That's the crux of the case as far as I can tell from reading the indictment and the referenced laws: was the website "facilitating prostitution"? The argument is that if so, any interstate email or travel "in furtherance" represented racketeering, and any movement of profits from it constituted money laundering. If not, not.
Whether a website is "facilitating prostitution" is likely to involve arguments about the safe harbor provisions of the Communications Decency Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act#Sexually_explicit_content_and_minors Meanwhile I am sad, worried, and angry on behalf of my friends who make their living with this kind of work.The recent Board shut-down, along with P411, was mentioned in USA today, eliciting some discussion and wide-spread concern on other TER Regional Boards.
A couple of quotes:
- "Federal authorities have taken notice and started cracking down on Internet-enabled sex."
- "Now sex workers have become more fearful of taking on new clients without any way to check their backgrounds. Some are even referring to it as the "Hooker-pocalypse."
The scary part is: Authorities have taken notice (and so, it seems, has the media).
That seems to be one of the problems with the new progressive liberalism and it's 'political correctness' mandates, it is very capricious. You never know when they are going to come after YOU!
If there is to be a crack-down, is it destined to become known as the 'New Prohibition?" (To suffer a similar fate!)
There is some comfort in knowing that entities like P411 (and TER, I believe) are based outside of the country; And such activities are Legal where they are based. While it is not risk-free because of possible domestic coercion, if there's a choice of a domestic entity to 'Fill the Void' or an off-shore entity, I'd rather take my chances with the off-shore
-- Modified on 7/12/2014 7:39:56 AM
Ugh....this is all SOOO dumb and annoying! Two consenting adultS compensating each others needs, wants and desires that's all! Why do these folks have to come and mess with our happiness!
Because law enforcers are pussies. They're too pussy to go after the big time mafias that'll put bullet holes all over the law enforcers bodies. Providers are easy job for them. All cops are scared of hardcore gangsters.
I think a percentage of those that criminalize this industry feel or believe that sex between consenting adults should only happen after marriage and sex at any other time between them is morally and legally wrong. Then the same people with that view get caught in a sting and look like they didn't practice what they felt or believe.
If only the Puritans had been allowed to set up camp in the Netherlands, and the USA had been established by Native Americans and the Vikings....IF ONLY! 
All in all, we are the low hanging fruit, that makes us easy to point at and exclaim "THERE'S THE PROBLEM! GET THEM!!"
I'm all for the elimination of child trafficking, but to thwart consenting adults seems like a waste of time and resources....I dunno. Every year when I pay my taxes, I don't remember approving for the takedown of sites that provide a valuable resource for everyone to play safely and pleasurably....I am so pleased that TER has taken measures to protect itself.
Thanks again, TER. I'm so grateful you are here!
-- Modified on 7/17/2014 4:28:15 PM
While I am grateful too Dreu, there are a lot of things I don't like here, like the ratings are only high if a provider does unsafe practices. However, I realize its what we have to work with, so I will adapt and overcome. Yes America is ridiculously puritanical but don't hate the cops! They are only responding to a public demand to stop sex trafficking of minors. They don't write the laws, they only enforce them.
All in all, we are the low hanging fruit, that makes us easy to point at and exclaim "THERE'S THE PROBLEM! GET THEM!!"
I'm all for the elimination of child trafficking, but to thwart consenting adults seems like a waste of time and resources....I dunno. Every year when I pay my taxes, I don't remember approving for the takedown of sites that provide a valuable resource for everyone to play safely and pleasurably....I am so pleased that TER has taken measures to protect itself.
Thanks again, TER. I'm so grateful you are here!
-- Modified on 7/17/2014 4:28:15 PM
100% spot on and I second this!
Oh, so much juicy talk of the feds and law enforcement in these articles. It makes it all seems so seedy and shocking. Of course the media just eats that up. The biggest charges are from the IRS regarding money laundering.. not as exciting to read about. I just hate the way this all went down.
Annalee
Annalee
Annalee
The primary charges are facilitating prostitution. Given the explicit nature of the pictures in the advertisements and more importantly the explicit acronyms , it will be awfully hard to claim he had no knowledge of what was going on.
-- Modified on 7/13/2014 10:23:46 AM
There was some guy in the defunct group who was always erroneously citing some law to make it sound like prostitution is legal.
The Freeman decision was in regards to a third party's right to pay people to have sex within the context of an adult movie. Freeman was a porn producer.
The posts on the main board are protected by the 1st amendment.
The reviews will most likely be protected.
Strict First Amendment interpretations don't apply to the ads. The fact he allowed explicit pictures to be shown is a direct 2257 violation. I'm surprised they have not yet charged him for that. The acronyms that he allowed to be used in the ads were within the context of commercial speech. It's not protected speech and clearly facilitated prostitution.
Unless a miracle happens, he will be found guilty or plea bargain as happened in another case of a large similar board
The Freeman decision was in regards to a third party's right to pay people to have sex within the context of an adult movie. Freeman was a porn producer.
The posts on the main board are protected by the 1st amendment.
The reviews will most likely be protected.
Strict First Amendment interpretations don't apply to the ads. The fact he allowed explicit pictures to be shown is a direct 2257 violation. I'm surprised they have not yet charged him for that. The acronyms that he allowed to be used in the ads were within the context of commercial speech. It's not protected speech and clearly facilitated prostitution.
Unless a miracle happens, he will be found guilty or plea bargain as happened in another case of a large similar board.
Am concerned some who've asked for thumbnail picture future for ads are people who support use of explicit pictures.
Personally, I have no problem sorting and looking at a bunch of text in a post. Got plenty of other resources if it was just about pictures.
Federal Law 2257 requires anybody who prints or reprints explicit photographs , movies etc. to keep two forms of ID (one must be a state or federal ID with a photo) of the models. The American adult movie industry is very familiar with it. It's to prevent underage people from being in explicit photos and porn movies. The penalty is a stiff 5 years per offense. I'm shocked the former owner did not have an adult lawyer on retainer. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. So far, they have not charged him with that.
The violations...if any... Are on the persons posting the ads...not the site on which they were posted.
The defunct board took ads with no ID. They took ads with explicit pictures. They took ads with explicit language and acronyms that described various sex acts. There is no plausible deniability here. Therefore the owner is clearly guilty of facilitating the crime of prostitution
You obviously know NOTHING about what you are talking about. Being charged with a crime is entirely DIFFERENT from being found guilty by a jury of such crime. The board was set up to provide a posting space for the general public. The court has found in many similar cases before that if the owner of the board does not do any kind of editing/controlling of the contents on the board he's not liable for whatever is posted.
To set up a forum in cyberspace is like putting up a chalkboard out in the middle of nowhere. As long as the owner leaves it alone anybody can come and write/post. The posters will be the one responsible for their contents. Not the owner.
If the owner charges for the posting then he's involved financially but the ads are FREE.
The LAST WORDS on guilt or innocent have not been said yet!
I heard from credible sources that he allowed "thousands" of private forums, that were largely unchecked: anyone with a near pulse could ask to start a private forum, and he would give it to them.
Isn't that sort of asking for trouble already? I mean, if you don't know what content is being shared in those "thousands" of private forums, and it goes unchecked/unpoliced, the content could mutate into darker themes, don't you think? I saw it happen in some of the private forums I was in: they started out fun, but often, the drama would take over, and it would only get ugly from there.
I always thought it was mythology, that there were private forums over there that were specifically set up to discuss which providers would allow unadvertised extras, or how to get around a provider's screening...I THOUGHT it was mythology until I had a client show up for a session, who told me he had seen me before. It was only until he got to my first call spot, did he admit he had never seen me, but had learned how to get around my screening from a private forum over there (!!!!) SAY WHAT???!!!!
Anyhow, who knows how any of it will unfold.....I wish him all best......
-- Modified on 7/19/2014 8:45:37 AM
Exactly....this isn't about the act itself, the services we provide and joy gained mutually, this is about $ and the irs not getting paid. If Mr. Red was paying his taxes and not laundering hundreds and thousands of dollars the site would still be just fine. Total bs!
No it is YOU who are wrong and full of BS. I'm a charter member of that board and for years patronizing the "affordable" providers with their "affordable" quickies and half-hour dates. The reason they're "affordable" is because most also work the street as streetwalker. Thanks to the Net and that site they also had an extra option to find clientele. Over the years I've had hundreds of encounters and I can tell you less than 10% is pimped. And not all pimped cases are bad, many girls willingly do so because their pimps are also their BF and/or protector. And the arguments about under-age girls are sketchy at best without any proof whatsoever.
The money laundering and income tax evasion were just invented to throw into the case to make it more palatable. It would not have been seen worthwhile the taxpayers dollars to prosecute a web site SOLELY because it ALLEGEDLY has something to do with prostitution
The money laundering and income tax evasion were just invented to throw into the case to make it more palatable. It would not have been seen worthwhile the taxpayers dollars to prosecute a web site SOLELY because it ALLEGEDLY has something to do with prostitution.
The money laundering and income tax evasion were just invented to throw into the case to make it more palatable. It would not have been seen worthwhile the taxpayers dollars to prosecute a web site SOLELY because it ALLEGEDLY has something to do with prostitution.
How could you possibly know that "only" 10% were pimped? You say not all pimped cases are bad? I guess not all slavery was bad? Any provider who knows the business would tell you it was closer to 90% in the under 25 age groups. The 10% is a number you came up with to make it sound better. The underage figures have been proven time and time again. Do a little research on the amount of pimps in jail with connections to the defunct group.
"Lack of street-cred" because he chooses to frequent women you can't afford (or are probably too cheap to see.) WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE? I mean seriously...
The money laundering and income tax evasion were just invented to throw into the case to make it more palatable. It would not have been seen worthwhile the taxpayers dollars to prosecute a web site SOLELY because it ALLEGEDLY has something to do with prostitution.
How could you possibly know that "only" 10% were pimped? You say not all pimped cases are bad? I guess not all slavery was bad? Any provider who knows the business would tell you it was closer to 90% in the under 25 age groups. The 10% is a number you came up with to make it sound better. The underage figures have been proven time and time again. Do a little research on the amount of pimps in jail with connections to the defunct group.
How could I know? how about PERSONAL experience from direct interacting with the girls? some of which I developed real friendships. And how about your figure of 90%? surely it is NOT from your personal experience due to your total lack of STREET-CRED because you only do expensive escorts if at all. Instead you're just parroting official propaganda from LE and rescue industry special interests, right?
Well I think I'm a fucking master hobbyist who has mastered the game with shitload of street cred.
Yes it's true when I first started out 20+ years ago I was financially-challenged and was just looking for cheap fucks. Interestingly enough along the way I realized something: I preferred the "affordable" streetgirls/pseudo-escorts much better than the snotty snobby escorts/courtesans. Why? because the "affordable" girls are real, genuine, down-to-earth, hardworking and still young enough to have not became jaded to the point of men-hating, greedy, materialistic, snobbish and with fake acting personalities.
Last but not least the "affordable" providers are generally also high-volume. Which while at first might seem like a negative for the typical hobbyists but for a master hobbyist like I, I know that high-volume equates lot of practices and experience which makes them much better fuck with their much better skills
The racketeering section mentioned in some recent news reports which shall remain nameless is "(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, with intent to—(1) distribute the proceeds of any unlawful activity..." (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1952). 5 yrs.
Money laundering sec. 1957 doesn't require intent to evade taxes or reporting requirements as does sec. 1956 (1956 carries twice the jail time, so you can guess which would be charged if the option arose). Sec 1957 criminalizes each transfer of more than $10,000 of money that is proceeds of any unlawful activity.
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm02101.htm, besides explaining the laws, says "PRACTICE TIP: The legislative history indicates, and several cases have held, that each separate financial transaction should be charged separately in an individual count. For example, if an individual earns $100,000 from offense. If he then withdraws $50,000, he commits a second offense. If he then purchases a car with the withdrawn $50,000, he commits a third offense". You can kinda see the appeal in nailing mobsters.
So... racketeering, plus 24 counts of "money laundering" (moving profits from from one bank account to another).
No underage anything, no tax evasion in sight. As they say on the internet, "I am not a lawyer", but it looks to me like a threat of 245 years of prison for depositing the profits from a website that was accused of facilitating prostitution. My initial gut reaction was apparently insufficiently cynical.
And a bunch of women "protected" by being frightened of losing their liberty and / or livelihood. (End soapbox)
-- Modified on 7/16/2014 4:54:53 PM
The proceed/earning/profit that R earned was nothing illegal or unlawful. He was charging for membership to his web site as well as advertising spaces. Isn't that what all web sites do to make money? It's not like he was getting a cut from the providers' earning (i.e. pimps) or from clients. He wasn't extorting money from either providers or clients a la old-school Mafia. There goes the racketeering charge...
So if his proceed/earning/profit are not ILLEGAL then the money laundering doesn't stick either.
The best hope for the gov is tax evasion charge but then they'll have to prove his earning to start with.
Here's my bet: I'm willing to bet that after all that illusion of grandeur of a dog-n-pony show Mr. R will get off with probably a slap on his wrist when the lawyers are done and plea bargains have been struck. This case which began with a bang will end with a whimper. A shitload waste of taxpayers money for NOTHING worthwhile.
Last but not least I think it's a 50/50 change that R gets to re-surrect his web site again. If part of the sentence/plea bargain is for him to bury the web site there's no reason why he can't sell/transfer the format of the site to somebody else to operate.
My take is,
I'm just going have to agree it was about taxes.
Red had a functionally nicely well put together site in many of the forum sections.
Many nice photography posting forums were there.
xoxo
Alysha_Tulipgfe
When that article was first posted, it called P411 "Preferred911.com." LMAO... nothing screams "I could not be any LESS familiar with the subject matter I'm reporting on" like an asinine mistake like that.
testing-testing
in case anyone else wanted to red a different opinion of the shake down, CNN posted its own article yesterday and included several interesting clips including an older one related to silicon valley's booming sex and tech industry.
Youre gonna have to search on cnn's website since this forum mod deleted my previous post.
peace and luv, peace and luv!!!
I tried to link to the CNN story but my post was disallowed by the moderator because, "Reason: Your post contains personal, private information of an individual which is not allowed per TER posting guidelines."
That seems curious since it was a broadcast news story that contained no such information. Oh, well. You can pretty easily find the story yourself on CNN's web page. The title of the story is "Call Girls Cashing In On Geeks."
thanks for chiming in man...
and the fact is, this site is tightening up on posts FOR NO REASON AT ALL.
(shaking my head in dusgust)
Link he referenced contain real names, these types of articles have never been allowed on ter. We are not tightening up just doing what we have done for 14 years
I am going to go luck but I have not seen any articles or news stories that are particularly compelling.
in case anyone else wanted to red a different opinion of the shake down, CNN posted its own article yesterday and included several interesting clips including an older one related to silicon valley's booming sex and tech industry.
Youre gonna have to search on cnn's website since this forum mod deleted my previous post.
peace and luv, peace and luv!!!
Then WE as PROVIDERS need to fight for the right to work instead of just talking and bitching about how its wrong. Martin Luther King didn't just complain about how its wrong for his people to be treated the way the did, he DID some thing about it. If we want things to happen then we need to go do them. My 2 cents.
Personally I'm all for decimalization, not legalization. Escorting and drugs are truly the last free enterprises.
I look at this in a positive way, just for my for my own personal reasons, I thank the media for reporting this issues and gives us some kind of advanced warning or shot on the bow kind of way. As soon this article or report got out in public it suddenly gives us/we all of us doing this activities, suddenly we went to a cautious mode, real observant, suspicious to anybody soliciting you, your info, ID, etc,etc, unless you are absolutely sure you verify them yourself that they are NOT Uncle LEO.
The only thing that prostrates me a little about this is! because business suddenly slowed down for some and altered in a lots of ways for others and maybe for competition purposes, I've notice a lot of ladies were adding quotes in their ads like "I'm a newbie friendly" IMO these are targeted by LE's, I'm not sure if these were bought and paid by a legit business ladies or posted by LE/DA to attract or provoke someone to call, so freaking scary right now. Well hopefully everyone chose well and decide wisely and enjoy
My knowledge came from talking to providers over 25 who knew what was going on there. The pimped girls were not all street girls. I can't prove 90% any more than you can prove 10%. I am not interested in so called "STREET-CRED." You are right. I don't see 100's of them. QUALITY is not just everything with me. It's the ONLY thing.
The only reason Red got busted by the feds is because he did not pay his taxes. His website was the best. It was a fun place for discussions and finding providers. If there was anything bad going on, it was rooted out. If he only paid his taxes, this would have never happened.
I miss his site. I hope someone else can start something just as good, but please pay your taxes.
I miss his site. I hope someone else can start something just as good, but please pay your taxes.
Exactly...THIS is the ONLY reason...thank you thank you-Well said
The indictment that was released says nothing about evasion or non-payment of taxes. The charges are money laundering, and the violations charged specifically does not require any intent to evade taxes - it's any transfer of $10,000 or more derived from an illegal activity. At least according to the published info, nothing illegal was done with the money - if the business it came from was legal. I put references in my reply above about reading the indictment. There's a separate section on money laundering that requires intent to evade taxes (and carries a higher penalty). They specifically did not charge under that section.
I make no claim to know what's really going on or what other documents might exist; I'm just reading what's public and looking up the laws.
"... it's any transfer of $10,000 or more derived from an illegal activity."
If that's the case then it's good news for the defense. Whatever money he earned was NOT from illegal activities. He earned it the same way any other "legal" web site does, charging for VIP memberships.
That's the crux of the case as far as I can tell from reading the indictment and the referenced laws: was the website "facilitating prostitution"? The argument is that if so, any interstate email or travel "in furtherance" represented racketeering, and any movement of profits from it constituted money laundering. If not, not.
Whether a website is "facilitating prostitution" is likely to involve arguments about the safe harbor provisions of the Communications Decency Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act#Sexually_explicit_content_and_minors
Meanwhile I am sad, worried, and angry on behalf of my friends who make their living with this kind of work.
Whether a website is "facilitating prostitution" is likely to involve arguments about the safe harbor provisions of the Communications Decency Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act#Sexually_explicit_content_and_minors
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
It's doubtful this will go to trial but the issue to me is "knowingly" allowing illegal activity. Craigslist consulted the finest attorneys money could buy and decided it was not worth the risk. The defunct group was small relative to Craigslist. I suspect that whatever happens 230 will be revisited and the laws will change. In the internet era the laws often don't keep up with technology.
To print out your link:
" Dart v. Craigslist, Inc., 665 F. Supp. 2d 961 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 20, 2009)[23]
The court upheld immunity for Craigslist against a county sheriff’s claims that its “erotic services” section constituted a public nuisance because it caused or induced prostitution. "
BRAVO!
Had CL chosen to fight it it will ALWAYS prevail. However I believe CL chose the easy way out because they felt it just wasn't worth the HARASSMENT from LE, rescue industry & knuckleheads -afterall the ads were free so it wasn't like they were making load of money from it
Real reason he got busted was because he's an IDIOT and STUPID.
There are smart ways to not pay taxes.
What he did was essentially scream to the IRS "INVESTIGATE ME I'M AN IDIOT!
https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/230
"Wow, is there anything Section 230 can't do?
Yes. It does not apply to federal criminal law, intellectual property law, and electronic communications privacy law."
If the legal blog from the EFF is correct, 230 would not apply since this is a federal criminal case.