General Reports

[JmSuttr]

It's called at PeoplesCourtAudit on YouTube. It's a really entertaining YT channel if anyone wants to check it out. People film their Rights to dumb LE officers, who think they know the Law, better than civilians. On particular things, but then the civilians school the officer, by outeducating them. Making them look like fools, Owning the officer, is what these YouTubers call it. LMAO, very entertaining, MHO.

I know Lusty definitely knows his stuff and so don't lot of you, In General. Of when it comes to "Am I being detained officer I know my Rights if not I'm going to move along ". I remember him mentioning this type of stuff in the past and I'm always a fan of those posts. AM Acknowledge Me you funny too brotha. I appreciate you guys knowledge. Mean this sincerely.

I haven't watched that channel, and I'm sure it's entertaining, but I hope they make it clear that there are significant risks involved in "owning" LEOs, no matter how wrong or dumb they are.

That's because they have a LOT of different ways they can use, ethically or otherwise, to ensure that they get the last laugh. They have powers of arrest and detention and, if challenged (no matter how correctly), they can make your life pretty difficult. Here's an example: A monger gets stopped by LE as he's coming out of an AMP. He can obviously just remain silent, or say he was just getting a massage (and nothing else), but he decides he wants to teach the dumb LEO a lesson. After a few minutes pass, the LEO says something like "Do you smell that?" and says that he smells something that could be contraband (cannabis, hash, booze, whatever) and will need to detain you until he can investigate further. Then he calls for a drug-sniffing K-9 unit, which may be coming from far away. Then he calls for backup, and maybe a Sgt. Then they all confer to see what they can possibly do to screw with the guy pulling a "contempt of cop" attitude. Maybe the monger is squeaky clean, and his vehicle has absolutely Nothing wrong with it. In that case, all he's lost is time. But there's a not insignificant chance that they might find (or make up) something. Also, if they find some real or pretext reason to arrest you, they will almost certainly tow your vehicle. If that happens, they get to go through everything in your car (trunk included) without needing a search warrant. That's because they're allowed to take an inventory of the contents to protect against later claims that LE took something from the vehicle.

People can do what they want, and that's a risk-reward calculation everyone needs to make for themselves. FWIW, I'm keepin' my damn mouth shut, or the absolute bare minimum required, no matter what!

[Matty1169]

It's called at PeoplesCourtAudit on YouTube. It's a really entertaining YT channel if anyone wants to check it out. People film their Rights to dumb LE officers, who think they know the Law, better than civilians. On particular things, but then the civilians school the officer, by outeducating them. Making them look like fools, Owning the officer, is what these YouTubers call it. LMAO, very entertaining, MHO.

I know Lusty definitely knows his stuff and so don't lot of you, In General. Of when it comes to "Am I being detained officer I know my Rights if not I'm going to move along ". I remember him mentioning this type of stuff in the past and I'm always a fan of those posts. AM Acknowledge Me you funny too brotha. I appreciate you guys knowledge. Mean this sincerely.

[JmSuttr]

The public does not read anything in detail, and the press knows it. In the affidavit, there is no mention of people being coerced against their wills or victims. The affidavit was about:

1. A multi-state ring run by foreigners from Korea. Crossing state lines made this became a "human trafficking issue."

2. Fraud with COVID funds.

3. Running prostitution, which is illegal in the states where the ring operated.

4. Money that did not pay taxes.

And that's it. If they keep pushing this BS, the investigators should, therefore, go further and investigate the girls to understand they were doing this by their own decision. They are sex workers, that's what it means, people who sell sex in exchange for money. They are no victims; they are still working in other states. I think the feds know this already, but local LE and press are, I don't know, justifying their existence. Who knows what the fuck they want to do. Again, I understand that politicians and people with security clearances should be fucked. The rest? I don't see the point. That won't stop the prostitution "problem. " Just see the other forums, they are active as usual. The more I read the new posts from the journals, the less I trust in all of them. Imagine how many lies they say in many different matters. Disgusting.

There are all kinds of things that began as some type of social issue and then grew into full-fledged industries. Some that come to mind are anti-drug efforts, homelessness, climate change, and (of course) anti-trafficking. One thing they have in common is that there's a shitload of money sloshing around and lots of people who want to grab some of it. You have govt agencies who either get or give grants and they make themselves look good by saying how much money they've thrown at the problem. Then you have NGOs, and groups of all kinds, jumping on the bandwagon and clamoring for their piece of the action. And the media is the ever-present partner, enabler, and megaphone.

Of course, no matter how loud the outcry, or how much hand-wringing goes on, the problem is never solved. Legalizing or decriminalizing prostitution, as other countries have done successfully, is not an option because that would derail the gravy train. It would be fascinating to see how much the CEOs and officers of these "non-profits" are paying themselves, and what their travel and expense accounts look like. Once again, follow the money.

[TheGodsDecree]

My god this really is off the charts with BS. James O'Keefe should do an investigation into these women behind the scenes to show how it really works. They live a better life than most of the customers. Nice apartments in Queens or LA with wads of cash in safes, designer clothes, and handbags, vacations, meals at nice restaurants, etc.

This shows that what we are told in the news is not representative of the real story; that goes for everything, not just this situation.

The public does not read anything in detail, and the press knows it. In the affidavit, there is no mention of people being coerced against their wills or victims. The affidavit was about:

1. A multi-state ring run by foreigners from Korea. Crossing state lines made this became a "human trafficking issue."

2. Fraud with COVID funds.

3. Running prostitution, which is illegal in the states where the ring operated.

4. Money that did not pay taxes.

And that's it. If they keep pushing this BS, the investigators should, therefore, go further and investigate the girls to understand they were doing this by their own decision. They are sex workers, that's what it means, people who sell sex in exchange for money. They are no victims; they are still working in other states. I think the feds know this already, but local LE and press are, I don't know, justifying their existence. Who knows what the fuck they want to do. Again, I understand that politicians and people with security clearances should be fucked. The rest? I don't see the point. That won't stop the prostitution "problem. " Just see the other forums, they are active as usual. The more I read the new posts from the journals, the less I trust in all of them. Imagine how many lies they say in many different matters. Disgusting.

[CarloIsCrazy87]

Disgusting is the right word. The ignorance on this one is off the charts! What difference does the truth make if you can sell another paper.

My god this really is off the charts with BS. James O'Keefe should do an investigation into these women behind the scenes to show how it really works. They live a better life than most of the customers. Nice apartments in Queens or LA with wads of cash in safes, designer clothes, and handbags, vacations, meals at nice restaurants, etc.

This shows that what we are told in the news is not representative of the real story; that goes for everything, not just this situation.

[JmSuttr]

Web archive works, but you still have to disable JS to get rid of the popup.

https://archive.is/NUrpz

But the article isn't worth the bandwidth it takes up because it's a generic anti-trafficking rant that references the BTT case to push its BS narrative. Real opportunistic shit. They should be ashamed.

[DarkClouds]

Web archive works, but you still have to disable JS to get rid of the popup.

https://web.archive.org/web/20240129163558/https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/01/29/metro/mass-brothel-case/[/URL]

[Hyperion11]

Any chance you can give a cliff notes version? No chance I'm giving that rag even a penny.

https://web.archive.org/web/20240129...-brothel-case/

[EireAnn]

And more inaccuracy and sensationalism to get people angry and get the walk of shame. This is disgusting.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/01/...s-brothel-case

Disgusting is the right word. The ignorance on this one is off the charts! What difference does the truth make if you can sell another paper.

[Comcast7777]

And more inaccuracy and sensationalism to get people angry and get the walk of shame. This is disgusting.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/01/...s-brothel-case

Any chance you can give a cliff notes version? No chance I'm giving that rag even a penny.

[TheGodsDecree]

And more inaccuracy and sensationalism to get people angry and get the walk of shame. This is disgusting.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/01/...s-brothel-case

[Nrlmus]

One juicy detail. The defense attorney who is explicitly arguing that elected officials should have privacy rights previously pled guilty to bribing witnesses. My speculation is a an elected official is one of the 28 and hired the most aggressive criminal defense attorney he could find.

Damn, I just might know who you're talking about. Can't remember his name though. Is it older light black gentleman with the mustache? At least that's how I remember him from the newspapers. A true legend among criminal lawyers for not holding back. He is the type to take such a case too. Never worked with him but did work with one of his lawyers: Michelle something or other. Aggressive as eff! At some point I began to think that judge would contempt her butt.

[EireAnn]

The media and John Doe's have until January 31 to respond to the magistrate.

Will take time for the SJC to rule.

Last time it took the Cambridge District Court three weeks to schedule the show cause hearings.

Earliest the hearings. Public or private. Happen is March.

One juicy detail. The defense attorney who is explicitly arguing that elected officials should have privacy rights previously pled guilty to bribing witnesses. My speculation is a an elected official is one of the 28 and hired the most aggressive criminal defense attorney he could find.

It does look like it so I'd guess you are onto something. Hopefully for the others sake he's effective and they all can benefit.

[TommyDawson]

Anyone have a rough timeline when we can expect this all to play out? Are we talking weeks or months?

The media and John Doe's have until January 31 to respond to the magistrate.

Will take time for the SJC to rule.

Last time it took the Cambridge District Court three weeks to schedule the show cause hearings.

Earliest the hearings. Public or private. Happen is March.

One juicy detail. The defense attorney who is explicitly arguing that elected officials should have privacy rights previously pled guilty to bribing witnesses. My speculation is a an elected official is one of the 28 and hired the most aggressive criminal defense attorney he could find.

[JmSuttr]

The case is back to the Cambridge clerk magistrate to explain why she took certain decisions: https://www.boston25news.com/news/lo...GC2EXZTJGZ3UU/.

So, the Supreme Judicial Court Justice calls out the local magistrate on at least a couple of important privacy-related points. First, the magistrate was inconsistent in declaring a public interest for open hearings yet denying the press access to the complaint documents filed with the court (which contain names of defendants). The magistrate is being asked to explain why privacy prevails in one instance, but not the other.

Second, the magistrate is being called out for not detailing a factual basis for EACH defendant explaining why privacy protections should not apply. In other words, lumping all defendants together is not acceptable to the higher court. The public vs private calculation is different for each individual and the magistrate failed to take that into account.

Also, the article mentions that probable cause hearings are presumptively private proceedings. While I'm not a lawyer, it's my understanding this means the presumption of privacy can only be overcome by laying out an argument that has a factual, logical, and legal basis that can be evaluated by the higher court. I haven't read the magistrate's original decision but, whatever reasoning they used, it wasn't good enough for the higher court.

From reading the article, it seems to me there are two likely outcomes, maybe three:

1. The magistrate fully answers the higher court's questions, including providing the public vs private justification for EACH individual defendant.

2. The magistrate reverses the decision and all hearings will be private.

3. The magistrate (in partnership with LE) selects a few of the higher profile defendants, makes the case as to why their hearings should be public, and the other defendants will have private hearings.

I'm thinking #2 is most likely, as it's quicker and cleaner. The press won't be happy but the magistrate can simply point to the higher court's queries as to why the presumption of privacy can't be easily overcome.

#3 is possible, but that could turn into a real mess as any defendant selected for a public hearing will have their attorney file motions demanding to know the criteria, etc. And any such selection would likely be appealed.

#1, IMO, is dead and buried. From the tone of the SJC's queries, I don't think the magistrate will be able to satisfy them.

How long things take from here depends on which path is taken. #2 is probably the quickest, but at least the privacy protections will be maintained. But, for any defendant for whom probable cause is found to exist, at that point their names will be made public and they'll be royally screwed. Whether or not they're ever found guilty of anything is irrelevant. They'll be convicted in the court of public opinion.