Matt Gaetz under investigation b/c of suspected sex trafficking of a minor

[RandBlade]

Paying for shared drinks, meals, accomodations, etc. is not. Paying for theirs explicitly/exclusively, OTOH. . . which is why paying for the travel is always brought up in these cases, even if it doesn't involve crossing any state lines.

So if someone buys travel tickets for their girlfriend, perhaps as a birthday present or other, then that makes their girlfriend a prostitute?

[LittleFuzzy]

What were my words? "You're opening yourself to prosecution." You may have forgotten this but I am not Lewk. I don't believe in robo-justice and I frequently point out our system was designed with the idea that we are human beings capable of judgement and reasonable discretion.

It means their alleged girlfriend may actually be engaged in an act of prostitution. What's the context and what additional details are there, pointing in on direction or another? If I was going to engage in robojustice, one of the analytical standards would be the use of the concept necessity and sufficiency. Paying for travel is one of the many things which fall under "has an exchange taken place" which is a necessary condition for sustaining a prostitution charge. But it is not sufficient by itself to prove that it was prostitution, providing sex for renumeration. If you have a prior existing relationship, the additional details would not provide sufficiency for the charge. If you were arranging to have sex with on Ashley Madison with someone you had never previously met before, the details are going to be a much closer match to those of prostitution.
And if you by travel tickets for your girlfriend solely for booty call, maybe you should stop treating her like she's a prostitute.

[Hazir]

What were my words? "You're opening yourself to prosecution." You may have forgotten this but I am not Lewk. I don't believe in robo-justice and I frequently point out our system was designed with the idea that we are human beings capable of judgement and reasonable discretion.

It means their alleged girlfriend may actually be engaged in an act of prostitution. What's the context and what additional details are there, pointing in on direction or another? If I was going to engage in robojustice, one of the analytical standards would be the use of the concept necessity and sufficiency. Paying for travel is one of the many things which fall under "has an exchange taken place" which is a necessary condition for sustaining a prostitution charge. But it is not sufficient by itself to prove that it was prostitution, providing sex for renumeration. If you have a prior existing relationship, the additional details would not provide sufficiency for the charge. If you were arranging to have sex with on Ashley Madison with someone you had never previously met before, the details are going to be a much closer match to those of prostitution.
And if you by travel tickets for your girlfriend solely for booty call, maybe you should stop treating her like she's a prostitute.

The only thing i would add is that the nature of a pre-existing relationship would be taken into account.

@Randblade: the system wants you, more than anything, to think about the implications of your actions. It is geared towards you being unable to hide behind ignorance.

[Aimless]

Twitter Link

[Aimless]

Twitter Link

Okay so this obv. needs to be confirmed by other (better) sources, but it's not looking good for Lewk's Floridian hero.

[Lewkowski]

My Floridian hero? lol

[Aimless]

This has been the best thing about this whole story:

Twitter Link

[Flixy]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/joel-g...sex-with-minor

Aside from the confession, this alone should also ring some alarm bells:

[Aimless]

That entire piece is un-fucking-believable

[Aimless]

Big development:

Twitter Link

Funny development:

Twitter Link

Can't help but wonder whether Greenberg's ratting out other people besides Gaetz.