RE: SOVEREIGN ESTATE MISTRESS SANDRA

RE: SOVEREIGN ESTATE MISTRESS SANDRA (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Alternative Lifestyles in the News

Message

mnottertail -> RE: SOVEREIGN ESTATE MISTRESS SANDRA (3/15/2007 6:22:34 PM)
I haven't been answered on my blowjob and soup question, just wanna point that out. Perhaps it is too confusing. Ron

PAULG1BD -> RE: SOVEREIGN ESTATE MISTRESS SANDRA (3/15/2007 6:30:11 PM)
I think your post and the insights it contains has some very valid thoughts, and suggests a good idea that this type of information probably should be included on the profile of a pro Dom/Domme, if for no other reason than to save people wasting one anothers time if they are only looking for a lifestyle Dom/Domme. I also am starting to realize that this site seems to have many more members that are lifestyle, compared to sites like Max F. and All Star Doms that seem to have a large majority of pro dom/dommes. That's most likely the reason that comments for members here seem to of a much different tone compared to the other sites. And before anyone thinks I'm saying anything bad about this site compared to the others, I'm not and please don't take it that way. I just think the different sites attract different people, not better or worse, just different. I will say just one thing, I highly doubt Sandra's profile written without the mention of being a pro domme, was done to purposely (sp?) to decieve anyone, but I didn't write it, so what do I know? Now, if I could only figure out what the heck MNOTTERTAIL is talking about, I'd be all set! LOL. Paul G

PAULG1BD -> RE: SOVEREIGN ESTATE MISTRESS SANDRA (3/15/2007 6:57:24 PM)
First, I think your idea about a general defense fund for the entire lifestyle, that could be donated to, and then have the fund used people in the lifestyle, to defend them in cases such as this and others, is a really great idea. I don't see it ever working due to the amount of effort it would need to get it started, and growing, and I tend to think it would end up getting donations and being used by professionals in the lifestyle, only because it's hard to see a non professional lifestyler having the same type of legal situation since money isn't talked about or exchanged between non pros, right? Second, I didn't say people here were being mean because they didn't contribute to the defense fund mentioned, for whatever reason they have. I got upset and said that in general, the tones of the posts here were mean, uncalled for, and in general sound like everyone here believes that she's really guilty of what she has been charged with. I'd love to provide every little detail about the situation, so that maybe some of you might think twice before making your mind up about it. I also understand that basically, you've only been able to see or read one side of the story, the side that makes Sandra look guilty. But this isn't the proper forum to make a defensive stand while it's in the court system, and it wouldn't be smart either from a defensive point of view. All I can say is that at some point down the road, when things are over and done with, the true story will come out, and the charges will be dropped. The problem with that is, it'll take months, maybe even a year to get this over with, since things get dragged out forever in the courts if you don't want to take a plea bargian, and at that point, you'll read about it, but it'll be a little blurb on the bottom of page 73 in the newspapers, not the cover of every paper like it has been. And I still say it's mean, and not neccesary to kick someone when they are down and going through hell. If you think she got herself into the situation, fine, if you can't believe she might be innocent, fine, but then don't write nasty comments, say nothing. At least that's how I was raised, if you've got nothing nice to say about something, don't say anything. I'm sure I'll be hearing some crap over saying this, but maybe a few of you can see my point, maybe not. Paul G

mnottertail -> RE: SOVEREIGN ESTATE MISTRESS SANDRA (3/15/2007 8:13:03 PM)
quick follow up, guv? What--exactly is called for? A whitehouse newsmans spokesmans aide. Larry

CandleInTheWind -> RE: SOVEREIGN ESTATE MISTRESS SANDRA (3/15/2007 11:25:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PAULG1BD First, I think your idea about a general defense fund for the entire lifestyle, that could be donated to, and then have the fund used people in the lifestyle, to defend them in cases such as this and others, is a really great idea. I don't see it ever working due to the amount of effort it would need to get it started, and growing, and I tend to think it would end up getting donations and being used by professionals in the lifestyle, only because it's hard to see a non professional lifestyler having the same type of legal situation since money isn't talked about or exchanged between non pros, right? Second, I didn't say people here were being mean because they didn't contribute to the defense fund mentioned, for whatever reason they have. I got upset and said that in general, the tones of the posts here were mean, uncalled for, and in general sound like everyone here believes that she's really guilty of what she has been charged with. I'd love to provide every little detail about the situation, so that maybe some of you might think twice before making your mind up about it. I also understand that basically, you've only been able to see or read one side of the story, the side that makes Sandra look guilty. But this isn't the proper forum to make a defensive stand while it's in the court system, and it wouldn't be smart either from a defensive point of view. All I can say is that at some point down the road, when things are over and done with, the true story will come out, and the charges will be dropped. The problem with that is, it'll take months, maybe even a year to get this over with, since things get dragged out forever in the courts if you don't want to take a plea bargian, and at that point, you'll read about it, but it'll be a little blurb on the bottom of page 73 in the newspapers, not the cover of every paper like it has been. And I still say it's mean, and not neccesary to kick someone when they are down and going through hell. If you think she got herself into the situation, fine, if you can't believe she might be innocent, fine, but then don't write nasty comments, say nothing. At least that's how I was raised, if you've got nothing nice to say about something, don't say anything. I'm sure I'll be hearing some crap over saying this, but maybe a few of you can see my point, maybe not. Paul G {aul, If the mistress in question is indeed absolutely innocent why would she have to stop doing ehr profession?? I mean a doctor beign sued for malpractice which is basically what she is being accused of in a quasi-similar way...well a doctor beign accused of malpractice would continue practicing medicine...so why can the mistress not keep doing what she does for a job?? oh and one other issue...if she was in fact in financial trouble from trying to scrape by paing her monthly rent...I believe part of the miranda warning thing is....you are entitled to have an attourney present if you wish one and cannot afford one one will be provided well then she would be entiltled to a public defender...If accused murderers and traditionally accused prostituted use public defendars why is the mistress to expect any better.. I will tell you that if i were to be accused of being an unliscenced basket weaver I would be asking for a public defendar! If she is as innocent as innocent is than any lawyer would be able to provide a defense and she woldnt need any financial assitance....and well as far as not beign able tocontinue her profession...why not get a job in the mean time...Im sure there is a prodomme house somewhere in the close vacinity to avoid having to have her own establishment. the only other thing that I believe may be an eye opening thing here for all Prodommes Tax evasion is a very harshly punished crime.....if you wish to stay out of the federal big house claim your income.....they couldnt get Scar face until he was caught for tax evasion... I know of several local Prodeommes that live off their income as a prodomme exclusively....and to my knowledge do not claim the income....that is just big trouble waiting to happen!! red

Vendaval -> RE: SOVEREIGN ESTATE MISTRESS SANDRA (3/16/2007 5:45:41 AM)
Well, one is a more time intensive task. The other can either be a quicky from a can or a gourmet dish if you have the time. Then again, the same could be said of blow jobs! [:-] quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I haven't been answered on my blowjob and soup question, just wanna point that out. Perhaps it is too confusing. Ron

BeachMystress -> RE: SOVEREIGN ESTATE MISTRESS SANDRA (3/16/2007 9:56:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I haven't been answered on my blowjob and soup question, just wanna point that out. Perhaps it is too confusing. Ron Here, let me answer your blow job and soup question. You take a straw.. best if it is one of those smaller ones or it is gonna hurt a lot going in.. put the straw in urethra. (Fold, spindle and mutilate until the straw end is firmly wedged deep inside.) Take soup.. I recommend you use the one of the less chunky soups, but this is personal preference.. Have the person doing the blowing take a deep breath then a big mouthful of soup and place their lips over the free end of the straw. Blow vigorously. .. oh, wait.. you were asking about charity work, not how to give soup blow jobs to homeless.. or anyone for that matter. quote: ORIGINAL: PAULG1BD Now, if I could only figure out what the heck MNOTTERTAIL is talking about, I'd be all set! LOL. When this happens, cut back on your meds. One thing you will find paul, is that people online are often more blunt than they'd be in person. Anonymity is a powerful thing. Some of the people who post abrasive things would happily say them to your face. (Such as me. Anything I type, I'd be just as fine saying IRL as my feeling is that if I don't have the cojones to say something to someone's face it doesn't need to be said at all) but others of the posts would never be made without the freedom of hiding. The only thing risked in a post is an online reputation that many are willing to shed as easily as a screen name change. The forums can be very "honest" yet raw because of this. I know you feel this post had a lot of negativity in it, but from an outside point of view, you got some strong opinions but no flames. To understand this better, read the thread by haremseeker called common sense He is an example of the lowest common denominator on these boards. People on this thread actually were willing to listen to you and debate with you over your points. quote: ORIGINAL: PAULG1BD I also am starting to realize that this site seems to have many more members that are lifestyle, compared to sites like Max F. and All Star Doms that seem to have a large majority of pro dom/dommes. This site is primarily Lifestyle. I suspect that many on here have never heard of Max Fische and All Star Doms. I only know of them because a woman I once knew showed them to me. We do have some pro here, don't get me wrong. But you are right that because we are so oriented around this as life rather than business, we have can have very different ideas and viewpoints. I live this as a 24/7/365 lifestyle. My husband is always my submissive and I am always his Dominant. It isn't a role we play anymore than whichever of your folks was the head of household played at it.

PAULG1BD -> RE: SOVEREIGN ESTATE MISTRESS SANDRA (3/16/2007 3:40:16 PM)
{aul, If the mistress in question is indeed absolutely innocent why would she have to stop doing ehr profession?? I mean a doctor beign sued for malpractice which is basically what she is being accused of in a quasi-similar way...well a doctor beign accused of malpractice would continue practicing medicine...so why can the mistress not keep doing what she does for a job?? I don't see that as an equal comparision, malpractice is a civil issue, thiss is a criminal issue, and I can think of a few reasons that she has been advised not to do pro sessions while the case is still active. First would be that she might be under the watchful eyes of people still looking for evidence, and she was already arrested even though she didn't do anything illegal, so what would stop them from doing the same thing if they barged in during a session? Second, I think people understand that a client expects and deserves privacy, and she can't promise that to them right now, since she doesn't know if people are watching her. To me, it's just the correct and smart way to go for now. I don't think it's right that she's been put in this position, but I understand that it's better for her to stay out of the spot lightss for now. oh and one other issue...if she was in fact in financial trouble from trying to scrape by paing her monthly rent...I believe part of the miranda warning thing is....you are entitled to have an attourney present if you wish one and cannot afford one one will be provided well then she would be entiltled to a public defender...If accused murderers and traditionally accused prostituted use public defendars why is the mistress to expect any better.. It sounds like you've never been arrested and needed to get a lawyer to defend you. (I mean that in a good way, we should all be so lucky) Do you really believe that a public defender (usually a lawyer just out of school, looking to get experience) provides you the same defense as one who has been in practice for years, and has a history of experience defending against charges like these? Trust me, they are not even close as far as which is the better choice to defend you. You get what you pay for. I will tell you that if i were to be accused of being an unliscenced basket weaver I would be asking for a public defendar! If she is as innocent as innocent is than any lawyer would be able to provide a defense and she woldnt need any financial assitance....and well as far as not beign able tocontinue her profession...why not get a job in the mean time...Im sure there is a prodomme house somewhere in the close vacinity to avoid having to have her own establishment. the only other thing that I believe may be an eye opening thing here for all Prodommes Tax evasion is a very harshly punished crime.....if you wish to stay out of the federal big house claim your income.....they couldnt get Scar face until he was caught for tax evasion... I know of several local Prodeommes that live off their income as a prodomme exclusively....and to my knowledge do not claim the income....that is just big trouble waiting to happen!! Not a concern, she did things like this legally and properly as everyone in business should. Many here sound like the original post about the defense fund was to be taken as a demand that everyone should donate to it. I don't know why it was taken like that. It was posted to make as many people as possible aware of the case and aware that there was a fund set up in case you wished to make a donation to it. If you don't, fine, don't. No one expects anyone here to be forced into donating to help Sandra out during this situation. You're all intitled to your thoughts and opinions, I've tried to answer people here who didn't understand things about it, or wanted more details, but since I've been asked not to go into specific details, I've basically done all I can. I'll leave it at that, and hope you all the best. Paul G red

PAULG1BD -> RE: SOVEREIGN ESTATE MISTRESS SANDRA (3/16/2007 3:49:56 PM)
Thanks for the explanation about him. I had no idea what he was trying to say, or the point he was making. Paul G

BeachMystress -> RE: SOVEREIGN ESTATE MISTRESS SANDRA (3/16/2007 8:26:48 PM)
paul, when quoting someone it helps readablilty if you put it in a lil "quote box." To do this, either press the quote rather than the reply button or when you have a lot of quotes, at the start of each quote type {quote} (replacing { and } with [ and ] ) At the end of the quote, type the same thing only with a / in front of the word quote aka {/quote}

Celeste43 -> RE: SOVEREIGN ESTATE MISTRESS SANDRA (3/16/2007 8:31:23 PM)
Funny, I read that story. She rented a house in a zoned residential area and ran an adult business in it. The house was rented from a religious school and had children next door. Adult businesses aren't permitted to be next door to schools and no business can legally be run in that residential zone. She also lied on her lease claiming she was just going to live there knowing that if she said she planned to run any business, let alone an adult one, that she would not have been approved as a tenant.

PAULG1BD -> RE: SOVEREIGN ESTATE MISTRESS SANDRA (3/16/2007 8:50:10 PM)
Thanks for the info, I couldn't figure out how to do it right. Paul G

BostonGuy -> RE: SOVEREIGN ESTATE MISTRESS SANDRA (3/17/2007 11:51:01 PM)
In reading this thread, there are several points to which I want to respond. 1. There have been assumptions that she is guilty of prostitution or, at the least, should have run her business model by an attorney to ensure that what she does is unlikely to result in difficulty with the law. My response: ---------------- Every person here who engages in consensual BDSM in a personal relationship is taking a very real risk of difficulty with the law. How many of you have met with an attorney to discuss your BDSM interests in the context of how it may place you at risk of legal consequences? Of endangering your career? Of endangering your legal rights to spend time with your children? 2. Police would not have arrested her without adequate evidence to support the arrest. My response: ---------------- Subsets of police are well known to have an agenda that may be defined for them (e.g., harass this person in order to get her out of our community) or the need to meet expectations: just as someone in sales may need to sell a certain amount of a product to make the quarterly sales quota, a police officer who has not given out many traffic tickets or had many arrests may find that the end of the month is near and make an arrest that would otherwise not be made. In addition, though it may shock some people who live under rocks, not all police are honest. 3. She did not identify herself as a prodomme in her profile here. My response: ----------------- From the discussion, she did have a profile in which she was very clearly a prodomme. Do note that prodommes may also have the same kinds of hopes, wishes, and desires for relationships that other people have. I have certainly seen profiles of other prodommes here in which they were not seeking clients. In fact, some were seeking long-term relationships. Prodommes are human and have human emotions. Perhaps the profile here was not intended to attract clients. 4. She has financial difficulty that is not unlike that of a physician who has a malpractice suit brought against him or her, and physicians continue to work during the time when there is a lawsuit. My response: --------------- A physician who has a malpractice suit brought against him (sorry, there is no gender-neutral pronoun in English) does not also have all of his computers (with his patient records) removed by law enforcement authorities, is not prevented from working at his place of business (unless the hospital does so, which happens), and does not have his medical equipment confiscated. 5. She "must" have been financially doing well in order to rent a house in an upscale community. My response: --------------- Who among you has any idea of her business model? Her rent? Whether there were agreements or financial projections that did not come to pass? Many small businesses are financially in a difficult position and it may well be that her business was not what the press (who are notorious for loving a feeding frenzy in anything at all sexual, in which care accuracy is secondary to enhancing readership) suggests. 6. As to the quality of public defenders, suffice it to say that O.J. Simpson would not have been likely to have been found to be not guilty in the criminal trial with an inexperienced attorney. This is the case, to a lesser degree, in more typical criminal proceedings.

LaTigresse -> RE: SOVEREIGN ESTATE MISTRESS SANDRA (3/18/2007 5:00:42 AM)
And when I see a doctor sued for malpractice (or his her...aquaintances) running around begging for money to cover his expenses I will give them the same respect I give this situation and those involved in it......including this woman's pack of innocence defenders. ZIP, ZERO, NADA, NONE!!! If the broad ain't smart enough to know the risks she's taking and plan for their inevitability, maybe some time in the clink will smarten her up a bit......doubtful, but there is that chance. Or, she will learn a little more about submission and end up someone's lil friend. This all reminds me of a saying from where I work "pisspoorplanning on your part, does not constitute an emergency on mine"

BostonGuy -> RE: SOVEREIGN ESTATE MISTRESS SANDRA (3/18/2007 6:04:16 AM)
Of course physicians take precautions against malpractice lawsuits (insurance, risk management education, etc). Please note that many malpractice claims against physicians are without merit (see below). The reputation of a physician who is sued for malpractice suffers, even if there are no grounds for it. I am not saying that you should pay physicians money to help them defray their legal expenses. However, the charge of malpractice is, like the police charge of prostitution, not necessarily one that is based on solid footing (to put it kindly). Malpractice suits often groundless, study says Harvard analysis finds that many dubious claims are weeded out By Associated Press \| May 11, 2006 About 40 percent of the medical malpractice cases filed in the United States are groundless, according to a Harvard analysis of the hotly debated issue that pits trial lawyers against doctors, with lawmakers in the middle. Many of the lawsuits analyzed contained no evidence that a medical error was committed or that the patient suffered any injury, the researchers reported. The vast majority of those dubious cases were dismissed with no payout to the patient. However, groundless lawsuits still accounted for 15 percent of the money paid out in settlements or verdicts. The study's lead researcher, David Studdert of the Harvard School of Public Health, said the findings challenge the view among tort reform supporters that the system is riddled with frivolous claims that lead to huge payouts. ''We found the system did reasonably well in sorting the good claims from the bad ones, but there were problems," he said. However, the American Medical Association, which favors caps on malpractice awards, called the study proof that a substantial number of meritless claims slip through the cracks, ''clogging the courts" and forcing doctors to waste time defending them, association board member Dr. Cecil Wilson said in a statement. The findings were published in today's New England Journal of Medicine. The study found 3 percent of claims analyzed were filed by patients who had no injury. Of the claims that involved injuries, two-thirds were caused by medical error. But the remaining injury claims, or 37 percent, lacked evidence of a medical mistake, and 72 percent of those were thrown out or otherwise resolved without a payout to the patient. Altogether, the Harvard researchers reviewed 1,452 malpractice claims randomly selected from five insurance companies. The cases were resolved -- meaning they ended in a verdict, a settlement or a dismissal -- between 1984 and 2004. In one instance, a young woman with no family history of breast cancer underwent routine breast exams for four years and came back with a clean bill of health. But doctors later found she had breast cancer that had spread to other parts of the body. The researchers determined the case did not involve medical error because proper procedures were followed. The woman filed a malpractice claim and received an undisclosed settlement.

LaTigresse -> RE: SOVEREIGN ESTATE MISTRESS SANDRA (3/18/2007 6:39:28 AM)
And all that has WHAT to do with anything?

kc692 -> RE: SOVEREIGN ESTATE MISTRESS SANDRA (3/18/2007 9:51:59 AM)
That is such an awesome saying LaTigresse, may I borrow it for my irc tag line?

BostonGuy -> RE: SOVEREIGN ESTATE MISTRESS SANDRA (3/18/2007 10:05:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse And all that has WHAT to do with anything? ----------------------------------- Your prior posting discussed the issue of malpractice as it relates to the need for financial support. I was merely pointing out that an accusation of malpractice is often without a medical basis. This is analogous to having police charge someone with a crime -- and thus why we have courts rather than merely try someone in the press. We each should have plans on how to minimize any impact of an "outing" of our BDSM interests, as BDSM remains misunderstood by many in the public and our involvement is likely to be reported inaccurately if a report reaches the public via the press. Given your similar feelings on the need to plan well (your statement about "pisspoor planning" demonstrates that rather well) I would be interested to learn what your planning, including consultations that you have had with your attorney, has been with respect to your participation in consensual BDSM. What are your plans in the event that there is fallout from a public "outing" of your sexual orientation (lesbian) and BDSM lifestyle interests? Though you live in a relatively liberal oasis (Iowa City) it is within a rather conservative part of the country. I have met with my attorney and discussed plans with him, though this is not guaranteed to minimize risk of course. What would you do if a lover, for example, stated that you abused her and are a "lesbian sadist"? What a term to have the press latch on to! We are each vulnerable to such things. I hope that this never happens to ANY of us. We do, however, need to plan. Please read about the very important work of the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom at http://www.ncsfreedom.org/ . It is an organization that helps to provide people involved in BDSM with legal assistance and an important resource.

PAULG1BD -> RE: SOVEREIGN ESTATE MISTRESS SANDRA (3/18/2007 1:54:36 PM)
Hi, Thanks for writting your post, I couldn't have said it better, I've tried to explain that not everything is so black and white as many here seem to think it is, and let people know that something like what has happened to Sandra could basically happen to anyone who enjoys the BDSM lifestyle. People don't have to agree with me about that, they don't have to support Sandra if they don't want to, they don't even have to feel for someone who finds themselves in the position she's in. But there really isn't a need for people to say she must be guilty, or she did things wrong to cause this, or other negative comments. They really don't do any good, they only are hurtful and I don't see a need for people anywhere to be hurtful. People are entitled to their opinions, they are free to decide if they can see themselves in the situation Sandra is in, or if fighting for the right to be allowed to enjoy the BDSM lifestyle is something they would gain from, and then decide if they want to donate to the defense fund or not. But it's nice to read a post from someone else who seems to get it, and who understands there's more to the story than what's in the media. Thanks. Paul G

Celeste43 -> RE: SOVEREIGN ESTATE MISTRESS SANDRA (3/19/2007 9:01:17 AM)
Whether or not being a prodomme makes one a prostitute is something that needs a court to decide. Whether or not a prodomme is running an adult business is an obvious yes. In most zoning districts there are laws that specify how far away an adult business must be from schools. That's the law she broke. She rented a house from a private school, on the same grounds as the private school and ran an illegal adult business there. Now if she was arrogant enough in New York State to do so, knowing how strict the state is on sexual offenders, especially in relation to children, she does deserve appropriate punishment.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125