I am a criminal defense attorney and have been for almost 35 years. I am admitted to practice and have practiced in three states. I have clerked on the United States Court of Appeals. I say this to qualify my input here on the case of Cambridge city councillor Paul Toner, since much has been misunderstood and repeated as relates to brothels once operated in Cambridge and those statements now have a life of their own.
I am attaching here the docket from the federal court as well as input from the Assistant U.S. Attorney’s Office and defense on sentencing.
https://embed.documentcloud.org/documents/25747596-032325-han-lee-docket/?embed=1
https://embed.documentcloud.org/documents/25747597-032325-government-sentencing-memo/?embed=1
https://embed.documentcloud.org/documents/25747595-032325-defense-memo-in-aid-of-sentencing/?embed=1
Note, the brothel case was based on money laundering primarily and a charge of inducing women to cross state lines, and therein lies the basis of the crimes.
In other words, this is not a case about slave trade or physical coercion or even a case in which the “victims” were cheated. By all accounts, brothel defendant Han Lee placed an ad and women flew at their own expense to be interviewed. They earned substantial income from their activities, and that income usually exceeded 50 percent of the cost. In truth, the women earned better hourly wage than most attorneys, without the overhead.
The women did not submit victim statements, and that is noted on the attached docket – and there was no sentencing enhancement based on “vulnerable victim” status.
What is clear is that Homeland Security was the lead arm of the government that conducted the investigation. There were 2,800 “johns” involved. The acting assistant U.S. attorney announced to the press that this case involved the highest-level security threats with johns in sensitive positions within our country. To be sure, despite the U.S. attorneys office prosecuting those in charge of the brothels, no john was pursued – because it simply is not a federal crime to purchase the services of a prostitute.
At that point the U.S. Attorney’s Office transferred the investigative reports on the 2,800 purported johns to the Cambridge Police Department. It was there that 28 cases were chosen out of the 2,800. Notably, somehow, I have yet to see the johns with highest-level security clearances or anyone who could place our safety in jeopardy being charged.
Somehow, CPD justifies its selection based on “400 messages” that were then translated into 400 meetups. Each line of a message was deemed a separate message no matter the poster. The police admitted such in open court – ironically, in our juvenile court on Third Street. I attended the first hearing since I have represented those accused at show-cause hearings in the past. Truth is, many cases end there and no one ever hears about them.
The honorable clerk magistrate has viewed her job as solely issuing a criminal complaint, no matter what, so long as the police prosecutor reads sufficient facts into the record. Clerk magistrate also explained that there are cases in which she has decided on a diversionary program in lieu of the criminal complaint. Thus far, she has not done that despite some very strong arguments by the defense.
I listened carefully and read the statements of Toner’s council members. Truthfully, I see no reason whatsoever for him to resign or for anyone thinking they can force a termination. I also note that there have been truly objectionable actions of some on this council that go to the heart of their duties. I do not see Toner’s actions in that category at all. Note well, I have never been a big advocate of Toner: He is middle of the road on most of my issues and in some ways facilitates adoption of some changes that I abhor. He is being greatly maligned here, though, and the council is doing it.
Marie Elena Saccoccio, Esquire, Otis Street, Cambridge
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)3 nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
In the future, I think would be nice if opinion pieces in the Cambridge Day identified the author’s affiliations with local political groups. Ms Saccoccio appears to be the former treasure of the Cambridge Citizens Coalition PAC (https://www.ocpf.us/Reports/DisplayReport?menuHidden=true&id=805517) and a board member of Cambridge Streets for all (https://cambridgeforall.org/bios).
@AndrewGroh That would help clarify any potential conflicts of interest, like we seem to have here.
Toner is entitled to due process and presumed innocent until proven guilty. If convicted, it would violate his oath of office and breach public trust.
He doesn’t appear to be denying the charges.
Paul Toner deserves due process like anyone.
But if he’s guilty knowing of, and participating in, an illegal operation, that seems to be a clear violation of public trust—and more than enough reason to resign.
You know Paul Toner is in trouble when lawyers are writing letters to the Cambridge Day to say he’s not involved with the slave trade.
Ironically I have no memory of ever being a Treasurer of CCC IeP, which is not CCC at all. I definitely have not been on the Board or an Officer of CCC. I am a Board Member of Cambridge Streets for All which was organized and led by Joan Pickett. Somehow you want to change this into a bike lane issue?? LOL
So -maybe- Toner physically engaged with the brothel less than 400 times [but was still top 1% in client frequency] and the women wanted to be there… but if I understand correctly, whether the law is reasonable or not, it’s still illegal to buy sex in MA and he has not denied using the brothel.
Is a public official is allowed to break the law [repeatedly, if not 400 times] if he thinks the law is unreasonable? Is that the argument?
It seems reasonable to me to be concerned that anyone who knew a public official was [repeatedly] breaking the law might have leverage over them… but maybe I’ve just seen to many TV shows with a ‘compromised politician’ plot.
Who paid for these expensive visits? If it came from his personal account, it’s between himself and his family, but if it came from campaign funds or was sponsored by someone with city business, the public has a right to know.
He chose to be a public servant and he chose to break the law. He brought this scrutiny on himself.
To CCC buying a condo while supporting allowing more housing is a controversy worthy of public criticism: https://www.cambridgeday.com/2025/02/03/councillor-who-struggled-to-rent-three-years-ago-buys-a-home-met-with-suspicion-ahead-of-voting/ but a city councilor flagrantly violating the law repeatedly is “no reason whatsoever for him to resign”
Just to emphasize why pointing out what Andrew Groh did is so important for basic journalistic standards, CCC endorsed Toner. Is anyone truly surprised that one of his backers thinks this?
“I also note that there have been truly objectionable actions of some on this council that go to the heart of their duties”
I would be curious what those are, because from my perspective it seems clear that the defenders of wealth, privilege, and car centricity (redundant) in Cambridge have fundamental double standards when it comes to what is acceptable for their side to do compared to what they see as unacceptable for their opponents.
It’s fascinating to me that the author says,
“I also note that there have been truly objectionable actions of some on this council that go to the heart of their duties. I do not see Toner’s actions in that category at all.”
I’m truly curious what those actions are that are more objectionable than allegedly committing a state sex crime multiple times.
It’s also odd to me that she claims that the CCC IEP is “not CCC at all”. The CCC IEP website links to CCC for its policy goals, and its endorsed candidates, and it even refers to itself as CCC.
Additionally, even if she isn’t “on the board or an officer” of CCC, she is listed as a member of the CCC’s Advisory Team.
It just seems so odd to me that she claims “I have never been a big advocate of Toner”, when she clearly has worked closely with/for groups that share many of his key policy positions and have endorsed his run for council in past elections.
It’s hypocritical to criticize Councillor Burhan Azeem for buying property in Cambridge while defending Toner, who at minimum knew about an illegal operation and did nothing.
Doesn’t that go to the heart of his duties? Does breaking the law (if found guilty)?
I have no very strong opinion on whether the author ought to have disclosed her association with Cambridge Citizens Coalition, but just to get things straight, OCPF does list her as a prior treasurer of CCC’s IEPAC: https://www.ocpf.us/Filers/Index?q=81029
According to an OCPF document which appears to bear Ms. Saccoccio’s signature, she became treasurer on 2/12/2021. Maybe the record is incorrect, or her signature forged, in which case Ms. Saccoccio may wish to reach out to the state and correct the record.
Also, yes, the CCC is an entity legally distinct from their IEPAC – it has to be – but it’s utterly ridiculous to claim they have no connection. Of course, I’m old enough to remember when CCC’s messaging was that IEPACs were evil and only evil organizations had them, a line of argument they continued right up until the moment they formed their own IEPAC.
What a wild take…
Also, they got them on ‘money laundering’ so what… they got Al Capone on tax fraud…
And while we are criticizing editorializing, can we stop with the headlines that are written to make this confusingly look like an article or interview not an opinion piece.
Cambridge Day should mandate conflict of interest disclosures for opinion pieces. A recent article presenting a legal assessment failed to reveal the author’s ties to the Cambridge Citizens Coalition (CCC), a group politically aligned with Toner. Such omissions compromise credibility and raise transparency concerns. Disclosing conflicts is essential for trust and integrity in public discourse.
Additionally, defending actions with arguments like “at least it wasn’t the slave trade” is both questionable and irrelevant to the alleged illegality involved.
Toner’s positions on bikes or housing have nothing to do with his current problems.
Whether Toner is found guilty or not doesn’t matter. He has admitted that he was a customer of the brothels. That’s all that matters.
Mr. Toner, where are your ethical and moral values? How can you reconcile your lack thereof, with continuing to serve the people of Cambridge.
I voted for you. To paraphrase Joseph Welch, have you no sense of decency, sir?
Don’t cause any more damage. Resign.
No one underage, no one trafficked. Women making a decent income of their choice. Toner might as well be lucky but it’s really his personal issue to sort out.
Meanwhile, a Boston is a City Councilor arrested for fraud is still serving. Others councilors with legal issues ran for re-election and let the voters decide.
Similar issue for Robert Kraft and charges were dropped for no good reason. Why obsess over Toner? There is an election later this year and it’s fine for me for the voter to decide.
In North Cambridge/Rindge Field I can’t walk my dog without stepping around discarded underwear, socks, bra straps, cigarette butts and needle cap/needles, broken glass and food trash. Toner is not the problem I want addressed. There is little to no impact to residents or even his ability to function in the role.
For those arguing no harm no foul—I know the documents are long to read but please note this about interviews with the women in the government sentencing memo:
“However,of those that were interviewed in November 2023, most were undocumented with no or expired legal status in the United States. Some of the women were recruited while in their home countries to engage in commercial sex work upon arrival in the United States. Others began commercial sex work shortly after entering the country. And yet one indicated that it was not until she arrived in Boston in November 2023 that she realized what type of work she was expected to engage in to make money on behalf of Han’s business.”
BloginCambridge-Thank you. Based on what you noted this is an international sex trafficking ring running their businesses in sanctuary cities by design –a much bigger issue than their clients who would not have known their legal status.
I am neutral on Paul Toner’s issue personally. He’s just 1 of 2 City Councilors standing in the way of North Cambridge continuing to be thrown under the bus. I can’t really rationalize Paul Toner being treated differently than others in elected roles who have done similar or worse.
“Most were undocumented with no or expired legal status in the United States. Some of the women were recruited while in their home countries to engage in commercial sex work upon arrival in the United States. Others began commercial sex work shortly after entering the country”
I don’t think we should be excusing illegal behavior because the person engaging in it aligns with our personal politics.
By his own admission (or lack of denial), Councilor Toner engaged in illegal activity that he knew was illegal. In my view, that is a complete abuse of the trust given to him by the voters of Cambridge, and he should resign for it.
Marie Elena Saccoccio’s defense of Councillor Paul Toner minimizes the seriousness of the allegations and raises questions about her impartiality due to her ties to the Cambridge Citizens Coalition (CCC).
While she argues the brothel case didn’t involve coercion or vulnerable victims, this misses the point: Toner’s alleged repeated engagement with an illegal enterprise violates laws and ethical standards expected of public officials.
Criticism of selective enforcement by Cambridge Police doesn’t absolve Toner, as officials are held to higher accountability.
Claiming he shouldn’t resign ignores the breach of trust and risks eroding public confidence in governance.
Her ties to CCC—a group that endorsed Toner—introduce a conflict of interest undermining her objectivity.
For the integrity of Cambridge’s leadership, resignation is warranted.
This take is laughably bad. If Toner had any decency he would step down from his position to save the city of Cambridge this embarrassment.