Kraft Orchids Case - Prosecuters Want a Tug Rule?

[venecol]

By the way this only affects the Martin County cases and not Kraft's case as I don't believe the warrants have been made public yet. Below are the requests in the warrant application, make up your own minds.

 

[Ras-IR Dowling]

When did he admit anything? He is pleading not guilty. Unless you are talking about the "non-apology" apology, then I suppose, for anyone that bought it.

Kraft releases statement, says he is 'truly sorry'

So it’s a “non-apology” apology statement? That’s what we’re going with?

I don’t think he had anything to do with sex trafficking, and if his high priced lawyers blow up law enforcements case then good for them. Putting his actual plea aside, his statement reads to me as a man who’s sorry for the embarrassment he’s caused to those close to him. An admission that he knows he did something stupid.

 

[XLIX]

Well clearly there is both a legal and standard difference between monitoring and recording. These two are not the same type of activity. One can for example monitor activities that will yield information to proceed with a further operation depending on the case. Recording is a specific and separate activity that entails creating a permanent record of what was being monitored.

I'm not the one that completed the application. In the application, there are 9 separate requests, 8 of which talk about monitoring and only one requests that recording be allowed. Clearly from the language in the Judge's warrant, he authorized the 8 requests to monitor but not the single request to record.

Honestly, it seems that the judge was only comfortable with allowing the cops to monitor but not to record.

I disagree. I think it is absurd to think that what the judge wanted was for video surveillance to be deployed without recording illegal activities. That would set up a situation where, if it went to trial, the officers would have to testify about what they saw on TV - which they would only be able to watch once since they can't record it, right? - as opposed to actually having video evidence. Nor do I find it "clear" that the warrant authorized 8 requests but not the 9th.

Here is the text of the actual warrant:

NOW THEREFORE, you, with the proper and necessary assistance, are hereby commanded in the name of the State of Florida, in the daytime or in the nighttime, or on Sunday, to enter said premises 1174 SE Federal Highway, Hobe Sound, FL, to enter and install in the premises to be searched video surveillance cameras, and to monitor these surveillance cameras for a period of no longer than 30 days, and forthwith make return of your doings upon executing this warrant, which you are hereby commanded to execute as the law directs within 10 days from the date thereof.

I think the "installation of video surveillance cameras" clearly implies permission to record illegal activities instead of the absurd situation of forcing the police to watch TV 24/7, take notes on what they saw, then testify about it in the eventual criminal trial.​

 

[XLIX]

By the way this only affects the Martin County cases and not Kraft's case as I don't believe the warrants have been made public yet. Below are the requests in the warrant application, make up your own minds.

View attachment 22949
View attachment 22950

You're focused on the application. You should focus on the warrant itself. I posted the relevant paragraph in my last post.

 

[borg]

I looked into what you are claiming here and I don’t think this is a hill you want to die on.

The argument is regarding a verbiage technicality of the actual warrant. The police requested video surveillance to “monitor and record” the spa. The warrant was granted to “monitor” but the word “record” was left out of the judge’s order.

The defense is saying that means permission to record was denied, which is a very, very weak argument. When you get permission for video surveillance, it is implied that recording illegal activities will take place. (Otherwise when you got to trial you’d have to have a cop testify about what he saw on TV instead of, you know, actually presenting the video evidence)

Let me ask a question and I challenge you to be honest: do you honestly believe this Martin County Judge intended for the police to install surveillance cameras without being allowed to record illegal activities?

While I agree with everything you wrote, a warrant, like a contract, is supposed to be a legal document that requires precision, not implied understandings.

Worth contesting though I can almost guarantee the local judge who rules on this specific matter will circle the wagons and not undermine his/her colleagues nor law enforcement.

The appeal could be a bit more interesting and I hope it goes the distance. My rubbernecking gene has been activated.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Court order in Kraft case did not expressly allow video recording

 

[XLIX]

Court order in Kraft case did not expressly allow video recording

I think Florio has completely dropped the ball here. He is talking about the exact situation we are talking about above and we all said that this took place in another county, so our discussion is more a theoretical one about law enforcement in general, and not how it applies to Kraft.

I certainly admit I may be mistaken as I am not an expert of Florida geography.

 

[borg]

Court order in Kraft case did not expressly allow video recording

Attorney Mike Florio concludes:
It’s an issue that will be resolved long before Kraft or any of the other defendants will be required to stand trial, and if this argument based on plain language and basic logic prevails, there will be no trial at all, for any of the men charged with soliciting prostitution as part of this specific “monitoring” exercise that became “monitoring and recording.”

 

[venecol]

You're focused on the application. You should focus on the warrant itself. I posted the relevant paragraph in my last post.

I read your previous post and disagree with it because you are implying something that isn't there. I also read the warrant and it clearly just says "monitoring," no mention of recording.

To your point however, cops could have easily been monitoring and when a John got caught in the act radioed a patrolman to stop them after they left the premises and confronted them and gotten them to confess. If this sounds ridiculous guess what, the cops claim they did this twice already prior to obtaining the warrant. They observed guys going in, would follow them without any proof and Traffic stop them. When asked what was going on, supposedly they confessed to receiving a HJ, cops got their phone numbers and everything, without even having any video!

You see proving prostitution was going on was not going to be very hard and there was never any need for the video surveillance. I am convinced this was an attempt by Martin County Sheriff to sensationalize this case with the human trafficking mumbo jumbo and to embarrass the johns as a deterrent, which is all fine, except for the use of videos.

 

[Koma]

Goodell has announced the NFL is doing it's own "fact-finding" investigation into Kraft.
NFL Conducting Its Own Fact-Finding Investigation On Robert Kraft

The big question is whether this is going to be a Peyton Manning/HGH "Make it go away" investigation or a Tom Brady/deflated footballs "We've decided he's guilty, find anything to support that conclusion" investigation.

 

[venecol]

Court order in Kraft case did not expressly allow video recording

Florio got lazy, wrong County.

WTVT report even says the attorneys also represent clients in the Palm beach case but those documents aren't yet available.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

While I agree with everything you wrote, a warrant, like a contract, is supposed to be a legal document that requires precision, not implied understandings.

Worth contesting though I can almost guarantee the local judge who rules on this specific matter will circle the wagons and not undermine his/her colleagues nor law enforcement.

The appeal could be a bit more interesting and I hope it goes the distance. My rubbernecking gene has been activated.

And if the judge allows the recording, it will be appealed, all the way to the Florida Supreme court...

 

[Ring 6]

Well clearly there is both a legal and standard difference between monitoring and recording. These two are not the same type of activity. One can for example monitor activities that will yield information to proceed with a further operation depending on the case. Recording is a specific and separate activity that entails creating a permanent record of what was being monitored.

I'm not the one that completed the application. In the application, there are 9 separate requests, 8 of which talk about monitoring and only one requests that recording be allowed. Clearly from the language in the Judge's warrant, he authorized the 8 requests to monitor but not the single request to record.

Honestly, it seems that the judge was only comfortable with allowing the cops to monitor but not to record.

If that were the case, disallowing the tape wouldn’t invalidate the charges. They just couldn’t use the tape but they would use the testimony of the police who observered.
Many questions come out of this, and it’s clear there is a lot of rumor floating around out there suck as the bomb threat rumor which appears to be made up.
I won’t have a chance to read them until later but the first question I have is which locations they apply to.

 

[XLIX]

I read your previous post and disagree with it because you are implying something that isn't there. I also read the warrant and it clearly just says "monitoring," no mention of recording.

I would have to see if there’s any law or code/statute defining the exact meaning of “video surveillance”

 

[borg]

“We did not monitor any women who went into the parlor,” said Snyder. “We just assumed they were there for legitimate purposes.

To paraphrase: We only targeted men

While their logic is understandable, selective prosecution based on gender and assumption defies fairness.

Women didn't burn their bras in the 60's to be neglected at Hand Manipulation spas in 2018.

I am offended and feel my gender is being unfairly persecuted and prosecuted

 

[venecol]

If that were the case, disallowing the tape wouldn’t invalidate the charges. They just couldn’t use the tape but they would use the testimony of the police who observered.
Many questions come out of this, and it’s clear there is a lot of rumor floating around out there suck as the bomb threat rumor which appears to be made up.
I won’t have a chance to read them until later but the first question I have is which locations they apply to.

I can't disagree with your take. I suppose it is possible that if after monitoring they followed johns and documented presence, etc. that the State could still have a case.

The bomb rumor (I haven't seen any confirmation) was for Jupiter location, these warrants are specific to Martin County locations.

Two things that are now clear:

1. There is no audio. Application clearly says no audio monitoring or recording was requested;
2. Human trafficking was not used as reason for warrants but simply prostitution.

I looked at all women that have been charged. They are all in their 40s and 50s except for one that is 39. This is in all 4 locations: Orlando, Indian River, Martin, and Palm Beach counties. These women knew what they were doing. Case in point, Sheriff talks about rescuing these women but, they are all being charged! (there may be 1 that isn't yet, not clear).

 

[1960Pats]

Ok leaving aside sex trafficking - which is something about which we should all care - if you are someone who thinks this was just a dirty old man getting a handy (I can relate) then why do you care about this?

I'm honestly mystified why this thread is 230+ pages long. I just sort of assumed every billionaire was doing weird **** and guys like Irsay and Kraft were just too stupid or impulsive to hide it well.

Kraft is the idiot owner of our team. That's it. I don't think anything he does reflects on this team, at all. The team is the players and coaches who make it happen not the blobby almost-octagenarian coos hound who signs the checks.

This is the reason why I don't give that much credit to Kraft for the success of the team. As long as he stays away from the football decisions the team should be fine with Brady/Belichick.

 

[Ring 6]

Attorney Mike Florio concludes:
It’s an issue that will be resolved long before Kraft or any of the other defendants will be required to stand trial, and if this argument based on plain language and basic logic prevails, there will be no trial at all, for any of the men charged with soliciting prostitution as part of this specific “monitoring” exercise that became “monitoring and recording.”

Florio is also wrong IMO that it would cause the case to be dismissed.
It appears from statements made that it was not a surveillance or taping of everything. There are comments such as they did not observe women’s massages.
So if the taping were ruled inadmissible, it wouldn’t make the surveillance itself inadmissible.

 

[JarOfMayo51]

As far as I know the Bible says nothing about masturbation so you might be OK.

Really?

Be back in 15 minutes!

 

[JarOfMayo51]

What don't you get? You just said it.

First, Bob is a high profile billionaire who pawns himself off as the moral compass of a trillion dollar business and here he is paying middle aged Asian women $100 to jerk him off in a Floridian strip mall. Second, he got caught and embarrassed himself and his "fans".

And yes, fans don't want this dragged out because they fear it will be a distraction to the team's on -the- field efforts.

My biggest fear is that the team gets punished for this in terms of draft picks. If the league has proven anything, its that they'll jump at any opportunity to steal valuable picks from the Patriots to weaken them