General Reports

[LustyB]

These are apps I've used in the past, but not recently:

Flyp and 2nd Line, both free (last time I checked). Maybe someone in the forum might have info that's more up to date. Good luck!

I use text free and text now. I find most girls are fine with setting up dates by text. I used to use a burner phone but it too much trouble. I keep the text apps buried deep in sub folders and turn off notifications. If a girl won't take texts from an app, fuck her. We have to stay safe too.

[JmSuttr]

This app is practically useless now. If you're on a hunt one morning and strolling through ads, the app will only allow you to message 2-3 new numbers. If you don't get responses, it basically stops you from sending new messages up to a period of time. This is prevent SPAM from what it says. I still don't use my real number and haven't used it for years now. What are most of you Mongers using now a days? I could get a pre-paid phone. But it's one more device that I don't want to carry around.

These are apps I've used in the past, but not recently:

Flyp and 2nd Line, both free (last time I checked). Maybe someone in the forum might have info that's more up to date. Good luck!

[SalamanderFour]

This app is practically useless now. If you're on a hunt one morning and strolling through ads, the app will only allow you to message 2-3 new numbers. If you don't get responses, it basically stops you from sending new messages up to a period of time. This is prevent SPAM from what it says. I still don't use my real number and haven't used it for years now. What are most of you Mongers using now a days? I could get a pre-paid phone. But it's one more device that I don't want to carry around.

None of Google free services (including Gmail, Voice) are anonymous. If you use Google services, sooner or later Google will identify you even if you don't use your real name. Some have reported that a search of the Google voice number shows a link to their true name, etc.

I admit, google voice is convenient, but not as secure as a true burner phone.

[Mattis1775]

This app is practically useless now. If you're on a hunt one morning and strolling through ads, the app will only allow you to message 2-3 new numbers. If you don't get responses, it basically stops you from sending new messages up to a period of time. This is prevent SPAM from what it says. I still don't use my real number and haven't used it for years now. What are most of you Mongers using now a days? I could get a pre-paid phone. But it's one more device that I don't want to carry around.

[Chulgoon]

I you scan through this guy's post you'd see that he's referring to something that happened in Dallas. Couldn't find any reference to it on the internet.

https://egov.ci.irving.tx.us/in-cust..._incustody.pdf

Also talking in Atlanta board the bust. Dallas do not use this board much for hobby another one much more popular there.

[Nrlmus]

Just want to share Boston. Some K place got bust the a day ago. I think 2 at least. But seem not HSI this time but local policies I guess. Peace Boston.

I you scan through this guy's post you'd see that he's referring to something that happened in Dallas. Couldn't find any reference to it on the internet.

[JmSuttr]

And it's going to have to wait even more now. Looks like the oral arguments will be schedules for September or later.

Freaking crazy that without the press insisting on opening up the original proceedings this would have been out in the open now (assuming the clerk magistrate allowed the cases to move forward).

One another note, what a waste of the justice system. All this for what, a couple of misdemeanors?

https://www.ma-appellatecourts.org/docket/SJC-13551

"03/06/2024 #7 Order:

This matter came before the court on the joint motion to schedule oral argument in order to accommodate briefing under the rules of appellate procedure filed by appellants John Does 1-18 (John Does). The joint motion is ALLOWED for the reasons set forth therein. The consolidated brief, to the extent possible, for the John Does and the brief for the appellants Trustees of Boston University, Boston Globe Media Partners, LLC, and intervener WBTS Television, LLC shall be filed on or before April 17,2024. The brief for the appellee Clerk-Magistrate of the Cambridge District Court shall be filed on or before May 17,2024. Oral argument may be scheduled for the September sitting of the court.

As of 03/06/2024 3:20 pm".

So, with the SJC session ending in May, they decided to require all briefs be filed during the current session, but punted the oral arguments until the next session, which begins in September. That doesn't inconvenience the prosecution or LE very much as they can simply push the "pause" button and work on other things. For defendants, unfortunately, it means 6+ months of continuing uncertainty and inability to move on with their lives.

You're 100% correct that this is all due to the media's demand for public hearings. Unless I missed something, I don't recall the prosecution expressing a preference, one way or the other. And nobody likes having to work under a microscope, which makes me think that even prosecutors would have preferred private hearings, all of which would likely have been over by now.

You're also correct that the underlying cases are misdemeanors. But the due process issues appealed to the SJC are fundamental constitutional questions that fall appropriately under their jurisdiction. Had they declined to hear the appeal, it's likely (IMO) defendants would have appealed to the federal courts. And there's still a possibility that could happen, depending on how the SJC eventually rules.

Random thoughts:

- The various media outlets are going to be majorly pissed. I fully expect one or more rounds of outraged stories about the public's "right to know," and similar BS. They may shift gears to focus on the federal case, but they'll still be pissed. And there could also be another round of media petitions to the court.

- The federal case should proceed at normal speed, unless unusual motions are filed. It's rather straightforward and I'll be surprised if any of the three defendants will risk a trial. They'd be much smarter to negotiate a plea deal, but that will most likely happen only after all the discoverable materials have been examined by the defense. Hard to predict the timing with any certainty, but it's entirely possible for the federal case to be wrapped up (except for sentencing) before the SJC reconvenes in September. One caveat to this: If one of the three defendants is clearly the leader, then fed prosecutors might cut deals with the other two while proceeding to put the "ringleader" on trial. That would serve their purpose of "sending a message" while also satisfying media demands.

- From all recent and relevant court filing info, we're still talking about 18 "John Doe" defendants. Which brings us back to the question I've asked several times about WTF happened to the other 10 (of the DOJ-announced 28)? That's a head-scratcher for me as I still haven't seen or heard a satisfactory explanation. I offered a possible theory, in a previous post, but it remains pure speculation. Curiouser and curiouser!

[Hyperion11]

Sounds like it is getting a full hearing and latest update is scheduling oral hearings that allow 40 days to file briefs.

The irony is that, for all the bleating in the media about John Does trying to keep their names private, if the media hadn't so goddamn bloodthirsty about making this different because it involved sex and potential celebrity and just let this run through normal channels, they would have had the names and documents of anyone with a real case against them a month ago.

And it's going to have to wait even more now. Looks like the oral arguments will be schedules for September or later.

Freaking crazy that without the press insisting on opening up the original proceedings this would have been out in the open now (assuming the clerk magistrate allowed the cases to move forward).

One another note, what a waste of the justice system. All this for what, a couple of misdemeanors?

[JmSuttr]

Just from this although I might be a little ahead of myself. I thought this was a joint motion from all appellants not just the John Does. No briefs filed yet so, even if this motion is denied, seems like it will be a bit longer regardless.

https://www.ma-appellatecourts.org/docket/SJC-13551

02/27/2024 #6 Joint Motion to schedule oral argument on a date that allows appellants' forty days to file their brief filed for John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, John Doe 5, John Doe 6, John Doe 7, John Doe 8, John Doe 9, John Doe 10, John Doe 11, John Doe 12, John Doe 13, John Doe 14, John Doe 15, John Doe 16, John Doe 17 and John Doe 18 by Attorney Meredith Fierro.

And I don't think you're getting ahead of yourself, or at least not by much. The fact that multiple defendants filed a joint motion, asking for 40 days to file briefs, indicates that multiple attorneys (presumably with ample appellate experience) agreed that there is a reasonable expectation for that 40 day timeline to be accepted by the SJC.

Of course, it's possible the SJC could deny the request and order an earlier date, but I'm guessing the appellate lawyers know their stuff well enough to ask for a timeframe they believe has a high probability of being accepted. We should know relatively soon whether or not they judged correctly.

Also, it remains to be seen how many other parties file briefs. The media outlets who have interest in the matter will certainly file theirs, as well as possible amicus briefs from other parties. The SJC will need time to read, digest, and discuss all the relevant material before scheduling oral arguments. Depending on how much is on their plate, from this case and all the other cases before them, we could easily be looking at 2+ months, maybe more.

Meanwhile, the media vultures will be restlessly and relentlessly circling overhead.

[Mxbs345]

I didn't see anything when I checked the websites of a couple of news outlets that have been covering the cases. And when I did a web search for news specifically about the SJC, the results from the last week mostly focus on the confirmation of the nominee to fill the vacancy on the court. Also, the SJC court calendar didn't show anything.

A link to your source would be greatly appreciated, thanks.

Just from this although I might be a little ahead of myself. I thought this was a joint motion from all appellants not just the John Does. No briefs filed yet so, even if this motion is denied, seems like it will be a bit longer regardless.

https://www.ma-appellatecourts.org/docket/SJC-13551

02/27/2024 #6 Joint Motion to schedule oral argument on a date that allows appellants' forty days to file their brief filed for John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, John Doe 5, John Doe 6, John Doe 7, John Doe 8, John Doe 9, John Doe 10, John Doe 11, John Doe 12, John Doe 13, John Doe 14, John Doe 15, John Doe 16, John Doe 17 and John Doe 18 by Attorney Meredith Fierro.

[JmSuttr]

Sounds like it is getting a full hearing and latest update is scheduling oral hearings that allow 40 days to file briefs.

The irony is that, for all the bleating in the media about John Does trying to keep their names private, if the media hadn't so goddamn bloodthirsty about making this different because it involved sex and potential celebrity and just let this run through normal channels, they would have had the names and documents of anyone with a real case against them a month ago.

I didn't see anything when I checked the websites of a couple of news outlets that have been covering the cases. And when I did a web search for news specifically about the SJC, the results from the last week mostly focus on the confirmation of the nominee to fill the vacancy on the court. Also, the SJC court calendar didn't show anything.

A link to your source would be greatly appreciated, thanks.

[Mxbs345]

Sounds like it is getting a full hearing and latest update is scheduling oral hearings that allow 40 days to file briefs.

The irony is that, for all the bleating in the media about John Does trying to keep their names private, if the media hadn't so goddamn bloodthirsty about making this different because it involved sex and potential celebrity and just let this run through normal channels, they would have had the names and documents of anyone with a real case against them a month ago.

[Comcast7777]

Some defendants might cut a deal that (hopefully) keeps them off the media radar screen.

If this turns out to be an option it would be a big relief to a lot of people. I think most are much more fearful of their reputation being ruined than any punishment the court would be willing to dish out to them.

[JmSuttr]

Conversely, if the prosecutors can get certain admissions or pleas out of the agency defendants with this first round of prosecutions, subsequent prosecutions of (add'l) customers will be MUCH easier for the prosecution. The prosecution today has more than enough customers to get admissions and pleas out of the agency defendants.

If the SJC rules in favor of private hearings, for example, that's a generalized action that will apply to all the cases. However, if they rule in favor of public hearings, that opens the door for some defendants to argue (as they already have) that the public's right to know is not the same for every accused client. In the scenario where a defendant happens to be a public official, an argument can be made that the public is entitled to know what their employee has (allegedly) been up to. But, in a scenario where the defendant is a regular person, such as a doctor or businessman, their right to privacy and due process is arguably stronger. One possible way the SJC could rule is to remand the matter back to the original court with instructions to conduct an individualized private vs public interest determination. If that happens, private hearings would probably proceed quickly while those defendants labeled "public interest" would probably file a new round of appeals.

Similarly, there are some generalizations that might be valid across all the various cases, but others that are not. Prosecutors will doubtlessly pursue similar strategies but there's no guarantee they will be equally effective, or applicable, in every case. It's my understanding that MA law guarantees the right to a jury trial, even in misdemeanor cases. That means each case will have unique defendant, a unique jury, and a set of individualized circumstances that sets it apart from every other case.

The prosecution will certainly learn from any cases in which they succeed (and from those in which they fail) but so will defense attorneys. And, if prosecutors develop a certain template they try to apply in a generalized way, good defense attorneys will find and exploit any flaws. It's an ongoing series of battles and both sides will learn and adapt. Surprises can always happen, and each jury will be asked to decide based on a specific and unique set of evidence. The next chapters for each defendant have yet to be written, IMO, and much depends on developments that are yet to unfold.

[Bran001]

With respect to a second round of referrals, I think prosecutors will wait to see how things go with Round #1. This is their "A List" with, one would assume, the highest profile defendants and strongest evidence. If this turns into a ginormous clusterfuck there may not be another round, IMO. That being said, I'm pretty sure prosecutors and LE are working hard to try to have a "B List" that could be rolled out. Whether they'll be successful is anyone's guess.

Bottom-line: Private hearings should move forward quickly, assuming the SJC rules that way. Otherwise, more delays are very likely. And, while time may not be a major factor for prosecutors, we know that shit can unexpectedly happen. More delays = more chances for complications to arise. Rather than focus on time, I'll be looking to see whether prosecutors are getting pummeled by adverse court rulings, or other negative (shit happens) kinds of things. The more painful defense attorneys can make Round #1, the better the chance prosecutors won't want to bother with a Round #2.

Conversely, if the prosecutors can get certain admissions or pleas out of the agency defendants with this first round of prosecutions, subsequent prosecutions of (add'l) customers will be MUCH easier for the prosecution. The prosecution today has more than enough customers to get admissions and pleas out of the agency defendants.