Printable View
[QUOTE=DarkClouds;7241359]Per the Globe report from today those charged (30 or so) are about 1% of the contacts found in the agency's records. How did they decide on that 1%?[/QUOTE]One common theme seems to be using personal cell phone rather than a burner. Easy to figure out who they were.
[QUOTE=DarkClouds;7241359]Per the Globe report from today those charged (30 or so) are about 1% of the contacts found in the agency's records. How did they decide on that 1%?[/QUOTE]The judge is the one who gives opinions or designate it to senior court clerk to decide, the D. A. Also has a say in it, it's a sisterhood, brotherhood thing for people who practice law, for a win under their belt this could a be a career moment on the road to become a politician, according to news this is the first list of defendants, only they and their close circle know how many they will prosecute, if you have enough power and can pull strings things disappear [URL]https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/brothel-clients-names-johns-massachusetts-court-hearing/[/URL] [URL]https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/3/6/brothel-hearings-preview/[/URL] [URL]https://www.wbur.org/news/2025/03/14/cambridge-dc-sex-ring-alleged-buyers-show-cause-court[/URL] [URL]https://www.wgbh.org/news/local/2025-03-14/court-finds-evidence-to-charge-about-a-dozen-men-with-patronizing-a-high-end-brothel[/URL] [URL]https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/cambridge-city-councilor-charged-brothel-bust/[/URL] [URL]https://www.masslive.com/news/2025/03/more-names-of-men-accused-of-paying-for-sex-at-cambridge-brothels-revealed.html[/URL] [URL]https://www.nbcboston.com/investigations/massachusetts-brothel-bust/3551445/[/URL].
[QUOTE=DarkClouds;7241359]Per the Globe report from today those charged (30 or so) are about 1% of the contacts found in the agency's records. How did they decide on that 1%?[/QUOTE]400+ messages logged with the booker seems to be the consistent theme of each John they arraigned, along with phone matching and video footage I'd from the building in other cases.
Thanks. Makes sense. So, it was a combination of transparent behavior (using real phone, providing LinkedIn information, etc) and frequent behavior (repeat visits, better chance to get good surveillance video). Both sort of come down to building a rock solid case that can't easily be refuted. I never mess with agencies or any sort of structured arrangements (only independent amateurs). And I also rarely repeat. Both seem to be good best practices to follow.
[QUOTE=Hobbyist420;7241784]400+ messages logged with the booker seems to be the consistent theme of each John they arraigned, along with phone matching and video footage I'd from the building in other cases.[/QUOTE]
Because I've visited that dumbfounded Jenny lady before out here in my area. I still assume she is or was being handled before!? By a Agency manager person or whatever asshole Entity. Whomever may have representing her at the time I briefly saw her! Not sure that was really her? Because there been a couple reports of people wondering if it's not always her. Those were posted a while back. The girl I saw was rude and very curt to me in that brief time I was there. Before I left without giving up my donation. And now I worry if that was really some agency crap-Ola?? With all this busts of agencies stuff and people being in Court. I don't like that I was on camera years ago, visiting some potentially pimped out Asian lady. Via from a manager agency or whatever. It makes me not trust the Asians who provide. As they are sloppy, by letting people run them. If they were all mostly independent, I'd like them more. And not worry about potential legal trouble.
I like to worry a tiny bits, it cures my bored brain. So don't bash or do, idc. Lmao. You guys on this Forum or in this Hobby, ya keep seeing these mechanical Asian broads. Ha, more Power to ya.
[QUOTE=DarkClouds;7241830]Thanks. Makes sense. So, it was a combination of transparent behavior (using real phone, providing LinkedIn information, etc) and frequent behavior (repeat visits, better chance to get good surveillance video). Both sort of come down to building a rock solid case that can't easily be refuted. I never mess with agencies or any sort of structured arrangements (only independent amateurs). And I also rarely repeat. Both seem to be good best practices to follow.[/QUOTE]I bet at least some of them will try to play it as "yes, I was there, I enjoy a nice massage, but no sex. So what if the agency offers GFE or bb, I was just paying for (maybe) a nude massage". Let's see how that works with a judge though.
Have a look at the NY Post article. The agency sent out a whole menu of services with very strict prices. And I believe the agency kept detailed records. As a result, prosecutors are convincingly able to claim you paid X for service Y (which, by the way, was NOT a massage based on the pricing menu you were sent). This is why only 1% of the customer list were charged. Where prosecutors were able to put all of the ducks in a row and build a rock solid case. So, my prediction is that these 30 or so who were charged are going down. Again, this is why my mantra is: only deal with amateurs, never let your guard down (zero transparency), and never repeat. Sadly, this is the puritanical world we live in.
[URL]https://nypost.com/2025/03/14/us-news/alleged-customers-at-high-end-brothel-serving-politicians-military-officials-unmasked-in-court-as-salacious-details-of-encounters-revealed/[/URL]
[QUOTE=Hyperion11;7241946]I bet at least some of them will try to play it as "yes, I was there, I enjoy a nice massage, but no sex. So what if the agency offers GFE or bb, I was just paying for (maybe) a nude massage". Let's see how that works with a judge though.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=DarkClouds;7241956]Have a look at the NY Post article. The agency sent out a whole menu of services with very strict prices. And I believe the agency kept detailed records. As a result, prosecutors are convincingly able to claim you paid X for service Y (which, by the way, was NOT a massage based on the pricing menu you were sent). This is why only 1% of the customer list were charged. Where prosecutors were able to put all of the ducks in a row and build a rock solid case. So, my prediction is that these 30 or so who were charged are going down. Again, this is why my mantra is: only deal with amateurs, never let your guard down (zero transparency), and never repeat. Sadly, this is the puritanical world we live in.
[URL]https://nypost.com/2025/03/14/us-news/alleged-customers-at-high-end-brothel-serving-politicians-military-officials-unmasked-in-court-as-salacious-details-of-encounters-revealed/[/URL][/QUOTE]Fair point, I guess it remains to be seen. I don't feel all the cases are that solid, but persecutors put them together just to show something up. I mean, if I get lunch at a restaurant, and the waiter presents me the beer menu, does it mean I drank beer? Now, if I ask for a specific beer, that can be evidence, sure. So, customers that specifically asked for BB or GFE might be in trouble. The ones that only asked 30 minutes with Jisoo, might have a change, I reckon.
There is a reason Virginia persecutors refused to file charges (but it is true the law is different over there and requires stronger evidence).
1. Trafficking is essentially whatever LE and the media say it is. Whether real trafficking (force, coercion, intimidation, etc.) is happening is irrelevant. Both LE and the media have strong incentives for applying the label, facts be damned. And the same principle applies to the characterization of clients as "high profile" (govt officials, security clearances, etc.) by the LE-media beast. They can lie and misrepresent and will never be held to account.
2. Use of a phone number, email, or other method that can be traced to a person's true identity makes that person the proverbial low-hanging fruit. Using a burner phone may not be an absolute guarantee, but it does move one higher up the tree and harder to reach.
3. As I understand it, the MA statute declares that a crime has been committed once an offer or agreement is made re exchanging a sexual act for a fee. That crime exists whether or not the act is consummated. As I see it, any menu of services and prices sent to clients pretty much checks that box. It's hard to imagine any response, other than something like "Sorry, my mistake" (and ending the conversation), that might provide a client with an escape hatch. And, factoring in multiple text exchanges and visits, it becomes a slam dunk.
4. Nobody in LE specifically set out to catch mongers. They were simply collateral damage from the money laundering case against the owners. But, once LE decided to thump their chest and show off as the Dudley Doorights keeping the community safe from all the Snidely Whiplashes out there (kudos if you get the reference), and once the media smelled blood in the water, the path was inevitable.
5. The same statute would be in play if these mongers had been caught in a old-fashioned street sting in which they agreed to pay $40 for a blow job to an undercover female cop. The massive double standard is that such an arrest would likely have been handled out of the public eye. Painful, yes, but probably not life-ruining.
6. With respect to the future, and this is important (IMO), a precedent has been set in MA such that show cause hearings are not what they were, or at least the expectation of keeping things low key might be at risk. Again, it'll be the LE-media dynamic that will determine the outcome. They won't be required to go full volume, but they can if they want.
7. PII in any form, once it leaves your sole control, can come back to bite you in the ass. Maybe it'll never happen, or maybe once in a great while, but the results can be catastrophic.
Discussion: There's zero downside for LE and the media in describing almost any prostitution-related activity as trafficking. Narrative is everything and facts be damned (or ignored). About the only thing that would be hard to spin as trafficking would be patronizing a true independent (professional or amateur). The solicitation statute still applies, but it's not worth the time and effort for LE to go after a single misdemeanor. It was the use of traceable comms PLUS the agreement implied by discussing menu items that screwed these guys. Even with that, had it not been for the interstate money-laundering and "trafficking" angle + media frenzy, things might have been different.
The smart providers out there will only say they're being paid for their time, nothing more, and any further specifics will only be discussed in person. Established providers have plenty of reviews such that there's no need for explicit text exchanges. To sum up, it seems to me that the critical mistake, more than PII or traceable phone or 400+ texts or video surveillance, was the offer-agreement implicit in the communications about $$$ for services. Without that, I don't think LE would have been able to make the case.
Any other lessons I may have missed?
[QUOTE=JmSuttr;7243130]
3. As I understand it, the MA statute declares that a crime has been committed once an offer or agreement is made re exchanging a sexual act for a fee. That crime exists whether or not the act is consummated. As I see it, any menu of services and prices sent to clients pretty much checks that box. It's hard to imagine any response, other than something like "Sorry, my mistake" (and ending the conversation), that might provide a client with an escape hatch. And, factoring in multiple text exchanges and visits, it becomes a slam dunk.
[/QUOTE]Say, once they send me donation and services (GFE, etc.) I reply with "I agree with the donation, but just to be clear, I only want a massage from a cute chick". Will that save my ass? Maybe, maybe not, but it should throw a wrench in the LE persecution plans.
I think you captured it well. I continue to be shocked by how dumb these supposedly smart people were. Especially the ones who showed up in person for the hearings. I suppose they had no guidance and went into it quite blind. I still see people proudly dealing with agencies, pros, participating in the street scene, using their real CC to sign up on sites, and so on. They are asking for trouble and playing with fire. And not only from an LE perspective but also in terms of inviting blackmail, fatal attraction cases, and so on. Oh, and I had to look up the Dudley Do-Right reference.
[QUOTE=JmSuttr;7243130]Any other lessons I may have missed?[/QUOTE]
This really vindicates those of us who strictly refused to send personal info to agencies and escorts. It is not the first time the info leaked to the police and it is not the last time.
I love the WSJ article where they interview an investigator who makes fun of the clients who where foolish enough to send all their personal info, calling them "brainy" professionals:
"Former vice detectives told The Wall Street Journal they were surprised at the brothel's exclusivity and organization—and that so many brainy professionals would surrender personal details to it. ".
From the WSJ Article: [URL]https://archive.is/wFJaj[/URL].
Funny, that text from the agency that says only GFE, no BB. I thought the two were synonymous.
[QUOTE=Guillaume123;7250767]This really vindicates those of us who strictly refused to send personal info to agencies and escorts. It is not the first time the info leaked to the police and it is not the last time.
I love the WSJ article where they interview an investigator who makes fun of the clients who where foolish enough to send all their personal info, calling them "brainy" professionals:
"Former vice detectives told The Wall Street Journal they were surprised at the brothel's exclusivity and organizationand that so many brainy professionals would surrender personal details to it. ".
From the WSJ Article: [URL]https://archive.is/wFJaj[/URL].[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=DarkClouds;7250829]Funny, that text from the agency that says only GFE, no BB. I thought the two were synonymous.[/QUOTE]Is one of those terms that means different things to different people, especially providers. If one is advertising GFE, need to verify what she means by that.
My understanding of GFE is DFK and BBBJ.
[QUOTE=Guillaume123;7250767]This really vindicates those of us who strictly refused to send personal info to agencies and escorts. It is not the first time the info leaked to the police and it is not the last time.
.[/QUOTE]Yes, so true. I do understand the temptation, when you are backed up and not thinking clearly but I've never sent such info to an agency or escort and I never will. It's just too much risk, for the potential reward.