The Prickyard

[QUOTE=SpinAndWin85;3861360]After arriving plenty early and just observing, I took the leap of faith and saw Jan this past Thursday. Let me just state upfront that all is well with her. She feels that she has been wrongly accused of flipping on Candace, but that there is a monger among us spreading that rumor for reasons she doesn't know. She does admit she was there (as was Reese) at the time Candace was busted. They were questioned and released. LE just somehow slipped through the screening process and got to Candace. In fact, Jan has reason to believe the cop saw Candace once before and didn't bust her. Anyway, that's her story and she's sticking to it.

All that aside, we had another excellent time. Fabulous GFE. She was only up north temporarily, and is only in town Tuesdays through Fridays right now. Hoping to settle in permanently somewhere south, and start advertising again on the sister site.[/QUOTE]Not a monger BTW that is spreading anything. That's coming from.

The horses mouth who pretty much should.

Know what the heck happened. But hey as they say Its that 50/50 chance right?

Let me first say that I am happy that S and W did not get busted but a simple review of the posts gives these conclusions like them or not. There were five girls in the bust and taken down to precinct. Only one of them was charged with a felony and she came on the boards and told her story with her counselors permission. According to S and W Jan admitted being there with Reese and no one was busted but one. It is safe to assume that the one who was didn't just throw her hands up and say OKAY BOYS YA GOT ME GIVE ME A FELONY. No the correct assumption would be one of the other four rolled. Now some thoughts for the community. If someone rolled once to save her ass and is still working is it safe to assume that she would roll again? Why did the other four not get busted? Is it because they were not caught doing anything in the original bust. That is a legal requirement. It this goes to trial the attorney for the defendant has the right to depose the lady who rolled and it becomes public record. OPPPPS. So why would one of the ladies who was busted roll unless she was promised immunity for prosecution when she had not been caught doing anything illegal unless she was too stupid to figure that out on her own? S and W said he had already seen one of the girls on the 25th then took a leap of faith and saw her again. Why is that a leap of faith if you had already seen her once before and nothing happened? Only Candace knows who rolled on her but again if it goes to trial the name will become public. Escorting is not a felony it is a misdemeanor and it is safe to say Candace did not out herself so someone in the group had to have rolled When that name becomes public if it does I wouldn't want to be in her shoes. Last but not least why would anyone tell the name of a girl who walked from the bust and where she is going to be soon and what site she is going to be working on? Do that kind of shit back channel in view of what happened. Have a good day all. Enjoy your week.

[QUOTE=SpinAndWin85;3861360]After arriving plenty early and just observing, I took the leap of faith and saw Jan this past Thursday. Let me just state upfront that all is well with her. She feels that she has been wrongly accused of flipping on Candace, but that there is a monger among us spreading that rumor for reasons she doesn't know. She does admit she was there (as was Reese) at the time Candace was busted. They were questioned and released. LE just somehow slipped through the screening process and got to Candace. In fact, Jan has reason to believe the cop saw Candace once before and didn't bust her. Anyway, that's her story and she's sticking to it.

All that aside, we had another excellent time. Fabulous GFE. She was only up north temporarily, and is only in town Tuesdays through Fridays right now. Hoping to settle in permanently somewhere south, and start advertising again on the sister site.[/QUOTE]I have sent you 2 PMs on Jan and you have not responded. We are suppose to share information on here so share it or do you have a problem with that.

[QUOTE=SpinAndWin85;3861360]After arriving plenty early and just observing, I took the leap of faith and saw Jan this past Thursday. Let me just state upfront that all is well with her. She feels that she has been wrongly accused of flipping on Candace, but that there is a monger among us spreading that rumor for reasons she doesn't know. She does admit she was there (as was Reese) at the time Candace was busted. They were questioned and released. LE just somehow slipped through the screening process and got to Candace. In fact, Jan has reason to believe the cop saw Candace once before and didn't bust her. Anyway, that's her story and she's sticking to it.

All that aside, we had another excellent time. Fabulous GFE. She was only up north temporarily, and is only in town Tuesdays through Fridays right now. Hoping to settle in permanently somewhere south, and start advertising again on the sister site.[/QUOTE]How do you get a hold of Jan now. I have her old txt, but not using it in case it is compromised. I sent you a PM.

So BM how deep is it getting. Do you ever stop and think before you type? Your facts are a little off, let me enlighten you.

The day (s) before the sting, Uncle Steve made an appointment to see Reese on the only phone number used to make appointments. He was using a text app but was verified as a friend and being safe by another hobbyist that had seen Reese the week before. So it must be one of two things the hobbyist had flipped or was another uncle. Uncle Steve arrived, negotiated a deal for sex for $ with Reese and then suddenly had to leave before services were provided. What is the crime BM? Prostitution dude! She was not charged that day because uncle was building his case. What is building a case, probable cause!

The day of the sting, uncle had been verified with a real phone number (not an app, drop phone or internet phone) and with two provider references, one from Milfy and the other from an unknown CMT. The screener used only the references. So all is good right? NO, but more on that later. The now verified customer was given several options of ladies to see via texts on the same phone number that Uncle had made an appointment with Reese. The ladies were told he was coming and were asked if they would see him however, he only wanted to see Candace. So what crime is being committed? Promoting prostitution. Why? Same phone number already used to commit documented previous illegal activity and multiple ladies offered to provide service. Then shortly after the sting, while at the property Reese admits that she and Candace had put thousands of $ into fixing up the house that they had just leased and was hoping the landlord would reimburse them.

So now some thoughts for the community.

Why wasn't Reese arrested for her previous meeting with uncle? Why were two ladies, one of them Jan, who you tag as the "roller", who were in rooms right next to each other, released within two hours and Reese was there for several hours. Mind you, only a prosecutor can make a deal for immunity. Uncle can say anything they want but, immunity can only be negotiated by a prosecutor and a sworn statement. The two ladies next to each other only had Uncle questioning them, no prosecutor. OOPPPPS BM there goes your theory! So community probable cause via an illegal action committed the day before, probable cause by offering multiple ladies to Uncle when he was coming to visit. Isn't it probable cause if a "Lessee" works multiple ladies out of their property?

Questions for you BM. Why don't you have the same enthusiasm to bring to the lime light the hobbyist that flipped, or the other providers that provided false verifications? Why are you focused on one person? Why are you attacking the business decisions of another service that you never use and never will use?

Now for the kicker, let's go back to Uncle involved in the sting. If the SCREENER had just taken the time to run the digits through something as simple as White Pages his real name showed up. Then if she had googled his name, guess what? He's an IMPD police officer, DUH! So the moral of this story is: If you don't screen properly you are going to get arrested. This is what happens when a screener doesn't do their job correctly and makes it easy for multiple cases of probable cause.

So BM does Knighthood come complete with sexual favors? Now how deep is it getting?

[QUOTE=AaaGabriel812;3865136]So BM how deep is it getting. Do you ever stop and think before you type? Your facts are a little off, let me enlighten you.

The day (s) before the sting, Uncle Steve made an appointment to see Reese on the only phone number used to make appointments. He was using a text app but was verified as a friend and being safe by another hobbyist that had seen Reese the week before. So it must be one of two things the hobbyist had flipped or was another uncle. Uncle Steve arrived, negotiated a deal for sex for $ with Reese and then suddenly had to leave before services were provided. What is the crime BM? Prostitution dude! She was not charged that day because uncle was building his case. What is building a case, probable cause!

The day of the sting, uncle had been verified with a real phone number (not an app, drop phone or internet phone) and with two provider references, one from Milfy and the other from an unknown CMT. The screener used only the references. So all is good right? NO, but more on that later. The now verified customer was given several options of ladies to see via texts on the same phone number that Uncle had made an appointment with Reese. The ladies were told he was coming and were asked if they would see him however, he only wanted to see Candace. So what crime is being committed? Promoting prostitution. Why? Same phone number already used to commit documented previous illegal activity and multiple ladies offered to provide service. Then shortly after the sting, while at the property Reese admits that she and Candace had put thousands of $ into fixing up the house that they had just leased and was hoping the landlord would reimburse them.

So now some thoughts for the community.

Why wasn't Reese arrested for her previous meeting with uncle? Why were two ladies, one of them Jan, who you tag as the "roller", who were in rooms right next to each other, released within two hours and Reese was there for several hours. Mind you, only a prosecutor can make a deal for immunity. Uncle can say anything they want but, immunity can only be negotiated by a prosecutor and a sworn statement. The two ladies next to each other only had Uncle questioning them, no prosecutor. OOPPPPS BM there goes your theory! So community probable cause via an illegal action committed the day before, probable cause by offering multiple ladies to Uncle when he was coming to visit. Isn't it probable cause if a "Lessee" works multiple ladies out of their property?

Questions for you BM. Why don't you have the same enthusiasm to bring to the lime light the hobbyist that flipped, or the other providers that provided false verifications? Why are you focused on one person? Why are you attacking the business decisions of another service that you never use and never will use?

Now for the kicker, let's go back to Uncle involved in the sting. If the SCREENER had just taken the time to run the digits through something as simple as White Pages his real name showed up. Then if she had googled his name, guess what? He's an IMPD police officer, DUH! So the moral of this story is: If you don't screen properly you are going to get arrested. This is what happens when a screener doesn't do their job correctly and makes it easy for multiple cases of probable cause.

So BM does Knighthood come complete with sexual favors? Now how deep is it getting?[/QUOTE]So the real kicker is.

Yes there's no denying my part as a screener I made a mistake. I DID SCREEN on mulitple platforms, all in which came back to the same name. However, once a # is verified by Multiple current providers. # was in the name of person who he said he was. I didn't continue to look or google him. I trusted the references and screening platforms. Generally if the number is associated with law enforcement. ITS DISCLOSED. Again MY MISTAKE and I owned that in my orginal post. Which is why I took the heat for the Misdemeanor charge. No biggie.

However, Reese seeing "Steve" days prior wasnt enough for them to charge a level 4 felony because NO SEX ACTS where commited. Even agreeing to sex acts for cash would have only got her prostitution at best. But they didn't want REESE. Which is exactly why they couldn't obtain a search warrent at the time. I have the affidavit NOBODY is included in the Felony charge affidavit EXCEPT JAN and it clearly states once JAN disclosed AMB and monies exchanged. They THEN BOOKED ME FOR FELONY AT THAT TIME AND OBTAINED SEARCH warrent.

They can not simply charge a promotion of prostitution soley based off "assumption" because there was NO PROOF that sex was taking place in the appts. I actually don't know if that's what they were doing or not. Each appt is different per wach client.

Until it was VERIFIED by JAN that that's exactly what she was doing they had ZERO proof and only assumptions. So with admission from JAN saying yes that's what she was doing. Why WASNT SHE BOOKED?

Reese was released later because EVERYONE could here Jan telling the detectives what happen. REESE then yelled out that she was a lair in the southeast building where questioning happen. All girls were released with all of their money and no charges. However, for Jans safety she was released first. Yes Reese admited to putting money in the property for her to live there because that was true. She did live there at the time and did help set it up to fit her needs.

The reason BM is focusing on JAN is simply because people who got on this thread and PUT NAMES ON POSTS left her out. WHY DID THEY LEAVE JAN OUT BUT PUT NAMES OF OTHERS ON THERE?? Because well Jan is the only one THAT TOLD. Also because JAN is banging a well known MONGER on the boards that is not alloweed to post anymore. BM POINT TO ALL THIS IS MATTER OF FACT:

IF YOU ARE IN THIS COMMUNITY YOU. THERES A LOYALTY TO IT. WHEN YOU GET ON A POST AND START PUTTING NAMES MAKE SURE YOU PUT ALL OF THE NAMES NOT JUST THE ONES YOU WANT TO SIMPLY BECAUSE you ARE FUCKING HER.

So if the shit wants to get deep IT CAN GO THERE.

[QUOTE=AaaGabriel812;3865136]So BM how deep is it getting. Do you ever stop and think before you type? Your facts are a little off, let me enlighten you.

The day (s) before the sting, Uncle Steve made an appointment to see Reese on the only phone number used to make appointments. He was using a text app but was verified as a friend and being safe by another hobbyist that had seen Reese the week before. So it must be one of two things the hobbyist had flipped or was another uncle. Uncle Steve arrived, negotiated a deal for sex for $ with Reese and then suddenly had to leave before services were provided. What is the crime BM? Prostitution dude! She was not charged that day because uncle was building his case. What is building a case, probable cause!

The day of the sting, uncle had been verified with a real phone number (not an app, drop phone or internet phone) and with two provider references, one from Milfy and the other from an unknown CMT. The screener used only the references. So all is good right? NO, but more on that later. The now verified customer was given several options of ladies to see via texts on the same phone number that Uncle had made an appointment with Reese. The ladies were told he was coming and were asked if they would see him however, he only wanted to see Candace. So what crime is being committed? Promoting prostitution. Why? Same phone number already used to commit documented previous illegal activity and multiple ladies offered to provide service. Then shortly after the sting, while at the property Reese admits that she and Candace had put thousands of $ into fixing up the house that they had just leased and was hoping the landlord would reimburse them.

So now some thoughts for the community.

Why wasn't Reese arrested for her previous meeting with uncle? Why were two ladies, one of them Jan, who you tag as the "roller", who were in rooms right next to each other, released within two hours and Reese was there for several hours. Mind you, only a prosecutor can make a deal for immunity. Uncle can say anything they want but, immunity can only be negotiated by a prosecutor and a sworn statement. The two ladies next to each other only had Uncle questioning them, no prosecutor. OOPPPPS BM there goes your theory! So community probable cause via an illegal action committed the day before, probable cause by offering multiple ladies to Uncle when he was coming to visit. Isn't it probable cause if a "Lessee" works multiple ladies out of their property?

Questions for you BM. Why don't you have the same enthusiasm to bring to the lime light the hobbyist that flipped, or the other providers that provided false verifications? Why are you focused on one person? Why are you attacking the business decisions of another service that you never use and never will use?

Now for the kicker, let's go back to Uncle involved in the sting. If the SCREENER had just taken the time to run the digits through something as simple as White Pages his real name showed up. Then if she had googled his name, guess what? He's an IMPD police officer, DUH! So the moral of this story is: If you don't screen properly you are going to get arrested. This is what happens when a screener doesn't do their job correctly and makes it easy for multiple cases of probable cause.

So BM does Knighthood come complete with sexual favors? Now how deep is it getting?[/QUOTE]Even more so.

Hundreds of providers have came and gone in Indianapolis without little Fanfare, yet a couple individuals seem to find it necessary to establish the importance of how credible Jan's reputation is. These individuals seem to have much at stake pertaining to Jan's credibility in the field whereas BigMac has nothing to gain by outing a snitch.

[QUOTE=AaaGabriel812;3865136]So BM how deep is it getting. Do you ever stop and think before you type? Your facts are a little off, let me enlighten you.

The day (s) before the sting, Uncle Steve made an appointment to see Reese on the only phone number used to make appointments. He was using a text app but was verified as a friend and being safe by another hobbyist that had seen Reese the week before. So it must be one of two things the hobbyist had flipped or was another uncle. Uncle Steve arrived, negotiated a deal for sex for $ with Reese and then suddenly had to leave before services were provided. What is the crime BM? Prostitution dude! She was not charged that day because uncle was building his case. What is building a case, probable cause!

The day of the sting, uncle had been verified with a real phone number (not an app, drop phone or internet phone) and with two provider references, one from Milfy and the other from an unknown CMT. The screener used only the references. So all is good right? NO, but more on that later. The now verified customer was given several options of ladies to see via texts on the same phone number that Uncle had made an appointment with Reese. The ladies were told he was coming and were asked if they would see him however, he only wanted to see Candace. So what crime is being committed? Promoting prostitution. Why? Same phone number already used to commit documented previous illegal activity and multiple ladies offered to provide service. Then shortly after the sting, while at the property Reese admits that she and Candace had put thousands of $ into fixing up the house that they had just leased and was hoping the landlord would reimburse them.

So now some thoughts for the community.

Why wasn't Reese arrested for her previous meeting with uncle? Why were two ladies, one of them Jan, who you tag as the "roller", who were in rooms right next to each other, released within two hours and Reese was there for several hours. Mind you, only a prosecutor can make a deal for immunity. Uncle can say anything they want but, immunity can only be negotiated by a prosecutor and a sworn statement. The two ladies next to each other only had Uncle questioning them, no prosecutor. OOPPPPS BM there goes your theory! So community probable cause via an illegal action committed the day before, probable cause by offering multiple ladies to Uncle when he was coming to visit. Isn't it probable cause if a "Lessee" works multiple ladies out of their property?

Questions for you BM. Why don't you have the same enthusiasm to bring to the lime light the hobbyist that flipped, or the other providers that provided false verifications? Why are you focused on one person? Why are you attacking the business decisions of another service that you never use and never will use?

Now for the kicker, let's go back to Uncle involved in the sting. If the SCREENER had just taken the time to run the digits through something as simple as White Pages his real name showed up. Then if she had googled his name, guess what? He's an IMPD police officer, DUH! So the moral of this story is: If you don't screen properly you are going to get arrested. This is what happens when a screener doesn't do their job correctly and makes it easy for multiple cases of probable cause.

So BM does Knighthood come complete with sexual favors? Now how deep is it getting?[/QUOTE]Several and I mean several ladies have been busted with a screener (even using same number, like agencies for example) and without one. ONLY charge prostitution. Why because the ladies don't TALK.

[QUOTE=BigCat44;3864157]I have sent you 2 PMs on Jan and you have not responded. We are suppose to share information on here so share it or do you have a problem with that.[/QUOTE]Sorry for the delayed response. Been out of town and not on the site. Last time I saw her she asked me not to give out the number I have just yet. She plans to advertise again as soon as she's settled in town permanently, but I will ask her when it would be ok to share, or if she'll be advertising a new #. Thanks for your patience. She's a little gun shy right now and I want to respect her wishes.

[QUOTE=Rch9394;3864369]How do you get a hold of Jan now. I have her old txt, but not using it in case it is compromised. I sent you a PM.[/QUOTE]Sorry for the delayed response. Been out of town and not on the site. Last time I saw her she asked me not to give out the number I have just yet. She plans to advertise again as soon as she's settled in town permanently, but I will ask her when it would be ok to share, or if she'll be advertising a new #. Thanks for your patience. She's a little gun shy right now and I want to respect her wishes.

The only three things that are important are the name on the affidavit signed by the snitch at the office of LE, the removal of that snitch from the community for the safety of mongers and providers, and the realization that if the lady is still working for another agency why is that agency hiring her and using her because it endangers the safety of the other girls working in the same agency. Only one person knows whose name is on that affidavit and when that is found out those who supported her will have a lot of explaining to do. Make sense to you AAA? I have no skin in the game HOW ABOUT YOU? Are you dating the person or persons in question? Does she work for you and if so why is she still working for you? Only C38 knows who is on that affidavit. As to screening, I believe another monger on her said it best. NO SCREENING PROCESS IS FOOL Proof and if they want someone bad enough they will find a way to get them. Why Indy is very deplete in agencies for that very reason. As for the other girls which ever you choose, if no other three girls were found to have broken the law not actively engaged in an unlawful activity the man would have no reason to hold them. However the one who rolled would be detained to roll over and sign a statement identifying who did what. Maybe that person I working for them now as part of an illegal bargain to keep from getting busted for whatever reason they would come up with. Again the name on the affidavit is the NARC and once she becomes known she and those who defend her will not be in good standing with the community I would think. But since I see no ladies from either group that's my story and I am sticking to it. But then my name is not on the police document signed by the lady who dictated it to Uncle. Have a good week Ms / Mr. Gabriel. If it goes to trial it will become public record.

When a situation like Candace's happens a life changes forever. I know. I was in her boat a year ago. Fortunately for me my life changed mostly for the good since I was able to travel for a year and since have moved out of state. But I too paid dearly in other ways.

Big Mack, you have NO skin in this game. Any of the ladies involved were out of your price range and you are just stirring shit. People tried to stir shit and claimed I was working with the cops and had been let go. In reality I was the only one of the 3 that lawyered up and ended up getting held EIGHT hours longer than the other two girls. I screen. Pretty darn well but to my dismay I didn't check the address on the drivers license pic the cop sent me or I would have seen it was to a hotel. Lessons learned, price paid. Even though I have always remained legit and took my pinch my business suffered in Indy. Was it due to the false information being spun by Superfun or whatever the fuck his name was. Maybe. Don't know but it was never the same.

Candace and I have had our disagreements but in one aspect I feel for her as she has a kid. I don't think it's wise that she's broadcasting stuff on here with charges still pending. Early curler knows? Hello, Bueller, Bueller? In other aspects I feel she kind of got what was coming as a pimp is a pimp is a pimp but that's just my opinion. However I commend her if she's taking her pinch. I have no idea if anyone flipped. I'm not there.

My point in all this: Big Mack and anyone else speculating on what happened just freaking stop. You are making it even harder on those affected by this. You have nothing to gain and nothing to lose so it's pointless for you to put your $. 02 in it.

The whole hobby is dangerous in many ways for providers and clients alike. With the demise of BP and everything else that FOSTA fucked up it only got worse. Indianapolis is a little unique as many of us tried to look out for each other. Hell, mmgeg and I were extremely close, had a falling out but I never dissed her on here. Our personal differences had no bearing on the fact she's an excellent safe provider.

So perhaps instead of speculating, perhaps some of you guys can reach out to those affected, maybe throw a little money their way and by golly maybe not even expect anything in return.

I think anything pertaining to the raid should really come to an end and just move on from it. We all know LEO is watching this and think it would be a wise decision to keep reviews of the ladies involved in private messaging. I know if I was involved in something as serious as a raid I sure as heck don't want reviews going up so soon. It was very unfortunate that it happened and it's caused a lot of uncertainty in our local hobby and tons of assumptions. Now I can't speak on behalf of all the ladies that weren't involved but I believe we're all worried about seeing anyone new. I'm sure at the end of this month I'll have only done a handful of appointments. My personal life is far too important. And so is my squeaky clean record!

[QUOTE=Sarag;3866262]When a situation like Candace's happens a life changes forever. I know. I was in her boat a year ago. Fortunately for me my life changed mostly for the good since I was able to travel for a year and since have moved out of state. But I too paid dearly in other ways.

Big Mack, you have NO skin in this game. Any of the ladies involved were out of your price range and you are just stirring shit. People tried to stir shit and claimed I was working with the cops and had been let go. In reality I was the only one of the 3 that lawyered up and ended up getting held EIGHT hours longer than the other two girls. I screen. Pretty darn well but to my dismay I didn't check the address on the drivers license pic the cop sent me or I would have seen it was to a hotel. Lessons learned, price paid. Even though I have always remained legit and took my pinch my business suffered in Indy. Was it due to the false information being spun by Superfun or whatever the fuck his name was. Maybe. Don't know but it was never the same..[/QUOTE]If you had read the ladies posts she has a signed affidavit with the ladies name on it. The problem is not with me seeing her but for any male in community using her services and any agency now or later who wants to bring her in. It is about the safety of all male and female. I do agree with VR back channel is the best method but remember that what may be out of a clients $$ range now may not be down the road so knowing who did what makes the decision to see or not to that much more comfortable. It is out now and I am glad for the community and it is their decision what to do. This could have all been prevented with 10 simple words at the station. Sir I have no idea what you are talking about. The other four had no problems with saying that. Why she rolled who knows. They caught her doing nothing and she blabbed Dangerous to providers and clients alike. JMO Hope all is well with you in the great North and you are doing well.

I've seen Jan twice now. Great provider, but seems very new at all this. I wasn't there, but I can only surmise that she got caught up in a new and scary situation that she handled very poorly. And probably regrets it, because the first time I met her she spoke very highly of C38. Anyway, I took a chance on her and it worked out. Perhaps dumb on my part, but it is what it is. You can bet my head is on a swivel right now where she is concerned. The moral of the story, and what I've come to learn is, if you find one or two, or three providers that you can trust. Stick with them and be satisfied with that. Which is sad, because I'm sure there are many other trustworthy providers out there I'm missing out on. But I can't take the risks. For me, Jan / Kerri (at least for now), Remy, Catharine are all my go to ladies. I'd be happy to talk about any of them in private. And I'm sorry if I unnecessarily stirred things up on here about "THE RAID". I hope things turn out ok for you, C38.

Now let's get real. BM and Candace are hell bent on trying to smear Jan. Candace is sending the affidavit to clients AND now someone with a database of telephone numbers is texting clients and leaving voicemails telling them that they are being watched and effectively scaring the crap out of them. Now let's look at who failed who.

In the movie Wall Street, Michael Douglas's character Gordon Geeko stated "The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. ".

And his greed led him to be sloppy. So who failed who? When a provider employs an agency, just like an entertainer, they pay a fee for services they expect the agency to provide. In the providing business, the agency will advertise, field inquiries and vet clients. Pay attention here: the provider EMPLOYS the agency, unlike a pimp:

"who controls prostitutes and arranges clients for them, taking part of their earnings in return". Although it sounds similar, it's not the same. AMB advertised for ladies to work for her. See the difference?

Now who failed who:

Someone, presumably Candace, is putting clients at risk by sending unsolicited texts to a client list and / or leaving voicemails. How is this discreet? Is this exposing them to family and / or employers?

Per discussion Jan supposedly attended an orientation at the house prior to the bust. Apparently someone failed to emphasize exercising our fifth amendment rights and the mantra "I want a lawyer" should a situation arise that would dictate the need.

When other agencies or independents screen effectively this situation would have been avoided. Taking the word or reference of providers is risky. The reference is only as good as your trust in the person giving it. How much trust did Candace put in Milfy and the unidentified CMT? Apparently too much. Her screening stopped and now all providers working in that house were exposed to potential legal issues. What if instead of the law, the bad guy had been abusive? Huh, huh, huh? So who failed who?

The agency that Jan has EMPLOYED is very thorough and puts provider safety ALWAYS over the almighty dollar. They aren't novices and if they have continued to be her EMPLOYEE then it's because they are confident that the risk is either non existent or extremely minimal.

The woman needs to eat. She needs to put a roof over her head. Other people have seen her since the incident. Put yourself in her shoes. She was very wet behind the ears, no pun intended, when everything went down. They already had been watching the house and had probable cause to do the raid, so blaiming Jan for apparently her employer's failure to properly train her in emergency procedures is unfair. If you don't want to see her, then don't. Go see someone else. Someone else who may or may not have employed a company to represent their needs. It's a crap shoot.

But one last time I have to ask who failed who?

Thanks for explaining what happened and sending out the affidavit to let people judge for themselves.

I'm glad you're not letting people give you shit and don't feel bad. Mistakes happen to everyone.

[QUOTE=IndyAnon;3867651]Thanks for explaining what happened and sending out the affidavit to let people judge for themselves.

I'm glad you're not letting people give you shit and don't feel bad. Mistakes happen to everyone.[/QUOTE]And I am sure you would feel the same about Jan also since you said "Mistakes happen to everyone". Am I not correct?

[QUOTE=BigMack;3865965]The only three things that are important are the name on the affidavit signed by the snitch at the office of LE... Make sense to you AAA? However the one who rolled would be detained to roll over and sign a statement identifying who did what.... But then my name is not on the police document signed by the lady who dictated it to Uncle. Have a good week Ms / Mr. Gabriel. If it goes to trial it will become public record.[/QUOTE]I was asked by a friend to stop and let this subject go away. Then I learned that a screenshot of the Probable Cause Affidavit is being submitted via texts and e-mails to multiple hobbyist's on the board as well as other Ex-AMB clients. I find this ludicrous, insensitive and what I consider against all hobby etiquette. So I am making one last comment on the subject then I am done.

The Probable Cause Affidavit screenshot being passed around is missing the main part, the signature line where the detective responsible for the case signs it! Why is the signature line missing? The top of the screen shot is where it's indicated that the interviewee was given a pre-printed advice of rights, asked to initial 1 through 5 and sign the bottom. All five ladies were given the same document and to the best of my knowledge all five signed it. To the best of my knowledge nothing else was signed by Jan. If a confession was made, a testimony by a witness or a statement by a witness, the interviewee would sign it. Nothing like this exists.

Nobody but Jan and Uncle were in the room so nobody but them knows what was said this includes all the other four ladies. LE lies, manipulates, threatens and does whatever is necessary to get an interviewee confused and to say things they don't want to. Is it possible Jan said things she shouldn't have, absolutely? Did she cry out "I will tell you whatever you want and sign anything you want to get out of this!" Nope I truly don't believe she did, that's a NARC. Uncle can combine statements, comments, information from multiple interviews into a Probable Cause Affidavit. I was told by another interviewee that was in the room next to Jan that no one entered either room other than Uncle, no prosecutor entered either room, thus no deal for Immunity could have been made.

38 C I feel for you and wish this never happened to you and wish you well. I also thought you said you retired? You should because LE is watching you, making screen prints of all these posts and laughing along with the prosecutor who will be involved in your plea bargain. Just ask EarlyCuyler. It's sad that all of this was brought to the board by BM because, all he has done is endanger your future.

BM maybe you should retire because none of the "Quality Ladies", your words not mine, in Indy will see you. However you might want to try the SW scene because most of those ladies are good at sticking small tubes into small holes.

[QUOTE=AaaGabriel812;3867794]I was asked by a friend to stop and let this subject go away. Then I learned that a screenshot of the Probable Cause Affidavit is being submitted via texts and e-mails to multiple hobbyist's on the board as well as other Ex-AMB clients. I find this ludicrous, insensitive and what I consider against all hobby etiquette. So I am making one last comment on the subject then I am done.

The Probable Cause Affidavit screenshot being passed around is missing the main part, the signature line where the detective responsible for the case signs it! Why is the signature line missing? The top of the screen shot is where it's indicated that the interviewee was given a pre-printed advice of rights, asked to initial 1 through 5 and sign the bottom. All five ladies were given the same document and to the best of my knowledge all five signed it. To the best of my knowledge nothing else was signed by Jan. If a confession was made, a testimony by a witness or a statement by a witness, the interviewee would sign it. Nothing like this exists.

Nobody but Jan and Uncle were in the room so nobody but them knows what was said this includes all the other four ladies. LE lies, manipulates, threatens and does whatever is necessary to get an interviewee confused and to say things they don't want to. Is it possible Jan said things she shouldn't have, absolutely? Did she cry out "I will tell you whatever you want and sign anything you want to get out of this!" Nope I truly don't believe she did, that's a NARC..[/QUOTE]Might want to check your laws. Affidavits are written statements from detectives based off information given by parties involved (who talked) . And they have to sign them and submit them to court. JAN / Kherri signed her Miranda rights as we all did. That is a requirement showing that Miranda rights were given. No personal information was leaked. And if LEO is watching they already have the information I have discussed on the board. I have it in my possession and I was there. So I know what happened.

[QUOTE=Sarag;3867029]Now let's get real. BM and Candace are hell bent on trying to smear Jan. Candace is sending the affidavit to clients AND now someone with a database of telephone numbers is texting clients and leaving voicemails telling them that they are being watched and effectively scaring the crap out of them. Now let's look at who failed who.

In the movie Wall Street, Michael Douglas's character Gordon Geeko stated "The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. ".

And his greed led him to be sloppy. So who failed who? When a provider employs an agency, just like an entertainer, they pay a fee for services they expect the agency to provide. In the providing business, the agency will advertise, field inquiries and vet clients. Pay attention here: the provider EMPLOYS the agency, unlike a pimp:

"who controls prostitutes and arranges clients for them, taking part of their earnings in return". Although it sounds similar, it's not the same. AMB advertised for ladies to work for her. See the difference?

Now who failed who:

Someone, presumably Candace, is putting clients at risk by sending unsolicited texts to a client list and / or leaving voicemails. How is this discreet? Is this exposing them to family and / or employers?

Per discussion Jan supposedly attended an orientation at the house prior to the bust. Apparently someone failed to emphasize exercising our fifth amendment rights and the mantra "I want a lawyer" should a situation arise that would dictate the need.

When other agencies or independents screen effectively this situation would have been avoided. Taking the word or reference of providers is risky. The reference is only as good as your trust in the person giving it. How much trust did Candace put in Milfy and the unidentified CMT? Apparently too much. Her screening stopped and now all providers working in that house were exposed to potential legal issues. What if instead of the law, the bad guy had been abusive? Huh, huh, huh? So who failed who?[/QUOTE]Me. Release numbers of clients. Lmao. Thats a complete joke and you just make yourself look like an ass. 10 years I have in the hobby. Never once have I ever even as much as texted my clients without permission to do so. I haven't given them shit and no plans to do so. I don't cut my nose off despite my face.

Screening. You were there right? In 10 years I have screened the same way. Everytime and it has been effective. I used 3 platforms and 2 provider references and LEO had to cancel 3 times while the screening process happend. So again, opening your mouth all the way from Fargo but telling BM to mind his business. Pretty Idiotic of you if I do say so myself.

Speaking of screening, I admitted my faults. However, I would have only one charge if Jan / Kherri followed advice given. And it was given and discussed prior so you are also wrong about that. But you would know because you were here right?

So all the girls who have been busted before like DI girls or other agencies they all got felony charges too? No. They don't. Because nobody snitched.

I'm glad everyone seems to know how I did things and not one of you were there. Is it possible you are in defense of FF who is currently getting his dick wet by Kherri / Jan?

Is that what all this is really about?

Better yet, why I would I pick Jan / Kherri to be the one who snitched. There were 3 others I could have choose. Why didn't I "pick" them if I'm lying.

At the end of the day.

I haven't lost my loyalty to this hobby or my clients however, some of you have by covering up the truth to save a piece of ass. Risking clients and providers in this hobby for the sake of a women who clearly rolled per the affidavit. One can't make up an entire affidavit with a case number and leos signature.

I can sleep well at night knowing. I am taking the heat because that's what real providers do in this hobby.

3 things matter:

The affidavit.

The truth.

And the loyalty.

Its about what is proven. And as seen, per affidavit it has been proven.

[QUOTE=AaaGabriel812;3867794]I was asked by a friend to stop and let this subject go away. Then I learned that a screenshot of the Probable Cause Affidavit is being submitted via texts and e-mails to multiple hobbyist's on the board as well as other Ex-AMB clients. I find this ludicrous, insensitive and what I consider against all hobby etiquette. So I am making one last comment on the subject then I am done.

The Probable Cause Affidavit screenshot being passed around is missing the main part, the signature line where the detective responsible for the case signs it! Why is the signature line missing? The top of the screen shot is where it's indicated that the interviewee was given a pre-printed advice of rights, asked to initial 1 through 5 and sign the bottom. All five ladies were given the same document and to the best of my knowledge all five signed it. To the best of my knowledge nothing else was signed by Jan. If a confession was made, a testimony by a witness or a statement by a witness, the interviewee would sign it. Nothing like this exists.

Nobody but Jan and Uncle were in the room so nobody but them knows what was said this includes all the other four ladies..[/QUOTE]His signature is on there. Trust me. But I showed what needed to be disclosed except personal information. To show proof that Jan / Kherri is who rolled.

I'm not going to sit here and knit pick at the fact that the detectives signature wasnt in the screen shot. Of course it wasnt. Neither was my address. Because why I ONLY showed what is in question. I have the entire 10 pages in my possesion. With ONLY MY NAME AND JANS on it.

Why do I have to lie? Its somewhat funny that anyone thinks I would have to lie out of all people involved. Comical.

[QUOTE=IndyAnon;3867651]Thanks for explaining what happened and sending out the affidavit to let people judge for themselves.

I'm glad you're not letting people give you shit and don't feel bad. Mistakes happen to everyone.[/QUOTE]Thank you. At least I can own up to my mistakes.

[QUOTE=AaaGabriel812;3867691]And I am sure you would feel the same about Jan also since you said "Mistakes happen to everyone". Am I not correct?[/QUOTE]Mistakes and snitching are not even close to the same thing.

[QUOTE=AaaGabriel812;3867691]And I am sure you would feel the same about Jan also since you said "Mistakes happen to everyone". Am I not correct?[/QUOTE]Are you suggesting she flipped and it was a mistake?

I really haven't been reading these post but I do think there's a lot to be said for someone that admits to their mistake.

Like I said in my last post and I'll say it again since it went in one ear and out the other. Maybe I need to be more aggressive in my posting. If I had an active investigation going on for something directly related to the hobby that includes serious charges I'd be keeping my butt off here and certainly wouldn't appreciate having reviews being posted. I may be a crazy redhead but wouldn't a review that a gentlemen posts about an encounter that happened AFTER said provider received serious charges and under investigation for something directly related to the hobby be a little idiotic to do? You might as well call the investigators and tell them you're still working and continuing to break the law? LEO knows what your handle is on here, they know your name, they have charged you and your out on bail but you're throwing yourself to the wolves because your handle is everywhere on this page right now. Then again you're keeping LEO's attention on yourself and off the rest of us so we can go back to our regularly scheduled programming. I honestly don't wish what you're going through on anyone and it's very unfortunate. That being said I must say that when I started in the hobby I stayed at a house where there was 4-5 working ladies and the owner of the house was also a provider and running the show. When I think back on that time and wonder what I would've done if there was a raid there's a very good chance I would've done the same that Jan did. I certainly wouldn't have done it to save my ass or snitch on anyone. It'll be because I'm nervous as hell, never been in that situation before, and even if you're taught what to do in that situation doesn't mean it won't go right out the window. It's very stressful! I honestly don't think she said anything on purpose and that's the risk someone makes when they decide to take on several ladies and their "agency" grows way to fast. I did get a bad taste in my mouth at the meet and greet and Sara isn't the only one that was thinking it. It may have been the alcohol but you really did come off aggressive and very much like a pimp running ladies. I know Sara and myself weren't the only ones that noticed it and it was to the point that some of us felt bad for the ladies working for your agency. Also, I didn't appreciate you calling me the B word but then again it may have been the alcohol or just how you are.

I truly feel bad for Jan because she was very new to the hobby and went through something traumatizing. I hope she has great success in this hobby. I think it's wise for C38 to retire until legal issues blow over and if I remember right that's what she announced. I hope all the wonderful hobbiests can continue getting their rocks off by sexy ladies without being nervous as hell and hope my fellow hobby sisters stay safe and have an enjoyable experience in this business.

[QUOTE=VixenRed;3868999]Like I said in my last post and I'll say it again since it went in one ear and out the other. Maybe I need to be more aggressive in my posting. If I had an active investigation going on for something directly related to the hobby that includes serious charges I'd be keeping my butt off here and certainly wouldn't appreciate having reviews being posted. I may be a crazy redhead but wouldn't a review that a gentlemen posts about an encounter that happened AFTER said provider received serious charges and under investigation for something directly related to the hobby be a little idiotic to do? You might as well call the investigators and tell them you're still working and continuing to break the law? LEO knows what your handle is on here, they know your name, they have charged you and your out on bail but you're throwing yourself to the wolves because your handle is everywhere on this page right now. Then again you're keeping LEO's attention on yourself and off the rest of us so we can go back to our regularly scheduled programming. I honestly don't wish what you're going through on anyone and it's very unfortunate. That being said I must say that when I started in the hobby I stayed at a house where there was 4-5 working ladies and the owner of the house was also a provider and running the show. When I think back on that time and wonder what I would've done if there was a raid there's a very good chance I would've done the same that Jan did. I certainly wouldn't have done it to save my ass or snitch on anyone. It'll be because I'm nervous as hell, never been in that situation before, and even if you're taught what to do in that situation doesn't mean it won't go right out the window. It's very stressful! I honestly don't think she said anything on purpose and that's the risk someone makes when they decide to take on several ladies and their "agency" grows way to fast. I did get a bad taste in my mouth at the meet and greet and Sara isn't the only one that was thinking it. It may have been the alcohol but you really did come off aggressive and very much like a pimp running ladies. I know Sara and myself weren't the only ones that noticed it and it was to the point that some of us felt bad for the ladies working for your agency. Also, I didn't appreciate you calling me the B word but then again it may have been the alcohol or just how you are..[/QUOTE]Oh here we go. Now all of a sudden. LEO is watching. But they aren't just watching this board. They are watching DI and they know exactly who to go see that will tell them exactly what they want kherri.

Besides can you control what is posted on the boards? No you can't. Neither can I. And reviews aren't enough to do shit because if that's the case these reviews on here would put everyone in jeopardy. Locations, names, acts are posted here daily.

Never had or cared about friends in this industry. You are entitled to your opinion just like anyone else. Funny part I came off as a pimp when nobody at the meet and greet worked for me. Reese had only been in Indy for 2 days as of the day of the meet and greet. Quite frankly. End of story.

No one comes off very well in the recent unpleasantness.

Except perhaps Reese and Tiger, who seem to have the good sense to have disappeared from public view. Being released without charges doesn't mean your not on LEO's radar, and jumping right back
into the game, whether on your own or with an even better known management group, may not be the wisest move. Nobody likes to be taunted, in sports, business, relationships, life, and it is conceivable that LEO could view such moves as taunting, and in any context the taunter generally makes themselves a target. Cracking under stress under the circumstances is understandable (and the backstory in this specific case is indeed rather sad, perhaps desperate) but again leaping back into the fray within a few days with ample promotion in a revolving door atmosphere, or even on a lower key,less publicized basis, may not be the height of enlightened self interest (even if guided by a Rasputin-ironically one that the subject expressed distaste for not so long ago). A respite, from work or commentary, would seem to be the better course of valor right now from those directly involved. As well as for those of us on the client side who may feel vaguely like an enabler, even if we're not exactly sure of what.

Feel so sorry for her that she was so traumatized she didn't know how to say she was just in the house with her friends. I read no where on the posts that it said they caught her doing anything but standing around with her friends. But you say she was so scared that she spilled the beans on her booker and the ring she was a part of and working for and even supposedly let them record her doing it and videoed her according to what has been posted. So upset the "man" let her walk without charges filed against her or so it has been said. So frightened over the incident that she is now working supposedly for another agency under a different name and taking clients who put both her names on the boards. Something about all that just doesn't make sense to me. But hey she is a mature woman who just got carried away, spilled the beans on her booker and walked scot free to go out and do it all again and you and others feel sorry for her? Really? No seriously Really?

[QUOTE=Candace38G;3869130]Oh here we go. Now all of a sudden. LEO is watching. But they aren't just watching this board. They are watching DI and they know exactly who to go see that will tell them exactly what they want kherri.

Besides can you control what is posted on the boards? No you can't. Neither can I. And reviews aren't enough to do shit because if that's the case these reviews on here would put everyone in jeopardy. Locations, names, acts are posted here daily.

Never had or cared about friends in this industry. You are entitled to your opinion just like anyone else. Funny part I came off as a pimp when nobody at the meet and greet worked for me. Reese had only been in Indy for 2 days as of the day of the meet and greet. Quite frankly. End of story.[/QUOTE]I never said LEO could use the review against you because I know they can't, but it could bring even more attention to yourself. If I continued working after getting the same charges as you I'd be telling every single client to not review me but that gentlemen's review could have very well been posted to directly benefit you for the sole reason of showing other members of this board that they have the green light to see you. Yes, Jan definitely didn't help your situation and very well had made it worse for you but I don't believe it was done purposely or maliciously. She's working for another agency and was let off with no charges. Yeah it looks bad but this is a livelihood for all of us and her life needs to go on just like yours. You were taking a much bigger risk by running an agency that several ladies were working for and unfortunately your the bigger catch for LEO and obviously who they wanted.

BgDoc and BigMack seem awfully similar. Maybe one and the same?

[QUOTE=VixenRed;3869911]I never said LEO could use the review against you because I know they can't, but it could bring even more attention to yourself. If I continued working after getting the same charges as you I'd be telling every single client to not review me but that gentlemen's review could have very well been posted to directly benefit you for the sole reason of showing other members of this board that they have the green light to see you. Yes, Jan definitely didn't help your situation and very well had made it worse for you but I don't believe it was done purposely or maliciously. She's working for another agency and was let off with no charges. Yeah it looks bad but this is a livelihood for all of us and her life needs to go on just like yours. You were taking a much bigger risk by running an agency that several ladies were working for and unfortunately your the bigger catch for LEO and obviously who they wanted.

BgDoc and BigMack seem awfully similar. Maybe one and the same?[/QUOTE]Most ladies in this were smarter than what Jan pulled. Guess not. Most intelligent ladies and men in this admit nothing and when turning on people and getting away with it are not that stupid to go out and join another group to see if they can get away with it again. It is one thing to snitch and get away with it it is quite another to go out and do it again. If she gets hit a second time I hope she likes the great indoors and an orange jump suit becomes her. Excuses excuses excuses my dear. Her life does have to go on but at whose expense down the road and if she turned once will she do it again if she gets caught? Time will tell. Maybe she can actually get a real job since she has serious issues with a serious lack of success in this one.

[QUOTE=VixenRed;3869911]I never said LEO could use the review against you because I know they can't, but it could bring even more attention to yourself. If I continued working after getting the same charges as you I'd be telling every single client to not review me but that gentlemen's review could have very well been posted to directly benefit you for the sole reason of showing other members of this board that they have the green light to see you. Yes, Jan definitely didn't help your situation and very well had made it worse for you but I don't believe it was done purposely or maliciously. She's working for another agency and was let off with no charges. Yeah it looks bad but this is a livelihood for all of us and her life needs to go on just like yours. You were taking a much bigger risk by running an agency that several ladies were working for and unfortunately your the bigger catch for LEO and obviously who they wanted.

BgDoc and BigMack seem awfully similar. Maybe one and the same?[/QUOTE]My original post on here and you can look back if needed. I didn't state names. I didn't start this bs. I stated my retirement and I stated all was well. So trust me I had intentions of moving forward. And still do.

As far as review. Only I know the exchange if any that day.

I'm not who LEO wants anymore. So the story on my part is over. A Misdemeanor will never trump a felony and when they place her they will wonder how she was connected. Not my issue anymore.

Even more so, I know 100 all my risks which is why my original post was classy and left at that. Until, someone started dropping names. And in this industry if you arent going to tell the truth and the whole story. Don't tell it at all. I'm not mad, angery or upset at anyone. But I be damned if I sit back and be made to look like a liar or that I had bad intentions. Because as previously posted below. Prior to this Jan spoke highly of me. Clearly, she was never in harms way. I wish her well.

I sure missed out on some excitement, wish everyone was living the dream. Will I'm just don't wake me up.

Missing a lot of you, some not so much.

BG,

Play safe, have fun, give and get respect, do your research, find some crazy-good and TPHFB!

Maybe look for a reputable provider with good reviews?

[QUOTE=JohnGuest;3885466]In the eight years I've been mongering around Indy, I've been hit / robbed once, robbed once, cash and dash three times. One cash-and-dash was in Pickwick Farms on the NW side off Ditch Road.

The other four incidents were on the east side, 46th down to Washington Street, Shadeland to Mitthoffer.

Avoid that area alltogether![/QUOTE]That's an awful lot of bad situations you've encountered.

[QUOTE=Candace38G;3870199]My original post on here and you can look back if needed. I didn't state names. I didn't start this bs. I stated my retirement and I stated all was well. So trust me I had intentions of moving forward. And still do.

As far as review. Only I know the exchange if any that day.

I'm not who LEO wants anymore. So the story on my part is over. A Misdemeanor will never trump a felony and when they place her they will wonder how she was connected. Not my issue anymore.

Even more so, I know 100 all my risks which is why my original post was classy and left at that. Until, someone started dropping names. And in this industry if you arent going to tell the truth and the whole story. Don't tell it at all. I'm not mad, angery or upset at anyone. But I be damned if I sit back and be made to look like a liar or that I had bad intentions. Because as previously posted below. Prior to this Jan spoke highly of me. Clearly, she was never in harms way. I wish her well.[/QUOTE]Your screening put Jan on the other side of the table, a table that she had never sat at before and was scared as phuck to be seated at. She's not a hardened pro like you and me. The day I was busted, 2 of the 8 arrested sung like canaries. Was I happy about it? No. Did I understand it? Yes. In a perfect world, no one phucks up. However, it's not a perfect world and your phuck up started the ball rolling and placed her in a damned if you do, damned if you dont situation. Also, dont you think she might have had just a teeny tiny bit of animosity towars you as she sat there being interrogated? I think it's pretty entitled of you to point fingers at someone that you put at great risk. Again, we all make mistakes, myself included, but I certainly don't think you have any accumulated capital in the "how to be a perfect hooker " account. Not sure where you are living now, but I know that 100 percent of the building materials are glass, so put down that rock.

I may be way wrong here, but my knowledge of what constitutes a promoting prostitution case is simply that one person is setting appointments for another. In times past, when the wall of shame was online, there were dozens and dozens of people that were hit with that charge, and I promise that they weren't all rolled on. A three way appointment is promoting. A pimp in a shitty motel is promoting. And we all know that in the latter case, no one rolls. Ever. They could have gotten you once you set an appointment for another person. My guess is that they wanted to build a case and have more evidence to go to court with. That's always the modus operandi.

You mentioned in another post that similar agencies have had their ladies arrested, but the ladies didn't sing, and that's why the agency didn't get hurt. That's not true. Ladies have sung like canaries at times, but other agencies have other measures in place to protect protect themselves. So I wanted to clear that up.

Questions.

Why in the hell are you on here? You came on to say goodbye, which I think is foolish, but then you come back over and over to try to clear your name and muddy someone else's. And again, you caused this situation. When you take responsibility and then use the word "but" as a conjunction, you cancel out whatever was said before the "but". You're playing with fire to come here and put your own legal future at risk in order to exact some sort of vengeance. That's at the very best foolish, trust me. The prosecutor will have a print out of every post you've made, which might not help your case when you claim to be done with this little underbelly subculture. If your attorney is giving you the go ahead to continue here, you might want to consider one of OJs lawyers instead at this point.

Why are you reaching out to people you've never met and saying that you've been told hat they are trustworthy? You're making people very very nervous by doing that. I have no doubt that this post will piss you off. That simply can't be avoided I'm afraid. I would never have said anything about any of these issues publicly if you had kept a low profile. I would have respected that.

You really need to just step away from being a keyboard warrior where the hobby is concerned, for many reasons.

"Discretion is the better part of valor". Melania Trump

This is the place for all your rants.

About the current rant, sorry. Communication is almost always going to be a problem. Look at it from the other side.

If a girl doesn't respond, or won't verify you, she loses out on a customer. If she accepts a date with the wrong person, she goes to jail. She might even end up dead. Then there's the guys who show up and want to haggle, or want extras for free.

There are always girls who don't care about verification, who will see anyone. Some are thieves, some are drug addicts and many aren't worth the money.

It occurs to me that maybe the slow communication is another verification tool. The guy leaving 10 voice or text messages, or ranting on the forum might not be someone they want to see.

I can't see why people feel the need to post false reviews, embellished info, or otherwise twisted accounts. Especially when their past posts contradict the latest. What is the benifit?

[blue]Because it's the internet and they can? I can't see why people feel the need to start up shit like this on review threads when you have a fight thread.

A2[/blue]

[QUOTE=Jeast72;3987919]I can't see why people feel the need to post false reviews, embellished info, or otherwise twisted accounts. Especially when their past posts contradict the latest. What is the benifit?

[blue]Because it's the internet and they can? I can't see why people feel the need to start up shit like this on review threads when you have a fight thread.

A2[/blue][/QUOTE]It's bad forum edict to call out Cleary fake reviews? Dead serious question because I feel like it should be called out but I don't want to break any rules.

When I read scot409's first review yesterday I thought a bot wrote it. Sentence structure and keywords are exactly like fake reviews on google or Amazon. Looking though his post its extra clear it or whomever someone is up to something because he contradicts himself.

How is this a good thing to allow?

[blue]That's why there is a fight thread. If you can see it's a fake report so can everybody else. The problem is it never stops with one, 5 guys call it out. Then guys want to be the first to call it out so they start shooting first and figuring it out later.

Use the fight thread.

A2[/blue]

[QUOTE=LonelyInBTown;3988562]It's bad forum edict to call out Cleary fake reviews? Dead serious question because I feel like it should be called out but I don't want to break any rules.

When I read scot409's first review yesterday I thought a bot wrote it. Sentence structure and keywords are exactly like fake reviews on google or Amazon. Looking though his post its extra clear it or whomever someone is up to something because he contradicts himself.

How is this a good thing to allow?

[blue]That's why there is a fight thread. If you can see it's a fake report so can everybody else. The problem is it never stops with one, 5 guys call it out. Then guys want to be the first to call it out so they start shooting first and figuring it out later.

Use the fight thread.

A2[/blue][/QUOTE]That is what the fight thread is for. I mistakenly thought it would be less controversial to indirectly call it out but had to put it near the offending post so people could figure out who I was talking about. That was before I even noticed the "general reports" connection and posted there also. I shouldn't have worried about pointing fingers directly and just taken it all, with quotes, to the "prickyard". The same people willing to dig to see who I was talking about would have still seen it there also.

I'm no less irked than anyone else when a report thread gets swamped with back and forth posts between arguing mongers. Not wanting to be the cause of it myself.

[QUOTE=LonelyInBTown;3988562]It's bad forum edict to call out Cleary fake reviews? Dead serious question because I feel like it should be called out but I don't want to break any rules.

When I read scot409's first review yesterday I thought a bot wrote it. Sentence structure and keywords are exactly like fake reviews on google or Amazon. Looking though his post its extra clear it or whomever someone is up to something because he contradicts himself.

How is this a good thing to allow?[/QUOTE]I'm not calling out fake reviews or anything along those lines, however, [B]LonelyInBTown[/B] does make a point. I've been to Banner as recently as late September and Jenny is no longer there. The description of Jenny is correct but I didn't have the same experience, although I was very new to the hobby at that time so that may have contributed. The girl that is currently there goes by Cindy unless she uses multiple names or there is indeed a new girl there named Amy. I doubt a new girl is there as that would mean Cindy left after only a month or so, but again I could be wrong.

Also, when you look at the reviewer's posting content and date / timestamps you see where [B]LonelyInBTown[/B] may be correct. There is a pattern to all posts regarding sentence structure, description, and word usage. Reviews from this individual lack a lot of qualities you see in other posts--they have the appearance of being crafted in a specific way.

As far as whether or not this is a good thing to allow, I think the real question is--how can it be prevented? Some sort of analysis algorithm for writing would be required (or someone pouring over all these posts looking for specific patterns). Can't really say how feasible that is. Not my wheelhouse.