A Legal Question

johnhenrygalt · May 27, 2005

Suppose I frequent an incall service which is clearly a "common bawdy house" in violation of the criminal code. I am fully aware of, and accept, the risks associated with being "found in" said common bawdy house in the event of a raid.

However, suppose that following my hypothetical visit to said common bawdy house, I feel inclined to post a review on the internet.

Now suppose that the law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction feels inclinded to investigate said common bawdy house. Suppose they read my hypothetical review. Suppose they obtain my ISP and are able to identify me as the author of said review. Suppose they then contact me, present me with evidence of my review and suggest that charges may be pressed if I do not cooperate as a witness against the common bawdy house owner.

Am I putting myself at risk by posting a review on incall services? Am I being overly paranoid?

ham2004 · May 27, 2005

Are the only one who uses your computer?

johnhenrygalt said:
Suppose I frequent an incall service which is clearly a "common bawdy house" in violation of the criminal code. I am fully aware of, and accept, the risks associated with being "found in" said common bawdy house in the event of a raid.

However, suppose that following my hypothetical visit to said common bawdy house, I feel inclined to post a review on the internet.

Now suppose that the law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction feels inclinded to investigate said common bawdy house. Suppose they read my hypothetical review. Suppose they obtain my ISP and are able to identify me as the author of said review. Suppose they then contact me, present me with evidence of my review and suggest that charges may be pressed if I do not cooperate as a witness against the common bawdy house owner.

Am I putting myself at risk by posting a review on incall services? Am I being overly paranoid?

Highly unlikely they would bother on a simple ticketable offence

johnhenrygalt · May 27, 2005

Winston said:
Go ask a lawyer.

I did. I asked myself

. And guess what, I didn't know!!

In terms of black letter law, writing an incall review is akin to an admission of guilt and could be used as evidence. But we all know that this is not how the real world works. I just wanted to sound out this board before bouncing this off of one of my colleagues with experience in criminal law.

Truncador · May 27, 2005

Water cooler law society

210.

Landlord, inmate, etc.

(2) Every one who

[...]

(b) is found, without lawful excuse, in a common bawdy-house

Note the text. It says "found", as opposed to "knowingly enters" or something like that. Logically, this implies the offense is getting caught in one while you're there.

*this information is provided solely in order to increase the post count of the author, and is not legal advice*

Truncador · May 27, 2005

Sukdeep said:
Even then, there's only circumstantial evidence that you wrote the review.

Yep. They would probably need someone to testify that they saw him write the review.

Meister · May 27, 2005

johnhenrygalt said:
I did. I asked myself. And guess what, I didn't know!!

In terms of black letter law, writing an incall review is akin to an admission of guilt and could be used as evidence. But we all know that this is not how the real world works. I just wanted to sound out this board before bouncing this off of one of my colleagues with experience in criminal law.

Yep, he is a lawyer. Only a lawyer would go around using words like "akin".

Dave in Phoenix · May 27, 2005

"writing an incall review is akin to an admission of guilt and could be used as evidence."

I assume in Canada you don't have to testify against your self (like taking the 5th Amendment against self incrimination in the U.S.)..again just assuming you have similar in Canada.

As others have said is nothing but hearsay - would seem to have to have proof you wrote the review. ISP, showing its your log in doesn't prove you were at the computer.

A good theory question but in reality I don't it has ever happened or that it ever will.

papasmerf · May 27, 2005

Since someone would have to colaberate your review on its own should be hear say. Now if your name appears on a SP's calender, diary or "little black book" That too will be weighed infavor of the review as legit. Ladies why do some even keep these records??? What good can they do?

dreamer · May 27, 2005

Truncador said:
Note the text. It says "found", as opposed to "knowingly enters" or something like that. Logically, this implies the offense is getting caught in one while you're there.

You are absolutely right

The criminal charge is 210(2)b ie "Found in"

So writing a review here does not imply admission of guilt because you have not broken any laws.

someone · May 27, 2005

papasmerf said:
Since someone would have to colaberate your review on its own should be hear say. Now if your name appears on a SP's calender, diary or "little black book" That too will be weighed infavor of the review as legit. Ladies why do some even keep these records??? What good can they do?

I recently found out that those little black books can be dangerous to customers. Recently a local SP (I'm not in Toronto) got my phone number from call display and had been calling me trying to get me to book another appointment. Tuesday night she phoned me threatening to look for me at work if I did not make her a “loan” (I had been stupid enough to be honest about what I did when she asked me and given by occupation there is only one possible employer in my town). When I refused, she threatened to post notices about where I worked on how I knew her. I called her bluff but in future I am going to make sure I use *69 before phoning SPs I don’t know.

ham2004 · May 28, 2005

classy SP you have there..

someone said:
I recently found out that those little black books can be dangerous to customers. Recently a local SP (I'm not in Toronto) got my phone number from call display and had been calling me trying to get me to book another appointment. Tuesday night she phoned me threatening to look for me at work if I did not make her a “loan” (I had been stupid enough to be honest about what I did when she asked me and given by occupation there is only one possible employer in my town). When I refused, she threatened to post notices about where I worked on how I knew her. I called her bluff but in future I am going to make sure I use *69 before phoning SPs I don’t know.

This girl is one class act if she actually did this. I would think the old rules still apply:

"If you can't do the time, don't do the crime"

johnhenrygalt · May 28, 2005

Thanks for all the input.

mandrill · May 28, 2005

i am a lawyer and this is what I think:

1. You have to be "found in" to be convicted of the offence. Not merely proven after the fact to have visited there.

2. An account of a crime made outside of a courtroom is indeed "hearsay", as are all out of court statements, written or verbal. However, it is also a "confession" and thus, an exception to the hearsay rule and admissible into evidence.......... if the prosecution PROVES that it was you who wrote the account. Impossible to do unless the Crown spends massive amounts of $$$ on computer analysis and surveillance of your living room. So you're fine. And IIRC it's never happened in Canada anyway. Go have a beer.

dreamer · May 28, 2005

oagre said:
2. An account of a crime made outside of a courtroom is indeed "hearsay", as are all out of court statements, written or verbal. However, it is also a "confession" and thus, an exception to the hearsay rule and admissible into evidence.......... if the prosecution PROVES that it was you who wrote the account. Impossible to do unless the Crown spends massive amounts of $$$ on computer analysis and surveillance of your living room. So you're fine. And IIRC it's never happened in Canada anyway. Go have a beer.

His post here about visiting a incall location is not a confession of a crime, since no crime was committed. The "found-in" rule is an interesting one in that it is a crime that you actually have to be caught in the act, not after the fact.

someone · May 28, 2005

ham2004 said:
This girl is one class act if she actually did this. I would think the old rules still apply:

"If you can't do the time, don't do the crime"

I actually did think about going to the police when she told me “what are you going to do, go to the police and tell them you paid for a blow job”. Technically there is nothing illegal in what I did. However besides for the trouble involved I was a bit worried about publicity. The province I’m currently in (Atlantic Canada) is pretty conservative about that type of thing and the local news cast is 1 hour long and given how little local news there is, they often cover stories at length that would never be covered in T.O. Admittedly the embarrassment would be minor but I decided not to do anything anyway.

Search

A Legal Question

johnhenrygalt

Active member

ham2004

Senior Retired User

johnhenrygalt

Active member

Truncador

New member

Truncador

New member

Meister

Well-known member

Dave in Phoenix

Well-known member

papasmerf

New member

dreamer

New member

someone

Active member

ham2004

Senior Retired User

johnhenrygalt

Active member

mandrill

Well-known member

dreamer

New member

someone

Active member