General Reports

[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.

[Hyperion11]

Hopefully common sense prevails here.

https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/01/22...h-end-sex-ring

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

[Mattis1775]

Hopefully common sense prevails here.

https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/01/22...h-end-sex-ring

Common sense never prevails here. This isn't about privacy, it's about humiliating these individuals, whether they are guilty or not. The damage will already done if they allow this to be an open hearing. Celebrities now are already on damage control from the BS Epstein list.

[Comcast7777]

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

Hopefully common sense prevails here.

https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/01/22...h-end-sex-ring

[TheGodsDecree]

Hopefully common sense prevails here.

https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/01/22...h-end-sex-ring

When I checked x.com today, people replying to the tweets about this type of news did not know what they were talking about. People seem to want the names of the Johns at all costs, but they do not understand that not all Johns are VIPs. That's because the press misinforms them, saying that all Johns are ultra-rich and politicians. The public doesn't read all these articles, and they don't understand them either. It is sad as hell. Therefore, common sense must come from the state's highest court.

[EireAnn]

Hopefully common sense prevails here.

https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/01/22...h-end-sex-ring