Rouge Massage
Montreal Escorts

Boston Asian high end brothel bust-client names exposed

CaptRenault

A poor corrupt official
Jun 29, 2003
2,236
1,157
113
Casablanca
I have always hated the state of Massachusetts because of its high taxes, poor roads, insufferable sports fans, puritanical values and thousands of leftist academics. Here is another reason to hate the state and avoid it. The state's only redeeming attraction is that it is within an easy drive of Montreal.


"So every John is a sex trafficker?" asked Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Scott L. Kafker in the courtroom last week.

"Yes, your honor," replied Plymouth County Assistant District Attorney Julianne Campbell.

The case—Commonwealth v. Garafalo—represents the latest assault on civil liberties and basic language to be carried out in the name of stopping sex trafficking.

Victimizing 'A Fictitious Individual Created by Law Enforcement'

It's long been a goal of certain radical feminists to define all sex work as sex trafficking. If you completely remove agency and free will from the equation—at least for women—then anyone who accepts money for sexual activity can be a victim and anyone who makes or facilitates this payment a criminal.

This paradigm is the basis for the "Nordic Model" of regulating prostitution, in which paying for sex is illegal but the basic act of offering sex for money is not. The Nordic model is established in many European countries, was adopted last year in Maine, and is gaining ground in the U.S. (where it's sometimes, confusingly, called the Equality Model).

In keeping with this paternalistic mindset, some places have also started to raise penalties for prostitution customers, even elevating solicitation from a misdemeanor to a felony. Meanwhile, at the federal level, trying to pay for sex with someone under age 18 counts as sex trafficking even when the solicitor does not know the minor's actual age.

Massachusetts may take these ideas one step further and declare anyone who tries to pay for sex at all to be a sex trafficker, thereby defining all prostitution, even between consenting adults, to be a form of sex trafficking.

A case that came before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) last week involves a prostitution sting conducted by Massachusetts state cops in 2021. The officers, posing as adult sex workers, posted ads online and arrested people who responded to the ads and attempted to meet up for paid sexual activity.

Regrettably, this type of sting is incredibly common in the U.S. It typically results in solicitation charges—still a misdemeanor in most places—for those ensnared. But in this case the state indicted those who responded to the sham ads on sex trafficking charges.

Massachusetts law says that anyone who "subjects, or attempts to subject, or recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides or obtains by any means, or attempts to recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide or obtain by any means, another person to engage in commercial sexual activity, a sexually-explicit performance or the production of unlawful pornography" is guilty of trafficking of persons for sexual servitude—a.k.a. sex trafficking. The crime is a felony, punishable by at least 5 years in prison (without eligibility for probation, parole, or work release) and a possible 20 years, plus a potential fine of up to $25,000.

The five defendants in Garafalo, arrested in the 2021 sting and charged with trafficking of persons for sexual servitude, pushed back against the charges, filing a motion to dismiss them in 2022.

State Judge Maynard Kirpalani agreed to dismiss the charges. "The grand jury heard no evidence that there were any actual victims in the cases involving any of the Defendants, as the woman in the advertisements was a fictitious individual created by law enforcement, and there was no money and/or sexual services exchanged," wrote Kirpalani. "Consequently, there was no evidence that any of the Defendants knowingly enabled or caused, or attempted to enable or cause, another person to engage in commercial sexual activity."

'We're Going To Take Every Single John…and Put Them in Prison for Five Years?'

The state appealed, but the Appeals Court judge also sided with the defendants. So the state appealed again.

The Massachusetts high court heard oral arguments for the case on January 6.

Massachusetts' position is that the state's sexual servitude statute clearly captures paying for sex among its prohibited activities. It comes down to the word "obtain," the state argued.

But at the same time the state legislature enacted a sex trafficking statute in 2011, it also raised the penalty for "soliciting a prostitute," making this misdemeanor crime punishable by "a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $5,000" and up to two and a half years in jail.

"We're going to take every single John, charge them with sex trafficking, and put them in prison for five years? I don't think that was the intent," defense attorney Patrick Noonan told Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court justices last week. It would make the misdemeanor offense completely redundant.

It's unclear when a decision will be issued, but "SJC cases are typically decided within 130 days," the Boston Globe reports.

The Dangers of Exploitation Creep​

This is an important case to watch for folks concerned with the inflation of human trafficking and sex trafficking—concepts that have undergone a massive case of what sometimes called "exploitation creep." In recent decades, we've seen a series of attempts to expand the parameters of these crimes from truly heinous and coercive acts to much less serious offenses.

In many cases, this has involved roping in third parties—drivers, websites, hotels, social media platforms, sales software companies, etc—into liability for coercive or violent acts that did take place but of which they had only the most tangential and unwitting involvement. Another element of this impulse involves defining consenting adult sex workers as prima facie victims and anyone who pays them as a victimizer or trafficker.

If Massachusetts' high court justices side with the state, it obviously won't bind other states to similar interpretations of their own sex trafficking statutes. But plenty of police agencies and prosecutors across the country already refer to plain old prostitution stings as "sex trafficking operations" and the arrest of potential prostitution customers as a "human trafficking bust," even when the only charges brought are misdemeanor solicitation charges. The authorities in many states would clearly welcome the opportunity to include attempting to pay for sex under the official rubric of sex trafficking.

If Massachusetts' top court greenlights the state's attempt to charge sex-work customers as sex traffickers, you can bet it will encourage authorities in other states to play faster and looser with their own definitions. If the court sides with the state here, I think we'll be looking at a major escalation of an already dangerous trend.

Labeling people who want to pay a willing adult for sex as sex traffickers is certainly unfair to those people, and not just because they can be imprisoned for so much longer. It's one thing to have a misdemeanor arrest on your record or to have to disclose a solicitation conviction; it's quite another to have a felony record and have to tell people you're a convicted sex trafficker.

And the negative consequences of this shift don't stop with those convicted. Defining all prostitution as sex trafficking threatens to drive the industry further underground and to make customers less likely to engage in screening protocols and other safety measures, making the work more dangerous for adult sex workers and for adult and minor victims of sexual exploitation alike.

It also takes resources away from fighting crimes where there are actual victims, instead encouraging cops and prosecutors to conduct sure-thing stings where the only "victim" is an undercover cop.

And it does all this while letting authorities ratchet up sex trafficking arrest and conviction numbers, confusing the issue by conflating two very different things in public data. This spike in arrests and convictions can then be used to stoke public fear and build demand for more action. It's can be used to justify raising police budgets, expanding surveillance power, suppressing online speech, and generally calling for more tough-on-crime policies. It can also be used to call for new regulations on businesses as diverse as massage parlors, hotels, and social media platforms.

Policies like these affect people far beyond sex workers and their clients, and they do nothing to help actual victims of sexual violence, coercion, and abuse. Let's hope Massachusetts justices see the state's ploy for what it is and make the right call here.
 
Last edited:

CaptRenault

A poor corrupt official
Jun 29, 2003
2,236
1,157
113
Casablanca
Here is more info about the attempt by the Massachusetts state government to equate all prostitution with "sex trafficking." If Massachusetts is successful, then more states will follow. Texas and North Carolina already have similar laws. And let's not forget that Canada also has a "Nordic law" that directly targets clients more than service providers (though the law is not enforced in Montreal and other major cities).


This podcast focuses on the Commonwealth v. Garafalo case before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The central issue revolves around the legal definition of sex trafficking in Massachusetts, specifically whether soliciting sex online constitutes "obtaining" a person for commercial sex. The case study explores the conflicting interpretations of the law by the prosecution, arguing for a broad definition encompassing those who solicit sex, and the defense, highlighting the potential for overreach and the redundancy with existing laws against solicitation. Further, it examines the "Nordic Model" of prostitution regulation, contrasting it with traditional approaches and discussing the concept of "exploitation creep"—the expansion of trafficking definitions to include consensual sex work—and its implications. Finally, the document analyzes the broader societal and legal implications of the case's outcome.
  • What is the central legal question in Commonwealth v. Garafalo? The core legal question is whether the act of responding to an online ad and attempting to pay for sex constitutes sex trafficking under Massachusetts law, specifically regarding the interpretation of the word "obtain" in the state's anti-trafficking statute. The case hinges on whether the law intends for anyone attempting to purchase sex to be considered a sex trafficker.
  • How did Massachusetts State Police conduct the sting operation that led to the Garafalo case? Massachusetts State Police conducted a sting operation by posting online advertisements pretending to be sex workers. When individuals responded to these ads and attempted to meet for paid sexual activity, they were arrested. The state then charged these individuals with sex trafficking.
  • What is the "Nordic Model" of regulating prostitution, and how does it differ from traditional U.S. approaches? The "Nordic Model" criminalizes the purchase of sex but not the act of selling it. This model aims to reduce demand for prostitution, viewing sex workers as victims, and seeks to punish those who create the demand. Traditional approaches in the U.S. often criminalize both the buying and selling of sex, though the application and enforcement can vary by state.
  • What is the state of Massachusetts' argument for charging the men in Garafalo with sex trafficking? The state argues that the word "obtain" in the trafficking statute should be interpreted to mean that anyone who attempts to pay for sex is "obtaining" sexual services, and is therefore a trafficker. They assert that this interpretation aligns with the intent of the law to address all aspects of the commercial sex trade.
  • Why did a state judge and Appeals Court judge initially dismiss the sex trafficking charges in the Garafalo case? The judges initially dismissed the charges because they found there were no actual victims in the case. The "sex workers" were fictitious individuals created by law enforcement. Therefore, no one was forced, coerced, or trafficked into commercial sexual activity. They argued that the actions of the defendants did not meet the criteria to be considered sex trafficking under the state's definition.
  • What is "exploitation creep" as it relates to discussions of human and sex trafficking? "Exploitation creep" refers to the expansion of the definition of human and sex trafficking beyond egregious acts of coercion and force to encompass less severe actions, including consensual adult sex work. This broadening of the definition can lead to the conflation of sex trafficking and consensual prostitution, potentially misdirecting resources and legal focus.
  • According to the defense, why is the prosecution's interpretation of the sex trafficking law problematic? The defense argues that the prosecution's interpretation of the word “obtain” is overly broad and would make the existing misdemeanor charge of paying for sex redundant. They state that if every person who attempts to pay for sex is charged with sex trafficking, it undermines the intent of the law, and could result in the over-prosecution of individuals, effectively turning misdemeanor offenses into felonies.
  • What are some potential negative consequences of defining all prostitution as sex trafficking? Defining all prostitution as sex trafficking could drive the industry further underground, making it more dangerous for sex workers and more difficult to identify true victims of trafficking. It could also divert law enforcement resources from investigating cases where force, fraud, and coercion are actually present. Furthermore, it could lead to inaccurate reporting of trafficking statistics, as many who pay for sex would be labeled as sex traffickers.
 

CLOUD 500

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2005
7,363
4,548
113
I never understood why US politicians got this vendetta against prostitution. Weird. When countries in Europe embrace it. Whatever two consenting adults do is not the state's business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rebaynia

CaptRenault

A poor corrupt official
Jun 29, 2003
2,236
1,157
113
Casablanca
I never understood why US politicians got this vendetta against prostitution. Weird. When countries in Europe embrace it. Whatever two consenting adults do is not the state's business.
Not true of all European countries. The idea of criminalizing the client but not the service provider, AKA the "Nordic law," obviously come from Scandinavia, specifically Sweden. Sweden passed its law well before Canada and a few U.S. states did. France also has a Nordic law and more conservative countries like Italy have traditionally restrictive criminal laws on prostitution. Germany has the most permissive prostitution law but you can't say that all Germans and German parties embrace it. Some major German parties are very anti-prostitution.

The worst anti-prostitution laws in some U.S. states were started by coalitions of conservative Christians and feminists. That coalition exists in Canada too but it has not been strong enough to get Canada's existing law enforced in most Canadian cities. But I do not assume that the political climate in Canada will never change. There was a time during Trudeau's administration where he had the political strength to change Canada's prostitution law but he did not want to take on the fight. In fact, when questioned about Canada's law, he famously said: "...it's important to recognize that "prostitution itself is a form of violence against women." So neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives in Canada want to fully decriminalize prostitution.

 

CLOUD 500

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2005
7,363
4,548
113
Not true of all European countries. The idea of criminalizing the client but not the service provider, AKA the "Nordic law," obviously come from Scandinavia, specifically Sweden. Sweden passed its law well before Canada and a few U.S. states did. France also has a Nordic law and more conservative countries like Italy have traditionally restrictive criminal laws on prostitution. Germany has the most permissive prostitution law but you can't say that all Germans and German parties embrace it. Some major German parties are very anti-prostitution.
True say. But even in those countries it is still more permissive then the USA. In the US they got the most severe anti-prostitution laws.
The worst anti-prostitution laws in some U.S. states were started by coalitions of conservative Christians and feminists. That coalition exists in Canada too but it has not been strong enough to get Canada's existing law enforced in most Canadian cities. But I do not assume that the political climate in Canada will never change. There was a time during Trudeau's administration where he had the political strength to change Canada's prostitution law but he did not want to take on the fight. In fact, when questioned about Canada's law, he famously said: "...it's important to recognize that "prostitution itself is a form of violence against women." So neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives in Canada want to fully decriminalize prostitution.
Canada is shifting more and more to the US style by the day. SPs screening like US, rates going closer to being on par with US rates. As for Trudope, he is a self proclaimed feminist. He will never legalize prostitution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sommating

nothinghere

Well-Known Member
Mar 22, 2022
492
373
63
56
Scary stuff.
The article links to 2014 paper "Exploitation Creep"
Now I have deep insight where Bill C-36 comes from.
After reading this I am in shock how many NGO's, UN, UNAIDS, Academics, are in on this industry.
This is like Exploitation of Exploitation.
Damn if a lone John is redefined as "Sex trafficker"

Exploitation Creep

"It has also spawned an industry of nonprofits that have elevated the “abolition"
of trafficking into a pressing moral campaign, which anyone can join with the click of
a mouse. Scholars have also jumped into the fray, calling on states to marshal human rights
law, tax law, trade law, tort law, public health law, labor law, and even military might
to combat this apparently growing international crime and human rights violation."

Really scary from the Massachusetts article:

"In many cases, this has involved roping in third parties—drivers, websites, hotels, social media platforms, sales software companies, etc
—into liability for coercive or violent acts that did take place but of which they had only the most tangential and unwitting involvement."

All this further justifies cashless society with social credit scores to keep Johns from exploiting and trafficking women.
The future sucks and it's all John's fault.
 

UncleBuck

Active Member
May 8, 2011
92
157
33
I have always hated the state of Massachusetts because of its high taxes, poor roads, insufferable sports fans, puritanical values and thousands of leftist academics.
Had you not mentioned Massachusetts, I could’ve sworn you were describing Quebec here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmioffe

Zzyzx

Member
Jan 23, 2025
29
22
8
42
I never understood why US politicians got this vendetta against prostitution. Weird. When countries in Europe embrace it. Whatever two consenting adults do is not the state's business.

For the same reason they are going after abortion and will soon go after contraception. Conservatives believe women should never have sex for pleasure, just like the animals who perform FGM.
 

CLOUD 500

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2005
7,363
4,548
113
For the same reason they are going after abortion and will soon go after contraception. Conservatives believe women should never have sex for pleasure, just like the animals who perform FGM.
Lol You forgot about the Liberals. They are self-proclaimed feminists and say men wanting to pay for sex are commiting violence against women. They also promote and encourage misandry. Currently feminists are the big one trying to stop prostitution. In Canada the yearly Grand Prix anti-prostitution sting is being pushed by feminist groups.
 

RobertNYC

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2017
409
278
63
Lol You forgot about the Liberals. They are self-proclaimed feminists and say men wanting to pay for sex are commiting violence against women. They also promote and encourage misandry. Currently feminists are the big one trying to stop prostitution. In Canada the yearly Grand Prix anti-prostitution sting is being pushed by feminist groups.
But they cheer in Massachusetts when doctors mutilate children.
 

Halloween Mike

Original Dude
Apr 19, 2009
5,322
1,682
113
Winterfell
Too bad cause i always thought my best chance to meet a pornstar was in Boston. They tour there sometimes and its the closest to Quebec...

Honestly i never understand this hate for prostitution the same way as the hate on marijuana. Its fighting 2 of the oldest things that exist and will always exist. The weird part is how open the US is with porn and sexualization in general, but prostitution (outside a few special states) is seen as so big of a crime...
 

RobertNYC

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2017
409
278
63
Too bad cause i always thought my best chance to meet a pornstar was in Boston. They tour there sometimes and its the closest to Quebec...

Honestly i never understand this hate for prostitution the same way as the hate on marijuana. Its fighting 2 of the oldest things that exist and will always exist. The weird part is how open the US is with porn and sexualization in general, but prostitution (outside a few special states) is seen as so big of a crime...

I think there are a few reasons for that. It’s IRL scenario in the community vs virtual or online. But your point is well taken.

Much of this insanity or lunacy is driven by false compassion (blame the person mugged not the mugger, the user not the dealer, etc). Feminism and the ability to think critically are big factors.

And the war on men, especially those with a bit of disposable income, is part of this. Booking an escort who drives a Porsche and lives in a luxurious condo is victimization and exploitation. That all makes sense and is justice to a single, unhappy feminist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CaptRenault

talkinghead

Well-Known Member
Aug 15, 2007
441
339
63
It may be worth pointing out that this thread groups together all feminism into a single, monolithic lump, while in reality there is an active wing of feminism that advocates for decriminalization and legalization. This form of feminism supports the rights of women to have agency over their bodies and argues *against* laws that prohibit sex work, seeing them as restrictive and controlling. So, many posters in this thread are actually speaking the language of liberal feminism! And my guess is that at least some of Montreal's SPs identify as feminist.... I'm not sure there's any branch of conservative Christianity, or maybe any Christian perspective at all, that advocates for legalization.
 

CaptRenault

A poor corrupt official
Jun 29, 2003
2,236
1,157
113
Casablanca
The state of Mass., the city of Boston and the Feds continue their efforts to demonize all kinds of prostitution as "sex trafficking."

This case demonstrates the danger of patronizing any kind of brothel based sex provider in the U.S. It's just too hard for such operations to stay under the radar, especially in a puritanical, left-wing city like Boston.


Eager to gain access to an exclusive establishment near Harvard University, biotech executives, doctors, lawyers and politicians filled out applications and handed over IDs, work badges and personal references.

This elite club was a high-end brothel charging up to $600 an hour for sexual encounters in luxury apartments in Cambridge, Mass.

Now, that unusual trove of personal information is serving as evidence in a series of criminal hearings that have pulled back the curtain on upscale sex work. Dozens of prominent Boston-area men, who lost a legal battle for anonymity, are facing misdemeanor charges that have caused major public fallout.

Cambridge City Councilor Paul Toner, among the alleged sex buyers, is confronting calls for his resignation and has been stripped of committee assignments. Others have left high-profile posts in business and medicine without explanation. Most have avoided the closely watched proceedings, dubbed “The Cambridge Brothel Hearings” by local media, where names—more than 30 so far—have emerged in batches.
While naming and shaming johns is a longstanding deterrent against prostitution, police typically target sex traffickers and workers. In this case, a desire by prosecutors to target buyers, legal action by media organizations, and the brothel’s impeccable customer records pushed the clientele into the spotlight.

The brothel, where young Asian women used names like Tulip and Tiki, also operated just outside Washington, D.C., but Virginia prosecutors said they declined to pursue charges against johns there.

“They chose these locations because they were trying to attract rich and powerful men who wanted to buy sex,” said Leah Foley, U.S. attorney for the District of Massachusetts, whose office referred 34 alleged buyers to Cambridge authorities and a separate batch to Virginia.

Han Lee, the 42-year-old madam, received a four-year prison sentence in March after pleading guilty to conspiracy to induce women into prostitution and money laundering. Courts ordered her to forfeit around $5.5 million.

Attorneys for 13 of the men accused of buying sex fought to keep their names private, arguing before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that they were “private citizens who face adverse and embarrassing collateral consequences if their name and image are published.” The court ruled the hearings should be made public.

Anti-sex-trafficking groups are heartened by that. “I would hope that them getting named makes others think about twice what they’re doing,” said Ivette Monge, a survivor who works with the nonprofit Ready Inspire Act.

‘Unrivaled’ views​

In Cambridge, the brothel ran out of a swanky condo complex that touts “unrivaled city views.” Lee, the madam, was picky. She demanded potential clients provide information such as work IDs and references from existing customers or other brothels.

Prosecutors allege Lee vetted clients in part to screen out law enforcement. Her attorney argued she did so because she cared about the safety of her workers. Born into poverty in South Korea, she was a sex worker for years before becoming a madam. She allowed women to keep more than half the proceeds and decline to perform services if they chose, wrote Scott Lauer, her federal public defender.

Former vice detectives told The Wall Street Journal they were surprised at the brothel’s exclusivity and organization—and that so many brainy professionals would surrender personal details to it.

Jonathan Lanfear, the 56-year-old chief executive of HiberCell, a biotech firm focused on novel cancer therapies, was one who did so, authorities allege. Photos of Lanfear’s work ID from Takeda Pharmaceuticals, where he previously worked, his driver’s license, credit card and a selfie were found on the brothel phone, police say.

‘Girlfriend experience’​


Authorities allege Lanfear arranged for sex at least 10 times, including on June 27, 2023, when he texted the brothel phone asking about a woman named Wren.

The brothel confirmed Wren’s availability but warned: “Only GFE Services, No BB Services!!—referencing the “Girlfriend Experience” (which prosecutors described as “more intimate”) and “bareback’ (condom-less).

Lanfear agreed to pay $340 for an hour, police say. Unaware investigators had installed hallway cameras in the complex, he was stopped by detectives when leaving. When questioned, Lanfear said he was visiting a friend.

At a recent hearing to decide whether charges should be brought, Lanfear’s attorney David Yannetti argued no evidence showed his client knew he was visiting a brothel or that money changed hands. Yannetti emphasized prosecutors didn’t offer any testimony about what actually occurred inside.

“There are a lot of conclusions that are drawn,” Yannetti said. “There’s not sufficient evidence to back up those conclusions.”

The court disagreed, and Lanfear is set to be arraigned on a misdemeanor charge. Neither Lanfear nor his company, HiberCell, responded to requests for comment.

Other companies such as Gradiant, a cutting-edge wastewater treatment firm with a valuation of over $1 billion, are defending their chief executives more vocally. Anurag Bajpayee, an MIT-trained mechanical engineer whose innovations previously earned him a spot on Scientific American’s annual Top 10 World-Changing Ideas, is alleged to have paid for sex at the brothel several times.

“We believe in the justice system and are confident that this will resolve favorably in due course,” said Gradiant representative Felix Wang. “Unrelated to this, Gradiant will continue to pursue excellence in technological innovation and to strive towards our mission to ensure clean water for all society.”

Outcry​

The loudest outcry has come over the revelation that Toner, the Cambridge councilman, was an alleged client. The angst in the liberal city has less to do with moral qualms than with concerns over exploitation in the sex industry.

Toner, 58, apologized during a March council meeting, saying he was ashamed to have his name associated with the case. But he said he wouldn’t be stepping down. “All Americans—including elected officials—are entitled to the right to due process,” he said.


Though Toner was allegedly a frequent customer, the brothel still reminded him to maintain discretion, according to police.

“DO NOT BE LOUD ON THE HALLWAY,” a brothel text told him. “WATCH OUT FOR NEIGHBORS.”
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts