Some General Thoughts and Questions

[MacTheKnife]

I can't believe I spent all the time reading this thread only to find out ShysterJon is the only one that knows what he is talking about.

Leave the law to the educated professionals with law licenses.

They have paid the price very few are willing to pay to acquire the sheepskin.

Good job SJ.

[MrGiz]

Originally Posted by MacTheKnife

I can't believe I spent all the time reading this thread only to find out ShysterJon is the only one that knows what he is talking about.

Leave the law to the educated professionals with law licenses.

They have paid the price very few are willing to pay to acquire the sheepskin.

Good job SJ.

Yep... he definitely knows Texas Law! *Some of us only have experience to go by...

We have only scratched the surface of what "expunge" actually means... especially when you consider the difference between federal, state, county, and local juristictions!*Throw in a little corruption at each level... and the "practical/effective definition" really loses clarity!

BTW... MTK, I also know what I am talking about... too bad, you picked a topic in which you do not.

[Guest032716]

My son had 3 misdemeanors expunged - when he tried getting into the Navy they showed up on his record. I don't see that he saw a benefit from the expense and trouble.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by MacTheKnife

I can't believe I spent all the time reading this thread only to find out ShysterJon is the only one that knows what he is talking about.

I think you over simplify.

There are the issues of legality, expunging, and sealing.

There are those who have Wild Card priviledges to see things that "ordinary mortals" cannot see.

And then there are a few who make thier own exceptions to the rules. SJ is speaking of the first group. Louigi mentions some of the second group. London speaks of the third group. They are all correct in their own ways.

[London Rayne]

Giz is right on that...expunge means it may not show up to the ordinary person running a background check, but will show up on every computer connected to LE or Federal agencies.

That is why paying to have a judge do this is pointless. If you ever want something to go away, you better know the right people...the right "corrupt" people.

SJ...your point about the "DA having enough to prosecute" was my point. If I get arrested tomorrow and the DA says not enough to go to court, that's what I meant by "thrown out." I realize you guys don't talk that way because to you, getting anything "thrown out" means it went to court to begin with.

Sorry for the confusion.

[MacTheKnife]

Originally Posted by Old-T

And then there are a few who make thier own exceptions to the rules. SJ is speaking of the first group. Louigi mentions some of the second group. London speaks of the third group. They are all correct in their own ways.

Thanks OT for your thoughtful and intelligent post and for clearing this matter up for me. Thanks also for pointing out the posters in the thread that actually knew what they were talking about.

I have been PMed and informed that you have also paid your dues to acquire the sheepskin and that you know of what you speak. Some in life choose to pay the dues while others don't have the skills necessary to do so. Thanks again.

[ginainthemorning]

I am a bit confused as this lady says she is a writer and new here, so she is not a escort, and now I am wondering how she got approved on eccie.
All escorts know you can be arrested without money changing hands, without agreeing do engage in illegal acts. There is this thing called suspicion of prostitution and many escorts are arrested for simply placing ads, some have been convicted due to EXPLICIT REVIEWS.
As far as research go to swaay.org to get the facts.

[Chica Chaser]

Originally Posted by ginainthemorning

I am a bit confused as this lady says she is a writer and new here, so she is not a escort, and now I am wondering how she got approved on eccie.

No one has to be "approved" to simply be on the site. Only when a lady requests Verified Provider status does the approval process come into play.

Concerning the subject, every state has different laws regarding these matters. Since we are on the national side of the board here with readers from across the country and around the world, blanket statements of the local regulations in your area can carry very little weight.

[ShysterJon]

Originally Posted by London Rayne

Giz is right on that...expunge means it may not show up to the ordinary person running a background check, but will show up on every computer connected to LE or Federal agencies.

That is why paying to have a judge do this is pointless. If you ever want something to go away, you better know the right people...the right "corrupt" people.

That's simply not the law in Texas. If an expunction order is issued, ALL records -- including arrest records maintained by the police, records regarding the prosecution of the offense maintained by the court and the DA, and electronic records maintained by the DPS and FBI - are destroyed. When private companies that sell criminal background information, such as www.publicdata.com, receive updated information from government entities, the new information should omit the expunged records.

On the other hand, when an order of non-disclosure (a/k/a a "sealing order") is issued, only LE and certain state agencies are permitted access to the information. Expunctions and orders of non-disclosure are different remedies that apply to different types of cases.

Every so often, I'm contacted by a defendant in a small town asking me to represent them. Nearly all of them believe there is a conspiracy in their little town made up of judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys to screw defendants over. I guess that's possible. But it's more likely small-town paranoia.

Sure, occasionally a government employee will make a mistake and not delete or seal a criminal record despite an order. That's why I always confirm a deletion or seal after an order is issued. A few times I've had to send a letter to a clerk to get a record deleted or sealed, but none refused to do so. I guess I could take it personally and speculate that the Mafia, Sooners, or even aliens conspired to defy the order. But I think it's more reasonable to attribute the mistake to overworked government employees.

Originally Posted by MrGiz

Yep... he definitely knows Texas Law! *Some of us only have experience to go by...

I've been practicing criminal law in Texas (and a few other states, including your home state, Arkansas) for more than 26 years. I've handled thousands of cases in state and federal courts, ranging from city municipal courts to the U.S. Supreme Court. I'm in court nearly every day. But I guess it's possible that your subjective opinion regarding your one case trumps my experience.... Nah, it's not possible.

[MrGiz]

Originally Posted by ShysterJon

. . .
I've been practicing criminal law in Texas (and a few other states, including your home state, Arkansas) for more than 26 years. I've handled thousands of cases in state and federal courts, ranging from city municipal courts to the U.S. Supreme Court. I'm in court nearly every day. But I guess it's possible that your subjective opinion regarding your one case trumps my experience.... Nah, it's not possible.

I would never presume to know anywhere near as much about "law" as you do! * It wasn't my intent to even attempt to "trump" your experience in any way.

My only point was that the practical effectiveness of "expungement" has been proven to be inconsistent across several different types of juristictions... it's not my opinion... it is a simple fact!

Nevermind my experience... or Louigi's son's... there are thousands of other case examples all across the country!* It's quite easy for any numbnutz to research the subject.* Just type "expungement" into any search engine and read.* Not that Wikipedia comes close to your knowledge of the subject... but even they say : >>" Each jurisdiction whose law allows expungement has its own definitions of expungement proceedings. Generally, expungement is the process to "remove from general review" the records pertaining to a case. In many jurisdictions, however, the records may not completely "disappear" and may still be available to law enforcement, to sentencing judges on subsequent offenses, and to corrections facilities to which the individual may be sentenced on subsequent convictions. " <<

That was the only point I was trying to make... so be it...

BTW.... your STFU Thread is Priceless! * Should be a "must read" for everyone here!

[ShysterJon]

Originally Posted by MrGiz

BTW.... your STFU Thread is Priceless! * Should be a "must read" for everyone here!

Thank you. Now STFU.

I’d also suggest everybody take a few minutes and read the following thread, which is a bit broader in scope than the STFU thread:

”What to do if you're stopped by the police”

[mikkifine]

LE looks at escorts like the are horrible criminals. Most of the ladies have to be as discreet as possible.

LE would rather arrest an escort establishment than go after murderers and rapists.

I would rather not take credit cards. Cash is king.

Originally Posted by Tellsoftly

Hello, I'm somewhat new here. I'm a writer studying this sort of thing, but that's incidental to this thread. I'd like to state a few facts I've noticed while analyzing this profession, and follow it up with a few questions.

1. I notice that any sort of bust for both a hobbyist or a provider is contingent upon money changing hands.

2. I notice that you predominantly seem to work in cash, debt and credit being silly for such things.

3. A type of currency exists called the bit coin that allows for largely anonymous transfers via the internet. Other forms of crypto-currency are also feasible.

4. Banking of this nature can be done overseas.

5. Overseas banks don't necessarily cooperate with LEO.

6. Providers and hobbyists seem to tangle most often with local LEO.

7. Local LEO has virtually no leverage with overseas banks unlikely to give over customer info even in the event that certain exchanges were tracked.

8. An anonymous exchange of money would protect both providers and hobbyists because even if LEO were on the other end they couldn't prove anything.

9. Federal authorities are unlikely to invest resources in relatively small time busts for minor offenses.

10. The best way to regulate exchanges through certain internet mediums is through a community medium in which services are rated by members and reputations are staked.

That was a set of completely random facts that have nothing to do with one another. Equally unrelatedly, a couple of questions:

Have you ladies ever considered a more sophisticated business model? Have you ever considered unionizing?

[guest043013-2]

Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

No one has to be "approved" to simply be on the site. Only when a lady requests Verified Provider status does the approval process come into play...

I think a lot of people thinking that registering on this sight automatically makes someone safe to play with.

I would even be wary of a provider with verified status but minimal reviews, reviews by unknown guys, etc. We all have to be responsible for our own safety.

[acp5762]

Originally Posted by mikkifine

LE looks at escorts like the are horrible criminals. Most of the ladies have to be as discreet as possible.

LE would rather arrest an escort establishment than go after murderers and rapists.

I would rather not take credit cards. Cash is king.

If LE would rather go after Escorts rather than Murderers and Rapist, by now you would have a Rap Sheet a mile long. The only thing you stated in your post that truly made any sense was that you would rather accept cash than credit cards.

[mikkifine]

You are the one that sounds ignorant.

Originally Posted by acp5762

If LE would rather go after Escorts rather than Murderers and Rapist, by now you would have a Rap Sheet a mile long. The only thing you stated in your post that truly made any sense was that you would rather accept cash than credit cards.