Write Review
2,074,664 Total Reviews 3,696 New Reviews
9,113 Users Online

Legal Corner

Realistically
Kelly_James See my TER Reviews 883 reads
posted

Using someone's website as evidence against them very well may not stand up in court but just like reviews, a prosecutor will sure use it to scare them into taking the plea.

I would love to see a "payment for time but sex is free" defense play out.  Aces, you're the goddamn lawyer here - find some poor hooker who is being persecuted, take her case pro bono, and have at it :)

The bottomline is that none of this really matters until people quit taking plea deals and start challenging these ridiculous laws.

aces81514 reads

as a solicitation for the provider.  Discuss your opinions.  Your ideas may prove helpful to providers reading this.

-- Modified on 11/16/2012 9:27:10 AM

ReplyQuoteReport
pwilley1084 reads

Solicitation is defined by nearly all State/County law as the offering of a sexual act in exchange for money.  

ReplyQuoteReport
mrfisher1195 reads

The reason being that it is rather expensive and complicated to introduce the site into a court proceding.  The prosecutor would have to find out where the site is hosted, subpeona the people responible for it, etc.  It's an expensive headache for them.

Easier is for LE to find a gal on BP, have her come to a motel with LE on the other side of the door of an adjoining room, have the undercover cop get her on tape as agreeing to perform a sex act for money and then cuff her and send her downtown.  It's clean and simple.

It there has been a case yet of a gal's website being used as evidence against her, I'm yet to hear it.

Moral of the story:  Stop worrying about what you put up on your site, in term of legal liability.  It isn't going to matter.

(still not a lawyer)

ReplyQuoteReport
aces81156 reads

I don't agree about the expense of bringing in the site.  I can see free speech 1st amendment arguments and an appeal upon defendants loss.  However, I agree I haven't heard of it happening yet.  

I could see a prosecutor not wanting to rely on a  good defense lawyer's "tricks" deciding to protect his trial record and not chance a one juror mistrial by putting on overwhelming evidence, like a lawyer should.  They just don't know better in these cases.  The typical case with the undercover cop and a tape is usually enough.

I was going to ask you how do you know these details, but I remember.  You have family in the biz.
You'd make a good lawyer.

ReplyQuoteReport
mrfisher925 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
jbruin_20121056 reads

Couldn't they just set up a computer in the courtroom, go online and type in the provider's website?  

I think it's best for both parties if providers leave out the details on their personal website.  Save the details of services provided for sites like TER, p411.

ReplyQuoteReport
aces81021 reads

Your right, they could set up a computer in the court.  

I also agree with you about putting everything on TER, but there is a problem.

1. Not everybody belongs or knows about TER

2.  Many times a providers review will list Don't Know under a service.

3. Information on services are usually taken from the first review and the reviewer is relying on the provider as to what she does.  Because of TER''s point system she may and they have reported services they don't render, which they would not have listed to the public.  It's still safer for her to only use TER.

ReplyQuoteReport
mrfisher959 reads

to disallow the introduction of the website unless some individual could confirm that the defendant was the person who set up the site.  Otherwise it could be argued that someone set up the site without the defendent's knowledge in some attempt to frame her.

It's not unlike the case where a photograph can not be introduced as evidence without the photographer being called to confirm that they took the photo and can swear that it was of the defendent.

(still not a lawyer)

ReplyQuoteReport
aces8944 reads

There's a difference between the analogy of the photograph and the website.  Photographs are doctored all the time and now easier than ever.  Websites are much more costly and complicated to create especially hijacking the bandwidth without the knowledge of the webmaster for an extended amount.

What both examples have in common is that they require an affirmative defense, that is the burden is on the defense for disproving the validity of the evidence once it's placed in evidence. ,  So you're thinking is fine.  I'm explaining how the computer makes the basic case.

If it were me and I had evidence of a fraud involved in the evidence, I'd set a motion for to exclude it, before the jury heard it.  In fact, I've had cases dismissed by DDA's before trial ever started because of tainted evidence and when I was a DDA I did the same.

ReplyQuoteReport
aces8981 reads

No websites haven't been used  to my knowledge, but depening on what's on them theybmight be useable.

ReplyQuoteReport
harborview990 reads

so that one can be busted just for showing up...  but most do not.  Prostitution is sex for money...  If one of the 2 people is LE, they keep acting dumb until the words are said & nothing else is needed.  A clean bust, with no long evidence trail.  Assuming LE hears every word correctly & so writes in his/her report.  
 
Personally, I see nothing wrong with specifying an hourly rate for companionship.  Prostitution disclaimers may have very limited value in those jurisdictions where advertizing might be used against you...  but know it is immediately superceded as soon as sex for money is discussed.

I would not specify sex acts available.  Good providers rely on their good reputation what is TER's function.  I think putting compensation & sex acts on the same web site is extreemly risky.

If one ends up in the same room with LE, you are unlikely to leave without being arrested.  Screening is to prevent being the second person in that room.  

ReplyQuoteReport
mrfisher1214 reads

actually constituted an admission that prostitution was in fact what was going on.

So, you can't win for losing with that one.

ReplyQuoteReport
Kelly_James884 reads

Using someone's website as evidence against them very well may not stand up in court but just like reviews, a prosecutor will sure use it to scare them into taking the plea.

I would love to see a "payment for time but sex is free" defense play out.  Aces, you're the goddamn lawyer here - find some poor hooker who is being persecuted, take her case pro bono, and have at it :)

The bottomline is that none of this really matters until people quit taking plea deals and start challenging these ridiculous laws.

ReplyQuoteReport
Post Reply Back To Forum
Register Now!