Lawyer offers seminar on C-36 - There is nothing to worry about.

[back sabbath]

I have read most of the threads here. I have no idea who is writing them, I have no idea if they have any background in interpreting the law, and while they provide some general information based on the discussions here, I have yet to see a thread which provides competent legal advice to clients who see companions and how to not break the law.

I wasn't even directing my comments towards massage parlors as I have not stepped foot in a massage parlor for at least 2 years.

I would be obliged if anyone could direct me to a particular thread that sets out how clients are able to see companions (formerly SPs)without breaking the law.

You don't need a competent lawyer to advise you which girls to see, just use your head ( common sense) and see those who are well reviewed or those you already know, it's been stated here many times.

The cops don't need to do anything and will probably not do much about c36.... all the fear and paranoia in some of the threads here on Terb is proof that C36 is working exactly as intended. Many will quit the hobby just as Peter Mackay intended.

 

[DigitallyYours]

An SP I know just came back from a seminar on C-36 that a lawyer was offering. Here are the highlights of the seminar.

I just googled every imaginable combination of "c-36", "legal", "law", "seminar", "$150", and couldn't find anything on this.

On top of that, no lawyer can (and would) provide legal advice on enforcement of the law so this whole thing really sounds questionable.

 

[legmann]

Yet one more reason not to rely on legal advice given over the Internet.

 

[MPAsquared]

She has stated that there are tons of threads here which address the legal issues (there are). Sometimes, it's the same questions that are asked over and over again which might get to those who have been the most vocal on explaining the new law. I don't think she wants to bite your hand. (Maybe mine lol).

This. I don't mean to come across harsh gentlemen. Txt doesn't convey tone of voice. My apologies

You don't need a competent lawyer to advise you which girls to see, just use your head ( common sense) and see those who are well reviewed or those you already know, it's been stated here many times.

The cops don't need to do anything and will probably not do much about c36.... all the fear and paranoia in some of the threads here on Terb is proof that C36 is working exactly as intended. Many will quit the hobby just as Peter Mackay intended.

This!

I just googled every imaginable combination of "c-36", "legal", "law", "seminar", "$150", and couldn't find anything on this.

On top of that, no lawyer can (and would) provide legal advice on enforcement of the law so this whole thing really sounds questionable.

Right! Which screams scam! I'm dying to know who this "lawyer" is

Yet one more reason not to rely on legal advice given over the Internet.

Touché!

 

[ARHC]

Emily, it's not unreasonable for customers to ask for some guidance so that they can still patronize your establishment (or anyone else). "Go hire your own lawyer" isn't quite a good marketing line. However, in your defense, I can vouch that you have given your input on numerous threads here, based on your own research which includes consultations with lawyers, LE, and sex worker organizations.

GPIDEAl, I personally don't understand why would u yourself with your knowledge of this industry and common sense would even require any guidance...Advertising, or leaving of avails etc it has absolutely nothing to do with terbites. The only thing that changed for hobbyists is that they can be charged with newly introduced "Obtaining for Consideration". To be charged with that you literally have to obtain from an undercover officer.
So here is my guidance: Pls don't obtain from strangers in shady places and u should be fine
Xoxo
CB

 

[MattRoxx]

...and remember to check the closet of the incall to make sure LE is not hiding in there LOL.

 

[TeasePlease]

The only thing that changed for hobbyists is that they can be charged with newly introduced "Obtaining for Consideration". To be charged with that you literally have to obtain from an undercover officer.

CB

Sorry, Crystal, but that is quite wrong. That would be the highest and best evidence, but certainly not the only probative evidence to support being charged.

Moreover, this little "only" thing is, from our perspective, quite a big thing.

 

[DigitallyYours]

Were you expecting a seminar designed to educate ladies who work in the industry to be open to the public? Didn't think so.

If this seminar happened and the OP is a summary of the advice you got, you guys got ripped off. Some of those points aren't legal "advice" or even legal information that a lawyer, in his/her capacity as a lawyer, has any authority to provide.

 

[DigitallyYours]

I didn't say I attended. My point was, if this event happened, it wouldn't have been made public. As for the remainder of your post, are you a lawyer? If not, are you sure a lawyer can't provide information they feel is factual and relevant? Hypothetically speaking.

Take this statement for example:
"- Massage parlors that offer sexual services will be targeted by police and they will be shutting down left and right soon."

No lawyer, in a regular capacity as a lawyer, would know this unless they work for the city or something like that in which case, I doubt they would be providing a seminar on C-36. If they believe this, it would just be word of mouth, which is about as reliable as anything else you read here on TERB. No reputable lawyer would run a seminar giving out information they just heard through word of mouth passing it off as "advice".

A lawyer can be quite helpful in providing this kind of information:
1. What actually happens when you get arrested/charged.
2. What you should say/not say if approached by the police.
3. Realistic outcomes for a first offense, etc.
4. Typical outcomes under the old laws for communications, bawdy house, living off avails, etc.
5. The differences between the different outcomes: for example, charges dropped vs. discharge vs. winning at trial vs. diversion, etc.
6. Implications of those outcomes on a criminal records check, employment checks, travel restrictions, etc.

 

[MPAsquared]

Were you expecting a seminar designed to educate ladies who work in the industry to be open to the public? Didn't think so.

Ok so who is this lawyer??? I'm still waiting to hear from the op.

If this seminar happened and the OP is a summary of the advice you got, you guys got ripped off. Some of those points aren't legal "advice" or even legal information that a lawyer, in his/her capacity as a lawyer, has any authority to provide.

100%! No lawyer can advise how to break the law. This would strip him of his right to practice law.

I didn't say I attended. My point was, if this event happened, it wouldn't have been made public. As for the remainder of your post, are you a lawyer? If not, are you sure a lawyer can't provide information they feel is factual and relevant? Hypothetically speaking.

No, but, most of that info in the op's post is false or misinformed or inaccurate. Total scam.

Take this statement for example:
"- Massage parlors that offer sexual services will be targeted by police and they will be shutting down left and right soon."

No lawyer, in a regular capacity as a lawyer, would know this unless they work for the city or something like that in which case, I doubt they would be providing a seminar on C-36. If they believe this, it would just be word of mouth, which is about as reliable as anything else you read here on TERB. No reputable lawyer would run a seminar giving out information they just heard through word of mouth passing it off as "advice".

A lawyer can be quite helpful in providing this kind of information:
1. What actually happens when you get arrested/charged.
2. What you should say/not say if approached by the police.
3. Realistic outcomes for a first offense, etc.
4. Typical outcomes under the old laws for communications, bawdy house, living off avails, etc.
5. The differences between the different outcomes: for example, charges dropped vs. discharge vs. winning at trial vs. diversion, etc.
6. Implications of those outcomes on a criminal records check, employment checks, travel restrictions, etc.

You are bang on! I'm dying to know who this apparent lawyer is!

 

[Smallcock]

GPIDEAl, I personally don't understand why would u yourself with your knowledge of this industry and common sense would even require any guidance...Advertising, or leaving of avails etc it has absolutely nothing to do with terbites. The only thing that changed for hobbyists is that they can be charged with newly introduced "Obtaining for Consideration". To be charged with that you literally have to obtain from an undercover officer.
So here is my guidance: Pls don't obtain from strangers in shady places and u should be fine
Xoxo
CB

When establishment owners such as yourself tell hobbyists not to worry about anything, it undermines your credibility. You're not the one that is going to get charged so you have nothing to worry about but please don't pretend you know that everything is the same as before and we're all safe. Nobody knows yet.

 

[Stoo]

On a related note, I stopped in to a SC in "Sauga Saturday night on my through town. Two swigs of beer later, a hottie came up and in a fairly loud voice, asked if I'd like to go out back for a "blowjob". I snorted the beer out my nose, and thanked her for the offer. Then I commented that she apparently wasn't too concerned about C-36. She laughed and said that she recognized me from a previous visit (which was BS... I haven't been there for at least six months)...

Anyway, clearly at that club, it was business as usual.

(PS I passed on her offer)

 

[TeasePlease]

Take this statement for example:
"- Massage parlors that offer sexual services will be targeted by police and they will be shutting down left and right soon."

Putting aside what LSUC might say about providing legal opinions and advice, this isn't necessarily a wrong statement. However, the statement is predicated on "sexual services", whatever that might be. IF MPs are found to provide sexual services, I'd bet a bagel that this statement will prove to be true. ​If....

 

[DigitallyYours]

They have all speculated about one thing or another in my conversations with them.

This board is full of personal opinion. Those genuinely concerned about the impact this new Bill will have on them personally, should spend the money and hire a lawyer for an hour. Simple.

Absolutely. I just want people to understand the difference between things lawyers say in their capacity as a lawyer and things they say, as people. We can all speculate, but speculations that come from a lawyer are still speculations. And people should not be paying $150 for speculations.

 

[ARHC]

Sorry, Crystal, but that is quite wrong. That would be the highest and best evidence, but certainly not the only probative evidence to support being charged.

Moreover, this little "only" thing is, from our perspective, quite a big thing.

To charge you they definitely need to catch you "obtaining"Or have a witness. And even that is still arguable in court...What I was saying, is that's the only thing that changed in the law that applies to our clients.
Its not the highest or the best evidence. Its simply the only sufficient enough evidence to charge you. Nothing else is I defenitely should ask my lawyer to open an account here.
But yes, I definitely don't want to get into debate about evidence on here. Guys seem to be looking for advises,but decide to simply attack owners who are trying to say anything at all.

 

[DB123]

To charge you they definitely need to catch you "obtaining"Or have a witness. And even that is still arguable in court...What I was saying, is that's the only thing that changed in the law that applies to our clients.
Its not the highest or the best evidence. Its simply the only sufficient enough evidence to charge you. Nothing else is I defenitely should ask my lawyer to open an account here.
But yes, I definitely don't want to get into debate about evidence on here. Guys seem to be looking for advises,but decide to simply attack owners who are trying to say anything at all.

That may well be the only evidence sufficient for a conviction, but you can charge someone and let them deal with the fallout for far less. With all due respect, that actually isn't open for debate, it's fact. The rules of evidence apply to determine guilt, not to the ability of LE to lay charges.

Not that I'm particularly concerned, but therein lies the difficultly. Convictions are likely to be few and far between, but I think most people are as concerned, if not more so, with being charged. To charge someone requires relatively little.

On another note, I knew of a guy who used to pretend to be a lawyer to scam immigrants at refugee tribunal hearings. He's not allowed to do that anymore so I wonder if he found a new line of work...

 

[ARHC]

That may well be the only evidence sufficient for a conviction, but you can charge someone and let them deal with the fallout for far less. With all due respect, that actually isn't open for debate, it's fact. The rules of evidence apply to determine guilt, not to the ability of LE to lay charges.

Not that I'm particularly concerned, but therein lies the difficultly. Convictions are likely to be few and far between, but I think most people are as concerned, if not more so, with being charged. To charge someone requires relatively little.

On another note, I knew of a guy who used to pretend to be a lawyer to scam immigrants at refugee tribunal hearings. He's not allowed to do that anymore so I wonder if he found a new line of work...

Well ok, before Dec6 ladies were the once who were criminally charged, not guys. Have u heard about anybody at all who was charged with prostitution charge without actually soliciting to an undercover cop??? Even By-law tickets don't happen without being actually caught

 

[DB123]

Well ok, before Dec6 ladies were the once who were criminally charged, not guys. Have u heard about anybody at all who was charged with prostitution charge without actually soliciting to an undercover cop??? Even By-law tickets don't happen without being actually caught

I agree, it isn't necessarily likely to happen.

Have you heard about anybody at all who was charged with murder without actually killing someone?

 

[ARHC]

I agree, it isn't necessarily likely to happen.

Have you heard about anybody at all who was charged with murder without actually killing someone?

Lol off course I've heard that happens lmao

 

[TeasePlease]

To charge you they definitely need to catch you "obtaining"Or have a witness. And even that is still arguable in court...What I was saying, is that's the only thing that changed in the law that applies to our clients.
Its not the highest or the best evidence. Its simply the only sufficient enough evidence to charge you. Nothing else is I defenitely should ask my lawyer to open an account here.

Ask your lawyer: do they have to catch a thief stealing a car to charge him/him? You don't need a witness. You need evidence of the act.

Not all lawyers are created equal and not all lawyers (or LE) really understand how the industry works. If they ever figure it out and decide that they really wanted to prosecute, we would be in real trouble.