for those who cruise around the Harbor blvd. area. Soon, you might need to leave your car at home and start riding your bikes.
[url]http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/sections/local/local/article_628020.php[/url]
Careful out there!
Clopez.
Printable View
for those who cruise around the Harbor blvd. area. Soon, you might need to leave your car at home and start riding your bikes.
[url]http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/sections/local/local/article_628020.php[/url]
Careful out there!
Clopez.
In town on business and thought I would try HB. After 5 nights of nothing from Santa Ana to Ball. I saw a LSW in a white top and black skirt. At first I thought she was in a work uniform, but she gave all the classic head and eye motions with passing cars. I picked up Kelly at HB and Chapman, she is a LSW, 5’6”, small frame, and b cups. She hopped into my car and we played the LE touch game, and then set a rate at .4 for a CBJ in my room. We got to my room and after I saw her naked I knew this was going to be a good visit. Changed the rate to .6 for h/h. We got started and she began giving a BJ, then I noticed it was a BBBJ that was very good, lots of energy and ball play. I told her I wanted to finish with a BJ once we got done with the rest of out activities, she agreed. I soon covered and she cowgirls me. Tight, wet and warm...who could ask for anything more. I then rolled her on her back and then from behind. I finally ask her for a GFE world tour with a stop in Greece, she asked for an extra .40, I countered at .20, but she wouldn’t go for it. So I told her maybe next time. She ended with a nice unrushed BBBJCIM with spit in towel.
Very Good, FS, H/H for .6. I have her digits but have not tried it yet. She says she is a local girl, but doesn’t normally hang on HB.
Be safe out there,
T69
I disagree with the contested law, but it will not change things much. One has to remember that either your or the SW has to admit to solicitation.
This story is probably a prelude to a crackdown. So I would not surprised to see increased police activity.
The neighbors do have a legitemate complaint when they find condoms in the streets. When I am with a SW I tell them not to throw out the condom or wrapper. I have gotten out of my car pick them if a SW does this. It's really dumb because it aggravates the locals and leaves a sign that you were there. The result is that if you find a good spot it makes it more obvious.
$10 is not much but one has to draw the line and somewhere and decide what is reasonable. If we were keep pay $10 more then the SW's would then up the price $10 and the would all be demanding $80 for a bj.
FYI - if you are not a seasoned member, please don't bug me for digits. I don't say this to be a A-Hole, but new members should know that trust is earned via good posting and time.
[QUOTE=Tribal69]In town on business and thought I would try HB. After 5 nights of nothing from Santa Ana to Ball. I saw a LSW in a white top and black skirt. At first I thought she was in a work uniform, but she gave all the classic head and eye motions with passing cars. I picked up Kelly at HB and Chapman, she is a LSW, 5’6”, small frame, and b cups. She hopped into my car and we played the LE touch game, and then set a rate at .4 for a CBJ in my room. We got to my room and after I saw her naked I knew this was going to be a good visit. Changed the rate to .6 for h/h. We got started and she began giving a BJ, then I noticed it was a BBBJ that was very good, lots of energy and ball play. I told her I wanted to finish with a BJ once we got done with the rest of out activities, she agreed. I soon covered and she cowgirls me. Tight, wet and warm...who could ask for anything more. I then rolled her on her back and then from behind. I finally ask her for a GFE world tour with a stop in Greece, she asked for an extra .40, I countered at .20, but she wouldn’t go for it. So I told her maybe next time. She ended with a nice unrushed BBBJCIM with spit in towel.
Very Good, FS, H/H for .6. I have her digits but have not tried it yet. She says she is a local girl, but doesn’t normally hang on HB.
Be safe out there,
T69[/QUOTE]
Went to two Angels games this week, driving home both night I did the HB thing, would think at that time,10-11PM or so there would be some action, No Nota, dead.
Amen brother!!!!
[QUOTE=Tribal69]FYI - if you are not a seasoned member, please don't bug me for digits. I don't say this to be a A-Hole, but new members should know that trust is earned via good posting and time.[/QUOTE]
FYI.....
In a closely divided 4-3 opinion, the California Supreme Court has ruled that local governments cannot seize the vehicles of people arrested on suspicion of buying drugs or using prostitutes, the two most common offenses targeted by local crime-fighting forfeiture ordinances in a number of California cities. The ordinances aim to reduce drug selling and street prostitution by seizing the cars of customers and thus deterring future customers.
The ruling came in O'Connell v. City of Stockton, where a local woman, Kelly O'Connell, challenged the city's "Seizure and Forfeiture of Nuisance Vehicles" ordinance. In a legal argument that was more about state versus municipal power than drug offenses or selling sex, the court held that only the state can set punishments for offenses under the state criminal code -- not municipalities.
Nor, the court held, can cities mete out punishments for state law violations that are harsher than the state laws themselves. In some California cases, drivers seeking to buy marijuana -- small-time pot possession is a $100 ticket in California -- have had their vehicles seized.
The punishment of drug and prostitution offenses "are matters of statewide concern that our Legislature has comprehensively addressed... leaving no room for further regulations at the local level," the court ruled.
[QUOTE=Herb Surfs]Amen brother!!!![/QUOTE]
Yo Herb,
Clear your inbox, so I can send you a PM on "that place."
Good ruling.
[QUOTE=Jon Jones]FYI.....
In a closely divided 4-3 opinion, the California Supreme Court has ruled that local governments cannot seize the vehicles of people arrested on suspicion of buying drugs or using prostitutes, the two most common offenses targeted by local crime-fighting forfeiture ordinances in a number of California cities. The ordinances aim to reduce drug selling and street prostitution by seizing the cars of customers and thus deterring future customers.
The ruling came in O'Connell v. City of Stockton, where a local woman, Kelly O'Connell, challenged the city's "Seizure and Forfeiture of Nuisance Vehicles" ordinance. In a legal argument that was more about state versus municipal power than drug offenses or selling sex, the court held that only the state can set punishments for offenses under the state criminal code -- not municipalities.
Nor, the court held, can cities mete out punishments for state law violations that are harsher than the state laws themselves. In some California cases, drivers seeking to buy marijuana -- small-time pot possession is a $100 ticket in California -- have had their vehicles seized.
The punishment of drug and prostitution offenses "are matters of statewide concern that our Legislature has comprehensively addressed... leaving no room for further regulations at the local level," the court ruled.[/QUOTE]Good work, Jon Jones! Thanks for posting this. When was this ruling made?
dr.sax
The ruling was within the past couple of weeks.
It will be interesting to see if anyone who had their car taken in the past as a result of this unconstitutional law, sues the city for damages.
Was driving home with a buddy. Saw this velup' LSW around 14:30 today on southwest corner of harbor and chapman ave. Was able to snap two pics. The car was moving so the close-up one is somewhat blurry but one can get the general idea.
Take care ya'll,
Dr.Sax714
[QUOTE=Jon Jones]FYI.....
In a closely divided 4-3 opinion, the California Supreme Court has ruled that local governments cannot seize the vehicles of people arrested on suspicion of buying drugs or using prostitutes, the two most common offenses targeted by local crime-fighting forfeiture ordinances in a number of California cities. The ordinances aim to reduce drug selling and street prostitution by seizing the cars of customers and thus deterring future customers.
The ruling came in O'Connell v. City of Stockton, where a local woman, Kelly O'Connell, challenged the city's "Seizure and Forfeiture of Nuisance Vehicles" ordinance. In a legal argument that was more about state versus municipal power than drug offenses or selling sex, the court held that only the state can set punishments for offenses under the state criminal code -- not municipalities.
Nor, the court held, can cities mete out punishments for state law violations that are harsher than the state laws themselves. In some California cases, drivers seeking to buy marijuana -- small-time pot possession is a $100 ticket in California -- have had their vehicles seized.
The punishment of drug and prostitution offenses "are matters of statewide concern that our Legislature has comprehensively addressed... leaving no room for further regulations at the local level," the court ruled.[/QUOTE]
And the 3 that voted against it were probably moral orel's. It is good to see that they got something right for a change. Time to get with the program and deal with real crime and not the crime that each party willingly goes into. What is done between two consenting adults as long as it does not impede on others should not be viewed as a high priority in the scheme of crimes to police.
just my 2 cents.
It was ridiculous that the cops could impound your car for merely giving a girl a ride. There is no crime in giving a girl a ride regardless if she is SW or not. The cops may stop you, but there is nothing they can do if you remain silent.