The Truth About the Biggest U.S. Sex Trafficking Story of the Year

[GameChanger]

I heard about this Seattle area prostitution bust through the grapevine and googled it to see what all the noise was about. The story is probably being drowned out in national news by the presidential election circus. Locally in Washington State, it seems to have been a huge deal.

What caught my attention was the fact that authorities charged male clients with felony counts of promoting prostitution on the basis that they wrote positive reviews and got together for drinks from time to time. Even worse, these guys were made out to be sex traffickers in press releases by local law enforcement and basically had their lives destroyed before getting their day in court. This article from the Libertarian site Reason.com captures the hobbyist point of view better than other sensationalized reporting:
https://reason.com/archives/2016/09/...ex-trafficking

There is one other short thread about this on ECCIE in the San Antonio Men's Lounge for those with access. It was suggested that the discussion be brought up here in the Legal forum, but I didn't see it here. This is the other thread:
http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1830309

What I'm really interested in is some legal opinions from actual lawyers. Maybe there is even a lawyer who practices in Washington who cares to comment, but I think it would be valuable for any U.S. lawyer to discuss the likelihood of this happening in their state. Thanks in advance for your opinions!

[ShysterJon]

Originally Posted by GameChanger

What I'm really interested in is some legal opinions from actual lawyers. Maybe there is even a lawyer who practices in Washington who cares to comment, but I think it would be valuable for any U.S. lawyer to discuss the likelihood of this happening in their state. Thanks in advance for your opinions!

Enforcement of laws prohibiting prostitution is largely done by city police, and police practices vary from city to city. Thus, I could opine on the likelihood of Dallas expending resources like Bellevue did (very unlikely), but my opinion wouldn't necessarily apply to El Paso, Austin, or San Antonio.

[GameChanger]

Originally Posted by ShysterJon

Enforcement of laws prohibiting prostitution is largely done by city police, and police practices vary from city to city. Thus, I could opine on the likelihood of Dallas expending resources like Bellevue did (very unlikely), but my opinion wouldn't necessarily apply to El Paso, Austin, or San Antonio.

Fair enough, Jon. The amount of effort likely to be expended by city and town PDs will certainly vary by location and political climate. Maybe I should have asked the question not about the likelihood of such an operation taking place, but rather about the likelihood of felony convictions resulting from similar charges brought against hobbyists in other locations.

Perhaps a more relevant hypothetical for you would have been to ask how you might approach the defense of a client facing similar charges in Dallas, given a similar situation somehow arising there. I am not asking about the two guys accused of running brothels, but rather about the the defendants who hired prostitutes for sex a couple of times per week, communicated / associated with other hobbyists, and wrote positive reviews of the women they liked.

I haven't read anything about defense strategies employed by these men, but the article mentioned one who entered a guilty plea and later attempted to change it because he was dissatisfied with his lawyer. Did these guys just need better representation?

[ShysterJon]

There are provisions in the Texas Penal Code regarding human trafficking and promoting prostitution, but, in my view, they can't be reasonably used to cover conduct such as writing a review or posting on a board. Texas felony offenses involving prostitution emphasize money -- that is, if you're getting money from a prostitution enterprise, it's likely a felony.

The following is the law in Washington state regarding promotion of prostitution, and it's the law the hobbyists in the article were charged with violating:

"1) A person is guilty of promoting prostitution in the second degree if he or she knowingly:
(a) Profits from prostitution; or
(b) Advances prostitution."

See https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.88.080.

This law, to me, is VERY, VERY broad and could be challenged on due process grounds. "Advancing" prostitution could include a billion small things.

[GameChanger]

Thank you, Jon. Highlighting the difference between Washington and Texas provided some perspective and helped me find what I believe are the relevant sections for New York.

I am no lawyer and offer no legal advice, but will share what I found for anyone who is interested. New York Penal Code defines felony promoting prostitution with a specific emphasis on management/ownership when the prostitute is not under the age of 19:

"230.25 Promoting prostitution in the third degree.

A person is guilty of promoting prostitution in the third degree when he or she knowingly:

1. Advances or profits from prostitution by managing, supervising, controlling or owning, either alone or in association with others, a house of prostitution or a prostitution business or enterprise involving prostitution activity by two or more persons in prostitution, or a business that sells travel-related services knowing that such services include or are intended to facilitate travel for the purpose of patronizing a person for prostitution, including to a foreign jurisdiction and regardless of the legality of prostitution in said foreign jurisdiction; or

2. Advances or profits from prostitution of a person less than nineteen years old.

Promoting prostitution in the third degree is a class D felony."

See http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal...25_230.25.html


Misdemeanor promoting prostitution is defined more broadly:

"230.20 Promoting prostitution in the fourth degree.

A person is guilty of promoting prostitution in the fourth degree when he or she knowingly:

1. Advances or profits from prostitution; or

2. With intent to advance or profit from prostitution, distributes or disseminates to ten or more people in a public place obscene material, as such terms are defined by subdivisions one and two of section 235.00 of this title, or material that depicts nudity, as such term is defined by subdivision one of section 245.10 of this part.

Promoting prostitution in the fourth degree is a class A misdemeanor."

See http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal...20_230.20.html


There is also a section which defines "advance prostitution" and "profit from prostitution":

"230.15 Promoting prostitution; definitions of terms. The following definitions are applicable to this article:

1. "Advance prostitution." A person "advances prostitution" when, acting other than as a person in prostitution or as a patron thereof, he or she knowingly causes or aids a person to commit or engage in prostitution, procures or solicits patrons for prostitution, provides persons or premises for prostitution purposes, operates or assists in the operation of a house of prostitution or a prostitution enterprise, or engages in any other conduct designed to institute, aid or facilitate an act or enterprise of prostitution.

2. "Profit from prostitution." A person "profits from prostitution" when, acting other than as a person in prostitution receiving compensation for personally rendered prostitution services, he or she accepts or receives money or other property pursuant to an agreement or understanding with any person whereby he or she participates or is to participate in the proceeds of prostitution activity."

See http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal...15_230.15.html

[sketchball82]

RCW 9A.88.060

Promoting prostitution—Definitions.
The following definitions are applicable in RCW 9A.88.070 through 9A.88.090:
(1) "Advances prostitution." A person "advances prostitution" if, acting other than as a prostitute or as a customer thereof, he or she causes or aids a person to commit or engage in prostitution, procures or solicits customers for prostitution, provides persons or premises for prostitution purposes, operates or assists in the operation of a house of prostitution or a prostitution enterprise, or engages in any other conduct designed to institute, aid, or facilitate an act or enterprise of prostitution.
(2) "Profits from prostitution." A person "profits from prostitution" if, acting other than as a prostitute receiving compensation for personally rendered prostitution services, he or she accepts or receives money or other property pursuant to an agreement or understanding with any person whereby he or she participates or is to participate in the proceeds of prostitution activity.

@SH, did you catch this definition?

In view of this definition, I don't necessarily agree with your comment, although I would have without it. I think that "aiding" a person to commit or engage in prostitution may be pretty broad and possible to constitutionally challenge, as is the last clause of RCW 9A.88.060(1). But my suspicion is given the clarity of the other clauses, Noscitur a sociisrule would be invoked during claim construction, rendering those unclear clauses to strict, narrower interpretation. The net result is a valid statute construction not subject to constitutional challenge.

@OP: "Solicit" has several meanings, and while broad it is definite. One of those definitions means "to entice or to lure." Taken with the rest of the statute cited above, one can give one aspect of the statute this construction (focusing on the relevant part of the statute):

A person "advances prostitution" if he or she lures other customers to commit acts of prostitution.

I would guess this is the argument?

Honestly though, I think this is thin. If this were my case and it went to trial, I would focus on the fact that "advancing prostitution" requires that the actor is not the client or the prostitute. Trying to twist the statute to force the exception (i.e., clients) into violating it is an absurd result, and therefore an improper statute construction.

---

Moving on to Michigan:

MI's general trafficking law can be found at MCL 750.462b et seq., and pimping and sex trafficking statutes (and prostitution-business-partner statutes) can be found at MCL 750.455 et seq. They are thankfully substantially clearer, and therefore I would not think a reivew could be twisted into being a felony.

[sketchball82]

RCW 9A.88.060

Promoting prostitution—Definitions.
The following definitions are applicable in RCW 9A.88.070 through 9A.88.090:
(1) "Advances prostitution." A person "advances prostitution" if, acting other than as a prostitute or as a customer thereof, he or she causes or aids a person to commit or engage in prostitution, procures or solicits customers for prostitution, provides persons or premises for prostitution purposes, operates or assists in the operation of a house of prostitution or a prostitution enterprise, or engages in any other conduct designed to institute, aid, or facilitate an act or enterprise of prostitution.
(2) "Profits from prostitution." A person "profits from prostitution" if, acting other than as a prostitute receiving compensation for personally rendered prostitution services, he or she accepts or receives money or other property pursuant to an agreement or understanding with any person whereby he or she participates or is to participate in the proceeds of prostitution activity.

@SH, did you catch this definition?

In view of this definition, I don't necessarily agree with your comment, although I would have without it. I think that "aiding" a person to commit or engage in prostitution may be pretty broad and possible to constitutionally challenge, as is the last clause of RCW 9A.88.060(1). But my suspicion is given the clarity of the other clauses, Noscitur a sociisrule would be invoked during claim construction, rendering those unclear clauses to strict, narrower interpretation. The net result is a valid statute construction not subject to constitutional challenge.

@OP: "Solicit" has several meanings, and while broad it is definite. One of those definitions means "to entice or to lure." Taken with the rest of the statute cited above, one can give one aspect of the statute this construction:

A person "advances prostitution" if he or she lures other customers to commit acts of prostitution.

I would guess this is the argument?

Honestly though, I think this is thin. This statutes appears on its face to be an anti-pimping, anti-sex-trafficking, and anti-business-partnering-with-a-prostitute statute. If this were my case and it went to trial, I would focus on the fact that "advancing prostitution" requires that the actor is not the client or the prostitute. Trying to twist the statute to force the exception (i.e., clients) into violating it is an absurd result, and therefore an improper statute construction.

---

Moving on to Michigan:

MI's general trafficking law can be found at MCL 750.462b et seq., and pimping and sex trafficking statutes (and prostitution-business-partner statutes) can be found at MCL 750.455 et seq. They are thankfully substantially clearer, and therefore I would not think a reivew could be twisted into being a felony.

[lyn.xes]

http://www.marketplace.org/2016/09/1...n-review-sites

there is an audio of this story

and there is an undercover video clip available

The League attracted the attention of law enforcement not because its members bought a lot of sex, but because of how they worked together. The men wrote glowing reviews to draw customers to their favorite women. That kept the women in town longer and encouraged the seven agencies supplying the women to send new prospects their way.

“So they were really operating as pimps,” said Valiant Richey, a senior deputy prosecuting attorney for King County and one of the lead attorneys on the case. “They’re charged with promoting prostitution because they expanded the market, they facilitated visits to these women, they connected new buyers to the women and helped with the screening process."....

Instead of charging the 16 league members with buying sex, a misdemeanor, they were charged with promoting prostitution — a felony. More than half have pleaded guilty....

About 15 percent of American men buy sex at some point. Only a small fraction of them are “hobbyists” like the men in Seattle. This review board is gone, but it has left a digital trail that could help law enforcement come to a better understanding of how frequent buyers operate.

Alex Trouteaud of youthSpark in Atlanta studied the data on North American sex buyers. He found 5 percent of them account for nearly half of illegal sex transactions.

In order to feed their habit, these buyers need to find new sources of sex and avoid the cops. That means they have to share intel.

“'John boards are far and away the fastest and easiest place to find these individuals,” Trouteaud said.

Prosecutors said the Seattle case opened up a new window into the sex trade, where internet crowdsourcing allows buyers to work together to blur the lines between supply and demand.

[Solitaire]

If I'm completely altering the flow of this conversation, I apologize. But there is something I've long been curious about.

Why can't this, with the spirit of Larry Flynt, be run up the appeals flagpole, with the same strategies - or not exact same of course, but same concepts. Maybe I'm naively optimistic, but I believe we already have the ability to make this legal, if approached the same way.

What arguments did he make, against the prevailing ideologies of the time, to win the Supreme Court over? Comparison? Contrast?

It really broke my heart to see these guys belly up and plea. And a suicide on top of it.

[sketchball82]

Originally Posted by Solitaire

If I'm completely altering the flow of this conversation, I apologize. But there is something I've long been curious about.

Why can't this, with the spirit of Larry Flynt, be run up the appeals flagpole, with the same strategies - or not exact same of course, but same concepts. Maybe I'm naively optimistic, but I believe we already have the ability to make this legal, if approached the same way.

What arguments did he make, against the prevailing ideologies of the time, to win the Supreme Court over? Comparison? Contrast?

It really broke my heart to see these guys belly up and plea. And a suicide on top of it.

The quick answer is because free speech (including one's right to make and distribute parodies that make fun of someone) is a protected right under the first amendment. Sex for money is not a protected right. The constitutional challenge we're talking about is because the wording or scope of the statute is deficient. Not because the ideal of the statute is protected.

EDIT: Not sure what suicide you're talking about at the end. :O

[The Eternal Bachelor]

I think there was a similar case in Arizona a few years ago where the reviewers on a local board had similar charges.

[want2c]

They have left out KEY details, these guys didn't just write reviews. Their involvement went way beyond, simple, forums and reviews.

1. These guys met regularly to discuss the girls.
2. The guys voted on which girls where shipped in and when a girl needed to move on
3. The even decided which locations the girls would work
4. They created a sub forum solely for the purpose of the girls, the shipping and location
5. They acted like traffickers without the discount.

Way more involved then what is going on at ECCIE

[TinMan]

There have been more developments in this case. No news yet on the hearing set for today, but here's one libertarian outfit that's keeping tabs on it:

http://reason.com/blog/2016/12/13/12...stitution-case

Curious what the great legal minds of eccie think of the latest developments. I'm surprised King County is still squeezing blood from what I thought was a turnip.

[Loves2spooge]

There might be a new "biggest sex trafficking" story:
http://www.azfamily.com/story/372518...fficking-sting

Many news outlets reported this story, but at least this one shows reader comments... Which are all surprised that the cops and government got away with this.

Here is a link to a well funded group pushing local cities to equate solicitation with HT.
https://www.demandabolition.org/

It's pretty scary because HT, a serious felony allows LE federal resources which can go as far as checking your financial records without you knowing, probably going into your emails as well. Just because you think you are safe with your TOR browser checking things out at your free local wifi place... You don't think LE can't break into your crypto safe spaces? Don't kid yourselves, they are using the same technology used to find terrorists to track down guys who patronize women.

Seattle was just the beginning, and maybe some of those guys were doing more than seeing girls and writing reviews, but most were just the average hobbyist like many on eccie. Sure, many of those Seattle guys didn't STFU, but the ones who decided to fight back are stuck in litigation for well over a year and possibly in the $100K+ of legal fees.

Yes, Leo goes for the low hanging fruit first, but once that's picked... where do you think they go?

I wish there was a way to combat this. You'd think with the legalization of marijuana that our sex laws would relax as well.

On the contrary, groups like this demand abolishment want to stop all demand for p4p. Their philosophy is to stop the demand side in order to stop prostitution. And they are using tactics of calling any guy who solicits for sex, guilty of supporting human trafficking.

This should make everyone extremely angry. What can we do to fight back?

[Unique_Carpenter]

L2s,
Not a big story.
Low hanging fruit walked into a place and propositioned an undercover.
I'll repeat my statement.
Monger walks in and asks for sex with an unknown non verified gal in a brand new place.
Not ht. Simple solicitation.
Leo set up a good sting.
Ignore the newsie excitement and go to the real story