Utopia Talk / Politics / Trump pornstar Ms Daniels ARRESTED

Paramount Member	Thu Jul 12 03:59:34 US porn star Stormy Daniels has been arrested in a strip club in Columbus, Ohio, according to her lawyer. Ms Daniels was arrested for allegedly letting a customer touch her on stage "in a non sexual manner", lawyer Michael Avenatti tweeted. Ms Daniels became embroiled in a row with President Donald Trump after saying she slept with him in 2006, an allegation which he denies. Her lawyer called the arrest "a setup" and "politically motivated". Read all about it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44804597
Average Ameriacn Member	Thu Jul 12 04:46:37 Deport the WHORE!
tumbleweed the wanderer	Thu Jul 12 12:23:09 charges have been dismissed
hood Member	Thu Jul 12 12:33:49 The charges make no sense. "An Ohio law known as the Community Defense Act proscribes anyone touching a nude or semi-nude dancer, unless they are related." Yet... "A police charge sheet tweeted by a CBS News reporter says Ms Daniels touched a police officer posing as a patron "in a specified anatomical area"." Patron == nonemployee. As in, not a dancer. Stormy touching the patron is not covered by the law. The patron touching stormy would be covered, but then the patron would be the one who violated the law, not stormy. So yeah, completely bogus charges. I wouldn't be surprised if it was politically motivated.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Thu Jul 12 12:44:11 At approximately 11:30 a dancer using the stage name Stormy Daniels, later identified as Stephanie Clifford made her way to the main stage and began performing. The majority of the patrons got up from their tables and stood immediately adjacent to the stage throwing dollar bills at Ms. Clifford. During her performance after removing her top exposing her breasts she began forcing the faces of patrons into her chest and using her bare breasts to smack the patrons. The officers observed Ms. Clifford fondling the breasts of female patrons.... ...Ms. Clifford leaned over, grabbed Det. Keckley's head and began smacking her face with her bare breasts and holding her face between her breasts and against her chest. Ms. Clifford then made her way over to Det. Lancaster and performed the same acts on him forcing his face into her chest between her breasts and began smacking his face with her bare breasts." http://www...3/Stormy-Daniels-police-record
tumbleweed the wanderer	Thu Jul 12 14:06:57 obviously a set-up as who would complain?... that's what a patron would hope to happen...
Im better then you 2012 UP Football Champ	Thu Jul 12 14:26:53 swordtail's description sounds sexual.
Cthulhu Tentacle Rapist	Thu Jul 12 14:52:26 She assumed the patrons sexually identity simply based on them showing up to watch her dance around naked. She should be locked away for life for forcing her breasts into the faces of homosexuals!
kargen Member	Thu Jul 12 15:01:34 The move could be politically or ideologically motivated. Doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. Sounds like the officers knew what her act included in other shows and went to the bar to arrest her when she did it there.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jul 12 15:05:01 "So yeah, completely bogus charges." False. http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.40 (2) No employee who regularly appears nude or seminude on the premises of a sexually oriented business, while on the premises of that sexually oriented business and while nude or seminude, shall knowingly touch a patron who is not a member of the employee's immediate family or another employee who is not a member of the employee's immediate family or the clothing of a patron who is not a member of the employee's immediate family or another employee who is not a member of the employee's immediate family or allow a patron who is not a member of the employee's immediate family or another employee who is not a member of the employee's immediate family to touch the employee or the clothing of the employee.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jul 12 15:06:03 BBC = fake news
Jack Cafferty Member	Thu Jul 12 15:57:44 "The law under which Ms. Clifford was arrested applies to people who “regularly” appear nude or seminude at a particular establishment, but Ms. Clifford had not appeared at the club consistently, prosecutors said in a motion dismissing the charges. She had only two appearances scheduled there — the one on Wednesday and a second on Thursday, which was later canceled." Quiet Forwyn. Forwyn = wrong.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jul 12 16:11:53 "(10) "Regularly" means consistently or repeatedly." More than one appearance. "(5) "Employee" means any individual who performs any service on the premises of a sexually oriented business on a full-time, part-time, or contract basis, regardless of whether the individual is denominated an employee, independent contractor, agent, or otherwise, but does not include an individual exclusively on the premises for repair or maintenance of the premises or for the delivery of goods to the premises." Contract to appear more than once. Quiet multi. Multi = wrong. DA can drop whatever he wants due to political pressure. But multi = wrong.
Jack Cafferty Member	Thu Jul 12 16:14:45 And She failed to meet that criteria. No matter how you want to spin it, cockbite. You're wrong.
Jack Cafferty Member	Thu Jul 12 16:15:34 Oh and 'lol' DA feeling politically pressured to drop it. Who the fuck are you kidding?
Jack Cafferty Member	Thu Jul 12 16:20:37 I should also 'lol' that you can't even understand the cited law either.
hood Member	Thu Jul 12 16:29:14 ""(10) "Regularly" means consistently or repeatedly." More than one appearance." 2 appearances does not equate to consistently or repeatedly in any logical interpretation of those words.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jul 12 16:32:25 She was a contracted employee appearing more than once and touched a patron who was not an immediate family member. No matter how you want to spin it, cockbite. B-b-but public figures can't be politically pressured. lol
Forwyn Member	Thu Jul 12 16:33:54 "in any logical interpretation of those words." "any" lol Okay Seb. Tell me again how a dancer can't violate the statute because you read on BBC that it only applies to patrons
Jack Cafferty Member	Thu Jul 12 16:37:30 "She was a contracted employee appearing more than once and touched a patron who was not an immediate family member. " She appeared....once. And it didn't mention contracted. It said scheduled to appear. Which can also mean, no contract was ever signed. You suck at this, please stop, you're embarrassing yourself. "B-b-but public figures can't be politically pressured. lol" Do you have evidence of this? I think not...cockbite.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jul 12 16:46:51 LOL. Jack Multi Cafferty thinks only signed documents can be considered contracts in court. She agreed to appear more than once. Was she doing it for charity, or being paid? You're amazing at this, please continue.
Jack Cafferty Member	Thu Jul 12 16:52:54 I can picture it now... Forwyn on witness stand-- Lawyer: Mr. Forwyn, you own the gay male sex shop; "Negro Dildos Emporium?" Forwyn: I do. Lawyer: And how many times has my client, Mr. Insertit Here visited your establishment? Forwyn: Ah...once, maybe twice. Lawyer: In what span of time? Forwyn: Ah...erm...In a span of 3 or 4 months. Lawyer: Would you say that he is a 'regular' patron at your establishment based up this definition; "consistently or repeatedly" Forwyn: Yes, I would say so, because I've seen him more than once. Lawyer: I see. So with your opinion its established that it means 'more than once' that a person to visit any place, any place of business and it is 'regular.' Mr. Forwyn, do you use the bathroom daily? Forwyn: I do. Lawyer: Okay, Mr. Forwyn, do you shit every day? Forwyn: I do, sometimes multiple times a day. Lawyer: So each day you take a shit, sometimes more than once a day and would you agree it would be fair to say that you have a regular shitting regiment? Forwyn: Yes. Lawyer: And Mr. Forwyn, with your regular shits and then suddenly, you do not shit one day, and the next day you have difficulty, and again unable, and you feel constipated and you call your doctor expressing a concern, would it be fair to say your doctor would ask 'are you having regular bowel movements?' Forwyn: Yes Lawyer: So my client, who has visited your establishment in a span of 3 to 4 months would not mean regular then, since you are saying that you shit on a daily basis and then it is interrupted and you have medical concerns because you may consider there are some irregularities and your doctor has asked you if you are having regular bowel movements. Then if you notice your shitting regiment, as you would consider 'irregular', how in the world can you declare that my client is a 'regular patron' based up the criteria set by your own bowel movement regiment of be regular?
Jack Cafferty Member	Thu Jul 12 16:56:04 "LOL. Jack Multi Cafferty thinks only signed documents can be considered contracts in court." Do you have the documents she signed that she is going to be there? Is that established, that isn't the point. The actually point is itactually doesn't matter if there is a contract or not because it isn't "REGULAR" because she only performed once. This was a gotcha moment. And you failed for it. Good job. "She agreed to appear more than once. Was she doing it for charity, or being paid? " Precisely, she appeared once. Therefore not regular, review aforementioned statement. "You're amazing at this, please continue." Please, do not ever represent anyone, because you will fail them miserably and disbarred. Btw, good job avoiding the previous points made in post; Thu Jul 12 16:37:30
werewolf dictator Member	Thu Jul 12 16:58:00 sounds to me like she was regularly and consistently nude over a number of minutes.. and not some waitress whose boob slipped out momentarily and accidentally as she was bending over serving drinks
Trolly Member	Thu Jul 12 17:00:06 Hey everybody it's Putin Fluffer Werewolf Dicktaster!
Forwyn Member	Thu Jul 12 17:07:00 "Do you have the documents she signed that she is going to be there?" She said she was going to be there. Verbal agreements are admissible. "because she only performed once." Irrelevant. A new hire caught performing illegal actions on her first night could not successfully argue that she wasn't an employee because it wasn't her second night yet. So it goes with a contract worker. "Btw, good job avoiding the previous points made in post; Thu Jul 12 16:37:30" There was no point. You imply that a prosecutor has to make a public statement of political pressure for there to be political pressure. A local sting that becomes a national headline grabber within six hours, and a media-sucking attorney who immediately cries "political". certainly puts pressure on the DA. The speed of the dropping of charges is telling; weaker cases than this typically take days or weeks to be dropped.
Jack Cafferty Member	Thu Jul 12 17:11:10 "She said she was going to be there. Verbal agreements are admissible. " Irrelevant. "Irrelevant. A new hire caught performing illegal actions on her first night could not successfully argue that she wasn't an employee because it wasn't her second night yet. So it goes with a contract worker. " On the contrary based upon the law you cited, she must be 'regularly' appearing. She did not regularly appear despite the fact the agreed to be there more than once. It, the event, must occur to establish regularity. You have a warp sense of definition if you think appearing once is 'regular' and that agreeing to appear more than once that didn't even occur constitutes being regular. Failed. Please stop, seriously, you are really embarrassing yourself. "There was no point. You imply that a prosecutor has to make a public statement of political pressure for there to be political pressure. A local sting that becomes a national headline grabber within six hours, and a media-sucking attorney who immediately cries "political". certainly puts pressure on the DA. The speed of the dropping of charges is telling; weaker cases than this typically take days or weeks to be dropped." Negative, you made an opinion and I simply disagreed and there is no basis as this was motivated politically just like the opinion of Daniel's attorney that this was done politically. Keep trying...
Jack Cafferty Member	Thu Jul 12 17:19:39 "The speed of the dropping of charges is telling; weaker cases than this typically take days or weeks to be dropped." " False.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jul 12 17:32:55 "Irrelevant." You may claim it is irrelevant now, you weren't claiming it was irrelevant a few posts ago, when you were erroneously claiming that there must be a signed agreement for there to be a contract. "On the contrary based upon the law you cited, she must be 'regularly' appearing. She did not regularly appear despite the fact the agreed to be there more than once. It, the event, must occur to establish regularity." Again, a new hire who did the same thing on her first night would get busted - and since it's 19yo Kristina from the boondocks, her charges probably aren't getting dropped in six hours. "there is no basis as this was motivated politically" "False." True. The speed with which this case was handled is admirable...and rare.
Jack Cafferty Member	Thu Jul 12 17:42:04 "You may claim it is irrelevant now, you weren't claiming it was irrelevant a few posts ago, when you were erroneously claiming that there must be a signed agreement for there to be a contract. " No, I was setting you up... and also teasing the fact, and if you go back and read. That even having a contract does not necessarily warrant being that, and as you brought up verbal agreement which would be hard pressed to prove unless there is evidence to support such. To which I further said wasn't really the point because by the law you cited, used the phrase "regularly appearing" which invokes an action and that action has not been fully met. "Again, a new hire who did the same thing on her first night would get busted - and since it's 19yo Kristina from the boondocks, her charges probably aren't getting dropped in six hours. " Would be busted, but you agree to be dropped due to insufficient evidence. The timeline of it being dropped is conjecture on your end and does not necessitate it being politically motivated or pressured. "True. The speed with which this case was handled is admirable...and rare." I'm sorry, your field of expertise again?
hood Member	Thu Jul 12 17:43:59 "Tell me again how a dancer can't violate the statute because you read on BBC that it only applies to patrons" You're incredibly fucking stupid. Patron, in that context, is synonymous with customer. The BBC article mentioned a law that protects dancers from viewers. Clearly BBC got that wrong. Perhaps remove the stick from your ass instead of preemptively inserting it deeper?
obaminated Member	Thu Jul 12 17:49:04 Eh, she broke the law but the DA probably didnt want to deal with the absurd media converage involved with actually prosecuting her over it. She is a prostitute who got paid by trump to let him nut in her. There is nothing more to her or any story involving her.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jul 12 17:50:12 "I was setting you up... and also teasing the fact" "I was just kidding!" Rofl. I specifically said she would be considered a contracted employee, and you directly attempted to refute that by saying there was no evidence of a contract. Then, when called on your shit, tried to claim you were just "setting me up". Laughable idiocy. "but you agree to be dropped due to insufficient evidence." No, they probably wouldn't be dropped at all. That she hadn't appeared again "yet" is irrelevant. The new hire is expected to appear multiple times. "I'm sorry, your field of expertise again?" Instead of idiotic fallacies from a loser multi already proven wrong multiple times in this thread, you can simply find a few cases on Google of cases being dropped in less than a day so you can get your first notch. I'll wait. "Clearly BBC got that wrong." That'll do. Insult retracted.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jul 12 17:51:08 "the DA probably didnt want to deal with the absurd media converage involved with actually prosecuting her over it." Yeah, this is pretty clear to non-retards.
Jack Cafferty Member	Thu Jul 12 18:00:11 "Rofl. I specifically said she would be considered a contracted employee, and you directly attempted to refute that by saying there was no evidence of a contract. " And I said it doesn't matter or not, the action has to occur for her to 'regularly appear' despite if she is scheduled, despite if there is a contract. It is entirely irrelevant. You can drop it down, because you took the bait and still continue to argue the point. "No, they probably wouldn't be dropped at all. That she hadn't appeared again "yet" is irrelevant. The new hire is expected to appear multiple times. " Irrelevant. "Regularly appearing" wasn't met. Do you understand verbs? "nstead of idiotic fallacies from a loser multi already proven wrong multiple times in this thread, you can simply find a few cases on Google of cases being dropped in less than a day so you can get your first notch. I'll wait." And with evidence shown by you citing the law in reference. You failed to even understand that. So your "google search" didn't really much help you if you simply cannot understand what it actually said. Again your field of expertise?
Jack Cafferty Member	Thu Jul 12 18:02:26 https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/federal-prosecutors-abruptly-dismiss-all-remaining-inauguration-day-rioting-cases/2018/07/06/d7055ffe-7ee8-11e8-bb6b-c1cb691f1402_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3072f657193a Thanks for playing, you may go. I like to see where I have been proven wrong. Are you still wanting to argue she "regularly appeared?"
Jack Cafferty Member	Thu Jul 12 18:06:06 Are you claiming that she "regularly appeared?"
Jack Cafferty Member	Thu Jul 12 18:09:15 not the link i wanted to post...one sec.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jul 12 18:16:50 "the action has to occur for her to 'regularly appear'" I would love to see you in front of a judge arguing that a new hire wasn't actually an employee because it was her first appearance. Fucking lol I would hope that's not the link you wanted. Six months to drop cases...hmm.
delude Member	Thu Jul 12 18:49:03 Incredible stupidity. The reason why it was rapidly dismissed is because the officer in charged said to drop them realizing the error that was made. To which the DA acknowledged and went ahead and pushed forward for them to be dropped. Also, forwyn, no one is denying she was a contracted employee...the whole concept was regularly appearing. It did not fit the mold. Seriously how stupid are you?
Jack Cafferty Member	Thu Jul 12 19:04:23 1.http://wea...tal-sexual-assault-and-battery "The State Attorney's Office filed a nolle prosequi one day after John Perry was arrested." 2. https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/crime/article/Charges-dropped-against-off-duty-firefighter-13062732.php "Later that day, the district attorney's office rejected the case and Galindo was freed from the jail." You were saying forwyn? And... "I would love to see you in front of a judge arguing that a new hire wasn't actually an employee because it was her first appearance. Fucking lol " You clearly must either be slow or misguided. Did I ever say she was not an employee? Could you review and point out at any time I said she was not an employee of the club? No I argued the merit of the law you cited. As you claim she broke. There is insufficient evidence to prosecute based upon the law that you cited. Again you cannot even understand the law you cited. 'Regularly appearing', can you articulate that she was regularly appearing after one show?
Jack Cafferty Member	Thu Jul 12 19:10:32 ""However, one element of the law was missed in error and charges were subsequently dismissed," Jacobs said. "...a mistake was made, and I accept full responsibility."" Oops. Forwyn = wrong = pwned 'kek'
delude Member	Thu Jul 12 19:12:33 Yep, I was referencing that.
Jack Cafferty Member	Thu Jul 12 19:13:21 "but...but..forwyn knew what he was talking about."
Jack Cafferty Member	Thu Jul 12 19:14:17 'kek'
Jack Cafferty Member	Thu Jul 12 19:15:41 ""However, one element of the law was missed in error and charges were subsequently dismissed," Jacobs said. "...a mistake was made, and I accept full responsibility."" 'Fucking lol '
Jack Cafferty Member	Thu Jul 12 19:16:03 Gee, I wonder what element of that law was missed in error? 'Fucking lol'
Delude Member	Thu Jul 12 19:18:01 Okay...we get it. Give it a rest.
Jack Cafferty Member	Thu Jul 12 19:23:27 I'm sure forwyn will claim the police said that only because "muh political motivations." And attempt to divert from the fact that it was "missin an element of the law in error." 'Fucking lol' 'kek'
Jack Cafferty Member	Thu Jul 12 19:29:51 "I interpret law in forwyn vision."
Jack Cafferty Member	Thu Jul 12 19:30:29 'Fucking lol'
Multi Ruined My Life Member	Thu Jul 12 19:43:34 'Kek'
Forwyn Member	Thu Jul 12 20:37:52 "Also, forwyn, no one is denying she was a contracted employee..." "And it didn't mention contracted. It said scheduled to appear. Which can also mean, no contract was ever signed. You suck at this, please stop, you're embarrassing yourself." "You were saying forwyn?" Thanks. Enjoy your notch. It happens. I still maintain that the dropping of cases so quickly is rare. "Did I ever say she was not an employee? Could you review and point out at any time I said she was not an employee of the club?" And because it's her first night, she hasn't appeared regularly - even though she will. And you think that that will work as a valid defense. lol "'Regularly appearing', can you articulate that she was regularly appearing after one show?" I can articulate that she planned to appear more than once, i.e. repeatedly. The statute doesn't require an employee already have multiple appearances under their belt; only that they are in the process of appearing repeatedly. kek fucking lol
Jack Cafferty Member	Thu Jul 12 21:29:14 Conveniently you're ignoring the official police statement; ""However, one element of the law was missed in error and charges were subsequently dismissed," Jacobs said. "...a mistake was made, and I accept full responsibility."" Oops. Forwyn = wrong = pwned 'kek' fucking lol indeed.
Jack Cafferty Member	Thu Jul 12 21:30:20 So we now have forwyn disputing the police with their own statement. 'fucking lol'
Jack Cafferty Member	Thu Jul 12 21:32:27 "Columbus Police Chief Kimberley Jacobs said in a statement that the vice personnel working when Daniels was arrested "believed they had probable cause that state law regulating sexually-oriented business was violated." The Columbus Division of Police vice personnel are responsible for enforcing laws regulating alcohol sales, after-hours clubs, massage parlors, human trafficking, nuisance properties and other "serious violations of law," according to the police department. "However, one element of the law was missed in error and charges were subsequently dismissed," Jacobs said. "...a mistake was made, and I accept full responsibility." FUCKING LOL amiright? #forwynstfu
Jack Cafferty Member	Thu Jul 12 21:33:53 What is next for forwyn? "well, the police...they didn't say that, uh they meant something else. uh, they are ignoring their own law, so they are wrong. uh much political motivation"
Jack Cafferty Member	Thu Jul 12 21:34:56 Hey forwyn you schmuck....you want to take a wild guess what that one element was? I'm saving it....
Jack Cafferty Member	Thu Jul 12 21:40:26 ""And it didn't mention contracted. It said scheduled to appear. Which can also mean, no contract was ever signed. You suck at this, please stop, you're embarrassing yourself." " Also, because you have shitty comprehension skills as hot rod apparently. That doesn't mean I said she isn't a contracted employee. That is me stating that it is a possibility that she is making an appearance at a venue. A band playing a gig at a venue does not equal being an employee of said venue. The Moody Blues are not an employee at Red Rocks because they booked a gig there.
delude Member	Thu Jul 12 21:56:32 "I can articulate that she planned to appear more than once, i.e. repeatedly. The statute doesn't require an employee already have multiple appearances under their belt; only that they are in the process of appearing repeatedly. " That isn't what that law said, forwyn. Anyways, the statement from the chief and the case being dismissed clearly counters your claim. Time to let this one go...
Jack Cafferty Member	Thu Jul 12 22:03:40 He can't let this go because "muh fallacies" claim will come about, which none I made. I've been consistent and correct with the interpretation of the law and other points. Forwyn cannot simply grasp that he was beaten from the moment he posted the law. Why? He cannot comprehend what it actually said. Then to reinforce his points he will claim that others said something that clearly wasn't said. Another example that his arguments hold no water. He believes that future appearances mean that appearances had occurred. No where in the law he cited said that. It stated 'regularly appearing' which means that it is an action that has been taking place. She was schedule for two appearances and she conducted one. So clearly that isn't established as "regularly appearing" but in his world, it means just that. The police chief and DA clearly knows better.
Jack Cafferty Member	Thu Jul 12 22:06:08 "Police say they made an 'error' in arresting Stormy Daniels " Fucking lol kek http://www...els/ar-AAzZwTn?ocid=spartanntp But but but, what is the one element of 'error' what is it forwyn?
Hot Rod Revved Up	Thu Jul 12 22:12:35 For shit's sake, another one?
Forwyn Member	Thu Jul 12 22:56:57 "Also, because you have shitty comprehension skills as hot rod apparently. That doesn't mean I said she isn't a contracted employee. That is me stating that it is a possibility that she is making an appearance at a venue. A band playing a gig at a venue does not equal being an employee of said venue." So you're weren't denying it was a contract, whether or not it was written down. i.e. we aren't disagreeing on her status here. "(5) "Employee" means any individual who performs any service on the premises of a sexually oriented business on a full-time, part-time, or contract basis, regardless of whether the individual is denominated an employee, independent contractor, agent, or otherwise, but does not include an individual exclusively on the premises for repair or maintenance of the premises or for the delivery of goods to the premises." Your only argument here is that future appearances cannot be considered. This is laughable. Any prosecutor worth his degree could argue that case that multiple scheduled appearances qualifies for contracted employment and would fall under the statute.
hood Member	Thu Jul 12 23:21:56 "Any prosecutor worth his degree could argue that case that multiple scheduled appearances qualifies for contracted employment" Except that's not the problem. The problem is the definition of "regularly." It is apparently clear to everyone except you that 1 performance (or 2 total scheduled performances) does not meet the definition of "regularly."
Forwyn Member	Fri Jul 13 00:03:28 "Repeatedly"
Forwyn Member	Fri Jul 13 00:03:33 "Repeatedly"
Forwyn Member	Fri Jul 13 00:03:50 "Forwyn, you keep saying that. Why are you repeating yourself?"
Jack Cafferty Member	Fri Jul 13 02:58:52 Should I feel badly for continuing to beat up a child? Nah, forwyn deserves this so he can possibly learn. Hey good move, forwyn, now you've gone full retard. Never go full retard. You're hung up on the employee thing. I can argue easily that she wouldn't be considered a employee. 1) She is considered an artist, she is her on business. 2) Just like a band is considered a business that in itself they can hire their own staff and employees and make appearances at various venues it can be considered not being employed by the venue. 3)They are an entity that is using a stage to sell a product, this product would be their performance to draw a crowd. Their merchandise. The agreement would have the language similar to this in most/any venue or platform(festival, parties, tv shows, etc; i.e. Performance contracts/agreements: Relationship of parties This indicates, in most cases, that the band or musician, artist is not an employee of the individual, venue or event organizer. This helps relieve liability issues. Sure, you can still be retarded all day long and hold on to this glimpse of material thinking you have some sort of clout to this 'argument or debate' but you've clearly lost this on so many levels. "So you're weren't denying it was a contract, whether or not it was written down. i.e. we aren't disagreeing on her status here. " I am declaring that it she may be considered or may not be. Do you have the document or contract that specifies she is a employee. That may or may not be the case. Specifically due to relationship of parties and she being a 'performing artist' due to her own independent brand. But you get confused easily...and this is comical because you are totally ignoring the law you cited now and what the police and DA have stated because he keep holding on to the "employee status" of the individual as if this makes a god damn difference. It does not forwyn, it absolutely does not. Why are you repeatedly doing that? Oh I get it, you're trying to present yourself as a regular retarded person. LOL, good one forwyn good one. So, with you now "repeating" yourself you're trying to established regularity. This is an interesting demonstration by you. Here is why -- a few posts back I posted a little skit about 'Retarded Forwyn as a Witness' to demonstrate how an attorney could argue that *your* definition of regular would not hold water. Which is being presented subjectively of what would be considered 'regular.' And now with you repeating yourself by default you are agreeing that it is repeated as in "more than once" your words and in fact, she only appeared/performed once as the venue. Therefore by the law you cited, she doesn't meet that criteria. So PROGRESS! You are agreeing she doesn't fit the law that you specifically cited! Congratulations! Retard is full circle! The final nail to the coffin as I've posted the DA's statemenet as well as the Police Chiefs and I've asked you this and you keep ignoring, what do you think the "error" was? "By early afternoon, prosecutors said they were dropping the case because Ohio's law against physical contact between strippers and customers applies only to someone who "regularly" performs at a club. In Daniels' case, it was her first appearance at Sirens in Columbus." Awww, poor, poor forwyn. Now, I am sure you're going to be stubborn and keep going with this whole employee angle, but that argument is weak and destroyed. awwww, poor, poor forwyn. What will you do next?
Delude Member	Fri Jul 13 03:56:01 Ffs forwyn are you really not understanding the whole "regularly appearing" thing? Reaching HR levels of absurdity.
werewolf dictator Member	Fri Jul 13 04:55:45 is she employee.. yes does she regularly appear nude.. yes she is porn star and stripper ffs was she on premises of sexually oriented business in columbus.. yes was she nude or seminude and touching patrons there.. yes every reasonable way you look at it she should be in jail.. but democrats corrupt the legal system to make it not apply to them
Trolly Member	Fri Jul 13 05:01:17 Hey everybody it's Putin Fluffer Werewolf Dicktaster!
werewolf dictator Member	Fri Jul 13 05:03:16 if there is big tornado or something.. then on tv they are going to interrupt your regularly appearing programming even if it is some movie they will only show one night similarly stormy was employee of business’s regularly appearing nude and seminude shows.. [that’s even ignoring that she was regularly and consistently nude for probably like 30 minutes that night]
Trolly Member	Fri Jul 13 05:03:49 Hey everybody it's Putin Fluffer Werewolf Dicktaster!
werewolf dictator Member	Fri Jul 13 05:06:55 jack cafferty multis are worse debaters i have ever seen
Trolly Member	Fri Jul 13 05:08:30 Hey everybody it's Putin Fluffer Werewolf Dicktaster!
delude Member	Fri Jul 13 05:09:14 "is she employee.. yes does she regularly appear nude.. yes she is porn star and stripper ffs was she on premises of sexually oriented business in columbus.. yes was she nude or seminude and touching patrons there.. yes every reasonable way you look at it she should be in jail.. but democrats corrupt the legal system to make it not apply to them " You are aware the police and da stated they made a mistake in arresting her right? lol
werewolf dictator Member	Fri Jul 13 05:18:25 i am indeed aware prosecutor corrupted by democrats don’t enforce law against democrats’ hero
delude Member	Fri Jul 13 05:34:54 Yeah, that must be it. lol
werewolf dictator Member	Fri Jul 13 05:37:55 Michael Avenatti @MichaelAvenatti · Jul 12 She was arrested for allegedly allowing a customer to touch her while on stage in a non sexual manner! —- she was touching them.. she was nude and placing heads of two officers between her breasts.. and fondling breasts and buttocks of a third officer.. but avenatti calls this touching while nude “non sexual manner” lol.. whole legal defense is very dishonest joke and to make it worse they are openly planning on flouting law again with same act in same city.. wow
Trolly Member	Fri Jul 13 05:38:58 Hey everybody it's Putin FLuf... Rugian/Forywn's shared account!
Forwyn Member	Fri Jul 13 11:16:36
Forwyn Member	Fri Jul 13 11:20:08 @Jack rant about not being an employee: You argument would fail. (5) "Employee" means any individual who performs any service on the premises of a sexually oriented business on a full-time, part-time, or contract basis, regardless of whether the individual is denominated an employee, independent contractor, agent, or otherwise, but does not include an individual exclusively on the premises for repair or maintenance of the premises or for the delivery of goods to the premises. It's simple. She agreed, at the very least, through a verbal agreement, to appear multiple times, no doubt in exchange for cash. She would qualify under "contract basis". You can rant and rave about what qualifies as an employee under other instances, but it isn't applicable here. Your problem, like delude's/whoever else is hung up on "regularly" and "employee", is that you're inventing your own definitions, when they are provided in the statute. So here's the second facet: (10) "Regularly" means consistently or repeatedly. She just made a REPEAT performance last night. kek
Jack Cafferty Member	Fri Jul 13 11:27:59 It isn't if the argument would be successful or fail. The idea an argument couldn't be made is the issue. Also to the rest of your dumbassery....are uou ignoring the office police and DA's statement regarding the error? And why? That ends your retarded logic and point. Especially since you still do not understand the very law you cited. But sure, continue your idiocy. It's entertaining for us.
Jack Cafferty Member	Fri Jul 13 11:29:14 *are you ignoring official police and DA's statements.
Delude Member	Fri Jul 13 12:48:46 "Your problem, like delude's/whoever else is hung up on "regularly" and "employee", is that you're inventing your own definitions, when they are provided in the statute. " You're sebbing. There are tons of instances in this very thread of you being "hung up" on employee status to enforce your point. And no one is honestly taking that as a dispute. But the language in the law that you provided incidentally, goes against the very premise you are arguing. And at this point it isn't up for debate considering the official statements made that highlights the very mistake they made: "By early afternoon, prosecutors said they were dropping the case because Ohio's law against physical contact between strippers and customers applies only to someone who "regularly" performs at a club. In Daniels' case, it was her first appearance at Sirens in Columbus." I mean you could continue, but you're going to look pretty damn foolish.
Delude Member	Fri Jul 13 12:50:09 Oh, and if anyone is inventing anything it's you. Because you are now disputing their official statements. Which means again as a repeat; sebbing
hood Member	Fri Jul 13 12:52:27 "does she regularly appear nude.. yes she is porn star and stripper ffs" Completely immaterial. "was she on premises of sexually oriented business in columbus.. yes" Nobody argued differently. "that’s even ignoring that she was regularly and consistently nude for probably like 30 minutes that night" I can't tell if you're genuinely retarded enough to argue this or so dishonest that you're willing to offer such a retarded argument. "similarly stormy was employee of business’s regularly appearing nude and seminude shows" It was her first appearance at the establishment. See above paragraph about retardation and/or dishonesty.
Forwyn Member	Fri Jul 13 13:54:02 "And no one is honestly taking that as a dispute." And you accuse others of Sebbing. You're a fucking retard. There are multiple instances of Jack a) disputing the status of a contract, b) trying to act like that was a "set-up", and c) pretending that he could argue against her status as an employee under the statute. I can't be assed to read the rest of your word vomit if you can't be assed to read the thread before throwing out retarded claims.
Delude Member	Fri Jul 13 14:14:34 Good job, you're sebbing and hot rodding. Reinventing definitions you provided and now not wanting to acknowledge facts. As for what jack said, I dont really give a flying fucking what he said. He may be right but for the most part I've ignored him. But for the rest who are contributing to this discussion can point out how we are hung up on the fucking employee status other than you with multiple fucking posts about it. And you failing to understand the law you provided. "Regularly" as the making issue and what was acknowledged as the mistake in her arrest. Something I did notice that jack said his recent posts. You are ignoring that particular detail. Why? Because you're sebbin and now rodding.
Delude Member	Fri Jul 13 14:16:11 "Regularly" *as the main issue
Jack Cafferty Member	Fri Jul 13 14:32:07 Lol, this guy. So the retard known as forwyn wants to remain as such. And there is no pretend. It was very well articulated. But you apparently can't understand words, verbs, nouns, what have you. As well as your well documented stupidity and your incapacity to understand the law you've cited. I know you read what I posted. I know that you see the statements that were provided and what they admitted what their error is. But I want you to man the fuck up and acknowledge it. But I know you're a pussy and can't.
Forwyn Member	Fri Jul 13 14:45:47 "how we are hung up on the fucking employee status other than you with multiple fucking posts about it." I've been "regularly" responding to Jack regarding this for the most part. If you take umbrage with the definition spiel specifically mentioning you, ignore the "employee" bit for you, because "regularly" is more relevant. "Regularly" as the making issue and what was acknowledged as the mistake in her arrest." And "regularly", like "employee", is not a laymen's definition, it is a specific definition as defined in the statute. Repeated qualifies, and there's no requirement that it be past tense. She had a repeat performance last night. Much like I "ignore" the DA statements (they aren't relevant, a DA has discretion over what to prosecute and when - as I've said already, 19yo Kristina on her first night as a new hire isn't getting the same treatment, because it's not a national news sensation before lunchtime), you ignore the definitions provided, then repeatedly accuse me of not understanding it. Your personal definitions are irrelevant.
Delude Member	Fri Jul 13 14:50:25 These aren't personal definitions the fucking police chief and Da specified the mistake. If anyone is applying their personal definitions it is you. And you are in fucking denial. She appeared once at the club. That is the issue. You're obviously in denial. Or stupid. Whichever hurts your feelings less.
Jack Cafferty Member	Fri Jul 13 14:55:02 Awwww poor poor forwyn. Can't read, can't comprehend. He posts a law he can't understand and now twisting the definition that she was regularly nude that night. Lol Are you listening to yourself right now?
Jack Cafferty Member	Fri Jul 13 14:59:26 Lol forwyn is declaring that the police chief and da statements are irrelevant. Fucking lol and kek Repeat performance that night...fucking rofling! Forwyn, please stop. This is too much
Jack Cafferty Member	Fri Jul 13 15:02:19 Hey forwyn what was that error the police acknowledged?
Jack Cafferty Member	Fri Jul 13 15:06:39 "applies only to someone who "regularly" performs at a club. In Daniels' case, it was her first appearance at Sirens in Columbus." Hey forwyn what does that mean? Police chief's personal definition?
Jack Cafferty Member	Fri Jul 13 15:10:56 "is a specific definition as defined in the statute. Repeated qualifies, and there's no requirement that it be past tense. " I should point out is the very same statute that are unable to correctly interpret. But retard forwyn believes the da and police chief have their personal definitions. Fucking lol Kek Fucking rofl
Jack Cafferty Member	Fri Jul 13 15:11:55 It is established. Forwyn should not ever practice law.
	show deleted posts