Posted October 24, 2013 After examining Louisiana prostitution laws and found it requires a threesome, I still cannot get over the fact of many escorts and Johns being arrested in escort sting operation around the New Orleans area. The “s” at the end of others makes a difference how the law communicates. Louisiana is not the only state that has loopholes but almost every state I examine has prostitution loopholes. Statutes have been misapplied when arresting Johns or escorts for prostitution in many states!! Louisiana Requires threesome!! “Prostitution; definition; penalties; enhancement A. Prostitution is: (1) The practice by a person of indiscriminate sexual intercourse with others for compensation.” -Louisiana Revised Statutes RS 14:82 “Other, adj. Additional; different or distinct from that already mentioned (the other factor).” - West’s Legal Thesaurus/Dictionary by William Statsky If the word other was used, it means the second person distinct from the first. The word “others” in the statutes means more than one. This means the person has to have sexual intercourse with at least two people. The word “with” means accompany by. So the statutes read a person must engage in indiscriminate sex with two or more people for compensation. NY Prostitution Law requires two girls or pimp special!!! “§ 230.00 Prostitution. A person is guilty of prostitution when such person engages or agrees or offers to engage in sexual conduct with another person in return for a fee.” -NY Penal Code 3: M§ 230.00 “§ 230.02 Patronizing a prostitute; definitions. 1. A person patronizes a prostitute when: (a) Pursuant to a prior understanding, he pays a fee to another person as compensation for such person or a third person having engaged in sexual conduct with him; or” - NY Penal Code 3: M § 230.02 “another. adj. Additional. A second, extra, one more, supplemental, distinct, different, separate, variant.“ – pg. 52 West’s Legal Thesaurus/Dictionary by William Statsky Look “Engaged” is past tense. Rhode Island requires pay afterwards!!! There was a loophole in Rhode Island’s prostitution law. Indoor prostitution was legal until about 2008.. The anti-sex trafficking groups cry out about the loophole and the Rhode Island Legislators pass the prostitution statutes with new loopholes. “Prostitution. – (a) A person is guilty of prostitution when such person engages or agrees or offers to engage in sexual conduct with another person in return for a fee.” – Rhode Island Statutes SECTION 11-34.1-2 “ (2) "Commercial sexual activity" means any sexual conduct which is performed or promised in return for a fee.” – Rhode Island Statutes SECTION 11-34.1-1 “Return. To bring, carry, or send back; to place in the custody of; to restore; to re-deliver. “Return: means that something which has had a prior existence will be brought or sent back. Sims v Western Steel Co., C.A. Utah, 551 F.2d 811, 820”- Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition “Performed” and “promised” are in pass tense. Paying before the sex doesn't qualify as commercial sexual activities in the context of the statutes. Disclaimer: Not legal Advice. Something to think about!! 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 24, 2013 You should also note that if you do get a fine in LA for prostitution, you are listed on the sex offender registry. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 24, 2013 You should also note that if you do get a fine in LA for prostitution, you are listed on the sex offender registry. Damn! I didn't know that. Lots of crazy religious people in that part of the country. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 24, 2013 Your interpretation is bad and you should feel bad... Please don't make me point out your severe lack of understanding of law as well as, what to some of us is, very basic English. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 24, 2013 What is your understanding of the prostitution law? Tell me if legal grammar is different than English grammar. Tell me where I am wrong. I already state that it is NOT legal advice. Your interpretation is bad and you should feel bad... Please don't make me point out your severe lack of understanding of law as well as, what to some of us is, very basic English. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 24, 2013 What is your understanding of the prostitution law? Tell me if legal grammar is different than English grammar. Tell me where I am wrong. I already state that it is NOT legal advice. <sigh> urfan: Duck! Well, you did ask for it… First, no, legal grammar does not differ from English grammar. There may be definitions of words and/or phrases that differ, but not grammar. That being said, we can leave the legal portion of the argument out completely and just discuss the grammar. In your first example you take what is essentially this sentence: Prostitution is [t]he practice by a person of indiscriminate sexual intercourse with others for compensation. and you attempt to enforce that the word “others” MUST only refer to a plural of “other”. This is incorrect. Rather, in this sentence structure, the plural “others” is treated as singular as referring to a group or category. Similarly you might say “I like to read books”. Does that mean that you only read multiple books at the same time? An alternative might be: “… sexual intercourse with people …” Note that says “people” and not “person”. That does not mean that they MUST have sexual intercourse with multiple individuals. It is merely proper sentence structure. In other words, “… sexual intercourse with other …” is not proper grammar. Therefore the sentence holds up as written both grammatically and legally as meaning one or more people either individually or together. In your second example you take what is essentially this sentence: A person patronizes a prostitute when[, p]ursuant to a prior understanding, he pays a fee to another person as compensation for such person or a third person having engaged in sexual conduct with him. and you infer that because it says “another” it means that a third party must be involved. Again this is incorrect. You correctly indicate a definition of “another”, but incorrectly interpret that to mean that the “second”, “extra”, etc. refers to someone other than the “person” or the “prostitute”. In the indicated sentence the “prostitute” is not introduced as an object to be modified by later descriptions or actions. Rather the “person” is the primary subject and is attributed an action later by “pays a fee”, for example. The “prostitute” is an object in the phrase “patronizes a prostitute” which is a subordinate clause in the sentence. Therefore the “he pays” refers back to the “person” and “another person” introduces a direct object into the sentence. Otherwise this would be like saying that A person throws a ball when he throws it into the air is a proper sentence. Well, OK, maybe a proper sentence technically, but it does not correctly introduce what “it” is. The proper construction would be A person throws a ball when he holds a ball and releases it into the air. The ball must be specified the second time in order to properly introduce it as an object. So think of your sentence this way: A person “patronizes a prostitute” when[, p]ursuant to a prior understanding, he pays a fee to another person as compensation for such person or a third person having engaged in sexual conduct with him. Or: When a person, pursuant to a prior understanding, pays a fee to another person as compensation for such person or a third person having engaged in sexual conduct with him, he has patronized a prostitute. In your third example you take this sentence: "Commercial sexual activity" means any sexual conduct which is performed or promised in return for a fee. and you attempt to interpret it as meaning that it only refers only to actions that have already taken place. First, it is “past tense”. smh The mistake is that “performed” and “promised” are not past tense verbs in this sentence. Rather they are progressive tense, specifically present progressive, verbs that indicate ongoing action and not past action. So if you were dying of thirst and I handed you a glass of water and said: This water is meant to be drank. It would not mean that the water was already gone. You DID ask. =) 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 24, 2013 <sigh> urfan: Duck! Well, you did ask for it… First, no, legal grammar does not differ from English grammar. There may be definitions of words and/or phrases that differ, but not grammar. That being said, we can leave the legal portion of the argument out completely and just discuss the grammar. So if you were dying of thirst and I handed you a glass of water and said: This water is meant to be drank. It would not mean that the water was already gone. You DID ask. =) Basically the best loophole still is; ---> to shut up, say nothing & ask to see a Lawyer... 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 25, 2013 Nooses have loop holes in them too. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 25, 2013 Don't quit your day job: you ain't gonna make it as a lawyer or a humorist. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 25, 2013 “Return. To bring, carry, or send back; to place in the custody of; to restore; to re-deliver. “Return: means that something which has had a prior existence will be brought or sent back. Sims v Western Steel Co., C.A. Utah, 551 F.2d 811, 820”- Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition "Practice. Repeated or customary action; habitual performance; a succession of actions of similar kind, custom; usage." -Black's Law Dictionary 6th edition If you cannot use the loopholes in state law, then the second resources is court cases. Just don't seek escort services but go with a sugar daddy-sugar baby relationship. It is not illegal in sugar daddy and sugar baby relationship. Look at the court cases. Commonwealth v. Stephanie Ann Danko, 421 A.2d 1165, 281 Pa.Super. 97 (1980) Bergen v. Wood, 14 Cal.App.4th 854 (1993) UNITED STATES of America v. Lynnette HARRIS and Leigh Ann Conley 942 F.2d 1125 Commonwealth v Finkelstein Non-Precedential Decision No. 1876 EDA 2010 <sigh> urfan: Duck! Well, you did ask for it… First, no, legal grammar does not differ from English grammar. There may be definitions of words and/or phrases that differ, but not grammar. That being said, we can leave the legal portion of the argument out completely and just discuss the grammar. In your first example you take what is essentially this sentence: Prostitution is [t]he practice by a person of indiscriminate sexual intercourse with others for compensation. and you attempt to enforce that the word “others” MUST only refer to a plural of “other”. This is incorrect. Rather, in this sentence structure, the plural “others” is treated as singular as referring to a group or category. Similarly you might say “I like to read books”. Does that mean that you only read multiple books at the same time? An alternative might be: “… sexual intercourse with people …” Note that says “people” and not “person”. That does not mean that they MUST have sexual intercourse with multiple individuals. It is merely proper sentence structure. In other words, “… sexual intercourse with other …” is not proper grammar. Therefore the sentence holds up as written both grammatically and legally as meaning one or more people either individually or together. In your second example you take what is essentially this sentence: A person patronizes a prostitute when[, p]ursuant to a prior understanding, he pays a fee to another person as compensation for such person or a third person having engaged in sexual conduct with him. and you infer that because it says “another” it means that a third party must be involved. Again this is incorrect. You correctly indicate a definition of “another”, but incorrectly interpret that to mean that the “second”, “extra”, etc. refers to someone other than the “person” or the “prostitute”. In the indicated sentence the “prostitute” is not introduced as an object to be modified by later descriptions or actions. Rather the “person” is the primary subject and is attributed an action later by “pays a fee”, for example. The “prostitute” is an object in the phrase “patronizes a prostitute” which is a subordinate clause in the sentence. Therefore the “he pays” refers back to the “person” and “another person” introduces a direct object into the sentence. Otherwise this would be like saying that A person throws a ball when he throws it into the air is a proper sentence. Well, OK, maybe a proper sentence technically, but it does not correctly introduce what “it” is. The proper construction would be A person throws a ball when he holds a ball and releases it into the air. The ball must be specified the second time in order to properly introduce it as an object. So think of your sentence this way: A person “patronizes a prostitute” when[, p]ursuant to a prior understanding, he pays a fee to another person as compensation for such person or a third person having engaged in sexual conduct with him. Or: When a person, pursuant to a prior understanding, pays a fee to another person as compensation for such person or a third person having engaged in sexual conduct with him, he has patronized a prostitute. In your third example you take this sentence: "Commercial sexual activity" means any sexual conduct which is performed or promised in return for a fee. and you attempt to interpret it as meaning that it only refers only to actions that have already taken place. First, it is “past tense”. smh The mistake is that “performed” and “promised” are not past tense verbs in this sentence. Rather they are progressive tense, specifically present progressive, verbs that indicate ongoing action and not past action. So if you were dying of thirst and I handed you a glass of water and said: This water is meant to be drank. It would not mean that the water was already gone. You DID ask. =) 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 25, 2013 All I am saying is that not all sex for money transaction is illegal. Yes, there is a grey area having sex with escort for pay. The loopholes sometimes don't work because these laws are colorable. Under the civil rights act, all state laws are declared colorable and the judges can color the way they like. With sugar babies and sugar daddy relationship, there are more solid case law to get out of the problem. Loopholes in state law are not solid and the judges can color it the way they like. I have a website that explains these case laws. http://sugarcitizens.net/ 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 25, 2013 Right off the bat, you are trying to parse "others" to mean a threesome. That's not a reasonable conclusion. It's illegal and this hobby has its risks. That's a fact. During my first posts here on TOB, the board members rained down on my legality concerns and told me that I should perhaps consider collecting stamps if this hobby was deemed too risky. I am proud to say that I have a first issue 1973 hot air balloon series stamp that I can resell for $12.50. Much safer endeavor, but I digress. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 25, 2013 The loopholes will work if you hire the right attorney. These loopholes exist to protect the members of the good old boys network incase they step inside a prostitution sting operations. These loopholes are not for the common every day man. If you have the money and you pay the right attorney the right price, they can find a technicality or loophole to get you off. I know of attorneys that make more "out of bat" arguments in court than what I make. The judge accepts these "out of bat" arguments because it is inline with the legal system game. I have seen court papers where attorneys make tons of mistake. They have a license to make mistake but you don't. A shocker was the female judge ask the male attorney after the jury left to go out to dinner with him. He was defending a client in a criminal case. That is conflict of interest. A judge and an attorney is not allow to socialize with each other when there is an open case. They can socialize after the case is closed. So a judge may buy my "wacko" legal theories only if it is presented by a right attorney. I have seen judges buy more wacko legal theories than mine because it is inline with the legal system game. The sovereign citizens are not playing within the legal system game. That is the reason why their wacko arguments are not accepted. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 25, 2013 If you cannot use the loopholes in state law, then the second resources is court cases. Just don't seek escort services but go with a sugar daddy-sugar baby relationship. It is not illegal in sugar daddy and sugar baby relationship. Look at the court cases. Oh boy... First your case law does not pertain to anything you think it does. Second you barely grasp compound sentence structure and you want to argue case law with me? Maybe we should discuss SpongeBob or something more your speed. Here in the great state of Colorado: 18-7-201: Prostitution prohibited (1) Any person who performs or offers or agrees to perform any act of sexual intercourse, fellatio, cunnilingus, masturbation, or anal intercourse with any person not his spouse in exchange for money or other thing of value commits prostitution. (2) (a) "Fellatio", as used in this section, means any act of oral stimulation of the penis. ( "Cunnilingus", as used in this section, means any act of oral stimulation of the vulva or clitoris. © "Masturbation", as used in this section, means stimulation of the genital organs by manual or other bodily contact exclusive of sexual intercourse. (d) "Anal intercourse", as used in this section, means contact between human beings of the genital organs of one and the anus of another. (3) Prostitution is a class 3 misdemeanor. 18-7-202: Soliciting for prostitution (1) A person commits soliciting for prostitution if he: (a) Solicits another for the purpose of prostitution; or ( Arranges or offers to arrange a meeting of persons for the purpose of prostitution; or © Directs another to a place knowing such direction is for the purpose of prostitution. (2) Soliciting for prostitution is a class 3 misdemeanor. Please feel free to parse that using your "English-to-Dumbonics" translator, purposely get yourself caught and then use one of your defenses. I guarantee that the judge will not even waste the time trying to educate you that I have before he declares you guilty. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 26, 2013 ...with any person not his spouse in exchange for money or other thing of value commits prostitution. Aha! It says "his", ergo, a FEMALE provider cannot commit prostitution. Looks like Nevada ain't the only state it's legal. Done and done. For my keen legal insight, ladies, we can swap services. You can thank me then. -Perry "Mr Vegas" Mason 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 26, 2013 Oh, hell, don't give "him" any ideas.... 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 26, 2013 Your best bet is never to agree to anything when asked, as they have to get you acknowledging you will perform a sexual service for money, so dont do it...If they ask if you will do anything sexual, respond "Thats illegal, I refuse to break the law for you or anyone else" as you head for the door...They might be able to charge you with something like 'escorting without a license' or something even more ridiculous but it is far better than being labeled by them, I am certain you all would agree...By the way, it would seem rather hard to enforce a law or obtain a conviction on a licensing violation when there has never been a single escort license issued since this law was passed...It would seem a good attorney could get that case dismissed under the pretense in order for a license to be required, it would mandate they actually issue a license for that...So if they do not issue a license for such, then it makes it impossible to have a license...I could be wrong but it seems to be a good challenge and could prove to be more than they want to deal with for such a minor offense, so they would probably just dismiss.... Just saying it seems logical to me but like I saidwhat do I know.... Have a great day.... Barbi 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 27, 2013 Are you that poster named frontman667 that got banned from eccie? You both sure have very similar posting styles. I hope you don't plan to spam this board with your nonsense. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 28, 2013 Are you that poster named frontman667 that got banned from eccie? You both sure have very similar posting styles. I hope you don't plan to spam this board with your nonsense. Kinda makes ya wonder; (loopholes) http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=1054303289&postcount=6http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=1054289740&postcount=7 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted November 11, 2013 Kinda makes ya wonder; (loopholes) http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=1054303289&postcount=6http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=1054289740&postcount=7 I am very convinced it is him. His thread about JFK being killed over some book was really funny. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted November 11, 2013 I am very convinced it is him. His thread about JFK being killed over some book was really funny. Atta boy -- way to resurrect a dead and unwanted thread. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
