Angeles City

[QUOTE=Mogwai;1820617]I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that the other word to take careful note of is the word WHO that comes right after OR. I think this 'who' refers to minor.

So I think this means you have to read it like this:
'Any person who shall keep or have in his company a minor, twelve (12) years or under, OR a minor who is ten (10) years or more his junior....'

And a minor is defined as a person below 18 yo. So I think Python75 has got it right.

Right?[/QUOTE]As not to bore everyone I will try the explanation 1 more time.

The law does not say OR a minor who is ten (10) years or more his junior, it says OR who is ten (10) years or more his junior, no mention of minor after the word or which clearly separates the first part, Any person who shall keep or have in his company a minor, twelve (12) years or under, from the second part, OR who is ten (10) years or more his junior.

The word or is the deciding factor it is where the first part is seperated from the second part.

First part is its illegal to be with a girl under 12, second part its also illegal to be with anyone who is 10 years your junior regardless of age as it clearly does not stipulate an age in the second part.

i do not think that anyone who is 60 in a room with a female who is 40 year old women he met at bingo has anything to worry about but if a 60 year old was in a room with a 19 year old and the police,girl decided they wanted a pay day they could quite easily quote this part of the law to extract pesos,

do not forget also that any working girl regardless of age caught in our room comes under the new human traffic phills laws and carries a mandatory 20 years sentence so if they dont get us with one law there is plenty more to get us with,

Anyways lets move on to more happy subjects now.

[QUOTE=NapaSlapper;1820632]As not to bore everyone I will try the explanation 1 more time.

The law does not say OR a minor who is ten (10) years or more his junior, it says OR who is ten (10) years or more his junior, no mention of minor after the word or which clearly separates the first part, Any person who shall keep or have in his company a minor, twelve (12) years or under, from the second part, OR who is ten (10) years or more his junior.

The word or is the deciding factor it is where the first part is seperated from the second part.

First part is its illegal to be with a girl under 12, second part its illegal to be with anyone who is 10 years your junior regardless of age as it clearly does not stipulate an age in the second part.

Anyways lets move on now.[/QUOTE]I don't get it. It doesn't make sense. In your interpretation the word 'who' in the second part refers to nobody. If it said 'or A PERSON who is ten (10) years or more his junior' then you would be right.

[QUOTE=Mogwai;1820617]I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that the other word to take careful note of is the word WHO that comes right after OR. I think this 'who' refers to minor.

So I think this means you have to read it like this:
'Any person who shall keep or have in his company a minor, twelve (12) years or under, OR a minor who is ten (10) years or more his junior....'

And a minor is defined as a person below 18 yo. So I think Python75 has got it right.

Right?[/QUOTE]I am a lawyer and although NappaSlappa means well he is misinterpreting the statute. It is a very badly worded piece of legislation.

Politicians write the legislation and the courts interpret it. The legislation is in relation to CHILD abuse, under 18's. Why would the politicians include a one liner relating to adults in child abuse legislation? If the Philippine government wanted to criminalise fraternisation between over 18's who have an age difference greater than 10 years then separate legislation would cover that and not be hidden in legislation concerning child abuse. No such legislation exists.

The legislation needs to be read in its proper context which is child abuse, not adult abuse as well which NappaSlappa would have us believe. NappaSlappa is taking a literal interpretation of the legislation which is incorrect.

Besides, does anyone on this forum know of anyone who has been prosecuted in the Philippines for being with a girl aged over 18 and the age gap is greater than 10 years?

[QUOTE=Python75;1820669]
The legislation needs to be read in its proper context which is child abuse, not adult abuse as well which NappaSlappa would have us believe.

Besides, does anyone on this forum know of anyone who has been prosecuted in the Philippines for being with a girl aged over 18 and the age gap is greater than 10 years?[/QUOTE]Thanks Python, this makes a lot more sense to me.

However I'm still worried a little bit. One of my regulars has 2 kids, both younger than 13, who love to come to my hotel to swim in the pool. But never alone, they are always accompanied by their mother. Usually we sit in my room for a while to have a chat and a drink before we head to the pool. I have also visited her and her kids in her home a couple of times.
Can I be prosecuted for this, in a worst case scenario?

And another scenario: you're visiting a bar where, without your knowledge, some 16 or 17 yo girls are working. One of them keeps you company for a while and you buy her a few drinks. To you she looks 18+, it's often hard to tell as we all know. Can you be prosecuted for this?

[QUOTE=Python75;1820669]I am a lawyer and although NappaSlappa means well he is misinterpreting the statute. It is a very badly worded piece of legislation.{S N I P}[/QUOTE]Agreed! I am not a lawyer but have had the need to interpret legal contracts for many decades. I clarify the usual lengthy sentences by applying simple grammatical rules, without changing any of the words or the sequencing of words (and then of course the lawyers claim that what I write is not correct legalese haha).

Interesting to note that all posters who read the legislation (except me of course haha) automatically mentally corrected the following error without realising it: [I]"who in (10) years"[/I] should have read [I]"who is (10) years"[/I].

[I][blue](b) Any person who shall keep or have in his company a minor:
1/ twelve (12) years or under, or
2/ who is ten (10) years or more his junior
in any public or private place, hotel, motel, beer joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house, sauna or massage parlor, beach and/or other tourist resort or similar places {S N I P}[/blue][/I]

And the meaning is now clear.

Ikksman

[QUOTE=Mogwai;1820680]Thanks Python, this makes a lot more sense to me.

However I'm still worried a little bit. One of my regulars has 2 kids, both younger than 13, who love to come to my hotel to swim in the pool. But never alone, they are always accompanied by their mother. Usually we sit in my room for a while to have a chat and a drink before we head to the pool. I have also visited her and her kids in her home a couple of times.
Can I be prosecuted for this, in a worst case scenario?

And another scenario: you're visiting a bar where, without your knowledge, some 16 or 17 yo girls are working. One of them keeps you company for a while and you buy her a few drinks. To you she looks 18+, it's often hard to tell as we all know. Can you be prosecuted for this?[/QUOTE]With respect mogwai you are actually asking for legal advice from a group of guys on a mongers board?

Members may claim they are lawyers, members of the elite delta squadron, the british sas etc etc.

I could claim to be related to the queen of england or to be father Christmas who is to say what is true and what is utter bullshit or who is who,

For us mongers who like being in a 3rd world shit poor countries so that we can have our wicked way with the maidens comes with many risks, the law is what the police tell you it is should you be unfortunate to come in contact with them and they are out for a pay day.

One has only two choices pay quickly to make the problem go away or spend the next 3-5 years in a stinking jail awaiting for your case to come before a judge, think this does not happen, think again.or ask the innocent visitors to the phills who have recently had live bullets put into their luggage by phills customs officers,

Best advice, trust nobody, don't ever let your guard down, if the police come a knocking then pay up and get the fuck out, asking for legal advice from a group of mongers who claim they are x,y or z will not protect ones ass

[QUOTE=Mogwai;1820680]Thanks Python, this makes a lot more sense to me.

However I'm still worried a little bit. One of my regulars has 2 kids, both younger than 13, who love to come to my hotel to swim in the pool. But never alone, they are always accompanied by their mother. Usually we sit in my room for a while to have a chat and a drink before we head to the pool. I have also visited her and her kids in her home a couple of times.
Can I be prosecuted for this, in a worst case scenario?

And another scenario: you're visiting a bar where, without your knowledge, some 16 or 17 yo girls are working. One of them keeps you company for a while and you buy her a few drinks. To you she looks 18+, it's often hard to tell as we all know. Can you be prosecuted for this?[/QUOTE]In the first scenario there really is nothing to worry about because it will be interpreted as a normal family setting. I have a regular GF some 22 years younger than me with 2 kids. Both kids are under 12 and they often stay in the hotel with me. It would be incredibly hard for any court to prove that any offence under the legislation has occurred.

The second scenario is different and unfortunately you and the bar could get in trouble, the bar more so.

[QUOTE=NapaSlapper;1820694]With respect mogwai you are actually asking for legal advice from a group of guys on a mongers board?
Members may claim they are lawyers, members of the elite delta squadron, the british sas etc etc. [/QUOTE]Hmm yeah, that includes you LOL!

I think the answers I got speak for themselves. For me it's quite clear which answers I can trust more than others. But I agree I cannot be 100% sure.

[QUOTE=Ikksman;1820683]
Interesting to note that all posters who read the legislation (except me of course haha) automatically mentally corrected the following error without realising it: [I]"who in (10) years"[/I] should have read [I]"who is (10) years"[/I].[/QUOTE]I realized it haha! I saw this error. It comes with my job to pay attention to details.

[QUOTE=Python75;1820695]In the first scenario there really is nothing to worry about
SNIP
The second scenario is different and unfortunately you and the bar could get in trouble, the bar more so.[/QUOTE]Thanks a lot Python!

[QUOTE=Mogwai;1820728]Hmm yeah, that includes you LOL!

I think the answers I got speak for themselves. For me it's quite clear which answers I can trust more than others. But I agree I cannot be 100% sure.[/QUOTE]I was 100% including my good self in my comments LOL.

Great academic discussions here regarding the written law for mental masterings. But when it comes down to the actual situation the police person or police impersonator is not going to give a crap about how the law is written or your interpretation of it.

Just don't get yourself into a possible situation. If you do, be prepared to accept the quickest peso resolution at the lowest bailable level.

[QUOTE=MachoDik;1819773]Dear All brothers.

Been a while away from the philippines. By 2016, I plan to visit Manila and this time wish to spend most of my monger time in Angeles. Want to go wild this coming trip, have been trying to surf around the Angeles city forum and gather more info.

May be some veteran over here can also give your precious guidelines too, which is a plus for me to avoid some ripping places.

I wish to take the best sexperience in this trip starting from a nice location hotels and may be find some gems from the bars or non pro by then. Perhpas may be end up with couple of nice babes joining me during the duration of my stay. Is this advisable? Or changing everyday. Perhaps?

Cheers,

MD.[/QUOTE]Once again advise for questions like this can not possibly be given due to the fact you failed to mention what your budget was. Sounds to me you may have a unlimited budget which is pretty much no budget and that you can spend has much money has it take to max out and your fun time. If this is the case I advise you take the VIP room at the ABC hotel and go to the higher end bars like Atlantis crystal palace or dollhouse and EWR some of the top model girls they have. This will cost you a pretty penny But you will have a great time while in AC.

[QUOTE=Dg8787;1820773]Great academic discussions here regarding the written law for mental masterings. But when it comes down to the actual situation the police person or police impersonator is not going to give a crap about how the law is written or your interpretation of it.

Just don't get yourself into a possible situation. If you do, be prepared to accept the quickest peso resolution at the lowest bailable level.[/QUOTE]

Exactly,the police if on the scam care nothing except the pay day, always pay the first person,the more people who get involved the higher the get out price becomes,

[QUOTE=ChochaMonger;1820588]This scam is already practiced in AC. The monger's female companion invites a minor to meet them in the hotel room or other residence. The female companion excuses herself for a minute and friendly policemen burst into the room to put the naive monger under arrest. He is then offered the opportunity to ransom himself for a king's ransom. Read back deep into the AC thread for such reports.[/QUOTE]Thanks chocha for your post, yes I am fully aware of this common scam, many have reported this here and on many angeles based boards.