News and Media Reports

[QUOTE=Comcast7777;6723370]The way I understand it in MA is that when they issue a summons for a misdemeanor, it goes straight to the clerk magistrate's office to determine if there is enough probable cause. If there is it then gets sent to the courts. So I don't read that as them not having probable cause. Just that it has to be confirmed by the clerks office.

I'm assuming that the 28 people are the ones that they pulled over and not strictly from PII but it's anyone's guess at this point.[/QUOTE]This is a VA forum, so all that matters here is what local VA agencies might do. I made that same point to another member who sent me a lengthy PM about the nuances of MA law. I stated what I've repeated here, I simply don't care.

Let's assume, for the sake of this argument, that 28 clients get charged in MA. That doesn't mean the same will happen in VA. But, even more importantly, not a single local VA agency has said diddly squat about this case. So, even if it's possible that they have enough evidence to bring charges against someone, there's currently NO indication that they have any inclination to do so.

I'll repeat what I said in my PM response, the only thing that'll prompt me to change my assessment is if a local VA agency makes public statement that addresses the client prosecution issue. Nothing the Feds say, and certainly nothing MA agencies say, are substitutes for that.

P.S. Not sure what the confusion is about the probable cause issue. In the statement, the Feds themselves say they don't yet have probable cause re the 28 clients. I'm not "reading into" anything, I'm just directly quoting their own words.

[QUOTE=JmSuttr;6725138] P.S. Not sure what the confusion is about the probable cause issue. In the statement, the Feds themselves say they don't yet have probable cause re the 28 clients. I'm not "reading into" anything, I'm just directly quoting their own words.[/QUOTE]Nobody accused you of "reading into" anything. Lost in translation? Absolutely.

The quote from the feds is "Until probable cause has been found, no names will be released. If probable cause is established and criminal charges are issued by the Court, referrals will then be made to the Middlesex District Attorney's Office. ".

They're not sitting there combing through evidence searching for something to trigger probable cause. They're referencing the formality that is getting past the probable cause hearing. I have the same stance as you, just from a different perspective: I'm not sure how there's confusion with that.

[QUOTE=Comcast7777;6727055]Nobody accused you of "reading into" anything. Lost in translation? Absolutely.

The quote from the feds is "Until probable cause has been found, no names will be released. If probable cause is established and criminal charges are issued by the Court, referrals will then be made to the Middlesex District Attorney's Office. ".

They're not sitting there combing through evidence searching for something to trigger probable cause. They're referencing the formality that is getting past the probable cause hearing. I have the same stance as you, just from a different perspective: I'm not sure how there's confusion with that.[/QUOTE]Probable cause has no meaning apart from the relevant (and specific) statute at issue. There is no federal statutory equivalent for misdemeanor solicitation of prostitution. Therefore, the US Attorney could only have been talking about probable cause for a state statute, specifically MA. As for VA, the statement made only the most cursory (and non-substantive) reference.

So, since that's MA, and not VA, I personally couldn't give a flying fuck about what kind of circle jerk is going on between the Feds and locals up there. IMO, the only items of interest from that statement are: 1) The strangeness of making a non-statement statement, and; 2) The fact that NO local VA agency has made ANY kind of statement, despite having had ample opportunities to do so.

What I mean by a non-statement statement is that it was like a placeholder into which (allegedly) future substantive info would be inserted, but they just didn't have the goods at that moment. From a public information officer standpoint, it was rather pathetic. I've read a shit-ton of DOJ releases and I've NEVER seen one which has as its primary focus the discussion of NON-federal charges. And then goes on to give a specific number of clients who MIGHT be locally charged, but then goes out of its way to say that (from the federal perspective) the probable cause threshold for local charges has not been attained.

FWIW, if a local MA agency had made this statement then I wouldn't find it so strange. But, for the feds, this is odd and borders on the bizarre. The only motivation that makes sense to me is that they're feeling pressure to publicly address the client issue, even if there's no "there" there, at the federal level. With respect to the content of the statement, as minimal as it was, why didn't the local District Attorney issue the release? That would have been the appropriate and customary thing to do, and yet it didn't happen. Which leads me to speculate, and speculation is all it is, that things aren't proceeding smoothly with respect to local MA charges. And, whatever bizarre dance is going on in MA, it doesn't necessarily translate into anything for VA mongers. I'm fact, the longer the VA locals maintain radio silence, the more likely it is that no VA charges will materialize.

There are three separate jurisdictions at play: Federal, MA, and VA. So far the feds have been doing the lion's share (all?) of the talking, EVEN for issues that are totally outside their jurisdiction! I have no idea what's going on with the MA locals. I'm not following those developments and that's better discussed in a MA forum. And VA locals, as mentioned above, have pointedly avoided joining the fray. Again, IMO, the silence of the local agencies is deafening.

I very much appreciate the insight as you seem to know your shit here.

One point for clarification if you don't mind: are you saying that even though the feds have said that the wheels are already in motion for 28 local charges, that the local the could choose not to pursue them and the probable cause hearings would never even happen?

[QUOTE=JmSuttr;6727171]Probable cause has no meaning apart from the relevant (and specific) statute at issue. There is no federal statutory equivalent for misdemeanor solicitation of prostitution. Therefore, the US Attorney could only have been talking about probable cause for a state statute, specifically MA. As for VA, the statement made only the most cursory (and non-substantive) reference.

So, since that's MA, and not VA, I personally couldn't give a flying fuck about what kind of circle jerk is going on between the Feds and locals up there. IMO, the only items of interest from that statement are: 1) The strangeness of making a non-statement statement, and; 2) The fact that NO local VA agency has made ANY kind of statement, despite having had ample opportunities to do so..[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Comcast7777;6727490]I very much appreciate the insight as you seem to know your shit here.

One point for clarification if you don't mind: are you saying that even though the feds have said that the wheels are already in motion for 28 local charges, that the local the could choose not to pursue them and the probable cause hearings would never even happen?[/QUOTE]The MA "show cause" hearings are going to happen. They were filed from a Cambridge police officer. Not the Feds. Also, given that the magistrate invoked a rare exception to allow media at these hearings, I'd suspect she won't be sympathetic to the men in MA. One of the experts cited by the Boston Globe said "it's unlikely that federal authorities would have referred cases for state prosecution, unless there was enough evidence to convince a magistrate to issue charges. ".

To JmSuttr's point, there's been no equivalent action from Fairfax County police to date.

Here's some speculation based on differences between VA and MA criminal procedures for misdemeanors committed when a police officer isn't present:

MA sends a summons to a "show cause" hearing in the mail, where a magistrate determines if there's probable cause. This is a fairly light lift for local law enforcement. Some paperwork and letters.

In VA the police go to the magistrate first, get probable cause, then deliver a summons in person. So the police would have to travel to house of each accused sex buyer. Many of them probably live nowhere near Fairfax. This is a significantly larger ask.

If you read the original affidavit, there was lots of collaboration between the Feds and Cambridge Police. Not so in Fairfax.

The statute of limitations is six years in MA vs one year in VA.

All this means that if the Feds want to "hold men accountable" the lower hanging fruit is in MA.

[QUOTE=Comcast7777;6727490]I very much appreciate the insight as you seem to know your shit here.

One point for clarification if you don't mind: are you saying that even though the feds have said that the wheels are already in motion for 28 local charges, that the local the could choose not to pursue them and the probable cause hearings would never even happen?[/QUOTE]Others have posted about the various procedures and protocols specific to the legal system in MA, but that's not my focus. My focus is specifically on what the local agencies are doing or saying or, even more importantly, what they're NOT doing or saying.

One thing that's crystal clear is that this case appears to be a MUCH bigger deal in MA than it is in VA. That's one reason why the outcomes in the two states could be dramatically different. It's also worth noting that, to this point, the Feds have been 100% driving the bus AND making 100% of the public statements. That last point is especially significant, IMO, as there's no reason for the local District Attorney not to issue their own statement on matters falling within their jurisdiction. In fact, it runs contrary to custom for the locals to allow the Feds to speak for them. Another way to handle the public statements could be to offer a joint release, or hold a joint press conference. In such instances, local agencies usually take great pains to portray themselves as equal partners and would (in every normal situation I can imagine) certainly NOT want to allow any portrayal of themselves as a junior partner or, even worse, as an errand-boy doing the Fed's bidding.

So, because the way things are unfolding has strayed so far from the norm, it's reasonable to ask what other things (behind the scenes and otherwise) have also strayed from the norm? I don't know if the District Attorney in MA is elected or appointed but, either way, what's the downside of making a brief statement about the scourge of "trafficking" and how important it is for clients to face consequences? IIRC, the VA District Attorney IS an elected position, so such a statement would be even more expected.

The next public release should be very interesting, because they've raised expectations that 28 local cases are forthcoming. If they don't or can't deliver, that'll be a huge embarrassment. If they can, then I'd expect a statement from the MA District Attorney at that time. But, irrespective of what's happening in MA, the situation in VA is a complete mystery. We'll obviously learn more when (or if) we get a statement from a local VA agency.

But the bottom line is that much about this case has been proceeding bizarrely, so we'll just have to wait and see what happens. As I noted above, I'll be waiting to see the details (who, what, where, and when) of the next statement.

What you guys thinks odds of the feds busting an agency and then the feds take over the website and phone to trap mongers? Kind of Catch Predator style?

[QUOTE=NightHawk1967;6731006]What you guys thinks odds of the feds busting an agency and then the feds take over the website and phone to trap mongers? Kind of Catch Predator style?[/QUOTE]Local LE could certainly do something like that, but I don't think the Feds would. Since there's no federal prostitution statute, they don't really have a "hook" and the probability of negative press reports afterwards would likely outweigh the benefits, IMO.

But local LE could do something like that and arrest clients when they show up for their "appointments" at the "agency" location. But that would really just be a variation on the usual types of stings they run and it's debatable whether it would be worth the extra time and effort. And, of course, they'd still need to get clients to make incriminating statements, whether online, via text, or in person.

[QUOTE=NightHawk1967;6731006]What you guys thinks odds of the feds busting an agency and then the feds take over the website and phone to trap mongers? Kind of Catch Predator style?[/QUOTE]FFCO pd just posted the results of a sting op.

[QUOTE=JackRyan1;6731764]FFCO pd just posted the results of a sting op.[/QUOTE][URL]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/10-arrested-in-fairfax-county-sting-operation-for-soliciting-underage-encounters/ar-AA1ma0ny[/URL]

This was for catching hebephiles.

[QUOTE=NightHawk1967;6731006]What you guys thinks odds of the feds busting an agency and then the feds take over the website and phone to trap mongers? Kind of Catch Predator style?[/QUOTE]This is strictly my opinion with no tangible evidence. But new state law now requires many professionals with a license to practice to complete "Human Trafficking" training. Based on recommended website, emphasis seems to be on sexual human trafficking.

Point being, I suspect the state is getting ready to crack down on both the workers and customers and especially the handlers.

[URL]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12904363/Sex-ring-Boston-Virgiinia-honeypot-China-South-Korea-ensnare-officials.html[/URL]#article-12904363.

Don't really believe any of this to be true. But thought it would be interesting to share with my NOVA brothers.

[QUOTE=GoneFishing888;6739200][URL]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12904363/Sex-ring-Boston-Virgiinia-honeypot-China-South-Korea-ensnare-officials.html[/URL]#article-12904363.

Don't really believe any of this to be true. But thought it would be interesting to share with my NOVA brothers.[/QUOTE]InfoWars carried this too. [URL]https://www.infowars.com/posts/high-end-sex-ring-discovered-in-d-c-boston-was-honeypot-scheme-by-foreign-nations-to-blackmail-u-s-officials/[/URL] All that stuff in everyone posted in the OPSEC blog was solid, thank God I didn't go to any of these places and didn't hand over any PII.

[QUOTE=DarkRai2;6739315]InfoWars carried this too. [URL]https://www.infowars.com/posts/high-end-sex-ring-discovered-in-d-c-boston-was-honeypot-scheme-by-foreign-nations-to-blackmail-u-s-officials/[/URL] All that stuff in everyone posted in the OPSEC blog was solid, thank God I didn't go to any of these places and didn't hand over any PII.[/QUOTE]I 100% believe that a foreign government could be behind his. Why would you now believe it? The Israel angle is interesting considering how US politicians are providing 2000 dumb bombs, fighter jets, and political cover for Israel, against massive public sentiment. Every politician who support the public genocide takes money from AIPAC. What could they have over the politicians? Maybe this.

[QUOTE=SonChi;6739382]I 100% believe that a foreign government could be behind his. Why would you now believe it? The Israel angle is interesting considering how US politicians are providing 2000 dumb bombs, fighter jets, and political cover for Israel, against massive public sentiment. Every politician who support the public genocide takes money from AIPAC. What could they have over the politicians? Maybe this.[/QUOTE]This sounds like bullshit due to the nature of the rotating providers. A honeypot tends to build a long standing relationship, Then starts asking for favors, etc. These chicks were here for a few weeks, and then off to another part of the country. This was purely a money scheme and they set up where the money was.

They have operations like this in every major city where men exist who make money. This one happened to get caught. There are operations in Manhattan, Queens, and many still functioning in the DC area. No one is being seduced / blackmailed out of the country's secrets based on these sorts of "agencies".