The woes of Gov. Spitzer reflect the aspects of the anti-agency attitude I have had for many years. The way agencies are set up and operated AUTOMATICALLY place them in the perview of federal investigators. My two primary questions are still unanswered. First, why would a client place himself in a position to expose himself to federal scrutiny? Second, why would a woman do that as well and at the same time GIVE UP PART OF HER EARNINGS for the chance to increase her legal exposure? I know the typical answers but they don't seem nearly strong enough to overcome the risks.

Does a hobbyist take the same risk with indies who require Room Service 2000,  411Prefered, or a similar screening forum, as he would take using a typical agency girl?

Yes, but let's remember that Spitzer was caught because he had been sending funds to the agency by wire transfer from an account which had been set up for other and more legitimate public uses, and the authorities suspected him of embezzlement for personal gain.  He was being monitored and wiretapped for matters which had nothing to do with using an escort agency.  CAsh is king!

There are plenty of low profile, discreet agencies out there that have operated for years with no problems. Smart owners, smart policies, smart ladies but most of all a luck of quick-buck greed!
There are reasons why some women choose to work for an agency vs. running their own business.  Many women just want to work, make the money, and walk away. Giving up a portion of their fee in order to NOT have to worry about marketing and screening is worth it to them.

Unfortunately in this case the agency involved let down both it's clients and it's ladies.  It happens. There is stuff printed all over the internet about the kinds of fees this agency charged and the kinds of clients it tried to attract so I'm not going to rehash it here. I think comparing this particular agency's business model to all other agencies is a bit unfair. I see both indies and agency ladies.  I always have and I always will.

press reports that it was Spitzer's unusual wire transfers that caused the bank to report suspicious transfers to the government.  Kinda crazy on his part, why not just bring cash.

There can never be a guarantee of this. The reason is there might be clients who don't share your good judgement and behavior and it only takes one. They act as lightning rods and the agency dealing is transportiung women across state lines as is what happens in nearby jurisdictions (like around here), plays right into the hands of the feds giving them a host of legitimate reasons to become involved. An agency can operate as carefully as you please but one customer making illegal financial moves can invite the feds in to expose the entire operation.