aren’t incalls more risky tho

[mathguy]

Lol that's prolly true Doc
You know I'm a computer scientist not a lawyer and I know you are in fact a lawyer. But you also know as well as I do that that link to that May 24th bust which was posted is absurd. It's actually less on topic than the earlier response which at least attempts answering the question. I do consider it fact too (everything I said - you just need to interpret it correctly - logic is logic and those predicates can all be broken down and digested easily). Practicing law is one thing. Indeed. Due to all the various caveats, procedures, palm greasing, deals, process, etc.... Interpreting it though as you surely know entirely another. Quite easy in many cases, in other, not so much. This is so straightforward though a 5th grader should be able to decode it.

All it takes it a very logical mind to decipher the statutes. I've practiced my own law (not licensed but have done my own - one year long adoption, older son, bankruptcy 15yrs ago, took 8mos, etc...). And to be fair anyway you have to be an attorney in that area of specialization too (taxes, crimes, property code/civil, patents....). But it's so plainly spelled out that this whole thing is nonsense. It does not affect the sex worker or hobbyist. Period. Maybe the site operator/community owners/managers. Still though that May 24th link has no relevance to this amendment to the penal code which only took effect on Sep 1st.

Edit: Oh wait. Is there a rule about that? I didn't know if that was the case. I still stand by my argument in any case. It's so simple like I said a 5th grader could easily breakdown that logic without knowing the first thing about predicate logic or predicate calculus. Kinda silly that a community for illegal activity would require licensed attorney responses hehe. Irony