Thread: General Reports
+
Add Report
Results 46 to 60 of 3344
-
02-19-24 19:28 #3299
Posts: 203Police arrests at Massachusetts brothel. November 2023
-
02-19-24 19:25 #3298
Posts: 203Btt
Can someone define this term? BTT is not listed in the abbreviations, general or regional.
-
02-19-24 15:27 #3297
Posts: 702Originally Posted by KashkaiBoy [View Original Post]
A number of years ago I met a woman via Seeking Arrangements; she was an Israeli working here for one of those pop-ups in a mall that sells cosmetics containing "salt from the Dead Sea. ".
These businesses are pretty notorious. They recruit young people in Israel, fly them here, hook them up with lodging (often 3 or more per bedroom in a 2 or 3 br apartment), and have them work at the store in the mall. Out of whatever on-paper hourly wage they earn, they have to pay back the transportation and lodging. They work around 60-70 hrs / week. And the "managers" keep their passports. They clearly are not free to leave at any time and are maybe closer to "indentured servants" than "slaves" if you will.
-
02-19-24 12:27 #3296
Posts: 1798Prostitution vs. Porn?
So if prostitution is illegal because "porn stars are paid to act and prostitutes are paid for sex" then would sex with a camera-friendly prostitute amount to porn? Just brainstorming you know. LOL.
"The distinction is a very fine one and comes down to a string of cases finding that porn performances actually constitute acting subject to the artistic expression protections of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Thus, the distinction is that, at least in theory, porn stars are paid to act and prostitutes are paid for sex. ".
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/wh...n-is-not-31164
-
02-19-24 11:57 #3295
Posts: 67I think the thing here is how we define exploitation. I've come to be less and less comfortable with contributing money to the kinds of operations BTT are a part of, which undoubtedly are international organized crime syndicates. Now, I'll grant that many people exaggerate or misunderstand the circumstances that bring the providers into the work they do. From my own experiences, which includes many fairly heartfelt conversations with providers at predecessor agencies (I was a very frequent client of BAD), I've never had a sense that the most horrific stereotypes were true in their cases: kidnapping, beatings, drugging etc. Those things do happen in parts of the underworld, but I've never seen evidence that they characterize the part of the Korean sex industry that services operations like BTT, BAD, etc. I think most are in the business because they are compelled for complicated reasons and they face few if any alternatives to getting themselves or their families out of dire circumstances. I've heard from many Korean women about a similar situation, in which they or their immediate family had to borrow money for urgent needs and then ended up deciding / being encouraged to repay it through sex work. I presume this is a partnership between loan sharks and pimps which ends up with the payment for loans paid back through a few years of being cycling through operations like BTT. WHile I'm sure there are some that do so completely from free will and for financial or other benefit, I think the majority do so out of a certain desperation even if the motivation is more economic. I'm not judging from a high horse, I have certainly partaken in the pleasures of being a client that enjoys the services these businesses offer. But I can still recognize that the service I'm enjoying comes at the price of pain for others, and this does encourage me to put more energy into building relations with indies rather than using these agencies. I know my post will result in some unhinged replies but I think most of us know what the deal is.
Originally Posted by DarkClouds [View Original Post]
-
02-19-24 10:44 #3294
Posts: 18No
Originally Posted by DarkClouds [View Original Post]
I am 100% sure that exploitation is a real issue, but it was not the case with BTT. That's why, in the latest affidavits, they did not mention anything in those terms. However, it is disgusting when you see those "activists" victimizing the sex workers in the BTT case. Bullshit. If LE would follow up on the ladies, many of them would get deported because they are working in other states. LOL.
-
02-19-24 09:48 #3293
Posts: 702Originally Posted by Mattis1775 [View Original Post]
18 USA C. 2421:
Whoever knowingly transports any individual in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with intent that such individual engage in prostitution, or in 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 or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
The law makes no distinction whether the individual consented or not.
-
02-18-24 18:29 #3292
Posts: 3163Originally Posted by DarkClouds [View Original Post]
-
02-18-24 15:50 #3291
Posts: 1373Exploitation
I'd like to explore the subject of exploitation. Do you guys really believe that these ladies at BTT were working there of their free will? Or was there any element of force or coercion? It mystifies me that despite a fairly large Asian population, we see very few independent Asians (it is more common in SF and some other areas). Do they join these agencies or AMPs for access to clients and protection? Or are they recruited in the way that gangs recruit, where you have no choice but to agree?
-
02-18-24 15:40 #3290
Posts: 67Hey Jm, sorry if my posting looked like a refutation of yours -- I was just adding the chain of replies that you'd already addressed. A previous poster had speculated that cause for the reduction in the appeals was due to lack of evidence or the prosecutors getting cold feet about some of the cases because of their only having circumstantial evidence. My point is just that they seem to have pleanty of solid evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be solid and can be used to convict. But I can't speculate about the legal strategies of the defendants.
Originally Posted by JmSuttr [View Original Post]
-
02-17-24 17:21 #3289
Posts: 1832I actually have a possible explanation that might accommodate both our positions
Originally Posted by Bran001 [View Original Post]
FWIW, my problem with the cost-saving and "beneficiaries" explanation is that the theory would be equally true if only a single appeal had been filed. So, if consultation between the various attorneys is truly happening (as we both agree it is), why not choose one attorney, and one case, to be the standard bearer for all the others? That would maximize cost savings while still providing the beneficiary effect. It's hard for me to imagine so many attorneys spending their client's money unnecessarily when they could ride the coattails of another case.
BUT, here's something that occurred to me that I wanted to throw out for consideration. Unless I've missed something, the only mention of the number 28, with respect to defendants, came in a DOJ release on 12-18-23.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/s...st-alleged-sex
The specific statement:
"Today, a Homeland Security Investigations Task Force Officer with the Cambridge Police Department submitted applications for complaints against 28 sex buyers with the Cambridge District Court".
You, or other local members would know better than I, but does an "application for complaint" ALWAYS = acceptance + issuance of a summons? Do District Atty or court personnel have any say in whether an application is or isn't sufficient? If so, what if the actual situation is that a summons has only been issued for 18 cases, so far. If that's the case, it would provide a possible answer my question, while also fully satisfying your point that there's no reason for prosecutors to dismiss any charges at this stage of the process.
Also, even if the above is true, that doesn't necessarily mean the remaining 10 are out of the woods because those cases can still be pursued whenever prosecutors want. Could there have been up-front procedural issues? Could there be a prosecutive strategy in separating cases into two (or more) different segments? As to this last point, maybe all 28 were accepted for prosecution BUT prosecutors decided to proceed with 18 right away and defer the others until later (manpower issues)? Again, it's all speculative but it's an interesting observational exercise. Of course, for those poor mongers who are in LE's cross-hairs, it's intensely personal. And, as you said, we can't actually know anything for sure until matters unfold further. It'll be interesting to see if DOJ, or local LE, release any kind of statement before the SJC issues a ruling.
P.S. If any local media out there are monitoring this forum (you know you are) I suggest you ask DOJ, or local authorities, to confirm the exact number of cases for which a summons has been issued and, if that number is less than 28, follow up to ask why.
-
02-17-24 17:17 #3288
Posts: 1832I actually have a possible explanation that might accommodate both our positions
Originally Posted by Bran001 [View Original Post]
FWIW, my problem with the cost-saving and "beneficiaries" explanation is that the theory would be equally true if only a single appeal had been filed. So, if consultation between the various attorneys is truly happening (as we both agree it is), why not choose one attorney, and one case, to be the standard bearer for all the others? That would maximize cost savings while still providing the beneficiary effect. It's hard for me to imagine so many attorneys spending their client's money unnecessarily when they could ride the coattails of another case.
BUT, here's something that occurred to me that I wanted to throw out for consideration. Unless I've missed something, the only mention of the number 28, with respect to defendants, came in a DOJ release on 12-18-23.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/s...st-alleged-sex
The specific statement:
"Today, a Homeland Security Investigations Task Force Officer with the Cambridge Police Department submitted applications for complaints against 28 sex buyers with the Cambridge District Court".
You, or other local members would know better than I, but does an "application for complaint" ALWAYS = acceptance + issuance of a summons? Do District Atty or court personnel have any say in whether an application is or isn't sufficient? If so, what if the actual situation is that a summons has only been issued for 18 cases, so far. If that's the case, it would provide a possible answer my question, while also fully satisfying your point that there's no reason for prosecutors to dismiss any charges at this stage of the process.
Also, even if the above is true, that doesn't necessarily mean the remaining 10 are out of the woods because those cases can still be pursued whenever prosecutors want. Could there have been up-front procedural issues? Could there be a prosecutive strategy in separating cases into two (or more) different segments? As to this last point, maybe all 28 were accepted for prosecution BUT prosecutors decided to proceed with 18 right away and defer the others until later (manpower issues)? Again, it's all speculative but it's an interesting observational exercise. Of course, for those poor mongers who are in LE's cross-hairs, it's intensely personal. And, as you said, we can't actually know anything for sure until matters unfold further. It'll be interesting to see if DOJ, or local LE, release any kind of statement before the SJC issues a ruling.
P.S. If any local media out there are monitoring this forum (you know you are! I suggest you ask DOJ, or local authorities, to confirm the exact number of cases for which a summons has been issued and, if that number is less than 28, follow up to ask why.
-
02-17-24 15:45 #3287
Posts: 702Originally Posted by JmSuttr [View Original Post]
WHY did the 10 not participate? Of course none of us "know. " I agree with you; there's definitely a strategy being carried out; there's often a strategy shared by co-parties. I'm totally confident that the lawyers have all talked. One reason could be that the group of appellants simply had enough lawyers among them. Another reason could be a difference of opinion re strategy. Or it could be cost-saving by the 10, given that again they are benefiting from the process.
-
02-17-24 13:37 #3286
Posts: 24Possible budget issue?
One possible explanation (even though I don't think it's a very likely one) is that there could be a budget issue at play.
I read the other day that the state has spent $116 million on housing and feeding migrants. This is an expense that would have been tough to quantify ahead of time. And the issue is not going away anytime soon.
The state has already announced the closing of MCI Concord by this summer (which had been open for something like 150 years) for financial reasons.
Obviously dismissing 10 misdemeanor cases isn't going to have a significant impact on the state's wallet. But I suppose it is possible that Healey was in someone's ear and told them to consolidate as much as possible.
Just thinking out loud.
-
02-17-24 02:00 #3285
Posts: 1832With all due respect
Originally Posted by Bran001 [View Original Post]
Here's the link where the info can be found:
https://www.ma-appellatecourts.org/
*Use docket number SJC-13551.
As I posted, I have yet to hear ANY theory that adequately explains why, out of the 28 announced cases, defense attorneys for 18 clients are pursuing the exact same path, while attorneys for at least 10 of them are not. There are 12 separate attorneys listed on the SJC docket, with some representing more than one client, while one client apparently has 3 attorneys representing him. So these several attorneys each came to the individual conclusion that their client's interests were best served by filing an appeal. What explanation is there as to why attorneys for at least 10 defendants (assuming 28 summons were issued) individually decided to take a materially different path? And, IMO, the most interesting aspect of this apparent bifurcation is that the numbers for each group are large enough to rule out randomness and the outlier effect. There's an obvious and coherent reason for why one group, the attorneys for the 18 defendants, chose their path. The reasoning for the other group, the 10 non-appeals, remains a mystery at this point.
Again, if you read my posts carefully you'll see that I'm not claiming to have the answer. Rather I'm posing the question and offering my take on some possibilities. So far, all explanations offered have been (IMO) lacking. Your point seems to be essentially a "move along folks, nothing to see here" position. If, with your knowledge of how criminal cases are litigated in the Commonwealth, you see nothing odd about these circumstances, then I respectfully beg to differ. And, of course, the great feature of this forum is that everyone gets to read and decide for themselves.
Speculations as to possible answers are, by definition, speculation. But that doesn't invalidate the underlying question.