Printable View
I know this is NOT in the massage category, but be safe out there.
When one happens, it' exercise caution, when two happens, it's whoooa be really safe out there
Well known escort busted; [url]http://www.salemnews.com/archivesearch/local_story_288235655.html[/url]
Be careful out there especially on the North Shore.
Hey guys. Thanks for all the PM's. 14! About 10 had info the other 4 were questions which I will ignore. I will send each of you a PM in return on Friday on my hidden gems of spa A and B. 2 FS. I also have one in Falmouth that is good as well. independant. Gives light massage and HE. Hot as hell too. One more ques. Anyone have info on the hot receptionist at Spa A? I love here. Smoking hot. Prob late 20's dark skin.
Thanks,
RR
[QUOTE=Coast Hog]I know this is NOT in the massage category, but be safe out there.
When one happens, it' exercise caution, when two happens, it's whoooa be really safe out there
Well known escort busted; [url]http://www.salemnews.com/archivesearch/local_story_288235655.html[/url]
Be careful out there especially on the North Shore.[/QUOTE]I was checking-out Lisa yesterday on c-i-t-y-v-i-b-e:
[url]http://boston-escorts.********.com/escorts/list/117948.htm[/url]
I sent her an email to tell her that I could not get her website to display. I guess she/LE shut it down. Too bad, she has good reviews and has been around for a long time.
I have seen her and she was a very nice lady, very sweet.
Jack
[QUOTE=Coast Hog]I know this is NOT in the massage category, but be safe out there.
When one happens, it' exercise caution, when two happens, it's whoooa be really safe out there
Well known escort busted; [url]http://www.salemnews.com/archivesearch/local_story_288235655.html[/url]
Be careful out there especially on the North Shore.[/QUOTE]
Thanks CH for the link. I've been reading about this bust for a couple of days now and I had an inkling but didn't know for certain. Having seen this provider in the distant past (and one of the best I can say) I know she was one of the most careful and intelligent ones out there. her screening process was just that....
Now we know (some) LE use every trick in the book (legal and illegal) to get these "bad girls' busted but this case just screams for the ACLU to get off their tails and take the case. There has to be something very illegal (never mind immoral-but we know they have none anyway) to outwardly lie and give a wrong number as a reference and have the person who owns the number lie for them and say the reference was good. When our court system throws out murderers convictions because a cop lied then this case should be easy to get tossed. If they want to spend our hard earned money on busting consenting adults when assault, robbery, murders go unsolved along with arrest warrents by the bucketload then so be it but let's use legal methods.
So ACLU where are you.
All good points, SO. And if they continue to press these girls, raid the AMPs, change the laws in RI, etc., they will only send more of them out into the streets, where they will be subject to control and violence by pimps. So now we have the utterly bizarre situation that pot is all but legalized while accepting money from gentlemen for acts done in private remains illegal in all but a handful of places.
In the case you described, this girl's neighbors didn't even know what she was doing in her apartment...so the old saw that exchanging sex for money harms the social environment, attracts crime, etc. is in this case not applicable.
Go figure!
[QUOTE=Stressed Out]they want to spend our hard earned money on busting consenting adults when assault, robbery, murders go unsolved along with arrest warrents by the bucketload then so be it but let's use legal methods.
So ACLU where are you.[/QUOTE]
Do Undercover Police Have to Identify Themselves?
"Entrapment" and Deception by Law Enforcement
by Fire Erowid
Nov 2003
Erowid Extracts #5
Citation: Erowid F. "Do Undercover Police Have to Identify Themselves?" Erowid Extracts. Nov 2003;5:10-11.
Brief Description of the Myth
There is a persistent rumor that if you ask an undercover police officer or police informant if they're a cop, they are required to tell you. Based on this myth, many people believe they can safely conduct illegal transactions just by making sure to ask "Are you a cop?" first.
This idea is widespread and like many such myths, is most often transmitted by word of mouth. Examples can also easily be found on bulletin boards and newsgroups, in subculture publications, and in the media. The major variations of the myth include:
* Police have to identify themselves if specifically asked whether they are law enforcement.
Example: "Are you scared that your friend or enemy is an undercover cop, just ask, they are required to tell you if they are reporting to law enforcement."1
* Undercover officers aren't allowed to initiate a drug sale without pre-existing suspicion.2
Example: "An undercover cop comes up to you and asks, 'Do you want to buy some drugs?' You say, 'Yes', and they arrest you. THAT is entrapment, and will be thrown out."3
* Undercover officers aren't allowed to ask for an illegal drug by name. Example: "He tells me that [undercover police] cannot ask you for drugs by name, or even common slang terms. They must call it something else, like 'fun stuff'."4
Entrapment
These types of myths are generally based on the belief that it is illegal for a police officer to entrap a citizen into committing a crime. Following this theory, many people believe that related actions by police, such as lying about their identity, would also be illegal or invalidate a prosecution. While a claim of "entrapment" by police can be used as a defense in a criminal case, it is both uncommon and rarely successful. Additionally, police entrapment itself is not illegal -- just potential cause for a not-guilty verdict.
Loosely defined, entrapment is a situation in which, if not for the actions of the police officer or police informant, the defendant would not have committed the crime. This defense is generally only successful in situations where law enforcement officers create a criminal plan, plant the idea of that plan into an otherwise innocent person's mind, and then instigate the plan for the purpose of prosecuting the suspect.
The mere presentation of an opportunity or request by an officer that an individual commit a crime does not qualify as entrapment. An officer may engage a citizen in conversation and ask to buy an illegal substance -- even if they have no reason to suspect the person of illegal activity.2 They may offer to sell an illegal substance and arrest the buyer after the sale.
Factors Considered
in an Entrapment Defense
1. The character of the defendant (whether the defendant was more "predisposed" to commit the crime than the ordinary citizen; e.g. having a record of illegal activity of this sort).
2. Who first suggested the criminal activity.
3. Whether the defendant engaged in the activity for profit.
4. Whether the defendant demonstrated reluctance (and not just "no thanks, well ok": more like repeatedly refusing and then eventually, months or years later, giving in).
5. The nature of the government's inducement (how much did they persuade, threaten, coerce, or harass).
They can go out of their way to help a person to commit a crime. What they can't do, is unduly persuade, threaten, coerce, or harass the person, such that a normally law-abiding citizen would participate in the unlawful action. Unfortunately, even in cases where the government does induce a crime, evidence that the defendant was "predisposed" to committing the crime is likely to undermine an entrapment defense. If the prosecution can show that the defendant agreed to participate too quickly or had a record of similar crimes in the past, the entrapment defense rarely succeeds.5 One example of such a case was U.S. v. Bogart (1986) in which Bogart agreed to sell presidential campaign posters to a police informant. When the informant arrived to purchase the posters, he informed Bogart that his only method of payment was with cocaine. Though Bogart initially refused, he eventually agreed because he needed the proceeds from the sale. He was arrested and his entrapment defense was denied based on his "predisposition" to commit the crime.6
Are Police Allowed to Lie?
The question of whether or not the police may lie during the course of their work goes hand in hand with the question of entrapment.
It is well accepted that deception is often "necessary" to catch those who break the law. There is no question that police officers are allowed to directly mislead and/or deceive others about their identity, their law enforcement status, their history, and just about anything else, without breaking the law or compromising their case.5 Conversely, it is illegal for an ordinary citizen to lie to the police in many jurisdictions.
Are Police Allowed to Break The Law?
Police officers working undercover have exceptions from certain criminal laws. For instance, law enforcement officers directly engaged in the enforcement of controlled substance laws are exempt from laws surrounding the purchase, possession, sales or use of illegal substances.7
This means that there's no way to identify an undercover officer based on their willingness or refusal to use an illegal drug. Reverse stings are common in the enforcement of controlled substance laws. In a reverse sting operation, a police officer sells drugs that have previously been confiscated and then arrest the buyer.
Possible Sources of the Myth
The myth that undercover police must admit to being police if asked has been around since at least the mid-1970s. In addition to the belief that entrapment is illegal, it may have roots in requirements that law enforcement identify themselves in some other situations.
1. Most on-duty police are required to wear both a uniform and a uniquely numbered badge identifying themselves as police.
2. Police must generally identify themselves before executing a search warrant or arresting someone.
3. Though it varies by jurisdiction, there are some situations in which off-duty police may be required to identify themselves, including if confronted by another police officer or before acting in their capacity as a police officer. The simple summary is that undercover police are given a great deal of latitude when investigating suspected criminals. They may lie, break controlled substance laws, ask to buy substances by name, offer drugs for sale and are not required to identify themselves during the course of their undercover investigations.
References #
1. Bob L. "Babylon and other important stuff." Posted to St. Louis Raves (Yahoo Groups). Jun 30, 1999. Retrieved Oct 2003 from *************************stl-raves/message/3725
2. Kukura TV. "Undercover Investigations And The Entrapment Defense." Law Enforcement Bulletin. Apr 1993.
3. Frank M. "Any Other Brits Here?" Usenet.alt.support.girl-lovers. Jun 3, 2002.
4. Spyder. "Undercover Cops at Burning Man." Piss Clear. Aug 27, 2003; 19:2.
5. Greaney GM. "Crossing the Constitutional Line." Notre Dame Law Review. 1992; 67:745.
6. Lord KM. "Entrapment and Due Process." Florida State Univ. Law Review. 1998; 25(3):463.
7. 21 U.S.C. § 885(d) of the U.S. Code.
<http://www.erowid.org/freedom/police/police_info6.shtml>
Today's news:
[url]http://www.salemnews.com/punews/local_story_289211616.html[/url]
[quote]"Alleged prostitute jailed on probation issue
By Julie Manganis
Staff writer
SALEM — A woman charged with prostitution out of her Salem apartment pleaded not guilty yesterday to charges that could send her to prison for six years.
[blue][Name(s) deleted by Admin][/blue], Salem, walked into Salem District Court yesterday, on her own after being released on personal recognizance following her arrest on Thursday, but she found herself back in handcuffs after probation officers learned that she was wanted for a probation violation in Peabody District Court in an unrelated case.
[blue][Name(s) deleted by Admin][/blue] was arrested following a sting by Salem police, who arranged a "date" with "Lisa of Boston" after finding her contact information on the Internet. Police had gotten a tip about Anderson's business.
[blue][Name(s) deleted by Admin][/blue] 's Web site features photos in various poses and offers customers "the complete girlfriend experience," with packages that cost up to $3,000 for a weekend.
She was also, according to police and the Web site, offering a "recession special," knocking $100 off her regular $300-an-hour rate.
Despite her recent discount, business was apparently slow. [blue][Name(s) deleted by Admin][/blue] was found to be indigent by the probation department and therefore qualified for a court-appointed attorney.
[blue][Name(s) deleted by Admin][/blue] was appointed to represent [blue][Name(s) deleted by Admin][/blue] yesterday. He said after the hearing that he had no comment on the case.
[blue][Name(s) deleted by Admin][/blue], who appeared in court wearing a parka, jeans and a blue sweater, along with stiletto-heeled boots, appeared surprised when she was put in handcuffs yesterday.
While Salem police Lt. Conrad Prosniewski did not seek any bail for [blue][Name(s) deleted by Admin][/blue] in the new case, Judge Robert Cornetta decided to require a $1,000 personal surety bond, meaning that she won't have to post any money for bail now, but if she fails to appear for future court proceedings, could face paying that sum.
A pretrial conference is scheduled for Nov. 20.[/quote]I wonder whether the earlier "unrelated case" resulted from a similar sting. The story makes it appear that she might have received only a minor wrist slap on the present one, but is now facing more serious trouble.
Very sad.
[size=-2][b][u]EDITOR'S NOTE[/u]:[/b] [blue]This report was edited to [u]remove the names of persons who were arrested[/u] from the report.
I want to say this carefully so no one gets the wrong idea here, but if you think about it, posting the names of people who have been arrested is [u]somewhat heartless[/u] and really just helping the police in their efforts to embarrass these people.
Since this website is all about assisting people in obtaining commercial sex services, we don't want to add to the problems of the unfortunate people who have been arrested by publishing their names and/or photographs.
[i]Thanks![/i][/blue][/size]
[QUOTE=Fluffy One]Do Undercover Police Have to Identify Themselves?
"Entrapment" and Deception by Law Enforcement
by Fire Erowid
Nov 2003
Erowid Extracts #5
Citation: Erowid F. "Do Undercover Police Have to Identify Themselves?" Erowid Extracts. Nov 2003;5:10-11.
Brief Description of the Myth
<http://www.erowid.org/freedom/police/police_info6.shtml>[/QUOTE]Fluffy One: Thank you for this clarification! It is well worth posting twice!
I had a friendly conversation with a DEA guy and he told me that police who work undercover can lie. Example he gave me was. If bad guys asks a cop if he is a cop while he or she is working undercover and he or she said yes, he or she would get killed or beaten. So naturally the cop will say no. Is that a lie. NO.
Hi guys,
New to this whole site, anyways, I was wondering if anyone could message me with a place where I can get extra services around the natick area? (I'll go as far east as watertown/cambridge).
Thanks!
I was in the area and couldn't resist trying out the new place susie opened. Some of you may recall that recently DW posted a review that she offered him an appt but when he got there, he was asked to wait (he left).
I hate that too, so I called just 5 minutes or so before going over, and was told it was OK.
Wouldn't you know it, as I'm walking through the front door, another monger was coming toward me! We both put our heads down, so as not to make eye contact. Sorry, dude!
Of course, the good news was that meant that at least I wasn't gonna have to wait.
Turns out, Susie was my provider, but there's also another girl (angela), who susie recommended for next time.
Everything was pretty standard for an AMP: decor, music, temp, table with paper, etc.
Susie is attractive, with a nice body, but wearing jeans and at least 2 layers up top. She must be mid-30's but looks a bit older because of her 70's hairdo... But she is very bubbly and friendly.
One thing I like is that she uses some kind of unscented gel or oil that goes a really long way - one application of a small amount was enough for the entire upper half, then one small dab as she did each leg.
She started without asking about strong/medium/soft, but as she got to the shoulders and neck, the pressure got harder, and she asked if it was OK - then I was able to tell her that I like it strong.
She uses her thumbs for deep-tissue pressure (like shiatsu) and I must say she did a pretty good job, with all areas covered well.
In fact, because the massage was so relaxing, and there was no sign of tease while face-down, I was totally mellow and hardly noticed when she left to get a hot towel to clean me off. She told me to turn over, so I did, and I'm almost embarrassed to say that the little guy was so relaxed, he almost looked like a scared turtle trying to hide in his shell! Susie fixed that pretty quick by doing a light-touch rub all over my front (except for there), pausing at the nipples and thighs. Oh good, Tiny is back and waking up fast!
She asked "you like?" - i grunted my approval. Not the longest tease, but very good HE technique with both hands, and no rush whatsoever. She figured out quickly what I liked and didn't like, then came back to those things in a recurring theme.
All-in-all, a good pop, with enough after-milking (my pet peeve).
One more hot towel for clean-up and I'm done - exactly one hour.
FYI: there were 2 phone calls while I was on my stomach, which susie answered, but always kept one hand on me doing the massage. Each call was maybe 10 seconds. I don't love interruptions, but I'm guessing that the other gal isn't ready for prime time on the phone...
I think I will return, as the service is decent and location is convenient for me. The parking is private, so even though it's on rte 20, you probably won't be eyeballed on the way in. Not quite WW because of the roaming and couple of phone calls, but if you are further west on route 20, it's a good option.
house: .6
tip: .4
location: good, private (unless another guy is finishing up)
face: 7
body: 8
massage: 8
HE: 8
[QUOTE=Fluffy One]Do Undercover Police Have to Identify Themselves?
"Entrapment" and Deception by Law Enforcement
by Fire Erowid
Nov 2003
Erowid Extracts #5
Citation: Erowid F. "Do Undercover Police Have to Identify Themselves?" Erowid Extracts. Nov 2003;5:10-11.
Brief Description of the Myth
There is a persistent rumor that if you ask an undercover police officer or police informant if they're a cop, they are required to tell you. Based on this myth, many people believe they can safely conduct illegal transactions just by making sure to ask "Are you a cop?" first.
This idea is widespread and like many such myths, is most often transmitted by word of mouth. Examples can also easily be found on bulletin boards and newsgroups, in subculture publications, and in the media. The major variations of the myth include:
* Police have to identify themselves if specifically asked whether they are law enforcement.
Example: "Are you scared that your friend or enemy is an undercover cop, just ask, they are required to tell you if they are reporting to law enforcement."1
* Undercover officers aren't allowed to initiate a drug sale without pre-existing suspicion.2
Example: "An undercover cop comes up to you and asks, 'Do you want to buy some drugs?' You say, 'Yes', and they arrest you. THAT is entrapment, and will be thrown out."3
* Undercover officers aren't allowed to ask for an illegal drug by name. Example: "He tells me that [undercover police] cannot ask you for drugs by name, or even common slang terms. They must call it something else, like 'fun stuff'."4
Entrapment
These types of myths are generally based on the belief that it is illegal for a police officer to entrap a citizen into committing a crime. Following this theory, many people believe that related actions by police, such as lying about their identity, would also be illegal or invalidate a prosecution. While a claim of "entrapment" by police can be used as a defense in a criminal case, it is both uncommon and rarely successful. Additionally, police entrapment itself is not illegal -- just potential cause for a not-guilty verdict.
Loosely defined, entrapment is a situation in which, if not for the actions of the police officer or police informant, the defendant would not have committed the crime. This defense is generally only successful in situations where law enforcement officers create a criminal plan, plant the idea of that plan into an otherwise innocent person's mind, and then instigate the plan for the purpose of prosecuting the suspect.
The mere presentation of an opportunity or request by an officer that an individual commit a crime does not qualify as entrapment. An officer may engage a citizen in conversation and ask to buy an illegal substance -- even if they have no reason to suspect the person of illegal activity.2 They may offer to sell an illegal substance and arrest the buyer after the sale.
Factors Considered
in an Entrapment Defense
1. The character of the defendant (whether the defendant was more "predisposed" to commit the crime than the ordinary citizen; e.g. having a record of illegal activity of this sort).
2. Who first suggested the criminal activity.
3. Whether the defendant engaged in the activity for profit.
4. Whether the defendant demonstrated reluctance (and not just "no thanks, well ok": more like repeatedly refusing and then eventually, months or years later, giving in).
5. The nature of the government's inducement (how much did they persuade, threaten, coerce, or harass).
They can go out of their way to help a person to commit a crime. What they can't do, is unduly persuade, threaten, coerce, or harass the person, such that a normally law-abiding citizen would participate in the unlawful action. Unfortunately, even in cases where the government does induce a crime, evidence that the defendant was "predisposed" to committing the crime is likely to undermine an entrapment defense. If the prosecution can show that the defendant agreed to participate too quickly or had a record of similar crimes in the past, the entrapment defense rarely succeeds.5 One example of such a case was U.S. v. Bogart (1986) in which Bogart agreed to sell presidential campaign posters to a police informant. When the informant arrived to purchase the posters, he informed Bogart that his only method of payment was with cocaine. Though Bogart initially refused, he eventually agreed because he needed the proceeds from the sale. He was arrested and his entrapment defense was denied based on his "predisposition" to commit the crime.6
Are Police Allowed to Lie?
The question of whether or not the police may lie during the course of their work goes hand in hand with the question of entrapment.
It is well accepted that deception is often "necessary" to catch those who break the law. There is no question that police officers are allowed to directly mislead and/or deceive others about their identity, their law enforcement status, their history, and just about anything else, without breaking the law or compromising their case.5 Conversely, it is illegal for an ordinary citizen to lie to the police in many jurisdictions.
Are Police Allowed to Break The Law?
Police officers working undercover have exceptions from certain criminal laws. For instance, law enforcement officers directly engaged in the enforcement of controlled substance laws are exempt from laws surrounding the purchase, possession, sales or use of illegal substances.7
This means that there's no way to identify an undercover officer based on their willingness or refusal to use an illegal drug. Reverse stings are common in the enforcement of controlled substance laws. In a reverse sting operation, a police officer sells drugs that have previously been confiscated and then arrest the buyer.
Possible Sources of the Myth
The myth that undercover police must admit to being police if asked has been around since at least the mid-1970s. In addition to the belief that entrapment is illegal, it may have roots in requirements that law enforcement identify themselves in some other situations.
1. Most on-duty police are required to wear both a uniform and a uniquely numbered badge identifying themselves as police.
2. Police must generally identify themselves before executing a search warrant or arresting someone.
3. Though it varies by jurisdiction, there are some situations in which off-duty police may be required to identify themselves, including if confronted by another police officer or before acting in their capacity as a police officer. The simple summary is that undercover police are given a great deal of latitude when investigating suspected criminals. They may lie, break controlled substance laws, ask to buy substances by name, offer drugs for sale and are not required to identify themselves during the course of their undercover investigations.
References #
1. Bob L. "Babylon and other important stuff." Posted to St. Louis Raves (Yahoo Groups). Jun 30, 1999. Retrieved Oct 2003 from *************************stl-raves/message/3725
2. Kukura TV. "Undercover Investigations And The Entrapment Defense." Law Enforcement Bulletin. Apr 1993.
3. Frank M. "Any Other Brits Here?" Usenet.alt.support.girl-lovers. Jun 3, 2002.
4. Spyder. "Undercover Cops at Burning Man." Piss Clear. Aug 27, 2003; 19:2.
5. Greaney GM. "Crossing the Constitutional Line." Notre Dame Law Review. 1992; 67:745.
6. Lord KM. "Entrapment and Due Process." Florida State Univ. Law Review. 1998; 25(3):463.
7. 21 U.S.C. § 885(d) of the U.S. Code.
<http://www.erowid.org/freedom/police/police_info6.shtml>[/QUOTE]
Great post sir and it sure helps to clarify things. But I still wonder (rather naively) if getting someone who is not is LE (owner of businsess who said cop was an employee) isn't stretching things a bit. And I still think that if the right people (Aclu) made a case out of this (publicity) it wouldn't go a long way im making publicity wary towns think twice before they started another. And hell we know they only take cases that inflates their egos winnable or not. SO
[QUOTE=Tomholly]Hi guys,
New to this whole site, anyways, I was wondering if anyone could message me with a place where I can get extra services around the natick area? (I'll go as far east as watertown/cambridge).
Thanks![/QUOTE]
Ok TH - I have to really ask...with all the 'stings' over the last week or two (read forum) are we really gonna give out info on 'extras' to a newbie with no posts. I think not. HaHa SO
[QUOTE=Bigbuzz]I had a friendly conversation with a DEA guy and he told me that police who work undercover can lie. Example he gave me was. If bad guys asks a cop if he is a cop while he or she is working undercover and he or she said yes, he or she would get killed or beaten. So naturally the cop will say no. Is that a lie. NO.[/QUOTE]
well I suppose that would be true in a DEA case but for this one what did he have to worry about....being fu**ed to death! Sounds good to me!!! SO