Question Regarding Agencies that Use Young Guys

[Guest Sports]

Question:

Is an escort agency that hires young guys under 21, responsible if the escort, overwelmed by money, becomes involved with drugs and crime? Specifically, what do you think is Premier's responsibility to Luis Alberto Villafane?

[TotallyOz]

I don't think so. I think any adult at any age is responsible for his or her actions.

 

Fact is money is easy to come by for escorts. Cash money that is, since it is a cash based business. It makes it easier to spend for some.

 

Why do you cut your limits at 21 or 22? Why not agencies that have mostly 30 year olds? Do you think that those guys are less prone to do drugs than the 20 year old? Or, should an agency feel worst for allowing a 20 year old have access to money more than a 30 year old. For that fact, is it a clients fault for hiring a 18 or 19 year old and paying them? Why limit yourself to agencies?

 

I go to Roxy and gay clubs in NYC all the time. I see mostly men in their late 20's or 30's doing crystal, k, or whatever.

 

Personally, I don't think it is an age issue. I think any adult should have the right to decide what they do or do not want to do with their money. I have one boy I hire on a regular basis. He is 21 and I have hired him at least 40 times over the years. He doesn't spend his money on drugs, but on clothes. Nice clothes! But, would I ever spend 4,000 on a leather jacket? Hell no. But, that is his choice to make, not mine.

[axebahia]

Question:

Is an investment bank that hires young guys, responsible if they, overwelmed by money, become involved with drugs and crime?

[Guest ncm2169]

I didn't know Jack Grubman used drugs. :+

[OneFinger]

IMHO, the investment bank is only responsible for the actions of their employees for crimes they commit while:

 

1. At work; or

2. Using (or misusing) their position, title, or bank resources.

 

It appears that the actions of this guy occurred while he was on his own time and not as an escort for the agency. It doesn't appear that the agency has any role or responsibility for what he does "off the clock".

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Brothels

 

Some of the analytical and non-statistical (i.e., purely based on either interviews or observations of the women) studies of the prostitutes and "madams" at some of the Nevada (and foreign) based brothels/cathouse, etc., indicated that relationships would form between the women (or if the "madam" was a male pimp type character, between the women employees and the man or men) and their employers. The employers had a vested interest, as I would believe an agency has a vested interest, in the behavior both "on" and "off" the clock of one of their employees.

 

Escorts, like adult film actors, are the visual and personal representation of that business. If, for example, Matt Rush, who is a lifetime contract holder with Falcon, did something (and to m knowledge he never has, which is why he is a perfect example to use in this analogy) which might reflect poorly on Falcon, as either a stakeholder or management person at Falcon, I would feel an obligation to protect both my business and my investment in Mr. Rush.

 

This is similar to what the Lakers must be dealing with Kobe Bryant. In the case of the brothels, often the Madams would intervene in the personal affairs of the female employees because their behavior directly affected their abilities to both interact with clients and represent the business.

 

Agencies today are more akin to a movie studio that may hire Halle Barry after her car accident or Wynona Ryder after her sentencing. Also, drug use and abuse does not have the stigma that it used to have, thus may reflect less on the agency than it might have say ten or fifteen years ago.

 

While there is a limit to what one can do for another adult, personally were I the owner or manager of an agency, I would feel some sense of responsibility to both prevent (as prevention is always less expensive and more cost effective) by educational means and to assist, with emotional and support, any employee of mine. This would be true if my company were a dining establishment, a retail store, or an investment bank.

[+ Charlie]

Your second question telecopes a lot of assumptions, namely:

1)that Luis was "overwhelmed by money"--I'm not sure exactly what that wording means, but in any case we don't know what his motivation was for the murder;

2)that he was "involved in drugs and crime"--the victim was known as a drug dealer, but there is no assertion in the article that Luis had any connection to that side of the victim's life;

3)that these putative aspects of the accused's life occurred during his employment at the agency.

 

No evidence has been given that any of these assumptions are accurate in this case.

[Flower]

>Question:

>Is an escort agency that hires young guys under 21,

>responsible if the escort, overwelmed by money, becomes

>involved with drugs and crime? Specifically, what do you

>think is Premier's responsibility to Luis Alberto Villafane?

 

Well now--this question is right up Flower's alley :+ (lol aren't they all, now

 

But here, we first need to know if Premier was the employer or not. It's duties as an employer usually are greater than if it's escorts are legally considered independent contractors.

 

But let's just say that they are considered employees--and therefore Premier owes the higher duty to it's patrons; it's liability can be twofold--first, for it's own negligence, if any, in hiring, supervising, failing to do background checks, etc., and secondly, for what the law calls VICARIOUS LIABILITY--that is, it is responsible for the actions of it's employees in the course and scope of their employment, simply because they were emplyees :+

 

For vicarious liability to apply, the employee (escort here) must have been acting in the "course and scope" of the employer's business--the actions of the escort must have been furthering the employer's business--most agree that robbing or murdering a client is NOT with in the course and scope--it serves NO purpose of the employer not in any way furthers the relationship between the employer and the client.

 

An example of negligent conduct that might be within the course and scope is, if in giving a blow job, the escort negligently (not intentionally) bit down and gashed the client's dick as he was swiftly going up or down :-( --both the escort and the employer would be legally liable in most states, but the escort would be liable cause HE was negligent and the employer liable VICARIOUSLY, since the employee's negligence conducted in the actual course and scope of the employment--i.e., the escort was doing the job hired for, but just did it negligently and caused injury.

 

The Agency/employer itself might be considered negligent independently of the conduct of the escort here, IF the employer "knew or should have known" of the escorts dangerous propensities to kill or be violent :+

 

For instance, a jury could find that since the agency was hiring escorts to deal with members of the public in a very personal way, and that the clients would often or always be alone and vulnerable to robbery or attack, that the agency owed a duty to the public/clientelle to at least do a cursory background investigation like getting fingerprints and police records, if any and possibly references from other employers. If any of those things would have put a reasonable employer on notice of the escorts dangerous propensities, then there could very well be liability. If the agency failed in any background check, but if such a check would not be revealing, then it is likely off the hook.

 

The issue of being an independent contractor is trickier, but suffice it to say, there is less duty to the client if the agency is just a "facilitator" or "broker." However, even then, if the agency had knowledge that would course it to know or be on notice of such dangerous propensities, then there could also be liability.

 

All of the above is disregarding any issues of the legality or lack there of the service or business--possibly some states might not allow liability for negligence of an illegal service, but I think most would in this situation if it was proven the agency knew or should have known

[axebahia]

>But here, we first need to know if Premier was the employer or

>not. It's duties as an employer usually are greater than if

>it's escorts are legally considered independent contractors.

 

Nice try, but your soliloquy is totally irrelevant if Onefinger is correct that the kid in question was off duty acting on his own at the time of the incident. In this case, the Principal bears no liability whether the kid was an employee or independent contractor unless you want to run a "twinkie" style civil claim.

[Barry]

>Nice try, but your soliloquy is totally irrelevant if

>Onefinger is correct that the kid in question was off duty

>acting on his own at the time of the incident.

 

I thought Flower was quite clear that it was only relevant if the subject was acting in "the course and scope of their employment" when the crime was commited.

 

Barry

[axebahia]

>I thought Flower was quite clear that it was only relevant if

>the subject was acting in "the course and scope of their

>employment" when the crime was commited.

 

Yes, but I thought that OneFinger was equally clear that the subject was acting in "the course and scope of their employment" when the crime was commited" so I don't see the point of Flower's soliquoly!

[axebahia]

Sorry, I meant "not"!

 

>Yes, but I thought that OneFinger was equally clear that the

>subject was not acting in "the course and scope of their

>employment" when the crime was commited" so I don't see

>the point of Flower's soliquoly!

[OneFinger]

>...your soliloquy is totally irrelevant if Onefinger is correct that the kid in question was off duty acting on his own at the time of the incident.

 

According to the Washington Blade, "...Patterson said Kainer met Villafane before Villafane began working for the escort service, and that Kainer was not believed to be one of his escort customers." (I added the bolding to emphasize my point.)

 

See http://www.washingtonblade.com/2003/7-18/news/localnews/philly.cfm

 

I maintain the agency has NO responsibility for this crime. Smearing them is making them guilty by association. However, I don't mean to imply that ANY agency is not responsible for verifying the age of the escorts they offer. But, that's not an issue in this murder case.

[Flower]

>Sorry, I meant "not"!

 

Actually, I don't think you ever know what you mean, but regardless, I was responding to the original post as set forth below in red You are so anxious to be a complete jerk, that you don't read the basic facts any more than you proof your replies! x(

 

#36991, "Question Regarding Agencies that Use Young Guys"       

Question:

Is an escort agency that hires young guys under 21, responsible if the escort, overwelmed (sic) by money, becomes involved with drugs and crime? Specifically, what do you think is Premier's responsibility to Luis Alberto Villafane?

 

While newspapers and others my insert "facts" for which they have absolutely NO PERSONAL knowledge, but just hearsay information, the original poster's question said NOTHING about there being a relationship BEFORE the agency association. If onefinger added "facts" and I was replying to him AND I accepted his account or the newspaper's account (the latter are usually unreliable), then my answer would have been different.

 

However, I should add, that I have NEVER seen the law so black and white as you always do--you must be very very talented and brilliant to always answer with such absolute certainty on every issue you respond to.

 

My answer still stands as a reply to the original post. :+

[Flower]

If those facts are correct, then you probably are also:)

[axebahia]

> If those facts are correct, then you

>probably are also:)

 

That would mean that I am right in what I said above, and that your post was irrelevant as I showed above.

[axebahia]

>My answer still stands as a reply to the original post. :+

 

Fine, but by the time you posted it, OneFinger had clarified that the kid was neither working for the Agency as employee or otherwise so your original post still stands as irrelevant!

[Flower]

Whatever dude--the distinction I made above obviously went over your head<sigh>

[axebahia]

> Whatever dude--the distinction I made

>above obviously went over your head<sigh>

 

No, I understand the distinction. It's just that it has nothing to do with the facts of this case. No wonder, you were or are a government lawyer!

[Flower]

>>My answer still stands as a reply to the original post. :+

>

>Fine, but by the time you posted it, OneFinger had clarified

>that the kid was neither working for the Agency as employee or

>otherwise

 

With all due respect to Onefinger, how does he know? 'Cause the paper told him so!

 

That is unproven hearsay information at this point, and if true, then I said below I'd agree with him--but I chose not to include that bit of information in my hypothesis since it wasn't part of the original query nor was it PROVEN.

 

You, my friend, seem to believe EVERYTHING you read in the papers or see on your courtroom television dramas--maybe that explains why your mind is made of mush!:+

[axebahia]

>You, my friend, seem to believe EVERYTHING you read in the

>papers or see on your courtroom television dramas--maybe that

>explains why your mind is made of mush!:+

 

You, my friend, seem incapable of admitting that you were either wrong in your original post or had not read the complete thread before launching into your soliloquy.

[+ Lucky]

Our government has lawyers? Then why is it so fucked up?

[NickAtNight]

This is Nick from Premier in Philadelphia.

 

To clear up any rumors or accusations regarding our hiring proceedures here at Premier. State issued photo I D is one of the requirements to be hired here.

 

Luis Villafane also known as Christian worked here on and off from Aug. 2001 til May 2003.

 

Birthdate: August 5, 1983

Turned 18: August 5, 2001

First HooBoy Review: Sept, 2001

 

His photo ID is still on file here and anyone wishing to verify it may do so.

 

Should you have any other questions or comments - please don't hesitate to contact me: 888 - 765 - 6665

 

Thank you,

 

NICK http://www.PremierEscorts.com

[Flower]

>You, my friend, seem incapable of admitting that you were

>either wrong in your original post or had not read the

>complete thread before launching into your soliloquy.

 

Whoa--I didn't realize I was talking to Mr. Robert's Rules of MC conduct, or is it Charles in Charge, or maybe just a Hall monitor--if I had, then I'd surly be more respectful}(

 

Where is it written that one has to read ALL the posts to a thread b4 posting? And Where is it written that I have to respond to only subsequent posts rather than the original one? Or that I have to accept as gospel what other posters have said the newspaper said and post accordingly?

 

Your comments here show you to be extremely anal (read:head up your ass) and very regimented in your thinking, such as it is:+

[Flower]

>No, I understand the distinction. It's just that it has

>nothing to do with the facts of this case. No wonder, you

>were or are a government lawyer!

>

dude--you're way over your head here. Blame it on senility or your old age, but you simply have no concept of the legalities you pretend to espouse.

 

First and foremost, WHAT ARE THE FACTS?

 

Do YOU know what they are? If so, tell us all what the facts are and how you know them to be fact.

 

What is SO ridiculous is that YOUR only knowledge of this case is through simple hearsay, yet you are arguing as if you were an eyewitness and know what actually occurred and then trying to set the ground rules for this thread based on your speculation!

 

And btw, if you think it an insult to call me a "government lawyer", think again. Some of the finest lawyers I have met have been "government lawyers," so no insult there. Now if you said I was like you or even similar, then that would truly be an insult and that would make me madx(