Escort Reports

[Alintas]

Hey, I want to make a point without referring to Nyx or anyone directly and without being too explicit so this may sound like I'm not quite saying what I want to say. How can I put this?

I just wanted to say that in the face of what you've mentioned below, it scares the expletive out of me to think that a person who runs an agency would be posting on this site; and what if LE is indeed watching the site, and what if they decide to try to track or pursue someone in that position. Wouldn't it be safer for a person who runs an agency to just be an indie and thereby risk less if caught? I guess there are pros (money) and cons (risk). Someone so young to take that kind of risk is just mind boggling. (And you know, as an aside, it makes me realize that I really wish they would change the laws regarding this because it's a waste to prosecute for that kind of thing in my opinion. A waste of the lives of those implicated, and a waste of taxpayer money and a waste of the court's time and. Such a waste. Except for places that have people against their will. Such places should definitely be closed down and people rescued in my opinion).

I think if I were running an agency I might just get out now, take my cards (risk) off the table so to speak, while I was still safe, and then maybe start up again as an indie or something. Or never post on sites like this. I suppose there are ways to make sure one never services a LEO but. Still would make me very nervous. So. What's my point? I guess it's mind boggling the risk that's being undertaken, it's stupid that such activity is illegal instead of regulated, and wow I'm just shocked at the vulnerability of an agency person who is so easy to find on the internet. I'm a little new to all this so it's just shocking. I do recall someone saying that LE doesn't care about indies so much as people who have others in the trade against their will. I would hope so but probably that's too much to hope for.

Under the new law, whether you own an agency, are a pimp, driver, or just answer the phones, you're equally guilty of the same charge (and the minimum mandatory 5 years). Now maybe if they were offering immunity to one person with access in order to prosecute another person, that could be an issue. I'm honestly not sure who, if anyone, other than Nyx has access. I don't ask her about that part of her business, and she doesn't offer to tell me. She is a close friend of mine, and we do hang out socially, but we both know the possible risks involved with some types of information and avoid those subjects.

Stay safe, and happy hunting.

[Ho Hunter 328]

But if there are multiple people with access to it, you can question the other person about ti and you have no 5th amendment worry.

Under the new law, whether you own an agency, are a pimp, driver, or just answer the phones, you're equally guilty of the same charge (and the minimum mandatory 5 years). Now maybe if they were offering immunity to one person with access in order to prosecute another person, that could be an issue. I'm honestly not sure who, if anyone, other than Nyx has access. I don't ask her about that part of her business, and she doesn't offer to tell me. She is a close friend of mine, and we do hang out socially, but we both know the possible risks involved with some types of information and avoid those subjects.

Stay safe, and happy hunting.

[Hags Joe]

I'd assume the information is kept so that clients don't need to be screened every time they call, I doubt she could keep track of them all without records. Remember, we're not talking about an independent who sees every client themselves, but an agency that combined probably sees several hundred clients per year. Then there's also other agencies or independents contacting her for references to consider as well.

As for the obstruction of justice, see my previous post on the fifth amendment.

Stay safe, and happy hunting.

But if there are multiple people with access to it, you can question the other person about ti and you have no 5th amendment worry.

[Nyx GG]

Many high-end services in New York don't ask questions of anyone who's been referred to them by an already existing and trusted client. That's how those who really don't care if you know their name and address become their clients initially but then drug along those of their friends that prefer not to give out their personal info. I think considering our environment that's very professional, kind of balances out the service's security needs with sensitivity of those who prefer not to reveal anything about themselves.

Which is exactly the kind of tactic that Uncle Leo frequently uses. While I will certainly consider references from already screened clients, I'll still need more than that alone.

I screen, many other providers and agencies do as well. It's certainly your choice not to submit to screening, there are providers out there who will see you without it, just as their are plenty of clients who have no problem with screening (and even appreciate it). But not submitting to screening will limit your options, just as I limit mine by requiring it. I turn down probably 70% of the calls I get every day because they can not, or will not, pass my screening. But the safety of my girls and myself are my utmost priority, and it's not a subject that's open to negotiation.

Xoxo.

Nyx

[Gansett]

Just a bit of fuel to the fire. Does this agency pay taxes? Do the owners? Do the "employees" get a 1099? You can PO local LE and states attorneys but if they get a wild hair across their ass and call in the IRS you are fuked and not in the good way.

[Ho Hunter 328]

The chances of the application of 5th amendment being successful here are very remote.

I disagree. It seems pretty obvious to me that giving up a password that would provide access to data which would incriminate oneself would be covered by the fifth amendment. The recent (Feb 2012) federal court case I cited concurs with my opinion. Do we have any lawyers out there with experience in constitutional law that would like to comment on the viability of a fifth amendment defense in these circumstances?

Stay safe, and happy hunting.

[Nrlmus]

You make valid points. I still see a chance that 5th amendment wouldn't be applied, but you make valid points.

The chances of the application of 5th amendment being successful here are very remote. It would probably also involve hiring the lawyer that is very expensive. There are so many ways around 5th amendment that I can't even begin to itemize. Impending investigation, obstruction of justice, that's what instantly comes to mind and I'm sure there are plenty of others that don't.

I believe that to give out your personal info to the provider is very dangerous. If in doubt, think of all the political people who had problems with it: Eliot Spitzer, David Vitter, Dick Morris. I'm sure there are plenty more that I didn't think of. If such a big fish is taken down, we, the smaller fish, most certainly have much narrower ponds to swim in. For God's sake what are we talking about, there is an Alexis Write case going on right now! The case which as I said in my previous posts, is being discussed here to exhaustion. I looked at some of her videos on-line and in none of them I saw faces of her clients present. How many lives do you think are going to be ruined as a result of that case? How many lives were changed as a result of the DC Madame case or Heidi Fleiss. These are more famous cases I'm talking about too. Ms. Fleiss posted 1, 000, 000 bond and was able to hire a very powerful attorney too. How many escort services do you think would be able to come even close to that?

To me, giving out your personal info for verification and walking the razor's edge amount to one in the same. I mean, I love Nyx-and-all but I have no idea what she is talking about when she calls requiring personal info "professional." Throughout the centuries it's actually have been the exact opposite. A true courtesan is the one that makes a stranger feel comfortable without knowing anything about him. She often wouldn't even know if her client is married, let alone his name, address or phone. She remembers each of her client's likes and dislikes too. Her safety is always handled separately from her clients.

Today, in this country, in this city, I see from time to time at least two providers who's been in it for quite a while, who's never been arrested and who know about me only what I told them myself. They screen their clients over phone, they use references, they hardly do backpage if ever, couple of them have friends (clients?) on the force and are very much up to date on what's going on in various areas of the vicinity. I'm sure some provide freebies to those that they feel they need for their safety too, kind of cost of doing business, you know.

If one calls verifying the client by means other then asking him for a reference 'being extra careful', I'd go with that. Calling it 'an industry's norm', well, initially I thought so too, but the more providers I see, the less I believe this being "an industry's norm." Mind you quite respectable providers too: educated, drug free, the once you'd never find on the street, and the once who really make an effort to make sure that their fame is somewhat limited.

But to call asking for verification 'professional'? I'm sorry but that goes against everything that I ever read or heard on the topic. It's a provider's or service's choice, and I, personally respect that but it has nothing to do with professionalism. Some services screen more, some less. Many high-end services in New York don't ask questions of anyone who's been referred to them by an already existing and trusted client. That's how those who really don't care if you know their name and address become their clients initially but then drug along those of their friends that prefer not to give out their personal info. I think considering our environment that's very professional, kind of balances out the service's security needs with sensitivity of those who prefer not to reveal anything about themselves. Is it risk-free? No. But one can never be completely risk free in this whether as a pro or a client anyway, especially here in the US.

[Joenct]

[QUOTE=Gansett; 1569432]Are you saying the govt doesn't have the resources to retreive the encrypted info? Or the means to force the owner to unlock it? By means they seize every asset and cash as procedes from a criminal activity and a few years in jail. Or a minor fine, probation and the promise to never do it again.

There are many, many successful providers out there that don't require the info Kat does.

Now, am I paranoid about opening my life up to someone who may in turn use my info to avoid being prosecuted if nabbed months from now? Remember it's a one way street, they don't provide us with verifiable personal info. [/QUOTE.

I myself could not for the life of me give out my personal info to someone I don't know anything about period. Is the gain worth the risk?

[Gansett]

Are you saying the govt doesn't have the resources to retreive the encrypted info? Or the means to force the owner to unlock it? By means they seize every asset and cash as procedes from a criminal activity and a few years in jail. Or a minor fine, probation and the promise to never do it again.

There are many, many successful providers out there that don't require the info Kat does.

Now, am I paranoid about opening my life up to someone who may in turn use my info to avoid being prosecuted if nabbed months from now? Remember it's a one way street, they don't provide us with verifiable personal info.

[Hags Joe]

You make valid points. I still see a chance that 5th amendment wouldn't be applied, but you make valid points.

[Nyx GG]

I'd assume the information is kept so that clients don't need to be screened every time they call, I doubt she could keep track of them all without records. Remember, we're not talking about an independent who sees every client themselves, but an agency that combined probably sees several hundred clients per year. Then there's also other agencies or independents contacting her for references to consider as well.

As for the obstruction of justice, see my previous post on the fifth amendment.

Stay safe, and happy hunting.

Quite right. Also keep in mind that I'm not the only one who answers the phone, so there are clients that I've never met, and never even talked to. Without keeping records I simply would not be able to do business. But I don't keep details of who clients see, let alone what they do. All I keep are names, numbers, and email addresses. I also don't do "cold calls", that just screams desperation to me, and I think it's very unprofessional.

Xoxo.

Nyx

[Ho Hunter 328]

Not giving up such a password would be an easy obstruction of justice case, a felony in and of itself.

I fail to see how keeping this info protects the agency at all, especially keeping it digitally. Its use IMHO, is offensive (contacting clients for more work and blackmail) than anything defensive. Then again, I would never open up an agency or be a pimp, so maybe I don't understand.

Before anyone reads this the wrong way, NO, I am not saying that Nyx is either a pimp or would ever be a blackmailer.

I'd assume the information is kept so that clients don't need to be screened every time they call, I doubt she could keep track of them all without records. Remember, we're not talking about an independent who sees every client themselves, but an agency that combined probably sees several hundred clients per year. Then there's also other agencies or independents contacting her for references to consider as well.

As for the obstruction of justice, see my previous post on the fifth amendment.

Stay safe, and happy hunting.

[Ho Hunter 328]

True, while not giving out her password would mean impending an ongoing investigation, in other words you stay in jail until you give it up.

Not true. Obviously any data contained on this encrypted drive, if it exists, would be used as evidence against her. Attempting to force her to give up the password would be a violation of the fifth amendment.

United States v. John Doe

Stay safe, and happy hunting.

[Backin Da Game]

Not giving up such a password would be an easy obstruction of justice case, a felony in and of itself.

I fail to see how keeping this info protects the agency at all, especially keeping it digitally. Its use IMHO, is offensive (contacting clients for more work and blackmail) than anything defensive. Then again, I would never open up an agency or be a pimp, so maybe I don't understand.

Before anyone reads this the wrong way, NO, I am not saying that Nyx is either a pimp or would ever be a blackmailer.

Hey hags, I tryed to pm you, Your in box is full. Hit me back please,

[RoadStar01]

I'm guessing here but I would say that the lions share of the "Hobbiest" who spend time with working girls have significant others, careers, friends and acquaintances that would be shocked and very upset to find out what we've been up to during our busy days!

I guess there are some merits to being a "nobody" after all. Kinda makes me feel a little better about my life of obscurity. LOL

I honestly don't give a rat's ass about providing my personal info, other than the possibility that a provider would be foolish enough to keep detailed records of every encounter, including fees and sex acts performed, which LEO could use to charge me with a misdemeanor, as Alexis Wright seems to have done in this case. I would hope that she is the exception to the rule as far as intelligent discretion is concerned.

It has always been my assumption (yes, I know what happens) that a careful, honest provider would keep only the minimal necessary info to allow for a repeat visit, possibly with some sort of client rating in their Little Black Book, be it electronic or physical.

AW was neither careful, (client list with full details) nor honest, (clandestine videos) and as such she and every one of her clients will suffer for it. A name and phone number with a +1 does not make for evidence in court.

And Muffy, I understand completely what you mean about being on the fence. I'm as guilty of Schadenfreude as anyone where the big wigs are concerned, but I also hate to see brethren burn for what I myself participate in unabashedly.

RS1