mod 135640 Report post Posted November 28, 2008 That court case about the swingers clubs and private clubs kind of set a new precedence that it was legal to have a club where paid members can interact with each other and sex or sexual acts inside the club with two members would be legal. The swingers clubs have "Hosts" that work with the company (bring drinks, welcome guests, etc...) but I do think that if the "Host" was caught excepting money for any sexual contact it would be legal. I have never been to CMJ but I suspect the receptionist collects your visiting fee and your host never touches money. I would also assume the hosts are listed as members as well so they can INTERACT with other members. (but do not quote me on this as I am just guessing here how they are working around the laws). As for the By-Laws they are a private club (Probably no signage outside the building and they are not open to the public technically - you must pay for a membership first to use the club... this should beat the by-law) The thing is if the "Hosts" are profiting from doing anything sexual with the members then the common bawdy house issue could still be a problem... but if they stick to massage only (no sex/bj/etc... excluding hj as that could be considered massage still) then they should be ok (I think) with the laws... but don't quote me on that... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
undr 100 Report post Posted November 28, 2008 The thing with CMJ (I'm not a member and have never gone) is that all of this private club stuff is theory and has yet to be tested - if LE decides they want to raid and charge everyone AND publish the names they will - even if eventually it's thrown out in court. It sucks but it's the truth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OddSox 253 Report post Posted November 28, 2008 From the Citizen story: "I am shocked by it because I don't expect that," said Amie Bangoura, who works nearby on Bank Street. "When I see Asian massage, I am thinking Asian massage." Is anybody really that naive? Then again, when I see Asian massage, I also am thinking :twisted:Asian massage:twisted:. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mod 135640 Report post Posted November 28, 2008 The thing with CMJ (I'm not a member and have never gone) is that all of this private club stuff is theory and has yet to be tested - if LE decides they want to raid and charge everyone AND publish the names they will - even if eventually it's thrown out in court. It sucks but it's the truth I think the police would investigate it and then speak with a legal adviser to see if they are breaking any laws. Keep in mind that the Asian massage spa's are getting rounded up all over the country because they are known to force the ladies to work (and offer sexual acts) against the ladies will. They are often controlled by organized crime from my understanding and if that is the case I agree that the police need to shut these places down. As for the NON-Asian places that get busted it's probably because of complaints from the public (or) they are offering full service or bj's (not just massage when you add those extra's). That is just my opinion however. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamgirl 246 Report post Posted November 28, 2008 mod: do you think there is some polices on the website chekin out our add Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mod 135640 Report post Posted November 28, 2008 mod: do you think there is some polices on the website chekin out our add Who? What? HUH? Are you asking if I think law enforcement reviews online advertising?? If so this is my answer... A: Yes, I think law enforcement looks at the ads but I think when they do they are looking for specific things. Those being (1) underage girls (2) Illegal Brothels (3) pimping I also think that in cities where they have municipal escort licenses they use the internet to find ladies. I NEED TO STRESS THAT BY-LAW OFFICERS ARE NOT POLICE - THEY ARE THE SAME AS METER MAIDS - THEY CAN HAND OUT BY-LAW TICKETS ONLY - NOT ARREST YOU AND NOT PUT YOU IN JAIL. IF YOU DO NOT PAY THE BY-LAW TICKET THEY WILL SEND A COLLECTIONS AGENCY AFTER YOU HOWEVER! Don't let the word LAW in BY-LAW or the word OFFICER scare you are these are NOT POLICE OFFICERS (Some of them think they are and would threaten you with silly things like putting you in jail as they often think the ladies are gullible and pushovers!) We know for sure this happens with BY-LAW in Winnipeg as the by-law enforcement officers (Not police) mentioned this to a few of the clients while harassing them to get a license... and Calgary one of the ladies fought her by-law ticket and challenged it in court. Our website was brought up and the courts ruled in her favor and she said ... I am not a escort by the cities definition, I am a prostitute who sells sex for money. She advertises as a "Service Provider" and in her advertisement she says clearly that "I am not an escort, I am a prostitute" and this is the very reason the judge ruled in her favor. TIP: If you get a by-law ticket you can challenge it in front of a REAL judge (one who knows the laws and knows that prostitution when doing outcalls in private is legal) if you tell the judge that you are not a "Escort" by the definition the city uses and that you are actually a prostitute working independently from any agency then you will most likely get off the ticket and don't have to worry about those pesky collection agents. If everyone would challenge these tickets maybe the by-law officers would realize that they can not be pimps and can not license prostitution like they want to. I think that actual law enforcement (Real Police) here in Canada have better things to do then to go after the Independent ladies... but recently it has been rumored that they are doing this in some places (I have not heard of anyone being arrested yet outside of the one case in Winnipeg so maybe it's just rumored as many people in this business are very paranoid of such things and sometimes the imagination and assumptions come across as actual fact). Sometimes a lady will get a suspicious call and tell everyone to watch out and start a little chain reaction (or should I say chain-over-reaction - but then again it's better safe then sorry!) Unless you are doing in-calls and have really HIGH traffic (enough to make your neighbors realize what you are doing) then you probably will not get public complaints. If someone does complain then the police have an obligation to investigate you and charge you but if your just staying low key your not hurting anyone and your supping a service that everyone knows is in demand (and I consider it personally as a needed service in this world). I think law enforcement keeps a close eye on Agencies as they don't want anyone pimping the ladies. Most police are people like you and I... down to earth and reasonable... many of them I am sure see the ladies themselves! I can not see them going online and hunting down the ladies without cause (but it could happen if you get some over zealous person trying to get some recognition from the public maybe?). We have all heard the rumors of the police making a booking at a hotel and trying to get you to talk about sex for money in the lobby/hotel bar/hallway or in some public place. Why they would do this is beyond me but you all just need to know enough to not talk about ANYTHING outside of the hotel room!... If the person asks to meet in the lobby you say "Sorry, I will come to your room directly and if you invite me into your room we can close the door and disucss things in person in private" if your silly enough to agree to meet someone in the lobby and you slip up and discuss sex in any way your probably going to get arrested for public solicitation. Prostitution in private (including discussing sex for money in private) is legal but if you do it in public your in trouble... this law was made to combat street prostitution and public solicitation on the streets.... it would take a real jerk to use this to entrap the escorts but we know a lady in Winnipeg was arrested for this so it could happen anywhere. From my understanding the municipality in Winnipeg pressured the police to do this (I would think it was the by-law guys raising a big stink) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
caveman 147 Report post Posted November 28, 2008 Mod, I think you've got a budding career as legal consultant and possibly defense lawyer! :-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
THRacer 370 Report post Posted November 29, 2008 Doesn"t john school diversion apply? no names released on first offence? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mod 135640 Report post Posted November 29, 2008 I believe that is only if they choose to give you that option. I have heard of this happening in a few cities with street proposition busts (involving a john soliciting a undercover police officer) but not with the common bawdy house busts. Maybe someone else has some better insight to this? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Narman 117 Report post Posted November 30, 2008 But if anyone go to MP once a week, then the numbers is 52:11680 which is 1:224 so the chance of getting busted become VERY HIGH. Btw, is it safe to go to CMJ, I am a regular there. No I'm sorry, you can't play with the numbers like that. Your chance of getting busted remains 1:11680 everytime you go. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
caveman 147 Report post Posted November 30, 2008 Actually, the numbers are probably different than the mod calculated anyway...his analysis had an embedded assumption that "getting busted" is an independent event, where it probably is not. The chances of getting busted are either higher or lower depending on the proximity in time to the last time someone was busted (it's higher or lower, depending on police procedures). So, getting busted isn't as statistically independent as rolling a set of dice or flipping a coin. All that being said, the chances of getting busted are still pretty damn low, i.e. low enough that you can't really play any odds. :-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest i***k*** Report post Posted November 30, 2008 They can take my freedom but not my need for gloriously beautiful women!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YoungStud 468 Report post Posted November 30, 2008 I believe that is only if they choose to give you that option. I have heard of this happening in a few cities with street proposition busts (involving a john soliciting a undercover police officer) but not with the common bawdy house busts. Maybe someone else has some better insight to this? Yes, I think you have that right Mod. My observations, via media coverage over the years, is that "John school" is only for those who are offered and accept diversion from the regular court process after being charged with "communication for the purpose of" (Sec 213 CCC), usually after police stings, not for those charged as being "found ins" (Sec 210 CCC) in a common bawdy house. This is probably because "found in" has a stronger penalty under the Criminal Code, being an indictable offense carrying a maximum term of imprisonment of two years. "Communication for the purposes of" is a summary offense, with a maximum six-month jail term, a $2,000 fine, or both. (For those of you who have watched too many U.S. crime shows, summary offense is approximately equal to misdemeanor and indictable offense is roughly equal to felony.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
caveman 147 Report post Posted November 30, 2008 That seems pretty backward to me...why would soliciting a streetwalker be treated as a lesser offense than going to a private and (relatively) safe location? I guess it must be rooted in the concerns over women being forced to work in the "bawdy house"? Not that I expect laws to always make sense... :-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aa_allu 100 Report post Posted December 1, 2008 Has some some one ever experienced a LE setup in a private SP environment? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mod 135640 Report post Posted December 1, 2008 That seems pretty backward to me...why would soliciting a streetwalker be treated as a lesser offense than going to a private and (relatively) safe location? I guess it must be rooted in the concerns over women being forced to work in the "bawdy house"? Not that I expect laws to always make sense... :-) I have never been to John school but I suspect they teach by fear and statistics for STD/STI and VIOLENCE are much higher when dealing with streatwalkers. I would suspect that it's a HEATH issue more then anything but again... I am just guessing here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
d*mm*y 887 Report post Posted December 4, 2008 2 Places had rub parlor licenses (Bank and Gilmore) the house was the private address (Radstock) of the lady charged with living off the avails. It's worth noting that none of the places that were busted held a city license to do massage of any kind. There was a list posted last summer of all the licensed establishments...I think it was on this board but I can't be sure. I'd be interested to know if there have ever been any busts involving any of those places. I can only think of two cases in the past five years where LE shut down a licensed place. One was a bust where the MPAs were clearly offering waaaaay too many extras, and the other (more recently) where the license was apparently suspended by the city (perhaps not coincidentally after they allegedly tried to open a second location). Still...this is a trend that's worth keeping an eye on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
r100rs 859 Report post Posted December 10, 2008 these places were licensed and unfortunately one of our favourites(Mary) got taken down in this bullshit. r100rs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
