Robert Kraft charged in prostitution ring bust ( Update: Kraft legal team accused of lying in court)

[Gugny]

Just now, Doc said:

 

You're making a false equivalency.  Obviously beating-up someone is worse than what Kraft did.  But it was still illegal, although with different consequences.  And he's an owner who expects his employees to avoid illegal activity.

 

One is a felony; one is a misdemeanor.

 

And I agree that owners need to be held accountable as much as players.  But why should they be held more accountable?  Crimes are crimes.  Owners and players are both human beings.  Fallible.  

 

If one of my employees gets caught stealing a candy bar - and I get caught stealing a candy bar - should I get harsher punishment because I should have known better than my employee?  No.

[Doc]

4 minutes ago, Gugny said:

One is a felony; one is a misdemeanor.

 

And I agree that owners need to be held accountable as much as players.  But why should they be held more accountable?  Crimes are crimes.  Owners and players are both human beings.  Fallible.  

 

If one of my employees gets caught stealing a candy bar - and I get caught stealing a candy bar - should I get harsher punishment because I should have known better than my employee?  No.

 

Where did I say that an owner deserves a worse punishment (at least legally) for the same infraction?  I didn't.  I said someone like him should know and be better than the employees he expects to stay out of trouble.  If he isn't, you can't just say "well, at least he didn't beat people."  That's like saying "well, he only beat people, he didn't kill them."

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, DaBillsFanSince1973 said:

what's the bills being worth the least, have to do with an old stupid nfl owner that had no clue how to get a ***** without getting caught?

 

rather then suck it up, pay your fine and move on. you want the spotlight and all the mockery instead? good, pile it on, real heavy. 

 

seriously, if that was some kind of patsie** fan stab at the bills or their fans because they mocked their dumb ass favorite teams owner, come on?

 

you'll need to come up with something better then that, ricko. I can speak for myself, skin is thick, so the low blow bills stuff, like I said, come on.

 

blood pressure is fine, not attacking here...just responding to a message board drifter patsie** fan.

Your missing the point in this "*****" charge. The bigger issue with a wider implication is the police conduct. The "pretext" stops to get the names of the customers are illegal. Is the application for the surveillance taping to the judge an accurate description of the facts? 

 

Let's not forget the basis for the investigation was human trafficking. That case turned out to be a dead end. The surveillance was a tool to deal with that very serious issue. Once nothing came of the original case then the ancillary fallback charges that probably related more to face saving than community safeguarding. While the police were intent on getting the big fish on a ridiculous ***** charge the authorities violated the privacy rights of customers who were getting their tired muscles massaged. What happens if those unsuspecting customers now sue? How much is this going to cost the local government in legal costs and possible settlements?

 

When all is said and done the potential costs to the taxpayers can turn out to be exponentially large compared to the actual infraction. This is stupid! The bigger transgressions are the criminal justice authorities abusing their power. For what? To catch a the well known 77 yr old widower getting some stimulating touching in a  worn out erogenous zone.   

[#34fan]

47 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Yeah but cheating on your spouse isn't illegal. 

 

Isn't it?

 

-Up until 2012 it was a Misdemeanor in New York!   In states like Massachussets, Idaho, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin, it was a felony up until very recently...

 

Of course that's some ridiculous legislation, but my point is that morality can be a touchy sort of grey-area... The law is typically not.... -Especially when it comes to things like soliciting prostitution...  Get caught doing it, and you're boned regardless of what you're standing in the community is.... We're all subject to the law, and we're all Human Beings... I hate to admit it, but It could have just as easily been you on tape in that massage parlor. 

 

 

Edited May 9, 2019 by #34fan

[Doc]

7 minutes ago, #34fan said:

Isn't it?

 

-Up until 2012 it was a Misdemeanor in New York!   In states like Massachussets, Idaho, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin, it was a felony up until very recently...

 

Of course that's some ridiculous legislation, but my point is that morality can be a touchy sort of grey-area... The law is typically not.... -Especially when it comes to things like soliciting prostitution...  Get caught doing it, and you're boned regardless of what you're standing in the community is.... We're all subject to the law, and we're all Human Beings... I hate to admit it, but It could have just as easily been you on tape in that massage parlor.

 

I don't hate to admit that you don't know what the ***** you are talking about.

[ricko1112]

1 hour ago, DaBillsFanSince1973 said:

what's the bills being worth the least, have to do with an old stupid nfl owner that had no clue how to get a ***** without getting caught?

 

rather then suck it up, pay your fine and move on. you want the spotlight and all the mockery instead? good, pile it on, real heavy. 

 

seriously, if that was some kind of patsie** fan stab at the bills or their fans because they mocked their dumb ass favorite teams owner, come on?

 

you'll need to come up with something better then that, ricko. I can speak for myself, skin is thick, so the low blow bills stuff, like I said, come on.

 

blood pressure is fine, not attacking here...just responding to a message board drifter patsie** fan.

I think you're making too much of this dude.  

 

Lots of things got merged, so you might have gotten confused.

 

The Bills are the least valuable team. The NFL wants to maximize profits, so it allows bum teams like the Raiders and Cardinals to move from place to place that allows them to make more money for the league. Other than the small, but loyal, bandwagon Bills fans, no one cares about them. 

 

If Kraft hadn't spoke up, the prosecutor would still be trying to intimidate people with "sex trafficking and sex slaves" even though they admitted they knew none of this was going on right from the start. 

 

Honestly, as I read your post, it seems you might not be in your "right mind." Sober up and try again.

 

 

[#34fan]

Just now, Doc said:

 

I don't hate to admit that you don't know what the ***** you are talking about.

 

 Oh I was just jokin' -Come on!

[ricko1112]

On 5/7/2019 at 12:53 PM, eball said:

 

Or, he's an uber-rich a-hole who knows how to limit his tax liability.

 

Probably somewhere in the middle.

 

$500M donated...

[Doc]

2 minutes ago, #34fan said:

 Oh I was just jokin' -Come on!

 

Sorry, wasn't able to sniff that out.

[#34fan]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Sorry, wasn't able to sniff that out.

 

The law stuff is true... Adultery was actually still a crime in several states as of 2012....  I look at it this way... If Kraft had just paid the fine and pled down to a misdemeanor no one would care by now...  He did something bad and got busted... Own it, apologize, and move on.

[Gugny]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

Where did I say that an owner deserves a worse punishment (at least legally) for the same infraction?  I didn't.  I said someone like him should know and be better than the employees he expects to stay out of trouble.  If he isn't, you can't just say "well, at least he didn't beat people."  That's like saying "well, he only beat people, he didn't kill them."

 

Why on earth should one grown man be held to higher standards than grown men whom he employs?  Why should he "know better?"  Just because he's their boss?

 

Should Jim Irsay known "not to become a drug addict," because Colts players aren't supposed to do drugs?

[Rocky Landing]

9 hours ago, JohnC said:

What difference does being arrogant or not or a jerk or not or arsehole or not when it applies to how the law is applied? It shouldn't be surprising that someone who has the resources to buy a franchise in pro sports (any pro sport) might likely be arrogant. Is there a need to go through the ranks to come up with some owners who might not be likeable.  Many people in his financial strata don't have the common touch. Again, what does that have to do how the law should be applied to them?  

 

3 hours ago, JohnC said:

Your missing the point in this "*****" charge. The bigger issue with a wider implication is the police conduct. The "pretext" stops to get the names of the customers are illegal. Is the application for the surveillance taping to the judge an accurate description of the facts? 

 

Let's not forget the basis for the investigation was human trafficking. That case turned out to be a dead end. The surveillance was a tool to deal with that very serious issue. Once nothing came of the original case then the ancillary fallback charges that probably related more to face saving than community safeguarding. While the police were intent on getting the big fish on a ridiculous ***** charge the authorities violated the privacy rights of customers who were getting their tired muscles massaged. What happens if those unsuspecting customers now sue? How much is this going to cost the local government in legal costs and possible settlements?

 

When all is said and done the potential costs to the taxpayers can turn out to be exponentially large compared to the actual infraction. This is stupid! The bigger transgressions are the criminal justice authorities abusing their power. For what? To catch a the well known 77 yr old widower getting some stimulating touching in a  worn out erogenous zone.   

Regardless of what crimes were initially being investigated, the authorities have a responsibility to prosecute crimes that are uncovered in the course of the investigation, even if they are "only misdemeanors," and even if they are completely unrelated to the initial investigation. I think that is obvious.

 

But, aside from that, do you see how the two of your statements that I bolded are contradictory? In the first post, you are essentially making the point that the law should be applied equally to all. But, in the second post, you are bemoaning the eventual cost of prosecuting someone who has enormous financial resources to fight a charge for which they are obviously guilty. Should the rule of law not be applied equally to Kraft simply because he has the financial resources to make prosecution costly?  

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

8 hours ago, ricko1112 said:

I think you're making too much of this dude.  

 

Lots of things got merged, so you might have gotten confused.

 

The Bills are the least valuable team. The NFL wants to maximize profits, so it allows bum teams like the Raiders and Cardinals to move from place to place that allows them to make more money for the league. Other than the small, but loyal, bandwagon Bills fans, no one cares about them. 

 

If Kraft hadn't spoke up, the prosecutor would still be trying to intimidate people with "sex trafficking and sex slaves" even though they admitted they knew none of this was going on right from the start. 

 

Honestly, as I read your post, it seems you might not be in your "right mind." Sober up and try again.

 

 

it happens in all this off season mess.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

10 hours ago, #34fan said:

 

 

Yah, in a perfect world that should be the case, but in this world who honestly expects that?  -The President cheats on his wife with porn-stars for crying out loud.

 

 

And they are good friends AND the Spa chain owner was at the SB Viewing party with Don!   

 

Who do you think recommended the place to Boob?  

9 hours ago, ricko1112 said:

$500M donated...

 

BFD.  he went to a CHEAP rub and Tug and fingered himself at the same time.  

 

 

[Cripple Creek]

10 hours ago, Gugny said:

 

If one of my employees gets caught stealing a candy bar - and I get caught stealing a candy bar - should I get harsher punishment because I should have known better than my employee?  No.

You do understand that, in business, indiscretions are often handled more severely based on hierarchy? What might get you or me fired might be a verbal for someone else. So, you do get harsher treatment than “your employee.” I’d like to get into the deeper implications of your treating those that work with you like pieces of property, but this might not be the proper time/place. It’s the 21st century, servant leadership is where it’s at.

[scribo]

1 minute ago, JohnC said:

I am a Democrat who believes that Trump was involved in a lot of questionable activities and the truth should be pursued. I'm not interested in aggressively applying the law for a soothing ***** on a 77 yr old widower.

So you want to look the other way when laws you disagree with are broken? And maybe you don't think this is a big deal because it is a "victim-less crime"? Because sex is an instinctive act? 

[JohnC]

6 hours ago, Rocky Landing said:

 

Regardless of what crimes were initially being investigated, the authorities have a responsibility to prosecute crimes that are uncovered in the course of the investigation, even if they are "only misdemeanors," and even if they are completely unrelated to the initial investigation. I think that is obvious.

 

But, aside from that, do you see how the two of your statements that I bolded are contradictory? In the first post, you are essentially making the point that the law should be applied equally to all. But, in the second post, you are bemoaning the eventual cost of prosecuting someone who has enormous financial resources to fight a charge for which they are obviously guilty. Should the rule of law not be applied equally to Kraft simply because he has the financial resources to make prosecution costly?  

The next time you jay walk I hope the police pounce on you and take you to jail for your scofflaw. You may be surprised to know that common sense and judgment are part and parcel in applying the law. 

1 minute ago, scribo said:

So you want to look the other way when laws you disagree with are broken? And maybe you don't think this is a big deal because it is a "victim-less crime"? Because sex is an instinctive act? 

In this case yes. 

[scribo]

5 minutes ago, JohnC said:

In this case yes. 

In general, I can be OK with legalization of prostitution. But until it is, the law must be enforced. Until it is legal, there are no protections for the "worker." We don't know anything about the lady who was paid to perform a sexual act on Kraft. Do we really know if she was doing so on her own free will? I'd say it is reasonable to believe she was there because was she not aware of what choices she may actually have. I believe she is a victim.

 

The bottom-line here is Kraft thought he was above the law. The law must be enforced or we lose civilization.

Edited May 9, 2019 by scribo

[RoyBatty is alive]

11 hours ago, #34fan said:

 

The law stuff is true... Adultery was actually still a crime in several states as of 2012....  I look at it this way... If Kraft had just paid the fine and pled down to a misdemeanor no one would care by now...  He did something bad and got busted... Own it, apologize, and move on.

 Totally agree.

 

Everyone, i mean everyone with an IQ over 80 knows he did it.  He will likely get off but the humiliation will always be there.

 

The only issue is the sex trafficking charge was total BS, that he couldnt agree to.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

29 minutes ago, DaBillsFanSince1973 said:

take it to PPP

EXACTLY  

 

This is about KRAFT   

 

11 hours ago, #34fan said:

 

The law stuff is true... Adultery was actually still a crime in several states as of 2012....  I look at it this way... If Kraft had just paid the fine and pled down to a misdemeanor no one would care by now...  He did something bad and got busted... Own it, apologize, and move on.

 

Virginia Is For Lovers  BUT 

 

RICHMOND — Under an old law, it's illegal in Virginia for unmarried couples to live together. ... A law dating to the late 19th-century makes it a misdemeanor for “any persons, not married to each other, [to] lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together.”

 

I think they may have revised this law recently 

[Rocky Landing]

3 hours ago, JohnC said:

The next time you jay walk I hope the police pounce on you and take you to jail for your scofflaw. You may be surprised to know that common sense and judgment are part and parcel in applying the law. 

I think you've missed my point.

[iinii]

12 hours ago, Rocky Landing said:

 

Regardless of what crimes were initially being investigated, the authorities have a responsibility to prosecute crimes that are uncovered in the course of the investigation, even if they are "only misdemeanors," and even if they are completely unrelated to the initial investigation. I think that is obvious.

 

But, aside from that, do you see how the two of your statements that I bolded are contradictory? In the first post, you are essentially making the point that the law should be applied equally to all. But, in the second post, you are bemoaning the eventual cost of prosecuting someone who has enormous financial resources to fight a charge for which they are obviously guilty. Should the rule of law not be applied equally to Kraft simply because he has the financial resources to make prosecution costly?  

Only in a perfect world. Ever heard of the Golden Rule? He who has the most gold, makes the rules. 

[Gugny]

4 hours ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

 Totally agree.

 

Everyone, i mean everyone with an IQ over 80 knows he did it.  He will likely get off but the humiliation will always be there.

 

The only issue is the sex trafficking charge was total BS, that he couldnt agree to.

 

He was never charged with sex trafficking.

[RoyBatty is alive]

Just now, Gugny said:

 

He was never charged with sex trafficking.

 

To my knowledge none of them getting their Tug at the Orchid were, it was "manufactured" by the police/DA..

[Mr. WEO]

6 hours ago, scribo said:

In general, I can be OK with legalization of prostitution. But until it is, the law must be enforced. Until it is legal, there are no protections for the "worker." We don't know anything about the lady who was paid to perform a sexual act on Kraft. Do we really know if she was doing so on her own free will? I'd say it is reasonable to believe she was there because was she not aware of what choices she may actually have. I believe she is a victim.

 

The bottom-line here is Kraft thought he was above the law. The law must be enforced or we lose civilization.

 

 

She was the spa manager.

 

I think Kraft and the other 100 busted johns thought that they would just get their handjobs in peace, not that they were "above the law"---and losing civilization (!!)--by paying $100 for a quick release.

19 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

He was never charged with sex trafficking.

 

 

There wasn't any---the cops new that within the first 5 minutes of a months longs video taping.

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, Rocky Landing said:

I think you've missed my point.

I did get your point. However, you missed my point that not every trivial and bullshiiit infraction is enforced by the police. If you don't understand that common sense and judgment are involved in the enforcement of the laws then you are not in touch with the real world. Failure to poop scoop is an infraction but that doesn't mean that the handcuffing and a ride to the cell block are called for. 

[JohnC]

16 hours ago, Doc said:

 

I don't hate to admit that you don't know what the ***** you are talking about.

Do you have proof that the banana seen on the tape doesn't lean to the right? What's next a pants down lineup to prove innocence or guilt? 

[Gugny]

5 minutes ago, JohnC said:

 Failure to poop scoop is an infraction but that doesn't mean that the handcuffing and a ride to the cell block are called for. 

 

Just a side note - if it's my lawn that someone lets their dog poop on and doesn't pick it up, I want that mother ***** in prison!

[#34fan]

We all have ugly needs.   The rub on Kraft is this "I'm too rich to be guilty of this" mentality...

He can't be guilty of any crime solely by virtue of money.

 

I say release the tape, if he continues to fight... Let all NFL fans see how the uber-rich are just like the rest of us.

 

 

Edited May 10, 2019 by #34fan
politicized language

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

59 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

Just a side note - if it's my lawn that someone lets their dog poop on and doesn't pick it up, I want that mother ***** in prison!

there may be a law to do so.     

 

Hell they arrested some guy for pooping on a HS track !!! 

 

The New Jersey superintendent arrested in May for allegedly pooping on Holmdel High School’s track and football field has resigned from his position — but is not going down without a fight.

https://people.com/human-interest/superintendent-accused-pooping-on-school-track-resigns/

 

He wants to sue because someone released his mugshot 

Edited May 9, 2019 by ShadyBillsFan

[Mr. WEO]

5 hours ago, #34fan said:

We all have ugly needs.   The rub on Kraft is this "I'm too rich to be guilty of this" mentality...

 

He can't be guilty of any crime solely by virtue of money.

 

I say release the tape, if he continues to fight... Let all NFL fans see how the uber-rich are just like the rest of us.

 

 

 

Have any of the dozens of other johns admitted guilt or taken the plea offer in this sting?

[Rocky Landing]

3 hours ago, JohnC said:

I did get your point. However, you missed my point that not every trivial and bullshiiit infraction is enforced by the police. If you don't understand that common sense and judgment are involved in the enforcement of the laws then you are not in touch with the real world. Failure to poop scoop is an infraction but that doesn't mean that the handcuffing and a ride to the cell block are called for. 

I got your point entirely. You might think that it is "common sense" that someone with enough resources to make their prosecution costly should have their charges dropped. Certainly, that happens all the time. Personally, I find the concept to be an ugly truth about our justice system. However, I haven't read anything where charges have been dropped against any of the other people who were charged in this case, and who didn't accept the deal that the DA offered-- the same deal that was offered to Kraft. Did you not make the point that all people should be treated equally under the law? 

 

And, I can certainly understand at this point in the process how the DA, regardless, would be loath to drop the case simply because Kraft is willing to spend money to make this as costly for the prosecution as possible. Were they to capitulate to such tactics, in such a heavily reported case, it would send a very cynical message that those with enough money are not held to the same standard under the law. I think that would be antithetical to common sense, true though it may be.

 

 

[#34fan]

3 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Have any of the dozens of other johns admitted guilt or taken the plea offer in this sting?

 

I don't know, but the deal sounds very reasonable to me:

 

 "The Palm Beach State Attorney’s Office confirmed Tuesday that it had offered to drop the misdemeanor charges for soliciting prostitution against Kraft and 24 other men, if they agreed to perform 100 hours community service, attend a class about the negative effects of prostitution, pay a $5,000 fine per count, and admit they would have been found guilty in court".

-Boston.com

 

It's a total wrist-slap.... A mature adult who got caught literally with their pants down takes this deal.

Edited May 9, 2019 by #34fan

[Albany,n.y.]

15 minutes ago, #34fan said:

 

I don't know, but the deal sounds very reasonable to me:

 

 "The Palm Beach State Attorney’s Office confirmed Tuesday that it had offered to drop the misdemeanor charges for soliciting prostitution against Kraft and 24 other men, if they agreed to perform 100 hours community service, attend a class about the negative effects of prostitution, pay a $5,000 fine per count, and admit they would have been found guilty in court".

-Boston.com

 

It's a total wrist-slap.... A mature adult who got caught literally with their pants down takes this deal.

What if the guy spent all his money on prostitutes and doesn't have the $5,000?  

[#34fan]

3 minutes ago, Albany,n.y. said:

What if the guy spent all his money on prostitutes and doesn't have the $5,000?  

 

Prostitute him 'til he pays it off.  -That'll teach him!

 

 

[K-9]

5 hours ago, #34fan said:

We all have ugly needs.   The rub on Kraft is this "I'm too rich to be guilty of this" mentality...

 

He can't be guilty of any crime solely by virtue of money.

 

I say release the tape, if he continues to fight... Let all NFL fans see how the uber-rich are just like the rest of us.

 

 

In this case, the rub on Kraft is something else entirely.

[Codyny13]

$5000 for a HJ and an f in the b? Damn, the court system is the pimp, taking all that money while the poor girl giving em out takes a measly 2%.?

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, Rocky Landing said:

I got your point entirely. You might think that it is "common sense" that someone with enough resources to make their prosecution costly should have their charges dropped. Certainly, that happens all the time. Personally, I find the concept to be an ugly truth about our justice system. However, I haven't read anything where charges have been dropped against any of the other people who were charged in this case, and who didn't accept the deal that the DA offered-- the same deal that was offered to Kraft. Did you not make the point that all people should be treated equally under the law? 

 

And, I can certainly understand at this point in the process how the DA, regardless, would be loath to drop the case simply because Kraft is willing to spend money to make this as costly for the prosecution as possible. Were they to capitulate to such tactics, in such a heavily reported case, it would send a very cynical message that those with enough money are not held to the same standard under the law. I think that would be antithetical to common sense, true though it may be.

 

 

Again, you are missing the point. I don't care if those arrested are destitute or billionaires. This case for a minimally charged violation may involve legally questionable "pretext" traffic stops and a questionable surveillance application/warrant. This case should be dropped not only for the prominent rich guy but also for the other nondescript defendants who lack resources. In addition, those people in a private setting who were video taped without their knowledge should be upset. And don't be surprised if they legally respond to this intrusion into their private dealings.

 

With respect to the second highlighted segment related to the application of the same standard under the law that concept also applies to the legal authorities. What Kraft and his legal representatives are challenging is how the police conducted themselves. Are you against him having the right to do so? Are you arguing that the police authorities couldn't/shouldn't be challenged? If you are then you have an odd interpretation of the rights of the accused, rich or poor.  

 

 

 

   

[Doc]

2 hours ago, #34fan said:

I don't know, but the deal sounds very reasonable to me:

 

 "The Palm Beach State Attorney’s Office confirmed Tuesday that it had offered to drop the misdemeanor charges for soliciting prostitution against Kraft and 24 other men, if they agreed to perform 100 hours community service, attend a class about the negative effects of prostitution, pay a $5,000 fine per count, and admit they would have been found guilty in court".

-Boston.com

 

It's a total wrist-slap.... A mature adult who got caught literally with their pants down takes this deal.

 

It's all about the video for Bobby.  Like you said, the "punishment" is a wrist-slap.  The real punishment is the embareassment of the video being made public.

[#34fan]

4 hours ago, Doc said:

 

It's all about the video for Bobby.  Like you said, the "punishment" is a wrist-slap.  The real punishment is the embareassment of the video being made public.

 

And it'll be all his fault for turning down the State Attorney's generosity.