Kraft Orchids Case - Prosecuters Want a Tug Rule?

[patfanken]

The judge didn’t rule any of those things.
In fact he ruled the surveillance was legal, and justified but threw out the evidence because they didnt follow proper procedure in making sure they only taped criminal acts.
Stopping the car was thrown out because the stop was based upon the surveillance which was inadmissable, not because of lying.

what was it when the cop who stopped the car is quoted as saying he'd figure out some excuse to make the stop? What's your definition of lying?

 

[Ring 6]

Until otherwise isn't a wrong thing to say. What's wrong is that you claim saying that doesn't mean you had the position that it was a legal surveillance. By invoking that phrase you absolutely did have a position. You were incorrect.

I never said I believed it was legal, how could I, there were no facts?
There is a world of difference saying I assume if a judge issued a warrant, that warrant is justified and proper pending the facts surrounding it, and saying I know it’s fine.

By the way as it turned out the judge ruled the surveillance was legal but the method of ensuring only criminal acts were taped was improper.
There was not a single piece of evidence available during that discussion that would allow anyone to know that.
This is EXACTLY why I didn’t offer a conclusion.

 

[Ring 6]

what was it when the cop who stopped the car is quoted as saying he'd figure out some excuse to make the stop? What's your definition of lying?

The judge said nothing about that in his ruling.

 

[Ring 6]

No the surveillance as executed was not legal. It would have been if they stuck to it but they went beyond it. That's why it was thrown out.

You are parsing words.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Joe public defender would have challenged the admissibility of the tapes and got the exact same result.
It wasn’t brilliant legal work, it was finding a case that set precedent, and that case was also found by reporters.

Not necessarily. Joe Public defender is often over loaded with cases and doesn't always have the time or resources to find precedent in LexisNExis or the capability to write a brief as well as an attorney with twenty or thirty years experience. By and large, PDs are right out of law school as this would be the type of case handled by a new graduate or a green PD, not a homicide or major crime which would get the experienced Public Defender.

 

[maust]

You are parsing words.

 

[Ring 6]

Not necessarily. Joe Public defender is often over loaded with cases and doesn't always have the time or resources to find precedent in LexisNExis or the capability to write a brief as well as an attorney with twenty or thirty years experience. By and large, PDs are right out of law school as this would be the type of case handled by a new graduate or a green PD, not a homicide or major crime which would get the experienced Public Defender.

Reporters found the case. Just citing it was all the legal work required.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Not necessarily. Joe Public defender is often over loaded with cases and doesn't always have the time or resources to find precedent in LexisNExis or the capability to write a brief as well as an attorney with twenty or thirty years experience. By and large, PDs are right out of law school as this would be the type of case handled by a new graduate or a green PD, not a homicide or major crime which would get the experienced Public Defender.

Didn’t some of the Johns already agree to the deal to admit guilt but keep their record clean? If so that’s evidence enough right there that having strong legal representation is critical.

Had this moved forward, and if it does on appeal, Kraft’s legal team already had many more avenues to pursue, including procedural discovery issues, etc.

 

[patfanken]

The judge said nothing about that in his ruling.

F the ruling, Andy. Did the cop lie about why he stopped the car or not? Simple question. What's your answer.

 

[Ring 6]

F the ruling, Andy. Did the cop lie about why he stopped the car or not? Simple question. What's your answer.

I don’t know the facts.
I’m talking about what the judge ruled.
If you want to give me facts I’ll tell you what I think.

 

[Ring 6]

Didn’t some of the Johns already agree to the deal to admit guilt but keep their record clean? If so that’s evidence enough right there that having strong legal representation is critical.

Had this moved forward, and if it does on appeal, Kraft’s legal team already had many more avenues to pursue, including procedural discovery issues, etc.

Well they were guilty.

 

[Deus Irae]

Your principle isn't wrong. I don't think anyone's saying it's wrong to assume things were done by the book, just that you're wrong when it turned out things were in fact not done by the book. It'd be epically stupid not to just accept that your assumptions were wrong. It's not that big of a deal really.

Put me down as someone who says that, at least when it comes to the law, it's wrong to assume things were done by the book.

 

[Deus Irae]

I am not missing the bigger point and I get that the police were absolutely wrong. But, Kraft broke the law and used his money to get out of it. That also happened. I can hold those two conflicting thoughts in my head.

What does money have to do with it? There were obvious problems here, and multiple people on this board were pointing them out. It didn't take a high end attorney to see what was going on.

And, unless your position is that the wealthy aren't entitled to a defense, which would be stupid, but at least interesting, you're not doing anything but whining about capitalism.

He was able to afford representation that could prove all those things. Joe public defender would have seen the perp sent to jail.

Probably not. The motion was not one that only the best of the best could have come up with. Furthermore, as more evidence came out, it became ever clearer that the case was flawed in pretty much every way.

 

[Deus Irae]

Didn’t some of the Johns already agree to the deal to admit guilt but keep their record clean? If so that’s evidence enough right there that having strong legal representation is critical.

Had this moved forward, and if it does on appeal, Kraft’s legal team already had many more avenues to pursue, including procedural discovery issues, etc.

People often look to just settle misdemeanors and move on, especially if you can basically get the case kept off of your record. Posters here (I'm not naming anyone, or putting anyone specific in that group, but it seems to be the way a chunk of the board is leaning) seem to be forgetting that "just plea it out" was the rallying cry of a huge number of people on this issue.

That's not really about money.

 

[PatsWSB47]

I never said I believed it was legal, how could I, there were no facts?
There is a world of difference saying I assume if a judge issued a warrant, that warrant is justified and proper pending the facts surrounding it, and saying I know it’s fine.

By the way as it turned out the judge ruled the surveillance was legal but the method of ensuring only criminal acts were taped was improper.
There was not a single piece of evidence available during that discussion that would allow anyone to know that.
This is EXACTLY why I didn’t offer a conclusion.

That's why I said "as executed" Dont try and spin it into a legally executed surveillance. It was not ever legal. The judge's version was. What the cops did was not that. You absolutely accepted it as a properly executed surveillance because you continued to argue "until otherwise" even as we were all arguing that the judge never allowed for recording nonstop of everyone they wanted. You have been sympathetic to every move of the cops and health dept. You'd use the "why would they do this or why would they do that or why would they target Kraft"? You ever hear of a "tip". You ever hear of a leak of false information to create a false narrative? The cops press conference screamed trafficking. They lied. Stocked refrigerators? You argued against cops raiding the place so they could all the sweet time they needed to gather evidence for their case. The cops were passionate and emotional in their press conference about the conditions and weeks long imprisonment of these poor sex workers. Everyone has been wrong about some things about this case. You stand alone of the one person that has never been. Sad

 

[Hyped]

My thoughts:

1.) This was a cluster**** from the start. The Marin county DA/Police Department really screwed the pooch on this one...and all over a mere prostitution charge... they screwed up by initially framing this as a human trafficking sting, then reached out to defendants to offer to drop charges in exchange for a "guilty admission" because they knew they had nothing, then accused Kraft's lawyers of lying, and etc.... I think if I were a citizen of Marin county, I'd be voting them all out of office the next election. Resources could have been better used

2.) If the video is ever released to TMZ or something, I expect Marin county to get sued and thus cost tax payers more money.

3.) Kraft has also lost here too....his reputation took a massive hit, but I think he can put this behind him as the years go on though.

4.) I think Goodell will settle on a 4 game suspension. Isray got 6....and I think a hand job isn't as bad as having drugs/cash in your car, but that is just me.

5.) I thin it is past time for Jonathan Kraft to take control of the franchise, IMO....if he hasn't already done so. Bob did a lot for us all...and I'll thank him for it and always be a fan, but Kraft is 77......

6.) Even though Kraft is allegedly guilty....this was a major victory for our constitutional rights...cops should not be allowed to "invent" reasons for pulling people over nor allowed to install hidden surveillance cameras without substantial evidence of criminal activity (they only had a health department inspector's observations at that point).

 

[maust]

More shots fired...

Kraft seeks permanent suppression of video

 

[Ring 6]

That's why I said "as executed" Dont try and spin it into a legally executed surveillance. It was not ever legal. The judge's version was. What the cops did was not that. You absolutely accepted it as a properly executed surveillance because you continued to argue "until otherwise" even as we were all arguing that the judge never allowed for recording nonstop of everyone they wanted.

No matter how many times you lie about what I said it won’t be what I said.

The judge ruled surveillance legal. He ruled the method of turning on and off the machine inappropriate.

“We arguing” about when they turned the machine off or on without basing it on actual facts is meaningless. Perhaps that’s the divide. A poster saying they think something happen certainly doesn’t qualify as “proven otherwise”.
You continue to act like I drew a conclusion, which I never did. Ever.

You have been sympathetic to every move of the cops and health dept.

Sympathetic?
It’s very simple. There was a mob mentality jumping the gun and proclaiming they knew what happened. I argued against the made up arguments.
If the mob mentality had been convicting Kraft without evidence I would have been on the other side explaining why THAT was premature, speculative and we need to wait for facts.

You'd use the "why would they do this or why would they do that or why would they target Kraft"? You ever hear of a "tip". You ever hear of a leak of false information to create a false narrative?

There you go. Conspiracy theory with absolutely nothing to back it up. I would 100% argue that point. You have zero facts.
Arguing you are making up a conspiracy theory is not arguing everything was done right, it’s arguing you are talking out your @ss.

The cops press conference screamed trafficking. They lied. Stocked refrigerators? You argued against cops raiding the place so they could all the sweet time they needed to gather evidence for their case.

When did I “argue against” that?

The cops were passionate and emotional in their press conference about the conditions and weeks long imprisonment of these poor sex workers. Everyone has been wrong about some things about this case. You stand alone of the one person that has never been. Sad

There are many people that weren’t wrong because most people do what I do, and don’t think they know facts that aren’t available.
You are seriously here arguing that everyone who drew conclusions without facts were right and the one guy questioning that unconfirmed information being portrayed as fact was wrong.
Truly bizarre.

 

[fnordcircle]

Looks like my police buddies were talking facts Andy. Always trust what they say

Always trust the police when they're talking about the deceit done by other police?

 

[Ring 6]

My thoughts:

1.) This was a cluster**** from the start. The Marin county DA/Police Department really screwed the pooch on this one...and all over a mere prostitution charge... they screwed up by initially framing this as a human trafficking sting, then reached out to defendants to offer to drop charges in exchange for a "guilty admission" because they knew they had nothing, then accused Kraft's lawyers of lying, and etc.... I think if I were a citizen of Marin county, I'd be voting them all out of office the next election. Resources could have been better used

2.) If the video is ever released to TMZ or something, I expect Marin county to get sued and thus cost tax payers more money.

3.) Kraft has also lost here too....his reputation took a massive hit, but I think he can put this behind him as the years go on though.

4.) I think Goodell will settle on a 4 game suspension. Isray got 6....and I think a hand job isn't as bad as having drugs/cash in your car, but that is just me.

5.) I thin it is past time for Jonathan Kraft to take control of the franchise, IMO....if he hasn't already done so. Bob did a lot for us all...and I'll thank him for it and always be a fan, but Kraft is 77......

6.) Even though Kraft is allegedly guilty....this was a major victory for our constitutional rights...cops should not be allowed to "invent" reasons for pulling people over nor allowed to install hidden surveillance cameras without substantial evidence of criminal activity (they only had a health department inspector's observations at that point).

#6 isn’t what happened with this ruling.
What happened with this ruling was a precedent that law enforcement did have enough for probable cause, were allowed to place cameras in the massage rooms, but next time need to have a process for only turning them on when criminal activity is happening.
Also, while perhaps inventing a reason to pull the car over may have been successfully challenged, it wasn’t here, rather the stop was thrown out because once the tape was inadmissible that made the stop inadmissable because it’s why they knew who to stop.