Clarifying Some Things About "Saura"

[David Sklansky]

Just a few things, some of which I've said before.

1. I didn't know she was a runaway.

2. If I had known she was a runaway or that she was 16 I would have sent her on her way. At least at first.

3. We lived together eight months and we were planning to stay together indefinitiely. At least I was. I was in the process of buying a 4500 square foot house for her, our cat, and our snake.

4. Although I believe I can say that every female I ever had a relationship with, including the young ones, does not regret it to this day (including that stripper who started this subject in the first place and recontacted me a few days ago [and might start her own thread]), I would not have thought that this would extend to 16 year olds. In other words I would predict that a sixteen year old girl would regret having a relationship with a 50 something year old guy. Even me. Wonderful as I am. The fact that Saura seems to be an exception is just dumb luck. I was always worried that I harmed her and only now believe I probably didn't. In spite of the fact that everyone including her mother, my mother, her probation officer, my son, her sister, the cops etc. etc. thought we should remain together. (I have written proof of that by the way.)

5. As far as the contention that I should have known her age, you have got to believe me that 98% of the time there was not the slightest hint. In fact there were some who told me that they had seen her before in Vegas. They were confusing her with a 24 year old. The people who were fooled did not see her only occasionally in social settings. My parents spent weeks with her. Ditto Mat and Mason. Same with two 19 year old girls who never doubted that she was older than her. She was never carded anywhere.(As for Phil's 153 comment that this shows I can't guess IQs I say why? It has nothing to do with predicting which questions someone could correctly answer.)

Of course none of this shows that Vince Lepore wouldn't have been suspicious. He's sure that he is more astute than all of us. And if he had met her he would have warned me. Which I'm sure he would have. So how do I prove to him that even he would have been fooled. No way is there. Oh wait a minute! More dumb luck. I actually CAN prove to him that he would have. Because he WAS. The big oaf met her at least two or three times during the many times she accompanied me to the Bellagio. Sheesh.

[donkeylove]

If the law found no problem with the situation, then who cares about anyone else? Curious what she did the 2% of the time that was a slight hint. Cartoons?Pillow fights? Fascination with all things Britney Spears? I hope when I'm 50 some 16 year old girl pulls the wool over my eyes. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[nineinchal]

Hey Dave,

I hear about all these guys on the internet, picking up these young broads, and then having all the related legal problems. Now it happens to a hot guy like David Sklansky. I never would have thought it possible you would be Mr. Excitment. I showed your picture from one of your books I was reading to some girls in a bar and asked would you want this guy to pick you up in a bar? In unison they said "no f..kin way!

Why do I always get the old, ugly, fat, chicks? You know, the type with the low self esteem, too many credit card debts and drug using kids who want money to go out with their friends.

Life and poker isn't fair.

Nineinch

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
4. Although I believe I can say that every female I ever had a relationship with, including the young ones, does not regret it to this day (including that stripper who started this subject in the first place and recontacted me a few days ago [and might start her own thread]), I would not have thought that this would extend to 16 year olds. In other words I would predict that a sixteen year old girl would regret having a relationship with a 50 something year old guy. Even me. Wonderful as I am. The fact that Saura seems to be an exception is just dumb luck. I was always worried that I harmed her and only now believe I probably didn't. In spite of the fact that everyone including her mother, my mother, her probation officer, my son, her sister, the cops etc. etc. thought we should remain together. (I have written proof of that by the way.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Some cops have weighed in on this? In writing? Her probation officer?? Hmmm..... Are there some details we're missing here?

BTW Vince doesn't claim to be a genius, you do so we'd expect you to be more perceptive than he is. Ditto for other non geniuses.

[eviljeff]

[ QUOTE ]
you have got to believe me

[/ QUOTE ]

a rare hint of desperation

[D.L.M.]

i miss being 17. when all the 15 and 16 year old girls wanted to experiment. and it was legal to do it.

[Knockwurst]

[ QUOTE ]
Just a few things, some of which I've said before.

1. I didn't know she was a runaway.

2. If I had known she was a runaway or that she was 16 I would have sent her on her way. At least at first.

[/ QUOTE ]

David, I do not doubt this at all. However, as others have pointed out in Saura's thread, statutory rape laws do not require that the elder of the two know that the minor is below the age of consent. I understand the age of consent in Nevada is 16; however that may not end matters particularly for an industrious prosecutor in the state from where she is originally. As I understand it from her thread, you met by way of phone conversations through a dating service of some sort. If the prosecutor could show that you intended for her to cross state lines in order to
engage in unlawful sexual activity (unlawful in the state she was from), or as the original statute stated, debauchery or some other immoral purpose, you may be guilty of a felony.

Pertinent section of the original Mann Act of 1910 also known as the White-Slave TRaffic Act:

SEC. 4. That any person who shall knowingly persuade, induce, entice or coerce any woman or girl under the age of eighteen years from any State or Territory or the District of Columbia to any other State or Territory or the District of Columbia, with the purpose and intent to induce or coerce her, or that she shall be induced or coerced to engage in prostitution or debauchery, or any other immoral practice, and shall in furtherance of such purpose knowingly induce or cause her to go and to be carried or transported as a passenger in interstate commerce upon the line or route of any common carrier or carriers, shall be deemed guilty of a felony.

However, the statute has been amended pursuant to 18 USC Sec. 2421, 2422 and 2423, and the pertinent section now reads:

2422(b): "Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce (i.e. telephone) ... knowingly persuades, induces, entices or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 5 years and not more than 30 years.

Just thought you might like to know.

[Shandrax]

What's the problem with her being 16? It's all relative. When you'll be 130 years old one day, she will be 90. People will cheer you and wonder if it was your healthy sex life what made you become that old.

[BigSlick75093]

If you see Chris Hansen from Dateline hanging around the casinos, RUN LIKE HELL!

[kniper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just a few things, some of which I've said before.

1. I didn't know she was a runaway.

2. If I had known she was a runaway or that she was 16 I would have sent her on her way. At least at first.

[/ QUOTE ]

David, I do not doubt this at all. However, as others have pointed out in Saura's thread, statutory rape laws do not require that the elder of the two know that the minor is below the age of consent. I understand the age of consent in Nevada is 16; however that may not end matters particularly for an industrious prosecutor in the state from where she is originally. As I understand it from her thread, you met by way of phone conversations through a dating service of some sort. If the prosecutor could show that you intended for her to cross state lines in order to
engage in unlawful sexual activity (unlawful in the state she was from), or as the original statute stated, debauchery or some other immoral purpose, you may be guilty of a felony.

Pertinent section of the original Mann Act of 1910 also known as the White-Slave TRaffic Act:

SEC. 4. That any person who shall knowingly persuade, induce, entice or coerce any woman or girl under the age of eighteen years from any State or Territory or the District of Columbia to any other State or Territory or the District of Columbia, with the purpose and intent to induce or coerce her, or that she shall be induced or coerced to engage in prostitution or debauchery, or any other immoral practice, and shall in furtherance of such purpose knowingly induce or cause her to go and to be carried or transported as a passenger in interstate commerce upon the line or route of any common carrier or carriers, shall be deemed guilty of a felony.

However, the statute has been amended pursuant to 18 USC Sec. 2421, 2422 and 2423, and the pertinent section now reads:

2422(b): "Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce (i.e. telephone) ... knowingly persuades, induces, entices or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 5 years and not more than 30 years.

Just thought you might like to know.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are not highlighting the word "knowingly." David did not knowingly do the persuasion and the like leading up to banging a 16y/o.

Now, you can make the argument that "knowingly" doesn't extend far enough down the sentence to cover "knowingly" doing those things to a 16; that is, the "knowing" only covers the verbs in that sentence. But I think the Supreme Court has construed the Wire Act statute to covering the entire sentence. Courts will likely make an analogous ruling here.

Bottom line is that unless a statute specifically says so, the courts typically incorporate a mens rea requirement into analyzing that a crime was committed. That is they require a "guilty state of mind."