Wow! McCabe knows it is simply easier to Convict the ladies.
It is easier to get a conviction against the ladies. That is the simple reason for only charging the ladies. Not sure what evidence they got on ladies. Generally, you send in undercover, and have the ladies offer to do sexual favors for fee. Much harder to convict the guys unless you get masseuses to testify against them, and given the speech difficulties (wink. Wink.), they can never get a conviction based on testimony alone. Competent defense attorney would shred their testimony. Thus, they would need video and testimony, IMHO.
Not crime to go into massage parlor to get massage. Of course, charging someone results in public shaming and their legal cost of fighting criminal charges, even if not found guilty.
This female judge is basically telling the District Attorney who to charge and for what, by dismissing the ladies charges for unequal application of the law. LOL. Undoubtibly, McCabe won't face judicial inquiry. (See Judge (male) Sinnott)
Contrary to what you think, this will DISCOURAGE the POLICE from pursuing these cases, since they won't end in convictions, even if heard by Judge (I am a feminist & Progressive Resistance Fighter) Mary McCabe, ex-criminal defense attorney and appointed by Deval Patrick to the bench. McCabe is married to an ex-judge.
In fact, if police just bring charges against the guys, McCabe has set precedent in her own court to dismiss for unequal application of the law, which of course she won't follow in regards to charging males with. What a farce.
Thank you Judge McCabe for discouraging the police from enforcing these law. Progressives always think their actions have no unintended consequences.
McCabe may be overturned on appeal, since the actual charges are "providing sex for a fee". The male customers would have been charges with solicitation, etc. Not sure if its the same statute or different one, and not inclined to research. If same statute, then I think, strictly construed, unequal application would apply, but if different statute and thus different criminal offense, unequal application theory would fail.
[QUOTE=Zimmm33;4457676]The good news is the ladies charges are dismissed. (Though a DA motion will be filed Oct 3rd.) The bad news is the message is out there you have to include and take down male customers when doing an investigation like this.
From Newburyport paper.
SALISBURY A judge dismissed charges last month against two women accused of offering sex for a fee at a local spa and questioned why seven police departments and the USA Homeland Security Department "were unable to investigate" and charge customers or the business owner, according to court records.
Newburyport District Court Judge Mary McCabe ruled in favor of motions to dismiss charges against Fudi Fan, 50, and Yuhua Li, 62 Chinese nationals living in Salisbury who were charged in June 2018 after police raided Yoga Spa at 111 Lafayette Road, No. 2, in Salisbury.
Police said the raid followed a three-month undercover operation involving seven police departments and the federal Department of Homeland Security.
In her ruling, McCabe questioned the actions of law enforcement officials for not investigating or charging anyone but the women.
"To suggest that seven police departments and a federal agency were unable to further investigate the customers who were supporting this business is not credible or is an indication of discriminatory choices and selective prosecution of these women," McCabe wrote. "The complaints brought against the two female defendants were the product of an arbitrary or unequal application of the law, based upon the sex (gender) of the defendants. ".
Salisbury police were tipped off in April 2018 by a concerned citizen regarding young Asian workers at the spa providing sex for a fee and living inside the business, according to court records.
In the weeks to follow, police posed as customers and were offered sex acts for a fee.
A Salisbury police detective obtained a warrant and organized a raid of the business with help from Seabrook, Amesbury, Newbury, Georgetown and Newburyport officers and detectives. When police entered the building, there was one customer inside but he said he wasn't receiving illegal sexual services.
When Li and Fan were asked by a Homeland Security agent whether they were being forced to work there or forced to perform sexual acts on customers, both said no.
The dismissals by McCabe came after the two women nearly reached a plea deal with an Essex County prosecutor in April. At the last moment, they changed their minds when they were told their pleas could lead to them being deported.
Attorneys Jack Humphries and John Bjorlie, however, are not done with the cases.
During the women's appearances in court Wednesday for a final status hearing, Essex County prosecutor Michelle Belmonte told Judge Allen Swan she had filed a motion to amend McCabe's decision. That prompted Swan to schedule a motion hearing in the same courthouse Oct. 3.
When asked what she hoped to accomplish by filing the motion, Belmonte referred a reporter to the Essex County District Attorney's Office.
The spokeswoman Carrie Kimball said she couldn't comment.
"Until the motion is filed, I cannot speak to its purpose," Kimball said in an email.
In their motions to dismiss, Humphries and Bjorlie successfully argued that police officers charged only Fan and Li and not the male customer discovered there during the raid nor the owner of Yoga Spa. They argued that such selective targeting ran contrary to established precedent dating back to the 1970's.
McCabe agreed with their interpretation, writing, "To allow one male customer found in the massage room with money displayed to go uncharged, or it appears investigated, and according to the untested-to assertion of the Commonwealth, multiple other customers not to be charged, and to allow the male owner of the business which employed the two defendants, to go uncharged, leads the court only to believe that the target of the police was only the two female masseuses who performed the prostitution or sex work, and not the customers who kept them in business nor the business owner who employed them. ".[/QUOTE]
Massage place near Nonset Path
Just saw a new massage place in the Great Road Associates plaza, 481 Great Rd, Acton. It's on the Nonset path side. Does anyone have any info?
(Cross posted in the Lowell forum.).
So Healthy, Milford, X6666
I have not seen this anywhere. Found it on CxG / WORC. Small strip mall. Clean, decent room. Led to room by small, 40 ish. Decent body 5/7 tight yoga pants. Very little English Tease started as soon as she re-entered and I was face down. Medium pressure oil massage with occasional tease. Rubbed legs and OTC between. Hot towel, flip. Ask how much? Offered $ to see what it would get. Girls came out. Thought they were C but actually nice B's due to padding. FIV, LFK. Good technique. She was quite wet. Clean up and more massage on legs & feet to complete the hr+. Saw another cute one on the way out. Will return when in the area. . 6 / $.
