She Worked Hard for Her Money

Is being a lawyer such a frightening prospect that working as an escort seems like a more inviting career choice? Here's one Stanford law-school graduate who decided she'd earn a better return from her other (ass)ets. We can say without irony that she knows more than just her O and A-Levels!

Federal prosecutors argue the government should keep $61,000 in cash seized from an Oakland woman who allegedly worked as a high-priced call girl to repay student loans from her time at Stanford Law School.

Court documents detail how agents sifted through trash, conducted surveillance, interviewed clients and a colleague, pored over tax returns and surfed the Internet to build a case for keeping money seized from Cristina Schultz, 31 -- who they say used the name "Brazil" and charged $1,300 for two hours.

But all jokes about the declining value of a Stanford law degree aside, Schultz hasn't been charged with a federal crime.

Federal civil asset forfeiture laws let the government seek to keep property -- in this case, money -- representing the proceeds of a federal crime even if the property's owner hasn't been convicted or even charged with the alleged crime.

[...]

Schultz's Web site remained active this week, registered in her name to her former address in Palo Alto; she moved to an apartment overlooking Oakland's Lake Merritt in September 2002, but a security guard at the building Friday said Schultz no longer lives there.

The Web site, depicting her in various lingerie-clad poses, describes her as a "Portuguese-speaking entertainer and physical model.

"The quintessential Gemini, I am an unusual mix of well-educated good-girl and erotic-Bachian-sensualist, with some down-to-earth sweetness thrown in," it says. "I am sure you will never forget any time you spend with me and I look forward to meeting you soon."

Her home page's fine print says "Escort services advertised on this website are for companionship and dating only."

But clients posting reviews of Brazil's services at another Web site gave her rave -- and sometimes, explicit -- reviews as recently as February 2004, a month after Internal Revenue Service agents seized evidence and $61,171 from Schultz's apartment, her storage locker and her safe deposit box.

The government's forfeiture complaint filed in July says Schultz operated an interstate prostitution business since at least August 2001 -- three months after earning her degree at Stanford Law School -- by charging up to $1,300 for two hours, $5,000 for overnight and $15,000 for three days to serve clients in the Bay Area, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., New York City, Chicago and Seattle.

[...]

Schultz's April 2003 posting to an escort-reviews Web site indicates her work wasn't a secret from those who know her. "When I entered the business, I decided to use my face and real stats in my ad," she wrote. "In a month EVERY PERSON in my law school and my parents had discovered my latest career change."

Another posting made the same month to the same site said that when she finished her law degree, she "owed over 300 thousand in loans and hated the prospect of being a lawyer for the next twenty yrs."(sic)

After launching her career as an escort, she wrote, "I am 100% more confident, I have paid off all of my loans, and I have tried to send a positive message to SF escorts re: assumptions about the nature and social status of women in the business. ... This kind of travel and exposure to countless partners and situations has made me a stronger woman, a better businesswoman, and a more sensitive lover."

Her website can be viewed here. I think Ms. Schultz' example will make difficult reading for those who'd like to imagine that all those who provide sex for money do so because they've been forced into it: she definitely seems to have taken a certain pride - and even joy - in her ability to provide joy to others. What could be wrong in that?

Ms Schultz should be allowed to keep her money, with an appropriate fine made for avoidance of taxes. Laws against prostitution make as little sense as those silly laws against sex toys they have down in Alabama: ain't none of your business if she does, whether you think her trade "immoral" or otherwise.

PS: A fellow alumnus provides his moral support.

Comments

[Julian Elson]

Do you think that the government should mandate frequent health inspections for STDs for these women? Maybe just mandate such inspections if she's to maintain a certain health status certification, but not prohibit her from working if she doesn't (albeit with fewer and more nervous customers)? (some, like genital warts, can be spread while condoms are in use, and some STDs take a while (weeks) to be detectable with tests.) Or just caveat emptor? I wouldn't mind the latter if it weren't for the fact that so many of these particular emptors also happened to be husbands who had sex with their wives. Since you've periodically written on AIDS, I assume that these matters haven't failed to cross your mind. Of course, if you're interested in preventing the spread of STDs, the current system of banned and driven-underground prostitution probably isn't exactly great either.

[Abiola Lapite]

As STDs are communicable, and potentially fatal in the case of at least two (Syphilis and AIDS), they do provide unusually strong grounds for wishing to see the profession regulated. That said, there is always the danger that regulation might prove so onerous that sex workers might be driven into the black market to avoid it, as has been the case in some parts of Europe. People might also wish to avoid having their names written down in some government book as practicing a trade that carries infamia in the public mind.

Another complicating factor is that the husbands cheating on their wives scenario isn't really all that compelling once thought of in a slightly different light. A man who goes to a bath-house or to gay circuit parties would also be exposing his partner(s) to undisclosed sexual risks, but most people would be up in arms were anyone to suggest that those who partake in such activities be mandatorily subjected to AIDS tests. Why should it be any different with heterosexuals? It isn't as if money itself is the vector for disease, so the justification for singling out such transactions is unclear.

Probably the best outcome one can hope for is that as with the pornography industry, we'll see the emergence of voluntary codes of conduct that mandate certain safety procedures, with those who abide by them getting to display the "approved by XXX" seal to command higher prices. Better that at least some prostitutes abide by such a code of conduct than the current situation where none of them do.