Kraft Orchids Case - Prosecuters Want a Tug Rule?

[venecol]

Oh, you’ve read. Wow.
Please show me anywhere that states that pulling over a car with a suspect in it is illegal or that you can only pull over a vehicle for a traffic stop or that an ID is only legal if you tell them why you stopped them. You can’t but if you cold then show me how any if those things even apply to this case.
Finally after not completing either of those explain to me how they have any bearing on all of the other evidence, including the prostitute herself identifying him and it all being on camera.

You obviously didn't read the article from one of the defense attorneys (not Kraft's). If they get the videos thrown out, it doesn't matter if he was id'ed during a stop since it is not illegal to be in a parlor. They need to prove solicitation which apparently has to follow a very specific set of standards. It will be hard to do without the video but even with the video, and no audio, apparently it may be difficult. I'm just saying what "real" defense attorneys are saying. I was not aware there is a prostitute willing to testify against him, where did you read that?

“The issue is was there valid, legal reason to tape?” Richard Kibbey, a partner at Kibbey-Wagner, told the Herald on Tuesday. “The basis to tape is challengeable because the state attorney in Palm Beach didn’t say any of the men charged had any knowledge of trafficking going on. So that will be a centerpiece of our defense. … It’s unlikely that the tape in any way shows awareness of trafficking.”

Kibbey’s law firm, which represents several clients involved in the case, but not Patriots owner Robert Kraft, announced in a tweet Monday that it had filed two emergency petitions to block the release of videos it says were done “secretly” and in violation of privacy rights for everyone involved.

 

[Ring 6]

Comments:

a.) Yup, Kraft disappointed me when he didn't sue the NFL Al Davis style during Deflategate....but that is water under the bridge for me now.

b.) Not a lawyer here, but a cop needs a reason to pull you over for starters. However, the 'probable cause' is very flexible though....and a cop does not even need a search warrant to search your car as long as there is 'reasonable suspicion'. It was a big legal case years ago...and the judges ruled to allow searches because a car can move from its original location while a cop was obtaining a warrant...

As for pulling over Kraft and asking for his ID. IMO, Kraft should have refused....but he obviously voluntarily handed over his ID. I wouldn't have if I were a passenger in any vehicle myself. At minimum, the cops had a right to stop the limo and ask the limo driver for ID, IMO.

Again, not a lawyer....

The leaving the scene of a brothel reason is plenty of probable cause. Just because you are in a vehicle doesn’t mean probable cause has to be vehicular.
And yes he could have refused. Not sure if that would have made it any better.

 

[Ring 6]

You obviously didn't read the article from one of the defense attorneys (not Kraft's). If they get the videos thrown out, it doesn't matter if he was id'ed during a stop since it is not illegal to be in a parlor. They need to prove solicitation which apparently has to follow a very specific set of standards. It will be hard to do without the video but even with the video, and no audio, apparently it may be difficult. I'm just saying what "real" defense attorneys are saying. I was not aware there is a prostitute willing to testify against him, where did you read that?

“The issue is was there valid, legal reason to tape?” Richard Kibbey, a partner at Kibbey-Wagner, told the Herald on Tuesday. “The basis to tape is challengeable because the state attorney in Palm Beach didn’t say any of the men charged had any knowledge of trafficking going on. So that will be a centerpiece of our defense. … It’s unlikely that the tape in any way shows awareness of trafficking.”

Kibbey’s law firm, which represents several clients involved in the case, but not Patriots owner Robert Kraft, announced in a tweet Monday that it had filed two emergency petitions to block the release of videos it says were done “secretly” and in violation of privacy rights for everyone involved.

Oh my god. You are now resisting filing a motion with succeeding?
Do you not understand this stuff at all?

 

[XLIX]

You obviously didn't read the article from one of the defense attorneys (not Kraft's). If they get the videos thrown out, it doesn't matter if he was id'ed during a stop since it is not illegal to be in a parlor. They need to prove solicitation which apparently has to follow a very specific set of standards. It will be hard to do without the video but even with the video, and no audio, apparently it may be difficult. I'm just saying what "real" defense attorneys are saying.

It's hilarious how you are taking the statements of a defense attorney and considering those the gospel truth. I suppose Jussie Smollett is innocent too, huh? After all, his attorney says he is....

 

[venecol]

Oh my god. You are now resisting filing a motion with succeeding?
Do you not understand this stuff at all?

Oh my God, you are actually pretending your BS is more credible than what an "actual" defense attorney "in the case" states as his defense strategy.

Your narcissistic level of delusion is too sad to continue this convo. Good luck with your self-obsessed notion that you have all the answers and that you are always right just to win a forum argument. Isn't your imaginary trophy case getting crowded?

 

[XLIX]

Oh my God, you are actually pretending your BS is more credible than what an "actual" defense attorney "in the case" states as his defense strategy.

LOL!! The fact that he is a defense attorney in the case means anything he says is 99% bullsh*t. I would trust a magic 8-ball more than a lawyer representing the defense.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

I’m starting to come around on the uniform change, @Actual Pats Fan. I think they went too far and a modified version with the same concept would have been more appropriate in the mid-90s (almost all teams make minor changes for good reason.). However, at this point, there is so much history with these new unis, could the team really go back to the old ones?

Perhaps he had hoped that the uniform (and especially helmet) change would alienate the fan base over the edge of no longer caring about the team, thus making the move to St Louis easier to rationalize?

If it weren't for Tom Finneran MA may well have done exactly that. For all his other faults I'll always be grateful for him for stopping any attempts to spend public money on NE (aside from the Rt 1 work which Kraft had to repay over time).

Chris Chase, USA Today:

Despite the silver-faced John Kerry, the Pats logo at least kept red, white and blue in the color scheme. And that's the only positive thing that can be said of the Flying Elvis design. Don't be fooled into thinking it's good just because the Patriots are.

This logo is all horrendous. The Jay Leno chin? The trailing red lines of the helmet? The white star that is supposed to represent the flag but looks like the world’s most unfortunate birthmark? Awful. This has been called the Flying Elvis logo, but a flying Elvis would be infinitely cooler.

The Patriots had once before tried to replace the famed Pat Patriot logo, partially because there was so many intricacies in the design (13 shirt wrinkles and small facial features) that it was hard to reproduce on various retail items.* Fans booed the new logo (an American flag replica with a blue patriot’s head instead of stars) so badly that it was never adopted. In 1993, the Patriots went with a new look, abandoning the red, white and blue color scheme for the current Flying Elvis logo with a silver background. This time they wisely didn’t give fans a chance to boo. How bad is the logo? The jerseys or logos of great teams will, over time, eventually come to possess their own power. The Golden State Warriors logo is great but it didn’t have that inherent strength until the team had it too. The Pats have been the NFL’s preeminent team for close to 20 years and this logo looks as stupid today as the day it was unveiled.


*Grounds crew complained about the difficulty of painting the Patriots' logo in the end zone at the Superdome for Super Bowl XX. Just another in the endless line of disparagement of the franchise; it is impossible to believe that similar treatment would have been given any other team, or at least the complaints would have been framed in a complimentary context, as opposed to the usual denigrating one.

 

[venecol]

How did a thread about R Kraft being charged with solicitation less than a month ago end up being about flying elvis logo that happened >25 years ago?

F*ckin weird.

 

[PatsDeb]

Comments:

a.) Yup, Kraft disappointed me when he didn't sue the NFL Al Davis style during Deflategate....but that is water under the bridge for me now.

b.) Not a lawyer here, but a cop needs a reason to pull you over for starters. However, the 'probable cause' is very flexible though....and a cop does not even need a search warrant to search your car as long as there is 'reasonable suspicion'. It was a big legal case years ago...and the judges ruled to allow searches because a car can move from its original location while a cop was obtaining a warrant...

As for pulling over Kraft and asking for his ID. IMO, Kraft should have refused....but he obviously voluntarily handed over his ID. I wouldn't have if I were a passenger in any vehicle myself. At minimum, the cops had a right to stop the limo and ask the limo driver for ID, IMO.

Again, not a lawyer....

All true. And when Kraft, but not his driver (? Is that what happened - I haven't read everything too closely) was asked for ID, I would have asked, "may I ask why?" before handing it over. If the cop gave some made-up excuse when he was really looking to ID Kraft as a criminal in a sting operation, THAT might be grounds to get the ID thrown out (but they have other evidence anyway of Kraft's ID or could easily obtain it (by running his license plates, for example), but once you hand over something voluntarily upon request, you've voluntarily provided the information, so you can't get it thrown out. That's why you should never allow a police officer who comes to your door or your car door or whatever, to search when they ask for permission to do so. Just say no. Same thing when you get pulled over and the first thing they ask is, "Do you know why I've pulled you over, ma'am?" Just say NO. Otherwise you are voluntarily incriminating yourself and it won't be "thrown out" later on.

 

[Steve102]

How did a thread about R Kraft being charged with solicitation less than a month ago end up being about flying elvis logo that happened >25 years ago?

F*ckin weird.

Right? Jeezus H Keerist already. I get that @Actual Pats Fan is fixated on it and it's his sole mission to get FE to go away, but can we keep it in those other threads?

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

How did a thread about R Kraft being charged with solicitation less than a month ago end up being about flying elvis logo that happened >25 years ago?

F*ckin weird.

The Kraft "legacy"

He purchased the team 25 years ago

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

It was close to the worst franchise of all time before Brady took over. So it’s kind of disingenuous to credit their that came before him for the franchises success when there pretty much was none before him.

I can name ten worse NFL franchises just off the top of my head.

 

[Ring 6]

I can name ten worse NFL franchises just off the top of my head.

Doubt it.

 

[venecol]

LOL!! The fact that he is a defense attorney in the case means anything he says is 99% bullsh*t. I would trust a magic 8-ball more than a lawyer representing the defense.

Actually, the fact that you & your fanboy AJ are not attorneys of any type at all means your conjectures are 99% bullsh*t. The fact that you trust a magic 8-ball (your own BS) over a defense attorney involved in the case just proves it.

Listen, I get that fanboy AJ and you think the law is all about common sense and that since the cops said so, that it must be true (even though they almost destroyed an innocent persons life by charging him for a crime he was innocent of), but the law is actually very complicated. That is why everything legal takes so long, there are constant appeals, and cases end up being heard in front of SCOTUS (which we almost witnessed a few years ago).

To me this is a case of privacy rights over unwarranted intrusions by Government in our lives. I don’t really give a sh*t about the solicitation charges because I personally think this stuff should be legal. However, we should all be concerned with creating a police state where they can install cameras anywhere anytime on the pretense that such and such is going on. If you guys want to give up your rights willingly go for it. I personally find it to be un-American.

PS: by this I'm not trying to minimize human trafficking, I’ve already said if it was going on they should prosecute guilty parties to the fullest extent of the law.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Eason carried the 1986 team.

When given the chance to play, that season and all of them since 1983, Grogan was better.

Berry's blindness is stupefying.

 

[RobertWeathers]

When given the chance to play, that season and all of them since 1983, Grogan was better.

Berry's blindness is stupefying.

Grogs had a better career but Eason had a very good 1986

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Doubt it.

Lions
Steelers pre-1970
Bucs
Jets
Texans
Titans
Broncos pre-Elway
Packers between Lambeau-Lombardi, and again between Lombardi-Favre
Browns post-Browns (Jim & Paul)
Jaguars
Bengals
Giants 1964-1983
49ers pre-Montana
Saints pre-Brees
Falcons
Cardinals
Raiders/Cowboys last two decades

Having a cheap owner and no permanent home stadium for the first decade does not erase on field success, or superiority to other franchises

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Grogs had a better career but Eason had a very good 1986

Tony was good, yes.

Grogan still should have started in Denver.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

After the 2000 season, what franchises were worse than the Pats through their histories?

The Cardinals - 1 legit championship and 1 illegitimate championship in 81 seasons and no Super Bowl appearances

The Bucs - mentioned already in this thread, they defined losers and laughingstocks until Dungy came along

The Saints - they were just plain bad

Everyone else is debatable. What isn’t really debatable is that the Patriots looked a lot like the Cincinnati Bengals at that point. 2 Super Bowl appearances, a few other playoff seasons, a stretch of some horrid teams, and a few in between. Anyone who thinks the Pats were continual respected contenders prior to BB/Brady should also feel the same way about the Bengals.

I think it's safe to say we were better than the Falcons and Lions...

...did the Bengals have only one losing season in a stretch of 13 years?

 

[RobertWeathers]

Tony was good, yes.

Grogan still should have started in Denver.

In 88, no question