News and Media Reports

**Decadentme** · 12-19-19 10:01

Originally Posted by OldManInVa [View Original Post]

Maybe there is hopehttps://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/17/t...cking-law.html

https://theunionjournal.com/stamping...t-underground/

**OldManInVa** · 12-18-19 18:59

Maybe there is hope??

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/17/t...cking-law.html

**Tom McAn** · 12-18-19 01:39

Originally Posted by HappyGuy2 [View Original Post]

Tom did not include to use a burner for an AMP also.

I have had them trying to call or Text when it got slow, trying to drum up business.

Could be a domestic situation breaker!!

Play safe and paranoid.

HG2.

Sorry, I should have mentioned AMP's, or any type of MP for that matter, when suggesting use of a burner phone for the hobby. Your point is well taken.

**Happy Guy 2** · 12-17-19 00:51

Originally Posted by TomMcAn [View Original Post]

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.

Tom did not include to use a burner for an AMP also.

I have had them trying to call or Text when it got slow, trying to drum up business.

Could be a domestic situation breaker!!

Play safe and paranoid.

HG2.

**David032** · 12-16-19 09:09

Originally Posted by DirteeBoy [View Original Post]

Check out these poor bastards, of course they made a few mistakes. Be careful out there boys!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4pa0szI9JU

They all avoided the basic rules and warnings signs. Rule one don't talk about anything else once your there till your both naked and touching. The last one tried a cop check and she almost ran from it. LOL at that point he let the little head do the talking. I have bailed on a date because she started saying suspicious things. Also noticing on some of the news stories that the guy does a cop check but the girl never does. Wonder if law enforcement is finding UC who are willing to let a guy grope there breasts to lock in the bust.

**DirteeBoy** · 12-11-19 18:56

Check out these poor bastards, of course they made a few mistakes. Be careful out there boys!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4pa0szI9JU

**Tom McAn** · 12-04-19 13:41

Originally Posted by Deranged [View Original Post]

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?

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.

**JmSuttr** · 12-03-19 17:28

Originally Posted by Deranged [View Original Post]

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?

I absolutely agree that visiting an agency, crapshoot or otherwise, puts you at higher risk of getting entangled in a real or pseudo-trafficking investigation. How messy it could be depends on a lot of factors and I can't think of any specific examples at the moment. While the Ashley Madison hack and the Kraft AMP case are of a different nature, both do show what can happen to information that was thought to be private. And LE has a history of leaking info whenever it suits them, especially with celebrities or when they want to apply pressure to a defendant.

So, IMHO, the more identifying info you give to a provider, indie or agency, the more LE has to work with if they get arrested. I've talked to independents who have been busted and LE often goes through their phones and intimidates them into giving up email passwords, client lists, etc. So the use of a burner phone and email is always a wise precaution to take.

All that being said, a truly independent provider is less if a risk if only because it's harder for LE to spin their activity as trafficking. But, as long as the provider is truly independent, I don't think it matters whether she charges 200 per hour or 500. In fact, the higher-priced providers might be more likely to save client info while the lower-priced women might simply delete, forget, and move on. And a truly independent provider is more likely to be charged with only misdemeanor prostitution charges, which tends to limit what LE can do.

FWIW, my thoughts are that any info a client sends is out there forever and out of his control. Providers have all sorts of reasons why they need identifying info but I'm not persuaded. The hobby has operated on an anonymous basis for a long time and there's no reason that needs to change. I don't need (or want) to know a provider's real name, etc. And I don't want them to know mine.

**Jacobs Patrick** · 12-03-19 17:09

Originally Posted by Deranged [View Original Post]

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?

I think that the overuse of the word, "trafficking", has been adequately been discussed here. Regarding the use of text messages, emails, calls relating to subsequent busts is highly unlikely. Cops take the easiest route possible. Look at the MoCo case, the cops just watched and questioned the johns as they came out. No mention of an UC. No reason for complicated police tactics when low hanging fruit is this easy to get, unless underage situations.

Taking it a bit further, I would suggest the sugar babies are the safest, but require way too much work for me.

**Deranged** · 12-03-19 10:26

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?

**RustyMuffler** · 11-30-19 19:41

I posted this in the MoCo forum, but it doesn't hurt to say it here too:

Law enforcement officials can ask people questions about anything when they pull someone over for a traffic stop. If you are asked about any incriminating behavior, just keep your mouth shut and do not incriminate yourself. It is always the state's responsibility to prove a case against you. Do not help them!

Also, do not lie to them. That in itself is a crime. So don't try to outsmart them. You do not know what info they already have or know. Be polite, yet firm, and tell them you do not have anything to say about anything other than what the traffic infraction is about. If the questions keep up, it will make you nervous, but try to keep your cool and ask them why they are asking these questions.

If they won't say why, they are not going to arrest you. So ask them if you are under arrest or being detained for something specific. As long as you do not give them anything, they should not keep you held up for too long. The officer may ball you out for what they believe you did. Again, just stay calm and do not react to it.

They should allow you to leave if you don't give them anything. And if they don't. You of course have the right to remain silent. And if they do arrest you, don't forget you have a right to legal counsel. So do not aanswer questions until after you have had a chance to meet with a defense lawyer.

The acronym you will see around here is STFU. Any guesses? It means Shut The F# Up.

Originally Posted by TomMcAn [View Original Post]

The story indicates several mongers spilled the beans to police. Why? Fortunately I never visited the Rockville location.

So far I haven't seen any indication of similar police activity against the ACS in Virginia, but who knows what will happen when new officials elected earlier this month take office at the beginning of 2020.

**Tom McAn** · 11-30-19 18:32

Originally Posted by Kijimuna [View Original Post]

https://fox5dc.com/news/montgomery-c...afficking-ring

The story indicates several mongers spilled the beans to police. Why? Fortunately I never visited the Rockville location.

So far I haven't seen any indication of similar police activity against the ACS in Virginia, but who knows what will happen when new officials elected earlier this month take office at the beginning of 2020.

**JmSuttr** · 11-30-19 17:01

Originally Posted by Kijimuna [View Original Post]

https://fox5dc.com/news/montgomery-c...afficking-ring

Just going from the info in this specific article, there's nothing reported that didn't previously fall under the generic definition of prostitution (in this case, with a pimp). But now everything is trafficking by default. And why that's a concern for every hobbyist is because the "trafficking" label is pretty easy to stick on individual clients. And once that label is applied it's a long and nasty road ahead to try to defend yourself.

**Kijimuna** · 11-29-19 15:24

https://fox5dc.com/news/montgomery-c...afficking-ring

**JmSuttr** · 10-25-19 11:28

https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3803328

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/...ntown-san.html

I have no way of verifying if the details in the articles are true but, if they are, then trafficking is an accurate description of what was going on. And the second article shows that it's not just a hobby-related problem.

Real trafficking is a scourge that needs to be stamped out and I don't think anyone would have an issue with LE efforts to that end. But the practice, by LE and their media enablers, of broadly expanding the definition of trafficking to cover consensual adult activity is a problem. And it's not just a problem for hobbyists but, because the same tactics can be applied to other activities, also for anyone concerned about individual liberty.