Thread: General Reports
+
Add Report
Results 91 to 105 of 3349
-
02-01-24 23:55 #3259
Posts: 1853The last laugh
Originally Posted by Matty1169 [View Original Post]
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!
-
01-31-24 05:35 #3258
Posts: 968Lusty out here would like this Channel.
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.
-
01-31-24 00:55 #3257
Posts: 1853Follow the money
Originally Posted by TheGodsDecree [View Original Post]
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.
-
01-30-24 14:19 #3256
Posts: 18Total BS
Originally Posted by CarloIsCrazy87 [View Original Post]
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.
-
01-30-24 07:15 #3255
Posts: 85This Is Just Lies
Originally Posted by EireAnn [View Original Post]
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.
-
01-29-24 23:50 #3254
Posts: 1853Try this link
Originally Posted by DarkClouds [View Original Post]
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.
-
01-29-24 18:21 #3253
Posts: 1396Btt
Web archive works, but you still have to disable JS to get rid of the popup.
Originally Posted by Hyperion11;6771781[URL
-
01-29-24 17:58 #3252
Posts: 131Originally Posted by Comcast7777 [View Original Post]
-
01-29-24 17:29 #3251
Posts: 14Originally Posted by TheGodsDecree [View Original Post]
-
01-29-24 17:27 #3250
Posts: 24Cliff Notes?
Originally Posted by TheGodsDecree [View Original Post]
-
01-29-24 14:59 #3249
Posts: 18More noise
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
-
01-25-24 01:02 #3248
Posts: 1805Originally Posted by TommyDawson [View Original Post]
-
01-24-24 18:58 #3247
Posts: 14Originally Posted by TommyDawson [View Original Post]
-
01-24-24 12:03 #3246
Posts: 12Originally Posted by Comcast7777 [View Original Post]
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.
-
01-24-24 01:46 #3245
Posts: 1853Good article
Originally Posted by Hyperion11 [View Original Post]
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.