Alleged Sex Buyers to Be Exposed in Medford on Route 16 in Cambridge Superior Court Will among the alleged be Caraviello, Scarpelli, Bears, all the MacGilvrays and Fat Paul Mackowski be among the alleged and the accused?

 this is a parody, of course

4040 Mystic Valley Parkway, Medford, MA 02155   Allegedly for Quickie Caraviello, 5 minutes could cost him a lifetime in prison

Are Everett, Medford or Malden Politicians the alleged sex buyers? From alleged Zac Tseng to Kit Caraviello and Rick Collins, the rumors are flying, especially the fat guys!!! https://www.bostonherald.com/2024/11/14/greater-boston-alleged-sex-buyers-lose-sjc-appeal-still-keep-their-names-hidden/?utm_email=E454C415948D740FF484A4358A&lctg=E454C415948D740FF484A4358A&active=no&utm_source=listrak&utm_medium=email&utm_term=https%3a%2f%2fwww.bostonherald.com%2f2024%2f11%2f14%2fgreater-boston-alleged-sex-buyers-lose-sjc-appeal-still-keep-their-names-hidden%2f&utm_campaign=boston-herald-nightly-briefing&utm_content=automated

The Supreme Judicial Court rejected the johns’ latest appeal to keep the proceedings and records at Cambridge District Court under wraps in a decision essentially upholding a clerk magistrate’s ruling in the case.

Thursday’s SJC decision was the alleged sex-buyer’s third legal loss on the issue. Pending further activity at the district court, the identities remain sealed for now. But in accordance with the SJC decision, their hearings in Cambridge District Court will be open to the public.

A clerk at the Cambridge court told the Herald Thursday that those hearings have not been scheduled yet. The hearings will likely be scheduled for late January, or early February, the clerk’s office said.

The full court on Thursday upheld Justice Scott Kafker’s singular February order to deny the johns’ appeal of the Cambridge District Court’s decision to open preliminary hearings to the public, but to still keep the preliminary criminal documents sealed.

The court found that the “the clerk-magistrate acted reasonably and within the proper scope of her discretion” when she decided to grant public access to the hearings since the U.S. Attorney’s office public notice that the defendants were powerful — including “unidentified government officials, corporate executives, and others in positions of power, wealth, and responsibility — raised legitimate public concerns about potential favoritism and bias if such hearings were held behind closed doors, and that these concerns outweighed the interests in continued anonymity for the Does.”