As this case develops we know have sentencing for the main defendant.  All of the defendants have now switched their plea to guilty.  The US Attorney's office wanted 6 years in prison followed by 3 years of supervised release for the main defendant.  She got 4 years in prison and 1 year supervised release.  As you are probably aware, there is no parole in federal prison, and she's already been in federal custody for over a year.  

 
Docket update from 3/19 below:

 
Some common arguments DOJ made was while they stipulated that this owner didn't actively coerce or threaten the women, since the women were in dire financial straits, mostly had no or expired immigration status, or had suffered childhood trauma, which means the women had no choice.  They called it "a choice for the choiceless" and likened it to a fentanyl dealer who claims their clients have choices.  The sentencing documents go into more detail, but almost all of the victims (the providers) had stories of hardship, addiction, or other issues where they said they would not engage in this line of work were it not for those conditions.

 
Like before that I've said, I see messages in here about people wanting to "help book appointments" or "count the money" or something where they engage in business behavior with these providers thinking they're on the inside track or it makes them feel special.  This is a terrible idea because a provider can report you for trafficking if they face deportation proceedings from committing another crime.  A provider can be arrested for DUI and negotiate for the charges to be dropped in exchange for handing over a trafficker and changing the story to make it look like you're compelling her to work.  We know one prime witness in this case was someone caught and about to be deported, but turned witness and gave mounds of evidence to DOJ in exchange for asylum in the US.

 
The 2nd and 3rd defendants of this case are going to be sentenced on 4/18 and 5/28, with the 5/28 defendant being the one who held out the longest with the not guilty plea.  The one who will be sentenced on 4/18 was basically a driver who picked up women from the airport, dropped them off at buildings, and took them grocery shopping.  All of the defendants needed public defenders because they couldn't afford counsel in Federal court, which can run $500/hour - $1,200/hour in litigation costs.  Some of the providers, identified as victims, are going to receive restitution from the defendants for them being placed into sex work, even though they were free to leave at any time and voluntarily consented to the work.

No coercion, no threats, no victim impact statements, no depositions of the victims, no projected testimony of the victims. I am also guessing the Feds took all of the girls money. Also guessing they have not found the victims a replacement source of income. Which makes me think this is about one thing: seizing money for which no taxes were paid. And super low hanging fruit. All that taxpayer money being spent to convict the buyers of misdemeanors and shame them publicly. Nearly every article I have read specifically avoids using the term ‘state misdemeanor’ for the buyers - which is all it is for the buyers.  They use the word ‘criminal charges’. Choice for the choiceless should read ‘the other choices involved less money for longer periods of work.’ 99% of us go to our jobs we do versus other lower paying jobs, because of economic coercion. The distinction here is that the the victim’s and buyers activity was illegal under state law.

That's not true.  They had them ready, but didn't need them as it's a guilty plea.  Victim impact statements are used in sentencing but weren't really needed here either as guidelines were more or less clear.They had testimony, but it wasn't needed as it's a guilty plea.  If a not-guilty trial had gone forward, the testimony would have been introduced as evidence.  But then the defendant would be facing 20-30 years for money laundering, trafficking, and fraud.This wasn't a tax case, it was a money laundering case.  You can commit crimes and just write "Illegal income" on your taxes and pay it.  You can even deduct certain expenses from illegal income, just not COGS for drugs and not bribes and kickbacks.  But you can deduct operating expenses.  Most criminals aren't aware of this though, so they launder the money instead and get in worse trouble.That would probably result in that district's US Attorney being out of the job.  The job is to convict criminals.  Not make practical statements on what the laws should be.  If you don't like the laws, then vote people into office who want to change them.This is a federal case.  People were crossed over state lines for the purposes of prostitution which is illegal federally.  Money laundering is also illegal.  Fraud is also illegal.  All federal statutes.

I think you're trying to use a term you don't fully understand.

Everything you are saying refers to the bookers. I am not referring to them. I am referring to the buyers. Did you see what the judge said to one of them at a hearing? ‘It’s a blip on the radar. It’s a misdemeanor. You will get through this.’ Or something like that. Its almost like SHE is admitting this is really over the top shit.

This was in response to one buyer who was among the first covid responders. Iirc he works in a women's hospital and his career there Id think is pretty much finished.

 
Talk is cheap. I'd be upset at the judge if that was me. This feels like a tone deaf pat on the back type of encouragement. Judge ain't never spent a second in this guy's shoes and the "you will get through this" is a baseless statement.

In fact, I'd probably then ask the judge if he/she had a misdemeanor to his/her name and faced public scrutiny for sex related arrest.  

And if not how the fuck can they say anything with conviction.. And this is also why I will never speak where my lawyer can do so for me. Lol.

-- Modified on 3/28/2025 1:00:51 AM

The fact that they are openly admitting the women were not coerced and were completely free to leave, and yet still charged the buyers and publicly shamed them (which is arguably worse than the misdemeanor charge itself), is the most telling aspect of the case.  And ALL of us go to work, to some extent, due to economic coercion.

Buyers were not a factor in this case.  This is the federal case.  It's a money laundering, racketeering, trafficking, and fraud case.

 
No judge spoke to a buyer at any hearing.  This case has nothing to do with solicitation.

The guy doesn't know what he's talking about anyways.  He's conflating a state case with the federal case against the organization.  This is a racketeering, money laundering, trafficking, and fraud case.  Has nothing to do with solicitation or any misdemeanors.  These are all federal crimes prosecuted by DOJ, not by some Massachusetts body.

 
Not like it's news to anyone, but the guys in here aren't that bright.  There's this thought that most customers around here are flush with cash, educated, and have good jobs, but I think a lot are kind of hanging on by a thread and digging into their social security checks for this hobby because they don't even understand basic concepts like Federal vs State jurisdiction.

None of that occurred in this case.  This is a federal case.  No buyers were spoken to nor appeared in court.  This is a money laundering, racketeering, fraud, and trafficking case.

 
The person above is confusing this federal case with some weird state case that no one cares about.  He doesn't know the difference between US Attorney's Office and some MA state body who prosecutes.  He doesn't understand the difference between superior court and US federal district court.

I am talking about the hearings against the buyers. I understand that is separate from the federal case.

That's some weird Commonwealth of MA stuff.  Has nothing to do with this case by DOJ.

TPR, again, I did not mean to say the case by the DOJ is against the buyers. I know it is not. You are very intelligent, in the way you write about it. Purely in the context that there was no coercion, the women were free to leave at any time, I find it outrageous that the state is charging and outing the buyers. That is all I am saying. This really reminds me of a case in Seattle that I read about. The police never actually spoke to any of the women (they admitted that), and had no idea where the women went after the ring was busted. And there were strong indications the women turned up again in other states in new escorts ads, months later. My grievances don’t really have to do with the department of justice bringing charges on money laundering. But to the extent the way the DOJ and the state law-enforcement frame the charges in front of the media. They are making it sound like they rescued women chained to a bed or something along those lines, ie more akin to kidnapping. It is a shield, like ‘wow look at us, we are heroes.’Almost every news article says the DOJ is referring the case to the state for criminal charges against the buyers. What that actually means, in layman’s terms is ‘I want you to bring misdemeanor charges against the buyers for buying prostitution, at a state level.’ That is all am I am saying, was not trying to contradict you.

no one really gives a fuck about the federal case against the agency people. Everyone here is a customer so the State case is what they care about.

I missed the part where someone forced you to click on the post and made you read it.  We should track those people down and make them issue you an apology.

Yeah, it's called effective messaging.  The public needs to get behind efforts to prosecute.  Without public buy-in it can be difficult to operate without interference.  The voters want these organizations and their customers punished.  It's prudent for the DA to get public acceptance to move forward.

 
The State of MA (or Commonwealth or whatever) is the one choosing to file legal actions against customers.  That's what the residents voted for, so that's what they get.  Seems you don't like the system.  You shield start a political movement to decriminalize prostitution.  I would support it.