Kraft Orchids Case - Prosecuters Want a Tug Rule?

[Ring 6]

Florida prosecutors plan to release Kraft video

Florio agrees with all of us (minus one). Prosecution isn’t doing this because they are being forced to (that could be a court order.). They’re just being a-holes just like with everything else in the case. The (what looks like an illegally obtained) video is all they have. They suck.

I haven’t read the whole thing but isnt this their response to the request filed by the defense to ban its release?
The controlling issue here is that someone asked for a copy.
The state is compelled by sunshine laws to honor the request. They can’t choose whether they would like to or not, they need to follow the law. Their filing is their position on what the law they are bound to says.

Intent, motivation or what it does to kraft really is irrelevant. They can only follow the law.

Question: if the law says they are compelled to release what is requested would it really be ok if they make individual decisions in individual instances? (Aside from things like showing victims or minors in compromising positions)

 

[PatsDeb]

I am not an attorney, I have never played one on TV nor (unlike some in this thread) am I convinced I would dazzle everyone with my brilliance were I mounting a pro se defense. I am an engineer (history was my minor) and an ardent constitutionalist . I realize I am 40 years out from the constitutional courses I took but I am a voracious reader and consider myself moderately well informed for a laymen on our rights as citizens and last I checked no one had obviated the Bill of Rights. With the benefit of your expertise would you please help me understand what I am apparently missing here? How on Earth can that video be released pursuant to a state law in the face of an unadjudicated constitutional challenge? I can't wrap my brain around a state law that supersedes a constitutional right, never mind a prosecutor shooting his case in the foot to that degree. Not to mention the potential of recklessly tainting a jury pool. What the hell am I missing here?

Well first, you’ll note that the video is NOT being released, at least for now, and I would predict not until the judge rules on the constitutional issue. Without doing a bunch of research on Florida law, however, I can’t say much more. Florida obviously has some pretty liberal “right to know” or “sunshine laws.” Why don’t you google those and then google cases that cite them and you can get a pretty good idea of what’s discoverable in FL by nosy folks. I have a hard time believing that tape will ever see the light of day if it’s ruled inadmissible but I am not a FL attorney nor a criminal attorney. By the same token Kraft has an uphill battle to suppress a tape that was obtained through a warrant, although there are certainly colorable arguments either that the cops exaggerated the circumstances to obtain the warrant, or “searched” in excess of what was allowed. Now the prosecutors appear to have done something underhanded- agreed in Kraft’s case not to release the tape until a ruling by the judge, then announced only days later that they “have to” release it in a related case. Not a good look for them; and now they have a complication that I wondered about earlier in this thread - what about folks who really were there just for a massage who are now on tape? That is a horrible invasion of their privacy. I’d be suing for damages too. And what do you do with those tapes? There is absolutely no justification for releasing those under any circumstances and if the cops were smart (which they are proving they are NOT) they would have immediately erased any tapes of folks who did not engage in criminal activity. That doesn’t get them off the hook for watching ordinary folks undress however.

Legally it’s actually a very interesting case.

 

[PatsDeb]

I'd be inclined to think either Childs or Havens (the other two billionaires caught up in this Keystone Cops circus) would be bringing equal legal heat if Kraft wasn't leading the charge or did you mean the media spotlight? If they didn't have Kraft to sink their teeth into the non sports press (particularly with the NY bias) would still be having a field day with Havens.

Maybe I am not up on current events or who’s who, but I don’t know those other guys, so I was talking about the cops trying to make a big name for themselves by putting Bob Kraft front & center. I agree others would fight (and I think actually are fighting but aren’t getting the same press) these issues if Kraft wasn’t doing so.

 

[Kontradiction]

I haven’t read the whole thing but isnt this their response to the request filed by the defense to ban its release?
The controlling issue here is that someone asked for a copy.
The state is compelled by sunshine laws to honor the request. They can’t choose whether they would like to or not, they need to follow the law. Their filing is their position on what the law they are bound to says.

Intent, motivation or what it does to kraft really is irrelevant. They can only follow the law.

Question: if the law says they are compelled to release what is requested would it really be ok if they make individual decisions in individual instances? (Aside from things like showing victims or minors in compromising positions)

You’re actually right on this one. I deal with the sunshine law day in and day out as I work for a city-owned municipality. My department is dealing with a project for the installation of cleaner energy (solar, natural gas instead of coal, etc) and we have to provide internal documents, e-mails (even if they’re irrelevant to the project itself), recorded phone conversations, and even instant messages through Skype on an almost weekly basis. Not just to sources like newspapers but also to private equity and energy companies and the like for benchmarking purposes. Kraft’s lawyers will fight this for as long as they can and they will stall it, but it’s more than likely coming out eventually. That’s how the sunshine law works. If he doesn’t like that, he shouldn’t have gotten a rub and tug in the State with the most broad public records laws in the entire country.

 

[IcyPatriot]

I was having a so-so day until this. Thank you. Hilarious.

Enough with trolling ....

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

You’re actually right on this one. I deal with the sunshine law day in and day out as I work for a city-owned municipality. My department is dealing with a project for the installation of cleaner energy (solar, natural gas instead of coal, etc) and we have to provide internal documents, e-mails (even if they’re irrelevant to the project itself), recorded phone conversations, and even instant messages through Skype on an almost weekly basis. Not just to sources like newspapers but also to private equity and energy companies and the like for benchmarking purposes. Kraft’s lawyers will fight this for as long as they can and they will stall it, but it’s more than likely coming out eventually. That’s how the sunshine law works. If he doesn’t like that, he shouldn’t have gotten a rub and tug in the State with the most broad public records laws in the entire country.

You’re talking about legitimate communications where the recordings you’re submitting are legal and pass the test, in that neither party has legal protections for privacy in these types of communications. What if the evidence here is inadmissible, if the investigation and warrant involved a gross overreach, and if the recording is found to be illegally obtained by the police department? The laws of public access here could conflict with laws that its illegal to videotape someone disrobed, without their knowledge, in a place where privacy is a reasonable expectation (hence a lawsuit is already in the works from another person who went to the parlor for legit reasons).

I think ultimately the tape will be released, but I also think that some similar case (if not this one), this will necessarily go to the SCOTUS. When one state’s laws are anomalous from the rest of the country, that becomes inevitable.

 

[Kontradiction]

You’re talking about legitimate communications where the recordings you’re submitting are legal and pass the test, in that neither party has legal protections for privacy in these types of communications. What if the evidence here is inadmissible, if the investigation and warrant involved a gross overreach, and if the recording is found to be illegally obtained by the police department? The laws of public access here could conflict with laws that its illegal to videotape someone disrobed, without their knowledge, in a place where privacy is a reasonable expectation (hence a lawsuit is already in the works from another person who went to the parlor for legit reasons).

I think ultimately the tape will be released, but I also think that some similar case (if not this one), this will necessarily go to the SCOTUS. When one state’s laws are anomalous from the rest of the country, that becomes inevitable.

It depends on whether or not the evidence was illegally obtained. The way that Kraft's lawyers are going after the state here (the tactics they're using are bordering on ad hominem) makes me think that it will be admissible and, hence, public record. They have an uphill battle in front of them.

 

[raduray]

If you’re talking about a state law in conflict with the US Constitution, it would need intervention from the US Supreme Court.

No. Any federal judge can overturn a state law on constitutional grounds. That decision can be appealed to Apellate and ultimately Supreme Courts, but absent that (which by the way takes $$ and time), the federal judge's ruling stands.

 

[Ring 6]

You’re talking about legitimate communications where the recordings you’re submitting are legal and pass the test, in that neither party has legal protections for privacy in these types of communications. What if the evidence here is inadmissible, if the investigation and warrant involved a gross overreach, and if the recording is found to be illegally obtained by the police department? The laws of public access here could conflict with laws that its illegal to videotape someone disrobed, without their knowledge, in a place where privacy is a reasonable expectation (hence a lawsuit is already in the works from another person who went to the parlor for legit reasons).

I think ultimately the tape will be released, but I also think that some similar case (if not this one), this will necessarily go to the SCOTUS. When one state’s laws are anomalous from the rest of the country, that becomes inevitable.

If it was illegally obtained that would except it from sunshine laws.
But under sunshine laws they are compelled to turn it over unless such exception exists.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

No. Any federal judge can overturn a state law on constitutional grounds. That decision can be appealed to Apellate and ultimately Supreme Courts, but absent that (which by the way takes $$ and time), the federal judge's ruling stands.

I don’t think this is accurate.

If this is a state charge, it will go through the state appellate process. So it will start with the lower courts of Florida, then (if granted) to the appeals court of Florida, and finally (if granted) to the Supreme Court of Florida. The state charge would only be turned over to a federal judge at the SCOTUS level, should that court select to hear it.

Federal judges otherwise would not rule on state laws. They’d rule on federal laws in cases where they have jurisdiction (interstate crimes, tax crimes, anti-trust, Rico, etc.)

In the context of this case, Kraft would need to go through the entire state of Florida appeals process (either a ruling against him by Florida Supreme Court or denial of appeal) before petitioning for the SCOTUS to step in based on constitutional rights being violated.

The only way a federal Judge could intervene here, absent the SCOTUS, is if Kraft’s legal team argued this case should have federal jurisdiction, but that seems like an impossible argument.

Am I correct in what I wrote, @PatsDeb ?

 

[venecol]

New member of Kraft's law dream team:

 

[PatsDeb]

I don’t think this is accurate.

If this is a state charge, it will go through the state appellate process. So it will start with the lower courts of Florida, then (if granted) to the appeals court of Florida, and finally (if granted) to the Supreme Court of Florida. The state charge would only be turned over to a federal judge at the SCOTUS level, should that court select to hear it.

Federal judges otherwise would not rule on state laws. They’d rule on federal laws in cases where they have jurisdiction (interstate crimes, tax crimes, anti-trust, Rico, etc.)

In the context of this case, Kraft would need to go through the entire state of Florida appeals process (either a ruling against him by Florida Supreme Court or denial of appeal) before petitioning for the SCOTUS to step in based on constitutional rights being violated.

The only way a federal Judge could intervene here, absent the SCOTUS, is if Kraft’s legal team argued this case should have federal jurisdiction, but that seems like an impossible argument.

Am I correct in what I wrote, @PatsDeb ?

You are correct sir. The only federal court that would hear this case would be the Supreme Court of the United States, and that would be only after it wound its way through the state courts first (up to the FL Supreme Court), and then only if the SCOTUS agreed to accept certiorari (i.e. agreed to hear the case, and sometimes they don't agree, particularly if there isn't enough of a federal question involved, i.e. whether the FL Sunshine Law is unconstitutional, for example).

The only way a federal district court judge (the lowest level of the federal court; the federal trial court if you will) could hear this case is if it was brought under federal law, which it has not been. The Robert Kraft case is a Florida state law misdemeanor charge involving (as far as I know) a Florida "Sunshine Law" (or what we up north call a "Right to Know" law) with regard to the release of the tape. A federal district court would say it had no jurisdiction to hear this case. (The federal district court CAN hear controversies under state law involving damages of more than $75,000.00 between two citizens of different states, but again, that is not what we have here.)

 

[PatsDeb]

so...uh..."human trafficking!!!"...I'm failing to find this complete hysteria that was earlier posted hundreds of times and obstinately clung to as 100% verifiably true. Don't see it. Where's the "human trafficking" charges? If there are none the person who persistently clung to this canard should apologize to every member of this board.

I know Joker is yelling a a particular person here, but he brings up perhaps only the slightest thread of federal law to come into the Kraft case, and that is this: apparently the cops were able to get their sneak and peek warrant under expanded police rights under the Patriot Act, which go to combating terrorism, including human trafficking. I haven't seen anyone make an argument that gets them to federal jurisdiction though; in fact, I believe Kraft's lawyers (and others representing Johns) are arguing the opposite - that there was no human trafficking and the police knew it, so they should not have been allowed to use these expanded police powers under the Patriot Act to obtain a very invasive warrant for a run-of-the-mill prostitution sting. That could be something that gets you to the SCOTUS, but by that time theoretically Kraft would have lost, the tape would be out, and he'd probably not bother with the expense, wanting the whole sordid episode to be buried, deep, as quickly as possible.

As I said, it's a very interesting case legally. Lots of angles. It could be why the police came out on day one with the human trafficking spin. They knew from the start that their warrant was on the edge, and needed to plant a seed in peoples' minds (we were looking for human trafficking but in the end didn't find any, but we still got this evidence of other crimes! Let us keep it!).

 

[venecol]

Robert Kraft Naked Spa Video Being Shopped Around

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Robert Kraft naked spa video reportedly being shopped

View attachment 23166
View attachment 23167

Say goodbye to the 2019 Jupiter Police Department.

 

[IcyPatriot]

 

[IcyPatriot]

Robert Kraft Naked Spa Video Being Shopped Around

 

[robbomango]

The Blast is giving supposed details of the videos content yet the JPD is denying shopping the vid around. If their descriptions are accurate can the JPD get in trouble? I hope so, this has gotten pretty ugly, all to see an old man naked with an old prostitute. Disturbing...

"Jupiter police spokesman O'Neil Anderson told The Associated Press that he doubts the authenticity of the reports. He said his department has taken every precaution to secure the evidence, and he doesn't believe anyone in the police department or State Attorney's Office would leak the video

Anderson also pointed out that no websites or news organizations have actually shown a video."

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

The Blast is giving supposed details of the videos content yet the JPD is denying shopping the vid around. If their descriptions are accurate can the JPD get in trouble? I hope so, this has gotten pretty ugly, all to see an old man naked with an old prostitute. Disturbing...

"Jupiter police spokesman O'Neil Anderson told The Associated Press that he doubts the authenticity of the reports. He said his department has taken every precaution to secure the evidence, and he doesn't believe anyone in the police department or State Attorney's Office would leak the video

Anderson also pointed out that no websites or news organizations have actually shown a video."

They're so full of sht. This may be a false report aimed at sending a message to Kraft that they still control the video's ultimate fate regardless of the justice system, as it could get leaked "by someone unknown."

 

[robbomango]

They're so full of sht. This may be a false report aimed at sending a message to Kraft that they still control the video's ultimate fate regardless of the justice system, as it could get leaked "by someone unknown."

Hopefully they are pissing off the Judge with more BS.