If an escort goes from, say, New York City to Seattle to work with an agency there as a "visiting escort", isn't that a violation of the Travel Act and Mann Act? I would think that crossing state lines to work for an agency that advertises you as a provider would qualify for interstate trafficing. Wrong????
Seems a big risk to take, but I don't blame these ladies for traveling OUT of Florida right now.
Sensual Sindy visiting Minneapolis 8/5 - 8/8 --- eliteconnexxxion®
Chloe visiting Minneapolis 7/22 Mon - 7/25 Thur --- eliteconnexxxion
Any interest in the girls of BDJ to your city? --- SHAUNA® (
Cute litte Demi Ismore in Minneapolis Thurs 7/25-Sun 7/28 --- MiamiCompanions®
-- Modified on 7/22/2002 9:43:05 PM
Yep that'll do it. could be a rico violation too
Sixteen days later you get a full and correct answer to this very important and worthwhile question Ms Lady Boss. I get the feeling that the other barristers out there have either hidden under safe coverings or contracted digital laryngitis post June 18.
Hey, I'm dead, or suspected of being dead, and in a distant non-treaty country, and a leper, so Mr Ashcroft is not likely to bother me. I'm in Malaysia, or Nevis, or on Guernsey Island, or yodeling in the Swiss alps, where Baptists are not allowed, although I am one. Besides, US priorities do not justify investigating non-coercive prepaid fornificatory activity or bbjteokus, not when we have to make the world safe from idiots on camels and donkeys.
We are talking about adult companions traveling about trying to support their moms and kids.
He who facilitates or attempts transportation across state lines for purposes that violate the prostitution laws of the place being visited is surely at risk of prosecution for violations of the Mann Act. Search Mann Act in the US Code and Annotations, and on Google and learn all about it. It's that simple. Crossing state lines for prostitution is a federal felony, but largely unenforced. The US has more important priorities, I hope.
Most prosecutions now involve minors or coercion, such as trafficking in oriental girls, but don't f**kin count on it tomorrow.
He who uses credit cards and ATMs in an organized escort scheme that includes a bbj here or there may be guilty of violating the Travel Act. You don't even have to cross state lines because your e-mails do that as do your financial transactions. If you have an ATM for bj cash in your rubdown parlor, then you surely are entitled to a Darwin Award or at least a Doofus Decoration for being a f**kin idiot.
If travel is part of the situation, get a friendly independent travel agency to handle it all. Stay away from the payment and travel details. Don't even think about paying for plane tickets and hotel rooms in distant bbj land. Do not pick up people at airports!
Then there is the whole federal law problem of money laundering, and the further problem of confiscation of all assets, from the sporty Mercedes on up. Not tonight.
1. Escort travels across state line to work for agency for incall or outcall.
What federal felonies has escort possibly committed? Travel Act? Mann Act?
What federal felonies has agency committed?
2. Independant Escort travels across state lines on tour.
What federal felonies has esocrt possibly committed?
The incall/outcall agency/indy distinctions make very little difference under Mann or Travel Act, or under the state laws.
I suggest you study the details of the federal decisions on the Acts in question, since so much more information is required in order to provide an accurate answer.
These are judge and jury questions too, nothing that Jesus or Schlong could answer in a definitive way. LOL
It is also still an open question whether an escort can be charged as an accomplice, accessory, or is a mere victim, in these changing times.
We've seen from the TBD case, however, that the escort is easy to locate, interrogate, and to be converted into a witness against both the agencies and the men in question.
In the 7th grade spelling bees I also misspelled "independent" as independant, so do not feel alone out there.
I hope this answer is as inadequate as it was designed to be.
A federal prosecutor might figure out how to prosecute everybody for everything, but then we need to prepare to be able to argue jury nullification in a subtle nuanced way if necessary.
know that you know very little, to nothing, about this.
As the man said, go look up the Mann Act and Travel Act. You can find alot on the net that will inform you what is legal and what is not legal. Don't let your misspelling a word make you defensive (we all do it in our haste). Just punch in Mann Act in your computer and READ! I did, and it was easy.
initially that you are not familiar with the text, relevance, or enforcement of the Mann Act, Travel Act, RICO, Money Laundering Act, Wire Fraud laws, or conspiracy linkages to those acts; and
second that you want a simple answer to questions that would take a small book to explain. Go see a competent federal lawyer if you seriously want answers, or look up the statutes and annotations in the US Code, title 18. You sound like a small town midwestern cop or holy roller preacher with a question like that, but then we all know you are a Florida police officer.
I was kidding you about the misspelling because we all do that in e-mail. I misspell four words a day, usually different ones.
Your insult was truly uncalled for, or maybe you were just baiting because you think I'm an uppity olde Canadian dude who has no respect for August heat and humidity. Actually I am posting this from Outer Mongolia. I am not really sure where Florida really is.
Like a gentleman and scholar, I will not insult you back, or correct the mangled sentence you elected to use in reply. Instead of "know that you know very little, to nothing, about this;" try "know that you know next to nothing, about this."
And, look in the mirror when you say that!
And wipe that donut dust off your smirk! LOL.
-- Modified on 8/7/2002 5:28:38 PM
and a little pompous and condescending to boot, or why waste time nitpicking on typos, english syntax, and insults about LE. I made the comments I did, because your intitial response was so vacous and lacking in informational content. (BTW whats with the multiple handles?) Written like someone who didn't really know anything about the law, but maybe you're just too lazy to attempt an answer, in which case why did you bother to post at all. Lawyers and law clerks provide answers to these types of hypothetical legal questions everyday. Perhaps I was being too ambitious asking the question here, but I thought no harm in asking.
Moreover, what informational content you did provide appeared to my eyes wrong. For example you stated that the indy/agency distinction made no difference re the Mann Act. But the Mann Act penalizes one who knowingly "transports any individual" for purposes of prostitution. I would take that to mean that an agency violates this provision, but the escort does not since one does not transport oneself. I've read a few Mann Act cases and all involved a third party doing the transporting. But I could be wrong in my interpretation, SO THATS WHY I ASKED!
Similarly the Travel Act speaks of whoever "travels in [interstate commerce] or .. uses any facility {of interstate commerce} to carry on ...any business enterprise involving . . . prostitution". Does this apply to the agency or just the escort? And does the word "enterprise" require more than a single act of prostitution, as it does under RICO? I don't know the answers to these questions, but may be Shlong does.
And I thought that whether you were an indy escort touring on your own, or going to work with an agency, might make a difference for purposes of RICO or conspiracy so I distinguised those two factual situations in my questions.
Shlong mentioned some federal laws that he thought might be violated by touring. I tried to make the fact pattern more precise, in the hope that he or someone else could make the answer more precise. Care to contribute?
My LE relatives actually collect donut jokes, and are argumentative in their exhortations for or agin dunkin and Krispy Kreme. It's the officers who waste small fortunes on minor crimes who annoy most of us. We and they also get a big laugh from varying e-names for humor, if you know anything about laughter. You are obviously a functionary trolling and baiting, prone to insult persons who forgot more law this month than you learned at the police academy. The grammar and syntax of a message easily identify whether a poster is a police officer or a pompous Harvard law professor, and I am neither.
I'm just a collie dog who can type, but tries not to look daff.
The answers to your questions would be easy, if the questions and rationale behind them were more clearly articulated. That is not the problem. Go read the cases. Much is settled law. Much is not. Who are you and why do you want to know? What is your badge number and assignment?
The Mann Act originally treated the traveling women as victims.
Today some of the entrepreneurial ladies do transport themselves and their friends, and are transported or assisted by others, whether an agency is involved or not. Understand? Appellate courts decide and fill in such open questions, but I suspect you are some distance from the federal appellate process since you hate them darn big-ass words and equate literacy with pomposity. Well, you don't have Strom Thurmond to vote for any more mr_crawford.
The Travel Act also is what the courts say it is. That may not be your narrow interpretation. An individual sometimes can become part of an enterprise, and often uses instrumentalities of interstate commerce. What is so complicated about that? I know; they do not go so deep at the policy academy.
No, I do not want to contribute to your inquiry because it is silly or misguided and not relevant to anything positive.
Go back to Krispy Kreme and solve some of the homicides, robberies, and sheep molestations in your community.
This is a forum for entertainment, not the Yale Law Journal.
You are right. I know nothing about law. I am a simple collie dog, looking for a fire hydrant upon which to pee.
You'll find nothing here to abet your senseless investigations, so go back and get your GED and do some serious crime solving where you will be appreciated instead of ridiculed.
-- Modified on 8/10/2002 8:51:24 AM
I said you knew "little to nothing" about this. You've proven that its the latter. YOu know NOTHING about this. What's worse you don't have the decency to say "I don't know".
Sigh. Just another fake lawyer blowing hot air.
I pose the SIMPLEST question. Does an escort violate the Mann Act (which prohibits "transport" of an individual) by traveling across state lines to meet a client? This is in fact essentially the same question raised by LadyBoss in the original post.
I suggest the answer is NO she does not, because "transport" means the transport of a third person, not oneself. I have found no cases on point, so that's why I ask.
Your answer?
"The answers to your questions would be easy, if the questions and rationale behind them were more clearly articulated. That is not the problem. Go read the cases. Much is settled law. Much is not ....
The Mann Act originally treated the traveling women as victims.
Today *some* of the entrepreneurial ladies do transport themselves and their friends, and are transported or assisted by others, whether an agency is involved or not. Understand? Appellate courts decide and fill in such open questions..."
What the hell does that mean? Are you trying to say the question is decided or not? Are you trying to say that if she buys her own airline ticket she does, but if someone else buys it she doesn't? Or are you trying to say that if she takes a bus she does, but if she roller skates she doesn't. REAL lawyers can write with a hella better precision than that. You say "Appellate courts decite and fill in such open questions". DUH EINSTEIN! Where else do you find the law, the back of some ashtray? Of course you have to read the cases. the question is what do the cases SAY about the meaning of "transport". I was hoping Shlong had the answer.
So is there a case, appellate or otherwise, that says that an escort who travels across state lines meets the "transport" requirement? YOU DON'T HAVE THE FAINTEST FRIGGIN IDEA DO YOU! Why don't you just say so. That's what I did, I said I didn't know of any such case. Or maybe you really do know of such a case. If so why don't you cite it so I can read it.
I will pass over your vague and meaningless comments on the Travel Act.
You seem better suited to English criticism, correcting students spelling mistakes and stuff like that. You could even tell them what occupation to pursue based on their *writing style*. HaHaHa. Of course they would find you insufferably pompous. LOL!
BTW I have been posting on TER Seattle BD for awhile. The new Seattle Mod knows me well. And I've been posting on TBD Seattle and Vancouver for several years. You could check it out, but I bet you're too lazy. LOL!
I explained Mr C that I am a mere collie dog, a bleu merle, a cousin of Lassie, intrigued by all of this jurisprudencizeration that you are bringing up. The nuances of Mann/Travel Act charges and interpretations make little difference to those of us four leggers who seek out small trees upon which to whiz, and to mark our imaginary geographical territories in the vast universe.
I only went to dog training school for a few days of mindless indoctrination by simplistic two-legged humanoids. I was not offered a J.D. or Police Academy degree. They said I was overqualified, and that I liked to pee in public too often.
Transparently, however, your mr_crawford aka krispykremeaddict persona, wants to use the state and federal laws against visiting vixens to Seattle, or wherever you are.
Do us all a favor. Only harass the bad performers, the poorly reviewed, the ROBS, the ripoffs. Get Nicole of Vancouver who lies to immigration, and sleeps during daty. Get Tiffany the carwash, anyone who charges over $400, and especially the new Julienne formerly known as silicone Chantelle of SeattleImpressions.net who looks upon men as ATMs with dicks who can give her money for more tattoos.
Let your hair grow and eat some pussy, a lot of very fine juicy pussy, just as Jesus often did. You will then better be able to look yourself in the mirror in the mornings.
Go see a Lassie movie. You've been whacking off far too frequently mr_crawford. Confess to your FBI boss.
Stop whacking off. It harms your analytical abilitities, such as they are.
-- Modified on 8/14/2002 5:08:12 PM