Massage Parlor Reports

[QUOTE=Jim True Blue; 1260509]New details on the news last night about My 1501. It says the girls actually documented the, (sexual service) provided to each client and amount paid and put it in an envelope to give to their owners. Thus this is where the 'client list' appears to be damning! Apparently Marissa's court hearing is Monday morning.

[url]http://www.wave3.com/story/15299476/new-details-in-investigation-at-suspected-prostitution-business?clienttype=printable [/url][/QUOTE]"In a nearby office for Tri-State Distribution, which police believe was the business headquarters for the operation, the documents say they found a video monitor with a live feed from inside My Studio 1501 and business owners Ivan Deleon and Jeana Kaufman."

So if I am reading this right, there were cameras in the 1501 going offsite? If this is so then I am guessing they were also being recorded as well. WOW there is a scary thought. It doesn't matter if you gave a fake name and used a burnt cell phone to contact them. They may have a picture of your mug on video.

[QUOTE=Amitus; 1260581]"In a nearby office for Tri-State Distribution, which police believe was the business headquarters for the operation, the documents say they found a video monitor with a live feed from inside My Studio 1501 and business owners Ivan Deleon and Jeana Kaufman."

So if I am reading this right, there were cameras in the 1501 going offsite? If this is so then I am guessing they were also being recorded as well. WOW there is a scary thought. It doesn't matter if you gave a fake name and used a burnt cell phone to contact them. They may have a picture of your mug on video.[/QUOTE]This is precisely what I pointed out in earlier postings. The investigation is continuing, and will conclude with a collection of inter-related bits and pieces of evidence. I mentioned before that the office computer had been seized as part of the execution of the search of My1501's business premises. I also suggested that they would correlate video evidence (if such existed) with login times and cross-reference this with the client list information.

Listen closely. It is not the substance of the call that is relevant. It is the FACT, TIMING and DURATION of the call which are relevant. You're beginning to understand how this all works. In short order, here's what you need to understand about where this criminal investigation is headed:

1. Client information will be compiled and identifications made. This includes IP address references and cross-indexing with public record databases (utility registrations (gas, electric, phone, and so on.) People will be identified as calling My1501.

2. Video and computer data-entry logs will be correlated with client list information. Identifications will be made.

3. The defendants (the girls charged) will be thoroughly screened and background information obtained. This includes tracking telephone use. Uncharged girls will be given the opportunity to "cooperate" with law enforcement in exchange for immunity (or at least agreements not to prosecute in instances where immunity is unavailable.)

4. Clients will be approached and encouraged to testify against the business. The same carrot given to the girls will be offered to clients using the services of My1501. It will be the proverbial "offer you can't refuse."

5. Owners will be charged with state law crimes and the feds will step in and add tax evasion charges. Look for potential Mann Act indictments.

6. Trial will be avoided at all costs. Deals will be cut, and the owners will face huge monetary fines and short stints of incarceration.

In the end, hobbyists will go on doing their business, as will providers. Those intelligent hobbyists will begin avoiding easily-obtainable girls. The message here from law enforcement is not that they necessarily care about prostitution. It's that there are more discreet, professional ways to conduct such if that's your fancy.

[QUOTE=Amitus; 1260581]"In a nearby office for Tri-State Distribution, which police believe was the business headquarters for the operation, the documents say they found a video monitor with a live feed from inside My Studio 1501 and business owners Ivan Deleon and Jeana Kaufman."

So if I am reading this right, there were cameras in the 1501 going offsite? If this is so then I am guessing they were also being recorded as well. WOW there is a scary thought. It doesn't matter if you gave a fake name and used a burnt cell phone to contact them. They may have a picture of your mug on video.[/QUOTE]Unless you got leo in your back pocket like some then they were fools! glad i never went there.

[QUOTE=Amitus; 1260581]"In a nearby office for Tri-State Distribution, which police believe was the business headquarters for the operation, the documents say they found a video monitor with a live feed from inside My Studio 1501 and business owners Ivan Deleon and Jeana Kaufman."

So if I am reading this right, there were cameras in the 1501 going offsite? If this is so then I am guessing they were also being recorded as well. WOW there is a scary thought. It doesn't matter if you gave a fake name and used a burnt cell phone to contact them. They may have a picture of your mug on video.[/QUOTE]From my experience with a couple of bigger places they also had video such as Frankfort Avenue and Court Avenue, this is yet another reason I prefer the low key indepenedents. They don't fool with the big time, greedy crap like this. I know Frankfort and Court (owned by same man, Shonn Piersol) who also currently owns Fourth Street Relaxation had the videos in the lobby and in the rooms that went live off-site to make sure his girls' didn't rip him off. He charged x amount of dollars for each session. Now since 1501 said the girls had to put their 'extra' money in an envelope to turn in after the session along with a writing of extra services provided, it makes me wonder if they didn't have cameras in the room too, because how else would they monitor what happened, the girl could easily lie as it is only the client and the provider in the room. Here is the part I don't get, why would the girls do all those extras and thus put herself at risk of numerous things including arrest if she didn't get money for it. It didn't appear to be manditory in order to work there. Were the girls compensated later for their "extras" via under the table money? Something just isn't adding up here, I don't get it.

With an independent, she has no reason to have a video and probably wouldn't want one. She has nothing to prove to anyone, because she works for herself. I mainly see a low-key, careful indepent girl. It's all I can afford drama-wise. Just my 2 cents.

The envelopes turned in did not have any mention of sex acts or any bs on them, the only thing written on them was how many appts that worker had that day, it said nothing about what went on in your session. The cameras were not in rooms, they were in the lobby and hallway. The so called client list, is really not what they are leading you to believe. The news is making alot of this, I am not affiliated with 1501 what so ever, but do get in the know info, and I know this will most likely never happen, but I hope it comes to light, these detectives went above and beyond the call of duty and I hope their lives get put through the ringer like these girls, here is what the news did not say. These detectives undressed the girls, also put fingers in slots where they shouldn't and received the full happy ending. I wonder if their boss or wives know that and what they think and is that part of what my tax dollars are used for? Also I bet the news will never mention this or dig into it. You all watch the news, Clark County (Jeffersonville, Ind) sheriff is suing the city saying there is not enough money in the budget to pay his officers, well Mr Sheriff / chief the overtime and man hours you spent on this is a f*k*and joke. Go fight some real crime that is hurting our city, like theft, drugs, murder!

Hey Legal, question for you:

If you watch the news report and pause it on the legal documents, you cam partially read some of the court records. One portion the cop says,"she asked if I was a police officer and I said 'no'". Also he admits to taking off his clothes.

First, I thought if an officer is asked point blank if they are a cop they had to answer truthfully. Now I can think of a thousand reasons why they wouldn't and I would support them (drug deals for example). If they don't have to identify themselves AND they can just get booty hole naked and jerked off, how could a provider EVER know when to go the "legit" route?

I'm one of the few that never went the 1501 route so I could care less about the client list. I stick to independents mostly and just sit back and watch the fireworks!

[QUOTE=Sunycide;1260951](edit delete) First, I thought if an officer is asked point blank if they are a cop they had to answer truthfully. (edit delete)[/QUOTE]You are wrong.

[QUOTE=Sunycide;1260951](edit delete) If they don't have to identify themselves AND they can just get booty hole naked and jerked off, how could a provider EVER know when to go the "legit" route?[/QUOTE]She never really knows.

We never know either.

Adult ads are cordoned off into their own section of the rag or on line. When we go there and respond to an ad we show we are predisposed to commit the crime of P4P.

If the ad is a sting the police can help us do the deed and even participate with us in getting the job done, arrest us and we will be charged and convicted because we made an illegal agreement P4P and followed through with enough of it for things to be illegal.

There is a fundamental distinction here that keeps this from being entrapment. We showed predisposition first. The police encouragement or participation happened second. That's perfectly legal for the police, illegal for us.

This is why responding to adult ads is so risky.

The reality is our safety rests solely in our numbers. There are so many more of us than there are vice officers just as there are so many more motorists than there are traffic cops. Think about all the times we speed and don't get pulled over. Safety is in our numbers. The hobby works like that. Ponder that for a moment, or two or three.

Like when we are driving down a county road and see chickens around a farmhouse and another mile there is another farmhouse with more chickens. But this time there is a dead chicken in the road. Why was that chicken the one run over? It tried to cross the road one time too many. We are simply chickens in the hobby. One time too many and we get run over. This is the reality.

[QUOTE=Golfcart; 1261008]If the ad is a sting the police can help us do the deed and even participate with us in getting the job done, arrest us and we will be charged and convicted because we made an illegal agreement P4P and followed through with enough of it for things to be illegal.

There is a fundamental distinction here that keeps this from being entrapment. We showed predisposition first. The police encouragement or participation happened second. That's perfectly legal for the police, illegal for us.

This is why responding to adult ads is so risky.[/QUOTE]I usually post on the Lexington boards, but the action you guys up north are seeing has brought me over to this board. So I thought I would toss in my two cents on this matter. While yes the police can set up sting operations and carry through with them, there is a line drawn at what they can truly do. I have read recently that there are officers carrying through with the deed to completion and then dropping the hammer. Here is where I understand the line to be drawn. From what I know, when an officer is working "undercover" they are permitted to violate laws to a small extent in order to maintain their cover (I. E. Speeding, holding illicit drugs for a criminal, etc). However, there is a line in what they can actually do. In the instance of performing a sting in this game an officer would not be permitted to carry all the way through with the deed, UNLESS their life was in immediate danger. And even then there could be potential hurdles to clear in admitting information obtained by the officer committing such a blatant violation of the law.

I suppose it may be permitted for an officer to get nude, if he was undercover as a client, but I would still have my doubts about this holding up in court. Of course they are going to put out there that it would hold up, but until it has been proven by the case going completely through the system I would have my doubts.

[QUOTE=Johnballgame;1260921]I know this will most likely never happen, but I hope it comes to light, these detectives went above and beyond the call of duty and I hope their lives get put through the ringer like these girls, here is what the news did not say. These detectives undressed the girls, also put fingers in slots where they shouldn't and received the full happy ending.[/QUOTE]I think back around 2000 the police in Louisville came down hard (see what I did there?) on the strip clubs that were little more than brothels, and I think it was reported the officers were indeed active participants and received all the things they were arresting the girls for. One of the girls that had sex with a cop and got arrested as soon as he put his pants back on sued the city, which I think was settled out of court but ended up with someone telling the Louisville police they weren't allowed to have that kind of contact with the girls when busting them anymore.

As great as the story is for the media to hype up about the sex, they love incompetent government stories even more. If some of the girls make a big deal about how the cops "investigated", I can't imagine it not being picked up and ran with locally. It makes for even better play on the news.

[QUOTE=Sunycide; 1260951]Hey Legal, question for you:

If you watch the news report and pause it on the legal documents, you cam partially read some of the court records. One portion the cop says,"she asked if I was a police officer and I said 'no'". Also he admits to taking off his clothes.

First, I thought if an officer is asked point blank if they are a cop they had to answer truthfully. Now I can think of a thousand reasons why they wouldn't and I would support them (drug deals for example). If they don't have to identify themselves AND they can just get booty hole naked and jerked off, how could a provider EVER know when to go the "legit" route?

I'm one of the few that never went the 1501 route so I could care less about the client list. I stick to independents mostly and just sit back and watch the fireworks![/QUOTE]If I remember correctly, during the great AMP busts here a few years ago it came out that Jefferson County / Metro police did the same thing; ie got undressed and actualy completed sexual acts. This became a HUGE story that caused great embarresment to the LEOs and for all I know may have resulted in a number of those cases being dismissed. Chief White had to publicaly announce new ground rules for police to follow, what they can and cannot do. I'll be interested in seeing how this plays out.

[QUOTE=Sunycide; 1260951]Hey Legal, question for you:

If you watch the news report and pause it on the legal documents, you cam partially read some of the court records. One portion the cop says,"she asked if I was a police officer and I said 'no'". Also he admits to taking off his clothes.

First, I thought if an officer is asked point blank if they are a cop they had to answer truthfully. Now I can think of a thousand reasons why they wouldn't and I would support them (drug deals for example). If they don't have to identify themselves AND they can just get booty hole naked and jerked off, how could a provider EVER know when to go the "legit" route?

I'm one of the few that never went the 1501 route so I could care less about the client list. I stick to independents mostly and just sit back and watch the fireworks![/QUOTE]I'm no legal expert. But I do know that it is illegal for a corrections officer to have sexual relations with inmates. In fact, I think it's considered a kind of sexual assault. I can't see how it would be different for a LEO. I know it is fine for a LEO to lie to a suspect. But taking the clothes off is sick IMO.

[QUOTE=Seadog;1261103]If I remember correctly, during the great AMP busts here a few years ago it came out that Jefferson County / Metro police did the same thing; ie got undressed and actualy completed sexual acts. This became a HUGE story that caused great embarresment to the LEOs and for all I know may have resulted in a number of those cases being dismissed. Chief White had to publicaly announce new ground rules for police to follow, what they can and cannot do. I'll be interested in seeing how this plays out.[/QUOTE]And a favored spot stayed open.

[QUOTE=Gryffindor70;1261124]I'm no legal expert. But I do know that it is illegal for a corrections officer to have sexual relations with inmates. In fact, I think it's considered a kind of sexual assault. I can't see how it would be different for a LEO. I know it is fine for a LEO to lie to a suspect. But taking the clothes off is sick IMO.[/QUOTE]For all the commentary in this thread addressing the "can't wait until the cops are outed" aspects of the discussion, a few of you seem to be missing (or ignoring) rather fundamental points:

1. The girls WERE engaged in prostitution on a grand scale. None of the girls arrested and charged have accused the officers of engaging in sex acts. Any assertion by the girls (charged or uncharged) suggesting this will fall on deaf ears. This is not the same scenario as what occurred in Jefferson County. LMPD's Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) actually allowed for completion of sexual acts by officers as long as it was approved by the chain of command in advance and (assuming the officer was married) discussed with the spouse (I could not make this up.) Furthermore, undressing and even touching the girls (in areas other than genitalia and breasts) is not prohibited by any police undercover operation procedure in any police department involved in this investigation (I know this from first-hand information.)

2. The client list is, again, only a means to an end. The relevant information about sexual acts was stored in spreadsheets on the office computer and online backup files. It is this information which, when compared with the client lists, identifies who did what and to whom. The information confirming this came from girls who have worked at My1501.

3. The live video feed found at Tri-State Distributors was not simply of the lobby and entry areas. My1501's operation included webcam and live video-feed of the sessions. There is no telling how many of the sessions were uploaded and sold as online porn. There is a huge market for this, and My1501 was heavily involved in this (along with another large-scale operation here in Louisville. Those of you who frequent several of the more popular south Dixie and south Louisville locations may already be aware of this.) Again, this information has been confirmed by former employees of My1501.

And finally.

4. Follow the advice of several of the long-term posters here regarding protecting your anonymity. Don't confuse the alleged lack of prosecution funds or vague assertions of "the girls were victims" fool you into believing that this is an inconsequential investigation. The owners are going to be indicted at the end of this investigation, and that is always serious. The real question is which of the employees (present and former) will drop the business owners in. If there are any disgruntled former employees, except the birds to start chirping loudly very soon.

[QUOTE=Johnballgame; 1260921]I know this will most likely never happen, but I hope it comes to light, these detectives went above and beyond the call of duty and I hope their lives get put through the ringer like these girls, here is what the news did not say. These detectives undressed the girls, also put fingers in slots where they shouldn't and received the full happy ending. I wonder if their boss or wives know that and what they think and is that part of what my tax dollars are used for? [/QUOTE]

I believe the officers recorded the sessions so if it is true they went "all the way" it would be recorded. And I agree with Golfcart that it is true that when asked, an officer doesn't NOT have to reveal his identity as a cop during an investigation.

[QUOTE=Jim True Blue;1261372]I believe the officers recorded the sessions so if it is true they went "all the way" it would be recorded. And I agree with Golfcart that it is true that when asked, an officer doesn't NOT have to reveal his identity as a cop during an investigation.[/QUOTE]I'm pretty sure it is only audio, so they could / did go through it without any concrete evidence against them except he said she said, I'm sure the cop is smart enough while being taking care of HANDILY isn't announcing verbally on the tape