But she requested immigration benefits in exchange for testimony.  Usually when you get deported you serve out your prison sentence first, then you get processed for removal and get a reentry ban.  You can't just decide to not do the prison time and get deported instead because prison is inconvenient for you.  

I see, you try to play the whole "tell them everything and self-incriminate yourself because jail is so scary".

A lot of Christian voters who would vote based on this issue probably aren't too likely to vote for him.

TPR, Are you sure you're not in Law Enforcement yourself ? Or maybe you are one of the people who talked ? Just asking.  

I already posted on this story on the GD board.  I posted a quote from the US Attorney and then my opinion about the situation.  

-- Modified on 11/10/2023 1:14:41 AM

TP Romeo, is what do you think are the innocuous questions that a guy leaving the incall could/would be asked that are harmless to him, at least at that time?
Harmless, because he would be let go.
And, all this anti-terror, sex trafficking and wire fraud, what's a Monger gonna' know about any of that?  
What legal right do they have to look at your phone?
I actually never carry one!

I think this is one of the really interesting areas. The bust does seem to be at the federal level and the interest is not really in the area of prostitution but the related federal level stuff. If FBI, DHS, SS (Treasury) or Federal DOJ are running the show what are the real risks related to the customer contact file? How much of an incentive do they have to disclose (even if there might actually be a requirement to share) such data to other agencies?

I do have a question(s)for TRP. I agree with most of what you said. With that said, does trafficking or coercion mean, at a federal criminal charge level, involuntary/non consensual/physically held against your will? Or something else entirely?  I read the whole affidavit very carefully. I did not see any indication of coercion, or involuntary participation. Everything mentioned in the affidavit in that regard are actions to remain discreet.  I also have some other questions: this bust sounds very similar to the one in Seattle, bellevue, where the prosecutors and cop brought charges, and in the press, called it human trafficking. Reason magazine did an amazing 5 piece to systematically break down how everything was consensual, and safe for the sex workers, including an interview with the cop who led the investigation. It also zero-ed in on a key point, that was never fully fully answered by the prosecutor or cop - did the women actually say in police investigations, that they were coerced into doing this, or held against their will?  None of the women testified at trial. None have sworn affidavits to that effect. The head cop in charge said he never spoke to any directly, because they spoke very little English (there were also interpreter issues), and were free to
Go (one of them had all of her money confiscated by LE). Most charges against the Johns ended in plea deals ended up with misdemeanor charges, and that was because the prosecutor didn’t charge the clients with misdemeanor prostitution, they were charged with felonies and sex offender status - for facilitating prostitution or human trafficking, by writing reviews of providers they met, which is a pretty novel theory.  But I would think if trafficking happened, which is heinous as fuck, as they claimed to the press, all plea deals would be off the table, and there would be a trial, with the victims as witnesses. Also, one thing never asked in that incident, to the cop or prosecutor, is if they are aware that some the victims, appeared again, months later, in other K girl ads, in different states. This current case seems awfully similar, except its the Feds involved. So i am Wondering, in this case, as I see all the statements about trafficking, by prosecutors, by certain anti-prostitution non profit groups, screaming to turn over the list of clients to the public, saying they fuel trafficking, i have not heard from. Anywhere that we will hear from the victims themselves at trial, which I’d think is a must to get a conviction for human trafficking, right to confront your accusers. Of course, behind the scenes, the victims may be right now being threatened with deportation and re-entry ban by the Feds if they do not agree to testify at trial they were coerced, while concurrently telling the accused they are risking decades in federal prison. But if truthfully, if no coercion/involuntary participation actually happened in this case, then its not factually true, is it? In all of these cases, because there is a built in stigma for sex work, providers want anonymity and aren’t going to challenge anything publicly, a law enforcement and certain groups self appoint themselves as these women’s spokesperson, saying they needed to be saved, they were victimized. Crimes were committed here, no doubt, but I am skeptical if trafficking, as in Stolen from Suburbia (2015 movie with Sydney Sweeney), took place here, which is heavily being implied by LE and the anti-prostitution groups.  Seems like they are using that term to score brownie points with the public, and to eliminate any doubt like ‘hey, did they just devote all that time and money to bust consensual sex work, where by all accounts, the women were safe?’  I’d also like to know if federal LE plus the anti-prostitution groups think all paid sex work is trafficking, ie do they conflate the two?
I know US hookers, not just K girls, all Share a common motivation for voluntary participation into this: making fast cash, in a very short amount of time, to keep all to themself, minus the booker cut, unless they are independent. And the reason they get a booker is because its very time
Consuming to screen your own clients, make your own incall arrangements.  They cannot make that money that way by legitimate means. Just my humble thoughts, welcome any feedback.

"The answer will be "Yep, you're being detained and arrested in connection with a human trafficking investigation since you don't want to cooperate. " At which point you should definitely STFU and get your attorney to negotiate you position and give advice. Whoever is arresting you has absolutely NO INTEREST in considering your best options.

but I just asked a couple of simple questions.
Didn't need the repetitive stuff that you put out, way too much IMO.

strictly focusing on the sale
of money for sex, not the other federal crimes alleged here (which I tend to think there is alot of evidence to support from
The affidavit) - exactly what makes this Boston brothel different, from say, a legal brothel, besides the fact that there is no brothel license? Bunny ranch in vegas, a legal brothel, has very similar advertisements for the women will and won’t do. Legal brothels have extremely similar advertisements for the women and screening for potential clients, specifically to drastically reduce or eliminate male clients who show up and try to get Girls things to do that she doesn’t want to do. Speaking to your reply on trafficking, what evidence from the affidavit shows that the women were held against their will? I didn’t read anything to that effect at all. And yes, Seattle was state police, not Feds, and they got zero trials and convictions on human trafficking. Reason did a fantastic 5 piece article, you should google it, totally showing that the Seattle police and prosecutors simply ruined clients lives, and took away the women’s income, who were NOT held against their will, and free to leave anytime. If there was human trafficking actually going on, and the women were ‘rescued’ by the busts, why would they go immediately back to work in a different agency just months later? It’s extremely relevant to determining whether the human trafficking narrative is actually real, or just made up, by the government at worst, and at best, conflating it with consensual sex work.

From a law/statute perspective "sex trafficking" does not imply coercion. See the link below and look at the "sex trafficking" entry. Contrast that with severe forms of trafficking in persons -- which I don't recall seeing any mention of in the affidavit.

Except the government has been sued for this type of event and the plaintiffs have won nice settlements.

the rest is a bunch of shifting BS to make you sound like you know anything.

If you have ever seen ‘stolen from suburbia’, 2015 TV movie, that is the trafficking this affidavit, law enforcement, and anti-prostitution groups are heavily implying to the public took place here. Women being captured, chained up, forced to take ad pictures online, and held against their physical will. Or the Disney movie Pinnochio, what happens to boys that go t to pleasure island, very good example.  The reason article on the Seattle bust enclosed an interview with the cop, which really pushed the cop to answer if the women were held against their will. He admitted no, but the coercion was ‘economic’.The reporter replied, both you and I are being economically coerced, that’s why we are at work today. The cop then said ‘the jobs we are stuck in are not illegal.’  He also said that the women MIGHT have been threatened with arrest or deportation if they didn’t play ball, which again, you have zero statements from the women to corroborate.  But the bookers would have totally would have let them go if they wanted to leave. From what i have read, K-orgs are very, very strict, if girl doesn’t like a client, for ANY reason, he not only cannot see her again, he risks getting blacklisted by that agency, and possibly the whole community.

Can you point me to a lawsuit where a suspect of a crime sued the government, bypassed qualified immunity, and won?  Because when people are arrested, the PD Public Relations people release this information to the news and their name and photo is on TV.  It's deemed there is a public interest that we don't have secret courts and secret charges in the US.

There is no way that Republican Christian fundamentalists would ever vote for Gavin Newsom. He is - in their view - wrong on abortion, guns, and gays and would presumably continue to be that way or risk being viewed as a traitor by Democrats and have a bad history by Republicans. Busting a few nice Korean ladies wont change that.

This whole subthread really belongs in the Politics and Religion forum as a separate posting.

To Respond to part of TRP’s last reply - and not disagreeing at all that they can charge you just to ruin your life - a federal agent saying a woman was held against her will, with nothing else in the affidavit, or evidence seized to corroborate that, is not very strong evidence. Real examples of withholding someone against their will could be proof of withholding the women’s passports, any type of threat made to stay against them or their family, or to pay off a loan, threatening to report their immigration status or escort status to the police, etc, blackmail, extortion. Without written proof AND sworn testimony from the women themselves, It is fairly easy to dismantle. Otherwise, It is an unsubstantiated assertion, that I do not see holding up in a court of law, because it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. There is also 6th amendment, the right to confront your accusers. Which mean to prove up trafficking held against your will, Defendant can call the woman to the stand, who would  swear under oath, and need to testify to that effect. If the Feds threaten her behind the scenes, be deported, or face a state misdemeanor charge if you don’t lie and say you were held against your will, that in itself, could present a host of other problems for the Feds case.  Read the seattle case, all the articles from Reason, and come back and tell me of this case isn’t exactly the same, except Federal Charges are involved.

Since when has fraud been victimless? Talk about good reasoning skills. Your attempt here is called a straw man -- no attempt to suggest we just don't enforce laws was present in my comment.

Why would I try to find that given that was not the claim. The claim was that those whose information gets collected during an investigation but are never directly charged with anything, and so never get their chance in court, enjoy the the presumption of innocence standard in our legal system. Releasing such personal information without ever charging the person is a violation of the due process protections in our legal system. Agents and officers know this as do all the people in their chain of command so doing something like that is rather rare. So  anyone who has not been formally charged with a crime enjoy the right to privacy and police and other legal agencies have an obligation to protect the privacy and confidentiality of the information in their possession.

So you're conflating police department policy with the law.  A police department can make a policy that you must smile every time you write a citation.  But there is no legal requirement to do so.

I like how we're calling $100k in legal bills, 6 months in jail while on trial, and a blacklist on your name for life is "fairly easy to dismantle."

I think I may have not properly expressed myself TRP. I am saying yes a federal indictment means you are fucked. No dispute there. I agree with nearly everything that you have posted. What I am saying is the Fed appear to be calling this human trafficking as propaganda, through indictment, but none of the evidence indicates that.

-- Modified on 11/11/2023 11:24:09 PM

Feds peruse client list of powerful ‘johns’ after bust of high-end prostitution ring

No straw man here.   You said the only reason the feds are involved is because of the commercial sex.  That's false.  Wire fraud and mail fraud are still very there.  He didn't have to use fake identities to obtain leases.  He could have started a company, put himself as an employee, paid himself a salary, and avoided a whole lot of this.

We haven't seen the evidence.  All we know is what's in the affidavit to hold someone without trial.  All they'll present are the minimum necessary facts to get him remanded without bail.  Unless you work for DOJ or have intimate knowledge about the DHS investigation, then you have no clue what evidence they have and what they don't.

First, like has already been posted earlier, you’re beating a dead horse.

After reading more links commercial buying of sex is indicted on per-state basis and is at most a misdemeanor.

Fair enough. That makes perfect sense, I didn’t mean to sound like I was questioning you. Let me ask you this, and this is the million dollar Q. Could the Feds charge all of the johns that they did not catch in the act, with any federal crimes that they are charging the 3 main players with? Ie those who appear on a list, or perhaps they have evidence of past visits? And would they just release the list to the public for anyone they did not charge? Could they do this in every single state where their search is expanding to, effectively ensnaring ever single John that visited a K-org, where the bookers did not delete the info? Hearing it from you, this sounds like the complete end of K-orgs.

All you presented is even more boogeyman. Be scared of hail, therefore you must confess. Which is about the worst advice you can give.  

No one ever said they would.  The people that don't cooperate get handed over to local PD.  The part about the witness list is a response to someone claiming how "it's easy" to go ahead and get a federal case thrown out.  I'm saying that's pretty ignorant and it's obvious they don't know how federal court works.

I mean mongers are not going to go anymore - the bookers did not destroy everyone’s number, personal information provided to them, and clearly kept a list.  

Should we change the board name? Perhaps The League of Extraordinary Dead Horse Beaters?

If it wasn't for these three named dim-wits and the confidential source, there would be no discussions about this.  Agencies that don't destroy personal information of clients will end up like our four named dim-wits, charged with a boatload of evidence against them.  Once you give the agency your personal information(your mistake/choice), the burden is on the agency.  There are no additional assumptions.  

I think you may misunderstand what I am saying. I am saying prior to the bust, the bookers clearly kept the entire client list. I don’t think that was anticipated, if the clients gave their information just to be screened for safety. I thought once its verified a client is paying, safe, and discreet on repeat visits, it is in both the booker and clients best interest to destroy personal information, before any type of bust occurs.

Once again, your point revolves around fear of jail, which is what all cops want you to have. Plenty of celebrities, athletes, etc ended up being held in custody for something briefly.  

It's not a felony to refuse to answer questions.  It's just dumb unless you're equipped to handle some jail time which would be payback for you giving HSI a hard time.

LOL

Cks, I didn't suggest we'd inform the org publicly or via text to a phone that are wired.

Huh? In my sixties? I'm in my thirties. And most people think I'm in late 20s.

Anyone who decides to talk should do so after being represented by an attorney when that attorney thinks it is a good time to do so.  The attorney will work out whatever benefits a cooperator gets (assuming the atty thinks its a good idea to cooperate in the first place).  Even if you are familiar with whatever situation you're in, and have an idea of what you should ask for; it should be done through a proxy.  Whatever you say or don't say can and will be used against you.  Even during negotiations during the cooperation arrangement, whatever you say can burn you.  There is a huge difference between a potential target/subject of an investigation asking for a deal out of their own mouths and an a knowledgeable legal representative working out a deal for them.  You aren't a target or subject? Well, blabbering can turn you into one in 0.1 seconds.

I think Rocket is kind of an edge case.  He's in his 30s but is open that if he went missing for 2 days no one at all would care.  I kind of feel bad for the guy.  I'm not in my 30s anymore, but I matter to a lot of people.  People would be looking for me if I just vanished.  Rocket doesn't have that.  He doesn't matter to anyone.

"I'm just amazed that with the fervor which people defend orgs none of them had the balls to try insider channels to at least top some ppl off. "

Like I've said obstruction of justice is a real charge there. And I wouldn't expect it to be anyone from mongers, so out of twenty chances were they weren't insiders or had some means of 100% safe warning.

From a thread in the Boston Forum:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/boston/news/cambridge-police-seek-charges-28-sex-buyers-brothel-bust/

And now those hearings are open to the media  

I wanna see some politicians names but i feel like they'll work their way out of that. Probably only see regular folks

From the article...

Seems like a lot of people do that for kgirls in Cali, at least name, phone, work info seems like the norm to get in nowadays

Seriously? Well, I don't know when that happened, but if it's true, it's a real tragedy.

Will be interesting to see if the hearings get nearly the same level of attention or interest as the initial reporting on the bust. My guess is that unless there are some well known names (nationally, regionally or locally) that come up it's a largely back page story that is forgotten almost as fast as the ink dries.

is known to be a high volume lease co-signer of incall locations (apartments).  To obtain multiple leases without creating suspicious with lease managers, he would use fake IDs and income documents. I'm guessing LE probably has a list of his "apartments."  Heard at least one independent kgirl vacated her in-call and now the suspect is left holding the lease without receiving lease payment from the kgirl.

Is there any link between this and the Boston Top Ten federal case?

The LA suspect was one of the three individuals linked to the Boston case.  Will LA local enforcement be investigating his apartments?  Probably not a high priority.

If true, likely the independent is another target for the feds and all other agencies/indepedent that used his services.  This guy has bigger problems on the horizon than his failed leases.

is the resident of Torrance named in the Affidavit for the Warrant.  It appears that they are related through shared DNA.  
Then, of course, there is the idiot who recently outed himself as having leased an apartment for a Kgirl (link below) who I quickly called out.  

What are your thoughts on the 28 being charged and outed?

Those independent kgirls who are connected to him may have already vacated their incalls and found another one. which is the case of one of my regulars.  Seriously, I doubt if the feds are interested in pursuing individual kgirls or agencies.  I think most crackdowns by LE are the result of complaints from neighbors.

Correct on everything Except it was not a defendant, it was a woman who has been convicted a long time ago and is serving  her sentence.

I'd be more worred about which of current three stooges flips.  Also, why is it that the feds only released the driver's license of one and not the other two?  Curious.  

Here it is.  

via a current dmv k-girl's reviews/profile to find this new site in BOS, https://www.geishastyles.com/geishas
after nov 2023 btt arrest, looks like k-org is going back ? any inside?

never mind, i found my answer in BOS local
https://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion-boards/boston-9/re-geishastylescom-has-taken-the-place-of-boston-top-ten-225465?page=1#225934