All BS, but the real crime is.
[QUOTE=SaintPolycarp;6678406]We all know that none of the girls at BTT were trafficked! They all were as independent as the girls on [URL]Eros.com[/URL] or Tryst, and all the so-called "indie" girls on those escort platforms have very organized pimps and / or security guards. Unfortunately, Feds' recent circus show ended short, too short! Federal judges hate prostitution cases, and now USA must be responsible for the victimless victims.[/QUOTE]Tax evasion, money laundering, and profiting from prostitution. I speak to some of those providers semi-regularly even when they are not here, they are 100% independent. The real crime was them making money. All of this needs to be legalized and properly taxed.
Boston Thread Perspective
The general consensus on the Boston thread seems to be that this will blowback harder than expected. Definitely recommend anyone involved stay up to date on the thread.
[URL]http://www.usasexguide.nl/forum/showthread.php?32529-Boston-Top-Ten[/URL]
Federal court hates this? Really?
[QUOTE=SaintPolycarp;6679239]If BTT group are found guilty of sex trafficking then all of the Korean, Chinese, Russian, Latina, Japanese, Vietnamese, White or Black or Brown or Pink or Rainbow escorts with their patronizing pimps and drivers and assistances are done. However, the federal court in MA hates this situation. This is exactly why, unlike HSI's ambitious affidavit, MA DOJ has intentionally been using such benign expressions as "high-end brothel", "commercial sex act", "commercial sex buyers", "prostitution" instead of "sexual exploitation", "sex trafficking". And now MA AG has to prove if there was any commercial sex act that was induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age to move forward with the full accusations of HSI. In any case, this is fucking bullshit bigotry, fuck BTT! Who cares?[/QUOTE]Not sure what your source is for that statement. Federal judges are a diverse bunch, so I don't see how a blanket statement can be made about any federal district.
Consider, for example, that if a judge with conservative leanings is assigned to the case, they're likely to have a negative view of the defendants because of their negative view about prostitution. OTOH, if a judge with liberal leanings is assigned to the case, they're likely to have a negative view of the defendants because of their negative view about (alleged) trafficking and victimization of women. Hard to see how this isn't a lose-lose for defendants.
Also, if the federal court in MA is truly an inhospitable environment, prosecutors could indict and pursue the case in VA. If they don't, that would seem to suggest they're not very concerned. As for what MA might do, I don't live there so I haven't been following local news and views. While (IIRC) it's not technically double-jeopardy for both the feds and MA to prosecute for the same activity, it does present some conflicts. For example, if the feds pursue asset forfeiture, then MA can't really go after the same pot of money. MA and VA could still move forward, but they'll obviously need to coordinate everything with the feds, and the fed prosecution will take precedence.
About the search warrant affidavit, it has only one purpose, to establish probable cause to search locations and seize evidence. The actual charges for trial will be in the indictment, which hasn't yet been issued. That's the next shoe to drop and it's my guess the feds are using what they found in the searches to finalize the indictment before presenting it to a Grand Jury. That will contain the info most relevant to what a judge and jury will be asked to consider, not the SW affidavit. So stay tuned!
Other provider agencies are obviously watching developments closely, and will certainly make adjustments. Just thinking out loud, one thing they might do is more clearly separate operations in different states. That's easier said than done, but it's the interstate aspect that gives the feds their best opening for involvement. Another possibility is changing to a "sex club" model. They could sell memberships that entitle members to a certain number of visits per month to the "club," and whatever happens during those visits is a private matter between individuals. The sticky point (pun intended) to that scenario is figuring out how to pay the providers in a way that sidesteps the "$ for sex" problem.
This isn't the first agency bust, nor will it be the last. Agencies will adapt, as will clients. It's my hope that, at a minimum, mongers will be shaken out of their complacency about the risks of giving up their PII. Just. Don't. Do. It.
He's right, it's not nothing depending who you are
[QUOTE=JmSuttr;6676210]It's unlikely that anyone will be individually outed to their family. That would not only be stupid, from a PR standpoint, but would also (as you mentioned) leave prosecutors and LE open to legal actions.
If, for whatever reason, they want to out people publicly, the smarter way to do it is to either find some kind of pseudo-legal pretext or else find some way to orchestrate an "accidental" release that can't readily be traced to anyone. I'm sure there are a number of slimy, publicity-hungry media outlets that would be willing to assist.
It's the non-public use that should be most concerning to some. While flat-out blackmail is unlikely to happen, knowledge is power and some high ranking officials may be faced with a choice between resignation or becoming the subject of a separate (non-criminal) investigation. Most govt officials have some kind of security clearance, and that's the likeliest method of arm-twisting I can think of.
And, since govt and private sector bigwigs tend to benefit from a double standard, it's probable that they'll be allowed to handle their problems differently than the smaller fish. They have influence and stuff to bargain with. It's the lower and mid-level guys who are more likely to get screwed, and not in a good way. Suspension or revocation of a clearance is a career-ender. The feds don't have to tell your family anything because it'll be up to you to explain why you lost your job and are unemployable in your (former) chosen field.
Note: Just for clarification, I'm not saying any of this Will happen, only that it's possible and anyone who thinks they may be at risk should prepare for worst-case scenarios. Also, for those who are still inclined to trade PII for access to pussy, these are some of the associated risks.[/QUOTE]If you're a blue collar worker who doesn't require a secret clearance or some other deep dive of what you have done up until now, you're most likely safe in the legal aspect as long as you didn't let the little head convince you to lease an apartment for girls to work out of. That said, depending on the level of clearance and what agency you work for, that's another story. Feds LOVE busting other Feds and LE for misconduct. It sucks and this kind of service SHOULD be legal but alas, that's not the letter of the law as it stands.
They'll be people pushing for a list as it is a sexy salacious story to hear about a politician or lawyer that has actively convict those of engaging in sec services and ends up being a customer. People would eat that shit up.