Billionare > Justice system. 4 Sex workers < Justice system. GG

[Krastyn]

bullshit.
He just had better lawyers and money to pump into something that the state did not want to spend the time or money on.
it was worth it for Kraft to invest that kind of money because of his reputation and investments that are/were dependent on not being convicted.

Are you upset because he actually had the money to mount a proper legal defense, and others didn't? Other than hire lawyers to make a legal argument that two other judges agreed with, what exactly does being a billionaire have to do with it?

[Egomaniac]

Everything seems minor now compared to Epstein's impossible suicide.

Da fuq does any of this have to do with Epstein?

Might as well have just said "Everything seems minor now compared to the inevitable Heat-Death of the Universe"

[Saltysquidoon]

Are you upset because he actually had the money to mount a proper legal defense, and others didn't? Other than hire lawyers to make a legal argument that two other judges agreed with, what exactly does being a billionaire have to do with it?

1. Having to pay for justice is injustice. Even the most greedy M&A corpo lawyer on earth will tell you access to justice grows ever more dire.
2. How did they charge the women if the tapes got thrown? Why could they not call the women to be used as witnesses? Seems like busting a billionaire john would send a better message of general deterrence than some random working girls, who elected not to pursue the case?

Looks like there are a lot of questions here where the answer seems to intersect with 'money'.

[Zan15]

Are you upset because he actually had the money to mount a proper legal defense, and others didn't? Other than hire lawyers to make a legal argument that two other judges agreed with, what exactly does being a billionaire have to do with it?

no he found lawyers, connections, favors and loopholes that people without money (sex workers) could never. Public defenders would never even try, they would push the defendants to take a plea

his proper legal defense was also bullshit. How on earth do you have a sting operation where you won't possibly tape innocent bystanders.

[Svifnymr]

Must be nice being a billionaire.
No idea how his case gets thrown out, but the sex workers get stuck taking plea deals and convictions.
Oh right, money.
Two classes.

I mean, that can't be a surprise, can it? Money buys lawyers...

On top of all this the NFL just ignores it.

On this, who cares? The NFL has real crimes to ignore, why would they care about some misdemeanor stuff?

Lei Wang, 41, and Shen Mingbi, 60, each pleaded guilty in Palm Beach County circuit court to one count of soliciting another to commit prostitution, records show. They were fined $5,000 each and ordered to complete 100 hours of community service.

If it's any consolation, his lawyers probably cost him a lot more than $5k to make sure that video wasn't public record/ evidence.

[PC2]

People should always get the best possible legal defense that they can afford so there's nothing wrong with this.

The law itself is the problem here and I guess they outlawed sex work in the past because they believed it was harmful or immoral or something.

[Crissi]

lol you seem to have missed the point, but others have pointed it out

- - - Updated - - -



bullshit.
He just had better lawyers and money to pump into something that the state did not want to spend the time or money on.
it was worth it for Kraft to invest that kind of money because of his reputation and investments that are/were dependent on not being convicted.


Court records show prosecutors dismissed Kraft's 2 misdemeanor charges of soliciting a prostitute ... with officials saying Thursday they didn't have enough evidence to get a conviction.

then how did they have enough evidence to charge the 4 with Prostitution and make it stick?


Judges in the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled cops screwed up in the way they went about recording inside the Jupiter, Fla. facility by failing to ensure privacy for people getting legitimate massages. So, the footage was not allowed in the case.


So because they taped legitimate customers....the people doing illegal stuff were ummm, violated of their rights??
So any tapes of criminal activities that include activities of legitimate customers is illegal? Wow that is a lot of cases that will be throw out in the future in florida.

Him having money for lawyers does not suddenly make the cops messup not a messup.

and yeah, thats how it works. You cant violate legitmite customers rights while trying to get a criminal.

You also conduct a sting by narrowly tailoring what you're getting.

[Egomaniac]

People should always get the best possible legal defense that they can afford so there's nothing wrong with this.

Fixed that for you

[PC2]

Fixed that for you

Not really because the best possible legal defense can cost millions of dollars and the idea that tax payers should bear that burden for every broke defendant is utter nonsense.

[Egomaniac]

Not really because the best possible legal defense can cost millions of dollars and the idea that tax payers should bear that burden for broke defendants is utter nonsense.

Money should not determine your access to justice...

[Spectral]

Money should not determine your access to justice...

I have no idea how you would expect this to work. There isn't an infinite supply of defense lawyers and they aren't all of equal quality. Is your suggestion that no one should be allowed to hire an attorney?

[Krastyn]

1. Having to pay for justice is injustice. Even the most greedy M&A corpo lawyer on earth will tell you access to justice grows ever more dire.
2. How did they charge the women if the tapes got thrown? Why could they not call the women to be used as witnesses? Seems like busting a billionaire john would send a better message of general deterrence than some random working girls, who elected not to pursue the case?

Looks like there are a lot of questions here where the answer seems to intersect with 'money'.

1. I agree, but that is a problem with the system, and not the individual in question.
2. Same way they charged Kraft, and the other 24 men. With what they had obtained up to that point. For the women, the prosecutor said they still had enough evidence without the videos to proceed. They could have easily sent someone in undercover to "inquire" about the services, and have that recorded on audio. The Florida state AG decided not to appeal the video verdict further, then the attorney (Dave Aronberg) who initially filed the charges withdrew them.

no he found lawyers, connections, favors and loopholes that people without money (sex workers) could never. Public defenders would never even try, they would push the defendants to take a plea

his proper legal defense was also bullshit. How on earth do you have a sting operation where you won't possibly tape innocent bystanders.

I'll take the opinion of both the main judge and the appeals judge over yours as to what is or is not legally bullshit. The police fucked up. Both judges said so.

The police set up four days of surveillance where they recorded and watched every single person who went there. While most of the people they filmed were receiving favors (hence the 25 people charged), they also said they filmed and watched people who just simply had a massage. That's what got it thrown out. They did nothing to try to ensure innocent people wouldn't be watched and filmed getting naked in a room where there was an expectation of privacy.

If the patrons paid cash, it becomes really hard to prove because all you have is the word of one person against another. Considering Kraft wasn't a person of interest at the time the cameras were put in, and the only reason he was stopped by police was because they watched him, everything from the stop as well is inadmissible.

This in no way absolves Kraft of what he did, but it shouldn't come as a surprise that charges were dropped against him, or any of the other men who hadn't taken a plea deal already. If the patrons paid with cash, all you would have for a case is the word of the worker.

[Egomaniac]

I have no idea how you would expect this to work. There isn't an infinite supply of defense lawyers and they aren't all of equal quality. Is your suggestion that no one should be allowed to hire an attorney?

I'm saying being found guilty or innocent should not depend on how much money you can spend.

[Spectral]

I'm saying being found guilty or innocent should not depend on how much money you can spend.

I don't know how you'd find a plausible path to that outcome. Having the resources for more defense attorneys is always going to result in greater ability to apply case law to the advantage of the defendant, to scrutinize the prosecution's case more thoroughly, and so on. The sort of buddy-buddy corruption that you sometimes see between attorneys and the system is obviously bad, but you're never going to have true equality here without some Harrison Bergeron solution.

[Egomaniac]

I don't know how you'd find a plausible path to that outcome. Having the resources for more defense attorneys is always going to result in greater ability to apply case law to the advantage of the defendant, to scrutinize the prosecution's case more thoroughly, and so on. The sort of buddy-buddy corruption that you sometimes see between attorneys and the system is obviously bad, but you're never going to have true equality here without some Harrison Bergeron solution.

I'm not saying there's a perfect solution...just that having more money shouldn't allow you to basically buy the verdict you want.

[Saltysquidoon]

I don't know how you'd find a plausible path to that outcome. Having the resources for more defense attorneys is always going to result in greater ability to apply case law to the advantage of the defendant, to scrutinize the prosecution's case more thoroughly, and so on. The sort of buddy-buddy corruption that you sometimes see between attorneys and the system is obviously bad, but you're never going to have true equality here without some Harrison Bergeron solution.

You could probably start by addressing the issue of the insane costs of legal fees. Assuming it was the guy's legal team the headed the hearing and appeal on the tapes there is no way he got out of this for less than $50k (probably more like 75+ knowing the heat these guys generally pack). I don't know about you but I don't just have that lying around to defend myself against what appears to be dogy evidence.

2. Same way they charged Kraft, and the other 24 men. With what they had obtained up to that point. For the women, the prosecutor said they still had enough evidence without the videos to proceed. They could have easily sent someone in undercover to "inquire" about the services, and have that recorded on audio. The Florida state AG decided not to appeal the video verdict further, then the attorney (Dave Aronberg) who initially filed the charges withdrew them.

If they had the working girls and police testimony they observed him at the house of ill repute (separate to the video) what would generally be enough to force a normal person to the plea table. In my younger days I've been involved in cases where people have been convicted on the basis of victim testimony and blurry police photos of red marks you could make by vigorously rubbing your arm or neck.
This is where it gets back to money, he's got the money to fight and bailout so the prosecutor has no leverage from sweating him in jail, he can pay the women not to talk, he can pay his legal team to just bog the case down for a million years so it's not worth it for the prosecutor to pursue a case that's not a slam dunk over 4 they can plead out. And that's before the elephant of financial or political impropriety which may or may not have happened in this case, but does happen with alarming regularity.

Money can impact far more facets of a case than just 'he get gud lawyer'.

[Krastyn]

If they had the working girls and police testimony they observed him at the house of ill repute (separate to the video) what would generally be enough to force a normal person to the plea table. In my younger days I've been involved in cases where people have been convicted on the basis of victim testimony and blurry police photos of red marks you could make by vigorously rubbing your arm or neck.

In those, cases, and this one, those would be bullshit convictions (or attempted pleas). By the logic you have laid out, the workers could have claimed "serviced" every person who walked in, you have police testimony that the person was in fact there, and now an innocent person needs to go to the plea table. The fact that not every client pays for the "service" makes it harder to get a conviction from testimony alone.

This is where it gets back to money, he's got the money to fight and bailout so the prosecutor has no leverage from sweating him in jail, he can pay the women not to talk, he can pay his legal team to just bog the case down for a million years so it's not worth it for the prosecutor to pursue a case that's not a slam dunk over 4 they can plead out. And that's before the elephant of financial or political impropriety which may or may not have happened in this case, but does happen with alarming regularity.

In this case specifically though, the "leverage" is bullshit. None of the 29 people should have needed high end lawyers to get the video thrown out. It's a problem of the system, not the problem of the person with money. The person with money is just lucky enough to save themselves from a broken system. Maybe the police should have actually done their jobs?

Money can impact far more facets of a case than just 'he get gud lawyer'.

Since I never claimed this, I'm just going to ignore this.

[Ursus]

In Robert Kraft's case, not only should the video have been thrown out, it should also have been burned, and its ashes sent in a rocket towards the Sun. Ain't nobody want to see some fat, 80-year-old guy getting his rocks off.

[Saltysquidoon]

In those, cases, and this one, those would be bullshit convictions (or attempted pleas). By the logic you have laid out, the workers could have claimed "serviced" every person who walked in, you have police testimony that the person was in fact there, and now an innocent person needs to go to the plea table. The fact that not every client pays for the "service" makes it harder to get a conviction from testimony alone.

Yes, they could lie, people lie all the time. In fact, I honestly believe that in the case I relayed in my previous post the victim was lying. However, since no one disputes Mr kraft engaged in the less than legitimate services offered (in that while maintaining a formal plea of innocence the article linked says he issued an apology, presumably after the charges were dropped) I'm not sure what lying has to do with anything.
My point was and remains what prosecutors need to squeeze a plea from a 'normal' person is far lower then what they need to lock in a conviction (rightly or wrongly) of a person of means. That's wrong.

In this case specifically though, the "leverage" is bullshit. None of the 29 people should have needed high end lawyers to get the video thrown out. It's a problem of the system, not the problem of the person with money. The person with money is just lucky enough to save themselves from a broken system. Maybe the police should have actually done their jobs?

Yes, the police should have done their jobs. But, you can get a good conviction off bad police work, just like you can bungle a case off of rock-solid police work.
Beyond that, you can't just blame everything on a broken system while ignoring that billionaires get to tapdance through said broken systems while everyone else just get steamrolled.
This also invites the question of who broke the system, I guarantee dirt poor prostitutes don't have lobbying money or rub shoulders with legislators and presidents.

[Krastyn]

Yes, they could lie, people lie all the time. In fact, I honestly believe that in the case I relayed in my previous post the victim was lying. However, since no one disputes Mr kraft engaged in the less than legitimate services offered (in that while maintaining a formal plea of innocence the article linked says he issued an apology, presumably after the charges were dropped) I'm not sure what lying has to do with anything.

The apology came before the charges were dropped. He has also always denied doing anything illegal. So aside from inadmissible evidence, there isn't a lot of "proof"

My point was and remains what prosecutors need to squeeze a plea from a 'normal' person is far lower then what they need to lock in a conviction (rightly or wrongly) of a person of means. That's wrong.

But is it a fault of the person with means, or a fault of the system? Why is it the fault of the person with means that the courts can leverage illegitimate charges against someone?

In this case specifically, it is also about what the person has to lose. For Joe Random, the plea deals were under $5k, in fines, 100 hours or less of community service, no criminal record, but you have to admit you were guilty. It would be easy to spend $5k on lawyer fee's. So aside from having to do some community service, it could be cheaper for a person to plea out. Now for Kraft, money isn't a factor. However, if he were to accept that deal, along with the caveat he would have to admit guilt, he would then likely face some serious sanctions from the NFL. Without a conviction / guilty plea though, he won't.

Yes, the police should have done their jobs. But, you can get a good conviction off bad police work, just like you can bungle a case off of rock-solid police work.
Beyond that, you can't just blame everything on a broken system while ignoring that billionaires get to tapdance through said broken systems while everyone else just get steamrolled.

Aside from bringing in a massive redistribution of wealth, massive taxes, and a switch to full on socialism, you aren't going to get rid of billionaires anytime soon. There will always be some level of inequality. There aren't really a lot of good ways to restrict how someone can spend money in their defense. The realistic option is to fix the system, so that the average person need a team of high priced lawyers to get something thrown out that never should have been there.

Aside from just saying "People with money have more opportunity than those without", what is your solution?