General Reports

[QUOTE=Hyperion11;6776974]This disgusting circus is back on track. SJC decided that:

<< I conclude that the Clerk-Magistrate's decision to open the show cause hearings and deny pre-hearing access to the applications for complaint does not constitute an abuse of discretion or error of law. Opening the show cause hearings to the public, as she found, promotes transparency, accountability, and public confidence in the judiciary by demonstrating that each individual accused of these crimes, no matter their station in life, is treated equally. The Clerk-Magistrate, in her findings, articulated an adequate basis for denying access to the applications for complaint; the disclosure of extraneous personal information could create "collateral consequences for the individuals involved, and gratuitously expose non-public information that would otherwise remain private for those persons for whom no probable cause is established. ".

So, hearings will be open to public, press won't get the actual applications.[/QUOTE]Makes absolutely no sense. The Feds couldn't even indict for human trafficking so what's the justification to open usually closed proceeding. This is really motivating me to move out of this shithole of a state. Running lives for a victimless crime is despicable.

[QUOTE=Hyperion11;6776974]This disgusting circus is back on track. SJC decided that:

<< I conclude that the Clerk-Magistrate's decision to open the show cause hearings and deny pre-hearing access to the applications for complaint does not constitute an abuse of discretion or error of law. Opening the show cause hearings to the public, as she found, promotes transparency, accountability, and public confidence in the judiciary by demonstrating that each individual accused of these crimes, no matter their station in life, is treated equally. The Clerk-Magistrate, in her findings, articulated an adequate basis for denying access to the applications for complaint; the disclosure of extraneous personal information could create "collateral consequences for the individuals involved, and gratuitously expose non-public information that would otherwise remain private for those persons for whom no probable cause is established. ".

So, hearings will be open to public, press won't get the actual applications.[/QUOTE]In the federal system, an interim order by a single judge, or the decision of a panel (usually consisting of 3 judges) can be appealed to the entire court. For the federal system, at the appellate level, this is called a request for an 'en banc' review. Not sure how things work in MA but it's hard to imagine that a single justice will have the absolute last word on the matter. I would imagine that defense attorneys would appeal to the entire Supreme Court to hear their arguments on due process and privacy grounds. And it might even be possible for defense attorneys to turn to federal courts for protection of their clients' Constitutional rights.

Hard to say, but if this truly is the end of the legal trail for the public vs private determination, then everyone who's been summoned is screwed. We'll know soon enough as they'll either announce new probable cause hearing dates, or we'll hear about more delays.

The providers literally bought their own flights to Boston and Virginia, completely negating the narrative these were helpless trafficked women.

The investigators admit the owners screened customers for the safety of the providers. There's zero evidence this was some foreign intel honeypot operation.

Only 60 grand was recovered when there was millions of deposits. The people who really made money here were the real estate developers in Boston and VA. All those rent payments add up.

The press release mentioned collaboration of various justice departments, the Cambridge / Watertown Police, and the US Postal Service. Local authorities in Virginia and noticeably missing.

This story was released on a Friday afternoon. The worst time if you want media coverage. The narrative in many of the comments sections has shifted away from "release the names of these politician sex traffickers" to "why are the Feds wasting resources policing consenting adults".

[QUOTE=Bosnas;6776805][URL]https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/operators-high-end-brothel-network-indicted-grand-jury[/URL]

They couldn't make a case for Human Trafficking.

It's always about the money.[/QUOTE]Interesting that the primary investigating law enforcement agency was Homeland Security, and not the FBI or another more established federal agency.

[QUOTE=SalamanderFour;6777604]Interesting that the primary investigating law enforcement agency was Homeland Security, and not the FBI or another more established federal agency.[/QUOTE]HSI always takes the lead on things like this.

And although I do definitely agree with you, I just thought they were entertaining vids, that's all. But everything you said was spot on man and you are 100% correct. I certainly wouldn't go around doing that shit, it's extremely risky. You do that type a stuff and it makes you a target with your local law enforcement. LMAO, a officer will be like "oh yeah fellas let's rough this joker clown up for taping us". You basically become a mark at that point. Me personally, I just like to avoid Drama with any LE people and just let them b. But it's always funny when the guys out here get smart aleck with the cops or they post about how they did before. I'm like "bro you're crazy, LMAO, but at the same time respect for having balls to be a wise ass to them". Even if you out school them at their own Game, it's best to not be a shrewd about it. I don't even bother with that shit, plus lot of you out here are smarter than me when it comes to stuff.

[URL]https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/02/07/metro/high-end-brothel-sjc/[/URL]

[URL]https://archive.is/pvocO[/URL]

Looks like the privacy and due process arguments will be decided by the full court, assuming the SJC doesn't reject the appeals. That's pretty much what I expected.

Now it'll be interesting to see with what sense of urgency (or lack thereof) the SJC addresses the issue. And also whether they schedule any oral argumentation or simply decide based on the briefs submitted by all the parties. One other item of note is that, per the report, only 14 defendants filed appeals. Does that mean only 14 (alleged) clients are in legal jeopardy? If so, that doesn't square with earlier numbers (28, IIRC) that have been floated out there. Not sure what that means, exactly, but we'll learn more as the saga unfolds! Also, not sure how things work in MA, but it's possible there could be amicus briefs (from the media, and others), which could turn this into a real three-ring circus! Get the popcorn ready.

P.S. H / T to the Boston forum member who sent me the article. I don't have permission to divulge his handle, but I wanted to say a public thanks that I'm sure he'll see.

P. P.S. Second link to the article bypasses the paywall.

Shame there isn't a better use of the courts time and resources. I also saw there was a doctor in the group. The guy probably works 80+ hours a week giving back to the people and is faced with losing his career and reputation for letting off a little steam so he can keep going. Do we really want less doctors and divorces for a headline? This is beyond crazy at this point.

[QUOTE=EireAnn;6784761]Shame there isn't a better use of the courts time and resources. I also saw there was a doctor in the group. The guy probably works 80+ hours a week giving back to the people and is faced with losing his career and reputation for letting off a little steam so he can keep going. Do we really want less doctors and divorces for a headline? This is beyond crazy at this point.[/QUOTE]It really makes no sense. They're arguing for access because of all the media attention. The reason why it got so much attention is because of the media. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. All they have to do is stir up interest and then they get special access to material that they wouldn't otherwise? Fucking insane.

I read both doj reports. Check online, they're viewable to the public. The main handler Han or Hana is a woman the other 2 are men. The providers were paid 50% of the fees and kept all tips. The providers were concerned about being caught not about being forced to prostitute. No one is being charged with trafficking. Media outlets are never going to report on most of the facts that don't portray the women as victims.

[QUOTE=Katokay;6785628]I read both doj reports. Check online, they're viewable to the public. The main handler Han or Hana is a woman the other 2 are men. The providers were paid 50% of the fees and kept all tips. The providers were concerned about being caught not about being forced to prostitute. No one is being charged with trafficking. Media outlets are never going to report on most of the facts that don't portray the women as victims.[/QUOTE]The Federal case against the 3 primary defendants is a slam dunk, IMO. But the local cases against alleged clients seem to be turning into a can of worms. From the 28 enumerated in the initial press release, we're now apparently down to 14. At least 14 is the number of due process appeals that have reportedly been filed. What's become of the other 14 is anyone's guess.

DOJ isn't technically responsible for the local prosecutions, but they'll still lose face if anything goes wrong. They need the media to help sell the "trafficking" narrative so they'll both work together to keep that going, no matter what. And the media smells blood because they know publicly revealing the identities of the defendants will be a major coup (for them) and they don't care how many lives are ruined.

The only hope for any of the defendants is that there's a favorable ruling from the SJC on the due process and privacy issues. As I've posted previously, there may be a route into the federal court system on Constitutional grounds. But that's too far down the path to see right now. I'm sure at least some of the defense attorneys will make the attempt if and when that time comes.

Consider this as one of the scenarios DOJ and LE might be worried about: The number of potentially prosecutable cases drops (for whatever reason) from 28 to 14. Then, whether via public or private court hearings, only a few are found to meet the probable cause standard. After the media finishes crucifying those poor bastards, their attention will turn to LE and will ask WTF happened to the "strong" cases. And, IIRC, when the initial busts happened the Feds were trumpeting the large number of clients each agency had. So, if they've raised expectations and don't deliver, or under-deliver, negative public opinion is inevitable.

No "trafficking" convictions + very few (no?) "buyers of sex" convictions = major DOJ heartburn. Lots still to unfold, of course, so stay tuned.

[QUOTE=JmSuttr;6786094]
The Federal case against the 3 primary defendants is a slam dunk, IMO. But the local cases against alleged clients seem to be turning into a can of worms. From the 28 enumerated in the initial press release, we're now apparently down to 14. At least 14 is the number of due process appeals that have reportedly been filed. What's become of the other 14 is anyone's guess.

[/QUOTE]I would rather think that the other 14 don't have an attorney (yet). Maybe they cannot afford one? Or maybe they're just waiting to see what happens. Whatever decision is taken, will apply to all 28 anyway, so maybe they don't see a point in paying attorneys at this time.

[QUOTE=Hyperion11;6786460]I would rather think that the other 14 don't have an attorney (yet). Maybe they cannot afford one? Or maybe they're just waiting to see what happens. Whatever decision is taken, will apply to all 28 anyway, so maybe they don't see a point in paying attorneys at this time.[/QUOTE]I lean this way as well. I can't imagine they dropped 14 cases as there's no reason for it at this juncture. Might as well see it through to the show cause hearing and go from there.

One thing that is strange though is the initial appeal to the SJC had 18 (I believe) alleged clients appeal. I wonder why that number dropped from 18 to 14 for this appeal.

[QUOTE=Hyperion11;6786460]I would rather think that the other 14 don't have an attorney (yet). Maybe they cannot afford one? Or maybe they're just waiting to see what happens. Whatever decision is taken, will apply to all 28 anyway, so maybe they don't see a point in paying attorneys at this time.[/QUOTE]All of the alleged clients had enough discretionary income to (allegedly) spend on visits to the agencies. And it's doubtful that LE, at least with this initial tranche, would be targeting clients with just a few visits or anyone who doesn't meet the criteria they laid out when they made a big deal about how agency clients included prominent individuals.

All things considered, it's hard to imagine any defendant in this first group being someone who can't afford to hire a lawyer. And, considering the fact that their lives are at risk of being ruined, it's hard to imagine any defendant not hiring an attorney immediately after receiving a summons. Would you sit back and wait to see what happens? I certainly wouldn't. I'd not only hire a lawyer but I'd also be making a Plan B, Plan C, and a plan for as many scenarios as I could think up.

Maybe what you point out might possibly apply to one or two, but to fourteen? I think not. Also, the reason why every summoned defendant needs a lawyer now is because, no matter what the SJC decision is, the probable cause hearings will still take place. The only issue in dispute is whether they'll be public or private. So, IMO, any summoned individual who hasn't already hired a lawyer is a certifiable idiot.

[QUOTE=Comcast7777;6786799]I lean this way as well. I can't imagine they dropped 14 cases as there's no reason for it at this juncture. Might as well see it through to the show cause hearing and go from there.

One thing that is strange though is the initial appeal to the SJC had 18 (I believe) alleged clients appeal. I wonder why that number dropped from 18 to 14 for this appeal.[/QUOTE]I responded to Hyperion in a separate post as to why I don't agree with his theory re lawyers and the missing 14 appeals. I do agree with your point that there's no incentive, at this point, for LE to drop any of the cases, which makes the current state of affairs even more strange. Also, your mention about the constantly changing numbers is one of the most interesting points to consider. We don't have enough info to know, but the shift from 28 to 18 to 14 is certainly evidence that something odd appears to be happening in the background.

If everything was going according to LE's plan, the 28 clients they announced as being referred for prosecution would likely have all received a summons. And all of them, or at least the vast majority of them, would have hired lawyers. Any lawyer worth his salt would have either filed their own appeal or would have joined with an appeal filed by one of the other lawyers. The logical end result would therefore have been reports of 28 (or close to that number) defendant appeals filed (separately or jointly).

The absence of 14 appeals is therefore quite a puzzle. I don't pretend to have any explanation but am just pointing out that it may be an indication of problems behind the scenes. Of course, it's also worth noting that all we're going on are media reports. But the local media attention has been so intense that any mistakes would likely be corrected promptly. It'll be interesting to see what kinds of reports come out in the coming days.

P.S. It occurs to me that it is possible that, after making the announcement about 28 clients, LE could have decided to go after 14 in one batch and delay the other 14 until later. But that's pure speculation on my part, and LE hasn't made any announcement along those lines. And that also doesn't explain the 18-to-14 number shift you mentioned. So, for the moment, it remains an unsolved puzzle.