Nice work Mr. French! Looks like another nail in the coffin for the contract argument.

Note that although this conviction was for pimping/pandering and transport, which are more seriously prosecuted offenses than prostitution, the arguments the defendant made would probably also have failed for the escort/prostitute.

The appeals court left open the door to escorting where there were no lurid photos or sexually explicit teasers comments  in adverts; and made the point that an escort was to escort, i.e. go places, rather than confine her companionship to an in/out in one room. So maybe we need to have escorts  fully dressed as housewives in aprons promising quiet conversation and no kissing on first dates.

Did you say kissing was not what you were looking for?

it said:  "This is an offer of prostitution."

It reminds me of that old school yard prank:  "Heads I win, tails, you lose."

Nevertheless, I wonder if the Judge's logic would carry over into other civil aspects of law.  For example, in my business I am often presented with lopsided contracts that verge on illegallity but often have a disclaimer to the effect of:  "Nothing in this contract is intent to subvert the standing of law."  The next time it comes to blows, I'll argue using the ruling above that the preparer of the contract was quite aware that they were subverting the law and this disclaimer proves it.

-- Modified on 5/21/2010 7:24:18 PM

The real teaching of this case is that disclaimers are not worthless but are evidence of guilt.

       In this case, the defendant was convicted of deriving support from the proceeds of prostitution and transporting a person for purposes of prostitution.. He was neither a client nor provider but a so-called escort agency. Like the DC Madam, he made his escort employees sign a contract forbidding them from engaging in prostitution and advertised these services over the Net with the familiar “money is exchanged for time only disclaimer.”

       He took the lady to meet the client who was undercover LE, collected the money, and left the scene. The lady then agreed to sex she was arrested, and the state later arrested the escort operator.

      So immediately we see this case does involve a lady who relies on her web site disclaimer as a defense. She expressly agreed to sex when asked so that issue would never be raised as to her anyway.

      But, as to the agency operator, the disclaimers gave him a legitimate defense to argue to the jury. Remember, he could well be innocent – this could have been a rogue employee. He testified that the employee was not suppose to engage in sex and that her contract prohibited this. He introduced the disclaimers to corroborate this.

       The jury did not find him credible  – they found he either knew, or had reason to know, that the money received was for the purposes of prostitution and that the lady was transported for that purpose.

        Now, if the disclaimer was completely worthless to the defendant, the judge would not have allowed the defendant to even make this argument.  But, in this context, the disclaimer was the best evidence the defendant could present to raise reasonable doubt as to whether he knew, or should have known sex, would occur. Rather than plead, he took a shot at persuading the jury of this and took the stand himself.

       On appeal, the court simply rejected the notion that there was no evidence to support the conviction. These disclaimers as a matter of law do not prevent a finding that the defendant knew what was going on. Nothing new about that.

      What is somewhat novel is that the court said the disclaimers cut both ways – the jury could infer guilt from the very existence of the disclaimers:

“The jury could reasonably infer the disclaimers were either an attempt to emphasize that the escort service's primary purpose was prostitution or designed to be used as a defense if defendant was ever arrested.”

       So the real significance of this case is not that disclaimers are worthless – they may sink even an innocent escort agency. To all those innocent escort agencies out there, you need to rethink the use of disclaimers as, at least in Florida, they are double-edged sword.

I think that all the stupid little things that people do in this hobby that make you think you are more safe actually make you less safe because they give the illusion of safety and thus may make cause you be less careful. And even worse, they draw attention to you, and one thing I've noticed is that the best way to avoid trouble with LE is to keep a low profile.

If there really were no laws being broken, there would be no need for a disclaimer. The fact that there is a disclaimer is a sure sign to anyone that illegal acts are going on. You ever see a legit massage parlor (no extras) that had such a disclaimer? I never have.

The same is true with the code words we use. Now, most of us know never to explicitly text or call or e-mail a provider is she offers BBBJ or DATY or the like, but there was at least one person who was a arrested and posted here that he thought he'd be ok because he never used the word "sex". Even worse, using those terms which are pretty much unique to the hobby signifies that you knew exactly what you were getting involved with when you contacted the provider. It's not likely that you will be able to convince anyone that you were simply looking for companionship and were not aware that the provider would perform sexual acts for money once you've used those terms.

Finally, the disclaimers show that those providers or agencies and ignorant of the law and that is a little bit scary. Saying that by answering an ad you are claiming you are not LE and it would be entrapment otherwise is complete BS. To presume that that is true is either ignorant or unfair and deceptive to the agency or providers potential clients. Just keep a low-profile, be discreet and ditch the pseudo-legal-sounding disclaimers.

This is a very interesting twist as the pimp/manager was not present when the offer of prostitution was made & accepted & the woman arrested.  Hers was a typical open & shut case, money + sex = busted.  The disclaimer has no bearing in her arrest as the later contract of sex for money supercedes the previous offer of arm-candy without sex escorting.  

I have no sympathy for this guy.  Notice even if the disclaimer is reversed, he's also made incriminating statements which may have sealed his fate.  

In either case, this will be interesting proceedings.
skb