Lusty 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.
Not sure if further appeal is allowed under MA law
[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.
Jin I appreciate your Opinion bro.
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.
At this point, DOJ and local LE are probably concerned about saving face
[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.
Hard to imagine receiving a summons and NOT hiring a lawyer
[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.
Evidence for conviction seems lacking
So they have names in a calendar book and perhaps text messages. What other evidence do they have? They don't have any witnesses or physical evidence. Doubtful they have video evidence after so much time elapsed. It seems the for cause hearing would divulge 100% of the circumstantial evidence. I wonder if the prosecution is rethinking some of this.
[QUOTE=JmSuttr;6787475]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.[/QUOTE]
I actually have a possible explanation that might accommodate both our positions
[QUOTE=Bran001;6794844]The 10 who did not pursue an appeal nevertheless are beneficiaries of the process. NO show-cause hearings are being conducted until the SJC decides if they will be open to the public or not. So this hurts neither the 18 named appellants nor the 10 others.
WHY did the 10 not participate? Of course none of us "know. " I agree with you; there's definitely a strategy being carried out; there's often a strategy shared by co-parties. I'm totally confident that the lawyers have all talked. One reason could be that the group of appellants simply had enough lawyers among them. Another reason could be a difference of opinion re strategy. Or it could be cost-saving by the 10, given that again they are benefiting from the process.[/QUOTE]Firstly, I absolutely agree that the defense attorneys have talked to each other. Even in a large city, the criminal defense bar isn't that big a club. And trial attorneys (who usually know many of their peers) spend a lot of time at the courthouse where they run into each other and often have time to talk while they're waiting for cases to be called. And I wouldn't be surprised if there were periodic strategy meetings taking place, as it's in every defendant's interests to do so.
FWIW, my problem with the cost-saving and "beneficiaries" explanation is that the theory would be equally true if only a single appeal had been filed. So, if consultation between the various attorneys is truly happening (as we both agree it is), why not choose one attorney, and one case, to be the standard bearer for all the others? That would maximize cost savings while still providing the beneficiary effect. It's hard for me to imagine so many attorneys spending their client's money unnecessarily when they could ride the coattails of another case.
BUT, here's something that occurred to me that I wanted to throw out for consideration. Unless I've missed something, the only mention of the number 28, with respect to defendants, came in a DOJ release on 12-18-23.
[URL]https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/statement-acting-us-attorney-joshua-s-levy-criminal-complaints-against-alleged-sex[/URL]
The specific statement:
"Today, a Homeland Security Investigations Task Force Officer with the Cambridge Police Department submitted applications for complaints against 28 sex buyers with the Cambridge District Court".
You, or other local members would know better than I, but does an "application for complaint" ALWAYS = acceptance + issuance of a summons? Do District Atty or court personnel have any say in whether an application is or isn't sufficient? If so, what if the actual situation is that a summons has only been issued for 18 cases, so far. If that's the case, it would provide a possible answer my question, while also fully satisfying your point that there's no reason for prosecutors to dismiss any charges at this stage of the process.
Also, even if the above is true, that doesn't necessarily mean the remaining 10 are out of the woods because those cases can still be pursued whenever prosecutors want. Could there have been up-front procedural issues? Could there be a prosecutive strategy in separating cases into two (or more) different segments? As to this last point, maybe all 28 were accepted for prosecution BUT prosecutors decided to proceed with 18 right away and defer the others until later (manpower issues)? Again, it's all speculative but it's an interesting observational exercise. Of course, for those poor mongers who are in LE's cross-hairs, it's intensely personal. And, as you said, we can't actually know anything for sure until matters unfold further. It'll be interesting to see if DOJ, or local LE, release any kind of statement before the SJC issues a ruling.
P.S. If any local media out there are monitoring this forum (you know you are! I suggest you ask DOJ, or local authorities, to confirm the exact number of cases for which a summons has been issued and, if that number is less than 28, follow up to ask why.
I actually have a possible explanation that might accommodate both our positions
[QUOTE=Bran001;6794844]The 10 who did not pursue an appeal nevertheless are beneficiaries of the process. NO show-cause hearings are being conducted until the SJC decides if they will be open to the public or not. So this hurts neither the 18 named appellants nor the 10 others.
WHY did the 10 not participate? Of course none of us "know. " I agree with you; there's definitely a strategy being carried out; there's often a strategy shared by co-parties. I'm totally confident that the lawyers have all talked. One reason could be that the group of appellants simply had enough lawyers among them. Another reason could be a difference of opinion re strategy. Or it could be cost-saving by the 10, given that again they are benefiting from the process.[/QUOTE]Firstly, I absolutely agree that the defense attorneys have talked to each other. Even in a large city, the criminal defense bar isn't that big a club. And trial attorneys (who usually know many of their peers) spend a lot of time at the courthouse where they run into each other and often have time to talk while they're waiting for cases to be called. And I wouldn't be surprised if there were periodic strategy meetings taking place, as it's in every defendant's interests to do so.
FWIW, my problem with the cost-saving and "beneficiaries" explanation is that the theory would be equally true if only a single appeal had been filed. So, if consultation between the various attorneys is truly happening (as we both agree it is), why not choose one attorney, and one case, to be the standard bearer for all the others? That would maximize cost savings while still providing the beneficiary effect. It's hard for me to imagine so many attorneys spending their client's money unnecessarily when they could ride the coattails of another case.
BUT, here's something that occurred to me that I wanted to throw out for consideration. Unless I've missed something, the only mention of the number 28, with respect to defendants, came in a DOJ release on 12-18-23.
[URL]https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/statement-acting-us-attorney-joshua-s-levy-criminal-complaints-against-alleged-sex[/URL]
The specific statement:
"Today, a Homeland Security Investigations Task Force Officer with the Cambridge Police Department submitted applications for complaints against 28 sex buyers with the Cambridge District Court".
You, or other local members would know better than I, but does an "application for complaint" ALWAYS = acceptance + issuance of a summons? Do District Atty or court personnel have any say in whether an application is or isn't sufficient? If so, what if the actual situation is that a summons has only been issued for 18 cases, so far. If that's the case, it would provide a possible answer my question, while also fully satisfying your point that there's no reason for prosecutors to dismiss any charges at this stage of the process.
Also, even if the above is true, that doesn't necessarily mean the remaining 10 are out of the woods because those cases can still be pursued whenever prosecutors want. Could there have been up-front procedural issues? Could there be a prosecutive strategy in separating cases into two (or more) different segments? As to this last point, maybe all 28 were accepted for prosecution BUT prosecutors decided to proceed with 18 right away and defer the others until later (manpower issues)? Again, it's all speculative but it's an interesting observational exercise. Of course, for those poor mongers who are in LE's cross-hairs, it's intensely personal. And, as you said, we can't actually know anything for sure until matters unfold further. It'll be interesting to see if DOJ, or local LE, release any kind of statement before the SJC issues a ruling.
P.S. If any local media out there are monitoring this forum (you know you are) I suggest you ask DOJ, or local authorities, to confirm the exact number of cases for which a summons has been issued and, if that number is less than 28, follow up to ask why.
