Escort Reports

[QUOTE=Ilapp; 1443900]I wish you would just STFU because it is amazing how seldom you know anything about what your talking about. Jeesh, you are all over the other site too blowing off and if you would take the time to read, everything he is talking about is posted there, the girl herself had enough balls to write about what happened to her there, so why don't you stuff a diaper in that diarrhea hole you call a mouth that has been running a lot lately. He is just trying to help and find a way to do it with out having to spell it out to those that aren't bright enough to fill in the blanks with other info that is readily available. He asked for advice on how far to take the outing of the le here, and he was trying to treat the girl fairly while still getting the info out. What about that can you not comprehend.

OK just occurred to me that I should type much slower for some people. Before you jump to incorrect assumptions again. 1) no this is not about the anonprovider post referenced in prior posts here, similar story, who knows probably same m / f leo team but don't know and don't care 2) yes the info is there but you might have to show some sort of intelligence to find it, it is not in as obvious of a place to read it as would make it easy for simpletons to bump into it without looking and using some insight. I don't know the girl, don't know if that was intentional or just the way she did it.[/QUOTE]HAHA! If you have info to share, come forth please. I hope your ATF never gets busted and her profile is taken over by LEO for reverse sting purposes before you set time aside to see her. I thought you were about protecting follow Hobbyists by sharing info? I see now that may not be that case. Every man for himself right? The withholding of info that could damage multiple peoples lives is cool to you I guess? I will let everyone know here and now If I had this info info I post it on every board possible and not play some maybe I'm going to tell, maybe not games. But hey I like to look out for People, Not tell them to "STFU". I used to hold you in high regard here now I have I dimmer view of you. Not that that matters much, right? I'm just here and there,"Blowing off".

Nice calendar pics. Hot.

If one is going to be dramatic about something at least do with some flair. Be humorous. Be witty. Be grammatically correct? Or simply come come correct.

Speaking of dramatics, you fellas up in here seem way to uptight about things lately! I can think of one little minx who can bring some happiness to ya! Just sayin. Sheesh.

Hugs and tugs Pie / KB.

[QUOTE=MsKay;1443183]Okat sweet cheeks I have went throught all my info contacts and mainly my calender And far I can tell I have never sen you before I have proof of this so go tell your lies some where else for Here is a copy of my calender for that month and seee your not on there so watch your step. And believe me I keep track of phones emails all I need to be safe. Want more proof email and I'll send to any one who reads this. This is why I don't take clients unless they prove not law and spamers.[/QUOTE]

I was able to see Electra a week or so ago. She is the AsianTreat4You on aNotheR site. You don't have to have an Asian fetish to like this one. Very enjoyable time. I took the h for $$$ and left with a smile for the rest of the day. The rate is high, but she has great service. I would classify her as PSE (-). Great ass, A's up top. Overall great body. It's always hard to say that more than $$.5 is ever "worth it", but it depends on your desposable income. I will definately repeat. PM for more details.

[QUOTE=Indy Wanker; 1443579]I checked the post and found nothing on Karly. I have a date with her later in the week. If anyone has some 411 on her, I'd love your input. Otherwise, I'll TOFTT. Stay safe, IW.

[url]http://adultsearch.com/indiana/indianapolis/female-escorts/554188[/url][/QUOTE]I posted a review of her within the past ten days. Saw her for the first time last week.

[QUOTE=Osirusss;1444030]HAHA! If you have info to share, come forth please. I hope your ATF never gets busted and her profile is taken over by LEO for reverse sting purposes before you set time aside to see her. I thought you were about protecting follow Hobbyists by sharing info? I see now that may not be that case. Every man for himself right? The withholding of info that could damage multiple peoples lives is cool to you I guess? I will let everyone know here and now If I had this info info I post it on every board possible and not play some maybe I'm going to tell, maybe not games. But hey I like to look out for People, Not tell them to "STFU". I used to hold you in high regard here now I have I dimmer view of you. Not that that matters much, right? I'm just here and there,"Blowing off".[/QUOTE]You won't see it over there now because she updated her profile and took the info down. Yes, it was right there on her profile, for all the world to see. I know the info is available on some provider boards and girls I know that have dealt with the girl in question received the info directly from her. If you ever actually see anyone, my guess is you have seen someone who has been popped in the past. If you think not you certainly haven't seen many. And yes, in my top 5 ATFs I know that 4 have had an issue, and for all I know the 5 th may have and didn't mention it and I don't ask, it isn't something I ask, same thing with asking about hubbies and BFs. That is not the pertinent info I need to accomplish what I'm looking for. As a matter fact as I start down the next 5 I see a similar pattern, and there isn't one I wouldn't see today given the chance, and lord there are a couple I would do most anything for that opportunity one more time. This goes way back, and never have any of them turned on a single client. Not that it doesn't happen, I know girls that have done it and I know guys it has happened to, but they tend to be more the exception than the rule If I thought there was an issue of danger I would say so, but there is risk in everything we do here. I either ran face into some yesterday or a girl with the strangest business model I have ever seen, don't know and don't care to find out any more.

By the way, I'm curious, which worries you more; that LE will be listening in the next room, or that Cheaters is going to pop out of the closet with those goofs with the cameras? (here's a hint, Cheaters needs a release form to use your image, LE not so much)

[QUOTE=Best Swimmer; 1443775]If he didn't contact her here or 411, How does she know that he has accounts here / there?

1. She is charging for her time not sex. All she has to do is tell the Judge, Judge look at that big cock. It made me horny.[/QUOTE]For starters: it's a Class A misdemeanor, unless you're a three-time loser; in Marion county it's an automatic entry into a diversion program, and the record is scrubbed after a few months. Going Full Perry Mason is not advisable, unless you happen to have the whole thing on video, or there was an unimpeachable witness ready to testify for you.

[QUOTE]2. When female LE post ads they never show tits. I doubt she deleted the pic. Show it to the judge. I'm no lawyer but I don't think it's legal for LEO to send dick pics.[/QUOTE]Perfectly legal, unless it was unbidden. The only law that prevents an officer from exposing him- or herself are the laws against public indecency (or child seduction) , and even there the police are empowered to take considerable liberties. The reason female officers "don't show tits" is the same reason male officers posing as homosexual prostitutes don't show themselves with a cock in every orifice. Dignity.

By the way, who decided that the dicpics in question were the officer's own? Who says the tits in an ad belong to the provider?

[QUOTE]Then what was she charged with?

I don't know who this provider is but if it happened like this "as she says" Even a bad lawyer could get her off. Unless she confesses.

Her story just doesn't sound right.[/QUOTE]It's important that everyone in the biz understand that under Indiana law the *implication* of cash for prohibited sexual contact is all that is required to violate the law. We don't have enough information to make a judgement. We don't know if the story "as told" reflects what actually happened, but we do know that it's coming from someone whose understanding of the law was woefully inadequate, and who may believe that actual sexual contact and an actual exchange of money were necessary, or else Mr. Mason's going to get her sprung. That's not the way things work. Indiana law was amended (1976 or so, off the top of my head) to bring it into compliance with Supreme Court rulings on entrapment. Since then there's been no further refinements; many legal professionals believe this is overdue. Not every bust is letter-perfect; far from it. But, basically, on either side of the hobby, if you get yourself into one of these situations the police will be believed and you won't, absent something earth-shaking.

Much better to know what's what, and not get into these situations, than to try to finesse your way out.

[QUOTE=Ilapp;1444658]If you ever actually see anyone, my guess is you have seen someone who has been popped in the past.[/QUOTE]Can't be stressed enough. (Particularly in regards to a three-year-old bust where the providers in question have had hundreds of positive reviews in the meantime, and, yet, are "working with LEO".)

[QUOTE]Not that it doesn't happen, I know girls that have done it and I know guys it has happened to, but they tend to be more the exception than the rule[/QUOTE]I've heard the anecdotes, but I've never heard an explanation. There's no law against being on someone's phone log, or making a date, or knocking on a motel room door. I understand there might be a crusade on somewhere; I surely understand that someone might take a plea and diversion rather than fight a matter of fact he's not going to win anyway. But such operations entail expenses, and have to be approved, and so must either net people who are really violating the law, or risk someone getting his brass nuts in a wringer. A misdemeanor has to be witnessed. That means it has to occur. Are there really local PDs out there using civilians to get enough evidence to make misdemeanor busts? There's a fine line there. If someone I knew started suddenly talking about money I think I'd remember I'd left the kettle on, the bathtub running, and the dog outside. If someone else answered the door I'd apologize and scram.

[QUOTE=B Beall; 1444854]Can't be stressed enough. (Particularly in regards to a three-year-old bust where the providers in question have had hundreds of positive reviews in the meantime, and, yet, are "working with LEO".)

I've heard the anecdotes, but I've never heard an explanation. There's no law against being on someone's phone log, or making a date, or knocking on a motel room door. I understand there might be a crusade on somewhere; I surely understand that someone might take a plea and diversion rather than fight a matter of fact he's not going to win anyway. But such operations entail expenses, and have to be approved, and so must either net people who are really violating the law, or risk someone getting his brass nuts in a wringer. A misdemeanor has to be witnessed. That means it has to occur. Are there really local PDs out there using civilians to get enough evidence to make misdemeanor busts? There's a fine line there. If someone I knew started suddenly talking about money I think I'd remember I'd left the kettle on, the bathtub running, and the dog outside. If someone else answered the door I'd apologize and scram.[/QUOTE]But what if the add itself has illegal acts described. For instance say you answer an add that states bbj, CIM, DATY, are on the menu and then quotes a price. Can you be busted for answering said add and just showing up. The reason I asked is I saw a well reviewed incall only provider place just such an add recently. It didn't turn out to be anything cause she has been recently well reviewed. I try not to get caught up in all the paranoia, but add made me pause and think.

[QUOTE=Tony317;1444260]I posted a review of her within the past ten days. Saw her for the first time last week.[/QUOTE]My Bad. I didn't check the BP section. I found her on Adult Search. She is everything Tony said (thanks for the info) , cuter than the pictures she posted and she treated me right. No upcharges, but her "massage" is the lamest I ever received and she sure tried to rush me out of there. Her special price is for half hour, though it is not spelled out in ad. I shudda known better. Probably will not repeat. I prefer more mature and small chested. Seniors can PM for details.

[QUOTE=B Beall;1444820]It's important that everyone in the biz understand that under Indiana law the *implication* of cash for prohibited sexual contact is all that is required to violate the law.[/QUOTE]That is not true. There can be innuendo and the argument has to be made that what he / she said was an explicit exchange of sex for money. It has to be more than just an implication. Both parts of the agreement has to be stated. If you say I'll give you x for a donation for your time and time only, you have not broken the law. Period. They can still arrest you and then say well, you are going to go to jail unless you cooperate. We'll even put you in this diversion program, but the truth is, the diversion program is more than you would get if you showed up for court.

[QUOTE=Osirusss;1444995]But what if the add itself has illegal acts described. For instance say you answer an add that states bbj, CIM, DATY, are on the menu and then quotes a price. Can you be busted for answering said add and just showing up. The reason I asked is I saw a well reviewed incall only provider place just such an add recently. It didn't turn out to be anything cause she has been recently well reviewed. I try not to get caught up in all the paranoia, but add made me pause and think.[/QUOTE]
I should have posted this in General but your talking about busts here.
What AD?

If you haven't seen it yet, please watch this:

It's well known by now, Prof James Duane explaining that it's ALWAYS a mistake to talk to the cops:

[url]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8167533318153586646&hl=en&emb=1[/url]

And here's a cop telling you about interview tactics:

[url]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6014022229458915912[/url]#

Here's some good reading for all.

Comprehensive guide to dealing with police encounters

[url]http://www.scapa-lv.org/legal_know_your_rights_escorts.htm[/url]

Flex Your Rights.

[url]http://flexyourrights.org/[/url]

US Federal and State Prostitution Laws and Related Punishments.

[url]http://prostitution.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000119[/url]

In from Florida, amazing and time well spend, the more popular one's friend Madisson is unbelievably hot! Sexiest I've ever seen in the biz. Very cool, laid back girls.

[QUOTE=Osirusss;1444995]But what if the add itself has illegal acts described. For instance say you answer an add that states bbj, CIM, DATY, are on the menu and then quotes a price. Can you be busted for answering said add and just showing up. The reason I asked is I saw a well reviewed incall only provider place just such an add recently. It didn't turn out to be anything cause she has been recently well reviewed. I try not to get caught up in all the paranoia, but add made me pause and think.[/QUOTE]Again, we need to make a distinction between "can you be busted?" (answer: anyone with police powers can arrest you. He's not supposed to do so without cause, or maliciously) and "are you violating the law?" (No. An ad is not a contract, it's "an inducement to make an offer". The same way Andy Mohr doesn't have to sell you a Nissan Z for $25 just because of a misprint. Even if it were, you cannot legally enter into a contract to do something illegal.)

With possibly a few technical exceptions, a misdemeanor arrest requires an officer to observe the crime in question. The crime in question, here, being the exchange of, or expectation of the exchange of, money and proscribed sexual behavior. A legitimate sting operation will make sure that court-recognized thresholds have been crossed. As for a guarantee that every sting is legitimate, there is none.

[QUOTE=StillNotMe;1445155]That is not true. There can be innuendo and the argument has to be made that what he / she said was an explicit exchange of sex for money. It has to be more than just an implication. Both parts of the agreement has to be stated. If you say I'll give you x for a donation for your time and time only, you have not broken the law. Period. They can still arrest you and then say well, you are going to go to jail unless you cooperate. We'll even put you in this diversion program, but the truth is, the diversion program is more than you would get if you showed up for court.[/QUOTE]Okay, first, it's highly unlikely that there's going to be a long discussion of your motives before the bar; believe it or not, the court has heard that "I was only paying for her time" argument before. And it is not engaged in discovering metaphysical truth, but applying the law the way it is customarily applied. Indiana law specifically proscribes the *understanding* that money will be exchanged for sexual acts. Here, as always, do not enter a courtroom as a defendant and try to argue from Webster's dictionary. The meaning of "understanding" is the legal one, established by thousands of cases in the past thirty-five years or so. (I purposely used "implication", because the way most people understand the term is the way the law applies "understanding" in these cases.)

Second, no, they do not "have to be stated", nor does saying "this is just for your time" qualify as a Get Out of Jail Free card. An act which indicates your understanding that sex or criminal deviate behavior will be exchanged for your money is sufficient. That might be as little as getting naked-police, the courts, and the legislature are all loath to require female officers to be finger-banged by some filthy perv just for a misdemeanor arrest. They will hope, certainly, to get you to state an intention to violate the law. But you're not going to get out of it by using mime.

Finally, this seems to be an almost impossible point to get across, but all the ersatz-legal tricks people are convinced to use-"Money is in exchange for time only";"This is not an offer of prostitution"; writing "Gift" on an envelope, etc-are meaningless. Unless you're looking at felony time-in which case the time to be smart was *before* you got popped again-or you've got video and / or an unimpeachable witness backing you up, the court will generally believe the police and not your word wrangling. Such stings are recognized for what they are, and officially in the public interest, and so long as the police are following procedures which have resulted in convictions over thirty years, you lose. It would be a serious, serious mistake to turn down diversion to argue some manufactured semantic point and wind up with the conviction permanently on your record. Do think long and hard before doing so, and not without competent legal advice.

[QUOTE=B Beall; 1446255]Okay, first, it's highly unlikely that there's going to be a long discussion of your motives before the bar; believe it or not, the court has heard that "I was only paying for her time" argument before. And it is not engaged in discovering metaphysical truth, but applying the law the way it is customarily applied. Indiana law specifically proscribes the *understanding* that money will be exchanged for sexual acts. Here, as always, do not enter a courtroom as a defendant and try to argue from Webster's dictionary. The meaning of "understanding" is the legal one, established by thousands of cases in the past thirty-five years or so. (I purposely used "implication", because the way most people understand the term is the way the law applies "understanding" in these cases.)

Second, no, they do not "have to be stated", nor does saying "this is just for your time" qualify as a Get Out of Jail Free card. An act which indicates your understanding that sex or criminal deviate behavior will be exchanged for your money is sufficient. That might be as little as getting naked-police, the courts, and the legislature are all loath to require female officers to be finger-banged by some filthy perv just for a misdemeanor arrest. They will hope, certainly, to get you to state an intention to violate the law. But you're not going to get out of it by using mime.

Finally, this seems to be an almost impossible point to get across, but all the ersatz-legal tricks people are convinced to use-"Money is in exchange for time only";"This is not an offer of prostitution"; writing "Gift" on an envelope, etc-are meaningless. Unless you're looking at felony time-in which case the time to be smart was *before* you got popped again-or you've got video and / or an unimpeachable witness backing you up, the court will generally believe the police and not your word wrangling. Such stings are recognized for what they are, and officially in the public interest, and so long as the police are following procedures which have resulted in convictions over thirty years, you lose. It would be a serious, serious mistake to turn down diversion to argue some manufactured semantic point and wind up with the conviction permanently on your record. Do think long and hard before doing so, and not without competent legal advice.[/QUOTE]Ok, since you seem to be somewhat knowledgeable, I'm just trying to understand how the 'court' deems what is "An act which indicates your understanding that sex or criminal deviate behavior will be exchanged for your money is sufficient". You seem to imply that simply arranging a meeting with any provider here is just such an act. So a hypothetical. I arrange to meet a woman I saw on BP at a public restaurant and agree to pay her for her time. We meet at the restaurant, I hand over the money, and begin having a nice dinner. Simply because I found out about her on a site such as this or another naughty site, I can now be arrested for prostitution in a reverse sting? Is it simply implied that if I agree to meet anyone here regardless of circumstances that it is tantamount to implied prostitution? I may be naive, but that seems a bit of a stretch. In this setting, even if I were to discuss with her she sexual desires / practices and share with her mine, it seems to me that there has to be more 'implication' that a sexual act is about to occur or likely to occur in the near future, and that that act is proximately and directly the result of the exchange of money. Suppose she takes a liking to me and we go out the next night and have sex? Have I now engaged in prostitution? It seems to me that the law that you speak of allows for the implication to always go down the most devious path and the one that always leads to criminal activity, regardless of the actions of the parties. Doesn't seem fair. But I know. Life isn't fair.