Was looking at some other things and got to the old thread about the agency busts that was a big deal on the board 9 months back.

 
One of the subtopics in the larger discussion was that of all the customer that might now be outted due to giving any personal information in screening. I've not been folling the case at all and have not seen anything new get posted here. But was just wondering, did ANYONE get named and shamed as a customer from that bust that anyone here see reported?

From the “Boston Top Ten” thread at the Boston forum, posted four months ago:

Bottom line: If the probable cause hearings are public, the names of the 18 mongers will be made public. If the probable cause hearings are private, the names will only be made public if the DA is able to move forward with charges against the men involved.  These 18 were all charged in relation to the Boston location, Boston Top Ten No charges, to date, have been brought against the DMV clients of Brown Eyed Girls.

Even if these guys aren't named (and right now their public exposal is in limbo) they already had to lawyer up after being served a subpoena, and likely if they have a SO they heard about it. Pretty hard to conceal lawyer fees and a subpoena from SO I'd Imagine.

 
So I'd imagine many of these mongers already faced some serious consequences and I wouldn't be surprised if many of their marriages got ruined and money lost through it was probably a lot more than they cumulatively spent on whoring.

 
Also I cannot imagine the constant stress of having a sword of damocles hanging over you, that can drop at any second  exposing your identity for the world to see.

Ain't no one gonna convince me it's worth trading off pii to be in this predicament.

-- Modified on 8/12/2024 12:46:17 PM

The majority, if not all of them, were caught walking in and out of the appointments by the law enforcement surveilling the locations.

Link to this ?

That majority or all of them were caught walking in and out of appointments and that providing their pii had no impact whatsoever on their predicament?

This is just your assumptions.

So all the information that as been put out by LE or news reports that only mention the people who were directly interviewed and apparently volunteered information are getting summons. None of the other people that could be identified from the customer database are getting calls or summons.  

 
That doesn't seem to be an assumption.  It seems to be the obvious implication of the observed situation.

 
Now if you want to try making the reverse case, some of those that are getting summons did not give any screening info, and we find that all those guys get let off but the guys with something in the customer db get charged you might have a point.

Excellent points. Rocket apparently lacks enough intelligence to draw even basic conclusions from the information presented to date. It should be noted that when the prosecutors wrote up the charging document that outlined their probable cause for charges filed, there was a lot mentioned about the surveillance of customers, scant mention of customer lists, and no mention of PII.

That doesn’t mean PII wasn’t found. But we don’t know if this agency kept PII or not. That’s why I noted that PII was a secondary issue here. The key issue to draw from this case, from what we know so far, is that if you are approached by law enforcement entering or leaving an appointment, keep your mouth shut.

"only mention the people who were directly interviewed and apparently volunteered information are getting summons"

 
Where? Where does this say this?

Nome of the info I saw mentioned anything about how the summoned people were picked out.

Where does this logical chain about people interviewed at the site being the same ones as the summoned people come from?  

 
I may have missed a piece of news that said this, so I'm not saying you're lying....but I certainly haven't seen anything of the sort half a year ago when we last talked about this.

 
If you are going to say that the lack of them explicitly saying how they got the list must mean that all the people summoned are the ones from interviews outside the appt, I'm just gonna laugh.

Given that we have not seen any mention that the set of people of interest has changed since the initial reporting about the number of people that got rounded up seems like Occham's Razor suggests the same group of people are involved in the summons.

 
So who is adding the additional assumptions here rocket?

There isn't a single assumption I made Jensen

There isn't any correlation between people whom they "interviewed" (not rounded up, choice of words matter) and people who got summoned, in any official document.  

I asked you to show it and you can't because this connection doesn't exist. The documents don't say how many people got interviewed nor do they ever imply they are the same people . So why are you saying the set is the same when it was never proven or shown who the summoned people are.  

 
YOU made this connection which is entirely baseless.And you don't have any info to prove it.  

Note that I don't say the drivel you say in regards to pii. I don't say that set of people is solely or even partially based on pii.

-- Modified on 8/13/2024 10:50:06 AM

I ask again, show me in any document the correlation between people who got subpoenad and people who got interviewed. Page numbers, please.

 
You want to make it not about pii so bad. Wouldn't be surprised if the ulterior motive here is that people fear less and that biz picks up in your neck of the woods.

 
Lol at me lacking intelligence. That's probably why I stumbled on both of your pi info's and I wasn't even trying... and you never will have mine. Now obviously I defend my fellow mongers so your info is safe with me and always will be, no matter how much I dislike you. But when a random guy on the internet with a little bit of hobby time can get your pii, I don't think you should be talking about intelligence of anyone else.

What you you channelling your inner CDL? But as long as you're going to "duely note" things please note that nowhere did I say or imply anyone had said one way or the other. In fact what I said was LACKING such information the reasonable inference was that those being summoned were those that were interview and, IIRC, addmitted what they were doing.

 
If you're having challenges getting there perhaps give some thought to who the DA would likely choose for their initial hearings and decision to charge. Would it be:
A) the person that has already admitted to the crime or
B) some name and number in some file on a computer, which in it self is not a crime?

 
For some reason you seem to think that with the publicly available information we're both aware of B makes just as much sense as A so my suggesting A is a more likely approach a DA and police department might take in deciding how to spend their budge is some huge, uncalled for assumption. And, noting further, you're making that claim without any "proof" or even any indication that anyone other than who has been mentioned (not by name but clearly there are specific customers that were identified by LE in the affidavit) you want to suggest you have not been making a bigger leap in your assumption.

 
You do keep this place amusing.

First, if you're gonna quote me, please quote me without your errors in there. I'll never say "duely note". Duly noted. Please.  

 
Second, again I don't agree with that inference. We don't know how and why the people were selected. We don't even know if there were real DBs you keep talking about. This orgs owner had questionable awareness and not hip with times. She kept a goddamn paper and pen ledger of all the appointments. She was moving sloppy af and thought she is invincible. And left a boatload of evidence and a paper trail.  

 

"If you're having challenges getting there perhaps give some thought to who the DA would likely choose for their initial hearings and decision to charge. Would it be:
A) the person that has already admitted to the crime or
B) some name and number in some file on a computer, which in it self is not a crime?
 "

Once again you're making weird assumptions. Sure it can be that. Or it can be that if da sees government employee names/phone numbers they can start there. I even heard thru the grapevine some real smart govt agency employees used their real government phone #s to book. Or it can be - as the news articles mentioned specifically - that the prosecutors picked some affluent people or the super frequent fliers.  

 
"For some reason you seem to think that with the publicly available information we're both aware of B makes just as much sense as A"  

No, for some reason you think your assumption is somehow the only possible explanation and the most plausible conclusion. Based on absolutely nothing.  

Your and cks argument is that because they don't mention DBs and pii, then it must mean they didn't summon any of non-canvassed folks. And you take it as an ultimate and only correct version of what happened.  

 
Whereas, nowhere in the affidavit does it even say that people who were questioned were arrested or detained or even identified. In California I dont even have to identify myself if I'm not being detained. I can tell officers to kick rocks and refuse to show my id as long as I'm not in a  motor vehicle.  

 

Of course I keep the forums entertaining. My youthful fervor and defending mongers gets yall old guard something to talk about besides the same politics crap. Lol.

 
Can you tell me why you and cks are so trigger happy to say it wasn't pii? Is it to convince others to happily give it away to other orgs?  

And what the fuck does cdl has to do with this topic? Is this site called ter or cdl? Lol.

Last week a Massachusetts judge ruled the clients who the DA is seeking to charge could be named publicly.  Today the case is being heard by the State Supreme Court.  Unknown how long we’ll have to wait for a ruling.

Another interesting update. Two of the alleged brothel operators are changing their pleas to guilty.

Forgot to post the link to the story, reported by Penny Kmitt of WBZ in Boston.

Well, I think most people would plea guilty to running a brothel to get out from a sex/human trafficking charge. I assume that is why (have not looked at the link or tried to find the story). Might suggest that the initial case on that was not quite as strong as claimed (should I say "What a surprise?")

 
Or am I wrong and those two were never facing a trafficking charge?

They are reportedly pleading guilty to the original charges. Reporting is scant on that angle.

Will be interesting to see how this one plays out. As for the change in plea, been plenty of time for negotiations so also be interesting to hear what they admitted to versus all the prior press about big trafficking operation.

 
I also still get a kick out of now being in "eastern" VA. LOL

On the question of whether these Show Cause hearings should be public or not, the press and anti-prostitution activists came down on the side of making them public. The anti-prostitution group specifically stated it was an effective way to shame clients and discourage others.

The alleged clients and sex-worker advocates, on the other hand, argued the hearings should not be public.One issue that’s been debated here, whether law enforcement had access to agency held PII, and if that PII factored into the arrests, may not be answered when the ruling is released in the coming months. The only thing the magistrate wanted released were the names of the alleged clients, not the underlying charging documents that law enforcement was relying on to justify the arrests.