Non-business (or personal) Provider-Client relationships are often touchy, at times explosive; a key aspect is a mix-up in the notion of boundaries for both parties.

I would like to present a real life situation. It happened recently with a local provider. It is described here as a case study with many of the personal details deliberately obfuscated. This is to respect the privacy of the Provider who does post on this board. Hopefully that Provider when she reads this does agree that her viewpoint is fairly represented.

“Jim” (the Client), met “Jane“ (the Provider) now more than a year ago. Almost from the first meeting Jim concluded that he was interested in a long-term personal relationship with Jane. His frequent sessions with Jane were an opportunity to spend time with her. He wrote weekly to Jane as a means of keeping in touch, at times writing pieces of poetry for Jane.
Jane pointedly was not looking for any relationships, and told that to Jim on several occasions during the course of a year. At the same time Jane appeared to find Jim a little interesting, making some extra efforts to allow Jim to see her. If she ever chose to have a relationship they were strikingly compatible.

There was a sort of “tug of war” between them with Jim gravitating towards dropping out of the hobby to just spend time with Jane, of aspiring of a friendship, while Jane allowing some space to Jim forcefully pushing back if Jim wanted to be any closer.

This lasted for a year. Early on in their interactions Jim became aware of Jane’s Home Address because of a slip up by Jane. Jim shared that information with Jane along with his own real address. Jane’s personal circumstances were very sensitive. Jim shared with Jane some of his own skeletons in the closet. Jane appeared okay with Jim’s knowledge of at least her home address. Jane was employed with a full-time career. Being an open woman by temperament she shared with Jim several pertinent details of her real career.

The troubles started when Jim deliberately found out Jane’s place of work. From Jim’s perspective it happened out of curiosity after spotting Jane having dinner in a restaurant with one of her colleagues, and with relatively little effort having available to him many pieces of information about Jane in her real life. Jane reacted very badly to the news. She seemed to go in a panic when she first learnt of it. She felt that Jim had breached a boundary, Jim had no business with her real life career, and she felt a little threatened.
Thereafter Jane refused to see Jim. Her key point was that Jim made a deliberate effort to locate the establishment. Jim spent much effort in apologies and explanations but to no avail.

Jane’s viewpoint was that Jim became a “stalker”; and Jim now made her uneasy. Jim’s viewpoint was that he wanted to be closer to Jane; it was not a big deal considering what he knew already; and what he wanted of Jane.

Who is right?

Only total immersion in his own obsession would blind Jim to this obvious fact. Despite clear signs of disinterest from Jane for anything more than a business relationship, Jim has incrementally encroached on her privacy. I am not out to judge Jim, publicly defame or embarrass him, I just have concerns that this could escalate beyond anything he can now anticipate. I'm sure in a moment of self reflection he would admit that what has occurred so far is beyond anything he expected to happen before he met Jane. Irrational thoughts and feelings are beginning to drown out reason in his relationship with Jane. Jim needs to consider talking to a competent, non-ideologically driven, mental health professional who can help him regain some perspective on this situation. I'm sure Jim is a good and responsible human being, but the emotions and biological drives involved in this drama, not to mention the personal emotional baggage of both principals, makes this a volatile and dangerous situation. I wish Jim the very best!

Stalker Jim, Jane obviously is not sharing your same feeling's of wanting a relationship if she referred to you as a stalker. Learn how to respect personal boundries and move on.

-- Modified on 8/4/2003 1:06:34 PM

1st off I hope your ARE referring to someone else rather than yourself - though it's rarely the case.

Jim, needs meds/therapy as he is not level in the head. Evidence: "Jane pointedly was not looking for any relationships" "forcefully pushing back" "Jim became aware of Jane’s Home Address because of a slip up by Jane" scary "Jane appeared okay with Jim’s knowledge of at least her home address" appeared OK = frightened "Jim deliberately found out Jane’s place of work"

Obviously, each one alone is troubling but all of them together & you need to ask who is right? You can't be serious. I'm guessing none of this is true & you posted to get a rise out of everyone. It's only a ripple...

i agree. the girl says "no", that should be the end. but......

"At the same time Jane appeared to find Jim a little interesting, making some extra efforts to allow Jim to see her. If she ever chose to have a relationship they were strikingly compatible."

how come he's the only one who has to be responsible? HE'S made it clear that he wants more and she keeps the door open...

"Jim shared with Jane some of his own skeletons in the closet. Jane appeared okay with Jim’s knowledge of at least her home address. Jane was employed with a full-time career. Being an open woman by temperament she shared with Jim several pertinent details of her real career."

jim thinks he's in love. the lady resists but little by little allows him more access. maybe he thinks he's making progress. maybe his love is real. i don't know, how can i know? but the way this situation is described i feel more for jim than for jane.

what can i say, i've been led by my penis before and probably will be again at least once before i'm institutionalized. i'm not proud, i'm not ashamed, it's just the way it is......

It is certainly not surprising to me that Jane has sent mixed messages to Jim, but her adamant refusal to consummate the kind of relationship that Jim is seeking should have been a red flag for him. Women who provide the kind of services that hobbyist are looking for often have unresolved emotional issues that center on relationships and sexuality. (as do hobbyists, often with surprisingly similar psychological profiles) That, however, is really not relevant. It is him, not her, who is at risk for criminal liability if he persists in behavior that meets the legal definition of stalking. Now, one could certainly make an argument that we have laws that are biased against males and that in recent years we have enacted laws locally, regionally, and nationally that have eroded the presumption of innocence and that effectively shift the burden of proof from the accuser to the defendant in crimes that are hot button issues for the women's movement. As a society, we have criminalized bad behavior, and introduced governmental authority into personal relationships in a manner that is nothing short of Orwellian. ("no means no, but only when I say it does, and I can change my mind about it retroactively and retrospectively") But, that climate is not about to change anytime soon, and we all have to function within the constraints of the present legal climate. Also given is the fact that Jane is a confused young person who may have given, and may still be giving Jim mixed messages. But, Jim has his blinders on. He sees only those actions by her which can he can construe to rationalize his continued pursuit of her. I would not be surprised if Jim gave up his obsession with her he would suddenly find himself pursued by her. That wouldn't change anything. He is older, presumably wiser and more experienced in life, and the burden of acting rationally in this situation falls to him. If he were to view this problem rationally, he would see that this young girl is not a likely candidate for a stable relationship with anyone. Not him, not someone her own age, and certainly not a "Daddy" figure who met her as her customer and now offers to "take her away from all this." I can certainly understand how Jim's judgment could be clouded by physical intimacy with a beautiful young woman continuing over a considerable period of time. There are emotions and passions being evoked in both of them that usually occur in the context of bilateral love relationships, not a business relationship. That would seem to be the crux of the problem, intense emotions outside the context of their usual role in human relationships. A young woman can make a rational decision to work as an escort, but it is very difficult to turn off the complex physical and emotional responses that we are biologically programmed to respond with to intimate contact with the opposite sex. That is equally true of a man who becomes an active hobbyist and ends up in a lengthy relationship with a particular provider. That is why I think there is implicit wisdom in the decision of a class of hobbyists who never see a provider more that a few times and are always seeking variety. Perhaps that would be the best medicine for Jim, he should see a bunch of different escorts in a short time to give himself some perspective.

Ohhh, Clarence take "it" out..

I will be happy to lead it, play with it, kiss it, mmmmm..need I go on, darlin'? lol Omigosh, I woke up in such a naughty mood this morning lol Anyways, cannot wait to see you next weekend..purrrr

Mel

Obviously there are MANY pertinent facts that are not stated by Stalker Jim . No matter how you want to sugar coat this  (NO mean's NO and NO a second and third time mean's "HELL NO!") and "Deliberately"  searching for anyone's personal information that is NONE of your business is behaving like a obsessed stalker.  

I especially love those stalker's while professing their love for you and deliberately sneaking around collecting your personal information to blackmail you into sleeping with them for "nothing" because they want/love you so much  is totally appalling. If someone wants you to know something they will tell you, if not that mean's they DON'T think it's any of your business so find someone else to LOVE in this sick way. Have a Great week!

I am not here to defend Jim and his actions. Jim did make several mistakes. (Perhaps also Jane could have been more patient with Jim.)

Some observations based on this experience.

- Dynamics of personal relationships for Providers and Clients -
Think of looking through a funnel. Provider is looking through the wide end of the funnel. She sees many clients. She has limited energies for any one client. The client (especially in Jim’s situation) is looking through the narrow end of the funnel with the bias to focus only on that Provider. Unless managed carefully it can lead to obsessive behavior and misunderstandings.

- Dynamics of Stalking -
“Stalking” as repugnant a label as it sounds often is symptomatic of a need to get personally closer to the other party. It is a means for the “Stalker” to become more important and more noticeable to the other party. However overlooked by the “Stalker” in his zeal are the possible reactions of the other party (in this case Jim thought it is not a big deal, and he was dead wrong).
However still distinguish this from “malicious stalking” with criminal intent.

- Dynamics of Refusal -
Jane might have said “No” several times, but not really effectively, if Jim is not convinced of her reasoning. Also take into account that they generally had good interactions, and shared private things with each other. Due to some special personal circumstances (not described here to protect the privacy of the Provider) it could be that Jim always felt strongly about the righteousness of his cause. A key problem was that Jim was unable to find any middle ground with Jane, and it made him frustrated.

- Provider Personalities -
At the risk of sounding unfair Providers generally are poor at relationship skills. Jane is better than the average provider. Jim had his work cut out for him. He should have figured that out better.

Again this is simply a real life case study. Still to be determined how it finally ends. A positive ending is if Jim and Jane can strike a deal.







-- Modified on 8/5/2003 10:31:57 AM

Are you for real guy? I think your right Jim needs to see a psychiatrist if he think's his deal's of blackmail interest Jane or any other woman.

This thread really pisses me off because I do know the circumstances behind Jane & Jim and I can't believe that he continue's to try and make a deal with a woman who want's NOTHING to do with you or your love, ever.

In all honesty you really should get some help  because I have a feeling you will move on and will be back trying to make deal's with other escort's out there. You cannot force feeling's you have on someone who does not feel the same way.

Drama is not something I've ever cared for and try to avoid it in everyway possible ......although I feel for Jane and any other person out there who has to deal with people who do not understand the word "NO" and their only concern is their own feeling's and will do ANYTHING to get their own way even if it is hurtful to another person.




 

All your points are valid HB. But you have to understand that jumping around does not work for everyone. I argree that Jim should take some sort of sabbatical to get some perpective. I also think he crossed the line and broke her trust. I don't believe he is a stalker in the sense that he poses a danger to her I've been emotionally attached to one provider for over a year. Do I love her? Absolutely. Am I obsessed ? Sometimes. I have never let my feelings be known to her. I would never put her in a uncomfortable position like that. When I find myself getting too obsessed I don't see her for awhile and try a couple of others. It does help What I'm trying to say here is that some of us can handle one sided love and others can not. In Jim's case or anyone else for that matter, if you truly love her and she does not feel the same for you, then give her up. Love is not stalking.

Are you for real guy....strike a deal? Why would Jane want to strike a deal she doesn't want anything to do with you. Blackmail is never appealing to a women's heart. Obviously the only thing you care about is your own selfishness to push yourself on a person who is not interested in you at all.


This thread really pisses me off. I HATE drama and usually go out of my way to avoid it......but I hate people trying to bully and take advantage of women for the sake of "Love". Grow up and really get some help and learn why you don't understand "NO, I'm not interested".

That Jane is a "confused young person" who may have given, and may still be given mixed messages". Guy's who look for a GFE "ESCORT" often find a GFE.....she is an escort who is good at what she does and enjoy's what she does so that is sending mixed messages?    

To say, that this young girl is not likely a candidate for a stable relationship with anyone is ridiculous. Your basing this on what?  Perhaps because she is an escort she is not capable of a stable relationship.....you have no idea of her circumstances?  I suppose all you men that frequent us are so much more capable of having a  stable, loving, lasting,  and honest relationship, then us Ho's.  

I have no problem separating love from sex and enjoy lot's of both in my life.  

As the old song goes....

Regarding my suggestion that Jane is a "confused young person," I was merely giving Jim/geek2003/AA1Vincent the benefit of the doubt in his (their?) description of her ambivalent responses. I certainly don't equate providing gfe services with encouraging a stalker.  My assessment of the likelihood of establishing a stable relationship with Jane is based on innumerable peer reviewed studies that have demonstrated, over many decades, a close correlation between serious psychopathologies and membership in the escort profession. I know that's not much, but call me crazy, I think there just might be something to it! As far as your contention that clients are just as likely to be unable to form stable, healthy relationships, you may well be right. I don't know of any studies that directly address that question, but, as I said, many studies have shown strong similarities between the background and psychological make-ups of clients and escorts. I can allow as how there may be rare women who have positive reasons for being a sex worker, but the vast majority are working out unresolved issues from their childhood. I think there is a big difference between a young woman who works for a short period in her life to pay for her education or raise capital for a business, and women who stick around long after their youth and beauty have waned because they can't find any other way of making a living. How pitiful! In French speaking Canada there doesn't seem to be the same societal stigma associated with sex work, so maybe there less troubled women are involved in the profession. I don't know for sure, but it sounds like an interesting question.

Jim is utterly moronic and a complete idiot if he ever thinks that he can bully into a woman’s heart through blackmail. On the other hand Jim could be desperate.

I wonder if Jim was left with any other choices except to get scared and quietly move on? You might disagree but Jim does not think he was given a fair choice, and in fact Jim thinks that he was railroaded for his mistake (Jim has apologized countless times). I am so sorry for the heart wrenching disappointment but Jim is not interested in quietly moving on.

We are moving away from the topic here. We can back channel if you like, but only if you see yourself capable of sustaining a mature coherent conversation.


-- Modified on 8/5/2003 4:19:28 PM

that's the only deal Jim will be striking.

For the record I still think this is fake but consider this:
I've seen magicians & escape artists’ pull off some incredible illusions on TV & once in person. Though they were all amazing, in the back of my mind I knew it was an illusion & I was ultimately paying for just that – an invisible Statue of Liberty. Impressive yes but real? Nope.
Spending time with an ATF GFE can be a once in a lifetime experience! But it's still an illusion no matter how satisfying.  Even if it’s the best you’ve ever had – it’s an act. Some providers are better illusionists than others (big shouts to all you GFE’s that come correct 24/7!). When your time together is up, there is no relationship other than business. You MUST respect that rule no matter how much she just blew your mind. Otherwise, this NONSENSE happens & gullible folks like Jim buy into the illusion & fall hard or worse. Providers are forced to screen all their clients now because of guys like Jim. I’m guessing Jane isn’t going to give him a reference.
BTW, anyone else wonder how Jane “slipped up”?  Did Jim rifle through her belongings?  Did he see her with her co-worker through binoculars?  

Well HB let's add a few more to Jim's alias Johnbrown555 and "BB".

Fair enough, Obviously I took it personal  because she is a friend and for you to give Jim the benefit of the doubt while making the assumption of what she is capable of doing/giving  is frustrating. Jim is clearly painting the picture he wants you to see leaving out many important facts.

Gee, I wonder if Jimbo is married and already in a long term relationship.....Hmmm, could one have several serious long term relationship's? Or perhaps he may frequent many prostitutes? This may reflect poor judgment, a propensity for irresponsible or high risk behavior, adjustment problems, or that possibly his sexual behavior is out of control. Who know's, but to assume the worst of Jane is certainly not fair.  

I'm sorry but "Jane" does not fit the mold (studies)....She is an articulate, intelligent, level-headed, goal orientated, career woman who is perfectly capable of maintaining a stable, healthy, and loving relationship.

We can go back and forth but what I'm saying is "Jane" does not need to be harrassed any longer. If you read his last post he  clearly states that he is not interested in quietly moving on and believes in his twisted mind that he's been treated unfairly (because she is not interested.......who cares what the reason is she is not interested). ANY man who pushes himself on a women who is not interested certainly need's some help.

Have a Great Week HB!~S~  Crissy

LMFAO.....Your interested in knowing if I'm capable of sustaining a mature coherent conversation. Oh Brother that's a great joke, Jimbo I know "all" of the fact's between Jim and Jane and I'm sorry but to strongarm/threaten/and blackmail someone is far from mature coherent conversation and NEVER acceptable NO Matter what the circumstances are.

I just hope more women are smart enough to protect themselves from men like you.

-- Modified on 8/6/2003 12:10:22 PM

he is a stalker, very sick, threatened to ruin a provider, can endanger her life.  He does not realize that posting here is traceable; he is married, his wife works in the medical field, and ladies and gents he is dangerous.  I will gladly give anyone his real name, email address, home address and phone number.  Law enforcement is not after any providers, however they are very interested in this man.  He is not American by birth; a memeber of the former British Empire.  He abuses his wife, and although he has made many threats, LE has never followed through.  He works in the computer arena, is of Indian descent and will abuse any and all providers.  I will happily supply all his personal information to any provider who writes to me privately.  Please be careful.  I believe this man has the capability of violence towards providers.  I have his name, his families names (including his children), where  he works from, he is an independent IT individual; the hospital his wife works from and the town and state in which he lives.

"P"  your hours are numbered.  I suggest you post a public apology.  This is NOT his only alias.  He also posts under BelGradeBoy, and another which is his true name.  

I am NOT the provider he fell in love with.  However, I guarantee you, that this provider, who is upscale, successful and a good person never professed affection towards him.

This is your last warning:  Get help.  LE is looking towards YOU my dear.  You pose a threat, not only to society but to yourself.  I know who you are.  I will expose you publicly.

Understood. I see you are now able to keep some perspective. I believe that Jim too has his own reasons to be sore on Jane. You indicate that possibly a point of no return was crossed for Jane. While for Jim it may be that if Jane hangs him for stealing a penny then Jane might as well hang him for stealing a pound. It could be that Jane took Jim’s last foray at its face value while Jim had several agendas.

I never assumed that you did not know it “all”. I expect that Jane is carefully reading these postings.

It is a good idea for Jim and Jane to cool down, and settle this amicably. Overcoming the impossible is just a part of negotiating.

Jim gains nothing through a guerrilla war of attrition with Jane except vindictive satisfaction.
Jane needs her security back. It appears that Jane enjoys this business. Jane’s security is important for her. Perhaps Jane can now allow herself to feel a little better.

Jim could be really sorry about how Jane feels but out of choices.  Jim and Jane appear to be locked into a slippery path of escalation ever since this whole chain of events started.
Jim and Jane can step away from the brink with a measure of good faith.

Jim needs to show good faith by making an extraordinary effort to guarantee Jane’s security free of any coercion.
Going forward Jim needs to better respect Jane’s viewpoint, and not force his personal agenda.
Jim could be prepared to present a comprehensive proposal to Jane.

Jane needs to show good faith by following up on any agreements that she could have stuck in the past with Jim. It could be what Jim needs most from Jane is some consistency and some extra space.

Jim and Jane have known each other for some time. Both are fine people. These are not insurmountable problems. Jim and Jane should try being friends than archenemies. It is much smarter and more fun.

Lily,
I do not know you. This is not your business. Stop threatening, or butting in and and please cut out your BS.

I am NOT INTIMIDATED by you. Do not push it.

You appear to be a sick woman yourself.
Get lost.

Hi Aprohidisia,

Your posting is criminal extortion. You have threatened me. You are also very possibly liable for a conspiracy to obstruct the course of justice.
If you distribute any personal information on me you are also liable for civil damages on defamation. Several of your allegations are malicious.
This is from my attorney who has now reviewed your posting.
If “Jane” conspired with you on this issue then she is also liable.

I do have your posting IP address, web site IP address, your phone number, and email to track down your real identity. I intend to fully share any evidence of criminal activities that I uncover about you with the competent Law Enforcement agencies and with Internal Revenue Service.

You are very close to being sued, and to be reported for criminal activity. If I discover any personal information distributed on me to anyone. Or if I have reasons to suspect such then be certain that you are going to hear from my attorney. I do have the means to hire a private investigator to easily track you down

I hope we never meet in real life except the courtroom. You sound exceedingly unpleasant.

I just sent you an email with more details. Perhaps Jim could consider a legal agreement under the proper safe guards. Perhaps Jim has a draft proposal of the legal agreement for Jane to consider. Perhaps Jane should look over it seriously.

Please let us end the name calling, polarization, and work to end this mess.

Let me know.

Well Pradeep,

I am sick?  Shall I post the entire story?  No no no...Threatening to expose providers to LE does not make me sick, "P", but it is telling..

Get some help, stop creating aliases and move on.  You are very very sick, and in all seriousness you must stop this.

Aprohidisia,

I acknowledge no relationship with “Pradeep”.  This is your second posting with a threat towards me, and a suggested course of action. You (and “Jane”) are now repeatedly committing Extortion. Be very careful where you are heading.

There is a case study here. It bends over backwards to be fair to Jane. It respects at length the privacy of Jane. It would not be in good taste otherwise. You are welcome to comment. It is an accurate description.

If it comes to taste I wish I could say the same for Jane and yourself. If we are talking about who is sick notice that I do not stoop to the personal level. There is no personal information released about Jane here, and nor there will be.

To your comments “Is it fair to report the Provider to LE.”. You do have a point. But you do not have the whole story. You might want to stay out of this unless you want to make the effort of understanding it beyond a diatribe. Jane is now being given a very fair offer at some risk to Jim to try resolving this.

uh, nope it's not, Clarence Darrow.  "Criminal Extortion" is not proper legalese my pumpkin is non applicable to a public forum, specifically where you initiated the post.

Extortion is defined by the law as an attempt to obtain money from a person by threatening to make a criminal charge against the person. People who try to commit extortion usually ask for hush money as the payment or bribe. Extortion originally meant the crime of obtaining payment by threatening to disclose misuse of official power by government officials However, if this happened today the official would be guilty of the crime of bribery, and if this happened to a private person it would be considered blackmail. This is not a crime that is regularly committed in the United States, such as murder and burglary, although it has been tried in our court system on several occasions. Both bribery and blackmail are considered types of extortion in modern day law and are both punishable by a fine and time in jail.


Legal Requirements

The legal requirements for extortion are very similar to those of robbery. The Actus Reus, Latin for the "guilty act", of extortion, like robbery, is a threat to get someone else's property by doing the person harm (Samaha 2002, p. 474). It is the time of the intended harm that separates the two offenses. In robbery, the threat to hurt someone is right now, and in extortion the threat to hurt someone is later. The Men Rea, Latin for the "guilty mind", of extortion is the intent by threat of future harm to permanently deprive another of possession. In modern law, most crimes must have both a Men Rea and an Actus Reus to be considered illegal. There are three ways in which a threat to harm a victim satisfies the requirement for extortion. First, if the defendant threatens to inflict bodily harm on the victim, if the defendant threatens to damage the property of the victim, and if the defendant threatens to expose victims to shame or ridicule. Basically, the extortionist has to actually put the victim in fear that they will indeed carry out his or her threat for it to be a crime.

Sounds more like what you did to this other provider Pra....oops I almost wrote your name!  If you have any other questions regarding the law and its definitions in the FIRST CIRCUIT court system, I would be DELIGHTED TO CLARIFY THEM FOR YOU and free of charge. Educating the stupid is humbling for me.

Which State do you wish to sue me in, btw?  I am in California at the moment, so technically I have nexus there,seeing the posts were written from the west coast. First amendment protects my freedom of speech, pookie..May I suggest you read the US constitution?

Any judge you went before would send you away for at least 30 days of psychiatric evaluation in a state institution.  This might be a good idea.  I suggest you write a poem, take some prozac, and go away.

And by the way, why can't I disclose who you are?  Weren't you going to do that to someone, and ruin them if they didn't lower their rate for you and see you?  GEE, now THAT sounds like extortion to me!

"and if the defendant threatens to expose victims to shame or ridicule. Basically, the extortionist has to actually put the victim in fear that they will indeed carry out his or her threat for it to be a crime."

This will nail you. FYI Extortion is a federal crime. You have more exposure not less if you are in California. You are also liable for transmiting extorinist threats across State lines.

Also the "Conspiracy to obstruct the course of Justice". Jane could have committed criminal acts. Your actions are trying to shield her. Again aggravated into federal charges because you are crossing state lines if in California.

BE WARNED. You are committing criminal acts. Stop blustering. Move on. You and Jane might end up playing checkers together in a federal prison.

Now it has deteriorated into to back and forth threats. "Take it outside" as they say.

thirsty

you may be tired of this thread thirsty, however this individual poses a real threat.  If you are truly interested, and care about prociders, I will gladly fill you in.  We have spoken and I you know I do not write things lightly.  [email protected]

"y"..me

Pradeep,

It is time to move on.  Please, and I say this with compassion and sincerity, you need help.  I am fearful that you will inflict harm onto others.  I am not the one to espouse legalities to, trust me.  Write to your cohorts and ask them my background.

You suffer from a malady which can only be contained through therapy and time.  Maybe it is best for your wife to know.  She can help you.  I can contact her at the hospital in which she works if you think it is best.

Everyone, including the providers you have threatened wish to see you get well.  We would rather not do it through a legal setting, it would be better if it were voluntary.  YOu have dug yourself into a hole, but you still have an out; let it go. You still have time.