Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 57

Thread: Jared and Subway

  1. #1

    Jared and Subway

    If this part of the tawdry Jared story turns out to be true, paying $100 for sex with a 16 year old from Craigslist, it will make things quite bad.

    I never ceased to be amazed at the poor judgement shown by some guys. He was worth $13-$15 million according to some reports, but used Craigslist, and apparently texted people affiliated with Subway about it.

    I would of course hope that none of us are ever with anyone under 18. But if one of use were with someone off of Backpage or Annonce who said she was underaged afterward, the logical reaction would be to delete every text and record of the calls, drive away from the incall location at the posted speed limit, destroy the phone and get a brand new phone number, and never mention it to anyone. Of course jared seemed to be seeking underaged girls, so perhaps his whole thinking mechanism is warped.

    The dangers of a case like this to the ordinary John is if Subway management did in fact know about his interest in minors in 2008, did nothing, and now gets nailed from a bad publicity and legal liability standpoint (there might be quite the line of young ladies lining up claiming to have been that 16 year-old). The reaction of corporate America will be to overreact like they did in the sexual harassment arena after Anita Hill, and to destroy any male employee caught or suspected of purchasing sex even when the transaction is consensual and involves adults.

    I realize some may not know what the hell Subway is, given Montreal's great cuisine. It is an overpriced sandwich shop that claims to have more nutritious food than other fast food competitors. Jared and his weight loss from constantly eating at Subway was their primary marketing technique.

    http://gawker.com/report-jared-fogle...x-w-1721500701

  2. #2
    Amazing!

    WTF was he thinking? 16 year olds? Really? And he knew it?

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by hungry101 View Post
    Amazing!

    WTF was he thinking? 16 year olds? Really? And he knew it?
    I realize it is not the most politically correct thing to say, but a lot of morbidly obese people have mental issues and should probably get themselves checked out throughout their lives even after no longer being obese. I remember reading a study about the very significant percentage of women who become promiscuous lesbian sex addicts following gastric surgery that cures their obesity.

    I am an innocent until proven guilty type of guy, but the circumstantial evidence against Jared is really piling up. If he is really attracted to minors and into having sex with minors, perhaps he had a terrible childhood because of his weight and something happened to keep normal mental development from happening? What amazes me is that he is supposedly really talented at public relations and can work a crowd with the best of them. How could he not have developed a filter that would hide what is clearly not socially acceptable. And how could he not realize that being so indiscreet with conversations and texts would put his livelihood in danger? Just bizarre if all the accusations are true about him saying "middle school girls are hot", and texting regarding paying a 16 year-old for sex while trying to arrange a rendezvous with another minor. Texts that could easily be traced back to him.

    As I said originally, the tragedy for us johns who are interested in consensual commercial sex with other adults is that the abolitionists just love to jump on an isolated case like this, and argue that it represents the norm in the industry.

  4. #4
    There was a Merb member in here who looked just like Jared. Forgot his ID. He was very fond of that blond SP Tamara who worked at XXXtase and a few other agencies plus a stint at Indy.

    That Jared guy is kinda creepy. Looks like a nice guy on the outside but what is going on between the ears is very disturbing.

  5. #5
    Gorgeous ladies Fanatic
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Northern emisphere
    Posts
    5,925
    Hello all

    http://www.ibtimes.com/jared-fogle-u...20?rel=latest2


    It’s official: Former Subway spokesman Jared Fogle is not going to get paid to “eat fresh” any longer. Subway issued a brief message Tuesday after it was reported that the embattled 37-year-old will plead guilty to child pornography charges in a sexual abuse probe by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

    “We no longer have a relationship with Jared and have no further comment,” Subway wrote Tuesday. The message was shared nearly 5,000 times by the chain’s 2.26 million followers. More than 3,000 people liked the post.

    Fogle has not been arrested or charged in the case, but he will accept a plea deal, local news station WXIN reported. The U.S. Attorney’s Office will hold a press conference Wednesday, which is the same day he will reportedly accept the deal.

    subway tweet screenshot
    Subway tweeted this in response to recent allegations against former spokesperson Jared Fogle. Twitter
    Neither Fogle nor his attorney, Ron Elberger, have issued a statement about the plea deal. Fogle has remained off Twitter since federal agents raided his Zionsville, Indiana, home in early July. They seized several computers and DVDs after state and federal warrants were issued in connection to child pornography.

    Months earlier, Russell Taylor, the former director of the Jared Foundation, was arrested in a child pornography case. He unsuccessfully tried to kill himself while imprisoned, WXIN reported.

    Fogle became a household name after he attributed a massive weight loss to Subway. Seventeen years ago, when he was 425 pounds, Fogle said he ate multiple sandwiches from the chain per week and subsequently dropped more than 200 pounds on the “Subway Diet,” all while he was a student at Indiana University. After becoming a spokesman for the company, he garnered a net worth of $15 million, according to the New York Daily News.





    Cheers




    Booker

  6. #6
    He might be eating a lot of jailhouse subs soon.

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Asgard Or North America
    Posts
    663
    Harold and Kumar specialty sandwich: Bobs Cock Meat Sandwich...

    Thor Jr

  8. #8
    Holy shit. 5-12.5 years at sentencing is a lot, given that I think at least 75 percent of any federal sentence must be served before release. But I guess they had the goods on him. As I said before, it pisses me off that publicity like this gives the abolitionists propaganda to say this is the norm, when in fact it is an absolute aberration. He apparently scoured the lowest form of advertising (Craiglist at the time) to look for underaged girls and used those contacts to find other underaged girls. And most of the crime was the child pornography instead of prostitution, but the abolitionists will conveniently ignore that.

    http://news.yahoo.com/tv-report-ex-s...--finance.html

    Plus one of the most troubling things is the fact that this is a federal case and the federal government makes such a big deal in the charging documents regarding his traveling for sex and use of emails and social media. This of course is necessary for the federal government to prosecute him for what are essentially state crimes. But the long-term worry is that the federal government starts doing this for sex with minors, and then quietly expands such prosecutorial activity to those traveling and using the Internet for consensual adult sex. It has not happened yet, and may never happen, but jurisdictional "creep" is worrisome. Indiana outlaws child pornography and New York prohibits purchasing sex from minors. If the federal government has evidence of a crime, why the hell can't it just turn that evidence over to the applicable states and let them choose whether or not to prosecute. Why do the Feds need to be involved in so much prosecution?

    http://www.businessinsider.com/jared...-minors-2015-8

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Snuggletown
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Patron View Post
    Holy shit. 5-12.5 years at sentencing is a lot, given that I think at least 75 percent of any federal sentence must be served before release.
    Here's an article about why it's a reasonnable plea bargain under the circumstances.
    http://reason.com/blog/2015/08/19/wh...n-plea-deal-ma


    Quote Originally Posted by Patron View Post
    This of course is necessary for the federal government to prosecute him for what are essentially state crimes.
    As an aside, aren't they sometimes using federal laws to prosecute people for pot in states where it's legal? They could easily do the same with sex work, even if some states decided to decriminalize it. It dosn't have to be minors; just contacting an escort across state could be a case of human trafficking.
    “Truth, Justice, Freedom, Reasonably Priced Love.”

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Siocnarf View Post
    Here's an article about why it's a reasonnable plea bargain under the circumstances.
    http://reason.com/blog/2015/08/19/wh...n-plea-deal-ma



    As an aside, aren't they sometimes using federal laws to prosecute people for pot in states where it's legal? They could easily do the same with sex work, even if some states decided to decriminalize it. It dosn't have to be minors; just contacting an escort across state could be a case of human trafficking.
    That was a good article and thanks for finding it. I can't help but laugh that they imposed an old Subway ad with Jared as part of the article, right where a sponsored ad would have been.

    The laws in the United States are so fucked up it is hard to know what is up. There is a large element of judgement and a person just has to hope the government uses it wisely. The reports indicate that he viewed pornography produced and obtained by his close friend on a continuous basis and that pornography featured very young children. Hopefully that is why they used their judgement to come down so hard. With respect to his travel for actual commercial sex with 16 and 17 year-olds, while all of us would disapprove, this is after all a John board where guys have commercial sex with lots of 18 and 19 year-olds. It strikes me as strange that some would get on a high horse and say that the same act would be deserving of drastically different treatment for a two year age difference. It does not strike me as reasonable that consensual commercial sex with a 16 year old would get someone a decade in prison and consensual sex with an 18 year old would get someone a diversion class.

    The duplicity in state and federal law enforcement in the U.S. is so inefficient that no one in the U.S. should ever consider criticizing Quebec for the inefficiencies of having two languages. So much of what the federal government does is based on policy. The jurisdictional power of the federal government is so vast that scholars write illustrative books such as You Are Probably a Federal Criminal. My understanding from reading is that the official policy of the federal government is that it does not pursue either johns or providers in a prostitution case unless one of the parties is a minor or violence is involved. If all parties are adults, only those profiting from the activity (other than the provider) are pursued by the federal government for prosecution and seizure. This came to light during the Spitzer saga when his enemies wondered why neither he or the hookers were charged. Supposedly, the federal government believes the Mann Act (that would give it jurisdiction when parties cross state lines for adult commercial sex) is a weak law and they do not want to test it. So they go after the owners of agencies (and more importantly the seizable assets) under different jurisdictional rights that are harder to challenge.

    Of course not everyone gets these memos. There was a doctor charged down south by the FBI with crossing state lines to purchase sex when they discovered his emails to sex workers while investigating him for some other crime like Medicare billing fraud. Eventually I think it got dropped when Washington DC told the local FBI branch that they don't charge johns with being johns. Of course, the state can use the federal evidence to charge people, but fortunately that rarely seems to happen. When the Feds charge the principals of an escort service, the fallout has so far not effected the providers or the johns.

    The obvious problem with policies is that they can be changed at a moments notice, with no notification.

  11. #11

    Wink

    [QUOTE=Springsteen;901368]He might be eating a lot of jailhouse subs soon.[/QUOT

    Is it faire to say Jared will be getting à différent kind of footlong in jail?

  12. #12
    A poor corrupt official
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Casablanca
    Posts
    1,235
    Quote Originally Posted by Patron View Post
    There was a doctor charged down south by the FBI with crossing state lines to purchase sex when they discovered his emails to sex workers while investigating him for some other crime like Medicare billing fraud. Eventually I think it got dropped when Washington DC told the local FBI branch that they don't charge johns with being johns. Of course, the state can use the federal evidence to charge people, but fortunately that rarely seems to happen. When the Feds charge the principals of an escort service, the fallout has so far not effected the providers or the johns.
    Patron, good points. I think you're referring to the infamous New Orleans brothel case of the early 2000s (see below). As noted in the article, the act of hiring a prostitute is not by itself a federal crime in the U.S. But it is a crime in all the states, except for a few counties in Nevada. Of course, as you've noted before, clients in the U.S. usually only get charged with an offense when they get caught in local police stings such as those involving female cops posing as streetwalkers or Backpage girls. Or when they actively seek out underage girls as Jared did..

    FBI probe of brothel criticized amid 9/11
    The Washington Times - Friday, July 5, 2002


    NEW ORLEANS The FBI office here received a tip a couple of years ago that a high-dollar brothel was operating just off the city's famed Canal Street and that it might be controlled by a member of the Marcello mob family.
    The tip came from a woman who called the New Orleans Police Department from out of state, who explained she had been "ripped off" by the madam who ran the New Orleans prostitution operation.
    From that tip grew an FBI investigation that has come under criticism by some who say the agency was spending its time investigating prostitutes instead of potential terrorists during the months leading up to the September 11 attacks.

    The woman who tipped off the FBI refused to give her name, but did provide the address of the brothel, several telephone numbers and the names of reputed prostitutes involved. She also said the property was owned by the Marcellos.

    Carlos Marcello, considered by Mafia experts as one of the most powerful of the regional mob leaders in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, died several years ago, but law enforcement has been steadily watching other family members suspected of dealing in gambling, prostitution and other rackets.

    It turned out that the property where the brothel was operating was owned by Vincent Marcello, nephew of Carlos.

    The FBI interviewed Vincent Marcello and his attorneys, and were given assurances and shown documents that Mr. Marcello owned the property, but had evicted the renters because of neighbors' complaints. The brothel had since moved a block or so away, into a stately old mansion on Canal Street.

    FBI agents, still not sure what they were onto but impressed with the high fees ($200 to $300 an hour) paid by the brothel's clients, staked out the place.
    At that point, the investigation might not have gone much further. With only one informant out of state and identity unknown most say the bureau would have had trouble getting permission to place wiretaps on the mansion's phones.

    But then the FBI agents got a break.

    A lung surgeon from Ruston, near Shreveport, had been under investigation for several years for defrauding the U.S. government out of millions in Medicare fees. He was indicted in May 2001. Dr. Howard Lippton was sentenced a few days ago to 18 months in prison and a $10,000 fine.

    Bureau workers tallied up an estimated $1.3 million that Lippton had earned illegally false billings for services to 117 nursing home patients. The agency also noticed that more than $300,000 in checks had been written to women in the New Orleans area.

    Lippton said he had regularly frequented the brothel. He even had girls driven up to Ruston, and often smoked marijuana with them.

    He agreed to be wired and provide evidence, even to re-establish his relationship with the operation. Since he probably had been their top customer between 1994 and 1998, he was warmly welcomed back.
    With Lippton providing names and dates, and tape-recording telephone calls to madam Jeanette Maier, 43, and her associates, the FBI began building a case.

    And last summer and fall, three different wiretap authorizations were obtained by the FBI as agents sat for hours at a time listening (then summarizing) conversations to and from the brothel.
    Finally on April 2, sealed indictments were opened, charging Maier and 14 other defendants with numerous federal crimes from operating a prostitution ring with connections in several U.S. cities to possession and intent to distribute cocaine, heroin and marijuana.

    Maier, confronted with hundreds of hours of wiretaps, agreed to a plea bargain earlier this summer and reportedly has been helping FBI agents make cases in cities such as Boston, Detroit, Pittsburgh and Houston, where the prostitutes operated a loosely aligned network. She is to be sentenced later in the fall

    Had it not been for the September 11 terrorist attacks and the intense scrutiny it brought on the FBI, the agency might have simply enjoyed the plaudits that come with a successful sting operation.
    But defense lawyers and others representing the brothel's customers point out that on the morning the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked, FBI agents here were spending hours listening to conversations between madams, prostitutes and clients. This revelation angered some in Washington, who questioned why the bureau here hadn't been more interested in terrorism, rather than prostitution.

    Word also leaked out that Maier had turned over her "little black book" a list of hundreds of clients, including a handful of well-known entertainers, a city council member, professional athletes, restaurateurs and business leaders.

    For weeks, many brothel customers and their attorneys tried to find out whether they would be publicly named, or even charged.

    Finally, acting U.S. Attorney Jim Letten announced that there had been no federal laws violated by the brothel's customers and that any prosecution should be handled by the New Orleans parish district attorney, Harry Connick.
    "It's their investigation," said Mr. Connick, who tossed the ball back to the feds.

    Some defense lawyers have criticized the FBI decision not to prosecute the brothel's customers, or "johns."

    Laurie White, attorney for Maier, said that "the saddest thing about this is that we saw 15 people indicted and not a single john."
    "Surely, a conspiracy involves more than one person. And obviously the prostitute is not working alone," she said.

    "It makes for an awkward double standard," said Harry Rosenberg, U.S. attorney in New Orleans from 1990 to 1993.

    Mr. Rosenberg said the local U.S. Attorney's Office "hasn't been shy in the past about using conspiracy statutes or a more liberal interpretation of conspiracy statutes to pursue certain individuals."
    "And I think they could use the same liberal approach in considering the prosecution of these customers," he said.
    FBI special agent in charge Dave Kaiser said the FBI has been unfairly criticized.

    Some news accounts, he said, "have been off the wall."

    "Some have said we had 12 agents working on this for 13 months. That's so far from the truth," he said.

    Mr. Kaiser said only two agents worked full-time on the case, with others filling in from time to time over a six- to seven-month span. The organized crime squad, which handled this investigation, said the FBI chief had only eight to 10 agents and continued to work on other cases as well.

    As for the demand that the customers be charged criminally, Mr. Kaiser said that decision was the U.S. attorney's.

    "If Jim Letten says that and I'm not a lawyer if he says there are no federal laws and statutes to prosecute the johns, I rely on what he tells me," Mr. Kaiser said.
    Strasser: By the way, the murder of the couriers, what has been done?
    Renault: Realizing the importance of the case, my men are rounding up twice the usual number of suspects.
    Heinze: We already know who the murderer is.
    Strasser: Good. Is he in custody?
    Renault: Oh, there's no hurry. Tonight he'll be at Rick's. Everybody comes to Rick's.

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Snuggletown
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Patron View Post
    Of course, the state can use the federal evidence to charge people, but fortunately that rarely seems to happen. When the Feds charge the principals of an escort service, the fallout has so far not effected the providers or the johns.
    One reason I think states don't bother charging clients of escort is that most of us are at least rich enough to hire a lawyer or at least pay our bail for such a small crime. They seem to charge small drug and prostitution crimes mostly on poor people who can't afford bail. Then the accused usually accepts a guilty plea bargain to avoid spending a year in jail awaiting trial.
    “Truth, Justice, Freedom, Reasonably Priced Love.”

  14. #14
    Actually it was a far different case, but your's was more interesting reading.

    The one I was thinking of was less exciting. Two doctors in business together began hating each other.

    One doc told the FBI if they seized the other's computer they could find evidence of some federal crime. I just guessed it was billing fraud.

    The two female agents found no such evidence, but did find that he was quite the prolific John and charged him with something the federal government had not traditionally charged anyone with. It was worrisome, but it ended up getting dropped entirely. I remember reading about it on TER.

    What troubled me reading the Jared stuff was the emphasis it placed on the reason for his traveling. Traditionally, we are pretty free in this country to travel around without question. If you decide to see an escort on vacation or while on business, presumably you do not cross state lines for an immoral purpose, allowing the federal government to get involved and question your every activity and movement. That is why cases like this that are publicized and not fought tooth and nail are troubling. They might have deservingly put a bad guy in jail, but that does not mean the Feds should get to set precedence if they decide to get heavy handed and try to put good guys in jail.

    If the federal government goes so far as to make state laws irrelevant, maybe it is time to have just one set of laws. I am not going to mourn the Boston bomber when they execute him, but I did not feel comfortable with the federal government taking over the prosecution just so the death penalty would be available. Massachusetts has laws against murder, too.

  15. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Snuggletown
    Posts
    1,834
    There was something like that with the Charleston killer who was indicted both by the state and by the Federal (even though he still faces execution if convicted in that state).
    http://reason.com/archives/2015/07/2...dylann-roof-is
    “Truth, Justice, Freedom, Reasonably Priced Love.”

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •