Life Changes...Part Deux

[Hammer2722]

Hammer, no mod made a pronouncement on the legality of Billy's contact.  Daveman said she is now of legal age.

Then perhaps you need to go back and reread this thread. On second thought, never mind. There was a reason why I had you on ignore and now you just reminded me. Thank you.

[Faux Pas]

Then perhaps you need to go back and reread this thread. On second thought, never mind. There was a reason why I had you on ignore and now you just reminded me. Thank you.

Because she doesn't agree with you?

[Hammer2722]

Because she doesn't agree with you?

No, because since I have been on this forum, I have seen what she is capable of doing as a Mod and I decided that anything she has to say here is of no interest to me. That is the purpose of ignore is it not? There are many people here who I do not agree with but I don't have them on ignore. 

[Daveman]

No, because since I have been on this forum, I have seen what she is capable of doing as a Mod and I decided that anything she has to say here is of no interest to me. That is the purpose of ignore is it not? There are many people here who I do not agree with but I don't have them on ignore.

Everyone has opinions and preferences... that's the best method - if you don't care for someone's posts.. just quietly place that person on ignore... to announce and proclaim an ignore is nothing more than a passive aggressive statement in helpless defiance of how much control that "ignored" person has over your RWD enjoyment.. 


Now, let's get this thread back on topic of bashing er... I mean.. commenting on Everything BillyB...     And let's do try to contain the commentary to THIS thread (that's not a request).

[Boethius]

Then perhaps you need to go back and reread this thread. On second thought, never mind. There was a reason why I had you on ignore and now you just reminded me. Thank you.

No, you need to go back and reread this thread.  Dave's post was in response to posters' views on Billy's relationship.  He noted that, at the point at which Dave was posting, "A" was 18 years old and could, by law, marry anyone she wished.  He did, I believe, note the age of consent in WA was 16, but Ravens has noted a further distinction in the law.  I have looked at the law, and the definition of "abuse of a supervisory position" is broad enough to cover unrelated persons making contact over the internet if there is more than a 60 month age difference.  Billy did indeed state he contacted "A" when she was under 18.  That is posted in this thread.  Incidentally, I have no mod privileges on this thread, and I am free to comment as does anyone else.


As for you, Billy, why does it bother you that posters, including me, refer to "A" as a teen?  She is a teen, is she not?
   

[Faux Pas]

No, because since I have been on this forum, I have seen what she is capable of doing as a Mod and I decided that anything she has to say here is of no interest to me. That is the purpose of ignore is it not? There are many people here who I do not agree with but I don't have them on ignore.

I'm not trying to bust your bawls here Hammer but, what has she been able to do other than disagree? You disagreed with Ravens, should he put you on ignore or you him? Should Boethuis put you on ignore?


The point I am trying to make is, because you live in Washington doesn't prove or change anything. Do you have more information that would negate Ravens and Boethuis contention and support yours? If so, please, offer it to the forum. 


Is Billy's situation "legal" because Billy and you say it is because you live there or did you have other information? Many states now have the 60 month exception for contacting juveniles for the purpose of sex. This was done mainly because of the internet and it's inherent problems with sexual predatory behavior.

[GQBlues]

So does the State of Washington.
 
By the State of Washington you have broken the law. Age of consent is 16 however age of consent is 18 when the predator is 60 months or older then the victim.

Wow, this opens a lot of new lines of questions...
 
What's the punishment for non-compliance, Ravens? Do you know...?
 
Does it apply with submissive women? 
 
It would be pretty interesting how this interview would actually be conducted. Someone better tell BillyB to omit transcripts that would show their correspondence started when she was 16... 
 
Is this law called, The Elvis Presley Act of 1963? (Yes, I just made that up)

[Daveman]

Wow, this opens a lot of new lines of questions...
 
What's the punishment for non-compliance, Ravens? Do you know...?

I don't know about WA, but here in Georgia, they take away your right to keep and bear sheep (or something like that)... in Alabama, the penalty includes goats too! Man, that's GOTTA be tough!

Does it apply with submissive women? 
 
It would be pretty interesting how this interview would actually be conducted. Someone better tell BillyB to omit transcripts that would show their correspondence started when she was 16... 
 
Is this law called, The Elvis Presley Act of 1963? (Yes, I just made that up)

Hahaha!  That does it GQ .. you AND FP are going on ignore!

[GQBlues]

Yes, I can see it now...."..what do you mean you can't approve the visa because of this law. I don't look my age. Here look at these photos...Now, do you not agree I look much younger, thus making the 60-month threshold non applicable?"
 

I don't know about WA, but here in Georgia, they take away your right to keep and bear sheep (or something like that)... in Alabama, the penalty includes goats too! Man, that's GOTTA be tough!

LOL. Well, at least I think in California it's pretty bad. They stick you in a small cell with Lindsay Lohan! Heaven forbid, that's just plain cruel!

[Ravens9273]

I do not know what others have read etc... Especially Hammer.
However I read the law on the issue and for the State of Washington.
 
Washington State is under the 16/18 law of consent.
 
The 16/18 law means age of consent is 16 if the accused and victim are under 60 months in age difference. Age of 18 is consent age if the accused and victim are 60 months or more difference in age.
 
The laws also not only applies to actual sexual contact. They also apply to simply talking about sex with a minor.
 Washingtons Laws to communication of sex vary. The content of the actual discussion of sex will determine if legal or illegal. However it is stated that Washington State has hidden codes so that they can prosecute certain cases.
 
For a first offender it is punishable to up to a year in jail for talking sex with a minor and sex offender registration.via
 
Now that is not the end of it.
 
Federal law states the age of consent for even talking about sex via phone, mail, or internet is the age of 18. This law it does not matter the content of the communication. It is not based on is the sex acts mentioned illegal or legal. The Federal Law does not allow any sexual talk with a minor no matter the content of the talk.
If anyone no matter what age is talking to a minor about having sex via the use of phone, mail, or internet can be prosecuted.
 
My comments are to the fact Billy started communicating with this girl when she was 17. I stated in my post if Billy had been discussing their future sex lives with this girl when she was 17 he was breaking the law and could face prosecution. While as Boethius mentioned it may be very hard to do (considering she is in Ukraine) and probably will never happen, it is still possible.
 
Most of Billy's talks with this girl obviously were done by computer or phone. Billy has always bosted on these forums how he lays it all out to the ladies right away as to what he wants from them (including sex) from day one so that he is not wasting his time.
 
In short. If Billy did in any way shape or form discuss sex with this young lady when she was 17 then YES he did break the Law.
There are Laws in Washington and they may be flexible depending on the situation (some list that prosecution depends on content of sexual manor discussed). Maybe or maybe not he could be prosecuted in Washington State (no one here knows adzactly what was discussed with the girl). But the Federal Laws there is no getting around. They are clear as day. You cannot discuss anything that is sexually related with a person under the age of 18 by phone, mail, or internet.

[Daveman]

Nice post Ravens,


How, if you know for certain, does parental consent come into play?  It is my understanding that the potential prosecution is null and void if the 'minor' has the consent of a parent regardless of age difference. 

[Boethius]

There is no parental consent law in Washington state.
 
Billy posted that the mother initially told him she "wanted to kill him".  So, if that is to be believed, she did not consent to the communication.

[Daveman]

Interesting.  Is there a different set of laws applicable to military as opposed to regular ole run of the mill state residents?

Regardless though, someone would have to be in a position of proving (which would have to be the Mom and/or Daughter) sexual content of the conversations. 

[Boethius]

I don't know about the military, it could even be stricter.
 
Proving something through email communication is not difficult.  But, it's not going to happen and if they proceed to a relationship, it would be a waste of time.   Plus, the statute of limitations likely applies to such charges, and he is about 1 1/2 years out.
 
 
I think Ravens' point was not whether or not Billy would be charged, but rather, that he could've been.  I believe the late David Neeley made the same point - I think he was the first to raise this in this thread.
 

[acrzybear]

I don't know about the military, it could even be stricter.
 

Under the UCMJ your are not an adult until your 18th birthday (unless you are enlisted).  UCMJ does not recognize state law and specificly states that 18 is the age of consent for all parties.

[tim 360]

     The information in this thread is overwhelming.  It's a Frankenstein thread.   No wonder it's going on to page 64 ?  Carry on.

[Boethius]

Here's the WA legislation I believe Ravens was referring to -
 
RCW 9.68a.090
 
Communication with minor for immoral purposes -


(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a person who communicates with a minor for immoral purposes, or a person who communicates with someone the person believes to be a minor for immoral purposes, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

(2) A person who communicates with a minor for immoral purposes is guilty of a class C felony punishable according to chapter   9A.20  RCW if the person has previously been convicted under this section or of a felony sexual offense under chapter 9.68A, 9A.44,  or 9A.64 RCW or of any other felony sexual offense in this or any other state or if the person communicates with a minor or with someone the person believes to be a minor for immoral purposes through the sending of an electronic communication. (emphasis added)

[2006 c 139 § 1.  Prior:  2003 c 53 § 42; 2003 c 26 § 1; 1989 c 32 § 7; 1986 c 319 § 2; 1984 c 262 § 8.]

[Daveman]

Well, some do consider Marriage a fairly immoral purpose! 




Seriously though... what is the legal definition of immoral purpose?  And, how would that relate to "searching for a wife"?  It is strictly talk about sex?

[Gator]

Seriously though... what is the legal definition of immoral purpose?  And, how would that relate to "searching for a wife"?  It is strictly talk about sex?

I would hope the legislation would have defined "immoral."   Otherwise, it is an ambiguous concept.   


Morals are not regulated standards for conduct of what is right or wrong.   They are beliefs for how one should behave.


Boethius's beliefs are such that she has called Billy "immoral" in multiple posts.  I wonder what is her reasoning.   Will this prevent BillyB from going to heaven?

[Gator]

I don't know about WA, but here in Georgia, they take away your right to keep and bear sheep (or something like that)... in Alabama, the penalty includes goats too! Man, that's GOTTA be tough!

Reminds me of the joke about a man being tried in Alabama for sodomy and bestiality with a goat.  The key witness, a neighbor, described to the jury the particular act that she observed, to include what the goat did afterwards.  One juror nudges the man beside him and whispered, "A good goat will do that for you."  Yes, goats are special in Alabama.   

[BC]

I would hope the legislation would have defined "immoral."   Otherwise, it is an ambiguous concept.   


Morals are not regulated standards for conduct of what is right or wrong.   They are beliefs for how one should behave.


Boethius's beliefs are such that she has called Billy "immoral" in multiple posts.  I wonder what is her reasoning.   Will this prevent BillyB from going to heaven?

Gator,

See

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1387501.html
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1009341.html

I guess it's up to the courts to make true definitions.

As such:

Courts have also defined “immoral purpose” as used in the statute as referring to “sexual misconduct.”

I doubt that the law can be construed to prohibit communication with a minor.  It's about content of these communications.  Note that in the cases above, 'communication' is much broader than internet chats.

If a minor wrote to 'Dear Abbie' about a sexual matter, that would not be for "immoral purpose".
If two minors wrote love letters to each other describing sexual acts, that might not be "misconduct"
If an adult chats with a minor about sexual misconduct over the internet, phone, letters, or as in one of the cases above written on a pair of panties, that would likely be deemed unlawful.

Basically, the sexual topics discussed would have to be within the realm of 'misconduct' or unlawful sexual acts.

If asked 'How does a girl get pregnant' and the adult replies 'A man sticks his penis in a vagina and ejaculates' that would be lawful.

But if the answer was 'I'll stick my penis in your vagina' it would be misconduct as the relationship at that point would be unlawful.

I think in the legal context it's pretty much a non-issue unless a party involved brings any previous misconduct up - such as in a divorce or DV proceeding.. -especially if the 'misconduct' was documented as in im chat transcripts, phone messages, letters or such.  Such a scenario could be the basis of a great legal thriller.. (Ill claim copyright on that idea and share it with Boethius)

In a personal context classifying an act as 'immoral' depends on personal values that may differ widely.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/immorality

immorality - the quality of not being in accord with standards of right or good conduct

IMHO the 'right' is more in line with the legal sense and 'good' more in line with personal views.

The conduct being discussed here may be right in the legal sense, but not good, thus considered immoral in personal views.

[Boethius]

I would hope the legislation would have defined "immoral."   Otherwise, it is an ambiguous concept.   

I could not find a definition, though my search was limited to relevant subdivisions.  However, as BC pointed out, the term is defined in WA case law, so there is judicial precedent for what is an "immoral purpose".

Morals are not regulated standards for conduct of what is right or wrong.   They are beliefs for how one should behave.

Not necessarily.  Murder, for example, has almost always been a "regulated standard" of right and wrong.   It is not merely a belief.

Boethius's beliefs are such that she has called Billy "immoral" in multiple posts.  I wonder what is her reasoning. 

Gee, I don't know.  A middle aged man contacting an underaged girl for a sexual relationship is, perhaps, completely acceptable in some circles, notwithstanding the fact there are laws against it, including in the state in which Billy resides.   
 

Will this prevent BillyB from going to heaven?

That is for God to judge. 

[SteveOR]

 
A is 19 years old.  Legally an adult in all American states and probably everywhere in the world.  The only thing that a 19 year old can not do in the state of Washington and probably the other 49 states as well is consume alcohol.
 
A 19 year old person is free to associate with anyone including marrying them.
 

[GoodOlBoy]

The only thing that a 19 year old can not do in the state of Washington and probably the other 49 states as well is consume alcohol.

Hand Gun, Ammunition, and Credit Cards also (21).
 
GOB

[acrzybear]

It irrevelent at this point.
BillyB has his own agenda and has been more then generous in sharing his thoughts and beliefs with us   
 Now with that said I will comment on a few things.
BillyB has stated that he has been 100% honest with what he has written with the intent of "teaching" others so they can prosper in this endeavor, perhaps so but there are several things that get my attention.
He stated that he contacted A when she was 16 or 17 (not sure of age), lets say she was 18-It is not normal for a 40 something man (or woman) to contact a person of that age to just be "friends".
BillyB has his own strong ideas of the perfect relationship (the ever dutiful submissive wife who only lives for her man) -That is also not normal
I have my own thoughts on Billy and his relationship with A, but those thoughts are immaterial because I do not know Billy or A and I have no vested interest in them or their relationship.   A and Billy are over the age of consent, I believe A can more then take care of herself and doesn't need Billy as much as he believes.   
This thread was amusing at first, but now it has just become tedious.