BUSTED!

[Guest rick7nyc]

Jeff, sorry about your getting tagged. You are now what we call in NYC a Graduate.

 

With law enforcement budgets stretched to the max due to new security concerns, it is an idiotic waste of manpower and money.

 

Like others have said, it is pure politics. There are two hotels near Times Square that are notorious for sting ops like the one you had. Perhaps it is a sign of the times. When I began nearly ten years ago, I street hustled on Eighth Avenue (I was too young to get into bars). The working boys were rarely bothered, and it was OBVIOUS what we were doing. . . I can't believe we got away with hanging out wearing only gym shorts---no shirt---and sneakers. Nowadays I limit myself to regular clients, and havent posted a pic in my profile for fear of losing my apartment, let alone running an ad in our local zines.

 

Good luck.

 

Rick

[Guest jeffOH]

Thanks Will, I appreciate it.

 

 

>That's a legal term of art. To mount that defense, he would

>have to show no pre-disposition. That would be hard to do in

>light of his profession and/or posts here.

 

They were responding to a print ad that does not reference this site.

I am legitimately employed as co-owner of a gym.

 

>that's not clear to me if he there was an offer/acceptance

>over the phone and then in response he shows up as agreed.

 

I had called home from the gym to retrieve my messages as I normally do while at work. "Joe" had called about 5pm and I returned his call about 5:30pm.

 

I remember EXACTLY how it went down because so little was being said and I thought it odd that he was agreeing to a time before he even knew my description or my rates, which I remembered later are mentioned in my ad. He asked me if I was available and I said, yes, I would be available after 8:30pm. He said that would work for him and he told me he was at the Reynoldsburg Fairfield Inn. I already knew his room # as I had just returned his call there.

 

>it's not much evidence taken alone, but combined with the Ad

>would be considered by the trier of fact in asessing

>credibility.

 

The "trier of fact" in this case isn't a real judge. This case will be heard in the Mayor's Court by their idiot mayor.

 

>well, all the trier of fact needs to be convinced of is that

>there was an offer/acceptance over the phone

 

There was NO offer of any type of adult entertainment over the phone or in person. They asked me if I knew what they were charging me with and I said NO. The officer asked if I had a massage license, I said NO and he said that was illegal in the city of Reynoldsburg. It wasn't until I got home that I saw no mention of massage on the citation and when I looked up the ordinance referenced, still NOTHING about massage without a license.

 

>and the

>credibility issues would be analyzed as I have outlined

>above.

 

I have some very credible character witnesses if it comes to that. Plus, I have no arrests for anything in the past decade. I had been arrested in '93(in Columbus) for disorderly conduct which was dropped and all I paid were court costs. I was arrested in Reynoldsburg in '91 for expired tags (they arrested me because I'd been cited in Columbus for the same thing a couple of weeks before). I assume they'll take my relatively clean record into account.

 

Thanks AXE for any advice you may have.

 

JEFF jeff4men@hotmail.com

[Rick Munroe]

>I can't believe we got away with hanging out wearing only gym

>shorts---no shirt---and sneakers.

 

Yum...sexy image! :9

[Guest jeffOH]

>One other post here is dead on in that he recommended you find

>the definition of

> "adult entertainment" and/or "sexually oriented business."

>That could indeed be the key.

 

795.01 PURPOSE AND INTENT.

 

It is the purpose and intent of this chapter to regulate adult entertainment and/or sexually oriented businesses or clubs to promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the citizens of the city, to preserve property values, and to establish reasonable and uniform regulations to prevent any deleterious location and concentration of adult entertainment and/or sexually oriented businesses or clubs within the city, thereby reducing or eliminating the adverse secondary effects from such adult entertainment and/or sexually oriented businesses or clubs. The provision of this chapter has neither the purpose nor effect of imposing a limitation or restriction on the content of any communicative materials, including sexually oriented materials. Similarly, it is not the intent or effect of this chapter to restrict or deny access by the distributors and exhibitors of adult entertainment and/or sexually oriented entertainment to their intended market. Neither is it the intent nor effect of the ordinance to condone or legitimize the distribution of obscene material.(Ord. 116-99. Passed 9-20-99)

 

>After seeing the code being used here, their theory seems to

>be that massage without a license is a 'sexually oriented

>business." By going this route, they just have to prove the

>"business" and no license without going into the more

>difficult areas of intent.

 

Here's what it would probably fall under.

 

12) "Massage Parlor" means any place where, for any form of consideration or gratuity, massage, or use any method on, or friction against, or stroking, kneading, rubbing, tapping, pounding, vibrating or stimulating of the external soft parts of the body with the hands or with the aid of any mechanical, electrical or magnetic apparatus or appliance with or without any such supplementary aids as rubbing alcohol, liniments, antiseptics, oils, powders, creams, lotions, ointments or other similar preparations commonly used in this practice, or any other treatment manipulation of the human body which occurs as part of or in connection with unspecified sexual activities", or where any person providing such treatment, manipulation, or service related thereto. exposes his or her "specified anatomical areas". Any person providing such treatment, manipulation or service related thereto, must be licensed by the State of Ohio. The definition of massage parlor for purposes of adult entertainment and/or sexually oriented businesses or clubs shall not include the practice of massage in any licensed hospital, nor by a licensed hospital, nor by a licensed physician, surgeon, chiropractor or osteopath, nor by any nurse or technician working under the supervision of a licensed physician, surgeon, chiropractor or osteopath, nor by trainers for any amateur, semiprofessional or professional athlete or athletic team or school athletic program.

 

>and also what happens (if different)

>with a second or subsequent offense. If you find it please

>post it.

 

Couldn't find this info, but I'll look again.

 

Thanks Flower!

 

JEFF jeff4men@hotmail.com

[ServeUncutUncle]

Somewhat ironic that it was a Fairfield Inn, as this is a Marriott owned/managed property and there is currently a major discusion about how this alledged pro-religion organisation offers Hard Core porn movies in their rooms for $7.95 - Plus tax of course. They need the tax to pay for Victimless Crime Busts.

 

I believe the Fairfield Inn was also in breach of the same ordinance that you were charged under.

[Guest rick7nyc]

Oh Rick Munroe, surely you remember those days! You were probably around when the Haymarket was in full swing! I only heard about it. Before my time!

 

Rick

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

FYI - Stings

 

In a sting such as this, there were more likely other individuals cited and/or arrested. When I spoke with Jeff, he indicated he had overheard as much.

 

If an escort is arrested as a one-time situation, particularly in a large urban or busy juridiction, relying on the cops not making it to one or all hearings is not a bad strategy. However, if it is a sting, where several guys were lured and called into a hearing, particularly with more than one officer present, I would not hold my breath on that.

[Flower]

> It is the purpose and intent of this chapter to regulate

>adult entertainment and/or sexually oriented businesses or

>clubs to promote the health, safety, morals, and general

>welfare of the citizens of the city, to preserve property

>values, and to establish reasonable and uniform regulations to

>prevent any deleterious location and concentration of adult

>entertainment and/or sexually oriented businesses or clubs

>within the city, thereby reducing or eliminating the adverse

>secondary effects from such adult entertainment and/or

>sexually oriented businesses or clubs. ******. Similarly,

>it is not the intent or effect of this chapter to restrict or

>deny access by the distributors and exhibitors of adult

>entertainment and/or sexually oriented entertainment to their

>intended market.

 

>12) "Massage Parlor" *** Any person providing such

>treatment, manipulation or service related thereto, must be

>licensed by the State of Ohio.

 

[font color="green"

]

Jeff--from the section above it appears to me that the INTENT of the legislation is to regulate PLACES rather than people. It talks of property values, concentration of adult businesses, distributors, exhibitors (maybe you could qualify under the "exhibitor" exception}( and locations where they can't be -- this is a typical regulatory statute to prevent certain districts of town from going to all adult business such as bookstores, theaters, massage parlours, etc. I don't believe that this statute was meant to regulate persons in a private endeavor--and especially not meant to prohibit prostitution.

 

It is a quirk of criminal law--really a protection for the individual accussed, that the government CANNOT prosecute you under a general statute if there is a more specific statute that applies. In this case, say your intent was to give a masage, then they'd have to prosecute you under the specific statute, if any there, that makes giving a massage without CMT a crime. Likewise, if they are trying to say you were commiting prostitution, then they have to use the specific statute, and in that case, they'd have a very hard if not impossible time proving the intent based on what you said.

 

Not knowing your jurisdiction, it is hard to be more specific, but get that public defender friend ASAP--even before arraingment. I really feel that you can beat this case--especially since they have arrested you on this inapplicable code section. The danger of course is that they could discover the error of there ways before it is too late--so get legal help and FIGHT IT :*

 

Wish I could do more for you, but shooting in the dark on specific cases and statutes outside of California and Oregon.

[Flower]

[font color ="green"

] Also, Jeff I'd strongly recommend--ASAP--asking Hoo to disable your review section for the time being--if they haven't already found it, they could in preping their case, and it could be used to prove intent and possibly more serious charges could be forthcoming, if you are successful in dumping this charge. I know it has economic consequences, but at least think about it.

[+ Unicorn]

>Sorry to hear about this and good luck. Feel free to IM if

>need some advise, but realize I'm a Ca and Ore atty., not Oh

>-- but in case you haven't noticed, that's NEVER stopped me

>from giving advise :+

 

I guess in law school they teach you how to give legal advice, but now how to spell it! }(

[Guest jeffOH]

Flower

 

Thanks so much for the advice. I'm going to talk to the PD friend about all of this tomorrow or Monday and see what she has to say. If she thinks I have a good case, I'm sure she'll be able to recommend an attorney for me. I'll consider having Hooboy disable my reviews.

 

Thanks again to everyone who has supported me with your advice in e-mails and on this thread.

 

JEFF jeff4men@hotmail.com

[sfnewbie]

>I can't access the link

 

You can't access laws directly via a link at the American Legal site. You have to start at Reynoldsburg's list of laws

 

http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=altmain-nf-contents.htm$cp=Ohio%2FReynoldsburg$3.0

 

then navigate to the law in question.

[axebahia]

>They were responding to a print ad that does not reference

>this site.

>I am legitimately employed as co-owner of a gym.

 

Yes, but you also have a part-time job, an Ad and web site advertising it, and reviews of your performance in that other job here.

 

>I had called home from the gym to retrieve my messages as I

>normally do while at work. "Joe" had called about 5pm and I

>returned his call about 5:30pm.

>

>I remember EXACTLY how it went down because so little was

>being said and I thought it odd that he was agreeing to a

>time before he even knew my description or my rates, which I

>remembered later are mentioned in my ad. He asked me if I was

>available and I said, yes, I would be available after 8:30pm.

>He said that would work for him and he told me he was at the

>Reynoldsburg Fairfield Inn. I already knew his room # as I had

>just returned his call there.

 

I think you will have a hard time trying to convince any trier of fact that you advertised a sexually-oriented business, someone who you did not know you beforehand responded to your Ad and asked about your availability (to do what? to perform the advertised service), you re-stated your rates for the service un-prompted by him, you agreed to attend at his hotel to perform the agreed service, and took active seps to commence the delivery of the service upon arrival, but you were somehow there just for an innocent non-commercial transaction.

 

>The "trier of fact" in this case isn't a real judge. This case

>will be heard in the Mayor's Court by their idiot mayor.

 

yes, and that what makes your position yet still more difficult.

 

>There was NO offer of any type of adult entertainment over the

>phone or in person.

 

I just don't think that's credible. After you quoted your rates on the phone (the offer), what did he say? He probably said "ok" or "cool". That is probably sufficient to be regarded as an acceptance, and you obviously thought it was by your subsequent act of attending at the hotel, and commencing to perform the advertised and agreed service

 

>I have some very credible character witnesses if it comes to

>that.

 

I am sure you are a very nice guy with lots of nice friends, but in a sex trial, your attempt to paint a non-commercial story for your actions will be judged against your Ad, your web site and your reviews.

 

I still think your best chance here is if they charged you under the wrong prong of the statute - adult entertainment rather than the sexually-oriented business service. I don't think Flower's attempted distinction would work at trial, but perhaps it might make a nice legal issue on appeal.

[Candyman]

Need an attorney? Use mine:

Cox,Lubber,Butz,Faulker and Moore.

They may not win your case, but they know their legal briefs.

 

Good Luck and don't let the bastards get you down!

[KY_TOP]

>Good Luck and don't let the bastards get you down!

 

I second that motion...hang in there. It is obvious you have much support here, even from those of us that don't know you personally.

 

Take Care,

KY

[Luv2play]

Re Cox, Lubber, Butz, Faulker and Moore; I just luv it:P "Cocks lube ur butts, fuck 'er and more" }(

[Guest jeffOH]

>Yes, but you also have a part-time job, an Ad and web site

>advertising it

 

My ad to which they responded advertises "massage" and does not refer to this site and I don't have my own website.

 

>I think you will have a hard time trying to convince any trier

>of fact that you advertised a sexually-oriented business.

 

Why would I have to convince them that I was advertising a "sexually-oriented business"? THEY have to show evidence that I WAS to support their charging me with violating this ordinance. As evidence, they have my bottle of ID Millenium "sensual lubricant"(which I do use for massage), a condom and if they recorded our phone conversation, they have me mentioning in my physical description that I had "around 8 inches", but never specifically said cock/penis/dick.

 

>someone who you did not know you beforehand responded to your

>Ad and asked about your availability (to do what? to perform

>the advertised service)

 

Which was "massage", nothing more EVER was offered.

 

>you re-stated your rates for the

>service un-prompted by him, you agreed to attend at his hotel

>to perform the agreed service,

 

The "service" being "massage", which was never mentioned on the phone by him or by me or in person.

 

>and took active steps to

>commence the delivery of the service upon arrival

 

Still the service being "massage", of which mention had ONLY been made in the headline of my ad.

 

>but you

>were somehow there just for an innocent non-commercial

>transaction.

 

For all they really knew at the point they arrested me, "innocent" Yes, "non-commercial" No.

 

>>The "trier of fact" in this case isn't a real judge. This

>case

>>will be heard in the Mayor's Court by their idiot mayor.

 

I'll have to double check this, but I believe if I plead NOT guilty and it goes to trial, it gets transferred to the county courts.

 

>>There was NO offer of any type of adult entertainment over

>the

>>phone or in person.

>

>I just don't think that's credible. After you quoted your

>rates on the phone (the offer), what did he say?

 

He said, "How about 8:30pm".

 

>He probably

>said "ok" or "cool". That is probably sufficient to be

>regarded as an acceptance, and you obviously thought it was by

>your subsequent act of attending at the hotel, and commencing

>to perform the advertised and agreed service

 

Massage, not adult entertainment.

 

>>I have some very credible character witnesses if it comes to

>>that.

>

>I am sure you are a very nice guy with lots of nice friends,

>but in a sex trial, your attempt to paint a non-commercial

>story for your actions will be judged against your Ad, your

>web site and your reviews.

 

Well, they have a videotape which will show nothing. I did not start to massage him and "touch him in a sexual manner". There was NEVER any sex talk.

 

The ad refers ONLY to "massage", I don't have a website and they didn't call me as a result of my reviews on this site.

 

>I still think your best chance here is if they charged you

>under the wrong prong of the statute - adult entertainment

>rather than the sexually-oriented business service. I don't

>think Flower's attempted distinction would work at trial, but

>perhaps it might make a nice legal issue on appeal.

 

Here's their city code's definition regarding "adult entertainment and/or sexually-oriented business":

 

(p) "Sexually Oriented Business and/or Adult Entertainment or Club" means an adult arcade, adult bookstore, adult novelty shop, adult video store, adult cabaret, adult motel, adult motion picture theater, adult theater, massage parlor, sexual encounter establishment, escort agency or semi-nude model studio patronized by any person over the age of eighteen.

 

The more I look at all this it seems to me that the ordinance really doesn't apply in this situation. But, when I talk to my PD friend, I'll discuss all of this with her to see if she thinks I have a case. If not, I'll pay my fine and have to give up my dream of opening a strip club in Reynoldsburg.

 

Thanks again for the advice.

 

JEFF jeff4men@hotmail.com

[axebahia]

>My ad to which they responded advertises "massage" and does

>not refer to this site and I don't have my own website.

 

I know that this is tough on you, but you need to understand that it is irrelevant whether or not the Ad refered to your site. The web site will help support their interpretaion of the precise nature of the services that you were offering.

 

>Why would I have to convince them that I was advertising a

>"sexually-oriented business"? THEY have to show evidence that

>I WAS to support their charging me with violating this

>ordinance.

 

True enough, but I think your problems are going to be factual not legal ones involving the permissible inferences to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of your arrest.

 

>>someone who you did not know you beforehand responded to

>your

>>Ad and asked about your availability (to do what? to

>perform

>>the advertised service)

>

>Which was "massage", nothing more EVER was offered.

 

Okay, so the question will be whether offering a massage without a license in that county and in light of the facts surrounding your arrest suggests that you were providing a sexually-oriented business service. See below.

 

>The "service" being "massage", which was never mentioned on

>the phone by him or by me or in person.

 

Okay, so he makes no mention of the Ad when he phones, asks if you are available, you say yes and quote your rates without mentioning what the rates cover or asking "available for what", and he replies saying, how about 8:30p.m. I am sorry, but that just does not sound realistic to me, but if that's your story stick to it.

 

>Here's their city code's definition regarding "adult

>entertainment and/or sexually-oriented business":

>

>(p) "Sexually Oriented Business and/or Adult Entertainment or

>Club" means an adult arcade, adult bookstore, adult novelty

>shop, adult video store, adult cabaret, adult motel, adult

>motion picture theater, adult theater, massage parlor, sexual

>encounter establishment, escort agency or semi-nude model

>studio patronized by any person over the age of eighteen.

>

>The more I look at all this it seems to me that the ordinance

>really doesn't apply in this situation.

 

Maybe, but the charging section says that: "No person shall operate or cause to be operated an adult entertainment and/or sexually oriented business or club without said permit." If you were offering the services of a massage parlor in that hotel room, or agreed to do so over the phone, then I think you are going to have a very hard time saying that your you were not operaing a sexually-oriented business within the definition of the ordinance.

 

Good luck though. Let us know what the PD thinks. Maybe with some skillful oral advocacy you can make this all go away. Who knows somebody might also be able to grease the way for you!:-)

[Guest jeffOH]

>The web site will help support their interpretation of

>the precise nature of the services that you were offering.

 

IF they know about this site, then it may be relevant, but only as additional evidence to show an inclination to such activities as prohibited by the ordinance, NOT as the main trigger to warrant the arrest. Besides, my reviews are about PROSTITUTION, not MASSAGE. Once again, IF they knew about my reviews and believed I was offering sexually-oriented services, WHY didn't they try to set me up to violate their ordinance regarding prostitution?

 

>>Why would I have to convince them that I was advertising a

>>"sexually-oriented business"? THEY have to show evidence

>that

>>I WAS to support their charging me with violating this

>>ordinance.

 

>Okay, so the question will be whether offering a massage

>without a license in that county and in light of the facts

>surrounding your arrest suggests that you were providing a

>sexually-oriented business service. See below.

 

Basically, what they're saying is that since I don't have a massage license, my advertisement for "massage" must be sexual in nature. Still, their case is based mostly upon assumptions and NOT anything I actually said or did, which would be necessary to establish that I violated this ordinance, IF it applies in this situation.

 

>>>The "service" being "massage", which was never mentioned on

>>the phone by him or by me or in person.

 

>Okay, so he makes no mention of the Ad when he phones,

 

As I usually do, I ASK the potential client where they heard about me. He said, "The Other Paper".

 

>He asks if

>you are available, you say yes and quote your rates without

>mentioning what the rates cover or asking "available for

>what", and he replies saying, how about 8:30p.m. I am sorry,

>but that just does not sound realistic to me, but if that's

>your story stick to it.

 

I'm sorry if that doesn't sound "realistic" to you, but that was the entirety of the conversation. As I stated earlier, so LITTLE was said it was very easy for me to remember this limited conversation. I thought it somewhat odd, but just dismissed this as nervousness on his part.

 

 

>Maybe, but the charging section says that: "No person shall

>operate or cause to be operated an adult entertainment and/or

>sexually oriented business or club without said permit." If

>you were offering the services of a massage parlor in that

>hotel room, or agreed to do so over the phone, then I think

>you are going to have a very hard time saying that your you

>were not operating a sexually-oriented business within the

>definition of the ordinance.

 

Well, their own definitions NEVER specifically say that it applies to individuals. It never says "No individual may provide adult or sexually-oriented entertainment...". It sounds to me as if they're stretching the meaning of

the ordinance to apply it to individuals not working in an actual business or club.

 

>Good luck though. Let us know what the PD thinks. Maybe with

>some skillful oral advocacy you can make this all go away.

>Who knows somebody might also be able to grease the way for

>you!:-)

 

Thanks, but if this had been an arrest for prostitution, I'd definitely fight it. As it is, it's most likely a fine of some sort and if that's considerably less than what it would be to hire an attorney, I'll probably go that route.

 

After losing several thousand dollars on my business venture last year AND having a $1000 worth of work done on my car, being in a car accident (some guy hit me while I was driving a client's car and totalled it) AND having big drama with my ex ALL in the past 2 weeks. All of this while taking a break from the bipolar medication, I just don't know if I have the energy or the resources to fight it right now UNLESS I'm assured that I have a slam-dunk case.

 

Thanks again.

 

JEFF jeff4men@hotmail.com

[axebahia]

>Basically, what they're saying is that since I don't have a

>massage license, my advertisement for "massage" must be sexual

>in nature.

 

That's the underlying assumption, but it is not actually what they are doing. See below.

 

>Well, their own definitions NEVER specifically say that it

>applies to individuals. It never says "No individual may

>provide adult or sexually-oriented entertainment...". It

>sounds to me as if they're stretching the meaning of

>the ordinance to apply it to individuals not working in an

>actual business or club.

 

They do. I quoted it above: "No person shall operate or cause to be operated an adult entertainment and/or sexually oriented business or club without said permit." Then a "sexually-oriented business" is defined to be a "massage parlor, sexual encounter establishment, escort agency or semi-nude model studio patronized by any person over the age of eighteen." On the basis of your Ad alone, they have you because you arguably operated or agreed to operate a massage parlor in that hotel room. If they find your web site and reviews or posts here, I think a reasonable trier of fact might probably also get you on the "sexual encounter establishment" prong too. But the bottom line is that they don't need to because of the way the charging section and the definition work.

 

>I just don't know if I have the energy

>or the resources to fight it right now UNLESS I'm assured that

>I have a slam-dunk case.

 

I am sorry to say that you just don't have a slam dunk case, but that's not to say that if you wanted to play it out you might win down the road. I don't think the legal arguments on your side will make the authorities run away in the first instance. So pay the fine and move unless you want to long hard fight.

[Guest rick7nyc]

Hehe, Rick M. The purpose of the gym shorts while on eighth avenue was because a lot of guys wanted you to display your cock before they let you go with them. They wanted to see if you were big enuf, or cut or whatever. It was a buyers market then---there were many boys out there!

 

Oh, how times have changed.

 

Rick

[milkman]

Jeff -

My sympathies and support are with you.

 

I'm not an attorney and I don't want to muddy the waters any further, but a few things occurred to me while reading these posts. If trained legal advice disagrees with me, then ignore what I am saying. You said

>Well, their own definitions NEVER specifically say that it

>applies to individuals. It never says "No individual may

>provide adult or sexually-oriented entertainment...". It

>sounds to me as if they're stretching the meaning of

>the ordinance to apply it to individuals not working in an

>actual business or club.

and that their law says "No person shall operate or cause to be operated an adult entertainment and/or sexually oriented business or club without said permit."

 

Keep in mind that a "business" does not have to have a physical location or premises, or a permanent location or premises, and does not have to involve more than one person. If you receive calls at home and go out to advise callers for a fee about landscaping their yards, that is a business. If you provide information on the internet for a fee, that is a business. Yes, I agree with you that the statute was undoubtedly originally intended to restrict the opening of physical establishments and has the nature of a zoning ordinance. But if they want to apply it creatively they can make a good argument that you are "operating a business" and were preparing to do it temporarily in a hotel room in their city. And remember that once it comes down to an argument in court (the Mayor's or a real one), their number 1 objective will be to prove that "we were right", even more so than to prove that you did something wrong, so they will stretch in any direction if it means that they can win. So I don't think that focusing on "individual" or "individual not working in an actual business or club" as opposed to "business" will get you very far. You WERE working in an "actual business", just not one that is always tied to a particular set of 4 walls.

 

But then, given that it was a business, the question becomes was it an "adult entertainment and/or sexually-oriented" one. As you said,

 

>Basically, what they're saying is that since I don't have a

>massage license, my advertisement for "massage" must be sexual

>in nature.

 

That's a ridiculous assumption, although it's one that many or most people make without even questioning it. But in a court of law you are innocent until proven guilty, and in order to prove you guilty they need evidence. From what you have told us there is no hard evidence, either in what was said or what was done. Not only masseurs and escorts carry condoms and lube with them. Someone here said befor that "lots of gay men do". Well guess what. Not only gay men. Straight men do too. And I remember when I was about 11-12 years old in summer camp and one of the counsellors, who must have been all of about 18-19, proudly used to display his folded wallet, which had a curious circular bulge on one side, with the leather slightly more worn around its circumference, just to show that he was "always prepared". Don't let your defensive reaction cause you to let them get away with the presumption that carrying a condom has anything to do with the particular services that you were going to perform or that it suggests any type of specifically gay activity (since this was a male-on-male situation).

 

You have gotten a lot of very valuable advice from attorneys on this site, and it was gracious of them to provide it. But, without in any way being critical of them, I think you need to talk to an attorney who is

***familiar with the local law and also who

***knows the precedents and interpretations of that law in the local jurisdiction.

And the attorneys here would probably be among the first to tell you that too. Your Columbus PD friend sounds like an excellent place to start. She probably knows enough about Reynoldsburg, especially since it is a suburb of Columbus and not just someplace in another county. Or if she doesn't I'll bet that she has a colleague that she can ask in the next county who does.

 

Best of luck. I hope you can beat it.

[Guest jeffOH]

Thanks Milkman, I appreciate your comments.

 

I did alot of research today (after seeing the movie The View from the Top, which was quite funny, by the way).

 

As far as I could tell, it isn't against any ordinance in the Ohio Revised Code to perform massage without a license. You can offer non-therapeutic massage. But, local government CAN pass ordinances requiring anyone offering/providing massage to be licensed. The City of Columbus has a similar ordinance to Reynoldsburg regarding "massage parlors", but it goe further in SPECIFICALLY requiring individuals performing "outcall massage" to be licensed also. That was my point in saying that Reynoldsburg's ordinance wasn't specific and they are stretching the meaning.

 

I haven't had a problem in Columbus, YET, but I guess I'll drop the word "massage" from that particular ad and save myself any further hassles.

 

JEFF jeff4men@hotmail.com

[+ Cock Eyed Optimist]

Jeff,

Have you had a chance to talk with your public defender friend yet? Keep us posted, OK? There are a lot of guys here concerned about your well being. Good Luck!

[+ Cock Eyed Optimist]

Jeff,

Have you had a chance to talk with your public defender friend yet? Keep us posted, OK? There are a lot of guys here concerned about your well being. Good Luck!