General Reports

[DarkClouds]

Web archive works, but you still have to disable JS to get rid of the popup.

https://web.archive.org/web/20240129163558/https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/01/29/metro/mass-brothel-case/[/URL]

[Hyperion11]

Any chance you can give a cliff notes version? No chance I'm giving that rag even a penny.

https://web.archive.org/web/20240129...-brothel-case/

[EireAnn]

And more inaccuracy and sensationalism to get people angry and get the walk of shame. This is disgusting.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/01/...s-brothel-case

Disgusting is the right word. The ignorance on this one is off the charts! What difference does the truth make if you can sell another paper.

[Comcast7777]

And more inaccuracy and sensationalism to get people angry and get the walk of shame. This is disgusting.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/01/...s-brothel-case

Any chance you can give a cliff notes version? No chance I'm giving that rag even a penny.

[TheGodsDecree]

And more inaccuracy and sensationalism to get people angry and get the walk of shame. This is disgusting.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/01/...s-brothel-case

[Nrlmus]

One juicy detail. The defense attorney who is explicitly arguing that elected officials should have privacy rights previously pled guilty to bribing witnesses. My speculation is a an elected official is one of the 28 and hired the most aggressive criminal defense attorney he could find.

Damn, I just might know who you're talking about. Can't remember his name though. Is it older light black gentleman with the mustache? At least that's how I remember him from the newspapers. A true legend among criminal lawyers for not holding back. He is the type to take such a case too. Never worked with him but did work with one of his lawyers: Michelle something or other. Aggressive as eff! At some point I began to think that judge would contempt her butt.

[EireAnn]

The media and John Doe's have until January 31 to respond to the magistrate.

Will take time for the SJC to rule.

Last time it took the Cambridge District Court three weeks to schedule the show cause hearings.

Earliest the hearings. Public or private. Happen is March.

One juicy detail. The defense attorney who is explicitly arguing that elected officials should have privacy rights previously pled guilty to bribing witnesses. My speculation is a an elected official is one of the 28 and hired the most aggressive criminal defense attorney he could find.

It does look like it so I'd guess you are onto something. Hopefully for the others sake he's effective and they all can benefit.

[TommyDawson]

Anyone have a rough timeline when we can expect this all to play out? Are we talking weeks or months?

The media and John Doe's have until January 31 to respond to the magistrate.

Will take time for the SJC to rule.

Last time it took the Cambridge District Court three weeks to schedule the show cause hearings.

Earliest the hearings. Public or private. Happen is March.

One juicy detail. The defense attorney who is explicitly arguing that elected officials should have privacy rights previously pled guilty to bribing witnesses. My speculation is a an elected official is one of the 28 and hired the most aggressive criminal defense attorney he could find.

[JmSuttr]

The case is back to the Cambridge clerk magistrate to explain why she took certain decisions: https://www.boston25news.com/news/lo...GC2EXZTJGZ3UU/.

So, the Supreme Judicial Court Justice calls out the local magistrate on at least a couple of important privacy-related points. First, the magistrate was inconsistent in declaring a public interest for open hearings yet denying the press access to the complaint documents filed with the court (which contain names of defendants). The magistrate is being asked to explain why privacy prevails in one instance, but not the other.

Second, the magistrate is being called out for not detailing a factual basis for EACH defendant explaining why privacy protections should not apply. In other words, lumping all defendants together is not acceptable to the higher court. The public vs private calculation is different for each individual and the magistrate failed to take that into account.

Also, the article mentions that probable cause hearings are presumptively private proceedings. While I'm not a lawyer, it's my understanding this means the presumption of privacy can only be overcome by laying out an argument that has a factual, logical, and legal basis that can be evaluated by the higher court. I haven't read the magistrate's original decision but, whatever reasoning they used, it wasn't good enough for the higher court.

From reading the article, it seems to me there are two likely outcomes, maybe three:

1. The magistrate fully answers the higher court's questions, including providing the public vs private justification for EACH individual defendant.

2. The magistrate reverses the decision and all hearings will be private.

3. The magistrate (in partnership with LE) selects a few of the higher profile defendants, makes the case as to why their hearings should be public, and the other defendants will have private hearings.

I'm thinking #2 is most likely, as it's quicker and cleaner. The press won't be happy but the magistrate can simply point to the higher court's queries as to why the presumption of privacy can't be easily overcome.

#3 is possible, but that could turn into a real mess as any defendant selected for a public hearing will have their attorney file motions demanding to know the criteria, etc. And any such selection would likely be appealed.

#1, IMO, is dead and buried. From the tone of the SJC's queries, I don't think the magistrate will be able to satisfy them.

How long things take from here depends on which path is taken. #2 is probably the quickest, but at least the privacy protections will be maintained. But, for any defendant for whom probable cause is found to exist, at that point their names will be made public and they'll be royally screwed. Whether or not they're ever found guilty of anything is irrelevant. They'll be convicted in the court of public opinion.

[Hyperion11]

Hopefully common sense prevails here.

https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/01/22...h-end-sex-ring

The case is back to the Cambridge clerk magistrate to explain why she took certain decisions: https://www.boston25news.com/news/lo...GC2EXZTJGZ3UU/.

[Mattis1775]

Hopefully common sense prevails here.

https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/01/22...h-end-sex-ring

Common sense never prevails here. This isn't about privacy, it's about humiliating these individuals, whether they are guilty or not. The damage will already done if they allow this to be an open hearing. Celebrities now are already on damage control from the BS Epstein list.

[Comcast7777]

Anyone have a rough timeline when we can expect this all to play out? Are we talking weeks or months?

Hopefully common sense prevails here.

https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/01/22...h-end-sex-ring

[TheGodsDecree]

Hopefully common sense prevails here.

https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/01/22...h-end-sex-ring

When I checked x.com today, people replying to the tweets about this type of news did not know what they were talking about. People seem to want the names of the Johns at all costs, but they do not understand that not all Johns are VIPs. That's because the press misinforms them, saying that all Johns are ultra-rich and politicians. The public doesn't read all these articles, and they don't understand them either. It is sad as hell. Therefore, common sense must come from the state's highest court.

[EireAnn]

Hopefully common sense prevails here.

https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/01/22...h-end-sex-ring

[JmSuttr]

I hope the 28 unfortunate people summoned, who are likely not VIPs nor ultra-rich, keep fighting this fight. I understand that people with a security clearance should get fucked. If I were someone with a high-security clearance, I would have been the first to come out and say, "I banged as many as I could, and I sent my DL and an email to get access to Korean pussy. " But I mean, if my name would get out there, I would lose my miserable job, I would not be able to pay my mortgage, my wife would divorce me, and then what? Will that fucking stop the prostitution problem in MA? We all know the answer. I really don't see the point going after us, the suckers. And to be honest, at this point, I give a single fuck if my name is out there. Everyone can suck my fucking dick.

Now, the media sucks. They just pour gas into the fire because they want more clicks. It is completely disappointing we live in times when they have to do that kind of shit to get money. I lost all respect for those mother fucker. Now I understand those who say, "Don't believe what you read or see in the media..

Is that, by their reasoning, clients provide the demand which creates the market for the buying and selling of sex. This is BS for (at least) two reasons:

1. Prostitution is the world's oldest profession and nowhere has it been successfully permanently eradicated. It might be suppressed for awhile, or pushed elsewhere, but it's resilient beyond belief. Whether you target providers, clients, or both, it makes no difference. Hell, they made it a felony in TX, right? Check that state's forum threads to see how that worked out.

2. Compare the war on prostitution to the war on drugs. The same schizoid enforcement efforts targeting suppliers, and then flip-flopping to users, all failing miserably. Now many jurisdictions are decriminalizing possession of personal use quantities of some drugs.

Hey, you hypocrites! How about decriminalizing personal use quantities of pussy?