Bob Kraft Charged, Soliciting Prostitution, Jupiter FL

scoflaw said:
Both of these links are fake news.. His lawyers are attempting to suppress the video
Click to expand...
scoflaw said:
Both of these links are fake news.. His lawyers are attempting to suppress the video
Click to expand...

You are flat out saying the Sheriff never said the quote?

The local news did not check and accurately report what was on the application vs what was on the judges order.

I have followed Mike Florio for many years and he is many things but fake news is not one of them.

Please cite the links you found this to be incorrectly reported.

MM
 
The recording part is being debated, whether it was included or not. The recording part of the deal was still being contested even in the link you posted. I would believe a national news station over who ever this guy is doing the reporting. Reread your link...no slam dunk there for tossing the video

I stand by my statement. His lawyers filled to get the video tossed. Attempting
 
scoflaw said:
Both of these links are fake news.. His lawyers are attempting to suppress the video
Click to expand...


I believe what Mike is saying .......and the Kraft brief accurately reflects, is that the links are not "fake" news. They are indeed the arguments the defense is making to suppress the video. I think they have a 50/50 chance to suppress the videos for significant overreach. A "sneak and peek" warrant arguably does not allow the cops to video legal and illegal activity continuously.

Insofar as your second sentence....I believe that is the entire ballgame for Kraft.
 
MonacoMike said:
And it all starts to fall apart...

Sherriff admits insufficient proof of trafficking.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...-florida-case/

Court order did not allow recording.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...deo-recording/

He will beat this...
Click to expand...

scoflaw said:
Both of these links are fake news.. His lawyers are attempting to suppress the video
Click to expand...
MonacoMike said:
You are flat out saying the Sheriff never said the quote?

The local news did not check and accurately report what was on the application vs what was on the judges order.

I have followed Mike Florio for many years and he is many things but fake news is not one of them.

Please cite the links you found this to be incorrectly reported.

MM
Click to expand...
scoflaw said:
The recording part is being debated, whether it was included or not. The recording part of the deal was still being contested even in the link you posted. I would believe a national news station over who ever this guy is doing the reporting. Reread your link...no slam dunk there for tossing the video

I stand by my statement. His lawyers filled to get the video tossed. Attempting
Click to expand...

Are you reading my posts? The responses do not match up?

You called the links I reported "fake news". How so, no opinion please. The reports are facts that the Sheriff said and from filings and orders. Unless you know them to be false reports they stand.

The link says the cops overreached because they asked for video and recording and were only given video.

Did you not read my post that said: "He will beat this..."?

MM
 
Jussie was in tight with Obama's (if I had a son)
Michelle Obama's chief of staff is best friends with prosecutor
Soros gave $400k to prosecutors campaign
Who cares about fake news ...it doesn't matter it's been fixed from the beginning.
 
MonacoMike said:
Actually even if admitted the prosecutors still have to prove solicitation, not just a sex act occurred. So while embarrassing, not a losing issue.

MM
Click to expand...
So do you read the news ?
Kraft walks in 2 days in a row, pays the desk clerk money at a known prostitution establishment, gets videoed in a sex act …. C'mon man.

Agree that your links are not fake news because they don't come to a conclusion about the video being allowed or not, which was your original point saying the vids were being tossed which clearly is not truth.
 
scoflaw said:
So do you read the news ?
Kraft walks in 2 days in a row, pays the desk clerk money at a known prostitution establishment, gets videoed in a sex act …. C'mon man.

Agree that your links are not fake news because they don't come to a conclusion about the video being allowed or not, which was your original point saying the vids were being tossed which clearly is not truth.
Click to expand...

Never said the videos were being tossed. I said the "Court order did not allow recording."

An individual can patronize a "known prostitution establishment" and pay for legal services all they want without breaking the law. The prosecutors must prove solicitation.

"Kraft’s lawyers could attack various technical flaws in the investigation, and they could pursue the more fundamental argument that there is no proof that solicitation as defined under Florida law occurred during Kraft’s interactions with a pair of Florida residents who worked at a day spa in Palm Beach County."

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/03/20/kraft-will-not-accept-prosecutions-offer/

MM
 
You can't patronize a known prostitution establishment and pay money for their services in a state that prostitution is illegal in without consequences. If you don't think that's solicitation we'll see what the judge has to say
 
scoflaw said:
You can't patronize a known prostitution establishment and pay money for their services in a state that prostitution is illegal in without consequences. If you don't think that's solicitation we'll see what the judge has to say
Click to expand...

That is not "solicitation as defined by law, that is the standard for the court of public opinion.

To convict Kraft they must have the following, "Under Florida Statute 796.07(2)(f), the crime of Solicitation of Prostitution is committed when a person solicits, induces, entices, or procures another person to engage in prostitution, lewdness, or assignation."

That a guy can walk in and pay for a massage he likely received and a get a "happy ending" on video is not a slam dunk conviction for a normal guy, much less against a billionaire. The cops inability to even get an indictment on the trafficking is an indication they are not up to the task they started, and now they are being show inept by recording when the court order did not allow that if the reporting is correct.

Kraft is trying to suppress the video because he does not want it in public, he will likely beat the charges. They must have the transaction to convict, not the sex act...

MM
 
MonacoMike said:
That is not "solicitation as defined by law, that is the standard for the court of public opinion.

To convict Kraft they must have the following, "Under Florida Statute 796.07(2)(f), the crime of Solicitation of Prostitution is committed when a person solicits, induces, entices, or procures another person to engage in prostitution, lewdness, or assignation."

That a guy can walk in and pay for a massage he likely received and a get a "happy ending" on video is not a slam dunk conviction for a normal guy, much less against a billionaire. The cops inability to even get an indictment on the trafficking is an indication they are not up to the task they started, and now they are being show inept by recording when the court order did not allow that if the reporting is correct.

Kraft is trying to suppress the video because he does not want it in public, he will likely beat the charges. They must have the transaction to convict, not the sex act...

MM
Click to expand...
MonacoMike said:
Kraft is trying to suppress the video because he does not want it in public, he will likely beat the charges. They must have the transaction to convict, not the sex act...MM
Click to expand...
If by transaction you mean payment, I don't think so. I see more than one approach in the FL regs. When he beats this it'll only be because of who he his.

The defense will have none when the police share that the surveillance team was watching it all live anyway.:p

796.07 Prohibiting prostitution and related acts.—
(1) As used in this section:
(a) “Prostitution” means the giving or receiving of the body for sexual activity for hire but excludes sexual activity between spouses.
(b) “Lewdness” means any indecent or obscene act.
(c) “Assignation” means the making of any appointment or engagement for prostitution or lewdness, or any act in furtherance of such appointment or engagement.
(d) “Sexual activity” means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another; anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; or the handling or fondling of the sexual organ of another for the purpose of masturbation; however, the term does not include acts done for bona fide medical purposes.
(2) It is unlawful:
(a) To own, establish, maintain, or operate any place, structure, building, or conveyance for the purpose of lewdness, assignation, or prostitution.
(b) To offer, or to offer or agree to secure, another for the purpose of prostitution or for any other lewd or indecent act.
(c) To receive, or to offer or agree to receive, any person into any place, structure, building, or conveyance for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness, or assignation, or to permit any person to remain there for such purpose.
(d) To direct, take, or transport, or to offer or agree to direct, take, or transport, any person to any place, structure, or building, or to any other person, with knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that the purpose of such directing, taking, or transporting is prostitution, lewdness, or assignation.
(e) For a person 18 years of age or older to offer to commit, or to commit, or to engage in, prostitution, lewdness, or assignation.
(f) To solicit, induce, entice, or procure another to commit prostitution, lewdness, or assignation.
(g) To reside in, enter, or remain in, any place, structure, or building, or to enter or remain in any conveyance, for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness, or assignation.
(h) To aid, abet, or participate in any of the acts or things enumerated in this subsection.
(i) To purchase the services of any person engaged in prostitution.
 
I am amazed at two things:

1) That this thread got created on this site

2) That it still has people posting to it about the subject matter
 
ZZ13 said:
I am amazed at two things:

1) That this thread got created on this site

2) That it still has people posting to it about the subject matter
Click to expand...

Bill, It is about the 70 year old billionaire owner of the most successful NFL franchise in very embarrassing circumstances that is being reported on in media around the world. I like law and football, add a sex angle and it is quite interesting.

MM
 
Woody said:
If by transaction you mean payment, I don't think so. I see more than one approach in the FL regs. When he beats this it'll only be because of who he his.

The defense will have none when the police share that the surveillance team was watching it all live anyway.:p

796.07 Prohibiting prostitution and related acts.—
(1) As used in this section:
(a) “Prostitution” means the giving or receiving of the body for sexual activity for hire but excludes sexual activity between spouses.
(b) “Lewdness” means any indecent or obscene act.
(c) “Assignation” means the making of any appointment or engagement for prostitution or lewdness, or any act in furtherance of such appointment or engagement.
(d) “Sexual activity” means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another; anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; or the handling or fondling of the sexual organ of another for the purpose of masturbation; however, the term does not include acts done for bona fide medical purposes.
(2) It is unlawful:
(a) To own, establish, maintain, or operate any place, structure, building, or conveyance for the purpose of lewdness, assignation, or prostitution.
(b) To offer, or to offer or agree to secure, another for the purpose of prostitution or for any other lewd or indecent act.
(c) To receive, or to offer or agree to receive, any person into any place, structure, building, or conveyance for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness, or assignation, or to permit any person to remain there for such purpose.
(d) To direct, take, or transport, or to offer or agree to direct, take, or transport, any person to any place, structure, or building, or to any other person, with knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that the purpose of such directing, taking, or transporting is prostitution, lewdness, or assignation.
(e) For a person 18 years of age or older to offer to commit, or to commit, or to engage in, prostitution, lewdness, or assignation.
(f) To solicit, induce, entice, or procure another to commit prostitution, lewdness, or assignation.
(g) To reside in, enter, or remain in, any place, structure, or building, or to enter or remain in any conveyance, for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness, or assignation.
(h) To aid, abet, or participate in any of the acts or things enumerated in this subsection.
(i) To purchase the services of any person engaged in prostitution.
Click to expand...

He was charged with solicitation, therefore they have to have evidence of that solicitation, which my understanding is, offer and acceptance. He was not charged with the other possibilities in the list.

MM
 
MonacoMike said:
He was charged with solicitation, therefore they have to have evidence of that solicitation, which my understanding is, offer and acceptance. He was not charged with the other possibilities in the list.

MM
Click to expand...
It'll be interesting to see how it goes. I don't know how the actual charge is phrased but I'd think if charged with 'solicitation' they'd have considered the components. Even if he claimed ignorance the first time,'I didn't know that's what they were going to do'. His second trip is telling, he already knows what goes on there, he knows there's a co$t, he knows the activity is illegal, he does it.... acceptance?

Maybe they'll claim the video isn't admissible at all or that it isn't him anyway but then a week ago why put out a statement apologizing for his conduct.

It does seem harsh the guys life could be so affected by a $100 HJ but he was stupid for doing it.
 
Woody said:
It'll be interesting to see how it goes. I don't know how the actual charge is phrased but I'd think if charged with 'solicitation' they'd have considered the components. Even if he claimed ignorance the first time,'I didn't know that's what they were going to do'. His second trip is telling, he already knows what goes on there, he knows there's a co$t, he knows the activity is illegal, he does it.... acceptance?

Maybe they'll claim the video isn't admissible at all or that it isn't him anyway but then a week ago why put out a statement apologizing for his conduct.

It does seem harsh the guys life could be so affected by a $100 HJ but he was stupid for doing it.
Click to expand...

I too think the outcome will be fascinating. Just devils advocate here, the billionaire is a big tippper, the appreciative masseuse provides extra because of previous tips, no crime here as I see it.

MM
 
MonacoMike said:
I too think the outcome will be fascinating. Just devils advocate here, the billionaire is a big tippper, the appreciative masseuse provides extra because of previous tips, no crime here as I see it.

MM
Click to expand...
I've read the surveillance notes, there was no massage, just a few minutes of lewd activity....I wouldn't call it an 'extra'.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,170
Messages
1,427,758
Members
61,080
Latest member
Jfeg
Back
Top