How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask LADYLAWYER Your Own Question
Category: Legal
Satisfied Customers: 6536
Experience:  Civil; Family; HOA; Landlord/Tenant; Real Estate; Probate; Insurance; Immigration; Wills & Trusts
Type Your Legal Question Here...
LADYLAWYER is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

We were corresponding. our question got closed - I think I

Customer Question

We were corresponding. our question got closed - I think I asked too many personal, irrelevant questions. But I am stuck in the middle and confused. Can we just finish quick? Please? I'll make sure to stick to the point... Daniel
Submitted: 4 years ago.
Category: Legal
Expert:  LADYLAWYER replied 4 years ago.

LADYLAWYER : Hello, Thanks for choosing! I look forward to helping you with legal information today.
LADYLAWYER : Hey Daniel, yes, the moderators closed it and said that I had answered the same questions over and over and needed to move on. Sorry, I figured it was just a matter of time.
LADYLAWYER and 5 other Legal Specialists are ready to help you
Expert:  LADYLAWYER replied 4 years ago.

You rated my answer and it closes the chat. :) No worries, what was your last legal question?
Customer: replied 4 years ago.
ok. well I opened a new one. so you get paid for it. It's for me, not for them. They run the site, but I know when it's clear or not. and I am confused on this point (actually, honestly):

if it's something of value, then wouldn't pretty much everyone be doing it?

because a husband pays for his wife and her house, etc, and she gives im back love but also sex.

or, a girl finds a rich boyfriend...

Then where does one draw the line? - the reason it's important is because if I don't find my answer, I am not going to think that everything is prostitution is exchange happens and will do nothing on the subject of relationships...
Customer: replied 4 years ago.
I closed the chat by accident. or I mean replied to you.
Expert:  LADYLAWYER replied 4 years ago.
If one can prove there is an actual relationship between them and the other person they are giving things of value to and accepting sex from, then that would not be prostitution or solicitation. I have never seen a prosecutor prosecute a person where there is evidence of an actual relationship between two parties. The legislature clearly did not intend to make the statute this far reaching. It is against common sense and public policy.

No crime of prostitution, solicitation and pandering are the same, each case is different. As they might be similar, it ultimately depends on the evidence. In a Penal Code 647 prostitution case, prosecutors must prove that at least one the following elements exist:

Solicitation from one party to the other for an act of prostitution
The agreement to commit an act of prostitution
Actually commit an act of prostitution
Solicitation of lewd conduct

A Prosecutors job is to prove there was an arrangement to engage in an act of prostitution. They usually gain proof with a recorded conversation between an undercover police officer and the accused. If they cannot produce a recording of the conversation, the arrangement may be difficult to prove. If the accused has no money at the time of arrest, the prosecution may have a difficult time proving there was specific intent to engage in an act of prostitution. I do get that it is hard to understand the nuances of how things can be different in theory and in practice, but in the legal world, this is especially true.

Expert:  LADYLAWYER replied 4 years ago.
In order to prove that a defendant solicited or agreed to engage in prostitution the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant actually intended to engage in a sex act for compensation. If the defendant was joking around, flirting, or simply curious, but had no intention of actually carrying out a sex for money exchange, that defendant is not guilty of violating Penal Code section 647(b). Further, a defendant who can prove an actual relationship exists between s/he and the other party, proves that they had no specific intent to "engage in the act of prostitution." If the specific intent cannot be proven, then the defendant cannot be considered guilty of the act based upon the definition of the statute.
Customer: replied 4 years ago.
ok. I think I am getting close to understanding. So, there has to be an "arrangement"? - If there is simply exchange, it's not prostitution... Let's say someone takes a girl to an expensive dinner, buys her a ring, she sleeps with him. But there was no "arrangement." correct? would that be different that saying: "if I buy you this ring, will you sleep with me?"

this might seem trivial to you, but it's important to me. Because I have always given girls presents, chocolates, etc. Obviously not to sleep with them, necessarily. But I need to see where just simply "courting" turns into prostitution.

And, in my case which I described, it was not such, because my proposed wishes were of no value, or because there was no intent (from the legal viewpoint) even though there might have been intention to do it from my side?

I also just need to know because I work for the courts, etc, and in other areas have high standards, so if someone ever asks "have you ever solicited prostitution?" I need to say "no" with a clear conscience, not just because someone might find out...So I am going to stop philosophizing here and if you tel me that I am fine, I am done with my case...
Customer: replied 4 years ago.
oh, I see. and who or what establishes intent? the act of showing up?

in my case, when I put the ad up, I had the intention to play that game (otherwise I wouldn't have put it up). But the normal English "intent" or "intention" must be different than how you're using it in the legal sense?
Customer: replied 4 years ago.
I think I get it. Intent means the intention to commit a crime, wittingly, knowingly. But then, here's the trick - I once offered someone a ride for money. I had no idea that this was illegal in LA. so there was no intent. But I was arrested, they called it "pirate taxi cab." So I had the "intent" because I showed up. So "intent" must not mean "the desire to commit a crime knowingly." It must mean "the intention to do the action" (and it doesn't matter if a person knows it's illegal or not). Am I right? If a Zulu came to US and he had no clue prostitution was not illegal, and he tried it, he could still be arrested...yeah?
Expert:  LADYLAWYER replied 4 years ago.
The arresting officer believes he has enough evidence to arrest you based on specific intent (again, fact specific), and then the prosecutor tries to prove you had the specific intent, and then the jury decides if the prosecutor has proved that you had specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's not whether you intended to play the game. It's whether you specifically intended to engage or solicit prostitution.

Customer: replied 4 years ago.
No, I certainly didn't. But in the example I gave you with the car above, I also didn't intend to do anything illegal. I just showed up to give someone a ride for money, but it was a set up. I had no clue it was against the law. they said it didn't matter.

so, to wrap it up. if I'm even with a girl in a cafe, bar, wherever, and I tell her of the same game, would it be prostitution? technically her wishes could have been material - clothes, car, etc.

Is it best to just stay as far away from this as possible? or get into a relationship, perhaps...? that's off the subject already.
Expert:  LADYLAWYER replied 4 years ago.
That's correct. There is a saying in the legal world that "ignorance of the law is no excuse”. In other words, you can’t claim to be exempt from liability under a law just because you didn’t know there was such a law.
Expert:  LADYLAWYER replied 4 years ago.
I think we have been over this, but yes, I think it would be best to stay away from stuff like this lest you come across an ambitious police officer or prosecutor who wants to try to make an example out of you.

I really do need to be going now. My eyes are starting to get heavy. :)
Customer: replied 4 years ago.
this is all extremely confusing. seems contradictory. It's not the complexity of law. it's some basic or term I don't get.

on the one hand, you said that if there was not intent (like in my case), it's not a crime. On the other hand, that not knowing the law (not having the intent to break it) is no excuse. So how does it work?

by intent, is it meant the intention to commit a crime or simply to carry out the action?
Customer: replied 4 years ago.
to save you time and trouble, you can tell me where to read up on it, if you know. if not, I can research myself. Because I don't want to keep asking you questions, but it's confusing right now. I am far from stupid, but I no longer understand if I did something wrong or not, and where the crime would begin and simple flirtation would end. SO I can research on my own, if you like.
Customer: replied 4 years ago.
ok, good night! sleep well. I won't keep you longer.

Expert:  LADYLAWYER replied 4 years ago.
I don't think I could tell you to go anywhere that will give you as much detail as I have here.

What I told you was not contradictory. You do have to have specific intent to engage in prostitution to be guilty of it. Whether you knew it was illegal or not is of no consequence. If you intended to engage in sex for the exchange of money or something else of consequential value, then you have engaged in prostitution by definition. Whether you knew that doing this was illegal or not has nothing to do with whether you had the specific intent to engage in the act.

I need to go offline now. I am happy to open the question up to other experts if you think that might help. Perhaps it is a communication issue.
Customer: replied 4 years ago.
No, it's fine. You were very thorough. I don't think anyone could have done better. It has nothing to do with your communication. It has to do with definition of terms, only. or with some important point I am missing. There is something I am not getting. I will review all your answers tomorrow and hopefully not need any more. Or at least formulate a few very crisp answers.

your info is not contradictory. the contradiction is in my head. I'll figure it out.

I think I don't totally get the words "intent" and "consequential value." will study them tomorrow. I just need to know is my wishes were "consequential value" and if my desire was "intent" or if "intent" only occurs upon arrival.

Expert:  LADYLAWYER replied 4 years ago.
Okay, thanks. After reviewing it tomorrow, let me know if you want me to open it up. I won't be online tomorrow but I'll be back on Monday.

Thanks Daniel, sleep well!
Customer: replied 4 years ago.

Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. Had a busy weekend. Still haven't read through all the correspondence. Will do in a bit and get back to you

I have something else on my mind. I could open a new question, as it's new. But it's very simple: if someone does not have a work permit to work in the US, am I liable if I pay them? - basically someone was consulting me and I had no idea they were not ok to work in the US. She did a so-so job anyway, and I paid her half upfront and then in the middle she decided to bail out and say pay me the remaining hours (not all, just the 7 extra she worked). At that point I found out she was not ok to work here. She has a firm abroad, though.
So, if someone is working here and receiving money abroad, is that illegal, or what are the logistics? a very simple answer will do. Hope you had a good weekend:)
Expert:  LADYLAWYER replied 4 years ago.
Hi there! I had to laugh out loud a little as I am not sure there are any "simple" answers with you, ;) You do not need to open a new question, you can just accept this answer by rating it. I am glad to hear from you.

Under the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act, it is unlawful to hire an alien, to recruit an alien, or to refer an alien for a fee, knowing the alien is unauthorized to work in the United States. It is equally unlawful to continue to employ an alien knowing that the alien is unauthorized to work. An employer has constructive knowledge that an employee is an illegal unauthorized worker if a reasonable person would infer it from the facts. Constructive knowledge constituting a violation of federal law has been found where (1) the I-9 employment eligibility form has not been properly completed, including supporting documentation, (2) the employer has learned from other individuals, media reports, or any source of information available to the employer that the alien is unauthorized to work, or (3) the employer acts with reckless disregard for the legal consequences of permitting a third party to provide or introduce an illegal alien into the employer's work force. Knowledge cannot be inferred solely on the basis of an individual's accent or foreign appearance.

Actual specific knowledge is not required. For example, a newspaper article stating that ballrooms depend on an illegal alien work force of dance hostesses was held by the courts to be a reasonable ground for suspicion that unlawful conduct had occurred. Anyone employing or contracting with an illegal alien without verifying his or her work authorization status is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Customer: replied 4 years ago.
got you. and is this the same with a consultant? if I don't hire them as an employee, but as an independent consultant?

I just need a legal reason to quote this person so that she doesn't ask for money anymore.

And yes, keep laughing. It's good therapy. The ancient Romans recommended it. Will be in touch.

Expert:  LADYLAWYER replied 4 years ago.

Sorry, had to go offline for a little while. The employer sanctions provisions contain two exemptions. The first, a "grandfather" clause exempts from its provisions the continuing employment of unauthorized aliens hired on or before November 6, 1986, the date of the law's enactment. The second exempts "independent contractors" from the employment verification and sanctions provisions, provided the service provider falls within the strict definition of independent contractor. This includes "individual entities who carry on independent business, contract to do piece work according to their own means and methods, and are subject to control only as to results."

Indicia of independence include:
Who supplies tools/materials;
Whether services are available to public;
Whether work is done for other clients;
Whether there is an opportunity for profit or loss as a result of the labor; and
Who determines order, sequence, and time work is done.

Lastly, while you are not obliged to confirm the work authorization of anyone you hire as an independent contractor, if you know or have reason to know that an independent contractor is not authorized to work in the U.S., you can nevertheless be held liable.

If this woman is an illegal, you can report her to the UCIS's ICE division. You can find the local numbers here:

Customer: replied 4 years ago.
Thanks! sorry for the late reply!

Hope your day went well:) Mine did. Very busy...

So freelancers CAN or CANNOT do it?

I know many companies outsource outside the US. is that different because the people working are physically outside?

Or, if someone works here, is it different if they receive money abroad rather than here?

For example, couldn't someone hire a US consultant to go do business in another country, or a Belgian consultant, let's say, to come work here, regardless of how he gets paid?

In this question (unlike the last), I don't need any heave references, legal language, etc. The simpler, the better:)