LOL Robert Kraft

[NorthHawk]

The league doesn’t require court type evidence to mete out discipline, but it remains
to be seen if they do so in this case because they have already gone after the Pats
before and might not want to seem like they have some type of vendetta against them.

[RiverDog]

The league doesn’t require court type evidence to mete out discipline, but it remains
to be seen if they do so in this case because they have already gone after the Pats
before and might not want to seem like they have some type of vendetta against them.

There's a distinction between issues involving team conduct, culture, etc, and holding an individual accountable for their violations of the policy. Unlike Spygate and Deflategate, this is an entirely individual action by Kraft and did not involve any type of competitive advantage. They stand more of a danger of employing a double standard, one for the players and another for their old, rich, good 'ole boys, if they don't act than they do a perception of beating up on the Pats. Keep in mind that the Pats are the most unpopular team in the country, so there's a lot more fans that would feel a sense of satisfaction vs. those that would view it as picking on them.

So I'll stand by my prediction: Kraft gets a 4 game suspension and a hefty fine, perhaps 6 figures. But they won't take any action at all until the court resolves the issue, ie dismisses the charges.

[Rambo2014]

FYI

https://youtu.be/AdtIUxWg_6c

[jshawaii22]

He's guilty of being a "John" and nothing more. Well, except for the offense of being stupid enough to not hire out and bring the 'masseuse' to his hotel. For god's sake, you could of taken her to your f'n private JET or just out for a ride in your f'n LIMO.

This issue is another case of BETTER private lawyers against CRAPPY Taxpayer Funded Lawyers and even stupider(?) cops. Jeezzzz... a first year law student could of got the tapes thrown out if the the word "human trafficking" is on the warrant.

Here's a copy and paste from Kraft's Lawyer Press Conference:

“[Prosecutor David] Aronberg is acknowledging he has no case without the illegal video recordings that four Florida judges have now found to be unconstitutional,” Kraft lawyer William Burck (pictured) said in a statement issued to USA Today. “No evidence means no trial. So the State had only two options — drop the case or appeal. They chose to appeal, but we are confident the appellate court will agree with Judge Hanser and the other judges who threw out their illegally obtained evidence.”

Multiple judges have ruled that the “sneak and peek” video surveillance violated the law by undertaking no effort to minimize the intrusion on the privacy of innocent persons who were simply getting massages. If the appellate courts don’t overturn these rulings, there will be little or no evidence against Kraft — unless prosecutors can persuade the alleged providers of prostitution to “flip” on their alleged customers.

[RiverDog]

He's guilty of being a "John" and nothing more.

Yea, he's noting but a john, one of the smallest, insignificant components of the human trafficking concern, but a component nonetheless. Without a demand, there is no incentive for this type of activity (which is why I argue for legalizing prostitution), and thus no human trafficking.

This issue is another case of BETTER private lawyers against CRAPPY Taxpayer Funded Lawyers and even stupider(?) cops. Jeezzzz... a first year law student could of got the tapes thrown out if the the word "human trafficking" is on the warrant.

Although it wasn't stated in the warrant, one of the purposes of the investigation was to cut into demand for this type of activity. They don't need a trial or convictions to accomplish their objective. There was never going to be any jail time served by any of the johns nabbed anyway, but the publicity they've generated has already had an effect on demand as anyone considering patronizing one of these establishments has no doubt heard about this incident and will think twice.

Multiple judges have ruled that the “sneak and peek” video surveillance violated the law by undertaking no effort to minimize the intrusion on the privacy of innocent persons who were simply getting massages. If the appellate courts don’t overturn these rulings, there will be little or no evidence against Kraft — unless prosecutors can persuade the alleged providers of prostitution to “flip” on their alleged customers.

As far as Kraft goes, unless he wants to argue that he never set foot in the place, something he hasn't done to this point and to the contrary, has already apologized for his actions, he's violated the terms of the CBA and as I stated above, will have to face some sort of discipline by the league.

[idhawkman]

Although it wasn't stated in the warrant, one of the purposes of the investigation was to cut into demand for this type of activity. They don't need a trial or convictions to accomplish their objective. There was never going to be any jail time served by any of the johns nabbed anyway, but the publicity they've generated has already had an effect on demand as anyone considering patronizing one of these establishments has no doubt heard about this incident and will think twice.

I hope you are right but I think they will get even bolder after this since now they know that they can't do it again.

As far as Kraft goes, unless he wants to argue that he never set foot in the place, something he hasn't done to this point and to the contrary, has already apologized for his actions, he's violated the terms of the CBA and as I stated above, will have to face some sort of discipline by the league.

Yep, I apologize for getting a massage something millions of Americans do every day and for that the league is going to do something to me. My wife is a massage therapist, should she apologize for going into one of those places?

[RiverDog]

Yep, I apologize for getting a massage something millions of Americans do every day and for that the league is going to do something to me. My wife is a massage therapist, should she apologize for going into one of those places?

If her only clients are male, they are in and out of there in under 30 minutes, and the published reviews of her place of business was that it was a "rub and tug", then the answer to your question is yes. It's pretty common knowledge that although most are legal, massage parlors are perhaps the most commonly used fronts for prostitution.

Since you're invoking a family analogy, here's how I'm looking at it: If my teenage son or daughter got caught up in something like this, the fact that the legal evidence got thrown out wouldn't make a bit of difference, especially if they refused to answer me if I asked them if they did it (Kraft has never denied it). There'd be hell to pay as I'm not that naïve.

I understand and can appreciate your point about innocent until proven guilty, but we're not sitting on a jury nor is this case likely to even go to trial. It's time to stop your charade and let your common sense prevail.

[jshawaii22]

If you take away the Video evidence, and the young lady doesn't agree to testify she took $$$ to perform a non-advertised 'service' there is no case.
You can't prove any violation took place and as the judge said, many of the customers didn't come for what Kraft did, so you can't just assume guilt.

They may as well move on from this. Yes, there is 'negative' publicity angle, but like i said, Kraft's mistake was to go into the business, instead of bringing the business to him.

[RiverDog]

If you take away the Video evidence, and the young lady doesn't agree to testify she took $$$ to perform a non-advertised 'service' there is no case.
You can't prove any violation took place and as the judge said, many of the customers didn't come for what Kraft did, so you can't just assume guilt.

You're looking at Kraft's case from the standpoint of a criminal case. The league has set a much lower bar, closer to that of a civil case where the standard is more likely than not rather than beyond a reasonable doubt and does not require 12 out of 12 affirmative votes to convict.

And from a personal level, had Kraft come out and denied the accusations, I would have been a lot more likely to give him the benefit of the doubt. Indeed, his public apology was a virtual admission of guilt.

They may as well move on from this. Yes, there is 'negative' publicity angle, but like i said, Kraft's mistake was to go into the business, instead of bringing the business to him.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but what I hear you saying is that rather than have gone into a virtual whorehouse, what Kraft should have done was to have hired a call girl to come to him. I can't say that I buy that, either.

I'm not playing the Holier than Thou card. My position has always been that prostitution should be legal and regulated, but the law is the law.

[jshawaii22]

The issue is he got caught. Not that what he did was legal or illegal. In a pure society, you're right, RD, but we don't live in a vacuum and he should of known better. He'll get some kind of slap-on-the-wrist from the NFL, like the Colt's pill-popping clown owner did, but so what, he can afford it and something tells me he'll do it again. Kraft's biggest issue is facing the other owner's who just don't like negative publicity, in any form.

[RiverDog]

The issue is he got caught. Not that what he did was legal or illegal. In a pure society, you're right, RD, but we don't live in a vacuum and he should of known better. He'll get some kind of slap-on-the-wrist from the NFL, like the Colt's pill-popping clown owner did, but so what, he can afford it and something tells me he'll do it again. Kraft's biggest issue is facing the other owner's who just don't like negative publicity, in any form.

The issue is that he got caught doing something illegal, soliciting prostitution. I understand that society doesn't operate in a vacuum, and that we break laws all the time on an almost daily basis, the speed limit being one that comes to mind. But like you said, he got caught and is going to have to face the music.

As far as how the league will discipline Kraft, take a look at the video of Goodell announcing that the NFL teams unanimously endorsed a revised and strengthened Personal Conduct Policy for all NFL employees back in 2014 and see if you can recognize the man on Goodell's left:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000 ... uct-policy

The NFL would be incredible hypocrites and would be employing an obvious double standard if Goodell gave Kraft a pass over this. By making the policy so vague, the owners made their own bed, now they're going to have to sleep in it....pun intended.

[jshawaii22]

That snippet would be more relevant if it wasn't 5 years old. We should start a pool to guess how much $$$ the NFL "fines" the 3rd richest owner and the one that most other owners look up to, along with Jerry Boy. After deflategate, I guess $1,000,000 and some type of 'stay away from team HQ' -- seems to be about right up there with the Indy owner's pill-popping fate.

[RiverDog]

That snippet would be more relevant if it wasn't 5 years old. We should start a pool to guess how much $$$ the NFL "fines" the 3rd richest owner and the one that most other owners look up to, along with Jerry Boy. After deflategate, I guess $1,000,000 and some type of 'stay away from team HQ' -- seems to be about right up there with the Indy owner's pill-popping fate.

The snippet is of Roger Goodell announcing the most recent revision of the personal conduct policy that is currently enforce and that Kraft is subject to. I can't think of any graphic that's more relevant.

At least you're admitting that he's going to get disciplined, which was all that I was arguing. He probably doesn't deserve the suspension, but given the mom, apple pie, and the girl next door image that the NFL is selling to their fans, they have to.

[jshawaii22]

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/05/22/absent-a-dismissal-kraft-case-may-not-be-resolved-for-1-2-years-minimum/

It's going to be awhile now that the judge having ruling against 'the people', the prosecutor is going to appeal. You know that Goodell will wait until it's resolved before issuing any fine or suspension.

[RiverDog]

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/05/22/absent-a-dismissal-kraft-case-may-not-be-resolved-for-1-2-years-minimum/

It's going to be awhile now that the judge having ruling against 'the people', the prosecutor is going to appeal. You know that Goodell will wait until it's resolved before issuing any fine or suspension.

Yea, I saw that. I don't understand why the prosecution is still pursuing this. It's not a felony crime, even if found guilty no one will be serving any jail time, and there's already been ample publicity that will serve as a deterrent to those considering patronizing "day spas." Perhaps they just want the case to stay in the headlines, but you would think that they have bigger fish to fry.

I also don't understand why Goodell has to wait until the case is completed to issue a fine/suspension if that is what he chooses to do. He has all the facts, his actions wouldn't interfere with the court case, and being that he clearly does not need a guilty plea/verdict to administer discipline, whether or not Kraft goes to trial is irrelevant. This could drag on for months and well into the regular season, and I would think they would want to put the issue behind them rather than kicking the can down the road. Suppose the case goes to trial and Kraft is found guilty during breast cancer awareness month?

[idhawkman]

I'm only speculating here and not stating facts.

Many prosecutors have political ambitions and their prosecutorial record is one thing they rely on when they run their first few races. Not only how many cases were won/lost but also overturned/dismissed. This could be one reason for the prosecutor to push this. It might also be because they want to appear strong against the exploitation of women, human trafficking, etc. Bottom line, it could be that they are trying to boost their track record in some way.

I don't think Goodell wants to circumvent the judicial process. Much the same with our LB Kendricks who didn't get suspended until after he pleaded guilty. I have not researched it but its worth knowing whether Goodell has suspended a player/owner/management without a guilty plea/conviction or video evidence being publicly released. (Please note, the video of Kraft probably will never be released publicly since the actual act would have to be on tape and that would then be treated as porn.)

NOTE: I'm kind of laughing a little bit because I was able to say porn in this thread without being off topic.

[RiverDog]

I'm only speculating here and not stating facts.

Many prosecutors have political ambitions and their prosecutorial record is one thing they rely on when they run their first few races. Not only how many cases were won/lost but also overturned/dismissed. This could be one reason for the prosecutor to push this. It might also be because they want to appear strong against the exploitation of women, human trafficking, etc. Bottom line, it could be that they are trying to boost their track record in some way.

Yea, I suppose, but I think that motivation unlikely for the simple fact that it could just as easily backfire on them if the public sees it as wasting money prosecuting a misdemeanor case.

I don't think Goodell wants to circumvent the judicial process. Much the same with our LB Kendricks who didn't get suspended until after he pleaded guilty. I have not researched it but its worth knowing whether Goodell has suspended a player/owner/management without a guilty plea/conviction or video evidence being publicly released. (Please note, the video of Kraft probably will never be released publicly since the actual act would have to be on tape and that would then be treated as porn.)

In all likelihood, the investigation as it relates to Kraft's role has been completed, so a ruling would not interfere in the judicial process. Goodell has disciplined players even without a charge being filed, the most recent being Ezkiel Elliot and includes Ben Worthlessburger, so he certainly doesn't need a guilty plea. IMO it's likely that Kraft has already spoken to Goodell in private anyway and confirmed that it was him on the video.

As far as the video being released, although Kraft's lawyers are still fighting it, a judge has already ruled that it will eventually be released.

[idhawkman]

As far as the video being released, although Kraft's lawyers are still fighting it, a judge has already ruled that it will eventually be released.

Being released and being available to the public is not necessarily the same thing unless you are stating that the video of him getting oral sex is open to the public and not just put on a porn site.

[idhawkman]

REgarding Rothlisberger:

In March 2010, an anonymous college student alleged that Roethlisberger raped her in a bathroom stall in the back of a nightclub in Milledgeville, GA. According to her police statement, she met Roethlisberger at a bar; after Roethlisberger bought shots for the alleged victim and her friends, his bodyguard led her into a back room, which Roethlisberger entered "with his p@nis out of his pants." She writes in the police report that she told him to stop and attempted to leave through the first door she saw, which was a bathroom. She says that Roethlisberger followed her in, shut the door behind him, raped her, and left. Three of her friends gave statements to the Milledgeville Police Department that supported the accuser's story.

I think that is a bit different than no one backing up the story and other eye witnesses of Kraft.

Regarding Elliott:

The penalty was imposed by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell after a lengthy process in which league investigators interviewed Elliott’s former girlfriend multiple times, according to a person familiar with the case, and in which Goodell received input from four outside advisers.

The NFL interviewed more than a dozen witnesses, according to the person familiar with the case. It contacted others who were unwilling to cooperate. League investigators studied thousands of text messages, more than were available to Columbus, Ohio, law enforcement officials who first investigated the claims by Elliott’s former girlfriend of a violent incident during the summer of 2016. The league also relied on material made publicly available online by authorities in Columbus and had experts analyze pictures to determine when they were taken.

So in both cases this was after each had 2 separate charges against them for rape. Both cases had eye witnesses that backed up the story and in Elliott's case, he had text messages and other information.

In Ben's case, he settled one of his charges out of court and it took 3 years for the league to punish Elliott. Anything "COULD" happen but I just don't see the same level of supporting evidence in Kraft's case.

[RiverDog]

As far as the video being released, although Kraft's lawyers are still fighting it, a judge has already ruled that it will eventually be released.

Being released and being available to the public is not necessarily the same thing unless you are stating that the video of him getting oral sex is open to the public and not just put on a porn site.

It is in this case. Oh, they will no doubt blur a few pixels here and there, but it will be publicly available unless Kraft's attorneys are successful.

https://patch.com/massachusetts/foxboro ... ed-defense

[idhawkman]

It is in this case. Oh, they will no doubt blur a few pixels here and there, but it will be publicly available unless Kraft's attorneys are successful.

https://patch.com/massachusetts/foxboro ... ed-defense

That article is from April 11 and may or may not be relative anymore. "IF" the warrant was illegal and only the Florida Sheriff dept has the videos I imagine that Kraft would sue that Sheriff or county for everything they will ever have. I'd be surprised if they were legally allowed to leak fruit from a poison tree warrant.

[RiverDog]

It is in this case. Oh, they will no doubt blur a few pixels here and there, but it will be publicly available unless Kraft's attorneys are successful.

https://patch.com/massachusetts/foxboro ... ed-defense

That article is from April 11 and may or may not be relative anymore. "IF" the warrant was illegal and only the Florida Sheriff dept has the videos I imagine that Kraft would sue that Sheriff or county for everything they will ever have. I'd be surprised if they were legally allowed to leak fruit from a poison tree warrant.

Hours after a judge ruled the video evidence inadmissible, Kraft's attorneys filed a motion to permanently suppress the videos, so he won't have to worry about suing any sheriffs. I agree with you, if the videos are ruled inadmissible as evidence because they were illegally obtained that they can't hardly release it to the public. But that's only if the prosecutions appeals are unsuccessful.

We're arguing over minor points. Like I said, the odds are that Kraft has already fessed up to Goodell so he doesn't need the videos, and I don't think Kraft will contest any of the discipline Goodell proposes. The league would be better off to put this incident behind them and get it out of the headlines. The last thing they want is for it to be a distraction during the season.

[idhawkman]

Hours after a judge ruled the video evidence inadmissible, Kraft's attorneys filed a motion to permanently suppress the videos, so he won't have to worry about suing any sheriffs. I agree with you, if the videos are ruled inadmissible as evidence because they were illegally obtained that they can't hardly release it to the public. But that's only if the prosecutions appeals are unsuccessful.

We're arguing over minor points. Like I said, the odds are that Kraft has already fessed up to Goodell so he doesn't need the videos, and I don't think Kraft will contest any of the discipline Goodell proposes. The league would be better off to put this incident behind them and get it out of the headlines. The last thing they want is for it to be a distraction during the season.

I agree it is minor points but I think Goodell would want something to point to and not "Robert told me behind closed doors...." stuff. That would open Goodell to a suit if Kraft then said he didn't say it.

I think we are in agreement on many things here. "IF" the prosecution is successful and Kraft is charged, he will be punished by the league. I think we both agree on that. Where we disagree is, "IF" Kraft is never charged or pleads guilty or convicted you still believe he will be punished and I think he won't be.

[RiverDog]

I think we are in agreement on many things here. "IF" the prosecution is successful and Kraft is charged, he will be punished by the league. I think we both agree on that. Where we disagree is, "IF" Kraft is never charged or pleads guilty or convicted you still believe he will be punished and I think he won't be.

Kraft isn't stupid. He's one of 31 owners and he has a vested interest in the league's image. He knows first hand how damaging an issue like the one he's embroiled in can do to the league's financial bottom line. Besides, it's a huge personal embarrassment for him, so the quicker he can put it behind him, the quicker he can get on with his life and with his business.

Kraft is one of Goodell's biggest advocate, and the two are close friends. That's why the Pats did not appeal their punishment in the Deflategate scandal even though privately they disagreed with the conclusions of the investigation. Next to his immediate family, Goodell is the last person in the world that Kraft would think about suing. IMO Goodell and Kraft will negotiate a punishment.

At this point, Kraft's legal fight is more about him making sure that the video never gets released than it is about getting the charges dropped.

[jshawaii22]

Kraft isn't stupid. He's one of 31 owners and he has a vested interest in the league's image. He knows first hand how damaging an issue like the one he's embroiled in can do to the league's financial bottom line.

This isn't a "league" issue. It's ONE owner's issue that will embarrass the league for a few days or weeks, but then something else will happen and we'll all move on. Financially, this shouldn't cost the league anything. I sure haven't heard any uproar from sponsors like they did with Papa John or a mass exodus of season ticket holders over it either. Kraft is a billionaire, without the Patriots worth added in he's still a billionaire. Maybe he passes on before the lawsuit finishes. He ain't no spring chicken. Life at home for him must be fun. I know that if I ever got caught like that, the cold stare from my wife would kill me.

[NorthHawk]

His wife passed a few years ago, but he apparently had a girlfriend.
Outside of that, the league has a Personal Conduct Policy from which punishment is dealt.
Regardless of any court case outcome, they can and have fined and suspended players
for things that make the NFL look bad. The owners also have a shorter leash in these
types of things in that it's said the policy says the owners should have better conduct
than the players (I think RD said it better in an earlier post). So just putting the NFL in
a position of looking bad can trigger some type of punishment that might be more
severe than if a player did the same.

It will be interesting to see how it all works out, but I doubt it's just a scolding from the league.

[RiverDog]

Kraft isn't stupid. He's one of 31 owners and he has a vested interest in the league's image. He knows first hand how damaging an issue like the one he's embroiled in can do to the league's financial bottom line.

This isn't a "league" issue. It's ONE owner's issue that will embarrass the league for a few days or weeks, but then something else will happen and we'll all move on. Financially, this shouldn't cost the league anything. I sure haven't heard any uproar from sponsors like they did with Papa John or a mass exodus of season ticket holders over it either. Kraft is a billionaire, without the Patriots worth added in he's still a billionaire. Maybe he passes on before the lawsuit finishes. He ain't no spring chicken. Life at home for him must be fun. I know that if I ever got caught like that, the cold stare from my wife would kill me.

You may be right from a PR point of view, but if the league were to give Kraft a free pass, it could turn into a nightmare for them, especially from a CBA point of view. Indeed, there has been speculation that the league could come down on Kraft hard just to prove a point. And he'd better hope that his lawyers are successful at permanently suppressing that video.

I see where Goodell has said recently that they will wait until all the legal matters are resolved. We'll see if he sticks to that principle if this drags out into August.

I'm sure that Kraft is hugely embarrassed about this affair and is anxious to get it resolved. But he is a widower, a fact which probably plays in his favor in the PR department. Except for the obvious be more discrete advice, how else is a 74 year old single man going to get some nooky?

[RiverDog]

The owners also have a shorter leash in these types of things in that it's said the policy says the owners should have better conduct than the players (I think RD said it better in an earlier post).

It's not in the policy, but it's been stated enough times that it might as well be. Here's what Goodell said about the Jim Irsay incident:

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell yesterday emphasized that the league held Colts Owner Jim Irsay "to a higher standard than the one that would apply to a player" when it hit him with a six-game ban and $500,000 fine for pleading guilty to impaired driving, according to Mike Florio of PRO FOOTBALL TALK. Goodell during a press conference said, "This penalty is 10 times financially more than a player would get and there is no discipline from a suspension standpoint....It’s very important for us to hold everyone up to that standard and Jim understands that and understands his responsibility"

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Dai ... Irsay.aspx

The article goes on to note how the players were not happy with the discipline handed down to Irsay, felt that it was too light and that Goodell was employing a double standard.

And here's another one:

I have stated on numerous occasions that owners, management personnel and coaches must be held to a higher standard than players," Goodell wrote. "We discussed this during our meeting and you expressed your support for that view, volunteering that owners should be held to the highest standard."

http://www.espn.com/nfl/playoffs/2014/s ... r-standard

[idhawkman]

This isn't a "league" issue. It's ONE owner's issue that will embarrass the league for a few days or weeks, but then something else will happen and we'll all move on. Financially, this shouldn't cost the league anything. I sure haven't heard any uproar from sponsors like they did with Papa John or a mass exodus of season ticket holders over it either. Kraft is a billionaire, without the Patriots worth added in he's still a billionaire. Maybe he passes on before the lawsuit finishes. He ain't no spring chicken. Life at home for him must be fun. I know that if I ever got caught like that, the cold stare from my wife would kill me.

Isn't that the truth. I have traveled a lot in my career and been approached by many women as I have traveled but I've never strayed because it would crush me to see her face if she ever found out. I'm not sure I could handle that level of disappointment.

Regarding Kraft, he could also sell the team and move on before the case is finalized.

[idhawkman]

Except for the obvious be more discrete advice, how else is a 74 year old single man going to get some nooky?

Maybe we should give him an award just because he still CAN get nooky.