin'

C'mon CJ - Now let me say this and I'll hope you take it the right way. Not looking to wet yer shoes, just get in yer face a bit to drive home a point.

My reading between the lines suggests, you got nicked or detained by LE at some point recently and as a result of such, consulted with a qualified attorney. That was a smart move.

But me thinks, in reading your post one detects a bit of "something". Which in fact reminds me of the story Icarus.

Also, I'll share that the times when one tends to find the most trouble are when they THINK they have solved the issues / problems. So don't let your certitude be your downfall, we've already seen one poster on here suffer a fate as a result arrogance and hubris.

I can't answer what some creative prosecutor can dredge up to stop one individual, but thinking one is safe behind the law seems a bit dangerous from this perspective. Look, in DE they used to have those old style drive-in motels that were an open air drug market and wh*rehouse. Girls would sit in lawn chairs outside their rooms an dealers walked up to your car. Numerous arrests of those doing the crimes never stopped the issue, until some creative prosecutor applied some "Health & Hygiene" law to the OWNERS. [the frickin owners who were doing nothing wrong! ]

So if an ADA is coming at you, they are gunna come from some creative angle AND they are gunna come BIG. No silly string of misdemeanors, they'll be hunting felonies.

But alas, all they need to do is make the arrest. Then at that point, this becomes a "story" for the TV and newspapers and internet. I guess if one doesn't mind being identified publicly as a wh*remonger, then one has nothing to worry about. I can suggest however, that even if you manage to win the legal issues, you are going to loose. The prosecutor can see to it that one gets a hefty legal bill; er, unless one is in fact a lawyer or has one available for free?

So my amigo, don't allow one's certitude to lull them into a false sense of security and fly too close to the sun!

But alas, all are free to take their own path in the sojourn of life. Be safe.

**Cephlapod Love** · 02-05-13 12:49

Originally Posted by Super Ignorant [View Original Post]

Yes, I don't understand! I've been following this thread for a month and I hope someone can clarify a few questions. CJ does wonderful camera work. But I'm wondering.

3) How can anyone come on here and say he doesn't pay for sex? If payment is only for photos taken, then aren't stories about threesomes in bed and great BBBJs simply lies to us fellow mongers? It seems such a disservice to newbies here to imply that you can solicit a girl on Kensington Avenue and get sex for free.

No, and either one is a putz, trying to stir up sh*t with a well-regarded poster or, one needs and education. I'll let each reader draw their own conclusions. But alas, I'll subscribe to the theory that education is the cure to ignorance, so perhaps I can contribute to a reduction of such?

Look, if one looks at the law as a bright line, then they truly are ignorant. {sorry to be so harsh} What the story of life should teach you is that the reason we have so many lawyers running around this country is that the law isn't black & white. Sure there are lines but there are always nuances to those lines, which create grey areas. Also, don't fall into the trap of thinking, well this happened to my buddy this way, so it must be the law. Each situation is different and as such, if one wants to prosecute justice to their advantage they let the experts navigate these grey areas. You think you have a better understanding of the law than a lawyer?

Funny, most people take "experiences" to heart and assume that is the law, without fully understanding the nuances.

So, the point is that when one pays for a legitimate legal service and as a consequence, by some stroke of luck, two consenting adults agree to engage in sexual activities, there is no crime. Oh sure, I am certain one could get arrested anyway, but it makes it very difficult for a prosecutor to prove that there was prostitution: ie money exchanged for sexual contact. Look, stop and think about it, those tapes of the Zoomba instructor in MA, nothing illegal there - until she offered XYZ (sexual contact) for ABC (compensation) or until the Gent offered to pay for sexual services. Why do you think that the AMPs NEVER stand there and verbally negotiate with you over "extras?" Bottom line - they are providing a legitimate service- a body rub. So a prosecutor has to decide, if he wants to climb the up hill battle to prove that illegal activity occurred, that the money was for sex.

Now let me tell you, prosecutors are overworked and prefer to plead cases out, rather than fight up hill battles and loose. Sure, if the politics or community opinion are in the prosecutor's favor, or they just have a hard-on for you, then perhaps they proceed with a case against you. But my guess is that most caught in such a situation, just want the whole thing to go away quietly and will agree to a plea on loitering or something else, so they can pay a fine and walk away. But my analysis is probably way too simplistic for anyone reading this with a law degree. Please correct me.

Let me take this to an extreme. What if you met some nice young lady on Match. Com (or at a church function), you meet her for a drink, she tells you a sad story about her shoeless kids or the one that needs an operation, you feel sorry for her and give her some money to help her kids out? Then at the end of the date, you drive her home and at the door the goodnight kiss ignites sparks between the two of you, she pushes you inside, tears off yer clothes and darn near rapes you right there in the entryway. So are you guilty of prostitution? I mean after all you gave her money and there was sex. Or do the "nuances" or particulars of the situation make a difference?

So what if you paid someone to take their picture? How come the girls who are in all of the porno movies - i.e. getting paid to have sex for money..... why aren't they arrested for prostitution? I mean the purpose of the money she gets is explicitly for her to have sex. Is there some other nuance we need to consider here?

So good luck out there - Be safe! Don't do anything illegal!

*"curbstone legal advice" is a joke. What law school did you go to, Curbstone U? It means you got your "law degree" at the curb / on the street and which is likely highly deficient.

**DirtyDeeds38** · 02-05-13 01:16

Originally Posted by Super Ignorant [View Original Post]

Yes, I don't understand! I've been following this thread for a month and I hope someone can clarify a few questions. CJ does wonderful camera work. But I'm wondering.

1) After several folks suggested CJ pay less attention to troll posts (and he agreed?) why is the whole issue being brought up again. Did I miss a new development?

2) Why isn't this topic being played out at the Daily News website where it originated?

3) How can anyone come on here and say he doesn't pay for sex? If payment is only for photos taken, then aren't stories about threesomes in bed and great BBBJs simply lies to us fellow mongers? It seems such a disservice to newbies here to imply that you can solicit a girl on Kensington Avenue and get sex for free.

4) How can "only solicitation" not be considered serious. Go back and read Zaphod II's post about his arrest. New members here need to realize the risk involved in picking up street providers.

5) How can anyone imply to readers here that posting photos in the past doesn't make a girl's identity available to the general public? Doing a search on "Melissa Kensington" now is no different than doing it after the forthcoming (dreaded) expose.

6) Do any of us really believe the front page of the Inquirer will soon be plastered with lame quotations from addicts who posed for porn?

I'm no law major and I have no idea if the reviews here could be incriminating or not. I know lots of blokes here make shit up and write fantasies and such. I know lots here will read former reviews and then write similar reviews on the same provider to build their post count so they can fit in. I know some people just write blatantly fake stories and relish in it. For these and many other reasons, it's probably why we aren't all sitting in jail. With that said, I agree, if LEO wants you, if for nothing else to humiliate you, than they shall find a way.

I suspect, however, the nature of CJ's interest out there has nothing to do with LEO, but rather of a civil nature. I. E. One of these, or a few of these girls got their hands in an attorney and are seeking 'damages" for their photos showing up here. I do not believe LEO would have a solid case for prosecution unless several girls were willing to tesify that he did in fact pay for sex. And even if they were, it's still not likely to amount to a felony. Seems like a waste of tax payer resources, but who am I to judge?

I once played a role on a forum and had to make shit up all the time to "fit in' and get the inside scoop with folks posting there. I'm good at that sort of thing. Some people here may be doing just that and believe it or not, it's fully protected under the 2nd amedment.

**Inncogneatoe** · 02-04-13 20:21

Originally Posted by JGgarth [View Original Post]

… What I don't Give a crap about is the drama itself.

Try this:

See the name CookyJar in the top left portion of his latest post? Place your computer's curser on his name and click the left side of your computer mouse. A menu box containing three selections will open. Place your curser on the selection 'View Profile, ' and click the left side of your mouse again. This should bring you to CookyJar's profile page. Under the user name CookyJar and under the designation Senior Member you should find four more selections. Place your curser on the second from the top, which should read 'Add to Ignore List, ' and click the left side of your mouse one final time.

This should solve this and all future CookyJar drama problems.

Inncogneatoe

**Inncogneatoe** · 02-04-13 19:54

Originally Posted by JGgarth [View Original Post]

What I Care about is keeping this forum free from excess of CookieJar drama. What I don't Give a crap about is the drama itself. I don't think it deserves so much coverage here. Now go in peace, my friend, and next time you decide to comment, first read for comprehension what you're commenting on, before Commenting.

(If there's any random capitalization in the above, it's the work of this posting software, which apparently thinks it knows better what I am trying to say.)

Maybe you should go back and count the number of times you have pointed out that you do not care. For someone who says he does not care, it appears that you do care about whatever it is that you are claiming not to care about. Maybe if you would stop saying that you do not care, I could start believing you. Personally, I do not care that you do not care. I am certain that you do not care that I do not care that you do not care. Can we agree on that?

Is it okay if I and perhaps a few others think the subject deserves to be fully covered? Is yours the only opinion that counts? I may not agree with CookyJar. I do agree that he has the right to speak out.

Who put JGarth in charge of deciding when a member is being excessive? Frankly, in my own humble opinion I believe it is you, JGarth, who is being excessive in your complaining.

Inncogneatoe

**JGgarth** · 02-04-13 18:56

Originally Posted by Inncogneatoe [View Original Post]

Apparently you do care.

What I Care about is keeping this forum free from excess of CookieJar drama. What I don't Give a crap about is the drama itself. I don't think it deserves so much coverage here. Now go in peace, my friend, and next time you decide to comment, first read for comprehension what you're commenting on, before Commenting.

(If there's any random capitalization in the above, it's the work of this posting software, which apparently thinks it knows better what I am trying to say.)