General Reports

[QUOTE=TheGodsDecree;6756785]Hopefully, they understand most of us are insignificant people. They will destroy us for nothingno political gain, not anything. Meanwhile, the agencies are still there, and thousands banging sex workers as I write this.[/QUOTE]And the plot thickens. Hopefully this is a sign of justice to delay and unlimitedly dismiss this case against citizens. Most likely one or several of the accused is connected and have some reach politically to get this thrown out. It was pretty shameful to begin with to make it public, but people wanted heads to roll to idk show they "did something" or make examples of people. Either way the real fight is the underground associations that run these things that are linked to several shady activities. Go after that instead of tossing a horny citizen in jail for your stupid press release.

[QUOTE=JmSuttr;6757319]Here's a repost of my half of a PM discussion in the Northern Virginia forum:

(Note: I'm not an attorney and I don't live in MA, so feel free to point out anything I may have gotten wrong).

Good news for defendants, and potential defendants, bad news for the prosecution (IMO).

Here's my line of thinking: Local MA prosecutors could have chosen any date they wanted to begin court proceedings. The fact that they chose the 18th, 19th, and 22nd, demonstrates that they felt they had all their ducks in a row and were good to go. One essential part of their preparation would have been to anticipate the kinds of motions and tactics likely to be used by defense attorneys.

Therefore, a last-minute delay can only mean that there's a fly in the ointment. It's hard to guess how serious the problem is, but it's absolutely clear that there is SOME kind of problem. Or perhaps some defense attorney motion they hadn't anticipated and don't have a ready answer for.

And any delay will be used by defense attorneys to double-down, especially since they're sure to see this as a sign of weakness on the part of the prosecution. One thing I think they'll pummel the judge with is the fundamental unfairness of allowing public hearings. Here's where MA law is weird (IMO) - in VA an arrest is made when (and only when) probable cause of a statutory violation is found. That finding can be made by LE at the time of the alleged offense (ex. DUI, assault, etc.). Or it can be made later via affidavit for arrest warrant or Grand Jury indictment, both of which have to be signed by a magistrate or judge. In ALL of those examples, the info of the arrestee doesn't become public until AFTER there's a finding of probable cause justifying the arrest AND the arrest is actually made.

In MA, however, none of the 28 alleged clients have been arrested and no probable cause to justify an arrest has yet been found. It seems to me that there are profound due process and privacy issues at stake here. And that's what I hope defense attorneys are hammering away at. We'll know more in a few days and it wouldn't surprise me to see either a reversal of the public hearing decision, or an appeal on that issue to a higher court. If there's an appeal, that will likely result in an additional delay.[/QUOTE]Just to clarify on some points.

It's not in the hands of the District Attorney/ AG as of yet. This is a referral process to determine if this will even make into their hands to prosecute.

So it was the court that scheduled these dates and not the Prosecution. It will most likely be a representative from the Cambridge PD reading the Complaint / Police Report to the Magistrate.

I doubt they will cancel the hearings outright, that is going to happen, it's now just a question of when.

Just when you thought you couldn't have any less respect for the media. Basically having access to the hearings wasn't enough for them because it didn't allow them to publicly embarrass people because they wouldn't have all the pertinent information to properly identify them. So the Globe and WBUR jointly petitioned to gain access to the documents that identify the 28 accused so that they could at least have some fun and get some clicks out of other peoples misery. Absolutely shameful.

One good thing that I haven't seen mentioned yet is that the clerk magistrate for Cambridge district court was part of the group (along with the defense attorneys) who protested this action by the media and thus sent the issue to the SJC. Maybe the 28 will get a decently fair shake after all.

One question I've had that is separate from this latest news and I'm wondering if someone who has better knowledge of the law can help out. These referrals from the Cambridge PD, do they cover incidents that happened in Watertown too? Meaning let's say LE has evidence of someone being at a Watertown location but not Cambridge, would they be part of this group because it's considered a state charge? Or would action have to be taken by Watertown PD instead of Cambridge? Thanks in advance if anyone can help.

I hope the 28 unfortunate people summoned, who are likely not VIPs nor ultra-rich, keep fighting this fight. I understand that people with a security clearance should get fucked. If I were someone with a high-security clearance, I would have been the first to come out and say, "I banged as many as I could, and I sent my DL and an email to get access to Korean pussy. " But I mean, if my name would get out there, I would lose my miserable job, I would not be able to pay my mortgage, my wife would divorce me, and then what? Will that fucking stop the prostitution problem in MA? We all know the answer. I really don't see the point going after us, the suckers. And to be honest, at this point, I give a single fuck if my name is out there. Everyone can suck my fucking dick.

Now, the media sucks. They just pour gas into the fire because they want more clicks. It is completely disappointing we live in times when they have to do that kind of shit to get money. I lost all respect for those mother fucker. Now I understand those who say, "Don't believe what you read or see in the media. ".

[QUOTE=Comcast7777;6757952]Just when you thought you couldn't have any less respect for the media. Basically having access to the hearings wasn't enough for them because it didn't allow them to publicly embarrass people because they wouldn't have all the pertinent information to properly identify them. So the Globe and WBUR jointly petitioned to gain access to the documents that identify the 28 accused so that they could at least have some fun and get some clicks out of other peoples misery. Absolutely shameful.

One good thing that I haven't seen mentioned yet is that the clerk magistrate for Cambridge district court was part of the group (along with the defense attorneys) who protested this action by the media and thus sent the issue to the SJC. Maybe the 28 will get a decently fair shake after all.

One question I've had that is separate from this latest news and I'm wondering if someone who has better knowledge of the law can help out. These referrals from the Cambridge PD, do they cover incidents that happened in Watertown too? Meaning let's say LE has evidence of someone being at a Watertown location but not Cambridge, would they be part of this group because it's considered a state charge? Or would action have to be taken by Watertown PD instead of Cambridge? Thanks in advance if anyone can help.[/QUOTE]Not a big surprise to anyone though. Few old timers would remember that there was a big rock-and-roll hit in early 80's on the topic: [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJB4TfET_I8[/URL].

You know 'people love it when you lose' LOL.

[QUOTE=Comcast7777;6757952]
One question I've had that is separate from this latest news and I'm wondering if someone who has better knowledge of the law can help out. These referrals from the Cambridge PD, do they cover incidents that happened in Watertown too? Meaning let's say LE has evidence of someone being at a Watertown location but not Cambridge, would they be part of this group because it's considered a state charge? Or would action have to be taken by Watertown PD instead of Cambridge? Thanks in advance if anyone can help.

[/QUOTE]The local PDs do the info gathering but turn the info over to the Attorney General's office and that office does the prosecutions; police info gathered about acts outside of their town can certainly be turned over to state and federal prosecutors. A story in the Globe mentions the involvement of Federal agents in the investigation. And a story from the local CBS station says that "Cambridge police are seeking charges..." So it seems that both state and federal prosecutions are being pursued. The federal charges are pursued in federal court, and the local story mentions that the state charges are being pursued in a state court in Medford.

At the state level, the town lines don't matter.

And no this is not "double jeopardy" for both the Commonwealth and the feds to prosecute.

[QUOTE=TheGodsDecree;6758580]I hope the 28 unfortunate people summoned, who are likely not VIPs nor ultra-rich, keep fighting this fight. I understand that people with a security clearance should get fucked. If I were someone with a high-security clearance, I would have been the first to come out and say, "I banged as many as I could, and I sent my DL and an email to get access to Korean pussy. " But I mean, if my name would get out there, I would lose my miserable job, I would not be able to pay my mortgage, my wife would divorce me, and then what? Will that fucking stop the prostitution problem in MA? We all know the answer. I really don't see the point going after us, the suckers. And to be honest, at this point, I give a single fuck if my name is out there. Everyone can suck my fucking dick.

Now, the media sucks. They just pour gas into the fire because they want more clicks. It is completely disappointing we live in times when they have to do that kind of shit to get money. I lost all respect for those mother fucker. Now I understand those who say, "Don't believe what you read or see in the media..[/QUOTE]Is that, by their reasoning, clients provide the demand which creates the market for the buying and selling of sex. This is BS for (at least) two reasons:

1. Prostitution is the world's oldest profession and nowhere has it been successfully permanently eradicated. It might be suppressed for awhile, or pushed elsewhere, but it's resilient beyond belief. Whether you target providers, clients, or both, it makes no difference. Hell, they made it a felony in TX, right? Check that state's forum threads to see how that worked out.

2. Compare the war on prostitution to the war on drugs. The same schizoid enforcement efforts targeting suppliers, and then flip-flopping to users, all failing miserably. Now many jurisdictions are decriminalizing possession of personal use quantities of some drugs.

Hey, you hypocrites! How about decriminalizing personal use quantities of pussy?

Hopefully common sense prevails here.

[URL]https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/01/22/defense-attorneys-close-hearings-cambridge-high-end-sex-ring[/URL]

[QUOTE=EireAnn;6764170]Hopefully common sense prevails here.

[URL]https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/01/22/defense-attorneys-close-hearings-cambridge-high-end-sex-ring[/URL][/QUOTE]When I checked [URL]x.com[/URL] 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.

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

[QUOTE=EireAnn;6764170]Hopefully common sense prevails here.

[URL]https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/01/22/defense-attorneys-close-hearings-cambridge-high-end-sex-ring[/URL][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=EireAnn;6764170]Hopefully common sense prevails here.

[URL]https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/01/22/defense-attorneys-close-hearings-cambridge-high-end-sex-ring[/URL][/QUOTE]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.

[QUOTE=EireAnn;6764170]Hopefully common sense prevails here.

[URL]https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/01/22/defense-attorneys-close-hearings-cambridge-high-end-sex-ring[/URL][/QUOTE]The case is back to the Cambridge clerk magistrate to explain why she took certain decisions: [URL]https://www.boston25news.com/news/local/sjc-clerk-magistrate-must-answer-why-court-hearings-alleged-sex-ring-clients-should-be-public/GWYZ5DVH55CT5GC2EXZTJGZ3UU/[/URL].

[QUOTE=Hyperion11;6764546]The case is back to the Cambridge clerk magistrate to explain why she took certain decisions: [URL]https://www.boston25news.com/news/local/sjc-clerk-magistrate-must-answer-why-court-hearings-alleged-sex-ring-clients-should-be-public/GWYZ5DVH55CT5GC2EXZTJGZ3UU/[/URL].[/QUOTE]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.

[QUOTE=Comcast7777;6764499]Anyone have a rough timeline when we can expect this all to play out? Are we talking weeks or months?[/QUOTE]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.

[QUOTE=TommyDawson;6765272]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.[/QUOTE]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.