Escort Reports

[Aces High]

Looks like someone is building quite a stable of girls on Eaton Street.

3 as of now!

https://skipthegames.com/posts/crans...n/800625759236

I seen Throat Goat on Eaton St for quick vist.

Nice easy set up decent location. Pictures are accurate. Average looking definitely seen worse no signs of drug use. Great head game offered more but wasn't interested I might repeat. I asked her if she knew the other girl who often posts adds stating Eaton St. She mentioned it was her sister. They work separately no 2 gal action!
This is her sister:
https://skipthegames.com/posts/cranston-ri/female-escorts/caucasian_e/-sloppy-toppy-/212594174613

[KatSuno1492]

The above is the case in Rhode Island and New Hampshire. Cops can ask for I'd if you're on foot for "b" above. But you still do t have to say anything or help with their "investigation". And do t let then pull the old "I'll chart her you with obstruction". Obstruction only can be charge as a secondary offense to a primary crime. Asserting your 5th amendment rights isn't obstruction.

In Massachusetts, there is no I'd requirement if you're on foot. You don't have to show them shit.

Oh, man, it looks like I opened a can of worms here! I think you may be right that it is dependent on the state, as to whether you have to provide I'd if on foot. But I think its universal, if stopped in a vehicle? Licence and registration, in ALL states, and insurance in some? I THINK?! But EVERY lawyer website I looked a says that you should NEVER voluntarily provide info to police except for ID and the required vehicle documents. They can TRY to get info, but you are not required by law to answer, BUT, they do NOT have to warn you of Miranda rights UNLESS and UNTIL arrested? And they CAN use whatever you say, voluntarily, before an arrest. But am I correct? Is there a lawyer in the house?

There's a difference between "ask you to provide" and "order you to provide" your I'd. When driving, it's a rare case when you can win in court that you were right to refuse to provide I'd on a stop. Basically you have to show that the stop was not legal, generally because of other things, like the cop was harassing you, or the stop was retaliatory for something else. So unless you have a guarantee of that, it's best to provide the I'd in a stop.

Otherwise, it doesn't matter if you are on foot or otherwise; unless you are in the process of or was just finishing up committing a crime they don't have the right to I'd you, especially if you are on public property.

Miranda is only a set of warnings that they use to confirm you know your existing rights under the 5th and 6th amendments, and yes, generally they are required to provide them to you when you are arrested / brought in for questioning. However, anything you say to police at any time can be used against you, regardless of Miranda warning. At any time when police as you questions, the encounter is either consensual or not, and if not consensual it is basically a detainment. Asking "Am I free to go" is the litmus test for that. If they say "No" then ask "Am I being detained? At no time are you required to answer questions. At any time you can (and should) invoke your 5th amendment right to stay silent (though you do have to actually invoke it, you generally can't simply be quiet). A lot of the time they will try not to say you are detained, but still that you are not free to go. You can be lawfully detained for an investigatory purpose. Like you match the description of a suspect and they want to confirm. But you are still not required to answer any questions or provide I'd based on that. You also do not need to assist in their investigation, and while cops like to say that means you are obstructing it by not answering questions, that doesn't fly in court.

There's a YouTube channel called Audit the Audit which has a lot of good videos with talks about incidents and the specific laws in play. Based on the municipality and the state. As well as case law established by the US district courts that handle the region that state is in, and the Supreme Court.

Also look up the video "Don't talk to the police" from Regent University School of Law.

(same disclaimer. I am not a lawyer).

[Gio Darazi]

Does anyone know who this is in the picture? When I used to see her name was Natalia, but that was years ago. I found the picture and I'm trying to locate her.

Long story short she and her handler were takin in a few years back (Cranston) never to be heard from again.

[PeckerPete13]

Does anyone know who this is in the picture? When I used to see her name was Natalia, but that was years ago. I found the picture and I'm trying to locate her.

[Lips1963]

(disclaimer. I am not a lawyer).

The 4th amendment protects you against unlawful search and seizure, which extends to your identification. So, depending on the state, you do not have to provide ID unless you are either a) already under arrest; or b) the police have reasonable, articulable suspicion that you have committed, are committing, or about to commit a crime. If they specify that they will arrest you unless you provide ID, it's generally better to comply and sue later. And please, if you are in this situation, start video recording immediately. That is your 1st amendment right, established in case law by the Supreme Court.

Oh, man, it looks like I opened a can of worms here! I think you may be right that it is dependent on the state, as to whether you have to provide I'd if on foot. But I think its universal, if stopped in a vehicle? Licence and registration, in ALL states, and insurance in some? I THINK?! But EVERY lawyer website I looked a says that you should NEVER voluntarily provide info to police except for ID and the required vehicle documents. They can TRY to get info, but you are not required by law to answer, BUT, they do NOT have to warn you of Miranda rights UNLESS and UNTIL arrested? And they CAN use whatever you say, voluntarily, before an arrest. But am I correct? Is there a lawyer in the house?

[LustyB]

(disclaimer. I am not a lawyer).

. So, depending on the state, you do not have to provide I'd unless you are either a) already under arrest; or b) the police have reasonable, articulable suspicion that you have committed, are committing, or about to commit a crime..

The above is the case in Rhode Island and New Hampshire. Cops can ask for I'd if you're on foot for "b" above. But you still do t have to say anything or help with their "investigation". And do t let then pull the old "I'll chart her you with obstruction". Obstruction only can be charge as a secondary offense to a primary crime. Asserting your 5th amendment rights isn't obstruction.

In Massachusetts, there is no I'd requirement if you're on foot. You don't have to show them shit.

[DJrunner]

I don't, refresh my memory.

Two days early LOL. Anyone remember Tammi Lynn? Boy was she hot, when she wasn't dressed like a boy (which was most of the time).

[KatSuno1492]

Exactly. As far as I understand it, the law says you have to provide identification if on foot, car registration, license etc if in a vehicle. The 5th amendment says you don't have to answer questions. So if you provide the required documents and decline to answer questions, what could they do? What could they possibly arrest you for? Being a monger? Where's the evidence of money exchange for sex? Me? I'm much more scared of the thug handlers than the police. I'll stick with the Hamptons and the Sonestas any day, and skip the Hilltops and Alpines.

(disclaimer. I am not a lawyer).

The 4th amendment protects you against unlawful search and seizure, which extends to your identification. So, depending on the state, you do not have to provide I'd unless you are either a) already under arrest; or b) the police have reasonable, articulable suspicion that you have committed, are committing, or about to commit a crime. If they specify that they will arrest you unless you provide I'd, it's generally better to comply and sue later. And please, if you are in this situation, start video recording immediately. That is your 1st amendment right, established in case law by the Supreme Court.

[DarkClouds]

Two days early LOL. Anyone remember Tammi Lynn? Boy was she hot, when she wasn't dressed like a boy (which was most of the time).

[Lips1963]

I don't answer questions.

Then leave.

Exactly. As far as I understand it, the law says you have to provide identification if on foot, car registration, license etc if in a vehicle. The 5th amendment says you don't have to answer questions. So if you provide the required documents and decline to answer questions, what could they do? What could they possibly arrest you for? Being a monger? Where's the evidence of money exchange for sex? Me? I'm much more scared of the thug handlers than the police. I'll stick with the Hamptons and the Sonestas any day, and skip the Hilltops and Alpines.

[LustyB]

You've been around long enough to know that LE can hang around in the parking lot and harass visitors if they know what's going on inside.

I don't answer questions.

Then leave.

[DarkClouds]

You've been around long enough to know that LE can hang around in the parking lot and harass visitors if they know what's going on inside.

So, if they are "being watched" on cameras, etc, watching entries and exits from their room, then just exactly what danger is this to a monger? Has anyone ever heard of police busting into the room of a provider, UNLESS she herself is LEO or else working with police? In other words, a sting. But I've never heard of police busting into a provider's room, based soley on evidence that there are frequent room visitors. In most hotels, there are no rules against visitors in rooms, at least not during daylight hours. I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that there is an "expectation of privacy" and such evidence as comings and goings from rooms could not possbly justify a warrant. . . Or could it? Also would police needlessly risk significant danger to themselves by busting into a room that had not been carefully engineeered beforehand to conduct a sting? So, just exactly what is the danger to the MONGER in such situations, where the provider is "being watched"? The hotel could certainly just kick the provider out if they wanted to, yes? But how could that, in any way, impact the monger?

[DJrunner]

Let's be honest, she not for 99.9% of us. I saw her and was disgusted. You do you, but please don't pump up the tires for Debbie. That does a disservice to most here.

Had a good time with her last week Attleboro MA area. Maybe not for everyone, but I thought she was a great mature lady. https://lovelyladyforyou.wixsite.com/mysite.

[AndesThins21]

Had a good time with her last week Attleboro MA area. Maybe not for everyone, but I thought she was a great mature lady. https://lovelyladyforyou.wixsite.com/mysite.

[Lips1963]

Keep in mind these high end hotels have cameras which I am sure are or could be monitored. I will only meet a provider in a hotel that has been verified either by many reviews or a recomendation from somene I talked through my mail box on this site. I do not meet any new providers cause I am just getting back into game and honestly most are just scams or ripping us off. If a single woman checks into a hotel who is to say they are not being watched by these cameras to see if there is traffic coming into their room? Also I do not walk by the front desk I prefer to go into a back door but as most of us know they are usually locked so you got to wait for someone to walk in that door which is a time waster. Just my two cents. Be safe.

So, if they are "being watched" on cameras, etc, watching entries and exits from their room, then just exactly what danger is this to a monger? Has anyone ever heard of police busting into the room of a provider, UNLESS she herself is LEO or else working with police? In other words, a sting. But I've never heard of police busting into a provider's room, based soley on evidence that there are frequent room visitors. In most hotels, there are no rules against visitors in rooms, at least not during daylight hours. I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that there is an "expectation of privacy" and such evidence as comings and goings from rooms could not possbly justify a warrant. . . Or could it? Also would police needlessly risk significant danger to themselves by busting into a room that had not been carefully engineeered beforehand to conduct a sting? So, just exactly what is the danger to the MONGER in such situations, where the provider is "being watched"? The hotel could certainly just kick the provider out if they wanted to, yes? But how could that, in any way, impact the monger?