Reason Roundup

Massage Parlor Surveillance Videos Can't Be Used in Court, Says Florida Judge

Plus: the biggest trouble with Devin Nunes' Twitter lawsuit, the Senate fails to override Trump's Yemen veto, bad news for the gig economy, and more...

|

Florida police failed to exhaust more low-key options and to protect the privacy of non-suspects when secretly recording surveillance video inside Martin County massage parlors. That's the verdict of Florida Judge Kathleen Roberts, whose six-page decision on the matter was delivered yesterday.

To be legal and admissible, "it would have required that when it was determined that no illegal activity was happening in the massage room, the monitoring or recording was turned off when the client began to dress after the massage was concluded," said the decision. But "at no time was any effort made to stop the monitoring or recording at any point to protect the innocent person who happened to enter an area covered by a camera."

The Martin County massage-business stings were conducted in conjunction with stings in several nearby counties, including the Palm Beach County bust that led to solicitation of prostitution charges for Patriots owner Robert Kraft.

Kraft and other men charged with solicitation have been challenging the use of "sneak and peak" warrants (you know, the kind authorized under the PATRIOT Act to stop terrorism) to install secret video cameras in massage rooms, where police filmed clients undressing, getting massaged, and in some cases allegedly paying for sexual services. Workers at these businesses are also suing over the surveillance, as are customers of the spas who simply received regular massage services and weren't arrested for any funny business.

To the disappointment of some media outlets, a judge last week temporarily blocked the public release of surveillance video from the Palm Beach spas. A final decision is still pending.

The decision from Judge Roberts only applies to surveillance at Martin County spas.

"We're elated that the rule of law triumphs over a flashy press conference," says Richard Kibbey, who represents four people arrested in the Martin County stings, according to TCPalm.com.

At the initial press conferences, police portrayed themselves as the heroic foilers of an international sex trafficking ring. It later came out that they had spent more than half a year getting massages from these alleged sex slaves before arresting them on felony prostitution charges—and charging no one with human trafficking.

In her decision, Roberts noted that no effort had been made to differentiate between illegal and legal activity being recorded. "The innocent client was treated the same by law enforcement as the criminal element they sought to capture," she wrote, ordering that the video footage be suppressed in court.

State prosecutors say they intend to appeal the ruling.


FREE MINDS

Rep. Devin Nunes has now filed several frivolous lawsuits against social media users and a local newspaper who he claims have defamed him. The California Republican "done everything an uber-conservative is supposed to do to successfully sue his hometown newspaper and Twitter trolls," including "immediately alert[ing] Fox News to the developments and then [going] on Sean Hannity to shout about his victimhood," quips Talking Points Memo. One thing Nunes hasn't done so far? Actually served the defendants with notice that they're being sued. Whoops.


FREE MARKETS

Bad news for the "gig economy" and so much more:


QUICK HITS

  • Shocking, we know:

 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

103 responses to “Massage Parlor Surveillance Videos Can't Be Used in Court, Says Florida Judge

  1. Florida police failed to exhaust more low-key options…

    Law enforcement escalating things unnecessarily? I don’t think so.

    1. Hello.

      I don’t get the Zanotti quote. Does she mean that as a good or bad thing?

      1. I took it as she was making a smartass remark. As in “If you quit forcing people to buy something some of them will stop buying it. Duh.” She was basically saying “no shit, Sherlock”. Otherwise a neutral comment.

        1. Yes, the comment from the Hill should have been: Given a choice, 7 million Americans decline to purchase insurance that does not benefit them.

  2. In her decision, Roberts noted that no effort had been made to differentiate between illegal and legal activity being recorded.

    Hey, you let them put out mugshots of people yet to be convicted of anything.

    1. Some one went into the massage parlor NOT to get a hand job??

    2. I don’t understand that ruling at all.

      So what if they recorded other stuff? They aren’t introducing all that video of the cleaning crew or an empty room overnight, are they?

      I can see how you might have a separate action against the police for violating your right to privacy by filming you in a massage parlor, but that shouldn’t have anything to do with the admissibility of video surveillance evidence that was obtained with a court order

      1. Florida has the “Sunshine” law, meant to provide broad transparency of public records. Since the video would be a public record used at trial, it would be ALL be releasable to the public.

  3. One thing Nunes hasn’t done so far? Actually served the defendants with notice that they’re being sued.

    He has to unblock them first.

  4. Police In California Are Killing Sleeping People

    Jesus Christ, you want law enforcement to let targets wake up and risk getting injured OR WORSE?

    1. I guess the officers didn’t trust the protection of the BearCat* vs. a wino with a .22. Sad.

      [*WTF is Oakland doing rolling a BearCat to roust a wino in an alley?]

    2. He was a mentally ill person with a gun. That’s the most dangerous person in the universe.

      1. He couldn’t have been that dangerous – he didn’t have a badge and a uniform, did he?

    3. This is the shit I just don’t get. Why are cops so fucking cowardly that they cant just walk over and hold the gun down with their foot. Am I the only one that wouldn’t be particularly worried about a sleeping bum somehow overpowering me? If he manages to get gun out from under your foot, you still have the drop on him at point blank range.

      Cops are the worst.

  5. Massage Parlor Surveillance Videos Can’t Be Used in Court

    Crusty, hardest hit!

    1. Crusty, hardest.

  6. The Senate failed to get enough votes to override the president’s veto of a resolution to end U.S. involvement in the Yemen war.

    That’s what they get for authorizing it in the first place.

  7. The mayor of the District of Columbia is pushing for legal sales of marijuana, as opposed to the current system, where only possession is decriminalized.

    DC black market is not worried.

  8. Economy added 263,000 jobs in April, unemployment falls to lowest level since 1969

    Hippie Boomers and their wack-a-do Socialist ideals, hardest hit!

    1. You know it’s because everyone has to have two jobs just to get by.

      1. “You know it’s because everyone has to have two jobs just to get by.”

        You make enough money from 2?! Must be those high-paying google jobs the spam tells us about.

    2. Oh, those hippie Boomers will be less influential each year now that half of them are at retirement age … Hey wait a minute, prior to 1969, there were none to very few Boomers in the work force. Have we found the root cause of unemployment in America?

  9. Why, then, are US execution numbers up?

    Nothing Americans like more than putting to death someone who may or may not have been justly convicted.

    1. Shooting them on the spot lead to many protests in recent years. Now police have to go through an entire process before killing the accused.

  10. police portrayed themselves as the heroic foilers of an international sex trafficking ring. It later came out that they had spent more than half a year getting massages from these alleged sex slaves before arresting them on felony prostitution charges—and charging no one

    Where’s Nancy “Lying to Congress is a Crime” Pelosi on this?

    1. “That’s different.” – N. Pelosi

    1. “The man had just climbed over a permanent metal railing at the Steaming Bluff overlook to get closer to the cliff edge,” park officials said

      “, and this idiot then got a *good* fucking look as well as an appropriately large bill.”

      1. No, he will sue the park for having an inadequate rail.

    1. HMS Maverick??

      1. S.S. Risky Business??

        1. Measles impossible!

          1. Damn your rash-covered fingers!

            1. That’s what she said.

  11. The 9th Cir. has just ruled that the Calif. Supreme Court’s 2018 Dynamex decision, which makes it harder for businesses to classify workers as independent contractors, applies retroactively.

    Leave the state, and file bankruptcy retroactively?

    1. It is the 9th, so there’s a good chance it’ll be overturned.

      1. Not particularly.

        Even measured just on cases where SCOTUS has accepted for review (don’t know how to spell the technical term OTH), the 9th is only the third most overturned circuit and is only marginally above the average for all cases reviewed by SCOTUS (around 75% IIRC the 9th is around 78%)

        On the other hand if you measure from all cases heard / decided by the 9th circuit, their reversal rate drops to hundredths of a percent.

        Note: on the raw number 9C cases reviewed by SCOTUS: The 9th is the largest, in terms of population of the circuits with geographically defined jurisdiction, there are 12 (1-11 + DC), the 9th covers slightly less than 1/5th of the total US population and the next largest circuit covers just over half the population of the 9th. That means that the 9th circuit likely hears twice (or more) cases as any other circuit.

    2. A federal court decision deciding whether a state court decision applies retroactively is not binding on the state courts. A party can still argue to the California state courts that the 9th Circuit was wrong. Whether the California state courts will agree with that argument is a separate question.

  12. Facebook said Thursday that it has permanently banned several far-right and anti-Semitic figures and organizations, including Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, Infowars host Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos and Laura Loomer, for being “dangerous,” a sign that the social network is more aggressively enforcing its hate-speech policies at a moment when bigoted violence is on the rise around the world.

    SFGate

    Conservative snowflakes were all butthurt when their fellow rightwing racist trash Louis Farrakhan was listed with the other wingnuts. So they got the journalists to replace “right wing” with “extremist”.

    1. Suppressing speech is a good thing.

    2. “racist trash Louis Farrakhan”

      Sorry, Mr. Buttplug, I must object to this point. Farrakhan, as a person of color, literally cannot be “racist.” Because racism = power + privilege, which black and brown bodies don’t have in a white supremacist country.

      Didn’t you learn this in college?

      1. No, I don’t do PC. I went to UGA pre-PC when frats flew the Confederate Battle Flag.

        Nice stuff, btw.

        1. You’re complimenting a parody account–an account that exists to make fun of people like you?

          Is it true that you posted instructions or links to find kiddie pr0n? That kind of shit defies parody.

          1. I can’t say he did, but OTOH, it takes some nasty stuff to get banned from here, and he’s had to come back under new user names, so it wasn’t a ‘time-out’.
            No one here doubts he’s a scumbag, but there are scummier scumbags than some of us imagine.

            1. You have to wonder about the sanity of someone who comes here every day just to get excoriated for so many years. Isn’t being oblivious to ridicule or craving it some kind of sickness of its own?

              1. Poor man’s dominatrix?

              2. “You have to wonder about the sanity of someone who comes here every day just to get excoriated for so many years.”
                I can understand the asshole rev. He’s here for nothing other than stirring the pot; a true troll.
                But turd, Tony, that idiot OP? Every day for a dose of deserved abuse, and they keep showing up.

    3. None of that is good.

      1. I still say it’s about protecting the interests of advertisers.

        I thought Facebook’s announcement about using blockchain tech to launch their own cryptocurrency to establish a PayPal like payment system was more interesting than blocking another content provider who couldn’t possibly be monetized.

        I’ve linked over and over again to big advertisers pulling out of social media because they don’t want their ads to appear to be endorsing certain kinds of controversial content. What happens when a liberal logs on to see a controversial video Farrakhan made about Jews and the commercial they’re watching beforehand is coming from McDonalds?

        Meanwhile, we’re talking about Facebook initiating the biggest mainstream implementation of cryptocurrency ever.

        1. Wrong punk to do it though. Wouldn’t trust Zuckerberg.

    4. Yeah, you’re right, Farrakhan has been a hard-core Republican for decades. I’d go to the trouble of googling all of the pictures of him with prominent Democrats, but it’s not worth the trouble because you don’t give a shit about things like facts.

      You know, some people on your team are assholes as well.

    5. So Aretha Franklin’s next of kin invited a far right person to sit on the stage next to Bill Clinton at her funeral service?

    6. Realistically, can’t we say that communism and socialism as applied in all previous incarnations is an extremely dangerous idea? Perhaps one of the most deadly ideas ever?

      Given that facebook is trying to censor ideas that lead to dangerous situations, shouldn’t they be removing AOC and Sanders accounts?

    7. Isn’t it long past time to forget about Palin, who is a non-factor in American politics these days? Can’t you find another strawperson to pick on?

  13. Alleged ‘Hollywood Ripper’ trial begins; Ashton Kutcher could be called to testify

    Ellerin was killed on a night that she was supposed to go on a date with Kutcher to a post-Grammy-Award party, the outlet reported.

    Kutcher reportedly went to Ellerin’s home at around 10:45 p.m. PST on Feb. 21, 2001, 48 Hours reported in 2012.
    Ashton Kutcher was reportedly supposed to go on a date with Ashley Ellerin back in 2001 on the night she was killed. When Ellerin didn’t answer the door, Kutcher left. Her body was found by her roommate the next morning.

    Ashton Kutcher was reportedly supposed to go on a date with Ashley Ellerin back in 2001 on the night she was killed. When Ellerin didn’t answer the door, Kutcher left. Her body was found by her roommate the next morning.

    When she didn’t answer the door, the young actor reportedly looked in the window and saw what he thought was wine spilled on the carpet, but was actually Ellerin’s blood.

    She was found by her roommate the next morning.

    1. Just like Groundhog Day.

  14. Chinese forces expanding to ‘contest US military superiority,’ Pentagon says

    Nothing ever bad happened when Socialists of the 20th Century decided to massively expand their military and flex their military muscle.

    1. What do you think we should do about it?

      1. Our 800 military bases in more than 70 countries will not be enough to protect us!!

        1. Need moar proxy wars!

      2. Hey, we are trying as hard as we can to censor the internet Chinese style, what more do they want.

      3. “What do you think we should do about it?”
        Why do anything? Once the U.S. has open borders, Chinese Marines can storm ashore at Long Beach and, as long as they say they are here to visit the Grand Canyon or pick grapes, we’ll just wave them in.

    2. “China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man,” Biden said in Iowa City. “They’re not bad folks, folks. But guess what? They’re not competition for us.”

      Dude, that utterance would be Trump-worthy had you tweeted it.

    3. China is an important trading partner for all sorts of reasons, and it’s no coincidence that smart people saw getting them into a trade relationship with the rest of the capitalist world as an important component to ending the Cold War.

      I wish someone at the top were smart enough to offer some kind of trade relationship with Iran. China became a force for stability in the world once powerful people in the CCP and the PLA became rich on trade with the United States, and there’s no good reason to believe that trade with Mullahs wouldn’t do the same thing to Iran.

      The difference between now and the end of the Cold War is that neoconservative reluctance to embrace icky people wasn’t so predominate among the adults who were in charge of the transition both during the Reagan administration and the Bush Sr. administration. Embracing trade with vile people was even more important to ending the Cold War than embracing military relationships with vile people was to winning it.

      From neocon Republicans to naive Democrats, I’m not sure any of them would rather shake hands with Putin like Trump did than go to war in Syria or the Ukraine. I bet Democrats would oppose a trade treaty with Iran today, too, just like they opposed China’s MFN status back during the end of the Cold War. Socialists always see capitalism, trade, and the wrong kinds of people getting wealthy as the problem.

  15. The 9th Cir. has just ruled that the Calif. Supreme Court’s 2018 Dynamex decision, which makes it harder for businesses to classify workers as independent contractors, applies retroactively.

    How the fuck is this even Constitutional? Any employer that employed contractors at any point in the past is going to get hammered with lawsuits. If you want to change the labor definition rules, fine, but at least enable the businesses to change their systems without getting ass-raped into oblivion first.

    Oh, that’s right–it’s California, land of our future Third World overlords.

    1. While the ruling sucks, the fact that it’s retroactive isn’t unusual. Technically the court didn’t change the law. It interpreted the law. Employers subject to this ruling were breaking the law all along. The problem I see with this ruling is that the law was too vague to begin with if it takes years of challenges to figure it out. The entire law should be unconstitutional.

      1. Almost every fucking employment law on the books is unconstitutional.

    2. Another 9th cir ruling that will be overturned.

    1. The fact that their prices were consistently nearly twice Walgreens for many items is surely Trump’s doing…

  16. “Shocking, we know:”

    Looks pretty clearly like 7,000,000 people didn’t want that “insurance”.

  17. “A writer in The American Conservative says it’s time for all states to ban the death penalty”

    As a left-libertarian, I want to abolish the death penalty, and make sure prisoners serving life sentences retain their voting rights.

    #LibertariansForTsarnaevsRightToVote
    #LibertariansForDahmersRightToVote
    #(IfHeHadntAlreadyDied)

    1. It says my comment is awaiting moderation. What’s this now?

  18. The Democrats threw such a temper tantrum yesterday over Barr not making himself available to help them make campaign ads for 2020. Seeing Pelosi jump on the dog pile made me wonder if there was something more to it. They may be trying to discredit Barr ahead of all the investigations into the Obama administration’s Justice Department including the following:

    FBI’s former Deputy Director McCabe is under criminal investigation.

    The FBI’s former counsel James Baker is under criminal investigation.

    The U.S. Attorney’s Office is investigating the FBI surveillance of Carter Page and the Trump campaign

    The Senate Judiciary Committee has referred criminal cases to the Justice Department on the Steele dossier and another was referred by the House Oversight and Reform Committee on former Fusion GPS contractor Nellie Ohr.

    The Justice Department Inspector General is working on a report on FBI abuse of the FISA court in 2016.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/pelosis-pre-emptive-smear-11556838611?

    No doubt, a lot of this is about the 2020 campaign, but at the heart of this, there really are some solid questions that need answers.

    1) Did Trump collaborate with Russia to throw the 2016 election?

    The correct answer is “no”.

    2) Did the FBI abuse the laws, the FISA court, and all sense of propriety in doing surveillance on a presidential campaign in 2016?

    Pelosi calling Barr a liar doesn’t answer that question, and neither does placing a chicken on the desk where Barr would have been sitting if he’d showed up to be their whipping boy.

    1. There have always been 3 objectives for the Russia conspiracy:
      – delegitimize the thought that Americans could elect someone not preselected for them; basically, solidify the mindset that Americans are subjects rather than citizens
      – stoke tensions with Russia to continue portraying them/Putin as world villain
      – cover up for the crimes of Clinton, the Obama administration, and the deep state

      The order of priority for those 3 objectives may be subject to debate, but it is certain that those were the objectives

      1. You kind of touch on one of the weirder aspects of this circus. Team D and their propaganda machine have begun using language like “defending the constitution” and “stopping a dictator” in relation to their “impeach Trump” machinations. And I’ve yet to hear any scorn on such nonsense from the media…. or even any questioning of exactly what they are talking about.

        In fact, I’ve seen many more in the media simply parroting these sympathies. I just have no idea what they are talking about. “Defending the constitution”? WTF? From what? From an AG who issued a report with an introduction that had a tenor that you didn’t like? That’s your threshold for “defending the constitution?”

        1. Picking up on something a few on the right have been saying – that the attempt to impeach Trump over made-up Russia collusion charges was an attempted coup, I’ve heard a few left-wing talking heads say that Barr’s intro to the Mueller report was an attempted coup d’etat.

          1. Is it a coup if it’s done through the proper constitutional procedures?

            The thing about impeachment is that it is whatever the House says it is.

            1. The coup part was planting the fake “evidence” of Russian collusion as a pretext to spy on the campaign, which was then used to illegally “unmask” american citizens who were wiretapped under FISA warrants. That classified information was then selectively lowered in classification so that it could be disseminated across the government, specifically for the intended purpose of leaking it after Trump took office. The stated purpose was to create an investigation that could be used to impeach Trump.

              This is not speculation. This is all public record that was bragged about by members of the Obama administration to the New York Times and other papers. They were quite proud that they had sabotaged the incoming administration.

              You can say “oh, if the congress does it, it is legal”, but that has nothing to do with what is happening here. Extreme partisans have been misusing their offices for political purposes to overthrow the results of the election. This isn’t “politics ain’t bean-bag”. Nixon didn’t do anything remotely approaching this – which is why they have been loudly invoking the specter of Nixon on the left…. because they know that the folks on the right (like Glenn Greenwald /s) who have been describing their actions in relationship to Watergate for the last year and a half or more are finally going to get their due, and they desperately need to poison that well.

        2. Speaking of people losing their minds on this, the New York Review of Books is supposed to be a legitimate, credible print publication–but some of the stuff that’s getting published over there these days is just out of the most paranoid . . .

          “In 1951, Arendt wrote that the ideal subject of a totalitarian state is not the convinced Nazi or communist but “people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (that is, the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (that is, the standards of thought) no longer exist.”

          This was a near-perfect description, sixty-five years in advance, of the electorate shaped by Trump’s rallies, Fox News, and the Kremlin’s secret Facebook ads.’

          “Reading Arendt Is Not Enough”
          Paul Mason
          NYRB Daily
          https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/05/02/reading-arendt-is-not-enough/

          There are/were some honest liberals editing things and making publishing decisions, but that seems to have gone out the window.

          They had a #MeToo victim get kicked out as Chief Editor not because of anything he wrote, said, or because he was guilty of harassing anyone but . . .

          “Ian Buruma, the editor of The New York Review of Books, left his position on Wednesday amid an uproar over the magazine’s publication of an essay by a disgraced Canadian radio broadcaster who had been accused of sexually assaulting women.”

          —-New York Times, September 19, 2018

          #MeToo got him kicked out because he published something written by someone else. He thought it would be interesting for readers to see what someone accused of sexual harassment, etc. had to say–and that just isn’t allowed over there anymore.

          There are honest liberals out there, still, in the wild, but they don’t write for the mainstream news anymore. I guess the NYRB has become too mainstream–so now they don’t tolerate dissenting views? Ever since they canned that guy, the shit that gets published over there makes me scratch my head. I enjoyed reading intellectually challenging stuff on a variety of topics, and it would help guide my own reading. Now I have to wade knee deep through puddles of shit to get to the good stuff.

          In the future, we will look back at this era like people once looked back at the McCarthy era, only this is probably worse in terms of the chilling effect.

          1. “In the future, we will look back at this era like people once looked back at the McCarthy era”

            The main difference is that in the McCarthy era there were real infiltrators who were actually spying and working to overthrow the US Government. In the #metoo era it is a handful of high profile creeps and a plethora of bemused fellow travelers who get caught up in a twitter outrage mob like this poor guy from the NYT.

            1. They didn’t have Twitter in the 1950s, but if they had, it would have been the same. There’s a reds under the bed mentality with #MeToo for sure, and the chilling effect is the same.

              We shouldn’t be allowed to hear what so and so has to say or he shouldn’t be allowed to speak or appear in movies or finance movies anymore–because his sick predatory ideology might infect the rest of us?

              “The Crucible” was about The Red Scare. It set the Red Scare during the Salem witch trials.

              Somebody needs to write a “The Crucible” about #MeToo only set during The Red Scare.

          2. P.S. Want an example of an honest liberal being spotted in the wild? I give you Masha Gessen.

            “It is possible, though extremely unlikely, that Veselnitskaya was coming to the table with the promise of emails obtained as a result of the hacks of the Democratic National Committee (which had already occurred). But this hypothesis raises more questions than it answers, including: How did Trump manage to keep quiet about the hacked trove for months afterward? How did the campaign agree to leave the release of the emails up to Julian Assange? And why hasn’t Trump made any attempt to get rid of the Magnitsky Act?

            More likely, Trump Jr. has told a kind of truth: Veselnitskaya had nothing of the sort that she had promised. The whole email exchange had been a con aimed at getting Trump’s top people to take a meeting with a Russian lobbyist. What makes it shocking is that the con worked, quickly and easily, because the conmen and their marks live in a shared world that runs on greed and the thirst for power—and nothing else.”

            —-Masha Gessen, July 2017

            https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/07/12/waking-up-to-the-trumpian-world/

            To put that quote into context, this is a former journalist in Russia who was chased out of the country by Putin’s cronies under the threat of taking her children away because she’s a lesbian. She despises Putin. She spends a great deal of that article excoriating Trump. And, yet, in the middle of the worst of the mainstream media speculation about how Putin and Trump conspired together to throw the election, Gessen stands up and says (figuratively), “These charges have no basis in reality”.

            This is the mark of intellectual honesty:

            I hate Putin.
            I hate Trump.
            The facts don’t support these charges against them.

            I love John Smith
            I love Mary Jones.
            The facts suggest they’re guilty.

            Christopher Hitchens was a leftist.
            He excoriated the Clintons.
            He excoriated the people on the left who opposed the Iraq War.

            If your understanding of the facts is limited by whether you like or dislike someone and their ideas, then you are not intellectually honest. Hitler was faithful to his wife, and, for all I know, Stalin was good to his mother.

    2. The dems tipped their hand when calling for that hearing. The fact that they were so incredibly insistent that lawyers question Barr would lead one to believe that they had every intention of attempting to lay a perjury trap for Barr. And when he pulled the rug out from under them they just went ahead with the planned narrative. Hence all the histrionics about Barr committing perjury when he clearly did no such thing. (at least not with respect to the quote they are touting.)

    3. Are you sure you don’t have a more official newsletter?

  19. According to Peanuts’ Lucy van Pelt – –
    “If you can’t be right, be wrong at the top of your voice.”

  20. police filmed clients undressing, getting massaged, and in some cases allegedly paying for sexual services

    The real victims here are the cops. Once you’ve seen 77-year-old Robert Kraft getting his shriveled carrot nibbled, you can never unsee it.

    1. It’s astonishing to me that a high profile billionaire would go to a seedy handjob joint. WTF.

      How does he not just have high priced call girls brought onto his private jet? And frankly why not just have some sugar babies on the side for regular reliable action. I am disappoint. You’re not billionairing right, Mr Kraft.

      1. He and Trump are best buds. You’d think the serial philanderer and porn-slut shtuper could give the Pats owner some tips, if not some leftovers.

        1. He’s friends with the wrong President. Clinton could have gotten him an invite on the Lolita Express with Epstein.

      2. That is kind of puzzling. But it seems to happen often enough. Maybe they just like that cheap hooker experience.

      3. Maybe because it is safer. These girls probably did not know who he was. The high priced ones are smarter and could try to take him for some real money.

  21. At the initial press conferences, police portrayed themselves as the heroic foilers of an international sex trafficking ring. It later came out that they had spent more than half a year getting massages from these alleged sex slaves before arresting them on felony prostitution charges—and charging no one with human trafficking.

    There’s a difference between taking selfies to show to your friends at work and producing the type of quality footage that can generate income via PornHub. The vast majority of Americans who pay taxes for income generated by having sex are law enforcement agents.

  22. It’s always a great day when the 4th amendment is upheld. It may be the next most important amendment given the surveillance state that we find ourselves in these days.

  23. […] As a result, Kraft seems to have prosecutors on the ropes. Judges in the case have ordered all video and audio recordings sealed and ruled that they cannot be used as evidence. […]

  24. […] A judge slaps down pigs & prosecutors for a change: […]

Please to post comments