for non-payment of taxes.
(link to General Discussion board)
And I notice lots of sites say "This is not an offer for prostitution. Money exchanged is for my time and companionship only".
Is there really any point, legally speaking, for including such wording? Or are those ladies just acting like lemmings?
Seems to me it is like painting a bulls-eye on your backside.
The disclaimers won't do any good if the lady is charged with an offense. What matters is what she does and not what she says.
There is no way 12 jurors will believe men would pay hundreds of dollars per hour just to be in the company of a lovely woman for a short time, or that the one whose visit triggered the arrest just happened to be so attractive to her that she decided to have sex with him right away yet still wanted him to leave afterward.
Imagine two cases like this that are identical in every way except that one woman's web site has a disclaimer and the other's doesn't. Does anyone reading this believe that a jury would say "The web site says the money isn't for sex so she must not be guilty"? Of course not.
But I don't think the disclaimer is "like painting a bulls-eye on your backside." The web page has that effect whether there's a disclaimer or not. I don't know about you, but I can't picture the cops browsing through LA Exotics and saying "Aha! This one has a disclaimer, so we should go get her."
I agree with sideone. A disclaimer is ridiculous. Those sites which have one have been sold a bill of bad goods by whoever advised them. They are worthless.
As to the bulls-eye notion, it's the site that's the bulls-eye, not the disclaimer. Why else have a site?
If LE wants to find out who a provider is or if they xero in on one and say: "Let's nail her", believe me, they can do it easily and I don't care how good the screening system is.
In order to convict someone of a crime, it's necessary to prove that the accused person intended to commit a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If the crime is soliciting sex, and the evidence is a website, the disclaimer says that the money exchanged is not for sex. If the website is well constructed, there will be NO PLACE on it that it says money is exchanged for sex. So the website itself is useless as evidence of soliciting money for sex. The point is not whether a jury believes it or not. If the only evidence is the website, and the jury disbelieves it, the jury has to have other evidence on which to base the disbelief. Otherwise, a conviction will be thrown out by the judge or on appeal.
The disclaimers are there for a very good reason. They protect everyone.
Forgive me but I cannot make sense of your post.
One thing I do know is that the conviction is not for an intent to commit something, it is for doing it and proving that the defendant in fact committed the act to the reasonable doubt standard. The intent to commit a wrong may be a sin but, alone, it is not a crime. To commit a wrongful act without intent is an accident perhaps but, with sex acts, commission implies intent except for, say, rape.
I do not think any DA would prosecute for the solicitation you might find on a web site. To remive the DA from having jurisdiction, one would house the site in Haiti. Then, a US DA could not indict on the words of a site: no jurisdiction. But, in fact, no DA has even tried to indict based on a site's assertions. A provider caught by LE will live or die on the evidence of that bust and that bust alone. Even priors are more dispositive as to sentencing than conviction.
Like rodmewell, I disagree with our esteemed moderator on this one.
It is theoretically possible for a provider to be prosecuted for solicitation based solely on her web site. As Turkana says, the D.A. would have to prove that the ad was an offer of sex in exchange for money. Turkana is also correct that web sites which don't say anything about trading sex for money don't provide enough, by themselves, for a conviction. In that sense they would make it a bit harder to prosecute the lady for solicitation, but the benefit is marginal since few D.A.'s would try to build a case on the web site alone and since it isn't that hard to get some ladies with well-designed sites to say more on the phone or in person.
But adding a disclaimer to the site doesn't accomplish anything. If the site doesn't say sex for money then it doesn't say sex for money, whether it has a disclaimer or not. If anything, going out of her way to deny she is offering to trade will make it more obvious that this really is what she is doing. Think of Gertrude's famous line in Hamlet: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
It's like pointing a gun at someone in front of witnesses and saying "I do not intend to injure or kill you, and anything that may happen with this gun is for target practice only" before shooting the guy. When the gunman is on trial, how much good do you think his disclaimer will do him?
Can't you read?!?!? The header said "eom"!!!! That stands for End of Message!! It means there's nothing inside so don't bother opening the message and reading it! But you just had to look anyway, didn't you?
Now don't you feel silly for looking? At least I wasn't TRYING to post anything when I accidentally added this to the board.
Sheesh.
-- Modified on 7/19/2004 9:40:49 PM
In order to convict the DA has to prove BOTH a deliberate act AND the accused's intent to commit a crime.
The point of my post was simply to say that the purpose of the disclaimer is to have some evidence that there's no intent to take money for sex. The disclaimer has to be taken at face value -- that's what it says. Remember, there's a presumption of innocence. The DA can't say that the disclaimer means something it doesn't without evidence.
The point of the disclaimer is to create a hurdle for the DA to overcome. That's all.
I disagree. First, no DA is going to seek an indictment based solely on locating a providors website with or without a disclaimer. There's going to be a sting that includes her offering sex for money which in most states is a crime. If it goes to trial then the DA can enter her website into evidence as further proof of her intent and show the jury her gallery pics, her rates for "dates", etc, etc. At that point most juries will not be persuaded by any cross from her attorney about the disclaimer. This is the real world - not law school or mock court.
Ok fellows, the client is asking for the bottom line. Should not the answer be that while a disclaimer is not likely to help in the event of an arrest and prosecution for an overt act (sex act), there probably is no disadvantage to putting it in. No one seems to believe that LE would target only those with a disclaimer.
To make this a little more interesting, how about changing the hypothetical? Let's assume a lady has something like the following on her site:
[Starts with typical disclaimer. Somewhere on her site she adds that she does additional activity for which no specific local license is required, e.g., escort, dinner companion, bikini modeling, nude modeling, play acting, etc., We assume that she does have a local business license, presumably required in most cities.] "I have an insatiable sexual appetite. I simply cannot get enough sex to satisfy me. You men are familiar with the word "nymphomaniac"? Look in the dictionary; my picture might be in yours. This problem has two consequences. I need to meet a lot of men, and I can't hold down a regular job. I need to pay expenses somehow. All I have to sell is my time. [My note: You time-keepers should be able to relate to that.] Some of the men I meet I have been intimate with. You might be a lucky one, but please understand your money is buying only my time."
So what will LE have to do to prosecute her? Send in an undercover officer. Assume: she does not say anything that can remotely be construed to be "money = sex"; the LE has sexual contact with her (some PD prohibit this); he leaves money behind. She is prosecuted. Let's further assume she is a gutsy lady and that the case is taken to trial and she is willing to testify (AND that she pays her income taxes).
Prosecution's case-in-chief: LE testifies as to initial contact (email/phone) and the event in question. Exhibits are her web site and TER and any other available reviews. Cross-examination: Officer, are you married, ever have a girlfriend? (Objection as to relevancy would probably be sustained, but will have set stage for closing argument. If not sustained, ask questions about gifts, then take plunge about sexual relations. Objection clearly would be sustained at that point.) Prosecution rests.
Defense: She takes stand and elaborates about her sexual needs. No, she hasn't sought medical help for her "problem", it has some disadvantages, but overall it's enjoyable...maybe a blessing. Yes, she has sex with a lot of the men she meets, but for some she just does the modeling, etc. No, she cannot give the names of the men who paid her but did not receive sex; if she knows a name, she makes a point of forgetting it.
Query: at this point, would the prosecution have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that sex was exchanged for money?
Rebuttal: What else could the prosecution put on to prove that "but for" the money, there would have been no sex? If there had been 3, 5, 10, previous undercover officers who received sex, the jury might agree that the money bought sex. But is LE likely to go to THAT effort?
Closing argument: You cannot assume the money bought sex. There is no law against being a nymphomaniac. (Status crime.) Otherwise, every man who has had sex with a wife or girlfriend is guilty of a crime. (Don't need a jury selection expert to know you want more males on the jury than females, especially not wives.) Every man who has spent money on or given gifts to a wife or girlfriend would have commited a crime, if you accept the prosecution's argument.
My conclusion: Put a disclaimer in. For a gutsy lady (probably one who has already been prosecuted), consult with an experienced criminal attorney about adding creatively worded language that you can point to in the event there is another prosecution.
AND, AND, AND: a few of the TER listings say "escort and anal", listing a higher price than the one/two hour price. THESE SHOULD BE DELETED. They indicate a link between a sex act and money. The only link with money should be time.
You must be kidding. Even an OJ jury wouldn't that claptrap.
Judges and juries in these cases are not stupid. They see right through these dumb-ass (OJ again) excuses.
Everybody on this board should recognize that providing, in all its glories, is a crime. Everyone knows what providing is. Dress it up in whatever language you want but it is still hooking and virtually everyone knows it when he sees it, hears it or does it.
"Re:Fellows, assume you are being paid $350 an hour for this advice"
Then I'd sue you for malpractice. You're living in a fantasy world of Law and Order TV. That's not how things are done in real life. In real life the cop would arrest her as soon as money was exchanged for the promise of sexual favors (maybe some jurisdictions allow their officers to actually engage in sex first but most don't). They would charge her with solicitation. If she wanted to go to trial - which most likely she would not because of the cost and the likelihood of losing - then the ADA could use her website as further evidence of her intent. Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. For the purposes of this thread if he did then a disclaimer wouldn't stop him. A trial would last about 2 hours max. A jury would decide in less than 1 hour. She would be found guilty.
Query: Law and Order TV v. Real Life. I won't go into detail as to my "real life", but I have never watched an episode of Law and Order TV, if that is the name of a specific show. I did spend more than six years in several courthouses, each and every day of the week.
Old adage: "You are not really a trial attorney until you have won the case that should never have been won, and lost the case that should never have been lost."
Been there, done that, and, obviously, unfortunately as to the latter.
How about you?
A jury has to decide on the basis of evidence, not on the basis of what they believe or suppose. Consider a simpler hypothetical: I meet Jane on a singles website. We meet for dinner and really hit it off when she tells me about her charity work for homeless pets, which I'm interested in. She tells me about Fido, who will die if he doesn't get a $300 operation in the next couple of days. We've hit it off so well that I take her to the NoTell Motel and we have sex. When we part, I give her $300 and say, "For the Homeless pets." The DA has taped the entire encounter.
It turns out, however, that Jane is also a provider. She has a website. It does not have a disclaimer. The DA is able to introduce the website into evidence.
What result, class? Does it make a difference if she has a disclaimer?
-- Modified on 7/21/2004 6:38:10 AM
-- Modified on 7/21/2004 6:39:25 AM
The result (if the jury believes the facts you have described) is not guilty, and it has nothing to do with the web site.
You say that you met her on a singles web site and hit it off so well that you had sex. It sounds like you only learned later that she was a provider. You didn't giver her the money for sex and she didn't offer sex in exchange for it.
Change the hypo a bit so that you meet her in a TER chat and check out her web site and read her reviews before your dinner date. Then you have a different case because you know what she does for a living an have no reason to believe she is on an actual "date" with you any more than when she sees other TER members.
When she mentions money for the ailing dog, she is making a coded offer. She knows what she means, you know what she means, and the jury will likely know the same thing. The animal shelter issue might be enough to plant reasonable doubt in the jury's heads, but again it has nothing to do with her web site.
Those of us who actually live in the real world and participate in this hobby will understand exactly what is or is not legal. If you want to keep sprouting hypotheticals then go back to law school and teach. This isn't first year law.
Sidone hit the nail on the head in her last post about slightly changing the hypotheticals. And Rodemewell is right too - no matter how you dress it up - it is still ilegal. Let me sight you another relevant example. I am usually on the San Diego boards. There is one provider (won't mention names - not nice) who feels safe to 'hide' behind the pretense of using the word 'date'. Well, let me tell you, this provider is very vocal on the SD boards prolaiming her innocence - never having done anything illegal. Hmmmm, I think a jury would probably wonder why she a> Has such a presence on a discussion board that 'discusses' a profession that is illegal and b> Why she feels the need to accept cash for her 'dates' and c> Why she advertises on sites that primarily cater to 'escorts' Anyhow, I think all this dancing around the issue is funny to me. As H. Ross Perot once said - "Let's not call a cat a feline. Let's not call a dog a canine. Let's not call a tax a revenue enhancer - Let's call it by what the people know it by" and I'll add mine - Let's not call prostitution a 'date' ...
'Not for prostitution'; why not also say "I will not clean your windows", "I am not a plumber", "I will not fix your electrical"
Sh*t; if I ain't paying those ridiculous companionship rates for just a nude model, a backrub and a handshake.
Here's another great example of Darwin at his best. Another provider in San Diego has disclaimers all over her board. Problem is, she posts a discussion thread on "What to do when I am on the rag". Seems a little incriminating to me 
I agree with ThePeopleRule, and I am also speaking from
having actually seen the inside of a courtroom, not
from watching it on TV.
One post says: "In real life the cop would arrest her as soon as money was exchanged for the promise of sexual favors"
That misses the whole point of this discussion.
If a woman is dumb enough to explicitly exchange money "for
the PROMISE of sexual favors" in clear and certain terms
then Mickey Mouse could get a conviction in court.
There's nothing more to talk about.
The question assumes that the prosecution needs MORE
than just the immediate conversation between the girl
and the undercover cop. Put it another way: If
someone blurts out "I shot that policeman over there"
does anything else matter? Of course not. But that's
not how it usually goes.
The prosecution will have to prove maybe half a dozen
different things in order to get a conviction. To fill
in all of the gaps, he may pull some evidence from here
and some other evidence from over there. Therefore, the
website might fill a hole in an otherwise flawed and
fatally-defective case.
Is a disclaimer going to negate a tape recording of a woman
saying "If you pay me $100 I'll give you a blow job." Of
course not. But I don't think that was the question.
Could a disclaimer help? Yes, if the prosecutor has gaps
in his case -- which is frequently the case -- he could
easily be looking to the website to fill in a missing
piece of the puzzle. If you don't hand the prosecution
the knife to stab you with, does that help? Obviously.
Would a disclaimer hurt? I can't imagine how. Anyone
who deals with massages or social activities routinely
deals with misunderstandings about what is expected and
runs into guys who want sex. So would a legitimate
"social escort" put on her website a clarification to
avoid being approached by guys with the wrong idea?
OF COURSE! Obviously. If a woman is charging for
going out for social occasions, then YES, absolutely,
she will want to clarify that that is what she is
doing, because of course she is going to be regularly
approached by guys who expect something more, and she
will be pestered by them and want them not to bother
her with lewd suggestions.
And, yes, there ARE women who specialzie in going out
to business functions and special occasions as dates
for businessmen who are too busy to have someone to
take to a function where they are expected to bring
a date. Why a guy would pay for that I don't know.
But why a guy would pay $1500 for a porn star, I don't
know either. So there are all sorts of people in the
world.
Also, there was a discussion of intent.
Let's make this clear. HAVING SEX IS LEGAL. Okay?
The crime is in taking money for it. And so the "intent"
is whether she intended to take money for it, NOT whether
she intended to have sex.
Go to Adult Friend Finders or dozens of other websites.
There are lots of women advertising on the internet to
have sex with guys, just socially, no money, just casual
ses, or NSA sex.
So if the prosecutor brings in a website that just looks
like any other girl who likes sex, what does that add
to the case? Nothing. And it could actually detract.
So having the intent to commit sex is NOT criminal and
it is NOT evidence supporting a conviction.
Having the intent to take money in a quid-pro-quo is
the issue. So the "intent" we are looking for is not
a sexual libido, but offering sex "IF AND ONLY IF" you
give me money.
hi all.. Well, I happened to peek in legal and saw this and felt I'd help clear up the issue..
I've been doing websites since there was an internet, and I have a variety of real word domains issued since 1995 to prove it. !
A disclaimer is simply a protective device and really nothing more. The obvious facts are clear. TER, for example is a rating service FOR providers, which when all is said and done is merely an acronym for what it is. A hobbiest is the same and perhaps more polite than being named John.
The bottom line is if a DA in a specific jurisdiction gets a hard-on to bust someone, simply put, he's going to do so. As other comments were made, everyone involved KNOWS what's going on. And even non-FS can be an arrestable offense, so that's not really much protection either.
The posting of a comment that says 'accepting money is for friendship and not for any form of prostitution' is not going to stop an aggressive DA. It's not going to stop a grand jury from indicting anyone, and it's not going to stop the potential of a conviction. What it DOES do, is make it marginally more work for someone determined to prosecute this.
On the other side, the types of providers who are involved on TER and cityvibe, etc. are less of a target in the first place. They aren't as intent on spending limited resources on finding a girl in her own apartment, (well, incall apt but in many cases she rents it), not causing harm to another person, not stealing or commiting another crime in the process.
The police and DA's focus on street crime, which is clearly more of an issue in the first place. The ladies who work the street in many cases are charging very little, have no regard for their health, are drug users or even have HIV or other diseases. The TER ladies are high class and professionals. Independents have to have the ability to run a business, paying rent for their incalls and other expenses. In most cases, tax issues would be more of an issue than the actual busting a provider who owns a website..!
The bottom line though, is simple. Posting that disclaimer won't stop a provider from getting busted, but it just alerts the most casual glances of such sites from the obvious appearance of what it's really about. One provider says she sells 1 pencil for $250 and 2 pencils for $400. Now, we know what that means. Will it avoid prosecution? Nope.
In all truth, screening processes won't stop it either. It's a matter of smarts and vibes the ladies sense in accepting or declining to see someone, but if someone in law enforcement was told to bust someone, he's certainly able to pass any screening. It's not like the cops will have phones with caller id that says FPD on it when they call. Verizon will put in phones in police stations that say anything they want it to, and cell phones can be bought with almost any name.
We all just need to be careful and have fun. If they want us, just like Al-Quaida, they'll get us. Nothing ultimately will stop a determined DA or police dept..!
for non-payment of taxes.
(link to General Discussion board)