All:
 
As some of you may know, there were many men in the Seattle area that were charged with felony promoting prostitution for doing nothing more than posting escort reviews on a now seized escort review site.  The prosecution in this case was able to levy these charges because the legal definition of "promoting prostitution" in the state of Washington is written in very broad terms, and as one autonomous requirement, includes nothing more than the described outcome of "advances prostitution" in relation to the actions of an individual.  
 
Two of the men charged with felonies for posting reviews are fighting these charges in a trial that will start soon.  The outcome of this trial, and any possible subsequent trials, will have significant implications for everyone who uses such escort review sites.  If the prosecution wins, other states may adjust their definitions of pandering and/or promoting prostitution to levy similar felonies on others who do nothing more than write escort reviews after bookings.  
 
I just learned that they are attempting to raise money for legal costs from a post on the Legal Corner board.  The crowdfunding campaign is ending in less than three weeks.  I've included a link to that post below.  Please refer to this post and PM your friends.  
 
****google fight the legal battle in seattle**** for more information

 
Of all the posts to report a TER rules violation on, you pick this one?  Really?  Do you have any understanding and/or appreciation for what the implications of the results of this trial are?  
 

 
I don't believe that it's in the best interest of anyone who uses this board to attempt to hinder this campaign in any way.  The implications of the results of this trial would likely be profound and far-reaching over time.  
 

-- Modified on 3/15/2017 12:22:38 PM

they will throw this shit out..we all have the right to free speech..

Is this the one with the guys running/owning/promoting the board.   Same guys had "ties" to the girls that were brought to the USA?

 
Can you provide any citations to published sources to support your claim that these men charged with felonies for posting reviews actually owned the escort review site?  I'm not presently aware that this was the case for nearly all of them.  There have been at least 24 men charged, thus far.  Even if it was the case, what point are you trying to make in relation to the charges?  
 
Which of these men had ties to the women who traveled to the USA?  What was the nature of these relationships?  Can you provide a citation to a published source for this claim, as well?  
 
Also, as far as I'm aware, the First Amendment gives us the freedom of assembly as well as the freedom of speech.  Why did you place the word "promoted" in quotes in your statement above?  How is it that you feel they promoted the services of these women?  What mechanisms do you feel they used to promote them?  
 

It was on this site... many posts ago and months ago.   It is when the bust happened... and the other "review" site got shut down.

 
I just read every word of all three articles you provided links to above, plus another that was referenced by one of them.  None of these articles state that all of the men charged owned or even ran any review site.  Furthermore, none of these articles state that any of these men had personal relationships (i.e. "ties") to any of the women, as you claimed earlier.  
 
If you'd care to provide an actual quotation from a published article, along with a link or reference to the article to back up these claims that you've made, I'd be glad to take a look at it.  
 

 
Are you a Moderator?  I wasn't under any impression that you were.  
 

I have followed felony cases in Phoenix for about two decades.  Reviews are often used also in probably cause statements in indictments in Maricopa Superior Court (Phoenix) against escorts, massage gals etc.

The 17 page probably cause statement of all defendants starts out alleging part of a forced sex trafficking to abuse Korean women by the LOEG group.    

 
You didn't answer my question as to whether or not you're a Moderator.  At this point, I'll assume that you're not.  
 
Why didn't you just use the "Report this post" button on the other post that I originally had a link to in my original post in this thread?  That would seem to make more sense than to broadcast on this thread what you think the rules are with respect to what you read on an external web site that is twice removed from this thread that I started.  
 
The other post is still on this board with the original link to the external website.  I've again included a link to it below.  If you want, you can navigate to this other post and report it to the Moderators.  
 

read the third link....

I understand you're trying to raise awareness about this incident, but by posting about it 24/7 on many of TER's discussion boards, you are drawing the attention of the FBI. Take my word for it, they are now viewing and reading TER's threads! Was LE and the FBI checking out TER before your post...yes, I'm sure they were...but to continue to post about the Seattle bust and the trial of the men, is encouraging more scrutiny of TER and it's members. I've tried several times to discreetly warn you about NOT posting links to the story, but instead of letting it go, you insinuated it's none of my business. Well, you know what...you're right...I could and probably should mind my own business and let the FBI read your posts. So, this will be my final post regarding this matter.  

 
I have absolutely no idea where you're coming from here.  None of the information in my posts constitutes any secret society procedures that the FBI or any LE would be interested in.  All of the information in my posts is public information and/or conjecture about these cases which exists in either the case files or in publicly accessible periodicals.  The FBI doesn't need to look at my posts for any of this, nor would they.  Why would you think that me discussing the contents of or posting a link to a publicly accessible story on a site outside TER would jeopardize anyone here?  
 
Also, why are you seemingly pasting two paragraphs in your post that describe the Prosecutor's positional statement in this case?  Do you actually agree with their position?  I'm quite certain that the Defense has a very different set of arguments to make about their Clients' online activities.  
 
Lastly, if you're so concerned about what the FBI or LE in general may think about when reading the posts on TER, you may want to review some of your own posts.  I've included a link to one of them below which seems to describe what types of extracurricular activities you seem to be eager to engage in when your Clients pay you for your time and companionship only.  I'd love to hear your explanation.  
 

 
I don't see anything in this last post of yours that defends your original position that all of these men charged with felonies, and there are 24 or more of them, were all engaged in running a review site or that they all had personal connections (i.e. "ties") to the women.  You seem to be conflating what three of these men did with the activities of all 24 of them.  From what I've read in periodicals, most of the men in this subgroup were invited to join based on the number and quality of their reviews on the main board.  It appears to me that most of them didn't set up these operations.  
 
Since you seem to be having trouble including quotations in your posts here, if you'd like, you can reference a paragraph number for a particular article and explain to me how this paragraph defends your earlier statements.  I'd be happy to take a look.  
 

-- Modified on 3/18/2017 1:49:50 AM

 
I never accused you of being a Moderator.  I asked you if you were a Moderator, and you never answered my question.  
 
Also, I don't need any more time to figure out what you are.  
 

much reporting of various forms of illegal activity.

But isn't that best address by someone simply post the $ spend but the LE agencies (police and DA) and hours spent, including the court time taken up? Seems like in this age of "we all drowning in debt but need to spend on the important stuff -- be it guns or butter or both -- that simple graphic with the question "Was that too much to spend to keep two horny people from fucking?" would probably resonate with a lot of people, even those who don't really approve of more relaxed attitudes about sex.

Don't shoot the messenger. Like it or not, Robbin is ABSOLUTELY correct revealing personal information about other members is one of the cardinal rules of TER that is NEVER to be broken.

All I got to say is I layed it out pretty easy for you to find in the 3rd article.

It's not your post that is the problem, it's the link that is the problem, and contrary to what you said in your post above, TER did indeed remove your link as it's nowhere to be found.

 
Yes, "some" of the men had a relationship with the women.  This is a very small minority of the 24 or more men that have been charged with felonies.  Most of these men did nothing more than visit these establishments and communicate about their experiences later.  
 
You seem to be making the leap to classify the in-person meetings that these men had as promotion, which is what the Prosecution has done.  You don't make the same leap in your last post with respect to their online reviews.  However, those that took a felony plea for promotion made written statements concerning their online reviews, not their in-person meetings.  If you search online, you should be able to find an image of one of their plea statements in an article on reason.com.  I cannot post a link to this article based on TER's rules, apparently.  
 
You seem caught up on the fact that these men chose to meet in person to review their experiences.  I don't see any fundamental difference between that activity and those who post reviews online.  What do you think of the implications of the 15 reviews that you've posted thus far on this board?  This is what's at stake with the precedent that will be set through the results of this trial.  
 

I am not going to research the written statements.

 
I never posted a link to this external article.  I posted a link to another post on this board, which in turn had a link to this external article.  My link in my original post was removed because I'm assuming that the Moderator was confused by Robbin's comments, as she decided to post to this thread what she perceived the rules to be with respect to a link on a completely different thread.  As I stated earlier, she should have reported the other post using the "Report this post" button instead of broadcasting to all of TER on this thread what she perceived the rules to be regarding a link that doesn't even exist here.  I never questioned, or made any statements concerning, what TER's rules were.  
 
Did you happen to notice that Robbin posted a reply further down this chain, where she made ridiculous accusations to the effect that my posts in this thread were likely attracting the attention of the FBI?  She then claimed that her earlier posts, which you seem to be reading above, were an attempt to "discreetly warn [me] about NOT posting links to the story", because of her apparent concern that the information in my posts was alerting the FBI to activities by TER's members that they may be interested in.  I've included a link to this absurd post by Robbin below.  
 
This is all coming from someone who has publicly declared on this board her delight at consuming certain human secretions, which you'll see that I pointed out to her in my subsequent reply.  All of this seems to be nothing more than attention-seeking behavior by someone that always wants the spotlight on them.  It's the personalty trait that leads to pointless distractions during serious conversations, no matter what the consequences.  I've seen this personality in certain people before, and I'm never impressed by it.  
 

-- Modified on 3/21/2017 11:29:05 AM

You don't think that the 24 that plead were not apart of the initial 50 that met???

A plea deal is not a trial, you have to admit to an illegal act to get a plea deal  In Phoenix take a felony plea and get probation vs most likely a long prison term if lose at trial.  Every trial I have followed have been convictions and prison.