Write Review
2,074,630 Total Reviews 3,662 New Reviews
9,664 Users Online

TER General Board

Verification
stilltryin25 16 Reviews 2693 reads
posted

I see a lot of questions concerning new client verification, mostly on the newbie board.  The interesting things are the answers that hobbyists give to the inquirers and the apparent conduct of the hobbyists giving the advice .  Some say exchange absolutely no, or very little personal information, but such people seem to have no problem with walking into an incall location for service, or going to something like an AMP.  Others say exchange little information directly with providers but sign up for verification services such as "roomservice2000", it seems roomservice collects and MAINTAINS a lot of person information that signees have to give up to get registered.  Other hobbyists perfer to give relatively detailed information directly to the provider under the assumption that she will utilize it correctly and dispose of it when it is appropriate to do so.
    If a person gets in to trouble and intent becomes an issue, it is interesting to think about which of the hobbyists types mentioned above would be on the most solid ground.  It seems that a person walking into an incall or AMP would be caught cold and have little or no recourse.  The person giving information to a verification service probaly would have an out if they are not caught in an act - such a person could simply say that they gave the information out in a heat of passion and never used the service, who can prove otherwise without hard evidence?  The hobbyist giving information directly to a provider could also use an argument such as the one that gave information to a verification service used, in the absence of hard evidence it should be difficult to prove that the person actually did any crime, unless the provider becomes a witness, and then it is the hobbyist's word against the provider's unless a third person was informed of an encounter and can back the provider's account.
    I am interested in hearing other viewpoints.

netmichelle2385 reads

I don't keep anything around, no ph. in phone, no roomservice2000, no index card box, no provider ref. exchanges. If its a repeat client, and it has been awhile, it's embarrasing because I have a hard time w/ names, so we have to get to particular details such as "I'm the guy who X," or "remember we did Y." (Hehe) and then when I remember, then we schedule. But it has taken awhile to get that all sorted out.  

Your post was interesting because it clearly explains the tier levels of what we do to verify. Providers screen the way they do in order to feel comfortable. Hobbiests reveal what they want to reveal. Concealment exists, because it is still against the law. Bottomline, no matter how good you are, if they want to catch you, they probably will. I like to keep them in shape trying. Care for a donut boys?

ReplyQuoteReport
Landem3949 reads

In this context, intent is NEVER an issue. One either commits the illegal act or one does not - and thus one is either guilty or one is not.

Putting on the old law professor's cap for a moment . . .

In the traditional criminal common law, crimes were divided into two classes, with obtuse latin names: malum in se (acts which are inherently, morally wrong) and malum prohibitum (acts which are wrong only because they are prohibited by law). Today, all crimes are defined by statute, not common law, and these terms are rarely heard, but the conceptual distinction does remain, and its effects are real.

In cases of the former, which includes such things as murder, other lesser inflictions of bodily harm, rape, robbery, kidnapping, etc., lack of intent is a defense. (Moreover, the person must understand that their act is wrong to be held guilty - hence the availability of the insanity defense.) Lack of intent vitiates the crime and therefor mistake of fact can be a defense - if one honestly and truly believed the gun was not loaded, one did not commit murder - negligent homicide, perhaps, but not murder. This is the stuff TV cop and lawyer shows are made of.

Prostitution falls into the malum prohibitum category - illegal only because the law says it is illegal - not unlike illegal parking or traffic offenses. There is no insanity defense, there is no mistake of fact defense, there is no need for the prosecution to prove intent. Ever try beating a parking ticket by telling the judge you didn't intend to stay longer than the hour on the meter?

So, even if we are all crazy, it won't help us in court :-) And intenet is not a component element of the crime.

Now, whether these things things should be prohibitum, is a different question entirely.

ReplyQuoteReport
stilltryin252396 reads

Of proof that a crime was actually committed, prosecution is left to surmise intent in the two latter examples that I gave.  Speculation on something that may or may not have happened is a rather shaky foundation on which to build a prosecution.  Even if something did happen and there is some form of a written paper trail, prosecution would still be left to speculate that the writings laid out in the paper trail were not fantasies of an over active mind. Without a corroborating witness or data that can confirm the triumvirate of intent, presence and action, a prosecution takes place on shaky ground.

ReplyQuoteReport
akitanuki2821 reads

Just walking into an AMP or incall location is not enough to be prosecuted for. They need to actually catch you soliciting sex for money.

ReplyQuoteReport
Post Reply Back To Forum
Register Now!