This posting is about the woman who traded sex for tickets. The court based the decision to let the woman off the hook for attempted prostitution was based on the reasoning of mistress-lover’s relationship. The courts declared the mistress-lovers (Sugar daddy-sugar baby) relationship to be non-commercial. There is a constitutional right to engage in this lifestyle under the court ruling of intimate relationship. The woman who agrees to trade tickets for sex was let go by the judges on her appeal. The court said her actions were not commercial sex so the attempted prostitution did not apply.
Court tosses sex-for-World Series-tickets conviction against Pa. woman
(See
Commonwealth v. Finkelstein ). The court in this case declares payment mistress-lovers relationship to be gifts and not income. (See
UNITED STATES of America, v. Lynnette HARRIS and Leigh Ann Conley .) In this case, the NY court ruled that mistress-lovers relationship is non-commercial and it was not the legislators’ intent to outlaw this relationship when they enacted the prostitution statutes. (See
Cherry vs Koch ) These rulings don’t apply to escorts because they are in commercial relationships with their clients. (See
IDK, INC., vs COUNTY of CLARK ).
Woman who traded tickets for sex was LET GO!!
