# Report to DA released



## stevecolter (Mar 22, 2006)

All the details from Z-Bo's case ...


http://www.oregonlive.com/pdfs/blazers/zach_memo092006.pdf

he's lucky, imo


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

This might put the old adedge "any PR is good PR" to the test. Pretty sordid stuff. But with this as the evidence, I don't see the case having any legs to stand on and understand why it was dropped. 

I'm sure that those who enjoy having Canzano push their indignant fan buttons can't wait for tomorrow's article.

STOMP


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Good call by the DA's office . . . no way were they going to prove force or no consent beyond a reasonable doubt.

That scene is not pretty, but not nearly as bad as Canzano made it out to be. I don't understand how Canzano can tee off on the Zach like he did. The female has credibility issues, was intoxicated at the time, had motive to fabricate and her version is not cooberated by anyone in the room.

I'm not saying she wasn't raped or had sex against her will . . . I'm just shocked that Canzano takes the position he does given those facts. That was basically a sex fest gone bad . . . how bad only those in the room will know.

But to me, this confirms the idea someone raised that Canzano is on some powertrip to try and run players out of town.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Arrrggghhhh!! I'm in safe mode with networking so I can't open a pdf file. Can someone copy and paste it and send it to me private please? While you can't edit a pdf file you can click on the selection button and hilite/copy text. Thanks!!


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

:makeout:


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

I feel like I just watched a low-grade porn movie after reading that. Yuck, and don't read it if you're offended by x-reated scenes (uh, seriously). Sex acts for money gone bad, definitely, but impossible to tell whether anything actual criminal happened. We can only hope that the women can get their lives straightened out and that Randolph can learn to live like a man instead of like a video character.

This is also a good reminder of why I don't really want to know much about the lives of celebrities, but enjoy their performances for what they are.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

FeloniusThunk said:


> I feel like I just watched a low-grade porn movie after reading that. Yuck, and don't read it if you're offended by x-reated scenes (uh, seriously). Sex acts for money gone bad, definitely, but impossible to tell whether anything actual criminal happened. We can only hope that the women can get their lives straightened out and that Randolph can learn to live like a man instead of like a video character.
> 
> This is also a good reminder of why I don't really want to know much about the lives of celebrities, but enjoy their performances for what they are.


That sounds about right. Zach seriously needs to get his act together, whether it be hanging out with a new crowd or just realizing that this is embarassing to him, the team, the organization, and the fans.

If Zach can't behave like a man, then it's probably time to get rid of him.
Even if what happened in the report was true or not, he still got himself into this bad situation.


----------



## furball (Jul 25, 2004)

Disgusting and repulsive behavior, yes. But not criminal. DA mad a good call, but Zack confirmed himself as a scumbag. His buddy says they share sex partners all the time. Either I'm getting to freakin old, or that is totally unacceptable behavior.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

It's difficult to trust or believe any of them, including the alleged victim. Zach, woman A, woman B, his barber, all of them sound like peas in a pod, living the life of their choosing. It sounds like if he'd paid her the $500 (chump change from a chump) in the first place, he wouldn't be in this mess. Let them take their pissing match elsewhere. I frankly don't care about any of them. 

And I care even less about Canzano and his self appointed moral leadership.


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

I guess I'm glad, as a Blazer fan, that the DA isn't pressing charges, if for no other reason than that we can avoid yet another round of "Jail Blazers" BS reportage, but this definitely doesn't make Zach sound like a very nice guy.

Here's hoping that Z-Bo comes out the gates playing great this season -- averages 23 and 12, or something along those lines -- and that, simultaneously, Aldridge impresses in practice, thereby making Zach both valuable and expendable. Then pull the trigger on a nice trade.

I just don't think this is the guy we want to build around. But we need to make damn sure that we get something good for him when we send him packing. Not Wes Person, for example.

Stepping Razor


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

Who would name there daughter's A or B. I would never name my son MAN. Zach's not bad or evil, he's just dumb!


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

mgb said:


> Arrrggghhhh!! I'm in safe mode with networking so I can't open a pdf file. Can someone copy and paste it and send it to me private please? While you can't edit a pdf file you can click on the selection button and hilite/copy text. Thanks!!


I believe this one has been locked...cannot seem to copy any text...someone might be able to snapshot it and save it as a jpeg though. Sorry I don't have the time to try that.


----------



## TP3 (Jan 26, 2003)

Exactly. Morality dished from Canzano is hypocrisy.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

TP3 said:



> Exactly. Morality dished from Canzano is hypocrisy.


Certainly true, but their can be no arguing with the Police report. While reading it I for one certainly questioned Zach's moral terpitude.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Stuff like this makes you pine for the good ol' days, when players were busted for carrying pot in an airport or getting high in a yellow Hummer. Those were the days ...


----------



## handclap problematic (Nov 6, 2003)

wastro said:


> Stuff like this makes you pine for the good ol' days, when players were busted for carrying pot in an airport or getting high in a yellow Hummer. Those were the days ...



This may be distasteful, but.....there may have been a hummer involved here as well.


Prunetang


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

handclap problematic said:


> This may be distasteful, but.....there may have been a hummer involved here as well.
> 
> 
> Prunetang


 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## Buckethead (Jun 13, 2006)

I knew things were going to get bad when I read in the DA's report that there were two women involved. Zbo always makes awful decisions when double teamed.

Reading this report makes me like Kenyon Martin a whole lot more. I hope Steve Patterson is making a few calls to the Nuggs and Knicks tomorrow.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

Buckethead said:


> I knew things were going to get bad when I read in the DA's report that there were two women involved. Zbo always makes awful decisions when double teamed.



Wow.... :clap:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Doesn't sound like Zach did much, if anything, wrong to me. Do I live my life like that? I wish...  No, of course I don't.

But if I were young and rich? Maybe I would have.

I can understand how each of us might choose to act differently or not put ourselves in that situation, but I don't--personally--feel qualified to sit in judgment on whether people should be acting like Zach did.

Ed O.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Doesn't sound like Zach did much, if anything, wrong to me. Do I live my life like that? I wish...  No, of course I don't.
> 
> But if I were young and rich? Maybe I would have.
> 
> ...


I don't know about you, but if I was young and rich, I'd definitely go *before* the barber.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

I find it kind of disturbing that the report was released at all- what is the point of releasing it, other than to embarrass Zach?

Also, how come everyone but Zach gets their name blacked out?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Anonymous Gambler said:


> I find it kind of disturbing that the report was released at all- what is the point of releasing it, other than to embarrass Zach?
> 
> Also, how come everyone but Zach gets their name blacked out?


I suspect you know that you're answering your own question. The point of the *O*'s Blazer coverage has been to embarrass the club for some time now. Even if nothing further results from this, I expect to see this incident to be refered to throughout the season. 

STOMP


----------



## ColoradoBlazerFan (Feb 16, 2006)

Buckethead said:


> I knew things were going to get bad when I read in the DA's report that there were two women involved. Zbo always makes awful decisions when double teamed.


 :biggrin: 

What I found funny was that Zach's buddy was nicknamed "Love". I quess Zach's gotta wait for "Love" to work his magic before Zach get's started...

Frankly, Zach could avoid all these problems if he'd just go to Amsterdam to sow his oats. Much more cooperation from the hookers and a hell of a lot more reasonably priced. For $500 bucks he could have 5 women performing acts in front of him...and he wouldn't have to wait on "Love"

Peace


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

furball said:


> Disgusting and repulsive behavior, yes. But not criminal. DA mad a good call, but Zack confirmed himself as a scumbag. His buddy says they share sex partners all the time. Either I'm getting to freakin old, or that is totally unacceptable behavior.


Cheating on your wife is much worse than what Zach did - or what Rasheed or even J.R. Rider
has done. Cheating is a complete betrayal. Brian Grant Cheated on his wife multiple times,
yet we use terms like "disgusting" and "moral terpetude," to describe Zach et. al., but Brian
Grant, Karl Malone, and others get a free pass. This attitude, which most Blazer fans have,
is more disturbing to me than Zach's behavior, which I consider out of the J.R. Rider school
of stupid.


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

Question:
If Woman A sent a text message to woman B asking for $10,000 from Randolph,
why aren't they charging Woman A with Extortion?

It's really 2 questions:
Can the police find out where the text message was sent from (i.e. confirm it
came from woman A)?

If they can, why aren't the police going after Woman A?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

By the way, I didn't read this thread at first not because there are others of similar content about Zach, but because I read this:

Report: DA to be released.

Which, of course, happens every couple of weeks, so it's not big news.

Ed O.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Ed O said:


> By the way, I didn't read this thread at first not because there are others of similar content about Zach, but because I read this:
> 
> Report: DA to be released.
> 
> ...


Ed, I thought the same thing! And I wondered, wasn't he already released?


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

wizmentor said:


> Question:
> If Woman A sent a text message to woman B asking for $10,000 from Randolph,
> why aren't they charging Woman A with Extortion?
> 
> ...


I was wondering the same thing. Seems like there isn't enough evidence to support a conviction on the charges originally filed against Zach, but with that text message there certainly should be enough evidence to support an extortion charge against Woman A. That is, if they can prove she was the one who sent it.

Still, this report makes Zach look extremely sleazy. Ick.

PBF


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

If there was any forced sex or sexual contact without consent, then that is inexcusable and violates acceptable conduct as defined by the laws.

But if this was a mutal sexcapade among four consenting adults, then personally I don't see it as that bad of a thing. Not something I personally would want made public, but not something that shocks my conscious.

We are talking about young males, who are in shape and are constantly working out with a boat load of money. There is and always has been the underworld of sex, money. Mix that underworld with professional athletes, and I feel pretty confident that Zach is not the only professional player partaking in these kinds of experiences . . . even the multiple partner thing.

Heck take a cruise through my space. It actually doesn't take money for these kinds of experiences. Threesomes, multiple partners, extasy, sex among friends, sex purely for the physical experience is part of today's high school and college scene.

There is a case at Southridge (well-to-do public highschool in the Beaverton area) about a videotape being passed aound with a girl who has sex with multiple partners in one session. I heard about another case out of Grant where a girl is wearing different colored bands on her wrist representing each guy she had sex with. Heard many "rave" stories that may or may not be true about girls and guys having multiple partners in one night.

I'm not endorsing this kind of behavior, but with that mentality being socially acceptable among some of the population, I'm not shocked that a professional athlete gets involved in that.

What is scary, is I can also see professional athletes feeling so powerful (status and money) that they could more readily take it to the next level than others. 

Obviously I don't know what happened that, but up until the point of dispute (forced sex . . . is it a dispute if Zach never gave his version?) I think that stuff goes on all the time behind closed doors.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

I have defended Canzano on multiple occasions in the past, but I cannot this time. The stuff described in this police report happens all the time.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

tlong said:


> I have defended Canzano on multiple occasions in the past, but I cannot this time. The stuff described in this police report happens all the time.


Sounds like one of my normal weekends. Besides the Vintage Plaza, mine usually takes place at a fancy Motel 6 on MLK.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> I have defended Canzano on multiple occasions in the past, but I cannot this time. The stuff described in this police report happens all the time.



You'd be driving a Lexus if it didn't.


----------



## TheBlueDoggy (Oct 5, 2004)

While Zach's personal life may be disgusting to some or goes against their faith or set of morals, the acts that document describe are about as illegal or "wrong" nowadays as being gay or getting involved in a threesom are. Is that the lifestyle most of us would live, probably not. Is it one within the law and found acceptable by many in modern society, probably. 

The prostitution and rape things are of course illegal and not acceptable by any society I'm aware of but it sounds like those accusations were extremely shaky at best. Although, considering the circumstances, I can see why stories might not have matched thus disolving any proof... considering what happened and the alcahol involed (and likely drugs), who would tell the whole truth to the police about it?


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

TheBlueDoggy said:


> considering what happened and the alcahol involed (and likely drugs), who would tell the whole truth to the police about it?


I like how the simulated sex show was $500.00 (legal) but that the sex with "love" was not for money but was sex among two consenting adults (also legal).


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

yeah cannedhamzano will be cheered on the lEast coast as a hero for moral standards lol the irony for both him and the least coast.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

wizmentor said:


> Cheating on your wife is much worse than what Zach did - or what Rasheed or even J.R. Rider
> has done. Cheating is a complete betrayal. Brian Grant Cheated on his wife multiple times,
> yet we use terms like "disgusting" and "moral terpetude," to describe Zach et. al., but Brian
> Grant, Karl Malone, and others get a free pass. This attitude, which most Blazer fans have,
> ...



:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who is bothered by this. Cheating on your spouse is wrong. Fathering children and failing to support them is wrong. Consensual sex between consenting, single adults? That is waaaaaay down the list!


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

What exactly is a "*simulated*" sex show anyway?


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Kobe anyone? What Kobe did is far worse than this, IMO.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

tlong said:


> What exactly is a "*simulated*" sex show anyway?


A way to make it sound legal...paying two women to have sex is considered prostitution...if you call it "simulated sex" you avoid the rap.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> A way to make it sound legal...paying two women to have sex is considered prostitution...if you call it "simulated sex" you avoid the rap.


Does that mean if I offer to pay an undercover policewoman for "simulated sex" I won't get in trouble?


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

tlong said:


> Does that mean if I offer to pay an undercover policewoman for "simulated sex" I won't get in trouble?


lol good question...my definition was just a guess..suppose you would have to try it.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

lap dance


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

The DA's memo cites a case as to what is allowed in Oregon. Obviously sex for money is not allowed. The big controversy in Oregon were these so called sex shows where woman would perform sex acts on themselves for money. They shut that down until the courts ruled that that conduct did not constitute prostitution and you can now go get a show where a woman is allowed to touch themselves.

In this case I think they use the word "simulated" because it invovled two woman. Without reading the case mentioned, my guess is that you can not pay two women to perform a sex act on each other that invovles actually touching of each other. You can pay two woman to touch themselves and pretend as though they are touching each other.

The game played (from what I hear :biggrin: ) is that you pay for the sex show and anything after that is an act by two consenting adults. I'm guessing how much you pay for the sex show will determine how much the other party is willing to consent to . . . but that would be skepitcal of me to think that wouldn't it.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

First, let me say that I don't in any way condone Zach's actions as described in the police report. He may have done nothing illegal, or at least nothing that can be proved in a court of law, but...YUCK!

That said, I couldn't help wondering as I read Canzano's column in which he described the two women involved in the case as having been someone's "little princess", that he managed to totally avoid mentioning that the particular little princess accusing Zach of rape tried to shake him down for $10,000. Talk about yellow journalism.

And, now that I've done my obligatory Canzano-bashing, would somebody please find a decent trade to get Z-ro out of town.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

I've been a Zach appologist for basically his whole career. And as such I really expect that what Woman A says happened didn't. But if it did I'm gonna have to stop being a Zach appologist. Trying to get it on with a chick that's asleep is not cool.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

ebott said:


> I've been a Zach appologist for basically his whole career. And as such I really expect that what Woman A says happened didn't. But if it did I'm gonna have to stop being a Zach appologist. Trying to get it on with a chick that's asleep is not cool.



Yeah the idea of waking up to Zach trying to poke you in the behind is not a pleasant thought, is it?


----------



## trueorfalse (May 31, 2003)

You are just envious that it was Zach who got to taste Loves man juice :angel:


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

trueorfalse said:


> You are just envious that it was Zach who got to taste Loves man juice :angel:



OOOOOOOOOKKKKKKKKKKK?


----------



## handclap problematic (Nov 6, 2003)

I was thinking about Canzano's moral highhorse, and had a strange thought.
I don't usually wish bad on people, and I really don't on Canano either, but I would be very very happy if he got into some kind of trouble. I am not talking about anything too serious either; possibly a DUI, or a misdemeanor charge of something or other. I think it would be quite hilarious. 

Prunetang


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Remind me never to have Canzano defend me.



Canzano said:


> W e met in the back alley behind a Portland medical-laboratory building where she works full time as a technician earning $14.35 an hour. The alleged victim in the since-closed Zach Randolph sexual-assault criminal investigation arrived with red eyes, trembling lips and with her hands stuffed into the pockets of a brown corduroy jacket.


Works in a medical lab as a technician making $14.35/hr, wears a brown corduroy jacket. There's an alley behind the building. I guess Woman A's coworkers now know who she is.



Canzano said:


> "I'm scared of retaliation; there are some thugs who would probably like to see bad things happen to me."
> 
> The alleged victim, a single mother, 26, said she sleeps with the lights on inside her apartment, and with a Louisville Slugger baseball bat resting against her pillow at night.


Thugs take note: there is a baseball bat near the bed. Coast is otherwise clear.



Canzano said:


> On most nights, just before bedtime, she lies down with her mom on the floor of their apartment and they press the frog's hand and sing along to "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star," and they giggle until their sides ache.


On other nights, mom is out with Zach at strip clubs, or taking money to perform sex shows.



Canzano said:


> The victim told me that she once attended a party with a friend in July at Randolph's Portland-area residence where she observed several women ingesting the drug Ecstasy and performing an "orgy" with two male guests in a back room at Randolph's residence.


And she was so horrified by this that a few weeks later she agreed to put on a sex show for Randolph?

bah.

barfo


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to barfo again.


Sorry Barfo.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

handclap problematic said:


> I was thinking about Canzano's moral highhorse, and had a strange thought.
> I don't usually wish bad on people, and I really don't on Canano either, but I would be very very happy if he got into some kind of trouble. I am not talking about anything too serious either; possibly a DUI, or a misdemeanor charge of something or other. I think it would be quite hilarious.
> 
> Prunetang


Not sure about a DUI, I mean, a lot of people (including my cousin) were killed by drunk drivers. Maybe if he was caught before he hurt anyone.
Prunetag, I kind of know what you mean, though. Something about self-righteous pontificators. I think that is why people were so gleeful about Bill O'Reilly's sexual harassment charges; this man who still tells the rest of us how immoral and permissive we are having telephone sex with an unwilling woman and mixing up falafels and loofahs.
And I remember Phyllis Schlafly saying virtuous women are not harassed and virtuous women are not raped. I would not wish rape on anyone, ever, no matter how loathsome, but I thought, well, maybe a bad scare...


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

Anonymous Gambler said:


> I find it kind of disturbing that the report was released at all- what is the point of releasing it, other than to embarrass Zach?
> 
> Also, how come everyone but Zach gets their name blacked out?


I believe that it's a public document, now. Not releasing it might have been illegal. You black out the names of people that are not already known to the public - in the case of victims that to protect their safety and privacy, in the case of participants/perpetrators, it's to avoid their being tried in the press. But with Zach, everyone knew already. 

I'm not going to read the report myself, but I do have a question about it. If Randolph paid for "sex acts" - how is that different from "soliciting prostitution" (i.e. "paying for sex"). It sounds to me like what Zach did was very possibly illegal, not to mention pretty darn stupid for someone with his significnant public profile (and no, I'm not talking about the size of his head).


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Public Defender said:


> I'm not going to read the report myself, but I do have a question about it. If Randolph paid for "sex acts" - how is that different from "soliciting prostitution" (i.e. "paying for sex"). It sounds to me like what Zach did was very possibly illegal, not to mention pretty darn stupid for someone with his significnant public profile (and no, I'm not talking about the size of his head).


He paid for a simulated sex show... for the women to simulate sex (not actually have it). "Woman B" claims (iirc) that it was for the two of them to have sex, but Zach wasn't forthcoming, and it seems that his position (probably from the lawyers) was that it was payment for simulation, rather than the real deal.

Another good reason for him not to have talked to the cops... if he had admitted to paying them to "get it on" or something, he probably would be charged at this point.

Ed O.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Ed O said:


> He paid for a simulated sex show... for the women to simulate sex (not actually have it). "Woman B" claims (iirc) that it was for the two of them to have sex, but Zach wasn't forthcoming, and it seems that his position (probably from the lawyers) was that it was payment for simulation, rather than the real deal.
> 
> Another good reason for him not to have talked to the cops... if he had admitted to paying them to "get it on" or something, he probably would be charged at this point.
> 
> Ed O.


Ahh the nice spin doctoring of Mr. Housze...that man is a genius when it comes to this stuff. We all know Zbo wasn't paying $500 for a "simulated" show.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

I love simulated sex.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> We all know Zbo wasn't paying $500 for a "simulated" show.


Like hell we do.

$500 is such an insignificant portion of Randolph's income that he might be willing to pay it to get his car cleaned. Seeing two women simulate sex when it might result in more... you don't seriously think that him paying $500 for that is unrealistic, do you?

Ed O.


----------



## trueorfalse (May 31, 2003)

barfo said:


> Remind me never to have Canzano defend me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was thinking along the same lines, the interesting question to me though, is if this woman is really so media hungry that she wants to go semi-public about this alleged attempted rape or if Canzano is really this good at duping people into telling more than they want to.

What possible positive outcome for this woman can come from the situation?


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

Ed O said:


> He paid for a simulated sex show... for the women to simulate sex (not actually have it). "Woman B" claims (iirc) that it was for the two of them to have sex, but Zach wasn't forthcoming, and it seems that his position (probably from the lawyers) was that it was payment for simulation, rather than the real deal.
> 
> Another good reason for him not to have talked to the cops... if he had admitted to paying them to "get it on" or something, he probably would be charged at this point.
> 
> Ed O.


Actually, there are some positives to be taken from this:
1) Zach has finally learned to shut the H-E-C-K up. Big mouths have caused as much problems
as scurrilous deeds.

2) I think Zach had an inkling as to what was legal and what wasn't - he's learned at least
a little from the coaching he's gotten in the past from Houze. However, the fact
that he didn't pay because he didn't get the show he wanted (which was probably illegal)
is troublesome.


----------



## Spud147 (Jul 15, 2005)

Am I the only one left wondering if I missed a huge part of the story?!? I wasn't really surprised or shocked by any of that. I mean, major ick factor with the behavior but I'm cynical enough to assume this kind of thing is part of the NBA lifestyle. 

I love watching basketball but I've never really had any desire to hang out with the players.

And I'm not painting every player with the same brush, obviously there are exceptions (Martell's Gramma would kick his behind from Canada to Mexico if he tried something like this), but celebrities live completely different lifestyles than most of us.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Just for the record: Live sex shows are not presently illegal in the State of Oregon. They don't have to be "simulated" (whatever that means) to be permissible. Real sex shows are permissible, according to the precedent established in the 9/29/2005 Oregon Supreme Court ruling in the case of State of Oregon vs. Ciancanelli.

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S49707.htm

This is recent law, and the reasoning was widely disputed by many, but the ruling is clear and the DA probably knows that. My guess is that by implying in his memo that the established precedent wasn't clear, the DA was making a subtle note that he didn't agree with it in the first place.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> Just for the record: Live sex shows are not presently illegal in the State of Oregon. They don't have to be "simulated" (whatever that means) to be permissible. Real sex shows are permissible, according to the precedent established in the 9/29/2005 Oregon Supreme Court ruling in the case of State of Oregon vs. Ciancanelli.


So, if I pay two other people to have sex, that's ok, but I can't pay someone to have sex with me? That seems a bit bizarre. 

What if I find a friend, (let's call him, say, "Love"), and he pays for a sex show between me and hooker A, while I pay for a sex show between him and hooker B. Is that legal? What if we don't happen to watch the sex shows we paid for? 

I think I'll start a new business - it will match up guys who want to pay for each others' legal "live sex shows". Naturally, they won't need to meet each other - they are philanthropists who just want to help others. And, of course, I'll match them up with women wanting to participate. 

Now I just need me a purple cadillac...

barfo


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

barfo said:


> So, if I pay two other people to have sex, that's ok, but I can't pay someone to have sex with me? That seems a bit bizarre.


And yet, isn't this exactly how por movies/magazines are made? They appear to be legal, too (uh, not that I know where to get them or anything). So I guess this is like a Puritan-based law: it's only illegal when someone's enjoying it.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

barfo's bringing sexy back.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

barfo said:


> So, if I pay two other people to have sex, that's ok, but I can't pay someone to have sex with me? That seems a bit bizarre.
> 
> What if I find a friend, (let's call him, say, "Love"), and he pays for a sex show between me and hooker A, while I pay for a sex show between him and hooker B. Is that legal? What if we don't happen to watch the sex shows we paid for?
> 
> ...


A couple of comments:

A) Better make sure you pay *both* participants, and neither is paying you.

B) Better make sure there is an audience and/or camera present. It has to be an artistic presentation of some kind to claim free speech protection.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

barfo said:


> So, if I pay two other people to have sex, that's ok, but I can't pay someone to have sex with me? That seems a bit bizarre.
> 
> What if I find a friend, (let's call him, say, "Love"), and he pays for a sex show between me and hooker A, while I pay for a sex show between him and hooker B. Is that legal? What if we don't happen to watch the sex shows we paid for?
> 
> ...


Good questions. It seems bizarre to me as well. I think the legal standard is that someone has to be watching or filming and be able to plausibly argue that the act is taking place for the enjoyment of the observer. So your hypothetical service might work, but it would require the guys matched up to actually watch each other, or otherwise they would have no way to plausibly argue that they are paying for the priviledge of viewing rather than participating.


----------

