Some Guy is sending letters from [email protected] claiming to be from Theeroticreview.com quality control board.  This person is NOT a from theeroticreview.com!

here are some sample letters he has been sending:

********************************
From: [email protected]

Dear (xxxx),
We haven't received a review on you in some time.  Are you still active or would like you be listed as inactive?  Please advise.

Best wishes,
Rob
The Erotic Review
Quality Control Board

********************************
From: [email protected]

Dear xxxxx,
It looks like you're getting great reviews on our board.  Please let us know
if you find anything that is not consistent with your experience.
Best wishes,
Rob
The Erotic Review
Quality Control Board
********************************


Any information you can supply helping find the identity of "ROB", please email [email protected].  

-- Staff

AOL is notorious for cooperating with the Krispy Kreme brigades of the Nation.
Surely they will identify this person and/or disable him (or her) electronically in some way if you inquire vociferously.

AND on that other matter about the use of reviews as evidence.
The last time I taught federal evidence, there were many exceptions to the hearsay rule, under Art VIII, Rules 803-807, Federal Rules of Evidence. These rule apply to federal court proceedings, but many states have enacted very similar codes of evidence.

Reviews could be an excited utterance [803(2)], recorded recollection [803(5)], record of regularly conducted activity as shown by the forced testimony of a TER rep [803(6)], a statement against interest - i e, admission of adultery or of a crime such as solicitation of a bbjtc [804(b)(3)], and a statement under belief of impending death following an exceptional bbjteoku by a leggy blonde with wet pouty lips [804(b)(2)].

I suppose a  judge might find other exceptions to the hearsay rule such as orgasmic utterance or howl, i e, the "Oh Jesus!" exception to the hearsay rule. BIMBW.

If you've handled a lot of federal litigation, you know this material. There are enough exceptions to the hearsay rule to devour it. That is why you  have servers offshore so that LE cannot get the originals. However, they just print them out when online and forcibly subpoena TER or TBD people to authenticate them.

Reviews are not that different from written confessions once you trace back to the reviewer. We write them to help out other guys and because we do not believe that getting or giving a bj or fs should be a crime in an intelligent civilized society.

Most non-litigators think "hearsay rule" and stop. That however is only the beginning of the question. Even if a judge wrongly admits a hearsay statement, it might be found as harmless eror on appeal.

Teaching evidence is  interesting and entertaining because common knowledge is so often wrong, as well illustrated in the above comments. Actually, I've heard opposing lawyers make some of the dumbest statements ever in court concerning evidence.
Nothing is more fun than trying your 50th federal case against an opposing lawyer who is in federal court for the first time.

-- Modified on 9/11/2002 11:14:26 PM

-- Modified on 9/12/2002 6:39:24 AM

Since when is heresay allowed into evidence? The person who wrote the review would have to testify that he authored the review.  Remember, defendants have a right to confront withesses in court.  At least for the time being.

Student of LAW I think you need to go back to school and learn about hearsay.

-- Staff

My evidence professor was a federal district court judge, and he could not have said it better!  this should alert the armchair lawyers in the audience to exercise more caution in the future! kudos to you sir!

Have you looked at the message headers?

Further, AOL should put at stop to this.  After all, just the name TERQC implies that they are using your name.

Good luck.

How could my reviews be used against a provider? All of my reviews are a product of my overactive imagination. I wanted to be a screen writer but my fiction wasn't up to par. I now spend all of my time writing fictitious reviews to TER and letters to Penthouse!

-- Modified on 9/12/2002 7:44:02 AM

since my cousin Lassie goosed the judge's wife and pissed on the bailiff's leg.

Never underestimate the creativity of a determined prosecutor, however, and never lie under oath.

Do learn how to be anonymous and avoid subpoenas.

Try not to have the actual address of your doghouse in any computer anywhere, and keep your dogbones offshore in an anonymous trust account.

for the 50th time!

AS I've said before, I don't think you were ever a lawyer.
http://theeroticreview.com/msgBoard/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=1357&boardID=25&page=1
There are exceptions to the hearsay rule as you point out.  The REAL question is which, if any, might be applicable here AND against WHOM.  I don't think you really know, so you mention every one of the exceptions.

The question I have (and I don't have the answer) is whether LE could be attempting to collect evidence from these unsuspecting providers for the purpose of wiretaps or search warrants.  Of course it could also just be some voyeur trying to get his kicks.

Here's a question for the REAL lawyers out there:  

Can LE get a search warrant or wiretap against a provider or TER based SOLELY on non-admissible hearsay evidence, either from reviews or in emails sent to them.  If not, what additional non-hearsay evidence might be required?

I just wish I could command the same hourly rates as a good provider here.

Why are call girls and lawyers different than an angry duck?  Because angry ducks cluck defiance and the others....


from yet another lawyer

You are not supposed to take the easy ones but I couldn't resist.

Occasionally in the heat of wild pounding passion during doggie, the thought crosses my mind and I'll quietly say "woof woof."
At that point we both usually collapse side by side on the bed in my doghouse and laugh our tails off while wagging them a bit of course.

He's Seattle-based and part of a task force of donut eaters trying to build a nationwide RICO case against guys who have had more than 10000 bbjteokus. He's been building his undercover ID here and on TBD for quite some time, but seems to have no reviews because he cannot get laid within the FBI guidelines.

The worse part is, he likes to waste our time with his incoherent and inadequate analysis. He tries, but there is no substitute for a legal education and many years of federal litigation practice.

Craw, I grew up poor, worked my way through NYU Law and graduated top 2%. I know, that just pisses you off more. Add a year at Oxford to that to piss you further.

How is the investigation coming along?
Do you enjoy wasting so much federal money?

Do you really think anyone, lawyer or not, fails to see through you?

-- Modified on 9/12/2002 3:45:36 PM

Sorry I couldn't resist.  LOL!

This seems to me to be a TER member with a "hard-on" for the minor inaccuracies or incomplete information in the TER reviews database. The signature, "Rob," seems to indicate an attempt to flush out ROB's. It doesn't to be a signature that LE would use.

I don't think it was LE.  He was trying to get freebies from the girls (we saw more letters!)

-- Staff

-- Modified on 9/13/2002 5:56:13 AM

Since you would not know, all law schools for the last 10-15 years have required introductory courses in Internet legal & other research, to supplement the hard copy.

Older fartes like me are even pre-Lexis so we use the bound volumes for serious research. Take a look at F.3d, F Supp 2d, and U S sometime and you'll see about 50 cases that *** handled before you went to the academy and then to Quantico, although I suspect you are more likely an aspiring GED candidate.

Here's your favorite site.

To put it bluntly, LE, state or federal, can take a review, link it to a provider or hobbyist (that's the hard part), and use it as probable cause to obtain a search warrant where they come crashing in and tear your doghouse apart. They can use it to search the provider's home and car, same for the hobbyist, same for the agency.
They also can search Collie's doghouse and confiscate his huge cache of extra large condoms, and dog bones, even his schlong as Exhibit "X".

I've heard descriptions of the federal and state raids in some of these cases, and they are scary.

I was a customer in Orlando, FL at the late Rachels Club near the airport during three raids in Year 2000. I was just there having dinner in the restaurant with an elegantly dressed lady.
About 25 armed sheriffs'  deputies swarmed in and arrested three dancers one of the times, for dancing too close or touching someone on the shoulder. It was an insane scene, the Baptist Gestapo at work. Now the FBI, DEA, and ATF are all directed by an even more devout modern Anthony Comstock.

The worse is yet to come, in spades. Better get those bbjs while you can.

-- Modified on 9/13/2002 4:47:01 PM

blow it in one f#&k'n day!!  I swear that it's going to be back to uniformed street patrol for you!!!

Illinois v. Gates, which merely dictated that an anonymous tip could be used to procure a warrant, was bad enough. Leon, which is probably the most poorly reasoned case in the last century, is in a class by itself bad. The holding in Leon is that an otherwise invalid search warrant can be held to be valid if the police had a good faith belief (yes, sportsfans, these are the actual words of the Court's opinion) that the warrant was valid. However, as Stevens implies in dissent, the Gates holfding might well moot out Leon anyway.

At this point, I would like to thank Bill Rehnquist and Tony Scalia for making an oxymoron out of the term "4th Amendment Jurisprudence". With guys like these around, who needs John Ashcroft?

Essentially, the GOP have two years left to get us nuked, declare a national state of emergency, declare Dubya President For Life, and otherwise suspend and shred the Consitution. Think about that when you go to the polls in November.

Some of you out there don't like to see politics on a hooker board. Trust me, it matter now more than ever.

Surely you must remember a collie's testimony is ALWAYS non hearsay!








* Federal Rules of Evidence