September 9, 2024 • 38 mins
The John Does, customers of an alleged brothel in Massachusetts, are asking the MA Supreme Judicial Court to hide their identities. The clients are linked to an alleged commercial sex ring in MA that catered to wealthy and well-connected clientele. U.S. Attorney for MA Joshua Levy said the clients are doctors, lawyers, accountants, executives at high-tech companies, military officers, government contractors, professors, and more. Does the right to privacy outweigh public interest?
Ask Alexa to play WBZ NewsRadio on #iHeartRadio!
Ask Alexa to play WBZ NewsRadio on #iHeartRadio!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray. I'm WBZ Costin's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
All right, Dan Watkins, thank you very much. My name
is Dan Ray, and I am back in my regular
Monday night chair every weeknight here on WBC Nights Time
with Dan Ray. I've just come back from vacation in
a very relaxed mood. There's no such thing as a
bad vacation, There's no doubt about that. I want to
thank again Gary Tangway, who sat in for me all
(00:28):
last week five nights, as well as my producer Lady
Lightning aka Maria McKinnon, who produced four nights in Karen
Will Semi one. So it's always great to have some
backups so you can and also regular staff so you
can take a few days off and realize that the
(00:49):
show will go on and everybody will all will be
right with the world. Well, all is not right with
the world in terms of a case that is currently
wasn't one of the State Supreme Court today. Now, I
don't know how many of you remember this case. It
was a very high profile case. It was brought by
the US Attorney's Office against twenty eight individuals who are
(01:13):
alleged to have been customers at a very high end brothel.
This brothel and its brothels were operating in three locase
was operating in three locations, a couple of locations I
guess outside of Washington, d C. What they did was
(01:34):
they rented condominiums in relatively high end buildings. And this
was run by three individuals, two of whom apparently are
about to plead guilty for running this now again. The
indictments came down last November, so it's ten months now,
And of course, in those situations, sometimes people decide it
(01:58):
is better to lead early and get a matter settled
and maybe maybe be treated more favorably or less harshly
by the prosecution by showing some cooperation. So two of
the three people who are alleged to have run this
again brothel scheme or whatever prostitution ring have already indicated
(02:25):
that they want to change their place. And obviously all
of them pled not guilty at arraignments last year. But
that is not what the case is about. Today in
front of the State Supreme Court, let me sort of
give you an idea. This is US Attornity attorney for Massachusetts,
Joshua Levy, who last on November announced the indictments, and Rob,
(02:48):
I'm going to ask you to play cut number twenty seven.
This is US Attorney Joshua Levy, a very high profile case,
and he talked about the apparently this group kept very
specific information about the customers and apparently almost they had
to qualify the customers to make sure that they had
(03:10):
the financial wherewithal to You know, it was not your
run of the mill street prostitution situation. This was high end.
As I think this sound bite from US Attorney Levy
will persuade you. Cut twenty seven. Roum.
Speaker 3 (03:31):
They are doctors, they are lawyers, their accountants, they're elected officials,
they are executives at high tech companies and pharmaceutical companies,
they're military officers.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
No one is above the law.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
Doesn't matter where you live, doesn't matter what your job is,
how much money you have. Engaging commercial sex rings as
a legend's indictment is illegal.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
So in this particular instance, the US Attorneys Office is
not only looking to prosecute, but there is now a
question about obviously, if they prosecute, they will name the
individual defendants, the patrons of this ring, and there is
(04:18):
what the problem that the court was looking at today,
there has been again some stories written about it in
the Globe. I guess it was on Saturday or it
was there was at least a story that was probably
(04:40):
in Sunday's paper now that I think about it, which
I did not receive until late The alleged, according to
Sean Cotter's piece in the Sunday Globe, the alleged head
of an interstate brothel network, I mean, this was big money,
big money that catered to the rich and welcome, acted
in Cambridge and Watertown, is planning to plead guilty later
(05:03):
this month, according to court documents. And by the way,
I don't know, they're referring to the location of the brothels,
not necessarily to the clients. Han Hannah Lee, forty one,
of Cambridge, intends to enter a guilty plea as to
the charge is lodged against her, according to the court
documents filed on Tuesday. This according to the Globe, as
(05:26):
they said Sean Catter five point thirty seven, it hit
their web page, the Globe website at five point thirty
seven on Saturday night. That is scheduled for next week,
two days after Han Lee filed for her hearing one
of her alleged top lieutenants, Jimmy Jung Lee thirty one A. Denham,
asked for a change of plea hearing as well. Court
(05:47):
documents did not elaborate further on the specifics, but set
in October first hearing date. According to records, both had
pled had pleaded not guilty. The brothel bus last November
dominated the headlines after the public learned the rings client
list included again elected officials, government contractors with security clearances,
(06:08):
military officers, and professors. According to federal authorities, The list
of hundreds of men who bought sex at the brothels,
which were in luxury apartments in Cambridge, Watertown and the
suburbs of Washington, d C. Was not released by law
enforcement officials, prompting intense speculation about the alleged client's identities.
The sloature in the federal and state justice systems has
(06:28):
provided a few answers since the bust. Twenty eight men
currently face state charges of buying sex at the brothels,
but their names remained shielded as the state's top court
is due to hear their arguments on Monday. About whether
their initial hearings will take place behind closed doors so
that was the subject of the case. Now, according to
the lob article, advocates are told the Globe this case
(06:50):
highlights the harsh realities of an industry where women are
isolated and exploited by well off men who have the
means to fight for secrecy. None of the women selling
the sex of these brothels has been charged. Authorities said
they are the victims shuttled from brothel to brothel and
city to city. So that is what we are talking about. Now.
There's a third indictment who defendant who has been named
(07:15):
accused of operating the brothels, James Lee, sixty nine of California,
the third person charged with operating the network. None of
the Lees of the last names of the same are related.
The brothel bust made national headlines, driven by Acting US
Attorney Joshua Levy's announcement last November detailing the high socioeconomic
(07:36):
statuses of the men on the list. Levi's prosecutors described
an elaborate and sophisticated network, with the Lees, meaning the
owners of the brothel required the patrons the customers to
provide extensive documentation. The Lee's intensive verification processes meant that clients.
(07:57):
Clients had to identify their employers and provide references. According
to court filings, customers were charged up to six hundred
dollars an hour and in some cases purchased monthly membership.
In December, local authorities saw charges against twenty eight alleged clients.
(08:19):
The charges were filed in state court because buying sex
generally is not a federal crime, so that sets the stage.
The names of those charge did not become public. The
alleged crimes are misdemeanors, and police are filing charges after
the facts, so the men first get summoned to private
show cause hearings. They weren't caught in the act. It's
(08:42):
like when a police officer is told that you've done something.
These I'm sure these these lists and these documents in
these records that the runners of the people who rid
the brothel kept. They summoned to private show cause hearings
before clerk magistrates. These hearings typically take place out of
(09:04):
view theist and magistrate finds probable cause against any of
the men, than the charges for those men would advance
and their identities would become public. So that's the issue
here at this point, that is the issue. In December,
the Cambridge District Court Clerk Magistrate ruled that the initial
hearings should be open to the public, but after a
(09:24):
flurry of appeals by eighteen of the men, the hearings
remain paused and the men's name secret until the SJC
decision argument today, and we can play some of that
for you as well. But what more importantly I'd like
to do is open up these phone lines. We welcome
phone calls here on night side. As I think you know,
on whatever side of this issue you're concerned about, and
(09:48):
if you feel the identities of these high placed men
of influence, who again were paying up to six hundred
dollars an hour, if you think that their privacy interest
outweighs the public's right to know, love to hear from you.
(10:09):
If conversely, you think that the public's right to know
is more important than any privacy rights. Interesting question. I
do recall that several years ago there were individuals who
would be busted by police officers in Boston, by undercover
(10:29):
police officers, so busted in the act of solescing street sex.
I guess it would be you know, not what you
call six hundred dollars an hour activity and those individuals
were arrested by undercover police officers and they were booked,
fingerprinted in their photographs were released, and I think the
Herald used to run those pictures fairly frequently. So this
(10:53):
is an interesting topic that the balance between the privacy
of individuals who obviously are doing something is illegal versus
the public right to know and what impact it will
have on the lives of any and all involved. The
number remains six one, seven, two, five, four ten thirty
(11:14):
six one seven nine three one ten thirty. Those are
the two lines that are open. My lines are wide open.
Love to know what you think we'd we're Obviously everyone
should be sympathetic to the women sex workers, because many
of them are brought here, if not against their will,
under false pretenses, and then they are basically forced to participate,
(11:38):
and they have not been charged. But where does the
interest lie public interest, in your opinion, in the names
and identities of these individuals or are their privacy rights
paramount six one seven thirty, six one, seven, nine thirty.
Coming right back on night Side.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
Bent to Dan Way live from the Window World to
night Side Studios. I'm WBZ News Radio and I.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
Want to remind all of you that here on Night Side,
we are a talk show, and we are a talk
show that invites callers, whatever your point of view. And
this is a fairly sensitive subject, certainly very sensitive for
the twenty eight or so men, many of whom apparently
have some stature within our community. You heard Joshua Levy's
(12:29):
comment last November, and he's essentially making the point that hey,
you do something like this, you have the potential to
not only suffer the consequences, but suffer the public embarrassment.
And again, the argument today at the State Supreme Court
was the balance between the privacy of the jahns, if
(12:54):
you will, and the public's right to know, love to
know where you sit on it, where you stand on
this six on seven, two, five, four, ten thirty six one, seven, nine, three,
one ten thirty. Let me go first to John and Bosston.
JOHNA glad to hear from you. Go right ahead, sir,
how are you? Yeah?
Speaker 4 (13:09):
Hi? Good, good evening. Dan. There's something I'm hoping you
might want to take on sometime, because you know, we
should be adults about this. The only place in America
where you can go see a woman. I don't mean
you look out the windows in Nevada, not in Las Vegas,
in certain counties and it works out well for all concerned.
The women that are there are there on their own will,
(13:29):
and the men that go there usually it's men. There
have been some men working there. You're not going to
be arrested. And the women have to get a license
from the state, they have to pay taxes. We should
have that here in Massachusetts. But the politicians I've talked
to my state rep. They're all afraid. They don't have
the testicular fortitude touch it. And you know, well, what.
Speaker 2 (13:50):
About you, John, what you're what you're talking about is
the legalization of prostitution.
Speaker 4 (13:55):
Yeah, it should be. It should be. I went to Sydney, Australia,
and it was all since nineteen seventy nine. You go
downtown the King's Cross Street, you'll see the places. I
went in there and I went to see two women. Legally,
I wasn't on there any try to be an arrest.
I don't care what you say when you're talking about men.
The beast. He's a beast with a suit and tie
and shine shoes. I don't care what you say. And
(14:16):
he wants to practice becoming a father you're not going
to change that, and we have it going on all that.
Speaker 2 (14:22):
That's an interesting way. Well, that's an interesting way to
put that. John. Let me just jump in here for
a second. Once the practice be to become a to
become a father, I've never heard that that that turned
phrase before. I don't know if that's what you want
to do. But well, I don't think he's practicing he
become a father with you know, a woman of the evening.
(14:43):
He might be doing that, practicing with his girlfriend or
his wife, but I don't Well, you.
Speaker 4 (14:49):
Didn't have a wife.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
You know.
Speaker 4 (14:50):
People people say, why didn't you go meet somebody? Well,
look the guy, generally speaking, the guy doesn't have the looks,
he doesn't have the charm, he doesn't have the age.
After about thirty five or so, it's really tough to
meet somebody. Women don't want sixty seven year old men
unless they got a lot of money. When I was
a young guy with doc here, it was easy. They'd
be calling me up, come on over, I'll make a
peach in a bubble. Bet. They don't do that anymore.
I have broken the law on myself.
Speaker 2 (15:11):
God, John, you're blessed. I mean, I'm not sure if you,
if you're bragging, are telling us the truth here. But
so my question is this, Okay, I understand that you
are going beyond the issue we're talking about tonight, which
is whether or not these these men's I'm assuming you
don't think that the identity of these men should be
released to the public.
Speaker 4 (15:33):
Well, since it's illegal now, like any other crime, if
you could be your name could be put out there
for anything else, it should be. But you know, I
think we should get on the bucket list and make
it all legal. It's on my bucket list next year
because I went to the State House and I went
to the Common Building. I need seventy five thousand signatures
for next year and I only got eight weeks to
do it to get it on the ballot. I'm the
(15:55):
Massachut's law sexual conduct for a fee a year in
jail five hundred all five in to what your DNA
if they want to convict you. But most judges usually
don't want to send you away unless it's under age.
And I agree with that.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
Yeah, I don't. I don't know anybody in Massachusetts. I've
never I should say this, I've never heard of anyone
who did time, and I think that there is a
growing understanding that a lot of women who find themselves
in this practice, particularly if they are in some sort
of an organized use the word brothel type situation where
(16:30):
they probably are doing this because they have either made
a deal that they would soon regret. Uh that there's
there's a lot of sympathy and understanding for the women
who are who find themselves and trapped in sex work.
Now I know that there are something well, it's just
another form of work, right, And I'm sure that that
(16:54):
look you know that's doing they're doing that in Nevada.
It's the political will of the people. I guess in
those counties. The legislature must have said, hey.
Speaker 4 (17:05):
A decade going on there in Nevada.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
But but again, I don't think you're likely in your
lifetime to avail yourself of those services. In Massachusetts. You
may have to head back to Sydney or to Reno
or wherever it is. In Nevada.
Speaker 4 (17:18):
No, not in Reno. They don't have it legal. But
I mean we should be at Dougs. It should be
on the ballot. The voters want to have it. The
men that are being charge could open IM legal if
pay taxes to the state. The women in Nevada have
to see a doctor on a regular basis. They've had
guys in there too. They have been something you can't
even have guys you wanted to.
Speaker 2 (17:33):
Okay, well let's see what Let's see what others have
to say.
Speaker 4 (17:35):
John, thanks you, and you know what state they have
told me. But Joe McGonagall, he said you should go
to Nevada once a year. He's telling me. I said,
I gotta go two thousand miles away. Who should have that? Massachusetts?
Speaker 2 (17:47):
Yeah, that's that's the sort of a condescending comment that
he made to you about the.
Speaker 4 (17:51):
Year in marijuana. Well, we don't have legalis marijuana?
Speaker 2 (17:55):
Way that can I make a suggestion to you, John,
if a state rep gave me that sort of off
putting remark, you should go to Nevada, why don't you
think about running against them? And I'm serious when I
say that, because when when someone loses touch with their constituents,
that they don't take their constituents serious seriously and make
an offhanded, glib comment about a subject that obviously you
(18:18):
feel strongly about take them on. I mean that seriously,
because too many of these these men and women out
there don't face a primary challenge, and therefore they they
don't have to really take the concerns of their constituents
as seriously as they should. That's a concern for you.
I might disagree with you, but I certainly think that
you raise it as a legitimate topic. I really do.
Speaker 5 (18:41):
Well.
Speaker 4 (18:41):
I ask all your listeners to look on Google back page,
Boston back page, New York escorts massages.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
Oh I know, yeah, don't know. It's around, no question,
no question. But look, that's the same.
Speaker 4 (18:54):
They should make money at it.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
We understand that, but that is also the same. Finish
my comment, John, I'm on your side here a little bit, Okay,
I'm trying to give you a break. What I'm saying
is that there are people out there who want to
make heroin legal, want to make fentoonyl legal, want to
make you know, suicide legal. There's a lot of things
that are illegal, including prostitution that some people have equally
(19:19):
strong feelings on the other side. But maybe we'll do
something on that at some point once we get through
this election season and and and talk about this, uh,
and see if we can get a couple of different
points of view. You maybe have given me an idea,
and I appreciate that.
Speaker 4 (19:33):
Thanks money for the state. I hope you'll do a topic.
Should prostitution be legalized in Massachusetts? It should? I got it.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
I think, I just I think I just told you
I would. John. I thinks, as judges often say, counselor,
you've won the argument here. If you keep talking, I
might change my opinion. Thanks John, have a great night.
Speaker 4 (19:50):
All right, thank you, Thank you.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
Bob here comes to news at the bottom of the
hour six one seven, two, five, four to ten thirty,
six one seven, nine three one ten thirty If you'd
like to about whether or not the names of these
again apparently high powered, well placed men should remain private
or whether they should be released to the public. That's
the topic on the table. John has broadened the topic
(20:14):
a little bit by talking about whether or not Massachusetts
should follow the lead of I guess some areas, or
I should say, I don't know what counties, but there
are some counties in Nevada where prostitution is controlled, taxed, regulated,
and legal. Joined the conversation six one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty one number one line there or six one seven,
(20:36):
nine three one, ten thirty and I've remind my regular listeners.
We are a talk show coming back from Nightside.
Speaker 1 (20:43):
It's night Side with Dan Ray on w Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (20:48):
So we're talking about an interesting case before the State
Supreme Court today. It was argued you read about it
in the newspapers tomorrow. Maybe you haven't heard about it.
I've tried to explain it. Let's go to Sean and Brockton. Shawn,
you are next on Nightside. Thanks for checking in on.
How are you tonight?
Speaker 5 (21:01):
That's about you?
Speaker 2 (21:03):
Good? What's your take on this show? So? What what
is more important? The privacy of these twenty eight customers,
the public's interest in knowing who they are, particularly a
view of what the US attorney said in terms of
being high profile clients.
Speaker 5 (21:19):
Well, I'm gonna come out from a different angle. First
of all, the gentleman that called up prior to myself,
I do just briefly, I want to touch on that,
just real fast. I do agree with what he said
as far as the whole legalization of it. Okay, Okay,
that's the first thing. The second thing is we're talking
about men that have that have stature military legal law enforcement,
(21:40):
what what what have you? Okay, so they have stature.
They're not gonna it's not gonna be easy for them
to be for their name to be dragged to the
mud so easily. They're gonna. They're gonna, they're gonna try
to cut a deal with with the local with the
local Ada, you know, where they have statute money, and
(22:01):
they're gonna, they're gonna, they're gonna work out some sort
of a deal so that they're they're not they're not
blemished too much.
Speaker 2 (22:08):
Well, I don't know about that because the the issue
before the court today. And and again I understand what
you're saying. There were there was a period of time
and maybe you remember it several years ago when I
think the Herald used to run pictures of UH men
who were caught in Boston, particularly in the combat zone
(22:28):
Sting operation. The difference there they were inter be people
who nobody knew because they were UH. They often ended
up talking to an undercover police officer, a female undercover
police officer who they assumed was UH a lady of
the evening and and and they were uh caught, you know,
(22:54):
and arrested and in charge with solicitation of prostitution. And
they're if they were fingerprinted, books, photographed, and though their
pictures were released and their names were released, this is
a little different because apparently none of these individuals, these
high profile individuals, were caught during a bust or anything
(23:18):
like that. But when the ring was broken up and
the federal government got caught out, well, they had records
that these individuals, apparently many of them, had to submit
proof of who they were, who their employer was. I mean,
(23:39):
what are they thinking when they're I mean, they're paying
an extraordinary amount of money, six hundred dollars up to
six hundred dollars an hour, and the people who are
providing the service, not the women who themselves are victims,
but the people who are running the brothel their cold heart.
Speaker 5 (23:58):
Editions, right, And I'm thinking that the reason why they
had to provide all this information was just in case
the owners of the managers or whoever you say the
leads were running this. I don't know, I don't know,
but whoever did not related?
Speaker 2 (24:14):
Three individuals not related, one guy from California and a
couple from this area who were judge one day.
Speaker 5 (24:22):
Is that they But my point is that who the
reason why they probably wanted all this information was so
they could maybe using as leverage at the later time,
if one of these people, these hiding end guys, decided
to say, hey, if you don't help me out here
with something, I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm gonna drop a
time on ther whole operation. Yeah, well, we know who
you are, so if you f with us.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
You know yeah, yeah, well yeah, I mean that might
have been the motivation, or or maybe they wanted to
make sure that the individuals who they were dealing with
they knew exactly who they were dealing with, because they
it was an expensive operation. Apparently these women were all
(25:07):
put in high end condominiums. They were not what you
call street workers. Uh. And I'm sure that the people
who were running this brothel were people who had to
put up a lot of money to rent condominiums, and
they there was I just think to myself, if you're
(25:28):
one of these guys, I mean, I assume you're probably
giving him a credit card as opposed to the word
I don't know. I mean, I'm serious. You know, you know,
all of us have learned I think through the Internet
that the fewer people that.
Speaker 5 (25:45):
Have yeah, never personal information out there.
Speaker 2 (25:49):
Well right for anything, I mean, uh, whenever everyone gets this,
these solicitations these.
Speaker 5 (25:55):
Days anymore, which I never learned to navigate. But what
of her?
Speaker 2 (26:00):
But it used to be, Remember it used to be
the Nigerian prince was promising you five million dollars, but
you just opened up and account with one hundred thousand
dollars in.
Speaker 5 (26:10):
His knee outside fifty million back what you got it?
Speaker 4 (26:14):
Right? Right?
Speaker 2 (26:14):
So we all learned that. Okay, we all learned that.
But these guys apparently felt that they were involved. I
don't know, I kind of imagine what they were thinking.
But that's that's the deal. So where do you come
down on this? Should their names be made public? Should
is there an interest in the public in knowing who
these guys are? Who these men are?
Speaker 5 (26:37):
It goes back to we were talking just a moment
ago about those those guys that were stunned in Boston
several years ago. How was it handled with them?
Speaker 2 (26:47):
Well, most of them ended up and they because they
again I just explaining the difference, because they were caught
in the act, meaning not in the act of sexual activity,
but in the act of solicitating what they thought were
approst was hard, but they they were, they were they
(27:08):
handed money over or whatever, and to to an undercover
police officer. I mean, I'm sure the police officer was
not wearing a uniform, but they were. They were. They
were pretending to be, you know, a lady of the evening.
And then once they did that, they were arrested. At
that point, they booked, fingerprinted and photographed, and they're in
(27:30):
court the next morning at an open arraignment. This these
guys because their name showed up in a book. In theory,
let's assume your name was somehow in that book. You know,
I'm not suggesting it would have been sewn, don't get
me wrong, But if somehow someone's name was similar to yours,
there could be a case of some mistaken identity. It
(27:52):
could be that someone used a different name. I mean,
there are some arguments that lawyers can make and and
would say, well, the only you don't have a sufficient
evidence to charge them, although obviously the US Attorney's Office
is going to disagree strongly with that, so we'll we'll.
You know, look, I think it's an interesting issue. Where
(28:13):
do you come down? Tell me? Should John obviously.
Speaker 5 (28:16):
Especially I'm really not sure on this one.
Speaker 2 (28:19):
Throw enough, Okay, that's that's always the best topic when
people aren't sure. Hey, Sean, thank you, Carl, and I
appreciate it. Nice to talk to you soon. All right,
good night. All right, let me h if I get
the right mouse here, I can if you could just say, yeah,
here we go, we're going to take a quick break.
I got Jane and Salem coming back. I'm looking forward
to what Jane has to say very much, and I'd
(28:39):
love to hear what you have to say. And again
I'll remind you this is a talk show, and I
invite people to call and express their opinions. Whatever their
opinion is on this or any other subject, You're always
welcome to call this show six one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty or six one seven, nine three one ten thirty.
We will change topics at ten o'clock tonight. We're going
to switch to your anticipation of what's going to happen
(29:03):
tomorrow night, twenty four hours from now in Philadelphia, when
Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are debating for what might
be the only presidential debate of twenty twenty four. We're
back on Nightside, hopefully with you and some other callers
right after this.
Speaker 1 (29:19):
Now back to Dan Raydy Mine from the window World
Nightside Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
Back to the phones. Let's go to Jane in Salem, Massachusetts. Jane,
I appreciate you calling in. You're next on Nightside. What
do you think about this situation?
Speaker 6 (29:35):
Hello, Dan, thank you for taking the call. I have
a couple of comments I'd like to make and feel
free to respond. It's interesting human trafficking is a multi
billion dollar industry in the world. Women are brought to
where there are sporting events and things of that nature.
(29:57):
Whenever there's a big sporting event, keep that in mind.
But also, someone made the comment, I think it was you.
People are paying extraordinary amounts of money. I'm going to
comment that's whether it's your daughter, my daughter, or it's
somebody's daughter. Six hundred dollars is not an extraordinary amount
(30:18):
of money if you think about what's going on. And
we had that one high pro profile case where while
they pay one hundred dollars and you know of what
I speak, but I am going to comment that a
lot of these people.
Speaker 2 (30:31):
By the way, Jane, I'm not sure realizing this is
family programming here, I'm not sure of what you mean
about one hundred dollars.
Speaker 6 (30:40):
I mean, well, let me let me. I'll realize it's
a family program. So let's just say that most women
or people's daughters don't grow up saying gee, I can't
wait to make fifty or one hundred dollars to give
a particular sex back to all day long to seventy
year old in Florida.
Speaker 2 (31:00):
Yep, I got it.
Speaker 6 (31:01):
You with me, okay. And these are these well placed,
high powered people. It's funny that the two gentlemen you
spoke to everybody kind of chuckles like it's locker room talk.
This is somebody's person, and it is. I went to
haved I didn't go to Havard to school, but within
the last five or ten years I went to see
(31:22):
a viewing of a movie called Trafficked. I think it's
like a documentary. It's a huge problem. I'm not sure
these people. So in relation to the very specifics of
this case, I read the police log every day, as
I'm sure you do. People's names are in there every day.
I think the facts of this is different based on
what you said in terms of the sjac case and
(31:43):
what they'll say. But it's a huge problem on so
many levels because it's not a lot of money. The
people who are buying these services, they have very wealthy individuals,
and I'm sorry, six hundred dollars is what they'd pay
to go out to dinner, right.
Speaker 2 (31:59):
I do want to the point the point I was
trying to make it. I don't want to over emphasize
this point or or under emphasized the point six hundred dollars.
In order to have that money to spend you have
to be a person of some substance. I mean you can,
I guess spend six d Isn't that concerning?
Speaker 6 (32:21):
So let me say these are from what we know,
although we don't know who the people are. They're supposedly responsible,
respected adults in the community.
Speaker 2 (32:30):
Give did you hear earliest hour? The US attorney josh
Joshua Levy when this indictment was announced last last November,
he categorized all the different type of people who were
involved in this, and there were doctors and lawyers, elected
public officials, according to him, military officers.
Speaker 6 (32:51):
I mean that to you, Dan Well.
Speaker 2 (32:55):
I think the fact that that he mentioned that it
was intended to make the point that these are people
in positions of power.
Speaker 6 (33:01):
In his power right and there's a real imbalance of power.
The other thing is these folks may be going home
to their families with sdds and not let you know
it is. It's just much more complicated than the chuckle haha.
This is you know what men do?
Speaker 2 (33:15):
Well? Well, what with John? To defend John from Boston?
When he called, he was essentially saying, it's that in
his opinion, And again you and I don't have to
agree and necessarily disagree with.
Speaker 6 (33:26):
His I certainly don't need to defend John from Boston.
I will say before I feel that, I will forget
it was a judge in Boston. Hold on one second,
because I'm going to forget this one Tom, I mean John,
go ahead, Just hang on a second, Dan, There was
a judge in Boston. It was a female judge, and
she used to not charge the sex workers that were
(33:47):
brought in unless the John's were also brought in. So
I think she's since retired. But that's the deal, you know.
It's uh, and this is different set of facts. I
think you're just saying, this is a list that was
on some who would give a credit card to this.
This is the kind of transaction you probably should pay cash.
Speaker 4 (34:05):
Go ahead, I the point.
Speaker 2 (34:07):
That I was trying to make you alluded to the
fellow John from Boston, and again not a John from
Boston and a gentleman whose name was John, and he
was advocating. He basically took this story and said, look,
in his opinion, prostitution should be legalized, that it should
be that it should be a business, that there should
(34:29):
be taxes are charged, that that women who were involved
in the trade should be certified. And you know, his
his his position was to kind of get people who
are running a brothel like this. I mean, if if
I don't agree with him, but but you I don't suspect.
(34:52):
I don't suspect that in Nevada, where there's a tax
element to the to the trade, that anybody's out there
opening up unregistered, unlicensed, unauthorized brothels in Nevada.
Speaker 6 (35:09):
And I think I'm going to suggest, I'm going to
suggest Dan that you do some research on human trafficking.
It is a multi billion dollar business and people aren't volunteerily.
Speaker 2 (35:18):
I'm not an expert on it, Jane. Sounds to me
like you might be an expert, but.
Speaker 6 (35:22):
I'm going to have a little bit of information. But
it's not a job that anybody would say, Oh great,
I'd like to go do this particular thing, giving a
sex act of ten seven year old men a day.
That's something I want to do as a career. I mean, well,
think about it that I think.
Speaker 2 (35:38):
That I understand the point you're making. But I can
tell you that there that there are people in every
every industry, even industries that you and I might not
ever want to be associated with, who will say, look,
I don't mind doing this, or I mean that's there are.
Speaker 6 (36:01):
You know, there's some research on human trafficking. It's not
a whole bunch of people volunteering. It's people that It
really is more.
Speaker 2 (36:09):
You know, Jane, you don't have to it's huge.
Speaker 6 (36:11):
It's a huge indult.
Speaker 2 (36:13):
I understand the difference.
Speaker 6 (36:14):
It was not meant as an insult at all.
Speaker 2 (36:16):
Dan, Well, thank you for that. It's it sounded that way. Well,
feel free anytime, You're welcome. Thank you very much, No problem. Okay, gee,
call end that way, because again I am aware of
human trafficking. It sounds to me like Jane has immersed
herself in the in the problem. You cannot be an
(36:39):
intelligent human human being and not understand what I would
have said to Jane is that you cannot be an intelligent,
rational human being in the twenty first century and and
have an IQ of of you know, normal levels and
not understand that, Yes, human trafficking is a curve. It's
(37:00):
occurring in our country, it's occurring in other countries, it's occurring.
Probably it is a worldwide phenomenon. I think the argument
is that, you know, prostitution is the world's oldest profession.
I was just in Italy at the ruins of Pompeii,
which was destroyed in seventy nine a d. And the
(37:26):
ruins which have been rediscovered after all these years in
seventeen forty eight and now have been brought back to life.
There were rooms there was prostitution going on at Pompeii
in seventy nine a d. And you actually they showed
us these rooms that you know, they obviously were, you know,
(37:47):
long ago, where men and I guess women as well
could pick what type of favor they what sort of
activity they want to engage in. So, yeah, I'm not
a mabe in the woods. I'm not naive, and I
think that we had an interesting discussion about it, but
we'll end it there and I will tell you here
(38:08):
comes the news, and we come back when we talk
about a big event tomorrow night that has immense relevance
to all of us. What might be the only presidential
debate in the twenty twenty twenty four cycle, the twenty
twenty four cycle, between former President Trump and the current
Vice President of the United States, Kamala Harris back on
Night's side right after the ten
It's Night Side with Dan Ray. I'm WBZ Costin's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
All right, Dan Watkins, thank you very much. My name
is Dan Ray, and I am back in my regular
Monday night chair every weeknight here on WBC Nights Time
with Dan Ray. I've just come back from vacation in
a very relaxed mood. There's no such thing as a
bad vacation, There's no doubt about that. I want to
thank again Gary Tangway, who sat in for me all
(00:28):
last week five nights, as well as my producer Lady
Lightning aka Maria McKinnon, who produced four nights in Karen
Will Semi one. So it's always great to have some
backups so you can and also regular staff so you
can take a few days off and realize that the
(00:49):
show will go on and everybody will all will be
right with the world. Well, all is not right with
the world in terms of a case that is currently
wasn't one of the State Supreme Court today. Now, I
don't know how many of you remember this case. It
was a very high profile case. It was brought by
the US Attorney's Office against twenty eight individuals who are
(01:13):
alleged to have been customers at a very high end brothel.
This brothel and its brothels were operating in three locase
was operating in three locations, a couple of locations I
guess outside of Washington, d C. What they did was
(01:34):
they rented condominiums in relatively high end buildings. And this
was run by three individuals, two of whom apparently are
about to plead guilty for running this now again. The
indictments came down last November, so it's ten months now,
And of course, in those situations, sometimes people decide it
(01:58):
is better to lead early and get a matter settled
and maybe maybe be treated more favorably or less harshly
by the prosecution by showing some cooperation. So two of
the three people who are alleged to have run this
again brothel scheme or whatever prostitution ring have already indicated
(02:25):
that they want to change their place. And obviously all
of them pled not guilty at arraignments last year. But
that is not what the case is about. Today in
front of the State Supreme Court, let me sort of
give you an idea. This is US Attornity attorney for Massachusetts,
Joshua Levy, who last on November announced the indictments, and Rob,
(02:48):
I'm going to ask you to play cut number twenty seven.
This is US Attorney Joshua Levy, a very high profile case,
and he talked about the apparently this group kept very
specific information about the customers and apparently almost they had
to qualify the customers to make sure that they had
(03:10):
the financial wherewithal to You know, it was not your
run of the mill street prostitution situation. This was high end.
As I think this sound bite from US Attorney Levy
will persuade you. Cut twenty seven. Roum.
Speaker 3 (03:31):
They are doctors, they are lawyers, their accountants, they're elected officials,
they are executives at high tech companies and pharmaceutical companies,
they're military officers.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
No one is above the law.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
Doesn't matter where you live, doesn't matter what your job is,
how much money you have. Engaging commercial sex rings as
a legend's indictment is illegal.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
So in this particular instance, the US Attorneys Office is
not only looking to prosecute, but there is now a
question about obviously, if they prosecute, they will name the
individual defendants, the patrons of this ring, and there is
(04:18):
what the problem that the court was looking at today,
there has been again some stories written about it in
the Globe. I guess it was on Saturday or it
was there was at least a story that was probably
(04:40):
in Sunday's paper now that I think about it, which
I did not receive until late The alleged, according to
Sean Cotter's piece in the Sunday Globe, the alleged head
of an interstate brothel network, I mean, this was big money,
big money that catered to the rich and welcome, acted
in Cambridge and Watertown, is planning to plead guilty later
(05:03):
this month, according to court documents. And by the way,
I don't know, they're referring to the location of the brothels,
not necessarily to the clients. Han Hannah Lee, forty one,
of Cambridge, intends to enter a guilty plea as to
the charge is lodged against her, according to the court
documents filed on Tuesday. This according to the Globe, as
(05:26):
they said Sean Catter five point thirty seven, it hit
their web page, the Globe website at five point thirty
seven on Saturday night. That is scheduled for next week,
two days after Han Lee filed for her hearing one
of her alleged top lieutenants, Jimmy Jung Lee thirty one A. Denham,
asked for a change of plea hearing as well. Court
(05:47):
documents did not elaborate further on the specifics, but set
in October first hearing date. According to records, both had
pled had pleaded not guilty. The brothel bus last November
dominated the headlines after the public learned the rings client
list included again elected officials, government contractors with security clearances,
(06:08):
military officers, and professors. According to federal authorities, The list
of hundreds of men who bought sex at the brothels,
which were in luxury apartments in Cambridge, Watertown and the
suburbs of Washington, d C. Was not released by law
enforcement officials, prompting intense speculation about the alleged client's identities.
The sloature in the federal and state justice systems has
(06:28):
provided a few answers since the bust. Twenty eight men
currently face state charges of buying sex at the brothels,
but their names remained shielded as the state's top court
is due to hear their arguments on Monday. About whether
their initial hearings will take place behind closed doors so
that was the subject of the case. Now, according to
the lob article, advocates are told the Globe this case
(06:50):
highlights the harsh realities of an industry where women are
isolated and exploited by well off men who have the
means to fight for secrecy. None of the women selling
the sex of these brothels has been charged. Authorities said
they are the victims shuttled from brothel to brothel and
city to city. So that is what we are talking about. Now.
There's a third indictment who defendant who has been named
(07:15):
accused of operating the brothels, James Lee, sixty nine of California,
the third person charged with operating the network. None of
the Lees of the last names of the same are related.
The brothel bust made national headlines, driven by Acting US
Attorney Joshua Levy's announcement last November detailing the high socioeconomic
(07:36):
statuses of the men on the list. Levi's prosecutors described
an elaborate and sophisticated network, with the Lees, meaning the
owners of the brothel required the patrons the customers to
provide extensive documentation. The Lee's intensive verification processes meant that clients.
(07:57):
Clients had to identify their employers and provide references. According
to court filings, customers were charged up to six hundred
dollars an hour and in some cases purchased monthly membership.
In December, local authorities saw charges against twenty eight alleged clients.
(08:19):
The charges were filed in state court because buying sex
generally is not a federal crime, so that sets the stage.
The names of those charge did not become public. The
alleged crimes are misdemeanors, and police are filing charges after
the facts, so the men first get summoned to private
show cause hearings. They weren't caught in the act. It's
(08:42):
like when a police officer is told that you've done something.
These I'm sure these these lists and these documents in
these records that the runners of the people who rid
the brothel kept. They summoned to private show cause hearings
before clerk magistrates. These hearings typically take place out of
(09:04):
view theist and magistrate finds probable cause against any of
the men, than the charges for those men would advance
and their identities would become public. So that's the issue
here at this point, that is the issue. In December,
the Cambridge District Court Clerk Magistrate ruled that the initial
hearings should be open to the public, but after a
(09:24):
flurry of appeals by eighteen of the men, the hearings
remain paused and the men's name secret until the SJC
decision argument today, and we can play some of that
for you as well. But what more importantly I'd like
to do is open up these phone lines. We welcome
phone calls here on night side. As I think you know,
on whatever side of this issue you're concerned about, and
(09:48):
if you feel the identities of these high placed men
of influence, who again were paying up to six hundred
dollars an hour, if you think that their privacy interest
outweighs the public's right to know, love to hear from you.
(10:09):
If conversely, you think that the public's right to know
is more important than any privacy rights. Interesting question. I
do recall that several years ago there were individuals who
would be busted by police officers in Boston, by undercover
(10:29):
police officers, so busted in the act of solescing street sex.
I guess it would be you know, not what you
call six hundred dollars an hour activity and those individuals
were arrested by undercover police officers and they were booked,
fingerprinted in their photographs were released, and I think the
Herald used to run those pictures fairly frequently. So this
(10:53):
is an interesting topic that the balance between the privacy
of individuals who obviously are doing something is illegal versus
the public right to know and what impact it will
have on the lives of any and all involved. The
number remains six one, seven, two, five, four ten thirty
(11:14):
six one seven nine three one ten thirty. Those are
the two lines that are open. My lines are wide open.
Love to know what you think we'd we're Obviously everyone
should be sympathetic to the women sex workers, because many
of them are brought here, if not against their will,
under false pretenses, and then they are basically forced to participate,
(11:38):
and they have not been charged. But where does the
interest lie public interest, in your opinion, in the names
and identities of these individuals or are their privacy rights
paramount six one seven thirty, six one, seven, nine thirty.
Coming right back on night Side.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
Bent to Dan Way live from the Window World to
night Side Studios. I'm WBZ News Radio and I.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
Want to remind all of you that here on Night Side,
we are a talk show, and we are a talk
show that invites callers, whatever your point of view. And
this is a fairly sensitive subject, certainly very sensitive for
the twenty eight or so men, many of whom apparently
have some stature within our community. You heard Joshua Levy's
(12:29):
comment last November, and he's essentially making the point that hey,
you do something like this, you have the potential to
not only suffer the consequences, but suffer the public embarrassment.
And again, the argument today at the State Supreme Court
was the balance between the privacy of the jahns, if
(12:54):
you will, and the public's right to know, love to
know where you sit on it, where you stand on
this six on seven, two, five, four, ten thirty six one, seven, nine, three,
one ten thirty. Let me go first to John and Bosston.
JOHNA glad to hear from you. Go right ahead, sir,
how are you? Yeah?
Speaker 4 (13:09):
Hi? Good, good evening. Dan. There's something I'm hoping you
might want to take on sometime, because you know, we
should be adults about this. The only place in America
where you can go see a woman. I don't mean
you look out the windows in Nevada, not in Las Vegas,
in certain counties and it works out well for all concerned.
The women that are there are there on their own will,
(13:29):
and the men that go there usually it's men. There
have been some men working there. You're not going to
be arrested. And the women have to get a license
from the state, they have to pay taxes. We should
have that here in Massachusetts. But the politicians I've talked
to my state rep. They're all afraid. They don't have
the testicular fortitude touch it. And you know, well, what.
Speaker 2 (13:50):
About you, John, what you're what you're talking about is
the legalization of prostitution.
Speaker 4 (13:55):
Yeah, it should be. It should be. I went to Sydney, Australia,
and it was all since nineteen seventy nine. You go
downtown the King's Cross Street, you'll see the places. I
went in there and I went to see two women. Legally,
I wasn't on there any try to be an arrest.
I don't care what you say when you're talking about men.
The beast. He's a beast with a suit and tie
and shine shoes. I don't care what you say. And
(14:16):
he wants to practice becoming a father you're not going
to change that, and we have it going on all that.
Speaker 2 (14:22):
That's an interesting way. Well, that's an interesting way to
put that. John. Let me just jump in here for
a second. Once the practice be to become a to
become a father, I've never heard that that that turned
phrase before. I don't know if that's what you want
to do. But well, I don't think he's practicing he
become a father with you know, a woman of the evening.
(14:43):
He might be doing that, practicing with his girlfriend or
his wife, but I don't Well, you.
Speaker 4 (14:49):
Didn't have a wife.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
You know.
Speaker 4 (14:50):
People people say, why didn't you go meet somebody? Well,
look the guy, generally speaking, the guy doesn't have the looks,
he doesn't have the charm, he doesn't have the age.
After about thirty five or so, it's really tough to
meet somebody. Women don't want sixty seven year old men
unless they got a lot of money. When I was
a young guy with doc here, it was easy. They'd
be calling me up, come on over, I'll make a
peach in a bubble. Bet. They don't do that anymore.
I have broken the law on myself.
Speaker 2 (15:11):
God, John, you're blessed. I mean, I'm not sure if you,
if you're bragging, are telling us the truth here. But
so my question is this, Okay, I understand that you
are going beyond the issue we're talking about tonight, which
is whether or not these these men's I'm assuming you
don't think that the identity of these men should be
released to the public.
Speaker 4 (15:33):
Well, since it's illegal now, like any other crime, if
you could be your name could be put out there
for anything else, it should be. But you know, I
think we should get on the bucket list and make
it all legal. It's on my bucket list next year
because I went to the State House and I went
to the Common Building. I need seventy five thousand signatures
for next year and I only got eight weeks to
do it to get it on the ballot. I'm the
(15:55):
Massachut's law sexual conduct for a fee a year in
jail five hundred all five in to what your DNA
if they want to convict you. But most judges usually
don't want to send you away unless it's under age.
And I agree with that.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
Yeah, I don't. I don't know anybody in Massachusetts. I've
never I should say this, I've never heard of anyone
who did time, and I think that there is a
growing understanding that a lot of women who find themselves
in this practice, particularly if they are in some sort
of an organized use the word brothel type situation where
(16:30):
they probably are doing this because they have either made
a deal that they would soon regret. Uh that there's
there's a lot of sympathy and understanding for the women
who are who find themselves and trapped in sex work.
Now I know that there are something well, it's just
another form of work, right, And I'm sure that that
(16:54):
look you know that's doing they're doing that in Nevada.
It's the political will of the people. I guess in
those counties. The legislature must have said, hey.
Speaker 4 (17:05):
A decade going on there in Nevada.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
But but again, I don't think you're likely in your
lifetime to avail yourself of those services. In Massachusetts. You
may have to head back to Sydney or to Reno
or wherever it is. In Nevada.
Speaker 4 (17:18):
No, not in Reno. They don't have it legal. But
I mean we should be at Dougs. It should be
on the ballot. The voters want to have it. The
men that are being charge could open IM legal if
pay taxes to the state. The women in Nevada have
to see a doctor on a regular basis. They've had
guys in there too. They have been something you can't
even have guys you wanted to.
Speaker 2 (17:33):
Okay, well let's see what Let's see what others have
to say.
Speaker 4 (17:35):
John, thanks you, and you know what state they have
told me. But Joe McGonagall, he said you should go
to Nevada once a year. He's telling me. I said,
I gotta go two thousand miles away. Who should have that? Massachusetts?
Speaker 2 (17:47):
Yeah, that's that's the sort of a condescending comment that
he made to you about the.
Speaker 4 (17:51):
Year in marijuana. Well, we don't have legalis marijuana?
Speaker 2 (17:55):
Way that can I make a suggestion to you, John,
if a state rep gave me that sort of off
putting remark, you should go to Nevada, why don't you
think about running against them? And I'm serious when I
say that, because when when someone loses touch with their constituents,
that they don't take their constituents serious seriously and make
an offhanded, glib comment about a subject that obviously you
(18:18):
feel strongly about take them on. I mean that seriously,
because too many of these these men and women out
there don't face a primary challenge, and therefore they they
don't have to really take the concerns of their constituents
as seriously as they should. That's a concern for you.
I might disagree with you, but I certainly think that
you raise it as a legitimate topic. I really do.
Speaker 5 (18:41):
Well.
Speaker 4 (18:41):
I ask all your listeners to look on Google back page,
Boston back page, New York escorts massages.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
Oh I know, yeah, don't know. It's around, no question,
no question. But look, that's the same.
Speaker 4 (18:54):
They should make money at it.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
We understand that, but that is also the same. Finish
my comment, John, I'm on your side here a little bit, Okay,
I'm trying to give you a break. What I'm saying
is that there are people out there who want to
make heroin legal, want to make fentoonyl legal, want to
make you know, suicide legal. There's a lot of things
that are illegal, including prostitution that some people have equally
(19:19):
strong feelings on the other side. But maybe we'll do
something on that at some point once we get through
this election season and and and talk about this, uh,
and see if we can get a couple of different
points of view. You maybe have given me an idea,
and I appreciate that.
Speaker 4 (19:33):
Thanks money for the state. I hope you'll do a topic.
Should prostitution be legalized in Massachusetts? It should? I got it.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
I think, I just I think I just told you
I would. John. I thinks, as judges often say, counselor,
you've won the argument here. If you keep talking, I
might change my opinion. Thanks John, have a great night.
Speaker 4 (19:50):
All right, thank you, Thank you.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
Bob here comes to news at the bottom of the
hour six one seven, two, five, four to ten thirty,
six one seven, nine three one ten thirty If you'd
like to about whether or not the names of these
again apparently high powered, well placed men should remain private
or whether they should be released to the public. That's
the topic on the table. John has broadened the topic
(20:14):
a little bit by talking about whether or not Massachusetts
should follow the lead of I guess some areas, or
I should say, I don't know what counties, but there
are some counties in Nevada where prostitution is controlled, taxed, regulated,
and legal. Joined the conversation six one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty one number one line there or six one seven,
(20:36):
nine three one, ten thirty and I've remind my regular listeners.
We are a talk show coming back from Nightside.
Speaker 1 (20:43):
It's night Side with Dan Ray on w Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (20:48):
So we're talking about an interesting case before the State
Supreme Court today. It was argued you read about it
in the newspapers tomorrow. Maybe you haven't heard about it.
I've tried to explain it. Let's go to Sean and Brockton. Shawn,
you are next on Nightside. Thanks for checking in on.
How are you tonight?
Speaker 5 (21:01):
That's about you?
Speaker 2 (21:03):
Good? What's your take on this show? So? What what
is more important? The privacy of these twenty eight customers,
the public's interest in knowing who they are, particularly a
view of what the US attorney said in terms of
being high profile clients.
Speaker 5 (21:19):
Well, I'm gonna come out from a different angle. First
of all, the gentleman that called up prior to myself,
I do just briefly, I want to touch on that,
just real fast. I do agree with what he said
as far as the whole legalization of it. Okay, Okay,
that's the first thing. The second thing is we're talking
about men that have that have stature military legal law enforcement,
(21:40):
what what what have you? Okay, so they have stature.
They're not gonna it's not gonna be easy for them
to be for their name to be dragged to the
mud so easily. They're gonna. They're gonna, they're gonna try
to cut a deal with with the local with the
local Ada, you know, where they have statute money, and
(22:01):
they're gonna, they're gonna, they're gonna work out some sort
of a deal so that they're they're not they're not
blemished too much.
Speaker 2 (22:08):
Well, I don't know about that because the the issue
before the court today. And and again I understand what
you're saying. There were there was a period of time
and maybe you remember it several years ago when I
think the Herald used to run pictures of UH men
who were caught in Boston, particularly in the combat zone
(22:28):
Sting operation. The difference there they were inter be people
who nobody knew because they were UH. They often ended
up talking to an undercover police officer, a female undercover
police officer who they assumed was UH a lady of
the evening and and and they were uh caught, you know,
(22:54):
and arrested and in charge with solicitation of prostitution. And
they're if they were fingerprinted, books, photographed, and though their
pictures were released and their names were released, this is
a little different because apparently none of these individuals, these
high profile individuals, were caught during a bust or anything
(23:18):
like that. But when the ring was broken up and
the federal government got caught out, well, they had records
that these individuals, apparently many of them, had to submit
proof of who they were, who their employer was. I mean,
(23:39):
what are they thinking when they're I mean, they're paying
an extraordinary amount of money, six hundred dollars up to
six hundred dollars an hour, and the people who are
providing the service, not the women who themselves are victims,
but the people who are running the brothel their cold heart.
Speaker 5 (23:58):
Editions, right, And I'm thinking that the reason why they
had to provide all this information was just in case
the owners of the managers or whoever you say the
leads were running this. I don't know, I don't know,
but whoever did not related?
Speaker 2 (24:14):
Three individuals not related, one guy from California and a
couple from this area who were judge one day.
Speaker 5 (24:22):
Is that they But my point is that who the
reason why they probably wanted all this information was so
they could maybe using as leverage at the later time,
if one of these people, these hiding end guys, decided
to say, hey, if you don't help me out here
with something, I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm gonna drop a
time on ther whole operation. Yeah, well, we know who
you are, so if you f with us.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
You know yeah, yeah, well yeah, I mean that might
have been the motivation, or or maybe they wanted to
make sure that the individuals who they were dealing with
they knew exactly who they were dealing with, because they
it was an expensive operation. Apparently these women were all
(25:07):
put in high end condominiums. They were not what you
call street workers. Uh. And I'm sure that the people
who were running this brothel were people who had to
put up a lot of money to rent condominiums, and
they there was I just think to myself, if you're
(25:28):
one of these guys, I mean, I assume you're probably
giving him a credit card as opposed to the word
I don't know. I mean, I'm serious. You know, you know,
all of us have learned I think through the Internet
that the fewer people that.
Speaker 5 (25:45):
Have yeah, never personal information out there.
Speaker 2 (25:49):
Well right for anything, I mean, uh, whenever everyone gets this,
these solicitations these.
Speaker 5 (25:55):
Days anymore, which I never learned to navigate. But what
of her?
Speaker 2 (26:00):
But it used to be, Remember it used to be
the Nigerian prince was promising you five million dollars, but
you just opened up and account with one hundred thousand
dollars in.
Speaker 5 (26:10):
His knee outside fifty million back what you got it?
Speaker 4 (26:14):
Right? Right?
Speaker 2 (26:14):
So we all learned that. Okay, we all learned that.
But these guys apparently felt that they were involved. I
don't know, I kind of imagine what they were thinking.
But that's that's the deal. So where do you come
down on this? Should their names be made public? Should
is there an interest in the public in knowing who
these guys are? Who these men are?
Speaker 5 (26:37):
It goes back to we were talking just a moment
ago about those those guys that were stunned in Boston
several years ago. How was it handled with them?
Speaker 2 (26:47):
Well, most of them ended up and they because they
again I just explaining the difference, because they were caught
in the act, meaning not in the act of sexual activity,
but in the act of solicitating what they thought were
approst was hard, but they they were, they were they
(27:08):
handed money over or whatever, and to to an undercover
police officer. I mean, I'm sure the police officer was
not wearing a uniform, but they were. They were. They
were pretending to be, you know, a lady of the evening.
And then once they did that, they were arrested. At
that point, they booked, fingerprinted and photographed, and they're in
(27:30):
court the next morning at an open arraignment. This these
guys because their name showed up in a book. In theory,
let's assume your name was somehow in that book. You know,
I'm not suggesting it would have been sewn, don't get
me wrong, But if somehow someone's name was similar to yours,
there could be a case of some mistaken identity. It
(27:52):
could be that someone used a different name. I mean,
there are some arguments that lawyers can make and and
would say, well, the only you don't have a sufficient
evidence to charge them, although obviously the US Attorney's Office
is going to disagree strongly with that, so we'll we'll.
You know, look, I think it's an interesting issue. Where
(28:13):
do you come down? Tell me? Should John obviously.
Speaker 5 (28:16):
Especially I'm really not sure on this one.
Speaker 2 (28:19):
Throw enough, Okay, that's that's always the best topic when
people aren't sure. Hey, Sean, thank you, Carl, and I
appreciate it. Nice to talk to you soon. All right,
good night. All right, let me h if I get
the right mouse here, I can if you could just say, yeah,
here we go, we're going to take a quick break.
I got Jane and Salem coming back. I'm looking forward
to what Jane has to say very much, and I'd
(28:39):
love to hear what you have to say. And again
I'll remind you this is a talk show, and I
invite people to call and express their opinions. Whatever their
opinion is on this or any other subject, You're always
welcome to call this show six one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty or six one seven, nine three one ten thirty.
We will change topics at ten o'clock tonight. We're going
to switch to your anticipation of what's going to happen
(29:03):
tomorrow night, twenty four hours from now in Philadelphia, when
Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are debating for what might
be the only presidential debate of twenty twenty four. We're
back on Nightside, hopefully with you and some other callers
right after this.
Speaker 1 (29:19):
Now back to Dan Raydy Mine from the window World
Nightside Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
Back to the phones. Let's go to Jane in Salem, Massachusetts. Jane,
I appreciate you calling in. You're next on Nightside. What
do you think about this situation?
Speaker 6 (29:35):
Hello, Dan, thank you for taking the call. I have
a couple of comments I'd like to make and feel
free to respond. It's interesting human trafficking is a multi
billion dollar industry in the world. Women are brought to
where there are sporting events and things of that nature.
(29:57):
Whenever there's a big sporting event, keep that in mind.
But also, someone made the comment, I think it was you.
People are paying extraordinary amounts of money. I'm going to
comment that's whether it's your daughter, my daughter, or it's
somebody's daughter. Six hundred dollars is not an extraordinary amount
(30:18):
of money if you think about what's going on. And
we had that one high pro profile case where while
they pay one hundred dollars and you know of what
I speak, but I am going to comment that a
lot of these people.
Speaker 2 (30:31):
By the way, Jane, I'm not sure realizing this is
family programming here, I'm not sure of what you mean
about one hundred dollars.
Speaker 6 (30:40):
I mean, well, let me let me. I'll realize it's
a family program. So let's just say that most women
or people's daughters don't grow up saying gee, I can't
wait to make fifty or one hundred dollars to give
a particular sex back to all day long to seventy
year old in Florida.
Speaker 2 (31:00):
Yep, I got it.
Speaker 6 (31:01):
You with me, okay. And these are these well placed,
high powered people. It's funny that the two gentlemen you
spoke to everybody kind of chuckles like it's locker room talk.
This is somebody's person, and it is. I went to
haved I didn't go to Havard to school, but within
the last five or ten years I went to see
(31:22):
a viewing of a movie called Trafficked. I think it's
like a documentary. It's a huge problem. I'm not sure
these people. So in relation to the very specifics of
this case, I read the police log every day, as
I'm sure you do. People's names are in there every day.
I think the facts of this is different based on
what you said in terms of the sjac case and
(31:43):
what they'll say. But it's a huge problem on so
many levels because it's not a lot of money. The
people who are buying these services, they have very wealthy individuals,
and I'm sorry, six hundred dollars is what they'd pay
to go out to dinner, right.
Speaker 2 (31:59):
I do want to the point the point I was
trying to make it. I don't want to over emphasize
this point or or under emphasized the point six hundred dollars.
In order to have that money to spend you have
to be a person of some substance. I mean you can,
I guess spend six d Isn't that concerning?
Speaker 6 (32:21):
So let me say these are from what we know,
although we don't know who the people are. They're supposedly responsible,
respected adults in the community.
Speaker 2 (32:30):
Give did you hear earliest hour? The US attorney josh
Joshua Levy when this indictment was announced last last November,
he categorized all the different type of people who were
involved in this, and there were doctors and lawyers, elected
public officials, according to him, military officers.
Speaker 6 (32:51):
I mean that to you, Dan Well.
Speaker 2 (32:55):
I think the fact that that he mentioned that it
was intended to make the point that these are people
in positions of power.
Speaker 6 (33:01):
In his power right and there's a real imbalance of power.
The other thing is these folks may be going home
to their families with sdds and not let you know
it is. It's just much more complicated than the chuckle haha.
This is you know what men do?
Speaker 2 (33:15):
Well? Well, what with John? To defend John from Boston?
When he called, he was essentially saying, it's that in
his opinion, And again you and I don't have to
agree and necessarily disagree with.
Speaker 6 (33:26):
His I certainly don't need to defend John from Boston.
I will say before I feel that, I will forget
it was a judge in Boston. Hold on one second,
because I'm going to forget this one Tom, I mean John,
go ahead, Just hang on a second, Dan, There was
a judge in Boston. It was a female judge, and
she used to not charge the sex workers that were
(33:47):
brought in unless the John's were also brought in. So
I think she's since retired. But that's the deal, you know.
It's uh, and this is different set of facts. I
think you're just saying, this is a list that was
on some who would give a credit card to this.
This is the kind of transaction you probably should pay cash.
Speaker 4 (34:05):
Go ahead, I the point.
Speaker 2 (34:07):
That I was trying to make you alluded to the
fellow John from Boston, and again not a John from
Boston and a gentleman whose name was John, and he
was advocating. He basically took this story and said, look,
in his opinion, prostitution should be legalized, that it should
be that it should be a business, that there should
(34:29):
be taxes are charged, that that women who were involved
in the trade should be certified. And you know, his
his his position was to kind of get people who
are running a brothel like this. I mean, if if
I don't agree with him, but but you I don't suspect.
(34:52):
I don't suspect that in Nevada, where there's a tax
element to the to the trade, that anybody's out there
opening up unregistered, unlicensed, unauthorized brothels in Nevada.
Speaker 6 (35:09):
And I think I'm going to suggest, I'm going to
suggest Dan that you do some research on human trafficking.
It is a multi billion dollar business and people aren't volunteerily.
Speaker 2 (35:18):
I'm not an expert on it, Jane. Sounds to me
like you might be an expert, but.
Speaker 6 (35:22):
I'm going to have a little bit of information. But
it's not a job that anybody would say, Oh great,
I'd like to go do this particular thing, giving a
sex act of ten seven year old men a day.
That's something I want to do as a career. I mean, well,
think about it that I think.
Speaker 2 (35:38):
That I understand the point you're making. But I can
tell you that there that there are people in every
every industry, even industries that you and I might not
ever want to be associated with, who will say, look,
I don't mind doing this, or I mean that's there are.
Speaker 6 (36:01):
You know, there's some research on human trafficking. It's not
a whole bunch of people volunteering. It's people that It
really is more.
Speaker 2 (36:09):
You know, Jane, you don't have to it's huge.
Speaker 6 (36:11):
It's a huge indult.
Speaker 2 (36:13):
I understand the difference.
Speaker 6 (36:14):
It was not meant as an insult at all.
Speaker 2 (36:16):
Dan, Well, thank you for that. It's it sounded that way. Well,
feel free anytime, You're welcome. Thank you very much, No problem. Okay, gee,
call end that way, because again I am aware of
human trafficking. It sounds to me like Jane has immersed
herself in the in the problem. You cannot be an
(36:39):
intelligent human human being and not understand what I would
have said to Jane is that you cannot be an intelligent,
rational human being in the twenty first century and and
have an IQ of of you know, normal levels and
not understand that, Yes, human trafficking is a curve. It's
(37:00):
occurring in our country, it's occurring in other countries, it's occurring.
Probably it is a worldwide phenomenon. I think the argument
is that, you know, prostitution is the world's oldest profession.
I was just in Italy at the ruins of Pompeii,
which was destroyed in seventy nine a d. And the
(37:26):
ruins which have been rediscovered after all these years in
seventeen forty eight and now have been brought back to life.
There were rooms there was prostitution going on at Pompeii
in seventy nine a d. And you actually they showed
us these rooms that you know, they obviously were, you know,
(37:47):
long ago, where men and I guess women as well
could pick what type of favor they what sort of
activity they want to engage in. So, yeah, I'm not
a mabe in the woods. I'm not naive, and I
think that we had an interesting discussion about it, but
we'll end it there and I will tell you here
(38:08):
comes the news, and we come back when we talk
about a big event tomorrow night that has immense relevance
to all of us. What might be the only presidential
debate in the twenty twenty twenty four cycle, the twenty
twenty four cycle, between former President Trump and the current
Vice President of the United States, Kamala Harris back on
Night's side right after the ten
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.