Clarifying criminal vs. by-law charges

[Kenji]

This would imply that generally speaking only lawyers have big mouths.

The confusing aspect for most of us Oagre is that if you are correct about the law ( and I have no reason to believe that you aren't ) then there is a significant missing piece of the puzzle here somewhere.

You pretty much state that there is enough legal amunition to charge and convict every MP owner and MPA as well as any "found-in". We also know that the York region cops have been on a year long campaign to close MP's. This has not happened.

Perhaps you could opine for us why the cops have not been particularly successful. There has to be some reason they can't get convictions or can't just close these places almost at will given the legal ammo they have. Is it the solicitation angle ? ie they have to prove solicitation or at least the presence of an underage MPA such as was the case at Creditstone.

 

[solvent]

Like I just said I'm pretty sure the girl has to offer the act, name her price and execute the service. In most mp's a girl just tells you you're getting a n,nr,etc etc...never anything else has been offered to me. How else can these places still operate if they are blatantly breaking the law.

 

[Happeh Gurl C:]

Actually, my friend, I do not tolerate fools gladly.

And any lawyer that cites any case without first reading it is a fool... whether in or out of Court! I know this is not a Court, but do tell the readers here what judges say to lawyers that cite cases they have not first read... especially when they mistake what the case says.

My disagreement with you is that you have advanced Ni in support of a general proposition that it does not stand for, and then you purport to quote from it while quoting from something else.

Piss away all you want... but I will not engage with you. If you think that calling you on something you repeatedly mistate without checking things out is "dragging it into the gutter," so be it! Good luck to you!

Perry

 

[We are all screwed]

You have been told wrong as that has nothing to do with the definition of being a found-in at a bawdy house, or for that matter prostitution.

In the above case she communicated to you so she could be charged with communication, not you, if it was done in a public place. I seem to remember that behind closed doors in a MP was not considered a public place. In your case you accepted an alleged act of prostitution in an alleged bawdy house.

However, all you have to do to defend yourself is state that you had a legitimate reason for being there, ie I received a massage in a licensed massage parlour.

Of course if you are in an unlicensed spa or get caught in the act your legitimate reason for being there may be more difficult to prove.

Now of course if anyone ever gets a court to agree that a HJ is not an act of prostitution then MP's have nothing to worry about unless they are offering more.

 

[Rein]

Hey Perry - a little more decorum in the court please. I think this may have been what Oagre referred to as gutter-speak, which have nothing to do with the facts you were arguing.




I think Meister has it right - it's not the risk of conviction that is the issue since the probabilities aren't that high and you aren't going to be thrown into prison even if convicted - it's all the fallout from a raid:media attention, embarassment, effect on home and business. If you don't care about that, then there's no great risk. For most of us though, that is a risk that needs to be considered which may or may not reduce or eliminate MP visits, or at least limit them to lower risk (licensed?)establishments.

NOTE: this is NOT a paid advertisement for the Oagre & Associates law firm!

 

[yvette30011]

To me, as a non-lawyer, found-in means exactly that. If I do not have a valid reason for being in there (e.g. fixing the heating, delivering a pizza), then I'm a "found-in", and will receive that criminal charge. It would seem to me that it does not make a difference whether my pants are down or not, or whether anyone has offered me extras. I would think by strict interpretation of the law, I could be considered a found-in even if I'm in the process of exiting the property. If I want to beat a found-in charge in court, it would seem to me the only way I could do so is to prove I had a valid reason to be in there or prove that the place I was in was not a common bawdy house.

I would further assume that in order to prove the place was a bawdy house the only way they could do this is for the police to gather evidence and provide that evidence to a judge who would issue a warrant to raid the place. All that takes time and resources (e.g. posing as clients to see what is offered, gathering physical and video evidence, including "used refuse", etc... I would assume that this can take weeks or months) . As such, it seems that the number of bawdy house and found in charges would be quite low - police just don't have the resouces to investigate the hundrends of MPs in the GTA. However, if the police have taken the time to do their investigation and given the nature of the charge, it would seem that anyone who is criminally charged as a "found-in" is really, really screwed. I am curious though what the previous poster means by pleading to the criminal charges. I guess it means pleading guilty, but what are the consequences?

Anyhow, in my view, there is a lot of heat on MP's lately. Given what I perceive to be involved in laying found-in charges, it is unlikely that they will balloon in number (I just don't think the police have the resouces to investigate every MP out there), but it does personally worry me that the number could increase, even marginally. There are two ways of looking at this issue. Say for argument's sake 0.001% of all MP's in a year may be busted for bawdy house charges. Say that number rises to 0.01% per year. On the one hand, it is still a small percentage being busted - on the other hand, it does represent a 10-fold increase in the number being busted, so the risk of being in a busted MP does increase a fair bit. In my opinion, looking at it this way does increase the risk.

What also worries me is which MP's the police may be targeting. In my opinion (and feel free to correct), whether an establishment is licenced or not, by strict interpretation of the law, any place offering HJ could be considered a bawdy house, and could involve found-in charges. So if the police really want to play hard-ball, as long as they gather their evidence, any place offering HJ could be considered a bawdy house. As such, by letter of the law, no place is safe.

 

[Butterfly2Kiss]

Receiving a massage in a licensed massage parlour is a valid reason for being there. If they have no evidence that you were receiving anything else but a massage I would say that you have a good chance.

 

[Pompal 09.]

Perry, you are clearly a jerk and that has more to do with your rudeness than anything else. I'm not even going to waste time slanging with you.

I haven't read the case yet. But I do want to grasp your argument. So what your saying is this: If the Court of Appeal maintains that the "primary purpose" of the transaction has to be lascivious (i.e. sex-related) for the place to be a bawdy house, then one could argue that an MP where you go and get jerked off by a gorgeous naked woman is NOT a bawdy house if the real reason you're going there and getting jerked off is for medical reasons and not for sexual gratification?

So you're going to get up and actually argue that your client has an undefined (and totally fictitious) "medical condition" which requires him to be jerked off at $140.00 a pop by an attractive naked girl and this all has nothing to do with sex??? No judge on earth is going to buy that one.

How much are you going to charge your client for that loser argument. You're clearly a counsel who should be cutting more plea bargains and opening his mouth less.

 

[Bulldoger11]

3Tees is pretty much spot on. It simply takes too much time, $ and effort to bust a joint for the cops to take down very many places. And remember, it's the cops. So they're not exactly time-efficient. I remember reading through police disclosure files for downtown incall busts and being amazed at the amount of wasted time.

It's also a ? of priorities for the cops. They don't necessarily want to convict every guy they catch. That's a lot of bother for them. They're more interested in busting the girls and the owner.

Re defences, you can always argue that you didn't know the place was a place of prostitution and claim you just went there for a therapeutic massage. Since Vaughan now licences MP's as adult entertainment parlors, I guess you can say you went for some mild titillation as long as you were careful to insist that you both kept your clothes on and no explicit groping went on. (Sort of like a private version of the standard current strip club lap dance. I've never heard this argued out, so I don't know what the parameters would be). You'd have to keep maintaining that you had no idea guys were actually getting off in the MP; as soon as you admit you know it's a place where sex happens, you admit to the charge. And a HJ = sex for the purpose of the law.

It's a ? of whether the judge believes you and what the cops are saying. If you're caught naked with oil all over your erect wang, maybe you're better off fessing up and asking to go to John School. And Sheikh is right about 1 thing: the cops may lie in order to nail you. So even if you did get back into your pants, the cops may tell the judge they caught you bare-ass playing with the girl's naked boobies.

Consequences are actually pretty small - legally. The judge might just put you on probation for a short while or send you to John School or just find you guilty and do nothing else to you (absolute discharge). The personal consequences of bad publicity and public embarrassment are far more important. You might also have difficulty travelling to the US or other countries.

And to expressly answer 3Tees' ?, no place really is safe. It's just a ? of playing the %'s and guessing you're unlikely to be busted. I definitely DO feel more comfortable using outcalls though in a legal sense.

 

[Daisuki]

I'm a bit confused here, are licensed Parlors being targeted as well?

I was actually thinking of heading down to Platiunum of a massage but I'm a bit hesitant.

 

[Ra6chel (the 6 is silent)]

"After all, there's a limit to how innocent a naked guy in a MP can possibly be."


THAT is funny!

 

[Ff-ff-ff-ffiown]

Actually, I really do agree with you... except for this: last time around, the exchanges between us were quite "civilized."

Yet, this "lawyer" has admittedly not read either the Court's decision nor what I said about it in that thread and, now, for the third time, repeats the very same arguments as if our previous exchanges had not even occurred.

If he had read what I previously wrote he would not be asking me to spoon feed it to him again or setting up such a ridiculous proposition as has in his post just earlier today.

If he has not read what he is commenting on, then, the first time, it's foolhardy. The second time, it is ignorant. The third time, it is pig-headed... IMHO, of course!

Perry

 

[NEHNA123]

Scenario - yer in an mp, it gets raided, they charge everyone. So then whats next, you get a court appointment? and so does the owner etc?

Is being a "found in" a criminal offence?

I would guess that to be a found in, the MP itself would have to be guilty of being a bawdy house, and if its not proven that its a bawdy house, then you can't be "a found in" ....

What if a membership fee is required to be part of the club, does this make it a private club?

Is this really what gov't has the time to waste our taxpayer money on....

I think im gonna bring my toolbox everytime I go, cuz the shower needs fixing.

 

[eyJude]

I don't think a Judge would buy it... but what about OHIP ?

... perhaps R & T should be covered as a legitimate medical expense...

I believe the condition is called "bloous ballus", a potentially fatal problem that requires treatment twice, sometimes three times a week

 

[missAZ]

Actually could be very innocent, since that's the way you are in a legitimate RMT clinic, with the exception that you have a sheet or towel over you, and the therapist has some clothes on. If, as someone said in another post, there is enough warning before anyone comes into your room, you have time to get a towel over you, and the MPA has time to slip on a dress. Then you claim you were expecting to get a regular [legal] massage, nothing else happened, and that you assumed the spa and the attendant were properly licensed.

Yeah, it's a stretch, but still plausible. If OJ could get off, so can you.

HOWEVER, if they catch you in mid-slide or at the finish-line, you'd be a goner since all the common bawdy house stuff would come into play.

Interested in OAGRE's take on this though, as he seems to be a credible expert on this [not a shill!!]

 

[Melissa L]

"Bawdy house" applies to everything whether private club, licenced MP or unlicenced. It's a ? of what the cops want to target as the law is universal.

Usually the cops can prove the place is a bawdy house because they send in male undercovers posing as customers and sometimes female u/c cops posing as girls who are interested in getting a job and who chat up the owners. As soon as a couple of cops can testify that MPA's touched their crotch or discussed how the session might finish happily, basically that proves bawdy house. The only ? then is whether the cops can prove that genuine customers were knowingly going there for sex and whether the owners had an idea of what was going on. If the cops prove a pattern, there's an logical inference that the place was generally a place of prostitution. An individual customer would then have to argue he was unaware of what was happening all around him. Again a tough sell to a cynical, hardball judge.

"Found in" is a criminal offence, albeit a minor one. You get a court date. The only break is that the offence is so minor, you can get your lawyer to appear for you to avoid the embarrassment of having to personally show up in court.

 

[dynollis]

I have a bit of a 'clarification' question for anyone who might know ... I know the bylaws are somewhat different in different areas, for example mississauga and brampton, where they're allowed to advertise for things like NR and BS ... so are by-law officers unable to do anything in MP's located in those districts (ie SRM?) ... likewise, do whatever applicable criminal charges still apply if its the cops raiding a place? Thanks.

 

[Leaira]

Perry, if you are a real lawyer, you'll realize that most of us are very busy with ongoing cases and doing in-depth research on personal interest projects has to wait. I actually doubt you're really a lawyer as I have never had another counsel be this rude to me when discussing a legal point and I've been practising for over 20 years.

Let's not forget the "political" dynamic of this thread. Most of this board's MP advertisers would prefer that the legal aspects of visiting them not be discussed. They would prefer that the customers not realize that there is some legal risk attending their establishments. Yours is the second vitriolic and insulting personal attack I have endured in this thread. (The first was Sheikh's.) I speculate that it's all connected.

Are you going to respond to my above post? Or are you going to keep on simply insulting me and avoid the real topic of this thread.

 

[Leila L]

The worst part about getting caught in one of these stings (IMO) is having an arrest record. Sure, it's not a crminal conviction but if a cop ever runs a CPIC on you the arrest for "inmate of a common bawdy house" will show up.

This is bad if you are planning to visit the US!

 

[Lacus]

You are required to id yourself if you are being charged with an offence. Correct me if I'm worng, but I think the by-laws locally are licencing by-laws which apply only to the girls and owners. If I'm right in this, the guy has nothing to fear and is under no obligation to ID himself.

The criminal charges we have been discussing - i.e. "found-in" - apply to everyone and if you are charged, you pretty much have to ID yourself. I guess you can refuse, but it will just mean being formally arrested and taken to the station and held for further investigation and eventually - if you still hold out - a bail hearing at the court house. At some point, they WILL get your name and address.