The Prickyard

[QUOTE=AaaGabriel812;3865136]So BM how deep is it getting. Do you ever stop and think before you type? Your facts are a little off, let me enlighten you.

The day (s) before the sting, Uncle Steve made an appointment to see Reese on the only phone number used to make appointments. He was using a text app but was verified as a friend and being safe by another hobbyist that had seen Reese the week before. So it must be one of two things the hobbyist had flipped or was another uncle. Uncle Steve arrived, negotiated a deal for sex for $ with Reese and then suddenly had to leave before services were provided. What is the crime BM? Prostitution dude! She was not charged that day because uncle was building his case. What is building a case, probable cause!

The day of the sting, uncle had been verified with a real phone number (not an app, drop phone or internet phone) and with two provider references, one from Milfy and the other from an unknown CMT. The screener used only the references. So all is good right? NO, but more on that later. The now verified customer was given several options of ladies to see via texts on the same phone number that Uncle had made an appointment with Reese. The ladies were told he was coming and were asked if they would see him however, he only wanted to see Candace. So what crime is being committed? Promoting prostitution. Why? Same phone number already used to commit documented previous illegal activity and multiple ladies offered to provide service. Then shortly after the sting, while at the property Reese admits that she and Candace had put thousands of $ into fixing up the house that they had just leased and was hoping the landlord would reimburse them.

So now some thoughts for the community.

Why wasn't Reese arrested for her previous meeting with uncle? Why were two ladies, one of them Jan, who you tag as the "roller", who were in rooms right next to each other, released within two hours and Reese was there for several hours. Mind you, only a prosecutor can make a deal for immunity. Uncle can say anything they want but, immunity can only be negotiated by a prosecutor and a sworn statement. The two ladies next to each other only had Uncle questioning them, no prosecutor. OOPPPPS BM there goes your theory! So community probable cause via an illegal action committed the day before, probable cause by offering multiple ladies to Uncle when he was coming to visit. Isn't it probable cause if a "Lessee" works multiple ladies out of their property?

Questions for you BM. Why don't you have the same enthusiasm to bring to the lime light the hobbyist that flipped, or the other providers that provided false verifications? Why are you focused on one person? Why are you attacking the business decisions of another service that you never use and never will use?

Now for the kicker, let's go back to Uncle involved in the sting. If the SCREENER had just taken the time to run the digits through something as simple as White Pages his real name showed up. Then if she had googled his name, guess what? He's an IMPD police officer, DUH! So the moral of this story is: If you don't screen properly you are going to get arrested. This is what happens when a screener doesn't do their job correctly and makes it easy for multiple cases of probable cause.

So BM does Knighthood come complete with sexual favors? Now how deep is it getting?[/QUOTE]So the real kicker is.

Yes there's no denying my part as a screener I made a mistake. I DID SCREEN on mulitple platforms, all in which came back to the same name. However, once a # is verified by Multiple current providers. # was in the name of person who he said he was. I didn't continue to look or google him. I trusted the references and screening platforms. Generally if the number is associated with law enforcement. ITS DISCLOSED. Again MY MISTAKE and I owned that in my orginal post. Which is why I took the heat for the Misdemeanor charge. No biggie.

However, Reese seeing "Steve" days prior wasnt enough for them to charge a level 4 felony because NO SEX ACTS where commited. Even agreeing to sex acts for cash would have only got her prostitution at best. But they didn't want REESE. Which is exactly why they couldn't obtain a search warrent at the time. I have the affidavit NOBODY is included in the Felony charge affidavit EXCEPT JAN and it clearly states once JAN disclosed AMB and monies exchanged. They THEN BOOKED ME FOR FELONY AT THAT TIME AND OBTAINED SEARCH warrent.

They can not simply charge a promotion of prostitution soley based off "assumption" because there was NO PROOF that sex was taking place in the appts. I actually don't know if that's what they were doing or not. Each appt is different per wach client.

Until it was VERIFIED by JAN that that's exactly what she was doing they had ZERO proof and only assumptions. So with admission from JAN saying yes that's what she was doing. Why WASNT SHE BOOKED?

Reese was released later because EVERYONE could here Jan telling the detectives what happen. REESE then yelled out that she was a lair in the southeast building where questioning happen. All girls were released with all of their money and no charges. However, for Jans safety she was released first. Yes Reese admited to putting money in the property for her to live there because that was true. She did live there at the time and did help set it up to fit her needs.

The reason BM is focusing on JAN is simply because people who got on this thread and PUT NAMES ON POSTS left her out. WHY DID THEY LEAVE JAN OUT BUT PUT NAMES OF OTHERS ON THERE?? Because well Jan is the only one THAT TOLD. Also because JAN is banging a well known MONGER on the boards that is not alloweed to post anymore. BM POINT TO ALL THIS IS MATTER OF FACT:

IF YOU ARE IN THIS COMMUNITY YOU. THERES A LOYALTY TO IT. WHEN YOU GET ON A POST AND START PUTTING NAMES MAKE SURE YOU PUT ALL OF THE NAMES NOT JUST THE ONES YOU WANT TO SIMPLY BECAUSE you ARE FUCKING HER.

So if the shit wants to get deep IT CAN GO THERE.

[QUOTE=AaaGabriel812;3865136]So BM how deep is it getting. Do you ever stop and think before you type? Your facts are a little off, let me enlighten you.

The day (s) before the sting, Uncle Steve made an appointment to see Reese on the only phone number used to make appointments. He was using a text app but was verified as a friend and being safe by another hobbyist that had seen Reese the week before. So it must be one of two things the hobbyist had flipped or was another uncle. Uncle Steve arrived, negotiated a deal for sex for $ with Reese and then suddenly had to leave before services were provided. What is the crime BM? Prostitution dude! She was not charged that day because uncle was building his case. What is building a case, probable cause!

The day of the sting, uncle had been verified with a real phone number (not an app, drop phone or internet phone) and with two provider references, one from Milfy and the other from an unknown CMT. The screener used only the references. So all is good right? NO, but more on that later. The now verified customer was given several options of ladies to see via texts on the same phone number that Uncle had made an appointment with Reese. The ladies were told he was coming and were asked if they would see him however, he only wanted to see Candace. So what crime is being committed? Promoting prostitution. Why? Same phone number already used to commit documented previous illegal activity and multiple ladies offered to provide service. Then shortly after the sting, while at the property Reese admits that she and Candace had put thousands of $ into fixing up the house that they had just leased and was hoping the landlord would reimburse them.

So now some thoughts for the community.

Why wasn't Reese arrested for her previous meeting with uncle? Why were two ladies, one of them Jan, who you tag as the "roller", who were in rooms right next to each other, released within two hours and Reese was there for several hours. Mind you, only a prosecutor can make a deal for immunity. Uncle can say anything they want but, immunity can only be negotiated by a prosecutor and a sworn statement. The two ladies next to each other only had Uncle questioning them, no prosecutor. OOPPPPS BM there goes your theory! So community probable cause via an illegal action committed the day before, probable cause by offering multiple ladies to Uncle when he was coming to visit. Isn't it probable cause if a "Lessee" works multiple ladies out of their property?

Questions for you BM. Why don't you have the same enthusiasm to bring to the lime light the hobbyist that flipped, or the other providers that provided false verifications? Why are you focused on one person? Why are you attacking the business decisions of another service that you never use and never will use?

Now for the kicker, let's go back to Uncle involved in the sting. If the SCREENER had just taken the time to run the digits through something as simple as White Pages his real name showed up. Then if she had googled his name, guess what? He's an IMPD police officer, DUH! So the moral of this story is: If you don't screen properly you are going to get arrested. This is what happens when a screener doesn't do their job correctly and makes it easy for multiple cases of probable cause.

So BM does Knighthood come complete with sexual favors? Now how deep is it getting?[/QUOTE]Even more so.

Hundreds of providers have came and gone in Indianapolis without little Fanfare, yet a couple individuals seem to find it necessary to establish the importance of how credible Jan's reputation is. These individuals seem to have much at stake pertaining to Jan's credibility in the field whereas BigMac has nothing to gain by outing a snitch.

[QUOTE=AaaGabriel812;3865136]So BM how deep is it getting. Do you ever stop and think before you type? Your facts are a little off, let me enlighten you.

The day (s) before the sting, Uncle Steve made an appointment to see Reese on the only phone number used to make appointments. He was using a text app but was verified as a friend and being safe by another hobbyist that had seen Reese the week before. So it must be one of two things the hobbyist had flipped or was another uncle. Uncle Steve arrived, negotiated a deal for sex for $ with Reese and then suddenly had to leave before services were provided. What is the crime BM? Prostitution dude! She was not charged that day because uncle was building his case. What is building a case, probable cause!

The day of the sting, uncle had been verified with a real phone number (not an app, drop phone or internet phone) and with two provider references, one from Milfy and the other from an unknown CMT. The screener used only the references. So all is good right? NO, but more on that later. The now verified customer was given several options of ladies to see via texts on the same phone number that Uncle had made an appointment with Reese. The ladies were told he was coming and were asked if they would see him however, he only wanted to see Candace. So what crime is being committed? Promoting prostitution. Why? Same phone number already used to commit documented previous illegal activity and multiple ladies offered to provide service. Then shortly after the sting, while at the property Reese admits that she and Candace had put thousands of $ into fixing up the house that they had just leased and was hoping the landlord would reimburse them.

So now some thoughts for the community.

Why wasn't Reese arrested for her previous meeting with uncle? Why were two ladies, one of them Jan, who you tag as the "roller", who were in rooms right next to each other, released within two hours and Reese was there for several hours. Mind you, only a prosecutor can make a deal for immunity. Uncle can say anything they want but, immunity can only be negotiated by a prosecutor and a sworn statement. The two ladies next to each other only had Uncle questioning them, no prosecutor. OOPPPPS BM there goes your theory! So community probable cause via an illegal action committed the day before, probable cause by offering multiple ladies to Uncle when he was coming to visit. Isn't it probable cause if a "Lessee" works multiple ladies out of their property?

Questions for you BM. Why don't you have the same enthusiasm to bring to the lime light the hobbyist that flipped, or the other providers that provided false verifications? Why are you focused on one person? Why are you attacking the business decisions of another service that you never use and never will use?

Now for the kicker, let's go back to Uncle involved in the sting. If the SCREENER had just taken the time to run the digits through something as simple as White Pages his real name showed up. Then if she had googled his name, guess what? He's an IMPD police officer, DUH! So the moral of this story is: If you don't screen properly you are going to get arrested. This is what happens when a screener doesn't do their job correctly and makes it easy for multiple cases of probable cause.

So BM does Knighthood come complete with sexual favors? Now how deep is it getting?[/QUOTE]Several and I mean several ladies have been busted with a screener (even using same number, like agencies for example) and without one. ONLY charge prostitution. Why because the ladies don't TALK.

[QUOTE=BigCat44;3864157]I have sent you 2 PMs on Jan and you have not responded. We are suppose to share information on here so share it or do you have a problem with that.[/QUOTE]Sorry for the delayed response. Been out of town and not on the site. Last time I saw her she asked me not to give out the number I have just yet. She plans to advertise again as soon as she's settled in town permanently, but I will ask her when it would be ok to share, or if she'll be advertising a new #. Thanks for your patience. She's a little gun shy right now and I want to respect her wishes.

[QUOTE=Rch9394;3864369]How do you get a hold of Jan now. I have her old txt, but not using it in case it is compromised. I sent you a PM.[/QUOTE]Sorry for the delayed response. Been out of town and not on the site. Last time I saw her she asked me not to give out the number I have just yet. She plans to advertise again as soon as she's settled in town permanently, but I will ask her when it would be ok to share, or if she'll be advertising a new #. Thanks for your patience. She's a little gun shy right now and I want to respect her wishes.

The only three things that are important are the name on the affidavit signed by the snitch at the office of LE, the removal of that snitch from the community for the safety of mongers and providers, and the realization that if the lady is still working for another agency why is that agency hiring her and using her because it endangers the safety of the other girls working in the same agency. Only one person knows whose name is on that affidavit and when that is found out those who supported her will have a lot of explaining to do. Make sense to you AAA? I have no skin in the game HOW ABOUT YOU? Are you dating the person or persons in question? Does she work for you and if so why is she still working for you? Only C38 knows who is on that affidavit. As to screening, I believe another monger on her said it best. NO SCREENING PROCESS IS FOOL Proof and if they want someone bad enough they will find a way to get them. Why Indy is very deplete in agencies for that very reason. As for the other girls which ever you choose, if no other three girls were found to have broken the law not actively engaged in an unlawful activity the man would have no reason to hold them. However the one who rolled would be detained to roll over and sign a statement identifying who did what. Maybe that person I working for them now as part of an illegal bargain to keep from getting busted for whatever reason they would come up with. Again the name on the affidavit is the NARC and once she becomes known she and those who defend her will not be in good standing with the community I would think. But since I see no ladies from either group that's my story and I am sticking to it. But then my name is not on the police document signed by the lady who dictated it to Uncle. Have a good week Ms / Mr. Gabriel. If it goes to trial it will become public record.

When a situation like Candace's happens a life changes forever. I know. I was in her boat a year ago. Fortunately for me my life changed mostly for the good since I was able to travel for a year and since have moved out of state. But I too paid dearly in other ways.

Big Mack, you have NO skin in this game. Any of the ladies involved were out of your price range and you are just stirring shit. People tried to stir shit and claimed I was working with the cops and had been let go. In reality I was the only one of the 3 that lawyered up and ended up getting held EIGHT hours longer than the other two girls. I screen. Pretty darn well but to my dismay I didn't check the address on the drivers license pic the cop sent me or I would have seen it was to a hotel. Lessons learned, price paid. Even though I have always remained legit and took my pinch my business suffered in Indy. Was it due to the false information being spun by Superfun or whatever the fuck his name was. Maybe. Don't know but it was never the same.

Candace and I have had our disagreements but in one aspect I feel for her as she has a kid. I don't think it's wise that she's broadcasting stuff on here with charges still pending. Early curler knows? Hello, Bueller, Bueller? In other aspects I feel she kind of got what was coming as a pimp is a pimp is a pimp but that's just my opinion. However I commend her if she's taking her pinch. I have no idea if anyone flipped. I'm not there.

My point in all this: Big Mack and anyone else speculating on what happened just freaking stop. You are making it even harder on those affected by this. You have nothing to gain and nothing to lose so it's pointless for you to put your $. 02 in it.

The whole hobby is dangerous in many ways for providers and clients alike. With the demise of BP and everything else that FOSTA fucked up it only got worse. Indianapolis is a little unique as many of us tried to look out for each other. Hell, mmgeg and I were extremely close, had a falling out but I never dissed her on here. Our personal differences had no bearing on the fact she's an excellent safe provider.

So perhaps instead of speculating, perhaps some of you guys can reach out to those affected, maybe throw a little money their way and by golly maybe not even expect anything in return.

I think anything pertaining to the raid should really come to an end and just move on from it. We all know LEO is watching this and think it would be a wise decision to keep reviews of the ladies involved in private messaging. I know if I was involved in something as serious as a raid I sure as heck don't want reviews going up so soon. It was very unfortunate that it happened and it's caused a lot of uncertainty in our local hobby and tons of assumptions. Now I can't speak on behalf of all the ladies that weren't involved but I believe we're all worried about seeing anyone new. I'm sure at the end of this month I'll have only done a handful of appointments. My personal life is far too important. And so is my squeaky clean record!

[QUOTE=Sarag;3866262]When a situation like Candace's happens a life changes forever. I know. I was in her boat a year ago. Fortunately for me my life changed mostly for the good since I was able to travel for a year and since have moved out of state. But I too paid dearly in other ways.

Big Mack, you have NO skin in this game. Any of the ladies involved were out of your price range and you are just stirring shit. People tried to stir shit and claimed I was working with the cops and had been let go. In reality I was the only one of the 3 that lawyered up and ended up getting held EIGHT hours longer than the other two girls. I screen. Pretty darn well but to my dismay I didn't check the address on the drivers license pic the cop sent me or I would have seen it was to a hotel. Lessons learned, price paid. Even though I have always remained legit and took my pinch my business suffered in Indy. Was it due to the false information being spun by Superfun or whatever the fuck his name was. Maybe. Don't know but it was never the same..[/QUOTE]If you had read the ladies posts she has a signed affidavit with the ladies name on it. The problem is not with me seeing her but for any male in community using her services and any agency now or later who wants to bring her in. It is about the safety of all male and female. I do agree with VR back channel is the best method but remember that what may be out of a clients $$ range now may not be down the road so knowing who did what makes the decision to see or not to that much more comfortable. It is out now and I am glad for the community and it is their decision what to do. This could have all been prevented with 10 simple words at the station. Sir I have no idea what you are talking about. The other four had no problems with saying that. Why she rolled who knows. They caught her doing nothing and she blabbed Dangerous to providers and clients alike. JMO Hope all is well with you in the great North and you are doing well.

I've seen Jan twice now. Great provider, but seems very new at all this. I wasn't there, but I can only surmise that she got caught up in a new and scary situation that she handled very poorly. And probably regrets it, because the first time I met her she spoke very highly of C38. Anyway, I took a chance on her and it worked out. Perhaps dumb on my part, but it is what it is. You can bet my head is on a swivel right now where she is concerned. The moral of the story, and what I've come to learn is, if you find one or two, or three providers that you can trust. Stick with them and be satisfied with that. Which is sad, because I'm sure there are many other trustworthy providers out there I'm missing out on. But I can't take the risks. For me, Jan / Kerri (at least for now), Remy, Catharine are all my go to ladies. I'd be happy to talk about any of them in private. And I'm sorry if I unnecessarily stirred things up on here about "THE RAID". I hope things turn out ok for you, C38.

Now let's get real. BM and Candace are hell bent on trying to smear Jan. Candace is sending the affidavit to clients AND now someone with a database of telephone numbers is texting clients and leaving voicemails telling them that they are being watched and effectively scaring the crap out of them. Now let's look at who failed who.

In the movie Wall Street, Michael Douglas's character Gordon Geeko stated "The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. ".

And his greed led him to be sloppy. So who failed who? When a provider employs an agency, just like an entertainer, they pay a fee for services they expect the agency to provide. In the providing business, the agency will advertise, field inquiries and vet clients. Pay attention here: the provider EMPLOYS the agency, unlike a pimp:

"who controls prostitutes and arranges clients for them, taking part of their earnings in return". Although it sounds similar, it's not the same. AMB advertised for ladies to work for her. See the difference?

Now who failed who:

Someone, presumably Candace, is putting clients at risk by sending unsolicited texts to a client list and / or leaving voicemails. How is this discreet? Is this exposing them to family and / or employers?

Per discussion Jan supposedly attended an orientation at the house prior to the bust. Apparently someone failed to emphasize exercising our fifth amendment rights and the mantra "I want a lawyer" should a situation arise that would dictate the need.

When other agencies or independents screen effectively this situation would have been avoided. Taking the word or reference of providers is risky. The reference is only as good as your trust in the person giving it. How much trust did Candace put in Milfy and the unidentified CMT? Apparently too much. Her screening stopped and now all providers working in that house were exposed to potential legal issues. What if instead of the law, the bad guy had been abusive? Huh, huh, huh? So who failed who?

The agency that Jan has EMPLOYED is very thorough and puts provider safety ALWAYS over the almighty dollar. They aren't novices and if they have continued to be her EMPLOYEE then it's because they are confident that the risk is either non existent or extremely minimal.

The woman needs to eat. She needs to put a roof over her head. Other people have seen her since the incident. Put yourself in her shoes. She was very wet behind the ears, no pun intended, when everything went down. They already had been watching the house and had probable cause to do the raid, so blaiming Jan for apparently her employer's failure to properly train her in emergency procedures is unfair. If you don't want to see her, then don't. Go see someone else. Someone else who may or may not have employed a company to represent their needs. It's a crap shoot.

But one last time I have to ask who failed who?

Thanks for explaining what happened and sending out the affidavit to let people judge for themselves.

I'm glad you're not letting people give you shit and don't feel bad. Mistakes happen to everyone.

[QUOTE=IndyAnon;3867651]Thanks for explaining what happened and sending out the affidavit to let people judge for themselves.

I'm glad you're not letting people give you shit and don't feel bad. Mistakes happen to everyone.[/QUOTE]And I am sure you would feel the same about Jan also since you said "Mistakes happen to everyone". Am I not correct?

[QUOTE=BigMack;3865965]The only three things that are important are the name on the affidavit signed by the snitch at the office of LE... Make sense to you AAA? However the one who rolled would be detained to roll over and sign a statement identifying who did what.... But then my name is not on the police document signed by the lady who dictated it to Uncle. Have a good week Ms / Mr. Gabriel. If it goes to trial it will become public record.[/QUOTE]I was asked by a friend to stop and let this subject go away. Then I learned that a screenshot of the Probable Cause Affidavit is being submitted via texts and e-mails to multiple hobbyist's on the board as well as other Ex-AMB clients. I find this ludicrous, insensitive and what I consider against all hobby etiquette. So I am making one last comment on the subject then I am done.

The Probable Cause Affidavit screenshot being passed around is missing the main part, the signature line where the detective responsible for the case signs it! Why is the signature line missing? The top of the screen shot is where it's indicated that the interviewee was given a pre-printed advice of rights, asked to initial 1 through 5 and sign the bottom. All five ladies were given the same document and to the best of my knowledge all five signed it. To the best of my knowledge nothing else was signed by Jan. If a confession was made, a testimony by a witness or a statement by a witness, the interviewee would sign it. Nothing like this exists.

Nobody but Jan and Uncle were in the room so nobody but them knows what was said this includes all the other four ladies. LE lies, manipulates, threatens and does whatever is necessary to get an interviewee confused and to say things they don't want to. Is it possible Jan said things she shouldn't have, absolutely? Did she cry out "I will tell you whatever you want and sign anything you want to get out of this!" Nope I truly don't believe she did, that's a NARC. Uncle can combine statements, comments, information from multiple interviews into a Probable Cause Affidavit. I was told by another interviewee that was in the room next to Jan that no one entered either room other than Uncle, no prosecutor entered either room, thus no deal for Immunity could have been made.

38 C I feel for you and wish this never happened to you and wish you well. I also thought you said you retired? You should because LE is watching you, making screen prints of all these posts and laughing along with the prosecutor who will be involved in your plea bargain. Just ask EarlyCuyler. It's sad that all of this was brought to the board by BM because, all he has done is endanger your future.

BM maybe you should retire because none of the "Quality Ladies", your words not mine, in Indy will see you. However you might want to try the SW scene because most of those ladies are good at sticking small tubes into small holes.

[QUOTE=AaaGabriel812;3867794]I was asked by a friend to stop and let this subject go away. Then I learned that a screenshot of the Probable Cause Affidavit is being submitted via texts and e-mails to multiple hobbyist's on the board as well as other Ex-AMB clients. I find this ludicrous, insensitive and what I consider against all hobby etiquette. So I am making one last comment on the subject then I am done.

The Probable Cause Affidavit screenshot being passed around is missing the main part, the signature line where the detective responsible for the case signs it! Why is the signature line missing? The top of the screen shot is where it's indicated that the interviewee was given a pre-printed advice of rights, asked to initial 1 through 5 and sign the bottom. All five ladies were given the same document and to the best of my knowledge all five signed it. To the best of my knowledge nothing else was signed by Jan. If a confession was made, a testimony by a witness or a statement by a witness, the interviewee would sign it. Nothing like this exists.

Nobody but Jan and Uncle were in the room so nobody but them knows what was said this includes all the other four ladies. LE lies, manipulates, threatens and does whatever is necessary to get an interviewee confused and to say things they don't want to. Is it possible Jan said things she shouldn't have, absolutely? Did she cry out "I will tell you whatever you want and sign anything you want to get out of this!" Nope I truly don't believe she did, that's a NARC..[/QUOTE]Might want to check your laws. Affidavits are written statements from detectives based off information given by parties involved (who talked) . And they have to sign them and submit them to court. JAN / Kherri signed her Miranda rights as we all did. That is a requirement showing that Miranda rights were given. No personal information was leaked. And if LEO is watching they already have the information I have discussed on the board. I have it in my possession and I was there. So I know what happened.