General Reports

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]

[QUOTE=Ezra007;6791219]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]The prosecution generally never shows its cards until it has to. So, whether it's an indictment, or preliminary hearing, or probable cause hearing, they will show the bare minimum they feel is needed to move things to the trial phase.

At that point, discovery and pre-trial motions take place and a good defense attorney should be able to figure out if prosecutors have a strong or weak hand. Then they can advise their client as to whether they should seek a plea deal or fight the charges.

But the evidence against each defendant will be different, so it's hard to make any kind of blanket statement. That being said, we're now almost two months after the initial announcement about going after 28 clients. One would think that, before making so specific a statement, LE would have had all their ducks in a row with respect to those 28 cases. The more that time passes, and especially if it seems like that original number could be reduced, the more it makes you wonder about what's going on behind the scenes.

Met a guy at a dinner party at friends' house who turned out to be a sinologist (studies Chinese culture and traditions, generally speaking). Had an interesting conversation with him, and among other things he was talking about cultural differences between an averaged Chinese person and a generalized westerner. According to him, one of the biggest differences is the social acceptance of lying in Chinese culture while it's not the case in Western culture. Apparently the Chinese person doesn't see lying as a bad thing at all if it's done to gain something and especially to save face. So, if you start calling your Chinese gf a lying liar, she wouldn't even understand what you are talking about.

[QUOTE=Andir;6792500]Met a guy at a dinner party at friends' house who turned out to be a sinologist (studies Chinese culture and traditions, generally speaking). Had an interesting conversation with him, and among other things he was talking about cultural differences between an averaged Chinese person and a generalized westerner. According to him, one of the biggest differences is the social acceptance of lying in Chinese culture while it's not the case in Western culture. Apparently the Chinese person doesn't see lying as a bad thing at all if it's done to gain something and especially to save face. So, if you start calling your Chinese gf a lying liar, she wouldn't even understand what you are talking about.[/QUOTE]Completely agree.

I got to know one of the ladies and after a while she was more 'honest about her situation'. She admitted that she was not completely honest at the beginning, but I could see it was to save face.

For what it's worth, most of the delays so far have been due to wrangling over court process. The various filings and rulings over whether to have public vs. Private probable cause hearings itself, which usually is just a pro forma part of the process, have taken weeks. It's not LE or the prosecutors who are dragging their feet. They seem to have had their cases ready for some time.

In terms of evidence, the charging documents for the three managers say that there was a long period of surveillance. So I'd expect photos of clients entering and exiting, possibly video from interior cameras, etc. Some clients were stopped outside and gave statements, which could be incriminatory for themselves or others. LE had warrants for phone records, so yeah, texts and so on. BTW, in criminal law, it's very common for convictions to be only on the basis of circumstantial evidence, so that in and of itself is not an issue for the prosecutors. It's really about the quality of the circumstantial evidence.

[QUOTE=JmSuttr;6791864]The prosecution generally never shows its cards until it has to. So, whether it's an indictment, or preliminary hearing, or probable cause hearing, they will show the bare minimum they feel is needed to move things to the trial phase.

At that point, discovery and pre-trial motions take place and a good defense attorney should be able to figure out if prosecutors have a strong or weak hand. Then they can advise their client as to whether they should seek a plea deal or fight the charges.

But the evidence against each defendant will be different, so it's hard to make any kind of blanket statement. That being said, we're now almost two months after the initial announcement about going after 28 clients. One would think that, before making so specific a statement, LE would have had all their ducks in a row with respect to those 28 cases. The more that time passes, and especially if it seems like that original number could be reduced, the more it makes you wonder about what's going on behind the scenes.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=KashkaiBoy;6793215]For what it's worth, most of the delays so far have been due to wrangling over court process. The various filings and rulings over whether to have public vs. Private probable cause hearings itself, which usually is just a pro forma part of the process, have taken weeks. It's not LE or the prosecutors who are dragging their feet. They seem to have had their cases ready for some time.

In terms of evidence, the charging documents for the three managers say that there was a long period of surveillance. So I'd expect photos of clients entering and exiting, possibly video from interior cameras, etc. Some clients were stopped outside and gave statements, which could be incriminatory for themselves or others. LE had warrants for phone records, so yeah, texts and so on. BTW, in criminal law, it's very common for convictions to be only on the basis of circumstantial evidence, so that in and of itself is not an issue for the prosecutors. It's really about the quality of the circumstantial evidence.[/QUOTE]My point about possible issues with prosecutions is based primarily on what, at the moment, appears to be the reduction in the number of defendants from the originally announced 28 to either 18 or 14 (depending on the report you read).

Based on the number of parties to the SJC appeals, there appears to be an absence of 10-14 appeals that one would reasonably expect to see. A couple of theories have been floated, such as inability to afford a lawyer or waiting to see what the SJC decides. I've addressed in a previous post why I find those explanations unpersuasive. To be clear, I don't claim to know the reason. All I'm saying is that the discrepancy in numbers raises the question as to what's going on behind the scenes.

Bottom line: If all 28 cases were good to go at the time of announcement, 28 cases should be going forward, and one would expect 28 (or close to that number) appeals on the due process and privacy issues. I don't disagree that the delays have been procedural, but that doesn't explain the mystery of what appears to be 10-14 missing defendants. And it's that last point that makes me wonder whether LE and the prosecution truly had their ducks in a row for each and every case. Whatever the explanation, we'll know when things finally get moving again.

P.S. A member sent me a PM that mentioned the controversy regarding the filling of the vacant SJC seat. I replied that, if that serves as a distraction, or if the SJC decides to wait until they have a full complement of justices, we could see further delays. In my reply I also mentioned that, after peeling back the constitutional due process issue, the underlying cases are really just piss-ant misdemeanors. The reason that might be relevant is because the SJC may not see this as an issue that demands immediate attention. But I'm not in MA, so you locals would know better than I how the SJC might act.

[QUOTE=JmSuttr;6793800]My point about possible issues with prosecutions is based primarily on what, at the moment, appears to be the reduction in the number of defendants from the originally announced 28 to either 18 or 14 (depending on the report you read).

Based on the number of parties to the SJC appeals, there appears to be an absence of 10-14 appeals that one would reasonably expect to see. A couple of theories have been floated, such as inability to afford a lawyer or waiting to see what the SJC decides. I've addressed in a previous post why I find those explanations unpersuasive. To be clear, I don't claim to know the reason. All I'm saying is that the discrepancy in numbers raises the question as to what's going on behind the scenes.

Bottom line: If all 28 cases were good to go at the time of announcement, 28 cases should be going forward, and one would expect 28 (or close to that number) appeals on the due process and privacy issues. I don't disagree that the delays have been procedural, but that doesn't explain the mystery of what appears to be 10-14 missing defendants. And it's that last point that makes me wonder whether LE and the prosecution truly had their ducks in a row for each and every case. Whatever the explanation, we'll know when things finally get moving again.

P.S. A member sent me a PM that mentioned the controversy regarding the filling of the vacant SJC seat. I replied that, if that serves as a distraction, or if the SJC decides to wait until they have a full complement of justices, we could see further delays. In my reply I also mentioned that, after peeling back the constitutional due process issue, the underlying cases are really just piss-ant misdemeanors. The reason that might be relevant is because the SJC may not see this as an issue that demands immediate attention. But I'm not in MA, so you locals would know better than I how the SJC might act.[/QUOTE]With all due respect, essentially none of what you wrote reflects how criminal cases are litigated in the Commonwealth.

Yes, only some of the defendants are purusing the 'privacy' issue that is before the SJC. That does not mean or even imply that the others have been dismissed out, or that there is some "problem" with the prosecutors' cases against them, etc. Not all defendants needed to pursue this issue in order for the prosecutors to decide to put a halt to the entire process whilst this issue is being decided.

The notion that the prosecutors didn't have their "ducks in a row" with respect to the so-called missing defendants is absolutely baseless. There clearly has not been enough process yet to even get to that conclusion. The prosecutors made decisions as to which defendants to charge. Absent litigation on the substance, of which there has been none, there would be zero reason for them to reverse course and dismiss defendants.

[QUOTE=Bran001;6793866]With all due respect, essentially none of what you wrote reflects how criminal cases are litigated in the Commonwealth.

Yes, only some of the defendants are purusing the 'privacy' issue that is before the SJC. That does not mean or even imply that the others have been dismissed out, or that there is some "problem" with the prosecutors' cases against them, etc. Not all defendants needed to pursue this issue in order for the prosecutors to decide to put a halt to the entire process whilst this issue is being decided.

The notion that the prosecutors didn't have their "ducks in a row" with respect to the so-called missing defendants is absolutely baseless. There clearly has not been enough process yet to even get to that conclusion. The prosecutors made decisions as to which defendants to charge. Absent litigation on the substance, of which there has been none, there would be zero reason for them to reverse course and dismiss defendants.[/QUOTE]What's your explanation for the fact that 18 "John Doe" appeals have been filed, while 10 have not?

Here's the link where the info can be found:

[URL]https://www.ma-appellatecourts.org/[/URL]

*Use docket number SJC-13551.

As I posted, I have yet to hear ANY theory that adequately explains why, out of the 28 announced cases, defense attorneys for 18 clients are pursuing the exact same path, while attorneys for at least 10 of them are not. There are 12 separate attorneys listed on the SJC docket, with some representing more than one client, while one client apparently has 3 attorneys representing him. So these several attorneys each came to the individual conclusion that their client's interests were best served by filing an appeal. What explanation is there as to why attorneys for at least 10 defendants (assuming 28 summons were issued) individually decided to take a materially different path? And, IMO, the most interesting aspect of this apparent bifurcation is that the numbers for each group are large enough to rule out randomness and the outlier effect. There's an obvious and coherent reason for why one group, the attorneys for the 18 defendants, chose their path. The reasoning for the other group, the 10 non-appeals, remains a mystery at this point.

Again, if you read my posts carefully you'll see that I'm not claiming to have the answer. Rather I'm posing the question and offering my take on some possibilities. So far, all explanations offered have been (IMO) lacking. Your point seems to be essentially a "move along folks, nothing to see here" position. If, with your knowledge of how criminal cases are litigated in the Commonwealth, you see nothing odd about these circumstances, then I respectfully beg to differ. And, of course, the great feature of this forum is that everyone gets to read and decide for themselves.

Speculations as to possible answers are, by definition, speculation. But that doesn't invalidate the underlying question.

One possible explanation (even though I don't think it's a very likely one) is that there could be a budget issue at play.

I read the other day that the state has spent $116 million on housing and feeding migrants. This is an expense that would have been tough to quantify ahead of time. And the issue is not going away anytime soon.

The state has already announced the closing of MCI Concord by this summer (which had been open for something like 150 years) for financial reasons.

Obviously dismissing 10 misdemeanor cases isn't going to have a significant impact on the state's wallet. But I suppose it is possible that Healey was in someone's ear and told them to consolidate as much as possible.

Just thinking out loud.

[QUOTE=JmSuttr;6794286]What's your explanation for the fact that 18 "John Doe" appeals have been filed, while 10 have not?

[/QUOTE]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=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.

[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.

Hey Jm, sorry if my posting looked like a refutation of yours -- I was just adding the chain of replies that you'd already addressed. A previous poster had speculated that cause for the reduction in the appeals was due to lack of evidence or the prosecutors getting cold feet about some of the cases because of their only having circumstantial evidence. My point is just that they seem to have pleanty of solid evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be solid and can be used to convict. But I can't speculate about the legal strategies of the defendants.

[QUOTE=JmSuttr;6793800]My point about possible issues with prosecutions is based primarily on what, at the moment, appears to be the reduction in the number of defendants from the originally announced 28 to either 18 or 14 (depending on the report you read).

Based on the number of parties to the SJC appeals, there appears to be an absence of 10-14 appeals that one would reasonably expect to see. A couple of theories have been floated, such as inability to afford a lawyer or waiting to see what the SJC decides. I've addressed in a previous post why I find those explanations unpersuasive. To be clear, I don't claim to know the reason. All I'm saying is that the discrepancy in numbers raises the question as to what's going on behind the scenes.

Bottom line: If all 28 cases were good to go at the time of announcement, 28 cases should be going forward, and one would expect 28 (or close to that number) appeals on the due process and privacy issues. I don't disagree that the delays have been procedural, but that doesn't explain the mystery of what appears to be 10-14 missing defendants. And it's that last point that makes me wonder whether LE and the prosecution truly had their ducks in a row for each and every case. Whatever the explanation, we'll know when things finally get moving again.

P.S. A member sent me a PM that mentioned the controversy regarding the filling of the vacant SJC seat. I replied that, if that serves as a distraction, or if the SJC decides to wait until they have a full complement of justices, we could see further delays. In my reply I also mentioned that, after peeling back the constitutional due process issue, the underlying cases are really just piss-ant misdemeanors. The reason that might be relevant is because the SJC may not see this as an issue that demands immediate attention. But I'm not in MA, so you locals would know better than I how the SJC might act.[/QUOTE]

I'd like to explore the subject of exploitation. Do you guys really believe that these ladies at BTT were working there of their free will? Or was there any element of force or coercion? It mystifies me that despite a fairly large Asian population, we see very few independent Asians (it is more common in SF and some other areas). Do they join these agencies or AMPs for access to clients and protection? Or are they recruited in the way that gangs recruit, where you have no choice but to agree?

[QUOTE=DarkClouds;6795822]I'd like to explore the subject of exploitation. Do you guys really believe that these ladies at BTT were working there of their free will? Or was there any element of force or coercion? It mystifies me that despite a fairly large Asian population, we see very few independent Asians (it is more common in SF and some other areas). Do they join these agencies or AMPs for access to clients and protection? Or are they recruited in the way that gangs recruit, where you have no choice but to agree?[/QUOTE]That's the only way LEO has a case, by exaggerating the situation, saying they are forced to live where they work, amongst other bullshit. That's their weapon when they try to close down an AMP, saying they saw bedding material where the ladies were sleeping. Hell, sometimes I sleep in my office when it's late. There isn't anything wrong with sleeping where you work. It's just LEO being stupid. BTT ladies know what the fuck they were doing and got filthy rich from it.