News and Media Reports

[QUOTE=Gilibee;]As a general comment, I must say that you are offering some REALLY BAD advice, which a reader would be ill-advised to follow.[/QUOTE]What advice?

[QUOTE=Gilibee; ]If LE had a valid reason to search the computer, then admissibility of the email evidence will likely not be a problem. LE does not have to turn a blind eye if they unexpectedly happen across incriminating evidence.

Not true! You do not have to actually commit a sex act to be charged with a prostitution offense. The way that you make an appointment that avoids getting yourself nailed is to avoid being explicit about the purpose of the appointment. Since you were apparently suspicious when you discussed the appointments, it would seem unlikely that you would have said anything that have given LE valid cause to arrest you. [/QUOTE]You may be right, but if you are, then that's a crock of s*t. I could have been extremely explicit over the phone, but the fact is, I never had any intention of seeing this provider because I thought she was a fake. I told her I was a few blocks away, but I wasn't within 20 miles of where she wanted to meet.

[QUOTE=Gilibee;]What I find surprising is some of the comments here from people who express "shock" that someone in her position would be practicing the "learned profession" while also practicing the "world's oldest profession". This kind of thing is a lot more common than I suspect some of your realize. Women who otherwise have careers get into this for easy money, a feeling of sexual control, and all kinds of reasons. What makes this case noteworthy is that she apparently got caught. [/QUOTE]What makes this case noteworthy is that she's attractive and a lawyer. If she were plain, this story would have never gotten the publicity it has. Her mug shot photo is all over the internet. The media sites are selling sex just as much as she allegedly has.

[QUOTE=Gilibee;]I *strongly* recommend that you not test this law for "vagueness" if it's your ass on the line.[/QUOTE]I said nothing about testing the law; I just said it was too vague. For example, everyone loves the 47th St. Stroll. SOMEWHERE along that track there must be a school within 1000 feet of 47th. After all, that is a block and a half. People unfamiliar with the area could easily be committing a felony without knowing for doing something that a hundred feet away would be a misdeameanor.

[QUOTE=Gilibee;]I very much doubt that LE would set up a sting to catch "customer" that was near a school. The reason why they do these things is to look good before the public. If it came out that they set up a sting operation near a school, it would probably cause considerable public outrage, and would defeat the purpose of the sting in the first place. I would imagine that the only stings that would be done near a school would be to catch "providers".[/QUOTE]I'm not referring to decoys around a school. I'm talking about providers in motels or outcalls to homes. Think about motels you've used for mongering in the past as well as where you lived. Are you sure they're not within 1000 feet of a school?

You know lawyer may charge from 150-250 an hour. Now if she was receiving 150 hr she would keep all of it. As a last that 150 hr go down to way less by the time expenses and tax are paid. If she is planning on falling back. As a provider she could be making more money.

[QUOTE=F Blaster;1212896]What advice?[/QUOTE]While it is true that nowhere did you state "I advise.", you did make a number of statements that are just wrong; and a person reading them would be ill-advised to act on them believing that your statements were true.

[QUOTE=F Blaster;1212896]You may be right, but if you are, then that's a crock of s*t. I could have been extremely explicit over the phone, but the fact is, I never had any intention of seeing this provider because I thought she was a fake. I told her I was a few blocks away, but I wasn't within 20 miles of where she wanted to meet.[/QUOTE]Well, ultimately what you do is up to you, but my advise to you (and anyone else reading this) is that you be careful about what you say on the telephone. If you end up getting arrested for violation of a law that you don't personally like, the argument that the law is "a crock of s*t" is not going to be very persuasive to a judge.

[QUOTE=F Blaster;1212896]I said nothing about testing the law; I just said it was too vague.[/QUOTE]If the law really were "too vague" as you say, then the law would be unenforceable. The example that you gave does not establish that the law is "vague"; what the example that you gave does is to tell a person that they had better be careful about where they are. What it means is that you have the responsibility to check out the vicinity of where you are to make sure that there are no schools within 1000 feet. That might be inconvenient to you, but inconvenience to you does not make the law "too vague". That is why I advised that you (and anyone reading your comment) not test the "vagueness" of the law.

[QUOTE=F Blaster;1212896]I'm not referring to decoys around a school. I'm talking about providers in motels or outcalls to homes. Think about motels you've used for mongering in the past as well as where you lived. Are you sure they're not within 1000 feet of a school?[/QUOTE]If you and your "provider" are within 1000 feet of a school and neither of you is involved in LE, you're still committing a felony, you're just not likely to get caught. It's like driving 100 mph in a 35 mph speed limit zone when there are no police around. What I was trying to tell you with respect to your example is that you are unlikely to get set up in a sting operation as a customer if you are within 1000 feet of a school. So what you are describing is a situation that, while illegal, is one in which you are unlikely to face prosecution.

[QUOTE=F Blaster; 1212623]Depends on the parameters of the search warrant. The "evidence" might not be admissible.

Even if it is, they still have to prove she went through with the acts at the times and places specified. There isn't anyone posting on this forum who hasn't made an appointment with a provider that never wound up taking place. I myself had a conversation with a "provider" today for an appointment that I had no intention of keeping because I was certain it was a prostitution sting.

The media has gone out of their way to sensationalize this story and embarrass this poor young woman before she has even gone to trial. If she's found not guilty, it doesn't matter. Her reputation and legal career are in ruins. All because this story has generated a lot of webpage hits.

On a side note, the felony charge is the result of one of the most ridiculous laws on the books. The "1, 000 foot" rule is a joke. Most of the mongers on this site have probably violated that law without even realizing it. No one wants prostitution taking place by school grounds, but this law is too vague. An act that takes place inside a home or motel room that's a block and a half away from a school in the middle of the evening is a lot different than a street pickup on a school corner during school hours, yet both are classified as felonies. [/QUOTE]F,

Based on details provided in news reports earlier, I know with a fair amount of certainty where the felony act took place. The first story on this was in the DeKalb area newspapers, and they gave the block and street where the meeting took place. Based on those detail, and the description of the building, I can tell you it was close enough to a middle school that a major-league outfielder could step out that back door of the school and put a ball through a window on the ground floor of the building without breaking a sweat. As to whether the search turning up evidence of her criminal activities was legal or not, well, that's for her attorney to argue in court. If she's got the time / money, she might even decide to appeal a guilty verdict and have one or more of the prostitution laws she is accused of breaking overturned. The problem for her is, she can not in any way claim to not know what she was doing was illegal, and as an attorney, that is a very damning charge to have levelled at you.

Turning minor "sex crimes" like solicitation into felonies if they take place within 1, 000 feet of a school makes my skin crawl. In most urban areas you can be 1, 000 feet from a school without even knowing it,

Modern journalism doesn't give exact locations of crimes anyway. A crime will be reported as taking place on "the 5800 block of S. Pulaski" or so forth. So where do you start measuring from?

And who does the measuring?

Just wait until gun ownership in your private residence (just ownership not use in a crime) will be prosecuted the same way "for the children."

[QUOTE=Ghostface89;1213440]Turning minor "sex crimes" like solicitation into felonies if they take place within 1, 000 feet of a school makes my skin crawl.[/QUOTE]For what it's worth, if you are a first time offender who gets charged with a felony sex crime, deferred prostitution is automatic. What that means is that you get charged but not prosecuted. What that also means is a potentially long probationary period (up to 2 years, I believe) where you have to avoid any further offenses. The conditions for deferred prosecution can be pretty intrusive and can require that, in addition, you might have to submit to random drug tests, do community service and / or attend "john's school" at the Chicago Christian Community Health Center, just to name a few. At the satisfactory completion of the probationary period the charges will be set aside. On the other hand, if you don't satisfactorily complete the probationary period, you could then be subject to prosecution for the original sex offense (thus, the "deferred" prosecution).

[QUOTE=Ghostface89;1213440]In most urban areas you can be 1, 000 feet from a school without even knowing it,[/QUOTE]Folks, in this day and age this "I didn't know" stuff is simply NO EXCUSE. It is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to check out the area where you are going IN ADVANCE and to make sure that there are no schools in the area.

Hint: Google Maps and Mapquest are your friends.

[QUOTE=Ghostface89; 1213440]Turning minor "sex crimes" like solicitation into felonies if they take place within 1, 000 feet of a school makes my skin crawl. In most urban areas you can be 1, 000 feet from a school without even knowing it,

Modern journalism doesn't give exact locations of crimes anyway. A crime will be reported as taking place on "the 5800 block of S. Pulaski" or so forth. So where do you start measuring from?[/QUOTE]It's not hard to figure out what building they were talking about. DeKalb isn't a large town and I know it well. On the street the article mentions there is only one building that both fits the general description given ("high rise apartment") on that specific block number. As for the measurements, what I described about the distance between them is (I think) a very fair estimation. Others might disagree, but there is no possible way the distance is more than 1, 000'. As to whether there is a need for making prostitution within a certain distance of a school a "special circumstance" crime, that is something you'll have to talk to the legislature about.

[QUOTE=Gilibee;1213524]Folks, in this day and age this "I didn't know" stuff is simply NO EXCUSE. It is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to check out the area where you are going IN ADVANCE and to make sure that there are no schools in the area.[/QUOTE]Logical. Yes.

Realistic. No.

You obviously don't do any street mongering.

So you either hit MPs or incall girls. Can you say with 100% certainty you've never violated that rule?

[QUOTE=F Blaster; 1213714]Logical. Yes.

Realistic. No.

You obviously don't do any street mongering.

So you either hit MPs or incall girls. Can you say with 100% certainty you've never violated that rule? [/QUOTE]If you hit an apartment, you will not get the exact location, until you are near. One can not ckeck out all directions of 1, 000 feet.

It is a bs law.

[QUOTE=F Blaster; 1213714]Logical. Yes.

Realistic. No.

You obviously don't do any street mongering.

So you either hit MPs or incall girls. Can you say with 100% certainty you've never violated that rule?[/QUOTE]Like said it is BS, but the law is the law and LEO will use any tools they have at their disposal. I wouldn't want to get this additional charge. I usually check the area out within a block or two.

Since there aren't many Indian providers in the area, I'm wondering if this is the massage provider Neeva? She is on my bucket list.

[QUOTE=Castlerae; 1212587]

[url]http://www.rrstar.com/news/betsylopez/x41283587/Attorney-faces-prostitution-charges[/url]

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=JoeWeezer;1215148]Since there aren't many Indian providers in the area, I'm wondering if this is the massage provider Neeva? She is on my bucket list.[/QUOTE]Nope, she was 'Nikki' which is her real middle name. There are pics of her in the Sycamore / Dekalb thread under 'Other areas', including some shots before she got the bolt-ons. I'd let her handle my briefs anytime.

[QUOTE=Pna;1215414]Nope, she was 'Nikki' which is her real middle name. There are pics of her in the Sycamore / Dekalb thread under 'Other areas', including some shots before she got the bolt-ons. I'd let her handle my briefs anytime.[/QUOTE]What I find so shocking is that she allowed herself to be photographed; and it was even more shocking that she apparently *sent* photos to her "clients"; and it was even more shocking still that there are apparently more "compromising" photos that were not posted. When people do stuff like that, it makes me wonder if the whole thing was a kind of "rebellion" against strict parents. And then to add to it all, the fact that she was so reckless about it; it makes me wonder if she didn't have, at least, a subconscious desire to get caught.

[QUOTE=Pna;1215414]Nope, she was 'Nikki' which is her real middle name. There are pics of her in the Sycamore / Dekalb thread under 'Other areas', including some shots before she got the bolt-ons. I'd let her handle my briefs anytime.[/QUOTE]Gort home early after a short day of it today, so for the hell of it sat down and googled her name. It just keeps getting worse and worse for her. Now, the story's literally gone international:

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2003440/Attorney-Reema-Bajaj-25-charged-prostitution-performing-50-sex-act-man.html[/url]

If that wasn't bad enough, I think someone in the DeKalb prosecutor's office (or the cops) is talking too much. This was evidently on Channel 2 in Chicago recently, though I didn't catch it:

[url]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xjbhyw_25-yr-old-lawyer-reema-bajaj-accused-of-prostitution_news[/url]

Notice that the reporter knows where she lives, so she can go up to her front door no less? If you're a reporter, you don't find that stuff out without someone with LEO telling you.

Any fellows have any thoughts on the legality of gang bangs or orgies? Anything to be careful about or avoid? Things to consider as a host? Does the 1000' rule apply in any way?