Be careful out there.
And remember, never talk to cops. If you're under arrest, ask/get your lawyer. If you aren't, don't talk to the cops.
Or is this referring to something else. A lot of news articles about an agency running high end brothels in Boston and DC getting arrested.
One of their current (rather pre-bust) employees who was here under a different name with a different agency a few months back just reached out to me 2 days ago as she arrived in town to come see her.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj8kgw/the-pot-brothers-at-law-want-you-to-shut-the-fuck-up-around-cops
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTurSi0LhJs
HAHAHAHAAH this is Awesome!!
Guys needs to understand this!! if they stop you leaving PLEASE Shut the F****** you don't need to tell the what you were doing inside!!!
Can we get some links to news articles about this?
I don't know that agency
I don't think I ever used them
CNN had decent coverage and an imbedded link to the 66 page affidavit that is an interesting read.
The agency required a lot of verification information that is now in the hands of the Federal authorities. IMHO the only thing that was "high end" were the apartments they used as in-calls. I have a hard time classifying any Agency as "high end" when they offer bareback services in their pricing.
Scary stuff!
Site has been seized pursuant to a warrant for conspiracy against the US and human trafficking. Remember, human trafficking of willing participants is still illegal. FMTY is human trafficking.
No relation to Moon Palace.
asking for a friend
good to know.
-- Modified on 11/9/2023 10:26:51 PM
What are you doing ???
Please edit your post asap
Were these other two agencies involved? Their websites are down.
A few others are down too like BOS - maybe they are just laying low for now?
Wondering if the original post got it wrong. BEG site is still up, SA is down.
And I know SA is part of a rotation that includes LA and Boston.
here or to a bunch of news stories in a bunch of news outlets.
BEG was specifically named in a federal affidavit related to the arrest of 3 Asians charged with running multiple brothels in MA and VA.
-- Modified on 11/10/2023 10:16:28 AM
The careless manner with which they maintained client information is the glaring point in all of this. Why not delete the information once they have been verified and keep a client ID number and a phone number?
And will the rest delete this information...
Are you making the assumption that the 20 customers interviewed BEFORE the bust were identified via the agency screening data?
Why even keep the number though (even though that will already be available via the telcos)? Just make a hash based on the number and some other input customers would be told to provide in their future requests (be it their "name" or some shared term). Hell they could even start using two facto auth to send a one time code like your bank probably does to prevent any phone number spoofing by LE or others.
But I'm with you that all that information could be deleted rather than kept. What I current don't know, and don't really think anyone else does as I didn't notice any mention in the affidavit, is if the fed have or don't have such a listing. Not saying it is some unjustified inference but just that it's not actually a documented fact -- but if I missed that please point me to the source.
I'm talking post bust. The 20 guys who snitched after they got confronted, were identified through good ol surveillance. I'm talking about their customer lists, which have been alleged to have been seized...and potential license information...
Based on my read of the affidavit, the only thing we know the Feds have for sure are booker phone records that could help identify “potentially hundreds” of customers.
That’s not to say they don’t have more info, but there’s no indication that the Feds actually got their hands on screening info.
While a bit of a side topic, if they were already staking out the locations (or at least some) letting the activities continue for nearly a year after they had deposed suspects that confessed seems a bit problematic. Especially if the claim is going to be there was any coercive human trafficking involved in the charges -- or at at least the public statements about the charges.
As solid as these current charges are (or at least seem to be), there, I don’t think they are too worried about any critics calling the length of time problematic. First, there’s no claim of coercive trafficking in the charges. Second, there’s no telling at what point the brothel surveillance occurred in the investigation.
Now that’s not to say there’s no criticism. Local post-bust news coverage in Boston has focused on anti-trafficking groups calling for arrests of the customers. But the Feds have coverage on that criticism, “We don’t charge state prostitution statutes, the local agencies do”.
Sex trafficking survivors and a former prosecutor who spoke with NBC10 Boston Thursday said the sex buyers should be charged.
"Anyone who breaks the law, their name should be in the paper as well, because if the buyer didn't show up, this body wouldn't have been sold," said Audrey Morrissey, a survivor who is now the co-executive director of My Life My Choice, a nonprofit working to end commercial sexual exploitation.
One thing that might benefit the DC area customers is that no local Virginia law enforcement agency was involved in the investigation, in contrast to the Boston area, where Cambridge police were directly involved.
It ain't over til it's over. Investigations are ongoing, but you do you.
Not sure that VA will be in any different position than MA regarding the customers. Wait to see what interest locals have in pursuing the clients.
The video in the link was interesting. My thoughts there are:
a) The attitude being expressed that all sex-workers are exploited is both wrong and dangerous (for both sides here).
b) A bit as was the case when the bust of the League guys happened back in 2015(?) the excessive claims and misrepresentations made will come back to bite.
To the extent the public mind is more like the all sex workers are exploited and all clients are exploitive men with huge power advantages then we likely will see see a lot of people brought in for trial or confessions. But given the time the Feds let this go on, and the way the affidavit seems to be more toned down in terms of descriptions those court cases will likely start shifting attitudes away from such a stance. (Would that make these clients martyrs for the cause?)
I would also hope that those who are advocating the all are exploited angel will learn lumping all cases into their basket to make their case is likely counter productive. First, it's likely increasing the risk to those where this is a voluntary, consensual transaction AND in the end taking away interest in their cause because they will be seen as calling wolf when no wolf existed. The latter is really bad for the actual victims of sexual exploitation and sexual enslavement/human trafficking.
The comment from the one lady in the video about 15 girls all in the same room clearly shows they don't actually understand what is going on with these K-agencies.
Keep in mind that human trafficking of a willing participant is illegal under the same statute.
Mot necessarily directly relevant here but those offering FMTY are inviting you to commit a federal offense.
Removed descriptions and donations from their website.
DS, BOS, and APC sites are all down and HT showing zero offerings. I’m guessing CP will not replace Purple when she leaves and run silent for a bit too. AG still running with two, and one of them just started today.
We might have to start seeing “reputable providers” now, lol.
DS is not down, at least not anymore. Not much there though.
Btw, her photos do not come close to doing her justice - she is DDG, young & firm, and her performance is Off the Charts! Ive is a definite repeat for me!
I think they are a small operation. SA and BEG were part of big network, hence why they were busted
Where is the news about SA/LLV getting busted? Was that part of the BA bust someone less mentioned (in the election year thread)?
Fyi - I pmd the person who started that thread - our common friend - and I couldn't get any specifics.
As far as I know all ba orgs are operational. There were some crazy posts on public boards/semi-public groups but they were, Im 99% sure of it, troll posts.
All private groups indicate no bust in ba.
There isn't as a recent bust in the bay - operation phoenix - but they have targeted motel Latina joints in that one.
Ritually slaughter a chicken and find a haruspex to inspect its liver and entrails for clues to your future?
Or, maybe hire a lawyer?
Yeah, it is really too late to be asking that question now. Probably should have been thinking about that when you started playing in the P4P field.
They don't have any evidence that you actually had sex for money unless the girl you met is willing to testify or unless you did something really stupid like text the MMS to say you had a really great time having sex for money. Even if there is security footage of you going into a place and leaving an hour later, that isn't evidence of a crime unless you do something stupid like tell the police you were never there.
There’s not much one can do. At this point, all we know for sure they would have is a list of approved phone numbers.
Now, but if you’re one of the VIP customers (politicians, military officers, contractors with security clearances), you could always retain a lawyer ahead of time, but hopefully you never get contacted and you don’t need the lawyer to negotiate anything for you.
.
people are routinely convicted of crimes based on nothing more than circumstantial evidence. a smoking gun isn't absolutely necessary.
.
if prosecutors have text messages between you and a known prostitution organization arranging an appointment with a specific girl at a specific date/time for a specific donation, judges and juries are allowed to make common sensical inferences. if you followed up your appointment with a text saying, "she was great," or anything along those lines, that's evidence you followed through with appointment.
.
but with that said, i'd be surprised if local prosecutors spend the time and resources to go after these misdemeanor charges. it's possible, but i doubt it. also, the statute of limitations for charging solicitation in VA & MA is one year, so they'd only be able to charge clients who patronized the orgs within the last year. if you haven't used them since 2022, you should be clear.
.
the prosecutor whetted the media's appetite by saying the list contains the names of politicians and other public figures. now media is going to do everything in its power to force the courts to release it. the list's release would obviously lead to embarrassment and some wrecked marriages, but in this day and age i could also see it leading to people being fired from their jobs. even if you're not charged, employers won't want to be seen employing a supposed "sex trafficker".
.
-- Modified on 12/27/2023 6:21:45 PM
FYI, a smoking gun is circumstantial evidence.
Clicked on the BEG website today and it went to a page that said the domain had been seized by 5he police.
Given the extensive discussion in this forum, as well as several others, what inspired you to go. Not that I think it's a real risk but I would better than even odds that your IP is now logged with the FBI or other Federal agencies. Depending on how privacy savvy you are you might also have provide some location information as well. So hope you were at least using a VPN, ideally one that doesn't log and is based outside the USA.
the affidavit had both links literally anyone in the US that read the affidavit could’ve accessed the websites since both that got sites that got seized were linked in the documents
No shit. But why then would anyone here feel the need to go visit the site? Perhaps he didn't know but then that makes reading these forums slightly more valuable to people.
Yes, lots of people might have clicked the link because they read the affidavit -- though I suspect that would be a minority of people who saw the headline or actually read the new stories. But I'm sure you're aware of things like "big data" and the companies that aggregate all the information that social networks, location/navigation services, telcos/mobile and auto companies sell then package that specifically for local LE use and investigation. All without anyone needing to have a specific warrant for the information about any particular person.
As I said, I think the risk is low -- but that is true about giving out your PII in screening in general, to which most here say "DON'T DO!!!!". So if you're concerned about giving that type of information out the last thing someone should be doing is going to a seized site and providing some information directly to LE. There is absolutely nothing to be gained but a little to lose -- or more correctly a small chance of losing a lot.
Based on what’s been reported, it seems most of the clients targeted are in Boston, but the Virginia prosecutor is being pushed to bring charges as well.
Agencies may be looking for a solid basis to take personnel actions and/or revoke security clearances.
I think they are trying to squeeze the guys caught at the locations into testifying with threats of local procecution. Which the guys shouldn't do, their names will come out if they testify in open court. And the Feds don't control the local prosecution.
We've seen that it's difficult to convict johns even when they're caught at the location unless it's a felony (e.g. the girls are underage). And it's difficult to convict the women if they won't testify. I guess the Feds can share the list with employers and the public, but if they aren't prosecuting the guys whose names are publicized they might be opening themselves up to lawsuits, etc. I don't see how they can hope to convict guys based on someone just having a name and other info that might be public.
It looks like they have enough on the financial side to convict the people running BEG. We'll see what happens, but I wouldn't be surprised if the whole sex trafficking aspect of this blows up and goes away. That's happened with so many of these highly publicized prostitution busts over the years.
This isn't finished yet. At least in Boston.
We'll see. Looks like they're trying to squeeze these guys to testify.
I think they are trying to squeeze the guys caught at the locations into testifying with threats of local procecution. Which the guys shouldn't do, their names will come out if they testify in open court. And the Feds don't control the local prosecution.
We've seen that it's difficult to convict johns even when they're caught at the location unless it's a felony (e.g. the girls are underage). And it's difficult to convict the women if they won't testify. I guess the Feds can share the list with employers and the public, but if they aren't prosecuting the guys whose names are publicized they might be opening themselves up to lawsuits, etc. I don't see how they can hope to convict guys based on someone just having a name and other info that might be public.
It looks like they have enough on the financial side to convict the people running BEG. We'll see what happens, but I wouldn't be surprised if the whole sex trafficking aspect of this blows up and goes away. That's happened with so many of these highly publicized prostitution busts over the years.
i'm not sure i understand how publicly releasing the list would open up the feds to lawsuits? the list is simply evidence they gathered in a case. they didn't create the list. they're just showing you what they found, like a crime scene photo.
.
granted, if they provided commentary when they released the list, accusing the men of being sex purchasers, that added commentary could be the basis of a lawsuit. but if they simply release the list with no commentary, other than: "this is the information found on the sex traffickers' phones", i don't see anything actionable. it is factually accurate that the info was on those phones. the truth is always an affirmative defense.
.
Nobody has any idea what happened inside the apartment, except the John and the Ho. Releasing a list of names is reckless. They should be sanctioned. What's worse is that these prosecutors are not going after the murders, rapist, and real thugs in the name of a headline. SAD. Real crime is up, not down.
releasing the list by itself, without commentary, isn't making any claims about what happened inside the hotel room. that was my point. the list itself is merely a factual record. if the public draws inferences from it, that's their prerogative.
.
to be clear, I do NOT want the list released. i agree that it would terrible, particular as the people involved were no violent offenders. they were adults engaged in a consensual activity. i'm just trying to look at this from a purely legal standpoint and play devil's advocate. i don't see how releasing a fact ("these names appeared on the agency list") is actionable. i hope i'm wrong.
.
I don't think that would fly in the presence of the Constitutional Due Process rule. That would very much be creating the impression of some guilt or misbehavior and if they are not saying these are people of interest then the names should be kept private.
That said, IIRC, everyone on that list were "interviewed" by the feds and apparently admitted their crime. But that to me raises the question of just why the incentive to push for publishing the list before any arraignment for charges? My take it it is election year -- which, like emergencies making bad law, always makes for the bad application of law.
It's vigilante justice. Except instead of a lynch mob, it's the internet. A list of names is not fact. We don't know what was admitted or not.. If a prosecutor releases the names of suspects of your loved one's robbery/rape/murder how is that fact? These prosecutors that do this to further their personal-political endeavers should be sanctioned. I suppose it's a way to deflect their inability to prosecute real crime.
What we don’t know is what happened during the other 27 interviews. It’s safe to assume that these 27 individuals possibly exposed themselves to varying degrees of culpability. Did some hand over their phones? Did some flat out admit they had engaged in prostitution? That we don’t know.
What we do know is that LE is moving to press charges because they believe they have enough evidence (circumstantial?) to secure a conviction. Whether the magistrate accepts these charges remains to be seen.
Which document?
The affidavit released 11/8 reads:
"11. Approximately twenty (20) sex buyers were interviewed in connection with this multi-yearlong investigation."
There’s a long thread in the Boston forum that links to news reports pegging the number at 28.
lol, show me the news report that states, as you stated, "28 individuals were stopped".
You’re correct. The affidavit refers to approximately 20 interviews and LE is attempting to get charges against 28 individuals. The local news reports don’t say that all 28 came from the group of approximately 20 mentioned in the original affidavit.
Some of my pure speculations:
While I certainly want to believe that 28 were the ones that got stopped, that might not be entirely true.
The affidavit mentioned around 20 are interviewed. That includes all locations in MA and VA. The complaints filed now are solely in Cambridge, MA, yet the number has reached nearly 30.
The SJC filings by the 13 individuals who intervened in the legal proceedings suggested some of those unlucky dudes were not notified about the proceedings until early to mid January. That could either mean the NTA delivery really took a while, or they didn’t expect this to be happening in the first place.
I hope I’m wrong.
If you dump the burner, it's not really clear that they have anything. Even so, the texts don't explicitly indicate money for sex. The probable cause hearing is just a fishing expedition to boost someone's career. I guess it's not sexy enough to convict your plain vanilla murderer, carjacker, or rapist. Media is enabling it. SAD.
I agree what you said. When you look at the cases that the USAO has been working on, countless minors involved real trafficking cases that they repeatedly referred as 'heinous crimes' were not leading into publicized client-centric investigations. Makes it hard to not believe that it's for gaining political/career leverage.
IMHO, feds don't usually get the ball rolling until they have evidence to secure convictions. It's a blessing and a curse. While the burden of proving a case may be higher than state level investigations, meaning that they probably won't strive for the number of individuals charged, perused cases will pose overwhelming challenges for the individuals involved.
If you dump the burner, it's not really clear that they have anything. Even so, the texts don't explicitly indicate money for sex. The probable cause hearing is just a fishing expedition to boost someone's career. I guess it's not sexy enough to convict your plain vanilla murderer, carjacker, or rapist. Media is enabling it. SAD.
the text may be problematic, even if they don't explicitly mention pay-for-play. people are routinely convicted of crimes based on nothing more than circumstantial evidence. a smoking gun isn't absolutely necessary. if prosecutors have text messages between you and a known prostitution organization arranging an appointment with a specific girl at a specific date/time for a specific donation, judges and juries are allowed to make common sensical inferences.
.
Unless I am not recalling correctly, the interviews of the customers was mentioned in the affidavit.
Two things are for sure. 1. Giving your personal, work, and driver's license information is a mistake; 2. STFU when being questioned by LEO. Hard lessons for the 28.
i think you're misunderstanding constitutional due process. due process regulates how defendants are charged and tried. it doesn't regulate the public release of evidence collected in the course of a bona fide investigation.
.
in other words, due process doesn't prevent the feds from releasing factual evidence because the public may draw conclusions from those facts.
.
in fact, the opposite it true. the constitution clearly allows people, and the government, to report facts. facts can't be suppressed simply because someone might draw an undesirable or even erroneous conclusion.
.
it's called free speech. of course free speech isn't unlimited, but one of the only ways you could be sued for speech is if the information you provide is factual untrue. there's no exception that you can be sued for saying something factually accurate simply because people might draw conclusions from those facts. the government has free speech rights too.
I would say you are confusing free speech rights and government powers. The Constitution protects the people's right to speech and the Constitution defines the powers the people granted to the government.
You might be correct in a narrow interpretation that the Constitutional Due Process protections don't define the government's ability regarding the release of such information. That is not a cut and dried view, and some have argued that releasing such information without charges can deprive the individuals of their live, liberty or property due to clearly anticipable reputational damage. But even if not, the potential for legal headaches for releasing such information early on will likely give the local agency some pause.
Here are a few cases where police/government did as you suggest that they are allowed:
(LLM searches are helpful)
1. Glik v. City of New York (2007): Daniel Glik, a freelance journalist, was detained and his name released to the media during a protest. Though charges were later dropped, he sued the city for defamation and false imprisonment, arguing the release of his name damaged his reputation. He won a $75,000 settlement.
2. Doe v. City of Chicago (2015): An unnamed woman ("Jane Doe") sued the city after police released her name and mugshot following an arrest for shoplifting, despite charges being dropped. She argued the public identification caused emotional distress and reputational harm. The city settled for $425,000.
3. Doe v. City of Boston (2018): Another "Jane Doe" sued the city after police released her name and mugshot for allegedly making a false rape report. Though no charges were filed, the public identification led to harassment and threats. The city settled for $1.1 million.
4. Doe v. Suffolk County District Attorney (2020): An individual ("John Doe") sued the district attorney's office after they released his name and details while investigating a possible crime, despite never charging him. He argued the identification damaged his employment prospects and reputation. He won a $450,000 settlement.
These are just a few examples, and the specific legal landscape can vary depending on the jurisdiction and specific circumstances. However, they demonstrate that individuals can successfully sue for damages when police or government agencies release identifying information that harms their reputation, especially if charges are not filed.
(end search info)
One of the factors that help win in court is where the government releases the information with malice or recklessness. While it's not clear that the push to have local police release the names is out of malice but clearly could be argued such an action would be reckless. After all, the names are being associated with a well publicized case about human trafficking. If it were later found that the names were released because some were politicians/or high ranking staffers and had the look of some political motivation (that might be called malice) but everyone else got named to make it look better, well I think that would quickly become a serious legal issue.
To the extent that these cases were able to recover damages suggests that the government's actions in releasing the information without good cause did in fact deprive, and as the clear proximate cause of the deprivation, of "life, liberty or property" without the due process of law.
I don't think that would fly in the presence of the Constitutional Due Process rule. That would very much be creating the impression of some guilt or misbehavior and if they are not saying these are people of interest then the names should be kept private.
That said, IIRC, everyone on that list were "interviewed" by the feds and apparently admitted their crime. But that to me raises the question of just why the incentive to push for publishing the list before any arraignment for charges? My take it it is election year -- which, like emergencies making bad law, always makes for the bad application of law.
i think you're misunderstanding constitutional due process. due process regulates how defendants are charged and tried. it doesn't regulate the public release of evidence collected in the course of a bona fide investigation.
.
in other words, due process doesn't prevent the feds from releasing factual evidence because the public may draw conclusions from those facts.
.
in fact, the opposite it true. the constitution clearly allows people, and the government, to report facts. facts can't be suppressed simply because someone might draw an undesirable or even erroneous conclusion.
.
it's called free speech. of course free speech isn't unlimited, but one of the only ways you could be sued for speech is if the information you provide is factual untrue. there's no exception that you can be sued for saying something factually accurate simply because people might draw conclusions from those facts. the government has free speech rights too.
It's a semantics game anyways of pay for play.
But during pandemic I thought liberal cities and states stopped wasting resources and DAs said they only care about tracking.
Did Boston not get the memo?
Boston’s receiving pressure from both the Feds and the public to release the names of the 28 clients. And the only way to release the names is to press charges, hence the move to prosecute.
Elite screening
They seem to want all your information. I understand wanting to keep everyone safe. I wouldn’t think potential clients would want to risk identity fraud or information being hacked or in wrong hands
Elite does have heavy screening; they want your DL, work ID and alot of PII.
Not to mention the recent agency take- downs with client info probably ending up in LE hands.
Reports now say these agencies were "honey pot" operations set up to ensnare government officials. This could all get pretty interesting before it's all over.
As they said on Hill Street Blues, "Let's be careful out there".
Since BEG and BTT clients gave all their personal/work info, I could see blackmail for money; but, blackmail for international espionage is a stretch. It does make for a sexy tabloid story.
And now I have seen that people are retweeting this nonsense.
How many days/weeks till dudes in P&R will be parroting this? 
Internet can be a fascinating/scary game of telephone sometimes
The mainstream media is currently in the process of trying to conflate Trump's business income with Biden's grifting from foreign entities. Don't talk to me about "yellow journalism" when it's prevalent in your own back yard. Furthermore, outlets like TMZ and DM have broken a lot of stories that MSM couldn't or wouldn't investigate.
What's MSM?
I cant call yellow journalist outlets yellow journalism because there are other yellow journalist outlets? Lol. Funny logic.
TMZ, while being sensationalist, isn't as yellow because at least they get most if not all their stories/facts right. And they get it right because they actually pay their street sources so their rumors and breaking news are legit.
The information in this article is nonsense and really very off the actual affidavit, which I'm certain 99% of readers of dailymail won't ever bother to actually read
This lends itself to the following retweets, with 1.5m views as of right now:
http://twitter.com/shrampmannne/status/1742595652712828980
Will any reader care to know if the workers were actually Chinese? Ahhh who cares about the truth right?
Like I've said give it a few iterations of inputting faulty info through the pipeline, and then feeding the faulty output back again for the telephone game feedback loop, and we will have a story that has almost nothing to do with the actual korg and it's operations and/or clients.
But it will be a story heavily discussed for political purposes.
And that's why I despise politics and politicians and people who put spins on things for a living. Yuck.
Call it what you will and be critical of their particular bent as you like. Nevertheless, you won't see clips like this in the mainstream media (MSM) because they continually hide things from the general public. (Unless you think the Daily Mail faked this video as well.)
I'm not interested in political articles and I'm not really that interested in dailymails credit.
The point here is that article has misinformation on misinformation riding on misinformation. I'm not even sure it can can be called misinformation because it's clearly designed in a way to present false facts into a coherent conspiracy theory story. It's basically lying on purpose.
Unfortunately I'm not a fan of pushing lies. Not a fan at all, in fact I'm the opposite.
This is an outright lie designed, I believe, for political purposes for a certain contingent to eat it up.
Kinda off topic but... back when internet was just starting out, I was young and naive and thought since it had all kinds of info people in the future to get better and read up on, bypassing the tv and other form of standard media.
What happened, of course, is that a lot of people aren't really unterested in reading source docs and really painting a truthful picture for themselves, thus requires too much time and effort. They just want outlets that align closely to their outlook to digest and spoonfeed them info, no matter if the info is perverted and misconstrued. Alas, it's a shame.
Kinda off topic but... back when internet was just starting out, I was young and naive and thought since it had all kinds of info people in the future to get better and read up on, bypassing the tv and other form of standard media.
Well, the internet as basis of what information sharing would become.
I think the distinction between the two is not very important here.
The article has no real facts that supports anything. It's just an article of suppositions. Additionally, a regular hobbist that frequents similar establishments KNOW the inconsistancies of the affadivit and that article. Bottomline, those three idiots got busted because they were sloppy and stupid. The only motivation for them was financial gain. Any blackmail of clients would've reduced their client base, which was making them a ton of money. Makes zero sense.
The prosecutors are pushing to get the clients’ names released next week, so that minimizes the odds that this was a honeypot operation. If it had been, the FBI would have taken over the case and I doubt we would hear anything about it.
Fox 5 had a quick blurb this morning that the investigation / releasing of the 30+ names was put on hold by the Judge. Still referred to those as “politicians, Military and those holding security clearances
Excellent summary. A more detailed explanation can be found in a similar thread in the Boston forum.
A date for the hearings has not been selected
NO. Lesson needs to be learned by all hobbyists. DO NOT support such agency when they become too big. And do not support anyone that wants DL.
Given that everyone knows where to find the updates and following it seems more about the spectacle than anything else I agree that the thread should probably be left to recede to the past.
I also agree that the issue you're pointing to are suitable for discussion here, and have been discusses quite often. Everyone has their own takes on what the risks are and what level they are comfortable with. However, I don't agree that this case teaches the lesson you're claiming. We have no idea if ANY of the 28 people are potentially to be named/charged due to their information being in the client DB. We do know that the affidavit says 20 were interviewed after leaving (I the building I think it said, not the room). The affidavit does not need to, and I don't think should be read as saying, only 20 people were interviewed.
Last, if we're really going to say that it was the client DB that got these people's names in the hands of LE then is the claim that only 28 people provided that type of screening information? Seems very unlikely. Given the low likelihood that only 28 provided that type of screening information and the potential number of clients, then depending on your assessment of the number of clients in the DB that risk of getting busted from having your contact in the list starts getting pretty low.
The lesson to be learned from this case seems to be the old one: STFU.
"Last, if we're really going to say that it was the client DB that got these people's names in the hands of LE then is the claim that only 28 people provided that type of screening information? Seems very unlikely. Given the low likelihood that only 28 provided that type of screening information and the potential number of clients, then depending on your assessment of the number of clients in the DB that risk of getting busted from having your contact in the list starts getting pretty low.
"
This is a weird claim. I thought you followed the case?
Those 28 clients were hand-picked by the prosecution because prosecution thinks they have the most incentive to divulge info. In other words, this is a move to recruit snitches out of people who prosecution thinks have the most to lose. To coerce them into more info. And if not, just a public execution of their character.
I vaguely remember people saying that you shouldn't worry about giving your pii info and those who are, are fools for worrying about it. Something something safety of the girl is more important and it's standard procedure.
Shit even I thought with how stable things are maybe I give my info to the only agency I'm not in, in the bay area. After this Boston bust went down, I made a vow to never, ever divulge my personal info to any org agency or sex worker until sw becomes legal. This shit ain't worth it. It would be good for everyone who said otherwise to say "we were wrong", but I doubt we'd hear that out of them.
So if there is a lesson, is that if you got something to lose, never give your pii. In this case, rather be a John doe than be judged by 12. Shit the judged by 12 doesn't even matter. The names of these people being out in public is already a severe punishment, inflicting far more damage to their lives than any solicitation charge could ever.
Did you get put in some time out for all the time you've been silent these past few weeks?
Nothing weird about the claim and nothing like you want to interpret the quoted passage as. What is weird is thinking that will all the concerns about screening on the point of PII that a big organization like the one that was bused on the trafficking charges would only have about 30 names the feds could dig up. Moreover, nothing I've seen in the affidavit or otherwise heard about (and no, I'm not following this beyond what is said here) all the people of interest were identified from the contact lists. Rather, they mostly appear to be those interviewed by the feds when confronted after leaving the building who would not keep their mouth shut.
Hmmm, did I have a comment about the way early in the thread you were so take with?
I believe it was something about not listening to the advice someone was giving about talking to federal agents because they don't care about the local level stuff so you don't have anything to worry about. I think my claim was you should keep your mouth shut in that case. Well, unless someone is going to show that all these people are in the boat they are in was due to having given the PII information in their screening then I'm staying with the lesson from this case has nothing to do with what information is given in screening and all about knowing STFU.
Seems that your challenged logic wants to claim that such a statement about this specific case and lessons learned from it is somehow saying it's okay for any and everyone to give information they are not comfortable giving out.
I dont see what this has to do with anything, but no I didn't get put on a timeout. I'm a binger by nature.
Who said the org only has 30 names to dig up? I don't get it. I also don't see the connection between people being interviewed (I think we agreed there that they should've stfu) and the 28 people whose names are about to become public.
The affidavit made sure to mention multiple times the stature of some people on the list. Not the people they interviewed. But the high ranked executives, military guys etc.
I think you're mistaken, I was talking about people who say we have nothing to worry about when giving pii info to orgs. There's a whole lot to worry about, especially if you got a lot to lose. And it's not some phantom bogeyman anymore, the dire example is in front of our very eyes. Our fellow mongers will be dragged through dirty simply for having contact info on the list. If instead they used a fake name they'dbe in the clear.
No one has made the claim "we have nothing to worry about". It's always been pointed out that it creates a risk and each person needs to assess just what that risk is for them and if they can live with/through having the spotlight shining on them.
This case, however, has not made clear that the people to be named came from the contact list, has not refuted that but has not stated it either. As I've noted a few times, releasing that type of information without actually charging the person (and even sometimes even if they were charged) can be construed as a 4th Amendment violation and has resulted in successful law suits by those harmed due to officials releasing that personal information. It's also the case that in both Boston and DC quite a few military and corporate executives have access to some very sensitive information. They all have clearances and likely all have to take life-style polygraph tests periodically. In other words, they are known to the government, face, home address, work place, known associates and usual activities.
In a longish running investigation like this, is it really likely that the feds are going to just start randomly confronting men leaving the complex to see if they were seeking K-girls? Just how many guys need to get stopped before you get to that 20 number? A lot I think and, probably before you get that far, that someone is watching is not going to be a secret. But, if they are confronting people they know about and that the person doesn't seem to have a good reason for being there odds of getting the guy that just let the agency appointment are much higher and the presence of a surveillance team not common knowledge.
Some might also just ask how this case all got started. Was it really just when the guy and the new girl got picked up at the LA airport? Or was that perhaps due to prior events that lead to a desire to have some trafficking case. We are talking about people with access. There have also been a number of pretty bad information leaks and spying cases. If someone didn't quite pass their periodic polygraph test that might have start someone looking at them. That leads to a K-girl apartment. That leads to concerns that it is some front for espionage. That leads to finding some more high profile people. That then leads to shutting it all down under the guise of some sex trafficking operation. That then leads to the confrontations and interviews, the acknowledgement that there are politicians, military and corp execs involved and then the push by some to have those high profile names released regardless of any legal process.
Speculative, yes.
The point, is that, as of yet, there is not lesson here about how people screen any more than any other bust that has occurred. Nor does the push to have some names released in this case seem to have any clear import for the risk the average Joe might have (very low in my opinion but that is not a good reason to ignore the risk for those with a lot to loose). On the issue of PII in screening or not, this case does not change the arguments at all. That was my point.
However, this case does clearly reinforce the STFU argument. And THAT is the lesson people should be taking from it.
Polygraph tests are not admissible in regular court, and even in military court one can easily refuse any polygraph testing and it won't impact their case. So let's put this one away, I have no clue why this is being discussed. And it's not very relevant to the topic we're discussing.
Yes, people have made claims that the risk is negligible, citing lack of busts and/or list exposals.
Now there is a precedent and many will think a long time before divulging their pii. At least I'd hope so. Now when anyone says this about agencies, I would hope that people would cite this case as a reason why you can't be too careful.
I have no idea hoa your speculation how the case got started is relevant to the topic. But I don't even know why speculate. The affidavit is pretty clear on this and considering it is written under oath, there is little incentive for investigators to lie.
The case got started because a confidential informant - a korean woman serving a prison sentence - asked someone in the know about starting an org, in exchange for some immigration/sentence favor.
That's why I've been trying to pin down who these two women are. One is a prison snitch who got the org managers in jail and mongers on trial. The other is the one who told her the info. If we find the latter, we find the snitch.
What does admissibility in court have to do with anything here?
Right, I had forgot about the informant. However, that still doesn't really explain the selection of the people to be "interviewed" during the year or so the operation was on-going. Or if the people some want to have named came from the interviews or from a client list. Everyone here wants to just assume it all comes from the client db and that everyone on that list is at risk of getting their name called out. That's not known from what has been made public and, in the latter case, highly unlikely for the average monger. (Which is NOT the same as saying there is no risk so feel free to give that information when screening.)
Perhaps I should go back and read to see if the informant gave up some client names, but until someone says that these people were in the contact list AND that is why they are getting charged or named, the case is just another bust and my point that there is no new or stronger lesson here about giving up PII in screen but rather a lesson about STFU still stands.
As for the last bit, "we" may learn who the snitches were because they were the ones that did not STFU when confronted by the agents for their "interview". The informant was giving up information about the agencies, not clients, I suspect.
You mentioned polygraph testing in high security clearance environments. This doesn't actually happen afaik because polygraph technology has less-than-ideal reliability. When something hovers from 60 to 90%, no one can make a conclusion and hence why polygraph tests are largely useless. People with high security clearance lie and get away with it all the time. I have no clue why you brought up polygraph testing at all.
"Everyone here wants to just assume it all comes from the client DB".
This stems from prosecutors words, but yes - it's not 100% known. You maintain that all these names are people who talked? You have no evidence there at all.
"Perhaps I should go back and read to see if the informant gave up some client names, but until someone says that these people were in the contact list AND that is why they are getting charged or named, the case is just another bust and my point that there is no new or stronger lesson here about giving up PII in screen but rather a lesson about STFU still stands.
"
The client names were exposed. Many orgs say they delete your pii info once you pass screening - and that's obviously a lie. How is this not an example of why to not give your pii to an agency that does prostitution?
I know it may be difficult for you, but for once try to think from client only perspective. If there are alternatives to giving out your pii info, why would you ever give out your pii info knowing the feds can get their hands on how many times you visited, your full identity and so forth. Why?
"As for the last bit, "we" may learn who the snitches were because they"
The snitch in my bit was an obvious one. I guess because she's a woman you don't want to call her a snitch? But that's exactly who she is. Instead of doing her time like a g and keeping her mouth shut, she is the one ultimately responsible for all this. There's a solid chance she may be a former kgirl too.
So I want to learn who she is and who the other woman is who passed her info leading to the org brass who were arrested.
The polygraphs still exist but are not universal -- even within particular domains (e.g, military at a given access level).
No, I'm not saying the snitch was the informant because she was a woman. I'm saying that because I think she was snitching on the agency rather than clients. The guys that caved when interviewed were the snitches for mongers. Do you have some information that says she turned over client lists? The whole operation doesn't strike me as some client/customer sting to collect a bunch of Johns but one about claiming some agency is engaged in sex trafficking.
"The client names were exposed. Many orgs say they delete your pii info once you pass screening - and that's obviously a lie. How is this not an example of why to not give your pii to an agency that does prostitution? "
That is very true (I assume they got a list when the bust occurred). But you similarly don't have any statements saying the people who might be named are in that position because they are on some list.
I have personally been on at least two client lists at agencies that have been busted. I have have ZERO indication that the police ever looked into me.
That gets to the crux of the matter. If you are on such a list what exactly are the risks you face? The flip side is that some really want to see the girls but worry about having that information potentially retained and LE getting its hands on their name. We don't get anything from this story that indicates that somehow the level of risk should be considered different than is has been for years so what is the lesson you claim is being learned here?
Again. my argument here is not that it's fine for everyone to give out that information. That is NOT the case. Some people are at great risk if their name gets in the hands of LE in such a situation. But that is not your average Joe.
So let me ask you this question. If none of the guys that got interviewed and confessed talked, would we even be talking about exposed client lists? Even given the informant's giving up information?
I'll also ask few more. Given that the list is exposed, if any names are exposed will they be names people recognize or will they be something of a cross section of the male population? How many will be just your average middle/upper class person? Even if not named, how many of the clients of these agencies will experience problems stemming from the bust?
"I'm saying that because I think she was snitching on the agency rather than clients. The guys that caved when interviewed were the snitches for mongers."
This is nonsense. Without the CI there is no case, nothing.
Guys who caved weren't snitches "for mongers", neither was CI. They all snitched on the agency.
However, their interviews are irrelevant since even without them the prosecutors had a clear cut case. I'd venture to say almost nothing mongers told the investigators was unknown. It's just another piece of evidence with a witness testifying.
"That is very true (I assume they got a list when the bust occurred). But you similarly don't have any statements saying the people who might be named are in that position because they are on some list."
Oh for fucks sake Jensen.
There are English words stating there were military ppl, executives and so forth.
How the fuck did they get those names if not from the list?
I asked you a direct question that you dodged. If people didn't have their real info in the books, would that enable everyone there on the list to skate? Yes it would. If it was John fucking Doe with a fake id and a burner phone number one would need to have subpoenad, guess what? They wouldn't waste money doing all this shit to maaaybe catch the guy. But if his real name is right there in the open, it's super easy.
You admitted that the agency LIED about destroying pii once
And I feel you only did so because the evidence is right there. I know these orgs don't delete shit, but now there's actual indisputable proof. Not only they don't delete pii, but they also kept a full transaction log. Which is retarded on so many levels.
"We don't get anything from this story that indicates that somehow the level of risk should be considered different than is has been for years so what is the lesson you claim is being learned here?"
Oh my god. Are you being facetious?
Any time a question regarding sharing pii including linkedin, paystubs etc rise up, certain people would say that they have little to worry since:
1) agencies claim they delete the info (this was proven to be a lie)
2) there is no precedent where real names off the list would be publicly disclosed (this is about to be charged)
What is there to not understand?
I don't event think I'm gonna address your absurd logic of "I was a part of x busts and I didn't get outed therefore it's OK"
Guess what? All the people in these bust will be OK besides those 28. You're lucky you're not part of the 28. But for those 28? It's not pretty.
Again, answer the question. Do you think if those 28 people had fake info on file, they wouldn't be in the position they're in? This also should answer your very disingenuous question of what risks? WHAT RISKS? Ask those 28 poor mongers who are about to be canceled in a shit show.
"So let me ask you this question. If none of the guys that got interviewed and confessed talked, would we even be talking about exposed client lists? Even given the informant's giving up information?"
I don't know, but I know for a fact that the investigators had so much invested in the op already, it's fair to speculate clients talking or not talking via interviews hardly could make or break the case. We both do agree they should've kept their mouths shut. But that is irrelevant to the question of giving your real pii.
"Given that the list is exposed, if any names are exposed will they be names people recognize or will they be something of a cross section of the male population?"
"Even if not named, how many of the clients of these agencies will experience problems stemming from the bust?"
Why does this matter? What are you talking about? Even one monger info leaked is one too many.
Your position has reduced itself simply to saying that we should roll the dice. I don't see why.
I think anyone concerned with giving out pii should be given the full rundown instead of the usual "oh nothing happens blah blah it's just for safety". Whose safety? So that a vip client can broadcast real pii of a client who decided to film a girl behind her back?
Yeah real nice safety. But when real shit went down turns out they lie about pii info being deleted and feds can trace every appointment you've ever done with them. And have your LinkedIn Pic attached to it.
My god, I feel like I'm arguing with a brick wall.
Among the emails seized when the websites were taken down by law enforcement in January 2016 were hundreds of pieces of identification submitted with the customers’ first request for a “date.” These included photographs of employee badges from Microsoft, Amazon and Boeing, as well as LinkedIn accounts, business letterheads, passports and even family photos.
“They’re sending their personal information to a criminal enterprise. Wow!” said one of the undercover Bellevue police detectives who worked the case.
-- Modified on 2/28/2024 3:22:34 PM
So what is the big insight for everyone here that has not been the case before? Something new from the big west coast bust of the League? Something new from one of the smaller busts for various agencies?
What has changed?
And yes, every time someone shows up for an appointment they are basically rolling the dice as they have a chance that they will be busted -- and the results are the same regardless of what they give up for screening. As I've said many times here, what anyone gives up is their decision and they need to take ownership of it. If they are not comfortable providing certain information they should not but the ramification will be (assuming they cannot work with the other side for some alternative that works for both) to move on to something else.
So I'll say it again, nothing in this event is some new lesson about what information someone provides. What it does provide is the example of why you STFU with confronted and talk through your lawyer.
Ive said many times what has changed, and specifically what changed for me.
It seems you just don't like the answers, but I'll be happy to repeat it as many times as needed.
One - we now have undisputed evidence that some agencies will lie about not keeping your info and that your info will be kept indefinitely. This now MUST be mentioned in risks involved. Even by agency apologists. Any time someone will say "oh but it's deleted once you're verified" will need to be corrected in the most stern manner, because this is a lie.
I hope you'd agree that there's a stark difference between "burn after reading" and "keep indefinitely and lie to customer".
Two - we now have evidence that pii being on that list is not safe, as a bust can get greedy bureau eyes on your pii. There is a clear precedent now. In Bellevue cops had to trail dudes physically to get their license plates and match names to nicknames. If you were minding your biz online you probably were safe.
In this bust, the info on the list and transaction list was more than enough.
" it does provide is the example of why you STFU with confronted and talk through your lawyer.
"
If none of those 28 people are the ones who got interviewed, you will have to eat crow on this.
Nothing new about your point one. That has been has both been known and discussed for years here.
I don't think it is quite as simple as you say because if no one opened they mouth then that list would be circumstantial and speculative regardless of the information and require the person to be followed and pretty much caught in the act. But I will conceed that if they disclose names on the list, and the name is just some average joe who is not actually getting charged I'll eat some crow. I'll let you eat more if we hear latter about the law suit filed that wins a decent compenstation for such a disclosure without giving the person any benefit of their day in court -- you know, actual due process.
Then we can talk about what lesson people can draw from the specific example here regarding their decisions about screening information.
Quick edit for one point. It interesting that you mention the older bust by noting that even though (apparently given you statement) no real world information/PII was present it really didn't stop anyone from getting caught, at least not anyone LE was particularly interested in. Hummmm. Wonder what that might imply regarding this little discussion.
-- Modified on 2/29/2024 7:56:59 PM
Point one was talked for years? Weird, in all the threads on people concerned with their pii, I haven't seen it mentioned often, if it all, on the DC forum.
How about this.... may you please point to any of your posts where you say outright that the orgs/agencies lie about disposing your pii info? And where youd at least recommend the alternative of not using pii info? Please show them, I've never seen you accuse any org of lying or wrongdoing, in my four years here. If this was known, I'd like to see some evidence of you acknowledging it and telling others about it.
I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong then. Because from what I've seen, many people are reluctant to provide alternatives.
I'm not stupid, I know why. People don't like the idea of girls being subjected by someone whom agency has no control over. While there's nothing wrong with worrying about safety of the product/service that is being sold and safety of the seller who provides this product, Id think there'd be equal concern over client safety. When you start putting safety of seller above client safety, then there's a big problem. Gargantuan problem.
If someone thinks that giving biz to an agency or girl safety is even an iota more important than client safety, then I hope they either voluntarily or involuntarily quit the biz. I really do. Can't have this assymetry here. Not a single sellers safety is ever more important than client safety. And vice versa.
"But I will conceed that if they disclose names on the list, and the name is just some average joe who is not actually getting charged I'll eat some crow."
So you fully moved the goalposts to the "average Joe" shit? This doesn't make sense at all. You claim that all those people on the list are those who got interviewed and self incriminated themselves. I have doubts about it since police are forbidden to make false promises of deals. But either way, if the names were indeed taken from a list, then it'd be some high ranking gov officials, executives etc.
And if it's average Joes, then I'd be inclined to believe your theory of them snitching on their own selves. And then I'll have to agree with you that they did it to themselves by not keeping their mouths shut.
About your edit...I don't get your point. Did I ever say the only way to get busted is via pii info? No I didn't. What I'm saying is that providing pii info makes it a lot riskier and increases odds of you getting fucked when shit goes down.
(I asked you three times - and never heard the answer - to the simple question of whether someone with fake pii info would appear on the list. And if it's safer to not provide pii info, how come I've never heard you suggest so?)
Person A smoked cigarettes for 20 years and got lung cancer
Person B never smoked in his life and got lung cancer
Using your logic, we shouldn't warn people that they are at a much higher risk of cancer if smoking..
This is in like with you constantly posting shit in general forum about security and how if we can't be fully secure, there's no point in being secure. This is just misinformation!
You cant protect you self from a car crash, ever. But putting a seatbelt on is a basic concept that anyone who's driven a vehicle knows.
I already mentioned what this event has entailed to me personally. There's one org in the bay I'm not in with. They are also considered one of the best orgs service wise. They are ran by an iron fisted former kgirl. I can't get into this org without pii info. Last year I was like maybe I can trust them and given the number of girls who are usually exclusive to the org, I am missing out on considerable variety. So I was thinking about maybe using my pii info. I was mulling over it, and considering it. Now I'm not. The Jazmin (missing girl) saga and this bust scared me away forever. Now if I'll try getting in at all I'll be considering strictly alternative methods.
I read the indictment, and no where did it say they accessed PII when they busted the agencies. They did say that mongers provided PII to get screened, but what they didn’t say was that any PII was collected by law enforcement.
Another key point re PII, in the same sentence where they mentioned PII they said that mongers provided credit card information. Agencies don’t collect credit card info, but P411 and review boards do. The prosecuting attorney’s indictment clearly blurred the lines on PII between the accused and P411.
You believe that the 28 mongers facing potential prosecution were identified at least in part by PII. The general consensus here is those 28 were identified by physical surveillance.
Didn't you admit that upthread, in this post: http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion-boards/washington-dc-6/re-to-charge-28-clients----local-news-reports-317771?page=1?
Or did I misunderstand your communication?
And in fact, the public information states "Throughout the course of our investigation, and as detailed below,
agents have identified several customers through surveillance, phone records, customer interviews,
and other investigative methods."
Do you not believe that statement? If you do believe it, what should we take "phone records" and "other investigative methods" to mean as it relates to identification?
-- Modified on 3/1/2024 6:38:16 PM
You are correct that 28 are suspects, and the affidavit says only around 20 were in interviewed (physical surveillance). Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that the other 8 were identified through phone records. That doesn’t mean that law enforcement matched those phone numbers with suspects through any info (driver’s licenses, LinkedIn pages, etc) the agency held. Law enforcement could have gotten names from the phone numbers via the phone company (other investigative methods).
I’m not saying that the agencies didn’t hold onto PII used for verification. I’m only saying that from the information that’s currently available we don’t know that agencies held onto PII.
The general view I take from years of comments here regarding the status of PII given during screening is that those believing it will be deleted are likely in the market for bridges. So, what here would be changing that view?
The bit about the average joe related to relative risks one might face. Here I will use personal experience. I really don't hide well -- pretty much any of the agencies I am in with can (and probably did) find out exactly who I am. Clearly LE would have no problems if they agency is busted and their client list collected. Well, two or three (depends on how one wants to count as one of the agncies was just the reincarnation of a prior one) agenies I've used and screened with have been bused. I've never seen a hint that LE had any interest in me. I suspect for all the other average joes our there would experience the same. Now, if there was something special about me -- big name recognition, well recognized polititian or celebrity or Fortune 500 name -- that very well could be a different story.
Your claim is that the risk significantly increases if the PII is in the list. My experience suggests for most of us that is probably not true. Now, just to prevent confustion, that is not saying anyone should change their behavior and start giving out PII on my statements if they were not doing so before. My claim is that the risks are over stated for most people and this case has done nothing to show that anyone should think the risk is higher than the aleady assess it to be. (As an aside, I would say legal risk. I suspect a larger risk, particularly with no-name agencies and new/unknown indies, is more about extortion than LE posting your name or showing up at your home/place of employment.)
What the affidavit seems to suggest is that the 20 guys that cracked did so only did so under questioning, not because they were caught red handed (bad metaphor). They seem to have done so without ever even consulting with a lawyer. So I do see a big lesson here about STFU. They guys seems to both have accepted they had to talk and give up their rights and provided LE with more evidence that they were able to get otherwise.
The last point, are the contact lists themselves very useful as evidence for LE? My take, and it seems somewhat supported by my experience and just general sense of various vice busts, is that they are not. Just being on such a list is not illegal on its own. It offers some circumstantial evidence but LE and DA's don't seem to take action if that is all they have even though you seem to be suggesting that it is very low hanging fruit. Just how often do you hear about disclossed contact list when some escort is busted (not street walkers but ones that actualy do screen their customers)?
We'll have a better view of just how PII found in contact list is, or perhaps can be, used once names are released, if they are. If all the names released are related to people actually being chaged and tried then the PII in any client list is irrelivent, and supports the view that relasing such information in the absense of any charges is likely seen as a risk by LE/DA officies so avoided. If some of the names are disclosed but the persons are not chaged with any crime then you get to claim some lesson about PII in screening can be drawn from this particular case. Whether or not that lesson will be no one should ever give that type of information or the lesson is about who you are largely defining the risk for doing so we'll also learn something about.
One thing I don't think we'll learn is that it was a good idea for anyone to have opened their mouth without having their lawyer telling them what to say, or better doing the talking for them.
-- Modified on 3/2/2024 2:18:35 PM
That said, there’s been no indication that polygraphs have any relation to this case, and Jensen has acknowledged that he forgot the case was initiated based on information from a criminal informant.
I always wanted to try a polygraph actually. I think I could answer questions with conviction like:
“What’s your favorite color?”
“Cheeseburger.”
I’m single, no kids, and work in restaurants/foodservice. Maybe I’m being foolish in regards to these busts, but this hasn’t worried me at all. I just found it to be an annoyance because it cramped my hobby-style momentarily with the Asian chicks. Whatever “they” might have on me, the bigger “they” probably already have all my text messages on file since the dawn of cellphones anyway. Don’t think there’s anything I can really do about any of it except continue being as careful and selective as I have been.
These guys might be able to help with that.
Haha, thanks, Jensen!
For what it's worth you can also find a bunch of YouTube and links to sites claiming to teach you how to pass the tests. Might be interesting to compare those to what you're already thinking would work.
They know ask you if you have had an affair of the heart. They have been able to catch a lot of hobbyists. They are in particular looking for married guys who are not loyal to ban them from employment at the 3 letter agencies.
If you are single hobbyists that has done hobbying in DC they will ban you because they think you have been compromised by foreign intelligence agents.
Polygraph questions have only "yes" or "no" answers.
You are given a list of questions ahead of time - they don't want you to be surprised or shocked by a question and react to it simply because of that.
Polygraph questions have only "yes" or "no" answers.
You are given a list of questions ahead of time - they don't want you to be surprised or shocked by a question and react to it simply because of that.
a question just occurred to me. the affidavit said LE was staking out the apartment building in Tysons BEG operated out of, and that LE would stop men who were coming out from an appointment.
.
that apartment building was used by other agencies as well, not just BEG. is it possible that LE staking out the building may have inadvertently spotted and confronted clients of other agencies? which could lead to LE being aware of those other agencies and possibly starting spinoff investigations?
.
How would they have known that a different appt was being used by another agency? It was like a maze anyway. And to the best of my knowledge all the agencies that were using that apt complex folded up shop.
I was driving to an appointment in that building back in the day and I always thought it was dangerous that there were so many agencies using same spot, same entrance, same broken door, all of which was suspicious. I drove up one day and there was a marked Fairfax County Police car right by the entrance. I texted the booker and told them and asked to use the other entrance and they responded "don't worry, cops are chill there". That is the reason things like this happen, people getting lazy, sloppy, etc. and yes this does also feed into how much you want to trust your personal info to these types of individuals who claim they are taking care of it properly.
I have tried to read all this. And I am absolutely in love with Sadie from Elite Models..... however when Elite Models form wants photo ID such as Drivers License... well the post by naps96000... say it all..
I just have to draw the line at sending out official ID ...NO MATTER HOW BAD I WANT TO USE THEIR SERVICES.
VERY long time member of TER bill17zxcbnm. aka jkrall