Printable View
[QUOTE=MaybeSometime;6798733]I do the same thing you do and for the same reasons. I get the same calls and others here have mentioned the same thing. They are spoofed calls, just ignore them. I think they are from contacting a Latina ad.[/QUOTE]I believe this has to do with the latina ads in Medford. I used to get them all the time, when I used to go see ladies in Medford. I stopped contacting them a year ago and have not had any issues.
Can we assume now that the SJC didn't reject the appeal and that the full court will decide the outcome?
It's been two weeks, I figured we would've heard some news by now especially if the appeal was denied.
[QUOTE=ParamAhmad;6797304][URL]https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/08/politics/high-end-brothel-network-arrests/index.html[/URL][/QUOTE]Should we be worried I go to massage parlors every now and then or was there something different about this place leading those men to be caught and potentially exposed.
[QUOTE=JohnDick75;6801450]Should we be worried I go to massage parlors every now and then or was there something different about this place leading those men to be caught and potentially exposed.[/QUOTE]Of course you should be worried! This is election year and it was "used by elected officials & military officers". I'd say it was likely a consequence of somebody's opposition research. If you go to an AMP that is widely used by the likes of Ed Markey or Stevie Lynch I'd say you're walking the edge. I also think that you should stay away from the AMPs near Hanscom Air Force Base or that little Coast Guard station in the North End. The rest should be fine.
One of those girls is actually scheduled to be returning to Beantown in mid-March and she's been telling me secrets like you wouldn't believe. I've got all the nuclear codes, names of few spies that we have in Kor, I mean Russia, where all the bodies are buried, which ones have already been excavated: the works!
[QUOTE=Nrlmus;6801477]Of course you should be worried! This is election year and it was "used by elected officials & military officers". I'd say it was likely a consequence of somebody's opposition research. If you go to an AMP that is widely used by the likes of Ed Markey or Stevie Lynch I'd say you're walking the edge. I also think that you should stay away from the AMPs near Hanscom Air Force Base or that little Coast Guard station in the North End. The rest should be fine.
One of those girls is actually scheduled to be returning to Beantown in mid-March and she's been telling me secrets like you wouldn't believe. I've got all the nuclear codes, names of few spies that we have in Kor, I mean Russia, where all the bodies are buried, which ones have already been excavated: the works![/QUOTE]HAHA, we never discussed my work, the media would be dissapointed with the actual conversations, probably quite dull compared to what the innuendo in thier crappy journalistc trash. The whole story is a smoke and mirror show to get clicks and puffery.
[QUOTE=Comcast7777;6801420]Can we assume now that the SJC didn't reject the appeal and that the full court will decide the outcome?
It's been two weeks, I figured we would've heard some news by now especially if the appeal was denied.[/QUOTE]To us mongers, two weeks seems like a long time. But, for the court system (esp SJC), two weeks is barely a blip. As I noted in a previous post, the SJC might want to wait until the current vacancy is filled. It's my understanding that the process is underway, but you MA locals would have a better idea of how all the nominee controversies are playing out, and how that might affect the timeline.
Courts dislike controversy so it wouldn't be a surprise for them to delay certain decisions until things have settled down. Despite the constitutional questions at issue, the underlying misdemeanor cases are not especially time-sensitive. If the info in the below link is correct, their session doesn't end until May. That gives them 2-3 months to deal with pending cases. I don't know if they behave like SCOTUS but, if they do, then a whole shitload of decisions might be issued on the very last day.
[URL]https://www.mass.gov/about-the-supreme-judicial-court[/URL]
Also, while they certainly could reject the appeals, as in refusing to hear them and thereby allowing the single Justice's earlier ruling to stand, that would almost certainly trigger defense attorneys marching right over to the federal courts. That's because the due process questions are genuine constitutional issues that can't be side-stepped. Knowing that, it's hard to imagine a scenario where the full court doesn't review the matter. I doubt they'll want to punt on this one.
I'll be interested to see, with so many parties involved, whether they will schedule oral arguments. It appears those are held the first week of each month the SJC is in session.
[URL]https://www.mass.gov/info-details/supreme-judicial-court-oral-arguments[/URL]
Here's a link to the court calendar:
[URL]https://www.ma-appellatecourts.org/calendar[/URL]
(Nothing yet for docket #13551).
And here are links for viewing the oral argument sessions:
Live - [URL]https://boston.suffolk.edu/sjc/[/URL].
Archived - [URL]https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOftbmknBche29CG41v19cA[/URL].
Your insight has been invaluable. It's very much appreciated.
Is it fair to assume that the longer this is stretched out, the less likely it is that a second round of referrals will happen?
[QUOTE=JmSuttr;6802078]To us mongers, two weeks seems like a long time. But, for the court system (esp SJC), two weeks is barely a blip. As I noted in a previous post, the SJC might want to wait until the current vacancy is filled. It's my understanding that the process is underway, but you MA locals would have a better idea of how all the nominee controversies are playing out, and how that might affect the timeline.
Courts dislike controversy so it wouldn't be a surprise for them to delay certain decisions until things have settled down. Despite the constitutional questions at issue, the underlying misdemeanor cases are not especially time-sensitive. If the info in the below link is correct, their session doesn't end until May. That gives them 2-3 months to deal with pending cases. I don't know if they behave like SCOTUS but, if they do, then a whole shitload of decisions might be issued on the very last day.
[URL]https://www.mass.gov/about-the-supreme-judicial-court[/URL]
Also, while they certainly could reject the appeals, as in refusing to hear them and thereby allowing the single Justice's earlier ruling to stand, that would almost certainly trigger defense attorneys marching right over to the federal courts. That's because the due process questions are genuine constitutional issues that can't be side-stepped. Knowing that, it's hard to imagine a scenario where the full court doesn't review the matter. I doubt they'll want to punt on this one..[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Comcast7777;6802310]Your insight has been invaluable. It's very much appreciated.
Is it fair to assume that the longer this is stretched out, the less likely it is that a second round of referrals will happen?[/QUOTE]I don't think time is a major constraint for prosecutors. They can move forward quickly or they can bring charges at any point up to the expiration of the statutory limit. Under normal circumstances, cases like these generally fall to junior prosecutors and the court would be churning through them at a pretty rapid pace. Plea bargains would also be likely, and expected. But these aren't normal circumstances, right?
The SJC is obviously the next inflection point. If they rule against the defendants, either by allowing the previous ruling to stand or by the full court deciding in favor of public hearings, then I expect more delays. Defense attorneys (Some? Most? All?) will surely petition federal courts to look at the constitutional issues. And federal avenues of appeal = even more delays.
A ruling for private hearings, however, means prosecutors and defense attorneys will get to work behind a veil of privacy. Some defendants might cut a deal that (hopefully) keeps them off the media radar screen. Others, presumably high-profile individuals, will likely be targeted by prosecutors in order to to send a message. It's doubtful that latter group will be offered any deals because the media will be clamoring for show trials and punishment. Prosecutors, in light of statements they've made, will be under pressure to save face and give the media the circus they've been asking for. I wish I could see some sequence of events that doesn't lead down that path, but unfortunately I can't.
With respect to a second round of referrals, I think prosecutors will wait to see how things go with Round #1. This is their "A List" with, one would assume, the highest profile defendants and strongest evidence. If this turns into a ginormous clusterfuck there may not be another round, IMO. That being said, I'm pretty sure prosecutors and LE are working hard to try to have a "B List" that could be rolled out. Whether they'll be successful is anyone's guess.
Bottom-line: Private hearings should move forward quickly, assuming the SJC rules that way. Otherwise, more delays are very likely. And, while time may not be a major factor for prosecutors, we know that shit can unexpectedly happen. More delays = more chances for complications to arise. Rather than focus on time, I'll be looking to see whether prosecutors are getting pummeled by adverse court rulings, or other negative (shit happens) kinds of things. The more painful defense attorneys can make Round #1, the better the chance prosecutors won't want to bother with a Round #2.
[URL]https://www.bostonherald.com/2024/02/26/accused-multi-state-brothel-sex-buyers-work-behind-the-scenes-to-hide-their-identities/[/URL]
No more victimization. I wish people could read more, because in their heads, they still have the previous BS all media published.
[QUOTE]
And then came the aptly named John Does themselves.
The first 13 of a total 17 to file opposition to release jointly argued that not only should the applications remain private but that the magistrate erred in allowing the hearings to be public at all.
This error should not be compounded by opening the door to public dissemination of police reports and other documents, their motion to intervene states.
They further argue that the John Does are not powerful and elite as the petitioners describe They are private citizens who face adverse and embarrassing collateral consequences if their name and image are published before they have the opportunity to face this case at a clerks hearing or in a court of law.[/QUOTE]It's funny that they knew there were powerful people in BTT but yet 77% of the 17 that is actively opposing to have their names released are mortal people like many of us. Sigh.
[QUOTE=TheGodsDecree;6805254][URL]https://www.bostonherald.com/2024/02/26/accused-multi-state-brothel-sex-buyers-work-behind-the-scenes-to-hide-their-identities/[/URL]
No more victimization. I wish people could read more, because in their heads, they still have the previous BS all media published.
It's funny that they knew there were powerful people in BTT but yet 77% of the 17 that is actively opposing to have their names released are mortal people like many of us. Sigh.[/QUOTE]From the article, here's the meat of their argument:
"Unlike her ruling about the show-cause hearings, the Clerk-Magistrate did not consider whether a legitimate interest of the public outweighed the right of privacy of the accused in the applications,' the Jan. 12 emergency petition for the documents argued.
Since the 'incident has already attracted public attention prior to a show cause hearing, the interest in shielding the participants from publicity is necessarily diminished, while the public's legitimate interest in access is correspondingly stronger,' the petitioners further argued.
The petitioners furthered their argument by citing 2019 state caselaw that found 'the interests of transparency, accountability, and public confidence are at their apex if the conduct at issue occurred in the performance of the official's professional duties or materially bears on the official's ability to perform those duties honestly or capably."
Three quick points:
1. Since the clerk-magistrate's initial decision was to allow public hearings, while keeping the applications private, the media's assertion that the issue wasn't considered is completely bogus. The magistrate may not have elaborated on all the factors considered, but that isn't required.
2. In addition to (obviously) the defendants, even MA LE (Asst. AG) opposes the media's petition:
The AG's response contends that "granting access to the complaint applications before the show-cause hearings take place would essentially allow unfettered review, use, and potentially publication of the complainant's allegations before the accused has had the opportunity to respond and before the Clerk-Magistrate has made a probable-cause determination."
3. With the due process issue in focus, I don't think there's a snowball's chance in Hell that the SJC issues a piecemeal (applications separate from hearings) ruling. Their decision will almost certainly deal with the privacy issues, as a whole.
It's my guess that the media has nothing better to do than to try to fan the flames in a bid to show they're still engaged and relevant. I'd be very surprised if this turns out to be anything more than a giant nothingburger.
[QUOTE=JmSuttr;6802825]
With respect to a second round of referrals, I think prosecutors will wait to see how things go with Round #1. This is their "A List" with, one would assume, the highest profile defendants and strongest evidence. If this turns into a ginormous clusterfuck there may not be another round, IMO. That being said, I'm pretty sure prosecutors and LE are working hard to try to have a "B List" that could be rolled out. Whether they'll be successful is anyone's guess.
Bottom-line: Private hearings should move forward quickly, assuming the SJC rules that way. Otherwise, more delays are very likely. And, while time may not be a major factor for prosecutors, we know that shit can unexpectedly happen. More delays = more chances for complications to arise. Rather than focus on time, I'll be looking to see whether prosecutors are getting pummeled by adverse court rulings, or other negative (shit happens) kinds of things. The more painful defense attorneys can make Round #1, the better the chance prosecutors won't want to bother with a Round #2.[/QUOTE]Conversely, if the prosecutors can get certain admissions or pleas out of the agency defendants with this first round of prosecutions, subsequent prosecutions of (add'l) customers will be MUCH easier for the prosecution. The prosecution today has more than enough customers to get admissions and pleas out of the agency defendants.
[QUOTE=Bran001;6805626]Conversely, if the prosecutors can get certain admissions or pleas out of the agency defendants with this first round of prosecutions, subsequent prosecutions of (add'l) customers will be MUCH easier for the prosecution. The prosecution today has more than enough customers to get admissions and pleas out of the agency defendants.[/QUOTE]If the SJC rules in favor of private hearings, for example, that's a generalized action that will apply to all the cases. However, if they rule in favor of public hearings, that opens the door for some defendants to argue (as they already have) that the public's right to know is not the same for every accused client. In the scenario where a defendant happens to be a public official, an argument can be made that the public is entitled to know what their employee has (allegedly) been up to. But, in a scenario where the defendant is a regular person, such as a doctor or businessman, their right to privacy and due process is arguably stronger. One possible way the SJC could rule is to remand the matter back to the original court with instructions to conduct an individualized private vs public interest determination. If that happens, private hearings would probably proceed quickly while those defendants labeled "public interest" would probably file a new round of appeals.
Similarly, there are some generalizations that might be valid across all the various cases, but others that are not. Prosecutors will doubtlessly pursue similar strategies but there's no guarantee they will be equally effective, or applicable, in every case. It's my understanding that MA law guarantees the right to a jury trial, even in misdemeanor cases. That means each case will have unique defendant, a unique jury, and a set of individualized circumstances that sets it apart from every other case.
The prosecution will certainly learn from any cases in which they succeed (and from those in which they fail) but so will defense attorneys. And, if prosecutors develop a certain template they try to apply in a generalized way, good defense attorneys will find and exploit any flaws. It's an ongoing series of battles and both sides will learn and adapt. Surprises can always happen, and each jury will be asked to decide based on a specific and unique set of evidence. The next chapters for each defendant have yet to be written, IMO, and much depends on developments that are yet to unfold.
[QUOTE=JmSuttr;6802825] Some defendants might cut a deal that (hopefully) keeps them off the media radar screen.[/QUOTE]If this turns out to be an option it would be a big relief to a lot of people. I think most are much more fearful of their reputation being ruined than any punishment the court would be willing to dish out to them.
Sounds like it is getting a full hearing and latest update is scheduling oral hearings that allow 40 days to file briefs.
The irony is that, for all the bleating in the media about John Does trying to keep their names private, if the media hadn't so goddamn bloodthirsty about making this different because it involved sex and potential celebrity and just let this run through normal channels, they would have had the names and documents of anyone with a real case against them a month ago.
[QUOTE=Mxbs345;6810162]Sounds like it is getting a full hearing and latest update is scheduling oral hearings that allow 40 days to file briefs.
The irony is that, for all the bleating in the media about John Does trying to keep their names private, if the media hadn't so goddamn bloodthirsty about making this different because it involved sex and potential celebrity and just let this run through normal channels, they would have had the names and documents of anyone with a real case against them a month ago.[/QUOTE]I didn't see anything when I checked the websites of a couple of news outlets that have been covering the cases. And when I did a web search for news specifically about the SJC, the results from the last week mostly focus on the confirmation of the nominee to fill the vacancy on the court. Also, the SJC court calendar didn't show anything.
A link to your source would be greatly appreciated, thanks.