Montreal Angels Apology and Request to Return to MERB

[Siocnarf]

EB, the basis for the ban is the one threat posted directly on merb. That is enough for a severe suspension and the fact they edited the post many times over a long period is an aggravating circumstance. Anything MA does outside of merb is good to know, but I agree it cannot be cause for a ban unless they get actually convicted of some criminal activity.

The question, simply stated should be: does MA actions on merb justify a ban from merb. Me, I think it does.

 

[nightcrawler]

i think the ban should continue, if anyone else had written comments like that I believe they would have been ban for life (he modified his responce and they were still filled with threats) However the decision should not be left up to the comunity.

I have had 1 horrible experince with one of his girls and the booker so I would never use the agency again that is $180 that i will never get back

I will just never use them again, however other should have the choice to use them

HOWEVER BUYER BEWARE

 

[Merlot]

To address evillethings' quote, as I said in my last post we have no control over anything that happens in the hobby away from MERB.

Fine,

One question: would we be having this discussion if it had been a member making that threat and not an agency the board can profit from???

Still, if it is true that some clients were trying to push his escorts to other agencies maybe the anger by Jeff has to be put into a more understanding context.

You know mods, maybe one of the key problems on this issue is you guys used the permanent ban standard for it and now it seems you might think you were too harsh and you are seeking some validation to override yourselves?

My feeling, at minimum make the suspension significant, months, but not permanent.

Make a poll:

1. permanent

2. return now

3. long suspension (2-3 months)

really,

Merlot

 

[ManApart]

I believe I was one of the people the threatening statements were directed towards. I indeed was contacting Vanessa privately, trying to arrange for a meeting, since she also was working as an Independent at the time. I wouldn't have done so otherwise. I was quite angry when I initially read the statement.

After it all wore off and I talked things over with Jeff personally, I decided that he just went off in a bout of frustration, thinking people were basically trying to steal his business, and didn't think things through. It still is no excuse. He still needs to face the consequences of his actions, but I could relate to making an impulsive and less than wise decision in the heat of the moment.

I still think he deserves a very firm suspension and it is good that he can now read how everybody felt about his actions, in this thread. In saying that, I do believe a lifetime ban without the possibility of coming back and redeeming himself, at some point, is excessive. It's not like he bet on baseball or anything. Lol, just a little Pete Rose humour there.

As EagerBeaver I think mentioned, people still have the right to not use his agency. This is just about his right to advertise on this board.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

While physical threats stand on a different footing than bait and switch tactics, they are the purview of the Montreal police department, not MERB. In effect, those who are calling for MA's permanent ban are asking the Mods to strip a proprietary right which in theory only law enforcement has the right to take away.

Actually, Beav, the purview of the Mods is whatever they feel it is. If they choose to ban someone or something permanently, that is absolutely within their authority through power granted by Fred Zed, who has absolute authority over what goes on on his board.

They've asked our opinion, they'll weigh what they hear from us, and then make their decision with their absolute authority.

This is just about his right to advertise on this board.

And, of course, his right is entirely at the pleasure of Fred Zed.

I was in favor of giving Jeff a second chance until I read the post to which Alyssa Roze linked, where one of his bookers also threatened a client with physical harm. That made Jeff's threats a second offense.

 

[rewindedforward]

After what I've read, I don't feel comfortable with this agency. It's got nothing to do with the 'threat'. It's got everything to do with how that threat was received on the girls' end. I'm concerned.

RF

 

[getsome]

I think that the only thing that matters now... is trust.

Do we trust him or not?

Did we get any input from the girls ? I think not!

 

[Red Paul]

Keep the ban. His language excuse is flimsy -- there was no mistaking what he wanted to say. Now he's changing his tune, but what happens the next time he loses his temper?

Keeping the ban sends a message that he and other agency owners won't ignore.

 

[KarinaSmith]

Thank you Gugu, I thought that with them being banned that it could put more silence to the danger that is out there. Then in that case I don't think the agency should have access to the boards.

 

[man77777]

Only one error + Followed by apologies = MA deserves a second chance

 

[S.S neo]

There is a lot of members sentenced to permanent ban on the fact that they wrote rude remarks ... on my scale, threatning is a lot more serious than ''fuckyouing'' another member.

Mods : I know that it looks like a one-shot deal now, but if you let this one pass, you will have to let go the next one who tilts.

Please act like Shanahan ... not Campbell.

 

[charmer_]

My feeling, at minimum make the suspension significant, months, but not permanent.

Make a poll:

1. permanent

2. return now

3. long suspension (2-3 months)

really,

Merlot

If it were to be a "long suspension", I'd say it should be more like a year, rather than just a few months.

After that, if there's no news of any "incidents" on Montreal Angels part, it might be worth considering in having them return to MERB.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Actually, Beav, the purview of the Mods is whatever they feel it is.

No it is not. If a matter is brought to the attention of the Mods which falls within the purview of criminal law enforcement, their duty is to turn it over to the Montreal Police Department. Furthermore, if a criminal threat is/was made, and the Mods dole out punishment for it without reporting it to the Montreal Police Department, they themselves would be liable for prosecution for impersonation of law enforcement as well as other charges including obstruction of justice. Police departments will usually charge obstruction of justice if someone either usurps or blocks normal LE function.

I think the Mods know all this and they know they tread very lightly once an offense is committed that falls within the jurisdiction of LE.

This is not to say that MA engaged in criminal threats. The threat that was the subject of MA's ban was, at best, ambiguous, and it seems clear it was not made good on and there was likely no capability of doing so. I have actually defended a client on charges of criminal threatening, and his inability to effectuate the asserted threat was the key component of my successful defense of that case. I think a similar successful defense could be made here.

The Mods have jurisdiction over violations of Board rules. To the extent that violation of a board rule and the criminal law overlap, they no longer have jurisdiction, as the police have EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction over arguable violations of the criminal law. Any attempt to assert jurisdiction by the Mods is at risk of facing the charges noted above.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Beav, my comment was meant to consider only that which occurs on the board. The mods operate at the leisure of Fred Zed and can do as they please as long as they please him.

As for what occurs in the "real" world, that is a different story. You seem to know an awful lot about Canadian law. You licensed to practice up here?

Hypothetical here. What if this board resides on a server in Finland? Are the mods still responsible to the Montreal Police? I have no idea and I'll bet dollars to donuts you don't either.

 

[sapman99]

Bbfs

Two board members have been handed down permanent MERB bans because sufficient evidence was presented here that they were indeed engaging in this despicable practice.

Obviously, they couldn't have been engaging in this here in electron world . Neither is BBFS technically illegal. It IS unacceptable in any type of casual sex relationship. In a "community" such as MERB where we know full well the girl we review will sleep with some of our "pals", its' indefensible.

Actually, Beav, the purview of the Mods is whatever they feel it is. If they choose to ban someone or something permanently, that is absolutely within their authority through power granted by Fred Zed, who has absolute authority over what goes on on his board.

First of all, that is bang on. Fred owns the board and therefore can make rules as he sees fit. Luckily here (as compared to other places), the rules are clearly laid out, they are applied fairly, and infractions and banishment occurrences are made public.

Not only is the statement quoted above correct, the application of the powers the moderators have here has in my opinion served the "community" well 99% of the time.

As I said before, keep up the good work.

 

[EagerBeaver]

As for what occurs in the "real" world, that is a different story. You seem to know an awful lot about Canadian law. You licensed to practice up here?

Hypothetical here. What if this board resides on a server in Finland? Are the mods still responsible to the Montreal Police? I have no idea and I'll bet dollars to donuts you don't either.

My analysis was based on the law of most jurisdictions being consistent on these issues. I am licensed to practice law in 3 jurisdictions in the USA as well as federal courts but not Canada. I think threatening and obstruction of justice are against the law everywhere.

Regarding the issue of which police force has jurisdiction it is the location in which the threat was made. MA, if they had posted a threat from a computer in Montreal, would be subject to jurisdiction there. Where the server is, is irrelevant.

 

[gugu]

EB, my understanding is that rumple was originally responding to your comment: "In effect, those who are calling for MA's permanent ban are asking the Mods to strip a proprietary right which in theory only law enforcement has the right to take away". I though, just like him, that a private owner like Fred may not be able to make any discrimination he wants, but that he has plenty to back him on this case, including infringement of the board rules. Things do not need to be criminal to be against rules. Also, if the agency pushes this to the limits and decides to sue Fred, they may have to respond to accusations under 212. On the other part of your argument, I don't think citizens may be accused of not reporting criminal activities if their criminal aspects are subject to interpretation.

BTW, this guy is amazing: he keeps saying, after his apologies, that the members he is talking about will recognize themselves. This alone adds up to the pile. Also says that no one treats his staff better then he does. If so, I just don't understand why he is scared of the competition.

 

[sapman99]

Discussions de salon / Parlour discussions

I have to chuckle when I see these legal fine points debated about this board. Don't get me wrong, I think the law is very important in our lives.

But in the case of this "industry" and this board, most of what you are discussing may be of interest to some, but is highly hypothetical.

The first hole I see is what I will call the "Al Capone" hole: Lets' say an agency owner is fool enough to complain to LE about the board, couldn't the board in retaliation tip off LE that maybe, just maybe, the agency owner is engaging in tax evasion on a grand scale.

That is just for starters.

The law and "mutually agreed upon rules of conduct" (we all agreed to abide by the rules when we became members) are two different things. Especially in this setting.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Things do not need to be criminal to be against rules.

I never said they did. What I said is that there COULD be a grey area where an act is committed that violated BOTH board rules and the criminal law. If such an act is committed the Mods have no duty to do anything other than turn the matter over to LE. If they act unilaterally without informing LE, they do so at risk of possible charges for obstruction of justice and impersonation of a police officer.

Although many posters have sprayed opinions like a skunk sprays his urine, nobody has grappled with a very fundamental issue: was the threat made a criminal threat? If you were to ask me my legal opinion, I would say probably not. But the answer is not clear.

You, sapman, have artfully dodged and slipped this issue like maple syrup sliding off a pancake. If the threat was clearly not criminal, I would suggest that the Mods can act as they please. You, apparently, believe the threat was clearly not criminal, to have foisted the opinions which you foist. I, on the other hand, merely point out that we are in an area of law where one must tread very, very carefully, to the extent that criminal law and board rules intersect. In such an area, the Mods have no jurisdiction. LE has exclusive jurisdiction.

 

[Mod 11]

I'm sorry to interrupt guys but, didn't Mod 8 issued a warning in this thread before?

EB, on MERB, WE are the law. Nobody is forcing anybody to visit here and, those who don't agree with the rules set by MERB administration/moderators can go elsewhere to check if we're there and forget to come back.

As long as we don't infringe on any laws, we rule here as we see fit. There was no legal infractions done by the moderators in this case.

Next one who question the mods authority to take whatever action they want on MERB will be subject to one of these actions, namely a suspension.

Thanks