How do you deal with a bully? Kick 'em in the balls.

[honorable1]

Of course no one is accusing you of condoning violent acts LAP. My concern is that LE in Austin, which is now treating the hobby as a harmless enterprise, may "turn on" if they reach the conclusion that it's being infiltrated on this board by violent criminals who exploit the girls. For example, they recently made great press by targeting two agency owners because they were using an under-age girl who happened to also be an illegal alien. These particular circumstances caused them to go into action where as they otherwise would not. Federal statutes apply under those circumstances.

Please do not conflate the breaking of any criminal statute with "criminal behavoir." LE doesn't consider the criminal code that way, and neither should any of us, particularly as it regards the hobby. Many honest people in LE are hobbiests. That includes attornies, Judges, and even prosecutors. As long as no laws are broken [no solicitation happens] no one gets hurt, and the public tolerates in at election time, then it's not something LE principals regard as malicious, or even criminal, anymore than they would view driving without a seatbelt as such.

As far as the pandering law in Texas, the definition of "prostitution" under that statute means the solicitation of an act of prostitution by two or more girls in the operated enterprise. Solicitation must occur, and it must be proven that the agency owner directed the girls to do so. The pandering statute in Texas is so restrictive that it's very easy to defeat. For example, the notorious Sam Flores in San Antonio, formerly the owner of Executive Playmates, has never been indicted because there is no evidence that any of the six girls arrested for solicitation while working for him were directed by him to solicit sex for money. In fact, he possesses paper declarations from each of them to the contrary. His defense is air-tight, particularly since he never enjoyed services with them, which would otherwise be construed as direction by him as what to do at an appointment.
Any agency owner who does have sex with his girls is almost certainly opening themselves up to criminal prosecution.

As for the view that eveytime you go out to an appointment that you consider yourself as breaking the law, I think you should not have that view. And if a police officer arrests you for merely showing up, and no solicitation happens, then it is an illegal arrest, and you have civil rights remedies available to you if you wish to pursue them. For that matter Texas law permits you to resist an illegal arrest, even using force, although I highly recommend that you not avail yourself of that particular right.

LAP I respect you very much. We just happen to disagree on these issues.

I know I can be opinionated, but I try to back up my opinions with facts, and I apologize if I strayed into being rancorous. That's the honorable way.

[Carl]

Under the Texas Penal Code, Section 43.02, subsection one: "A person commits an offense if he knowingly: (1) offers to engage, agrees to engage, or engages in sexual conduct for a fee ..."

If you read closely, the "or" at the end of the subsection indicates that engaging in sexual conduct for a fee, even independent of any offers or expressed agreements or solicitations, is still defined as an act of prostitution, per se. So, even if both parties said nothing, but one left money on the table had sex and afterward the other person took the money, then an act of prostitution would have technically occurred under statute. Solicitation is covered in subsection two. A complete text of the Prostitution statute can be found at the link below:

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/43.02.00.html

[78704]

Thanks, Carl; interesting reading.

§ 43.02. PROSTITUTION. (a) A person commits an offense
if he knowingly:
(1) offers to engage, agrees to engage, or engages in
sexual conduct for a fee; or
(2) solicits another in a public place to engage with
him in sexual conduct for hire.
(b) An offense is established under Subsection (a)(1)
whether the actor is to receive or pay a fee. An offense is
established under Subsection (a)(2) whether the actor solicits a
person to hire him or offers to hire the person solicited.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor,
unless the actor has previously been convicted one or two times of
an offense under this section, in which event it is a Class A
misdemeanor. If the actor has previously been convicted three or
more times of an offense under this section, the offense is a state
jail felony.

[guest040711-1]

As this drama continues we are still missing any proof. Anyone with proof is welcome to email such to sphunter@eccie.net or owner@eccie.net.

Repeating a rumor or a lie does not make it true, I have first hand experience at the rumor mill.

[honorable1]

It's commendable that the statute has been produced here. However it is being grossly misinterpreted if it is thought to mean that prostitution has occured per se if the girl and her customer have sex after he hands her the money, or places it somewhere, etc.

The meaning of the words in the statute are defined by case law. In case law it must be established that the sexual conduct occured because of the compensation and not for any other reason, such as a choice by the girl to do so collateral to the compensation.

The criminal burdeon of proof is such that as long as an explaination exists for the sexual conduct which might be other than the compensation, then no offense under the statute can be said to have occured.

According to case law the money must be linked to the sexual conduct by an understanding or agreement between the parties which constitute a solicitation, either at the time of their meeting, or in an advertisement, or other communications between the parties.

It is because of this requirement for strict proof that the compensation be linked to the sexual acts that potential defendants like Sam Flores in San Antonio go un-indicted. Sam Flores was a drug dealer and career criminal who was accustomed to consultation with legal counsel. As such he probably taylored his agency activities to conform to the law. In contrast to this are the former owners of Amazing Escorts, previously of Houston and Austin. They were all over the internet acknowledging, even offering, for their girls to perform sexual acts for money. No particular solicitation by the girl need have occured in their case because they had made the offer themselves. I think it's likely that they never consulted counsel before they initiated their agency careers.

As for the challenge to provide proof of the misconduct alleged against Max by others here, some of the conduct cited is evident on the boards, such as insults and profanity directed at others. But the claims of serious criminal activity made by Karma and others should definitely be forwarded to the management of this site. All the members can do however is weigh the credibility of the claimant and the accused here based on their prior actions, and the reason and tenor of their posts. Even in court juries routinely make decisions, even in criminal case, based
soley on the perceived credibility of persons giving contradictory stories.
I think it's reasonable that we do so here as well.

[Guest062010]

Just so you all know, I've done EVERYTHING I can. Nuff said. ~K

[Carl]

Well, honorable1, thanks for the legal advice. It's nice to know then that the disclaimer "for time and companionship only" really is an ironclad guarantee of protection from LE, and that the actual breaking of the letter of a law in private due to the absence of a successful prosecution or diminished enforcement because LEOs, officers of the court and legislators are also engaged in the same activity is proof of innocence. That will certainly cut short many people's weekly time in the confessional.


And your advice will probably save some guys a lot of money and trouble in divorce court when they counter the charges leveled by the estranged spouse's lawyer.

[78704]

Originally Posted by honorable1

It's commendable that the statute has been produced here. However it is being grossly misinterpreted if it is thought to mean that prostitution has occured per se if the girl and her customer have sex after he hands her the money, or places it somewhere, etc.

The meaning of the words in the statute are defined by case law. In case law it must be established that the sexual conduct occured because of the compensation and not for any other reason, such as a choice by the girl to do so collateral to the compensation.

The criminal burdeon of proof is such that as long as an explaination exists for the sexual conduct which might be other than the compensation, then no offense under the statute can be said to have occured.

According to case law the money must be linked to the sexual conduct by an understanding or agreement between the parties which constitute a solicitation, either at the time of their meeting, or in an advertisement, or other communications between the parties.

It is because of this requirement for strict proof that the compensation be linked to the sexual acts that potential defendants like Sam Flores in San Antonio go un-indicted. Sam Flores was a drug dealer and career criminal who was accustomed to consultation with legal counsel. As such he probably taylored his agency activities to conform to the law. In contrast to this are the former owners of Amazing Escorts, previously of Houston and Austin. They were all over the internet acknowledging, even offering, for their girls to perform sexual acts for money. No particular solicitation by the girl need have occured in their case because they had made the offer themselves. I think it's likely that they never consulted counsel before they initiated their agency careers.

What cases specifically are you referring to? Online refs, please.

[RALPHEY BOY]

[Jay Walker]

karmaofaustin


I wanna sleep with you.... again....

[rocker]

Originally Posted by tcreative2

There were no posts put up under the account while it was hacked. If there had been bogus posts made they would have been pulled ........... only the avatar was changed to a fat woman and the password changed. Why would any of you assume it was an excuse?

And Rocker;

you're another example of making an incorrect assumption because your ego got bruised. You had a bad experience with a Wildflowers session. You wrote a revew that reflected your experience and like most of your reviews it was well done and honest. You however have a temper and hold grudes and from that point forward whenever a revew of Wildflowers was posted you'd question the honesty of the reviewer and do what ever damage you could think of. For a number of reasons most of the revews of agency girls are by newbies ......... several of the review writers complained to staff about how rude they'd been treated by you. Keeping the board civil to newbies is one of the jobs of a moderator to assure the board grows. I treated you like a gentleman and asked you to please stop ......... you didn't. Then I told you to stay out of Wildflowers reveiws. It's your right to come to any conclusion you want to about why you got told to stop ......... but you've come to a bad conclusion.

Is that the sound of somebody calling me out?
OK, TC lets get a few things straight.

1. My rants about Max have nothing to do with a bad session,
I have had plenty of bad sessions in this hobby, and move on.

2. I do not have an ego......but I wont put up with anybodies
......shit.....
3. I am the most mild mannered person there is. I....dont have a
temper, the day I let...someone....like Max get to me I will....
leave this hobby. I dont own a gun...and I'm not...physco....

4.Now its starting to geet deep. "several of the review writers complained to staff about how rude they'd been treated by you''.
I...unlike other's here...have never been rude to anbody here except
Max, oh yea he did write a couple of reviews on his....ladies prior
to...getting..provider....stat us. I guess that's...what your talking...
about....

5.You treated me like a gentleman? You asked me to leave Max
alone so he would stop whining to you and ck...Max and I were
taking our battle offline, I kept...it..offline..as long as I could..

6. How is it that you can tell someone not to post in other's
reviews? You cant make this shit up...lol..

7. Why dont you pony up and just...come..out and admit
that..you and some..of the...other..mods have some vested
intrest in...WF..and Max...

8.Look around, there are some smart people on this board,
and they know what's going on here with Max and others.
When's the last time anybody said anything postive about
Max?

9. Someone hacked in to MY ECCIE account and posted
that Max had friends in high places here....it wasnt me...lol

You cant make this shit up.

Adios,

Hey I like...writing..with..periods. ..its.f.u.n.
Rocker

[Guest092810]

(2) solicits another in a public place to engage with
him in sexual conduct for hire.

Hence, my handle...

guess I'm busted.

[Rand Al'Thor]

Originally Posted by cockforhire

(2) solicits another in a public place to engage with
him in sexual conduct for hire.

Hence, my handle...

guess I'm busted.

I haven't seen you on Rundberg with a name tag that said cockforhire, so I think you're ok.

[Guest092810]

Originally Posted by Rand Al'Thor

I haven't seen you on Rundberg with a name tag that said cockforhire, so I think you're ok.

I'm subtle...