It's best to stay out of the headlines
[QUOTE=Deranged;4556058]I would never use an agency or any of these "crapshoots" where the women are foreign, cannot speak English, and are housed in some sketchy location. That reeks of trafficking even if it isn't. And why wouldn't I prefer to see high quality women with whom I can relate and form a legitimate (albeit short) connection with? These "crapshoots" gross me out.
In light of this recent news, I do wonder: Are there any documented cases of LE going after clients of busted agencies? Discovered via text messages, emails, calls, etc. If those messages contain nothing explicit and only mentions of companionship in exchange for gifts (or even less than that), is there enough for the state to question, detain, or prosecute a legitimate case?[/QUOTE]I can't recall off the top of my head whether any mongers were prosecuted as a result of an agency bust, but considerably more than one career has been ruined through simple disclosure of clients' names. Don't forget the metropolitan area in which we live. One piece of JmSuttr's advice bears repeating: never disclose your real name, or other personal identifying information, to a provider or agency. It's frankly none of their business and they don't need it to arrange a meeting with you despite their pleas for screening or personal safety.
It's best to get a burner phone for use in contacting indies, crapshoots or agencies. This is especially true if, like me, one has to at least occasionally use a personal cell phone to conduct his employer's business. Tracing a burner phone isn't impossible, but it'll be a lot less fruitful if Uncle Leo has as little info as possible with which to work. He will probably move on to easier targets.
Operation Santa's Naughty List'
Check out these poor bastards, of course they made a few mistakes. Be careful out there boys!
[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4pa0szI9JU[/URL]
This link doesn't require a subscription to read the article.
[QUOTE=OldManInVa;4578007]Maybe there is hope[URL]https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/17/technology/fosta-sex-trafficking-law.html[/URL][/QUOTE][URL]https://theunionjournal.com/stamping-out-online-sex-trafficking-may-have-pushed-it-underground/[/URL]
Their stupidity is our gain
[QUOTE=SlowBlo;4579353]The article says supporters say "They note that no site has cropped up to replace Backpage" Excuse me? How stupid are these people? Or blind?[/QUOTE]Hopefully, it'll remain that way indefinitely.
Very long, but interesting, article
[URL]https://reason.com/2020/02/02/massage-parlor-panic/[/URL]
I posted this in the Baltimore forum, but I figured it's worth sharing here as well.
Thanks for the article but, unfortunately, no new info there.
[QUOTE=Shinshi86;4650066][URL]https://reason.com/2020/02/02/massage-parlor-panic/[/URL]
I posted this in the Baltimore forum, but I figured it's worth sharing here as well.[/QUOTE]It's a long recital of things that have been discussed many times in the forum. Namely, that politicians and LE and organizations like Polaris Project have labeled pretty much everything as "trafficking" because it serves their various agendas. It points out that AMPs are easy targets and are disproportionately affected. I'm sure the author felt better after writing it but it doesn't change anything and doesn't really add much to the discussion. I was reading it in hopes of something new or interesting, but it wasn't there.
Probably a silly question but
[QUOTE=RockSwithSalt;4936878]FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. A Florida appeals court ruled Wednesday that police violated the rights of New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft and others when they secretly video recorded them paying for massage parlor sex acts, barring the tapes' use at trial and dealing a potentially deadly blow to their prosecution.
The state 4th District Court of Appeal ruled Kraft's rights were violated under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
"The type of law enforcement surveillance utilized in these cases is extreme. While there will be situations which may warrant the use of the techniques at issue, the strict Fourth Amendment safeguards developed over the past few decades must be observed," the judges ruled.
"To permit otherwise would yield unbridled discretion to agents of law enforcement and the government, the antithesis of the constitutional liberty of people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures," the court added.
Prosecutors will likely appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court, but if it stands the misdemeanor charges brought against Kraft and other customers would have to be dropped for lack of evidence.[/QUOTE]If Kraft wins and survives the appeals in the state Supreme Court, will the other defendants cases automatically receive the same consideration? Or do they need to pursue the same legal avenues each separately? Also, what about the poor saps that plead out or no contest?
