Article: Escort fears creep's extortion bid would ruin her dreams of being doctor

[Frank Dux]

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/02/2...-bid-would-ruin-her-dreams-of-becoming-doctor

Escort fears creep's extortion bid would ruin her dreams of being doctor

BY CHRIS DOUCETTE ,TORONTO SUN
FIRST POSTED: MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2013 09:58 PM EST | UPDATED: TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2013 08:46 AM EST

An escort named Kate speaks about the harassment of a customer who threatened to expose her real name on social media, Monday, Feb. 25, 2013. (MICHAEL PEAKE/Toronto Sun)

Kate spends her days studying to be a doctor. At night, she plays doctor to pay for it.

But putting herself through medical school is financially tough — even for a high-end escort earning hundreds of dollars an hour.

So when a middle-aged man in another province cancelled a date, demanded his $1,500 deposit back and began extorting her for more cash, the 23-year-old wasn’t about to put up with it.

“It was frightening,” Kate, not her real name, told the Toronto Sun Monday. “But he pushed me too far.”

Tired of working two or three jobs to get by, she became an escort a few years ago and now earns more than enough to pay for her education.

Kate said she also has much more time to devote to her studies and to do volunteer work, which includes counselling sex trade workers who have endured horrific abuse.

In three years of jet-setting to countries such as Dubai and Japan, as well as working locally, the independent escort has “never had any trouble,” largely because she deals with an upscale clientele.

Kate never imagined she’d one day find herself in danger.

But a couple of weeks ago, a man contacted her and booked a “weekend getaway” at his home in Calgary for March 6.

“He seemed nice on the phone, so I let my guard down a little,” Kate said.

But in her line of work, letting your guard down can have deadly consequences.

Kate said “alarm bells” began to go off when the man had difficulty coming up with her $7,000 fee.

But she let him to pay $1,500 to secure the date and he promised to pay another $2,000 before she flew out west and the remaining $3,500 once she arrived.

The man began calling and texting her daily. After numerous creepy exchanges, he cancelled his date and that’s when the real trouble began.

“He started threatening and berating me, demanding his money back,” Kate said, explaining the man was well aware the deposit was non-refundable.

After two weeks of threats, she agreed to return $800 “to make him to go away.”

But a week ago he threatened to “out” her by posting a Facebook photo he found of her online, as well her real name and address.

“If you don’t pay me the extra money, your photo and personal information are going public on Friday,” he texted on Feb. 18.

Kate’s “not embarrassed” of her chosen profession, but her family doesn’t know she works in an industry with “many shades of grey” where the law is concerned. And she’d prefer to keep it that way.

She was also worried her dream of becoming a doctor could be dashed and terrified someone might track her down in her home.

“There are a lot of creeps out there who prey on working girls,” Kate said. “I could be killed.”

She was nervous about going to the police but more afraid of the obviously troubled man, who also threatened to sue.

Officers were quite helpful when she reported the threats Friday, Kate said. Calgary police visited the man that day, warned him to leave her alone and she hasn’t heard from him since.

Turns out the man she thought was 46 and capable of hiring a high-end escort was actually 58 and living with his mom.

Kate hopes her story will raise awareness of the risks faced by working girls — risks she believes could be minimized if the industry was decriminalized.

“The rights of sex workers are often overlooked and too often women are afraid to come forward,” Kate said. “It shouldn’t matter how you earn your living, nobody should have to put up with being abused.”

Kate was barely making ends meet while working two or three part-time jobs making $10 to $12 an hour, so the 23-year-old turned to the world’s oldest profession to put herself through medical school. As a high-end escort, she earns a minimum of $400 an hour and has far more time to devote to her studies.

Rates:

One hour rendezvous — $400

Two hour rendezvous — $800

Three hour wine date — $1,200

Four hour dinner date — $1,500

Sexy sleep over — $2,500

Full day of passion — $4,000

Weekend getaway — $6,000

(Charges more for dates in the U.S. — $600 per hour)

Income:

Average month — $13,000

Slow month — $5,000

Busy month — $25,000

Monthly expenses (approx):

Condoms, lingerie, photo shoots, ads — $1,500 to $2,000

Rent — $1,350

Groceries, TTC, Internet — $300 to $400

Entertainment — $500

(Saving up for a condo)

Medical school:

Tuition — $10,000 per semester

Books — $1,500 per school year

 

[Frank Dux]

What I took from the article is that in cases of harassment like this it's a good idea to get the police involved. Any SPs have similar experiences with the cops? Or is it still difficult to get support from the police because of the legal "grey area" world of escorting?

 

[jesuschrist]

Hm.. So she nets an average of around $10000 per month before tuition, books and entertainment? I wonder if she pays taxes on that?

I doubt it. Most escorts don't, simply because it's cash business and many reason that they are paid low enough such that if they had to pay taxes too, it wouldn't be worth it. I would have to concur, if I did that job, I certainly would not want to part with any of my money and not even to the tax man. And though I concur, I would have to admit that it would be wrong doing so - which is why if I were a female, this would be a reason I would never do this job.

And frankly I have a problem with this story - so this client is not one of the usual high-flootin' clients she would rather have, but some regular joe who would have to scrape up the money to afford even a $1500 deposit (I think most middle class income earners would not find that sum insignificant).

Throughout the article, all we hear is that she returns $800 of that deposit, so she stiffs him for $700. Frankly if her identity is that important to her, she made two serious errors:
1) she was lax in her identity and somehow he found out
2) she rips him off $700, and not knowing the nature of any new client, should be guarding against that so maybe it would be really wise to return that money that is owed to him. It seems a small trade off - lose the $700 she is pocketing from having thieved him in return for some security for her identity. Should be a no-brainer.

This story is so skewed in fact, that it would seem like he's some dishonest person but in fact she's the one stealing from him. Not only that, they make him out to be a loser by contrasting him to the clients who can afford her self-admittedly high rates, and that is quite unfair. As for his home life living with his mother - that's his business and nobody should be judging one's own domestic arrangements in a public newspaper.

To me, she's the craven dishonest entitled bitch here. Her client, if he's a bad guy, not half as bad as she is.

 

[Frank Dux]

So only getting a 50% a return on the voluntary, non-refundable down payment for a service that he knows he can't afford justifies weeks of harassment and attempted extortion? Seriously?



vvv I guess that's exactly what you're saying. That's pretty messed up, bro.

 

[jesuschrist]

Yeah, pretty sure the article suggests that it is a non refundable deposit to secure her services though.

Even so, the choice is her's - keep $700 or lose her identity - which she made the error in divulging. The decision should be clear. Shit happens in any business, any business can have bad clients, and I find this article about her whining in public about how she's mistreated is pretty self-indulgent princess bullshit.

Most people who run their own businesses don't go to public newspapers whining about their bad clients. It's the cost of doing business and she should grab a spine and manage it, but she seems to be upset that she has to return any more money to him under a threat that she made the mistake all on her own of revealing her identity.

 

[jesuschrist]

So only getting a 50% a return on the voluntary, non-refundable down payment for a service that he knows he can't afford justifies weeks of harassment and attempted extortion? Seriously?

No it doesn't justify it. She has a "bad" client. She's not managing this client - she demands that she keeps the $700 even though he's threatening to out her unless he gets that money. What does she really want? It's business, she should grow a spine.

 

[jesuschrist]

after you read the story

do you feel bad for her?
do you feel she should be protected from this kind of thing?

No, I don't feel bad for her - because it's a business, she made a mistake, and she has someone trying to exploit her mistake - which is typical in business. She wants us to feel bad for her because she doesn't see it as a real business per se - she sees it as a personal service and she feels she is entitled to whatever conditions and charges she wants to make - which is true, but what distinguishes that from a business is that in a business it is expected that you would assume all the risks too. Lastly, she makes a lot of money, but is dickering on only $700 vs her personal information made public - why on earth is she so stubborn she can't let that money go and save her personal information? Because she's entitled.

No, she should not be protected from this sort of thing - by others, which means the police, which means us tax payers. Businesses are not protected from this kind of exploitation - which is her mistake by divulging personal info to begin with - by the tax payer, so she should not be afforded "protection" as well.

If I ran a private investigation business, where similarly I must protect my identity for fear that some vengeful person would want to do me harm, why should I expect the tax payer to protect me from my mistake of revealing my personal identity? If the vengeful person wants to publish my name on Facebook, etc., why should I have the tax payer pay for the mistake I made that allowed that to happen?

The only time she needs protection is if laws are broken. If he criminally harrasses her or worse, she deserves protection as any citizen, but no exception should be made just because she's a sex worker - who runs a very very profitable business.

 

[Frank Dux]

No it doesn't justify it. She has a "bad" client. She's not managing this client - she demands that she keeps the $700 even though he's threatening to out her unless he gets that money. What does she really want? It's business, she should grow a spine.

So you decide you want to buy an apartment and you put a standard, non-refundable down payment on a place while you are waiting for your financing to go through. Lo and behold it turns you are broke and unemployed and the banks won't lend you the money, so you will have to forfeit said down payment. You complain, and in a grand gesture of good will (that would never, ever happen in real life), the bank decides to give you half your deposit back. Well, that's not good enough and you want it all. Do you threaten to reveal private information about the realtor or bank manager because you were irresponsible with your finances? No you don't, because that would be extortion.

Or does the law not apply in this case because she's a whore?

In any case, feels like I'm conversing with a brick wall of misogyny here. Good luck with the ladies!

it's a fictional story

What part of the article leads you to believe it's fictional?


Holy christ. In the future I should really remember why I don't post in the Lounge... :doh:

 

[badbadboy]

She didn't rip him off. The non refundable downpayment is to cut out the time wasters and tire kickers who are on the fence about paying for a high end escort. If you want a higher end SP from another city, you have to pay the freight because she has expenses to get to your city. If you renege on your end of the deal she has the downpayment because she would otherwise be able to work on those few days she would have spent in Calgary.

It would be the same if you hired an out of province consultant or lawyer who is working for you in another province etc etc. You pay all the expenses, period.

I would think the Crown Counsel in Calgary could come up with some attempted criminal case on this guy too.

Seeing all the quotes JC and you defending some 58 year old loser living in his mom's basement only confirms why you are on my "ignore list".

 

[susi]

first, most escorts DO pay taxes, you can't do anything without a decleared income these days, credit card, mortgage, car loan...its a common misconception though. its part of the "all escorts are greedy, money grubbers who operate outside of normal society" rhetoric.....

and yes, in vancouver or the lower mainland you can contact me or lynda malcom, sex industry liason officer if as an escort or pooner you have problems like this.

i have reported on people's behalf several times and police here view non payment or harrassment as violence.

if she asks for a non refundable deposit, its not a rip off, he knew what the payment was. also, he seems to ask fro even more money, making it extortion and illegal. demanding money to answer a threat- whether real or perceived- is violence.

love susie

 

[wilde]

I feel for the young lady but her past is going to come back to haunt her one day, I am afraid.

 

[wilde]

My point is, if he had personal information about her and threatened to out her, she should have just sent the full amount back to him...

Wouldn't giving in to blackmailing encourage more blackmailing?

 

[jesuschrist]

I'm curious how the posters that think the girl should have just rolled over and allowed herself to be extorted would feel if the shoe were on the other foot. If it was a sex worker extorting a client based on unearthing some personal information...

I am not one who thinks she should roll over and be extorted. My position is that she took this job with its risks, like someone enrols into the army as a soldier and its risks, like a window washer has his risks, and to whine and complain that a bad client is trying to extort money from her is just her acting like an immature baby. No, it's not nice to be extorted. But be an adult and expect that not all your clients are going to be nice and its the cost of doing business, the business you started and keep doing. The decision for her is to give up the other $700, even though he doesn't deserve it, or be outed and have real damage to her life. What to do should be clear, and the fact that it is not seems to me has to do with her assertion that she has to be right and that she is entitled to sympathy from others for the risk of a job she did of her own free and sovereign will.

Furthermore, people in other professions who have bad clients don't get a public podium like a newspaper to whine about their experiences. The article is servile to her trumped up needs, which are nowhere more special than the needs of any other business person.


Now of course if he does anything criminal to her, we owe it to ourselves and her as tax payers to protect her, and she gets my sympathy at that point.

As for the shoe being on the other foot, if you as a client are stupid with your personal information and you are outed by your SP, why should you get any sympathy? Should the cops protect you? Should the tax payer be paying to protect you from your stupidity?

 

[Frank Dux]

I am not one who thinks she should roll over and be extorted. My position is that she took this job with its risks, like someone enrols into the army as a soldier and its risks, like a window washer has his risks, and to whine and complain that a bad client is trying to extort money from her is just her acting like an immature baby. No, it's not nice to be extorted. But be an adult and expect that not all your clients are going to be nice and its the cost of doing business, the business you started and keep doing. The decision for her is to give up the other $700, even though he doesn't deserve it, or be outed and have real damage to her life. What to do should be clear, and the fact that it is not seems to me has to do with her assertion that she has to be right and that she is entitled to sympathy from others for the risk of a job she did of her own free and sovereign will.

Now of course if he does anything criminal to her, we owe it to ourselves and her as tax payers to protect her, and she gets my sympathy at that point.

You say you don't think "she should roll over and be extorted", then you proceed to write an entire paragraph on how she should roll over and be extorted. You win, congrats on being the first on my ignore list. :yield:

 

[jesuschrist]

You say you don't think "she should roll over and be extorted", then you proceed to write an entire paragraph on how she should roll over and be extorted. You win, congrats on being the first on my ignore list. :yield:

Right, you are about as nuanced of your understanding of an issue as a pit bull.... and I don't expect pit bulls to understand much.

 

[jesuschrist]

Pretty sure extortion is criminal...

Yes it is. I don't believe in my reading of the article that he actually did extort from her, but if he did, she should get protection by the law and she deserves that from the pockets of the tax payer.

But that being said, she started this job knowing the risks and made a terrible error by being careless with her personal info. At the end of the day, if he does out her, she really only has herself to blame even if he goes to jail. The damage will have been done.

 

[google_123]

If I was in this industry, I'd remove any profile I have had on the internet.

It's surprising how quite a few are careless with their information. A simple search and digging will uncover wonders when a person makes a mistake.

 

[jesuschrist]

Well, seeing as how it reads like the police intervened it seems that they believe there was an issue of extortion in the air...

When police intervene, they are the experts (along with consulting Crown Counsel) of what the situation is if there is any criminal liability. That no charge was made means no possible criminal liability. My read then is that he did not extort from her, because extortion must fit the criminal definition.

 

[Unpossible]

When police intervene, they are the experts (along with consulting Crown Counsel) of what the situation is if there is any criminal liability. That no charge was made means no possible criminal liability. My read then is that he did not extort from her, because extortion must fit the criminal definition.

She probably didn't pursue charges. That doesn't mean what he did was legal.

 

[jesuschrist]

I would think that if they believe they can resolve the situation without pressing charges then they would do so. That is probably what happened here, if there was nothing criminal going on they would not have even talked to the guy.

Cops will investigate if there is suspicion of criminal activity, yes you are right about that. But what you miss is that if there is evidence of a crime committed, they MUST press charges - the only time there is any choice in the matter is if Crown Counsel intervenes (and they must seek their counsel if they think there might be charges) and vetoes.

So because they didn't, means there was no evidence of a crime being committed. The cops assessed the situation and believed that this was nothing more than a feud between an escort and a client, which could be resolved out of the legal system but more importantly, no crime was committed.

Now we don't have to take the cops' opinion of the situation as the correct read on it, but all I'm saying is that they are the closest most unbiased persons there and we should take their read on it as the actual situation - not some sympathetic article in a newspaper where she was lucky enough to get a public voice about it.