Judge grants motion to suppress video evidence in Robert Kraft spa case

*I guess they'll have to do so legally. We don't live in a police state flag. The police do not have the inalienable right to catch someone in any crime whatsoever. Their rights to investigate are balanced against our various constitutional rights, including unreasonable search and seizure (which was the issue here) and our right not to self-incriminate, among other protections.

I agree with rickdugan. The cops need to do their job LEGALLY by following the constitution.

They didn't force him to commit those vile acts. He did it under his own free will. Why is it illegal to capture video surveillance when you have a subpoena?

It's different justice for the rich and influential.

Kraft's $$$$$$$ can get him the best "justice" out there.

There is no expectation of privacy in such surveillance recordings when a crime is expected. The Patriot Act expanded law enforcement rights when it comes to covert operations and surveillance.

Furthermore, illicit activity was recorded....

This is a shame. I was really hoping to see what kind of deflated balls the Patriots are working with these days.

I think that they got it coz of Kraft's money and so the media wouldn't be able to get hold of the videos easily.

The only thing that money had to do with it is that someone finally had the resources to challenge what was clearly unconstitutional behavior. That court judge is elected and you can be sure that he had no interest in making that ruling, but the certain knowledge that Kraft would appeal an adverse ruling, which would bring higher court scrutiny on the ruling, kept him honest.

This was a huge win for all of us.

It isn't unconstitutional behavior. Its perfectly legal and even more is legal, thanks to the Patriot Act. Kraft's money and fear of the further publicity the case would receive if the tapes were released to the media, is what did it.

Neutering a police force is not a huge win for any civilized society. Look what's happening in San Francisco.

Can the cops still watch the footage from the break room while on the Loser Leaf?

Money talks and bullshit walks. Kraft has money did you think for one second it would be any different?

He owns the franchise that cheats the system and the game more than any other team in history.... did anybody really think this would be any different. It is not about did he or did he not break the law... nobody is interested in the TRUTH only what can be proven. I don't agree with the laws he broke but he did break the law

I don't keep up with the case much but its making a mockery of justice. One of the women actually admitted to being trafficked....said she was told she'd be working at a nail salon but ended up being forced into prostitution. That was thrown out too.

The only surprising thing is that Kraft was ever arrested in the first place. Billionaires aren't subject to laws that affect ordinary Americans.

Too bad the dumb fuck already cried about how sorry he is.

I thought that the cops’ request for cameras had not been properly prepared in that they told the judge who issued the warrant allowing the cameras, that there was evidence of someone living there and that this was an indication that trafficking was taking place. So the cameras were put in place without legal justification, so therefore anything observed was inadmissible.
I still can’t understand why he went to what looked like a sleazy AMP for a couple of blowjobs. I suppose in the rarified air of his social circle young chicks for a guy in his 80’s is verboten.

Was there any evidence of trafficking, ever? From what I've read, the women were NOT being coerced (although this line of work may have been their most lucrative means of making a living-- but that is not coercion). If they were being trafficked, why did it take the police a full 8 months to collect surveillance footage but they never saved any women from trafficking during that 8 month investigation and never made any arrests for trafficking?

It looks like a case of sex between consenting adults, even if it involved the exchange of money. Of course nearly every consenting sexual contact involves the exchange of value for both parties-- hopefully both enjoy the sex, sometimes one party also gets indirect economic and emotional benefits (a place to live, an expensive meal, an allowance, promises of undying love). In other words, even in a fully consenting relationships, lots of valuables are exchanged, even when it is not a straight forward pay for play arrangement.

I'm perfectly happy that the police tactics are being reviewed and limited. What a waste of taxpayer money! I'd like to protect individual rights from police state abuse, including the right for consenting adults to have sex, even if money (or other valuables) is exchanged in the process.

If there is suspicion of a crime and an ongoing investigation, they cab bypass getting a warrant and everything. Plus the Patriot Act makes surveillance rules very lax.... basically your 4th amendment rights are screwed if a crime is suspected.

There was evidence of human trafficking.......women living in the club and one came forward saying she was promised a job at a nail shop and then forced to work as a prostitute.

Prostitution isn't about sex. Its legally about unlawful employment.

Those of you who view this as some sort of victory are misguided. Trust me, you wouldn't be afforded the same "rights" and "protections" if you were in Kraft's shoes.

Icey:

If the evidence of trafficking was so strong, why did it take 8 months of surveillance focused on the Johns rather than on the people who were allegedly coercing workers? Why were none of the alleged victims rescued during the 8 months investigation. Why did this investigation not yield a single trafficking arrest?

Human trafficking is wrong, but the focus should be on holding those who are the traffickers (via physical, economic threats) accountable for their crimes and rescuing the victims. The focus should not be on the often unwitting customers who happen to do business at a place where an employee is trafficked. As an example, sometimes restaurant employees are trafficked. Are you going to arrest unsuspecting customers who eat at the restaurant? Will customers need to interview all of the employees before eating at a restaurant to insure that none of them are trafficked. My point is that trafficking is vile and those responsible should be held accountable---- but the focus on the often unsuspecting customers, is wrong and probably a violation of their civil rights. That's why I support this decision and think that law enforcement seriously over reached.

^ "As an example, sometimes restaurant employees are trafficked. Are you going to arrest unsuspecting customers who eat at the restaurant? "

What kind of strawman argument is that. Those customers aren't doing anything illegal.

^ I don’t care for that analogy, and IDGAF what happens in the Robert Kraft soap opera, but the truth is the customers at the whorehouse probably didn’t give a shit whether these women were trafficked or not.

I'm looking more big picture. Most of the idiots on this site fall in on of 2 camps concerning this.

1. A monger got off. Woo hoo. The P4P laws are dumb and this is great news.
2. I'm going to try to be cool and claim to hate cops.

Fucking idiots.

Big picture. The guy was breaking a law and it can't be prosecuted because of some BS argument that wouldn't hold up if presented by a public defender. Imagine it being some serious law where the rich/celebs/democrats get off because of who they are.

Fagooner you are the only fucking idiot i am seeing. You aren't happy unless you are trying to piss someone off. It is not everyone elses fault you are not getting laid in the nursing home. So eat your fruit cups and shut up lol

@Cuntrytard
You just proved my point.

^ Damn skippy;)

Flagooner you can call me all the names you want but it don't change the fact you get off on trying to piss people off. Calling me a retard does not change the fact you are not happy unless you are trying to piss people off. That is your sole purpose in life lol

There was no evidence of trafficking in this case. Also, if the police really believed that trafficking was an issue, why did they only place cameras in the massage rooms and at the cash register? Why wouldn't they put cameras in the employee-only areas, where any suspected abuse or coercion by handlers would most likely take place?

The answer is that they weren't seriously worried about trafficking. This was all about catching guys and gals exchanging money for handies and blow jobs.

The only reason that Florida LE was able to get away with using invasive surveillance to catch nickel and dime consensual p4p sex for this long is because nobody had the will or the wherewithal to challenge this tactic. Indeed, there have been other lawyers who have wanted to challenge this before, but there clients all jumped on the diversion program offers. Where the Jupiter police fucked up here is by publicly celebrating catching Kraft, which took away any motivation he might have had to roll over quietly.

Once again, police do not have the inalienable right to catch someone in any crime whatsoever. Their investigative rights are balanced against our constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure. "Sneak and peek" warrants are extremely invasive and were never intended to be used for nickel and dime crap like this. If we let this stand, then what's next? Ongoing hotel room surveillance? Enhanced surveillance of homes, especially as imaging and camera technology continue to improve? If the police don't have limits, then eventually we will live in a police state. We should all be celebrating this as a win for our basic freedoms.

We know it exists and it should be shown in court but I don't really need to see an old ass man get jerked off.

@Electronman Investigations like this have several facets to them... ie human trafficking, solicitation, tax evasion, profiting from illicit activities, operating a house of prostitution, the act of prostitution, engaging in prostitution, illegal labor, racketeering, pimping, labor trafficking etc... the charges get tacked on one by one. DAs want as many as possible so that the most severe ones stick.

@Rickdugan There was evidence, foreign women in the country illegally living in the brothel, forced to work 7 days a week, etc and one woman came forward and admitted she was offered a job at a nail salon and found herself forced into prostitution. The police acted in full accordance with the law. A "sneak and peak" warrant allows for the police to engage in covert actions without having to go through the process of getting a warrant beforehand. The Patriot Act expands these rights. Its not about civil rights, its only valid when there is suspicion of a crime. I'm not sure where your head is at if you believe that running an illegal brothel and employing illegal alien hookers you lock up in said brothel, isn't a crime.

@JamesSD The media can still get it but it'll be harder to get. I hope it does get out there .....

Icey, where in the world did you come up with these notions that they were "forced" to work 7 days a week and were "locked up" in the brothel? If those were true, I'm sure that their would have been trafficking charges. The Jupiter police found no evidence of any such thing, nor were they seriously worried about it given where they placed the cameras. By all reports, the girls who chose to stay there did so willingly (likely to save money) and were provided with real beds and dressers to store their clothes in.

This is 100% about civil rights, including where the line is drawn on how far the police can go to catch things like misdemeanor sex acts.

Its info in almost every article on the case...... This case is a joke. Kraft can basically afford the best "justice" money can buy.

It isn't about civil rights. Engaging in nor soliciting illegal labor are civil rights.

===> "Its info in almost every article on the case...... This case is a joke. Kraft can basically afford the best "justice" money can buy."

Post one article that indicates that there was evidence found that the girls were forced to work or being held against their will.

Icey, you clearly knows more about the case than the Jupiter police and prosecutors do. Do you work in the same shopping plaza? Maybe you should testify. You could be the savior of a very embarrassed prosecution that has already admitted - in court - that they found no evidence of trafficking. ;)

The illegal brothel confiscated their passports....had them having sex with men and living in the brothel to pay their debt for being brought into the country illegally. But you can pretend its all consensual.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/23/us/ro…

Inspector in Kraft case says she saw evidence of trafficking
https://www.apnews.com/2cc030fb01f7484ab…

Another prize winner from the NYT which ranks up there with their publication of Steele dossier allegations as factual. Most of the crap that the Sheriff claimed in the article ended up being disproved, but the NYT is not known for letting facts get in the way of a good story. ;)

The inspector based her claim upon seeing toiletries and food stuff, which were indicators that girls were living there. Nobody disputes that, just her conclusion, which has since been proven false. The prosecutors have said - point blank - that they ultimately found "no evidence" of trafficking.

But again Icey, if you saw something that they missed in thousands of hours of investigation and over a hundred hours of video surveillance, you should rush on over to testify. They could really use you right now. ;)

Like I said earlier I don’t have a dog in ‘‘tis fight but does anyone really believe this would even be still going on if there wasn’t a ROBERT Kraft involved, this would have been disposed of long ago.

Rickdugan, you're free to believe whatever you want.

Facts are though

Its an illegal massage parlor operating as an illegal brothel
Women had their passports confiscated and were living there
They were prostituting themselves to pay off debts to human traffickers who helped them enter the country illegally.


The charges against Kraft aren't "engaging in prostitution" they're solicitation charges. So the dismissed evidence isn't necessarily needed to prove a case against him.

Rickdugan, you're free to believe whatever you want.

Facts are though

Its an illegal massage parlor operating as an illegal brothel
Women had their passports confiscated and were living there
They were prostituting themselves to pay off debts to human traffickers who helped them enter the country illegally.


The charges against Kraft aren't "engaging in prostitution" they're solicitation charges. So the dismissed evidence isn't necessarily needed to prove a case against him.

Icey: As rickdugan points out, the second article that you posted says "Prosecutors have said they ultimately found no evidence of trafficking at the spa."

As a reminder, law enforcement can charge anyone with any crime (and unfortunately, splash the arrests all over the media, thus ruining the reputation of some people who might be found to be innocent), but you need evidence to get a conviction. Where is the evidence and the conviction in this case?

Flag and 25-- the restaurant example is called reasoning by analogy, sometimes called casuistry. The point is how does the restaurant example (a clear example!) differ from the spa example. How would a customer know if an employee was being trafficked, either at a sleazy spa, a legitimate massage business or even at a restaurant. Also recall, that not everyone working at a spa (even sleazy spas) is trafficked and not every customer seeks out pay for play services at a spa (yep, some provide legitimate massage services).

The focus should be on those who engage in trafficking and law enforcement should be very cautious about violating civil rights.

===> "Women had their passports confiscated and were living there. They were prostituting themselves to pay off debts to human traffickers who helped them enter the country illegally."

Says who? Certainly not the prosecutors.

Wow Flag and 25, who piossed in tyour cheerios. I said a long time ago that this evidence, which was ilegally obtained would be thrown out. All the other Defendants filed similar motions and the ruling has zero to do with who Kraft is. The cops lied in their affidavit in support of the warrant request. End of story. The Judge's ruling is for the benefit of society; just like Miranda rights. The police in this case were out of control and a lot of them, including the chief, need to be fired. Anothere thing I don't get is why people are surprised Kraft went there. Hows this dfor a concept? He likes what he likes. When wife and I were poor we liked to go hiking and eat peanut butter sandwiches. Now we're the other end of the spectrum from poor and on Saturday we went hiking and ate peanut butter sandwiches cuz we like what we like. I will admit I dgaf about trafficking victims, simply because I hate progressives and thats one of their justifications for interfering in people's privacy.

===> "Like I said earlier I don’t have a dog in ‘‘tis fight but does anyone really believe this would even be still going on if there wasn’t a ROBERT Kraft involved, this would have been disposed of long ago."

Agree 100% 25. Most people would have caved in to the police overreach and prosecutorial abuse and threats a long time ago, simply for fear of additional publicity and lack of ability to finance a defense that they could avoid through diversion. Indeed, the antics pulled by the prosecution in this case are chilling, including publicly threatening to release the video in order to pressure Kraft to settle and even going after his lawyers when it looked like they were going to win.

So let's be thankful that Kraft was netted and has the means and will to fight these abuses. I'll bet that the 14 other guys who have latched on to his coat tails are very grateful right now, as no doubt are the women who have been jailed and had their bank accounts seized. In fact, we should all be grateful as this has far reaching consequences for all of us.

Electronman , The club is going down regardless...for racketeering and money laundering. There is evidence for solicitation against the tricks. The video apparently shows Kraft getting a blowjob and giving a hooker $100.

"Kraft “laid face up on the massage table” and was hugged again by the woman. She then “manipulated Kraft’s penis and testicles and then put her head down by his penis” for a period of several minutes. The woman then used a towel to wipe Kraft in the area of his genitals. Thereafter she helped Kraft dress and hugged him once again. Kraft then paid her a $100 bill, and another bill, and left the room at 11:13 am. Kraft then walked to the parking lot and entered the passenger side of a blue Bentley waiting for him.

This narrative also asserts that Kraft had entered the spa a day earlier and “was positively identified by a Massachusetts driver’s license.”"

https://www.si.com/nfl/2019/02/25/robert…


Rickdugan , actually they did say that.....so did the women who testified. The argument against human trafficking was basically "well they didn't try to escape when they could have tried"...Prosecution didn't want to use some of the victims/witnesses after they admitted to not trying to escape.... The case is a farce in every way. Its simply about Kraft and his money's influence.

^ Why am I conflated with what flag said all I did was pose the simple question does anyone think that this wouldn’t have been disposed of long ago if Robert Kraft wasn’t one of the defendants simple question I don’t care either way I’ve never visited a MP and have no interest in ever doing so.

Skibum, You're saying that contracting illegal labor is legal....and that a money laundering/racketeering scheme is a legit business. And you know damn well that solicitation is about enticing someone to engage in illicit activities...not about consensual sex.

===> "Rickdugan , actually they did say that.....so did the women who testified."

Nobody testified about anything - there hasn't even been a trial yet, just pre-trial motions.

In one of the pre-trial hearings, Assistant State Attorney for Palm Beach County Greg Kidos said, point blank: "“We’ve vetted this case, we’ve done our due diligence, there is no human trafficking that arises out of this investigation.”

This case is about someone finally standing up to police and prosecutor malfeasance when they pursue prostitution arrests under the dubious guise of trafficking.

The chilling part is what happened when police and the prosecutors became the ones under pressure, which I'm sure is uncommon for them. They are used to quickly scaring people into submission. First the Sheriff in charge of the investigation started spinning melodramatic and utterly bogus stories about these girls for any media outlet that would listen. Then, when that didn't work to bring Kraft to heel, the police and prosecutors threatened to release the video well in advance of a trial, still hoping no doubt to force Kraft to the bargaining table. Then, when Kraft fought that and that threat was taken away from them by court order, prosecutors made a last minute desperation play by formally asking the court to hold defense lawyers in contempt of court for a question that they were asking the lead detective.

Their arrogance and "the ends justify the means" approach to prosecuting Kraft cannot be overstated. No wonder nobody challenged them before - who would dare?
Who could go against this machine if he didn't have an unlimited budget and an all star legal team?

RickDugan, They dropped that route based on the victims stating they didn't try to escape. That doesn't mean it wasn't trafficking. Its common to drop some shit and focus on more air tight shit n shit. Its also irrelevant to the solicitation charges against Kraft.

I think the prosecutors aren't being tough enough. They should be like pitbulls going for the jugular. That's how cases are won....on behalf of the people.

This is not just about "someone finally standing up to police and prosecutor malfeasance when they pursue prostitution arrests under the dubious guise of trafficking."

There is a bigger picture.

The video was thrown out because the "Jupiter police detectives and the judge who issued the search warrant allowing the secret installation of cameras at the spa did not do enough to minimize the invasion of privacy of customers who only received legal massages."

That's bullshit. Customers who only received legal massages probably don't care. Also, would it have been an invasion of their privacy if it was a regular security camera that got the footage?

Now get outside your narrow "my whole world revolves around sex work" mentality. If this was a dry cleaner with a meth lab in the back would you agree it should be inadmissable if legitimate customers were found on surveillance video entering the shop?

The innocent customers aren't being hassled or outed or anything of the sort.

@25:
"^ Why am I conflated with what flag said..."

Because you've been sending me PMs asking me to push certain arguments.

^ Okay, I made that up.

Yes there is a bigger picture flag and you're not the one looking at it.

[Copied and pasted from previous comment above] -- Once again, police do not have the inalienable right to catch someone in any crime whatsoever. Their investigative rights are balanced against our constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure. "Sneak and peek" warrants are extremely invasive and were never intended to be used for nickel and dime crap like this. If we let this stand, then what's next? Ongoing hotel room surveillance? Enhanced surveillance of homes, especially as imaging and camera technology continue to improve? If the police don't have limits, then eventually we will live in a police state. We should all be celebrating this as a win for our basic freedoms. [End of regurgitation]

And oh yeah, the innocent people definitely do care. I guess you haven't heard, but there is a class action lawsuit by a group of them to stop release of the tape:

https://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/20190…

Just because you oppose p4p does not mean that you should support any and all means of prosecuting it. We should all want our government to play within the rules, regardless of whether you are impacted or not.

*** "First they came..." ***

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The police do have the right to catch anyone committing a crime. When there is probably cause, your constitutional rights are suspended. Plus there's that Patriot Act shit n shit.

"Sneak and peek" warrants are perfectly legal ..... they basically just allow covert surveillance when probable cause exists.

The soliciting is the least of it. The racketeering, money laundering and profiting from prostitution charges against the club are very serious.

Good for Kraft. In such a sting, Jupiter PD would have access to Palm Beach County DA and its team of attorneys to ensure proper compliance with 4th Amendment, proper execution of the video surveillance under the warrants issued, and the subsequent traffic stops. Dumbass cops doing it wrong, it's their own fault.

You forfeit your 4th Amendment rights when there is probably cause duh

@Rick
"Just because you oppose p4p does not mean that you should support any and all means of prosecuting it. We should all want our government to play within the rules, regardless of whether you are impacted or not."

I'm not against P4P at all. If they are 2 consenting adults I wouldn't want to stand in their way of having fun at nobody else's expense. I think, as most on here do, that the laws on this are silly.

That being said, it is the law and we need to follow it or get it changed or pay the consequences if we don't follow it.

And yes, the cops need to follow the rules too. But this supposed breach of privacy is extremely subjective and complete BS. My argument is that overly restrictive regulations on the police prevent them from doing their jobs and too often allow dangerous offenders to skate. Granted, in ghis case there don't appear to be any dangerous offenders, but that's why I say big picture. Extrapolated to fit broader circumstances.

It is a balancing act, but I think the fulcrum is misaligned in such a way to benefit the criminals too much.

Also, if you don't think the power of the accused doesn't impact the rulings/verdicts you are naive.
Think OJ, Hillary, Robert Blake, ...

@25 provided the wording for us:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Can anyone explain how that was violated in this case?

@flag: "Can anyone explain how that was violated in this case?"

The judge apparently issued a 10-page ruling. I couldn't find full text online but this article publishes excerpts: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/0…

===> "My argument is that overly restrictive regulations on the police prevent them from doing their jobs and too often allow dangerous offenders to skate."

Then they skate. The alternative is to allow police to abuse their power at will, which is bad for all of us.

Look at this case. How many man hours did they invest in catching a handful of guys getting blowjobs, including CSI techs running DNA analysis on dirty towels from the garbage? How many innocent people did they record nude just to catch those who participated in consensual sex acts? They even faked a bomb scare just to put those cameras in.

What's next, S.W.A.T. teams to pull over speeders? Air support to catch pot smokers in the states that still prohibit it?

When sodomy laws were still in effect, should we have been conducting video surveillance of gay guys' homes so that we could catch them in the act of fucking each other in the ass? After all, if those two guys were kissing in public and then entering a bedroom together, we'd have ample probable cause, no? Oh wait, there's that pesky 4th Amendment to contend with...lol.

Not only does LE have rules to follow, which they very clearly broke in this instance (read the ruling), but beyond that there is a concept of proportionality of resource expenditure that, for some reason, just didn't hold in this case. Police have limited resources and, as a practical matter, having them divert so much of them to catching a handful of consenting adults exchanging money for sex is not something we should encourage.

^ "The judge apparently issued a 10-page ruling."

If you agreed with it I'm sure you could give a 2 sentence explanation.

Too many fucking libtards sitting on the bench.

^ "The alternative is to allow police to abuse their power at will, which is bad for all of us. "

C'mon Rick. You aren't so stupid to think that there are only extremes.

RickDugan. The club was an illegal brothel.... ie racketeering, money laundering and profiting from prostitution, You keep ignoring that major fact.

This isn't about sex.

The guys solicited and engaged in prostitution.

Your 4th Amendment rights are forfeited when there's probable cause.

It doesn't have to be all of them flag, just the one that pulls you over in the dead of night on a dark empty road. Power corrupts. Some people are naturally suited to self control, but others need to have firm rules in place to keep them from going too far. Heck, look at the Jupiter police, who went too far even when they had rules to prevent it, simply because they thought that they could get away with it.

===> "Your 4th Amendment rights are forfeited when there's probable cause."

You've said this twice and you were wrong both times. Just look at the judges ruling. We don't completely lose all of our 4th amendment rights, or any of our other rights, just because a warrant is issued. The "reasonable" part of "unreasonable search and seizure" still applies.

I'm not wrong. When there is probable cause, you forfeit said rights when a covert surveillance warrant is in place.

This case is a joke coz of Kraft's money.

I agree with there being rules that the police need to follow. In this case the cops didn't go too far. They got a warrant for crying out loud. Fucking libtard activist judges!!!

I don't think the judge is liberal...

Warning! The following profiles in this thread have been classified as troll profiles.

txtittyfag: Malicious/harassment troll profile.

IceyLoco: Undercover malicious/harassment troll profile.

48Cowboy: Comedic troll profile.

The affidavit in support of the warrant was a lie Flag. They also kept surveilling innocent people. The liberal cruds here are the cops and the judge approving the warrant.

they had probable cause....without it there would have never been an investigation nor charges

Was a lie?
Kept surveilling innocent people?

Where do you get that?

This thread is proof that the conservatives are liberal and the liberals are conservative fucking ideologues all over the map.

That makes no sense. By your account:

Conservatives are liberal for supporting a business' right to be unlicensed and engage in racketeering, money laundering and profiting off of illegal business.

Liberals are conservative fucking ideologues for claiming such businesses should be punished to the fullest extent of the law

^Makes pleyof sense for anyone who is paying attention

There are serious charges involved, what the massage parlor participated in is akin to actual piracy...A front business profiteering off of criminal ventures.

The solicitation charges against Kraft et al are secondary and the least of it

^Idk, cowboy. Why?

^Idk, cowboy. Why?

@cowboy so you could say that getting a blowjob is a public service;)

To me it just seems like if you can afford a high priced team of attorneys you can find loopholes that others can't.

It's all good when it's about a P4P rub and tug, but not so much when it comes to more serious crimes.

@ flagooner i agree oj perfect example this country is based on hypocrisy and greed. Money talks and bullshit walks

“ I love how the case went from uncovering a vast network of human traffickers -- modern day slavers -- to a hugely expensive and failed sting to rout out hand-jobs!

And gee...maybe these women didn't feel like cooperating because they sort of liked being in the United States instead of some third-world shithole.

And it sounds like somebody lied to the judge to get the warrant, because they admitted that there is no evidence of human trafficking!

The really sad part of this sordid mess is that without Kraft's involvement, which meant an unlimited defense fund, the cops would probably have gotten away with their lies and baldfaced unconstitutional behavior. If it takes a billionaire to get justice in America, something is broken.”

“To me it just seems like if you can afford a high priced team of attorneys you can find loopholes that others can't.”. Finding legal loopholes that others have missed is what’s called good lawyering. Good lawyers are expensive.

The sad part is that Kraft and the other customers got outed and humiliated in front of their family and friends.

Agreed that it's good lawyering. But by definition a loophole is a circumvention of the spirit of the law. I'm not saying that Kraft's lawyers didn't do a great job. I'm saying that it sucks that laws are written so poorly that these loopholes exist.