So back last November we know about the bust of the BTT people.  Just recently defense counsel and the US Attorney have told the court they're close to a deal.  One of the co-conspirators has a hearing set for 10/1 to change plea.  They sold his Corvette in July after seizing it during the arrests.  The main defendant is undergoing interviews with Probation to prepare for a hearing to change her plea as well.  The third co-conspirator is still requesting more time on the case, but that could be a function of counsel as all 3 of these people got public defenders because they said they couldn't afford private attorneys.

 
For a refresher, we went over the affidavit filed early November here and got some very interesting views from TER tough guys talking about how this case will go and how they'd handle prison.  I found most of it laughable, mainly because of how many tough guys are on the TER forums but also how people think the justice system works.

 
In February this year a federal grant jury handed down an indictment and we have more details on all the evidence Justice has against these three.  https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/media/1336991/dl

 
They will all be more than happy to cooperate given the charges and what counsel is telling the courts.  For some reason there are so many tough guys here but when actual charges are filed and people are actually in cuffs, all that toughness just seems to vanish.  Weird huh?  I also find it funny how guys on social security talk about how they'll hire counsel and beat federal cases out of sheer will but then the people who actually profit from setting up these operations somehow can't afford counsel themselves and need federal public defenders.  I guess that's what happens when the persona of an internet tough guy somehow collides with the reality of being under federal indictment and looking at decades of time confined to a space the size of a bathroom for much of the day.

go back to the original thread and tell us just which "tough guy" was ever talking about the three charged with running the operation and which of the 28 customers that have been charged (have they even been charged yet? Or did they skip that part when they confessed during their interviews.) are facing decades of time confined?

 
Just as a reference for others, and I cannot verify as I've never been in jail or prison (but some friends way back in another life as it were have been and seemed consisten with the description here) but this seems to suggestion "most of the day" is not confined to some little room: http://www.themarshallproject.org/2018/07/12/a-day-in-the-life-of-a-prisoner

It's a money laundering and trafficking case.  Customers aren't being charged.  Customers who try and play tough with HSI get a trip to the jail and then are released without charge.  They don't get a rebate for any legal fees or retainers given to counsel while they sit in jail for 10 hours because they refused to identify themselves in a criminal investigation.  For your attorney to get in the car and just drive to county jail is probably a good $1,000 because they count drive time and the time they were mentally preparing for your case even though there is no case.

 
If the case went to trial then those 28 customers and that confidential informant on asylum could be called as witnesses to be cross-examined by defense counsel.  This case is probably not going to trial so there wouldn't be a need to cross-examine any of them.  In the case of a customer being put as a witness who doesn't want to cooperate, the US Assistant Attorney can grant that person transactional immunity and then they're forced to testify on the stand about their visit.  If they refuse to testify even after being granted immunity, or if they lie under oath, they can be held in contempt of court.  Which basically has no time limit, and in theory they can sit in jail until they agree to testify as ordered by the judge.  This has happened to people who refuse to divulge where they have assets situated even with a court order.  They are held in contempt and just sit there until they decide to speak.  Which in this case that's worse than a solicitation charge where you have a 5th amendment right.  As an uncooperative witness with transactional immunity, you enjoy no such protection from being put on the stand and put in jail for refusing.

 
In regard to prison being in a cell, I'm speaking of how long you're in the cell for a 24-hour period in a United States Penitentiary.  Not a Level 2 low security prison in Michigan as you linked in your article.  There's a big difference.  Someone found guilty of trafficking at trial is going to be sent to a USP and given close to the max sentence.  If the defendants cut deals and are sentences to prison, they can probably negotiate going to a FCI which is not as strict as a USP.  And that would look more like your article where the author is in a Level 2 state facility.  Also with federal sentencing there is no parole.  You serve 80% of your sentence at the minimum.

Are they releasing the client list?  What cooperation are they providing?  Are they not going to prison?

that had the 3-week jail experience because you couldn't raise bail?
I didn't want to look back and research because this post isn't about Kgirl sessions!

So all your rhetoric about the tough guy talk on the board here was just BS as no one ever said anything about what the 3 charged with running the operation should be doing. Though I suspect most would also agree that STFU is the right starting point even in that case.

DOJ has the client lists and everything.  They seized all electronic equipment, ledgers and communications of this operation and related one.  I don't think there is a reason to release a list, but they did get detailed information from clients about sessions and what goes on in them when they were conducting surveillance on the apartments.  Those client names have to be released to defense counsel upon request through the discovery process because they're being used as evidence in the indictment.

 
If this case was going to trial, which it seems like it won't, then defense counsel could call these witnesses to testify and go under cross-examination.  The cooperation they're providing isn't known yet, as they only have hearings scheduled to change their not-guilty pleas.  But they usually are offering something to avoid the max prison sentence.  You have to come with something to bargain with before the US Attorney will agree to let you plea out to a lighter sentence.  Can't show up empty-handed.

 
I think they would go to prison unless they've got something really valuable.  I would be shocked if they were able to plea out to multiple counts of money laundering and trafficking and avoid incarceration.

No, I've never not been able to raise bail.  But I have been to jail quite a few times and so that's why during the last post I found it comical that guys who've never been arrested had this whole narrative in their minds about what jail in LA is like and what they would do and what would happen, etc.

 
They have no clue how it works, they've never had to retain counsel and pay legal bills, and they've never been to jail.  So it's people with zero background in anything speaking with a certainty on how things work.  I guess they get their information from scripted dramas on Netflix or something?

No, it's not BS.  It's a lot of people talking tough, you included, about how you'll just completely derail the justice system if you refuse to identify yourself.  Like "there's this one trick that they hate!" and you're going to employ that to somehow skirt around being hammed up in a criminal investigation by HSI.

 
I'm showing that the tough guy talk, including one of the defendants here who had the Corvette seized, falls apart when they collide with the legal system.  I illustrated above how you can be called as a witness, granted transactional immunity, and you'd be forced to testify.  If you hired counsel they would tell you to testify to avoid being found in contempt and going to jail.  It's real simple.But that's not what's going on.  They're telling everything they know and doing anything they can for a lighter sentence.  Counsel is advising them to do so.  This isn't some 1990's mafia drama where people clam up and stay in silence for 25 years out of principle.  Most people start doing anything they can to avoid legal problems when those legal problems become a reality.  Two of these defendants are out on bail (one just went to a wedding in New York) but one of them has been in custody since November.  Not even a year and she's losing it.  But somehow tough guys on here are just either going to power through that or avoid it somehow with parlor tricks.  Hell, their primary CI in this investigation cut a deal to divulge anything and everything and to basically be sent in as an informant in exchange for asylum so she doesn't have to go back to South Korea.

Local law enforcement in Massachusetts are seeking charges against 28 clients via Show Cause hearings.  We will know if these hearings will be private or public after a Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling (expected to be issued NLT January 2025).

I'm referring to the federal case.  No customers are being charged federally by DOJ.  Whatever the State of Massachusetts decides to do is not really compelling to me.  States pass heartbeat laws.  States are silly.

"No, it's not BS.  It's a lot of people talking tough, you included, about how you'll just completely derail the justice system if you refuse to identify yourself.  Like "there's this one trick that they hate!" and you're going to employ that to somehow skirt around being hammed up in a criminal investigation by HSI."

 
THAT is what you take from my saying that those that just confessed when asked should have just told the the agents they would only speak through their attourny and were not going to say anything until they spoke with an attourny? Really, THAT is suppose to "completely derail the justice system"??????

 
If you live in a state that requires the police to do more than just ask to see an ID then not showing it is a legal right People should take advantage of that. If you live in a State where you have to show ID when asked by police, then show it to them. But don't convict yourself of some consentual interactions just because you felt imtimidated by police. Police are expected to know, follow and respect the law. Demanding a legal right should not be an issue, even when they act like they want to make it seem like a big deal.

 
Last, while possibly a bit strong, I don't think anyone here really gives a shit about what the 3 who were arrested and charged with the federal crimes are doing. What I think EVERYONE here was concerned about was what is happening to the clients and the 28 who might be named.  

 
However, that all changes for them if they were to be called as witnesses. Which is really only possible now that they confessed to the investigating agents. So the suggestion that it's good to talk with the feds if you only committed some local crime starts looking pretty bad in these types of cases. What everyone, pretty much, is really concerned about is their activites being made public -- which a trial and sitting on a witness stand will certinaly do for them. I suspect most here would say "I'll pay the 20K and keep my name out of the papers and local news and be happyer."

 
But sure, keep on telling everyone here to shoot themselves in the head by not just availing themselves of their legal rights. After all, it's not like your lawyer could never negotiate a deal where you might confess to paying for sex and then  act as a witness for the DA in exchange for a closed door not name publicly released deal. I don't think that would be on the table at this point for any of the 28 should the 3 (or some subset) go to trial and they be named as witnesses.

Your point is compelling, giving that 28 men are facing possible criminal charges. Had the ones approached by the law enforcement staking out the brothels kept their mouths shut, as entitled, they likely wouldn’t be facing charges.

I don't think it's wise to exercise every right just because you have the ability.  The police have a right to hold you without charge for 48 hours and then let you go with basically no consequences as long as there is enough probable cause to hold you, which coming out of a federally surveilled location on suspicion of being involved in trafficking makes it a slam dunk.

 
That guy Rocket in here was talking about how he's in his 30s yet has no stable job that would wonder where he was if he went missing from work for 3 days.  No family and no loved ones at all who would question his absence.  Sounds like he would be able to just take the arrest and ride it out in jail without paying an attorney.  As to how he would avoid being sexually assaulted in jail spending two nights in there is another matter I didn't cover, but his case is such an edge case.  Most people have career responsibilities and friends and loved ones who would start to wonder why you vanished for several days.  Going through all of that just to "stick it to the man" and refuse to identify yourself is stupid.  You gain basically zero and you potentially sacrifice a lot.Identifying yourself when asked isn't convicting yourself.  It's quite easy to find out who you are at some point.  You also carry a device in your pocket that reveals more about you than anyone alive knows, and all that data is held in custody of companies.But it is an issue with something like ID that they can verify anyways with little effort.  I've told police before "Hey, I don't mean to be a pain in the ass, really, but if you're investigating a crime or something I need counsel.  I wanna cooperate and help, but if you're investigating, then I need a professional because you guys are professionals.  Not trying to be difficult."  When they say they have just some questions they want me to answer I say "I want to help, so go ahead and send me the questions in writing, let me run it by counsel, and I'll get some answers back for you.  You've got my ID, I'll give you my phone number, lemme know if something comes up so I can retain somebody if we need to talk."  They never call and they never send me those written questions.  If I was a jerk they could easily cuff me and send me to county jail for the night and I'd have no recourse.

 
There are nice ways to say things that get you a whole lot further than being a jerk, digging in your heels, refusing to show ID, and just generally being unpleasant.  My responses above have never gotten me in any kind of bad faith dispute with police.  They get it.  But I'm also reasonable, I'm pleasant, and I don't sound like Robocop when I say I need to run these questions by counsel first.

 
TER tough guys don't have this nuance.  They want to get in a battle with law enforcement, or at least think they do.  But then the cuffs go on and grown men start sobbing.To start with, most of these guys don't have $20k in cash.  They're spending social security and pension as it comes in.  Secondly, they don't get to be secrets.  We don't do secret courts here (unless we mean FISA).  If someone is accused of a crime, and the prosecutor has witnesses, then those people are made public unless they're minors.  You don't get to hide from the justice system simply because you find it inconvenient.  And you can't pay money to just not be a witness all of a sudden.  That would constitute bribery of a public official, for you to offer up cash and they operate outside of the scope of their duties to the point where you derive a benefit.Last time you posted about this case you had never been to jail.  Is that still the case?  You posted an article where you tried to imply that a Level 2 Michigan prison is "the same thing" as a high security federal prison.  Do you think you might be speaking too soon about which rights you want to assert?  I'm not saying answer everything without counsel, but you're saying refuse to show ID.  That's a whole other league of stupidity.No, they wouldn't.  You can be compelled to testify.  The DA just has to say "Yeah, we're not doing that deal.  Your client is now immune from prosecution for this testimony (so 5th amendment doesn't apply) and the judge is going to sign an order to appear.  The name is public.  If your client declines to testify, the court will hold him in contempt.  Now you can get out of my office."  Then you're toast.

 
It's weird how you have in your mind how you think this all works but it doesn't work that way at all.

"Identifying yourself when asked isn't convicting yourself.  It's quite easy to find out who you are at some point.  You also carry a device in your pocket that reveals more about you than anyone alive knows, and all that data is held in custody of companies."

 
Of course not nor did I ever say that.  

"It's weird how you have in your mind how you think this all works but it doesn't work that way at all." If you don't mind my taking your own words you might decide to do a bit of self-reflection.

You said exercise your right to not identify yourself in states where it's not required.  That's terrible advice and it sets you up for a real hassle.

I smell pork.  Feds are wasting taxpayer's money on this silly case.  I'd wish they would go after REAL criminals, like murders, rapists, and other violent crimes.  SAD!  Seems like a side show to distract from the FEDS shortcomings.  

you are!
This was copied 'n' posted, so don't jam me 'cause I didn't put up a link.

 I didn't have money for bail, so I was in jail until trial, which was like 3 weeks.  
My quotes and asterisks in the paragraph below highlighting the sentence.

 
TrailerparkRomeo10 months ago98 reads
Re: Agree with your last statement
You're not PD but I would not rule out your being an informant given your confession of multiple arrests where you were not ultimately charged/prosecuted for -- wonder just how you avoided that
One of them was a mistake in their computer and I spent the night in jail and was released without charge the following day.  Another was a situation where it was an infraction I plead not-guilty "*but I didn't have money for bail, so I was in jail until trial, which was like 3 weeks.*"  Officer didn't show and case was dismissed and I was released.  Another was a verbal altercation with someone but I didn't break the law, but the cop was pissed and so took me to jail.  I was released about 3-4 hours later with no charges.  Another was I was arrested for a supposed battery, but then the victim immediately admitted she was lying and I was released later that night with no charge.  She was never touched.  She simply wanted to use law enforcement to win an argument.

 
I guess I did put in a link.

I guess it was easier than I thought to search & link it up.

The Feds won’t release the client list, but local law enforcement wants to charge 28 of the men who frequented the Massachusetts brothels. There’s currently a case before the Massachusetts Supreme Court to decide whether or not the 28 alleged clients’ names will be released prior to charges being approved. That decision is due to be issued likely in January 2025.

His advice seems to be - bend over to Leo's and take it.

He will post mounts of nonsense all to attempt to justify not exercising your rights.

And he will use his jail experience to pump fear.  

I bet he thinks exercising Miranda rights is a stupid advice too.

He is an asset to cops who manipulate people into confessing.

Why am I not surprised.

Yes, you're right I forgot about that one.  That one was quite a long time ago.  Anyways, I seem to wind up in jail quite a bit over the years.

No, but I just think there are better ways to be polite and void a trip to jail and a retainer fee to counsel besides things like refusing to identify yourself or basically being hostile to the police.  You can accomplish the same things with less trouble.The only right I said you should think twice about exercising is something like identifying yourself.  You can be put in the police car, taken to jail, you sit there for 6 hours until they find out who you are, and then they let you out.  You yourself have said no one would care at all if you went missing for days at a time and you don't have a stable job that would mete out consequences for you missing work.  But most people don't have that setup.  People have people who care about them and who matter to them.  

 
I have friends and loved ones.  Places to be.  You don't, because you don't really matter to anyone, as you indicated yourself.Jail can be pretty scary.  Uncomfortable and inconvenient at the very least.Miranda rights only apply to in-custody interviews.Yet I've never actually confessed to anything and never been convicted of any crime above infractions.  Never been called as a witness to any criminal trial.  And I never had to be rude, refuse to ID myself, or give up any rights that actually matter like the right to counsel, which is probably the most important right.

Why would the feds go after murder and rape?  Those are crimes typically tried at the state level.  Not federal, unless it's a RICO issue or transnational crime.  Kidnapping being the other exception.That's their actual job is to go after money laundering and trafficking.  The girls interviewed for this case claimed they were trafficked and weren't allowed to leave.  That's a crime, so the Feds investigate, gather evidence, and DOJ prosecutes.  That's their literal job -- law enforcement.

new experiences in a jail system?
'Cause I gotta' say 3 or 4 hours, overnight and a max of 3 weeks just ain't really giving you all that much down time to be giving jail advice, of course that depends on the crowd you are addressing, just MO!

 
A long time ago? In the first sentence of this thread, you mention the post from last November!

So we get told about prison form a guy that has only been in jail.

 
We're also supposed to take the guy's advice about how to stay out of jail when he admits he finds himself IN jail a lot over the years. Seems like the guy that makes bad investments telling everyone else how to invest for their future.

Man what type of nonsense is this?

In California you don't have to identify yourself to the police unless you're lawfully detained or driving a motor vehicle.  

Refusing to identify yoy self is not "rude" or "hostile" but rather exercising your right.

 
I find it so bizarre you keep on hampering this point in this topic in this forum. All while conveniently forgetting the one time you didn't have money to post bail.  

 
I can't help but think in back of my mind that it's possible youre trying to get future mongers who might get caught in a bust to cooperate with the police... please stop.

Got a good laugh out of this, FUCKING FUNNY!!

The only advice I give is to avoid jail if possible.I was referring to the multi-week jail stint.  That was a very long time ago.

Yeah I said avoid prison.  I've never been to prison but been to jail and it's awful.Yeah so as someone who has been there and can say you don't want to be in jail, I think that's very valid.  The best people to tell you to avoid problems with law enforcement are people who have had problems with law enforcement.

 
The advice of others here is "Jail is nothing, I'll just go to jail.  Contempt of court is nothing, I'll just stay in jail."  They've never been so their idea of jail is probably very different than reality.  It's TER tough guy talk.  Most of the guys are not in shape and would get demolished in jail.  Then there's a guy in his 30's who lets us know that if he just went missing 3-4 days in a row that no one at all would care.  I found that part pretty depressing to hear.

Being a suspect in a possible crime is enough probable cause to arrest you.  They can figure out your ID hours later after you've already sat in jail and hopefully been able to call counsel.  In your case you said you'd just sit there because you have no career, no friends, no family, and no love interests who would go looking for you.  I think that's kind of a sad situation for you.And they have a right to hold you for 48 hours without charge.  So perhaps if you forego that right to not ID yourself and ID yourself, perhaps they don't exercise their right to arrest you and keep you in jail for 2 days.I mean it's not "conveniently", it was decades ago.  I've been to jail quite a few other times since then.They already do cooperate.  I don't need to say anything.  Like I said, when the cuffs go on, the TER tough guy act vanishes.  The defendants in these cases are taking deals, and the mounds of witness testimony is from people also caught breaking the law and wanting to cooperate.  This world you think we live in where we have these solid in-shape customers who just sit out days in jail at a time to hold firm is not a real world.  It's fake.  Most people don't want to lose their job for not showing to work.  Most people don't want to affect their family, friends, and loved ones by vanishing for days in a row and either not explaining why or saying they got arrested.

 
You're like the only one around who has no friends, no family, no dates, no job, nothing that would prompt someone to even ask where you've been.  I would say yeah if you're 70 years old then perhaps everyone in your circle passed away, but in your 30's?  Dude, fix your life.  I mean is it just video games and then some incalls and then back home for microwave dinner?

If there's probable cause for arrest, then there is definitely cause for detainment, which means you have to identify yourself.

Why don't you actually try to reading what I write for once.

 
"In California you don't have to identify yourself to the police unless you're lawfully detained"

 
Being arrested is a big deal. Even being detained is non-trivial.
Especially in California where cops being liberal with arresting is heavily defeated and discouraged.  

Simply asking am I under arrest, the cop must state if you're under arrest. If not under arrest, you ask if you're being detained. If not, you chuck up the deuce and walk your way.

If you're under arrest, you will be read Miranda rights. If not that's a violation that your attorney or acting attourney will be delighted to hear about. Under Miranda rights, you're entitled to a right to counsel and right to remain silent to avoid self incrimination.  

If you're detained, you have the right to exercise the same right.  

 

As far as your little manipulation technique trying to guilt me and saying shit that is untrue , I just have one word for it - lol.  

 
It's clear you're trying to leverage fear of sitting in jail to avoid what any lawyer will advice to you - to not talk to police without an attorney. It's unclear to me why though. As far as I can tell, you don't visit kgirls (maybe I'm wrong) . You don't post on this board much besides this topic.. But you feel so strongly about this. It's peculiar.  

 
As Jensen noted correctly, for someone who tries to frame his argument around "just cooperate and you won't have to sit in jail", you sure been to jail a lot. How much did you advice help you? You still have ended up in jail. Lol.  

 
I was just bumping this timeless track

http://youtu.be/DX_ukElP5-o

But you said earlier that coming out of an incall during an HSI surveillance operation, you shouldn't identify yourself.  You being there is PC enough to book you.  You've become a suspect in a crime.They'll say "yep, you're detained until we figure out who you are.  You're suspected of participating in criminal activity."  It's real simple.  They're not stopping you at Whole Foods.  They're stopping you after observing you go in and out of a place under federal surveillance for criminal activity.  I think you're losing the plot here.  This isn't stop and frisk, this is an HSI investigation to human trafficking and money laundering.Wrong.  Miranda rights apply to questioning, not to arrest.  If they don't ask you anything then you don't have to be Mirandized.  You can be arrested without them saying anything at all.    Your attorney will be delighted to hear from you any time you call because they'll bill you in 15-minute increments of $500 - $700 hour for proper criminal defense.  You don't get reimbursed for those bills because you made sure you got arrested.  Attorney gets paid.  And as of 2017 with the overhaul to the tax code, you can't itemize out legal expenses on your taxes.  So you just pay.Everything I've said about you is true, either from this post or the post from last year.  Unless you were making things up about yourself.I don't think any attorney would tell you to refuse to identify yourself.  Unless they're in need of some billable hours.  The attorney is there to make sure your rights are preserved.  They're not there to help you avoid arrest or to make sure your weekend goes smoothly and outside of LA County Jail.  That's not their job.  You can have a cordial conversation with the police about your name, address, what you do for a living, etc without answering things that relate to a criminal investigation.  Since most people (many on this board) can't distinguish between being cordial and not going into any detail of an investigation, the advice is simply "don't say anything."  But this doesn't apply in every scenario.

 
There is that video on Youtube about "Don't talk to the police" and the guy came out with a 2nd video a few years later saying the whole internet took him out of context and took him way too literally.  And even he said what he's referring to is questions about the past.  Where you were, the last time you went to X place.  Not your name or you reporting a crime, or basic manners.  That wasn't the point even though guys on TER think it was.Yeah but I've avoided jail a lot too by being reasonable.  I've asked before what time their shift ends and I say I'll just stay indoors until well after your shift is over.  Or I've said "hey, I live right over there.  Can I just go on home and go inside?  Less paperwork."  And all of those things resulted in me not going to jail.  I didn't have to confess to anything or assist in any investigation.  Just a reasonable guy.

 
And yes, I've been to jail a lot.  If you get accused of a crime, you're probably going.  That's when I would say I need counsel because I need a law enforcement professional.  The way I say it is never a problem.  I don't sit there and repeat "Am I being detained?!" over and over because I don't have to.  I have seen plenty of people go to jail for a completely avoidable reason just because the cops didn't like their attitude.  Know what happened?  They sat in jail for the day or for a 24-hour period, let go without charges, and that was that.  Could have been avoided.  But they wanted to be tough guys.

 
But then again they have friends and loved ones who miss them when they're gone.  You have no one, as you've said previously, because you don't matter to anyone.You're wrong.  Been seeing Kgirls since 2011 I think?  It's been a while.  I miss when photos were actually mostly real.  I miss Cityvibe too, but oh well.Yeah I don't post a lot.  I'm not part of the scene and I kind of keep to myself in this hobby.  Usually just doing other things.  Attending to life.  I keep the hobby and my personal life separate.

For some reason I'm imagining JailyardRomeo as the voice in this old chestnut:  

https://youtu.be/yyCOfSCFE6k

 
Foolz say jail ain't nothing to sweat
But if you ain't got a rep
You gotta claim your set

Mad props on the link. That album is nice.  

I imagine it more of a "scared straight" parody

Like this

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3vr44g

https://apnews.com/article/massachusetts-brothel-network-suspect-guilty-plea-a30e89fc82df3e0047d3071960b69a70

Paid to take the fall?

Pleading guilty gives her a lesser sentence than being found guilty in a trial.

I read it as bargained to stay out of prison given the comment about getting deported if she plead guilty. Is that what you mean by "paid"?

I'm surprised a Chinese paper (SMCP in Hong Kong) would report but suspect it's due to the claims of politicians and other high ranking/social status people that were called out.

Reuters just published a bit on this case too. (if I was one of the people 28 I might be starting to get worried -- some some of the high profile non 28 might be also at this point.)

 
"No client has been identified. Federal prosecutors after announcing the case pursued referrals to local authorities for potential state-level charges in Massachusetts and Virginia against the alleged customers.
In December, Acting U.S. Attorney Joshua Levy said authorities were seeking state-level charges against 28 alleged brothel clients in Massachusetts.

 
Those cases have been tied up in litigation now before the state's highest court over whether the media can attend so-called "show cause" hearings that are normally closed to the public in which a clerk-magistrate would decide whether probable cause exists to charge the men with misdemeanors.

 
Prosecutors in Virginia also received referrals but ultimately concluded they did not have sufficient evidence to make a case against any clients under the state's solicitation statute, said Laura Birnbaum, a spokesperson for Fairfax Commonwealth's Attorney Steve Descano."

 
Looks a bit like the federal authorities are doing more than just looking at the felony charges and moving on to other investigation too me. Plus given the on-going promotion of who might be involved -- politicians, high ranking militarty, professors and the like -- in both US and international papers one wonders if that will work in the favor of keeping the probable cause hearing private or make an exception and let it be public.

 
But for what it's worth, those in the DMV area can breath freely it looks like.

-- Modified on 9/28/2024 11:58:01 AM

I’m not reading the article the way you are.

I saw no indication that the Feds were continuing any investigation or pursuit of clients. What the article did was review what the Feds said back in December 2024 when they handed the case off to the local authorities.

As far as media influence on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court goes, I guess we’ll have to wait for the ruling (expected ~January 2025)

Sorry, that was not what I meant by my comment. I agree they are continuing their investigation in the clients. Just sounds like they will be more than happy to cooperate and support any local efforts so don't expect any stonewalling or reluctance towards sharing information already gathered.

 
So my impression was that it was a bit more than just now it's up to local and we have nothing more to do with anything there. Which was how it seems the initial view was -- feds only interest in the ML/trafficking so anything said to them by the clients would not be used against the client in a local investigation. I was less than clear on that point.

Watching local
Boston news. Guilty plea now
Link from Boston.com  
https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2024/09/27/massachusetts-woman-accused-high-end-brothel-network-pleads-guilty/?p1=hp_secondary

Thanks for the, ughh, scoop?

 
The prior 2 articles posted 2 days ago said the exact same thing...just sayin'!

-- Modified on 9/29/2024 12:08:31 AM

I'm telling you, they'd spring it on us the day after the election. lmao

I bet he's the dark cardinal behind BTT too. I hear they found communication between Hunter and BTT owner on Hunter's laptop but are keeping it close to the vest because the two had a conference call with Trump while Kamala is listed as part owner of BTT through some shell corporation in Panama.  

Wait for it! It will all come to light on November 6. Guaranteed!

I think you missed the point: in the old thread, the so-called "tough guys" were talking about the customers, not the ringleaders.  Everyone knew the ringleaders were in deep water.
.
To put it another way, nothing you wrote above disputes what the tough guys said because their comments were exlusive to the clients, while all of the stuff you described is specific to the ringleaders.