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