Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Pro Football Talk) Weeners Bob Kraft gets off. Again   (profootballtalk.nbcsports.com) divider line
    More: Weeners, Law, Supreme court, Appeal, Patriots owner Robert Kraft, appeals court, simple reality of the case, rights of Kraft, Associated Press  
•       •       •

401 clicks; posted to Sports » on 24 Sep 2020 at 3:31 PM (4 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



41 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-09-24 3:03:41 PM  
Soooooooo does this effectively make rub 'n tugs legal now or is this just an "only if you're rich" kinda thing?
 
2020-09-24 3:44:33 PM  

WoolyManwich: Soooooooo does this effectively make rub 'n tugs legal now or is this just an "only if you're rich" kinda thing?


It's legal if the cops don't get a proper warrant. Even billionaire shiatheads have rights.
 
2020-09-24 3:54:02 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: WoolyManwich: Soooooooo does this effectively make rub 'n tugs legal now or is this just an "only if you're rich" kinda thing?

It's legal if the cops don't get a proper warrant. Even billionaire shiatheads have rights.


Simple concepts.  Police need to follow the law and not the President or it sometimes comes back to bite them.

Now Kraft can get back to important things, like sending his jet to China to pick up protective equipment, unloading it all directly into his trucks, and sending them to locations at the request of governors of states in Northeast US, with Massachusetts State Police escorting them and ready to face down Trump's Federal hijackers who are trying to steal it and distribute it to the highest bidders.

/I remember 2020 as if it were yesterday.  It was the year a personal grudge between the President and an NFL owner could have sparked civil war.
 
2020-09-24 4:33:25 PM  
There's rich and then there is rub and tug on camera by sex trafficked minority and get away with it rich.
 
2020-09-24 4:55:33 PM  

WoolyManwich: Soooooooo does this effectively make rub 'n tugs legal now or is this just an "only if you're rich" kinda thing?


Doesn't matter to Kraft as long as there's folks like Nana's Vibrator up there to rub him off while simultaneously trying to retcon his image as a Trump humper, suporter of sex trafficing, lying and cheating piece of garbage. And all because of Kraft being his favorite sportsball team's owner.

Watch, we're about get his reply where posts some nice lies involving victim blaming, ideal gas law and disavowing Trump followed by personal attacks for pointing out what a hypocrite he's been all over the sports tab for it.
 
2020-09-24 5:04:31 PM  

the1hatman: WoolyManwich: Soooooooo does this effectively make rub 'n tugs legal now or is this just an "only if you're rich" kinda thing?

Doesn't matter to Kraft as long as there's folks like Nana's Vibrator up there to rub him off while simultaneously trying to retcon his image as a Trump humper, suporter of sex trafficing, lying and cheating piece of garbage. And all because of Kraft being his favorite sportsball team's owner.

Watch, we're about get his reply where posts some nice lies involving victim blaming, ideal gas law and disavowing Trump followed by personal attacks for pointing out what a hypocrite he's been all over the sports tab for it.


I'll say this - at least you didn't follow me to another tab to work out a personal attack like you usually do.

i.pinimg.comView Full Size
 
2020-09-24 5:12:20 PM  
Money talks
Huh
That's new...
 
2020-09-24 5:24:31 PM  
But he's given non-Patriots fans decades of chants for when crowds are allowed back at stadiums.

Prepare to hear fans of every other AFC team chanting "Haaaaannd Jawwwwwwwb" every time the Pats take the field.

/And the Pats will deserve it.
 
2020-09-24 5:26:24 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: WoolyManwich: Soooooooo does this effectively make rub 'n tugs legal now or is this just an "only if you're rich" kinda thing?

It's legal if the cops don't get a proper warrant. Even billionaire shiatheads have rights.


Bet that warrant world have been just fine had you or I been involved. Just sayin'
 
2020-09-24 5:27:30 PM  

Nana's Vibrator: AliceBToklasLives: WoolyManwich: Soooooooo does this effectively make rub 'n tugs legal now or is this just an "only if you're rich" kinda thing?

It's legal if the cops don't get a proper warrant. Even billionaire shiatheads have rights.

Simple concepts.  Police need to follow the law and not the President or it sometimes comes back to bite them.

Now Kraft can get back to important things, like sending his jet to China to pick up protective equipment, unloading it all directly into his trucks, and sending them to locations at the request of governors of states in Northeast US, with Massachusetts State Police escorting them and ready to face down Trump's Federal hijackers who are trying to steal it and distribute it to the highest bidders.

/I remember 2020 as if it were yesterday.  It was the year a personal grudge between the President and an NFL owner could have sparked civil war.


Ah, the old 'he did good things so the bad things don't count' defense. Well played.
 
2020-09-24 6:01:32 PM  

WoolyManwich: Soooooooo does this effectively make rub 'n tugs legal now or is this just an "only if you're rich" kinda thing?


Not really.  However, rub 'n tiz'zugs are.
 
2020-09-24 6:09:53 PM  

JohnBigBootay: AliceBToklasLives: WoolyManwich: Soooooooo does this effectively make rub 'n tugs legal now or is this just an "only if you're rich" kinda thing?

It's legal if the cops don't get a proper warrant. Even billionaire shiatheads have rights.

Bet that warrant world have been just fine had you or I been involved. Just sayin'


No doubt. Clearly, in practice there is no equal protection. But I don't want to take those rights away from gross rich people, just extend them to everyone else.
 
2020-09-24 6:13:47 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: JohnBigBootay: AliceBToklasLives: WoolyManwich: Soooooooo does this effectively make rub 'n tugs legal now or is this just an "only if you're rich" kinda thing?

It's legal if the cops don't get a proper warrant. Even billionaire shiatheads have rights.

Bet that warrant world have been just fine had you or I been involved. Just sayin'

No doubt. Clearly, in practice there is no equal protection. But I don't want to take those rights away from gross rich people, just extend them to everyone else.


He went down with like 20 other dudes. Would be interesting to find out what happened to them. Which is probably that they took plea deals and paid fines a long time ago...
 
2020-09-24 6:17:44 PM  
Ah, another happy ending!!!
 
2020-09-24 6:24:07 PM  
Kraft gets happy ending.
 
2020-09-24 6:29:11 PM  
images-cdn.9gag.comView Full Size
 
2020-09-24 6:37:03 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-24 6:38:32 PM  
So did the massage parlor employee get a Kraft dinner?
 
2020-09-24 6:55:08 PM  
Rich people are so weird. Kraft could have easily paid somebody to come to his place for a little fun instead of heading to the nearest strip mall massage parlor. Kraft, Trump, Epstein, they all have money so that they could be sugar daddies. Yet they have such farked up private lives.
 
2020-09-24 7:08:20 PM  
Kraft pissed me off when this happened, and I say that as a Pats fan.

One of my favorite things to do was eat a blooming onion at Outback a few doors down before I went to Orchids, then I'd visit there and crop dust the massage lady as she worked my balls.

It was satisfying being able to pass a duster while the young Asian woman rubbed me down. Usually you have to pay more for that.
 
2020-09-24 7:32:27 PM  

skinink: Rich people are so weird. Kraft could have easily paid somebody to come to his place for a little fun instead of heading to the nearest strip mall massage parlor. Kraft, Trump, Epstein, they all have money so that they could be sugar daddies. Yet they have such farked up private lives.


Nevermind the scale.  Kraft went for a handy, left - his driver got oulled over and the police ID'ed Kraft.  THEN HE WENT BACK THE NEXT DAY.  He got some kind of double BJ but it was with a 58 year old woman.  58 is great if you're married or in love or whatever.  Not so much at the plaza.  He's really just a lost little man who married into big money then bought a hobby but then accidentally fell into billions with 1 good decision (Parcells) and 1 lucky one (Belichick).
 
2020-09-24 7:44:34 PM  

JohnBigBootay: AliceBToklasLives: JohnBigBootay: AliceBToklasLives: WoolyManwich: Soooooooo does this effectively make rub 'n tugs legal now or is this just an "only if you're rich" kinda thing?

It's legal if the cops don't get a proper warrant. Even billionaire shiatheads have rights.

Bet that warrant world have been just fine had you or I been involved. Just sayin'

No doubt. Clearly, in practice there is no equal protection. But I don't want to take those rights away from gross rich people, just extend them to everyone else.

He went down with like 20 other dudes. Would be interesting to find out what happened to them. Which is probably that they took plea deals and paid fines a long time ago...


Wait a minute; was this about hand jobs, or a bunch of guys blowing each other?
 
2020-09-24 7:45:16 PM  
These high priced lawyers can get pretty much any jerk off
 
2020-09-24 7:49:05 PM  

JohnBigBootay: AliceBToklasLives: JohnBigBootay: AliceBToklasLives: WoolyManwich: Soooooooo does this effectively make rub 'n tugs legal now or is this just an "only if you're rich" kinda thing?

It's legal if the cops don't get a proper warrant. Even billionaire shiatheads have rights.

Bet that warrant world have been just fine had you or I been involved. Just sayin'

No doubt. Clearly, in practice there is no equal protection. But I don't want to take those rights away from gross rich people, just extend them to everyone else.

He went down with like 20 other dudes. Would be interesting to find out what happened to them. Which is probably that they took plea deals and paid fines a long time ago...


Probably the other guys *did* take plea deals because they couldn't afford to keep fighting indefinitely.  I'm really hoping that since the evidence was disallowed, any convictions were voided, but I don't have any idea what became of those guys.

Btw:  sex trafficking always gets mentioned in these threads. Is there any evidence that there was any involved?
 
2020-09-24 8:09:36 PM  

TheWaldo: There's rich and then there is rub and tug on camera by sex trafficked minority and get away with it rich.


I would like to be that rich.  If I was Boobies would be back on Fark in half a heartbeat
 
2020-09-24 8:26:09 PM  

Naido: JohnBigBootay: AliceBToklasLives: JohnBigBootay: AliceBToklasLives: WoolyManwich: Soooooooo does this effectively make rub 'n tugs legal now or is this just an "only if you're rich" kinda thing?

It's legal if the cops don't get a proper warrant. Even billionaire shiatheads have rights.

Bet that warrant world have been just fine had you or I been involved. Just sayin'

No doubt. Clearly, in practice there is no equal protection. But I don't want to take those rights away from gross rich people, just extend them to everyone else.

He went down with like 20 other dudes. Would be interesting to find out what happened to them. Which is probably that they took plea deals and paid fines a long time ago...

Probably the other guys *did* take plea deals because they couldn't afford to keep fighting indefinitely.  I'm really hoping that since the evidence was disallowed, any convictions were voided, but I don't have any idea what became of those guys.

Btw:  sex trafficking always gets mentioned in these threads. Is there any evidence that there was any involved?


Seems I heard not but that's worth what you paid for it. Just a vague recollection...
 
2020-09-24 8:34:08 PM  

TheWaldo: There's rich and then there is rub and tug on camera by sex trafficked minority and get away with it rich.


No one was sex trafficked. Stop buying the lies from the cops. Of they were trafficked, the cops wouldn't have waited over a month before rescuing them and wouldn't have arrested and charged them all with crimes.
 
2020-09-24 8:38:49 PM  

JohnBigBootay: AliceBToklasLives: WoolyManwich: Soooooooo does this effectively make rub 'n tugs legal now or is this just an "only if you're rich" kinda thing?

It's legal if the cops don't get a proper warrant. Even billionaire shiatheads have rights.

Bet that warrant world have been just fine had you or I been involved. Just sayin'


Doubtful, honestly. From the beginning this was 100% a blackmail scam.

1) They obviously weren't concerned about the women because they let it go on for over a month without rescuing them and then they charged them all with prostitution.
2) They illegally placed a camera. They had to know the pics from the camera wouldn't be admissible in court because it was blatantly obvious that the placement was illegal.
3) They gave folks a choice - pay a $1,000 fine (that the police department gets to keep) or get charged with a crime with a maximum penalty of $100. What could possibly be the difference? Oh, yeah, the photos they illegally gathered and said they would make public if they don't cooperate.

This was always a blackmail scam. It's disgusting that the cops get away with it but when you see how many folks are ready to carry their water, it's obvious why they continue to do it.
 
2020-09-24 8:48:39 PM  

JohnBigBootay: AliceBToklasLives: JohnBigBootay: AliceBToklasLives: WoolyManwich: Soooooooo does this effectively make rub 'n tugs legal now or is this just an "only if you're rich" kinda thing?

It's legal if the cops don't get a proper warrant. Even billionaire shiatheads have rights.

Bet that warrant world have been just fine had you or I been involved. Just sayin'

No doubt. Clearly, in practice there is no equal protection. But I don't want to take those rights away from gross rich people, just extend them to everyone else.

He went down with like 20 other dudes. Would be interesting to find out what happened to them. Which is probably that they took plea deals and paid fines a long time ago...


They all paid the blackmail.
 
2020-09-24 9:21:25 PM  

meanmutton: TheWaldo: There's rich and then there is rub and tug on camera by sex trafficked minority and get away with it rich.

No one was sex trafficked. Stop buying the lies from the cops. Of they were trafficked, the cops wouldn't have waited over a month before rescuing them and wouldn't have arrested and charged them all with crimes.


That's kind of what I thought, but was trying to be open minded if any evidence existed.  There are one or two people who tend to indicate, or signal really, that there was some trafficking going on here
 
2020-09-24 10:13:28 PM  

Naido: meanmutton: TheWaldo: There's rich and then there is rub and tug on camera by sex trafficked minority and get away with it rich.

No one was sex trafficked. Stop buying the lies from the cops. Of they were trafficked, the cops wouldn't have waited over a month before rescuing them and wouldn't have arrested and charged them all with crimes.

That's kind of what I thought, but was trying to be open minded if any evidence existed.  There are one or two people who tend to indicate, or signal really, that there was some trafficking going on here


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-25 12:17:02 AM  

Theaetetus: Naido: meanmutton: TheWaldo: There's rich and then there is rub and tug on camera by sex trafficked minority and get away with it rich.

No one was sex trafficked. Stop buying the lies from the cops. Of they were trafficked, the cops wouldn't have waited over a month before rescuing them and wouldn't have arrested and charged them all with crimes.

That's kind of what I thought, but was trying to be open minded if any evidence existed.  There are one or two people who tend to indicate, or signal really, that there was some trafficking going on here

[Fark user image image 453x576]


I domt blame them. The cops spun the whole sex trafficking fantasy to help with their blackmail angle. I get why some folks buy their lies.
 
2020-09-25 1:34:22 AM  

JohnBigBootay: AliceBToklasLives: WoolyManwich: Soooooooo does this effectively make rub 'n tugs legal now or is this just an "only if you're rich" kinda thing?

It's legal if the cops don't get a proper warrant. Even billionaire shiatheads have rights.

Bet that warrant world have been just fine had you or I been involved. Just sayin'


It wouldn't have mattered whether the warrant was valid or not to you or I.

Anybody without more money than they could possible make use of would have taken the deal to pay $1,000 (or whatever was offered) to make it go away. The cops screwed the pooch on this one by taking on someone wealthy enough to not care about spending $100,000 on lawyers for no real benefit, then shouting his name from the rooftops to make him pissed off with nothing to lose.
 
2020-09-25 1:49:49 AM  

Naido: JohnBigBootay: AliceBToklasLives: JohnBigBootay: AliceBToklasLives: WoolyManwich: Soooooooo does this effectively make rub 'n tugs legal now or is this just an "only if you're rich" kinda thing?

It's legal if the cops don't get a proper warrant. Even billionaire shiatheads have rights.

Bet that warrant world have been just fine had you or I been involved. Just sayin'

No doubt. Clearly, in practice there is no equal protection. But I don't want to take those rights away from gross rich people, just extend them to everyone else.

He went down with like 20 other dudes. Would be interesting to find out what happened to them. Which is probably that they took plea deals and paid fines a long time ago...

Probably the other guys *did* take plea deals because they couldn't afford to keep fighting indefinitely.  I'm really hoping that since the evidence was disallowed, any convictions were voided, but I don't have any idea what became of those guys.

Btw:  sex trafficking always gets mentioned in these threads. Is there any evidence that there was any involved?


In the sense that people think of when someone says "sex trafficking" (name people transported around the world by force, coercion, or false pretences in order to be used as sex workers)? We have not seen anything to indicate that at all.

Under the absurdly broad Federal legal definition of "sex trafficking"? There was sex trafficking involved.

22 USC 7102

(12)Sex trafficking

The term "sex trafficking" means the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act.


Under this definition any prostitution results in both parties being sex traffickers.

Similar to the recent case where the DOJ put out a notice where they rescued so many kids from sex trafficking, many people read that as they had freed kids kidnapped and forced into prostitution when no such thing happened.
 
2020-09-25 2:18:03 AM  

dywed88: Under the absurdly broad Federal legal definition of "sex trafficking"? There was sex trafficking involved.

22 USC 7102

(12)Sex trafficking

The term "sex trafficking" means the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act.

Under this definition any prostitution results in both parties being sex traffickers.


Sorta yes, sorta no... That's from title 22, which is statutes related to foreign relations, and that particular definition is in part of a section on providing funds for education and investigation.  18 USC 1591 is the federal criminal statute on sex trafficking, and it recites:
(a)Whoever knowingly-
(1) in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, obtains, advertises, maintains, patronizes, or solicits by any means a person...knowing... that means of force, threats of force, fraud, coercion described in subsection (e)(2), or any combination of such means will be used to cause the person to engage in a commercial sex act...shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).


So it doesn't apply to consensual prostitution, but forced prostitution, which makes more sense for the common colloquial definition of "trafficking". A trip to Nevada's brothels wouldn't qualify, for example.
 
2020-09-25 2:37:46 AM  

Theaetetus: dywed88: Under the absurdly broad Federal legal definition of "sex trafficking"? There was sex trafficking involved.

22 USC 7102

(12)Sex trafficking

The term "sex trafficking" means the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act.

Under this definition any prostitution results in both parties being sex traffickers.

Sorta yes, sorta no... That's from title 22, which is statutes related to foreign relations, and that particular definition is in part of a section on providing funds for education and investigation.  18 USC 1591 is the federal criminal statute on sex trafficking, and it recites:
(a)Whoever knowingly-
(1) in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, obtains, advertises, maintains, patronizes, or solicits by any means a person...knowing... that means of force, threats of force, fraud, coercion described in subsection (e)(2), or any combination of such means will be used to cause the person to engage in a commercial sex act...shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

So it doesn't apply to consensual prostitution, but forced prostitution, which makes more sense for the common colloquial definition of "trafficking". A trip to Nevada's brothels wouldn't qualify, for example.


That is the crime of "sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion". So presumably the listed acts in (1) not involving those items would still be part of the broader definition of "sex trafficking" which brings us back to the 22 USC 1702 definition.

Regardless, though, 22 USC 1702 is plenty for the cops involved to go "it meets the definition of 'sex trafficking' under federal law so we were entirely accurate to say that there was sex trafficking involved" if they were ever called on it.
 
2020-09-25 3:39:30 AM  

dywed88: Theaetetus: dywed88: Under the absurdly broad Federal legal definition of "sex trafficking"? There was sex trafficking involved.

22 USC 7102

(12)Sex trafficking

The term "sex trafficking" means the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act.

Under this definition any prostitution results in both parties being sex traffickers.

Sorta yes, sorta no... That's from title 22, which is statutes related to foreign relations, and that particular definition is in part of a section on providing funds for education and investigation.  18 USC 1591 is the federal criminal statute on sex trafficking, and it recites:
(a)Whoever knowingly-
(1) in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, obtains, advertises, maintains, patronizes, or solicits by any means a person...knowing... that means of force, threats of force, fraud, coercion described in subsection (e)(2), or any combination of such means will be used to cause the person to engage in a commercial sex act...shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

So it doesn't apply to consensual prostitution, but forced prostitution, which makes more sense for the common colloquial definition of "trafficking". A trip to Nevada's brothels wouldn't qualify, for example.

That is the crime of "sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion". So presumably the listed acts in (1) not involving those items would still be part of the broader definition of "sex trafficking" which brings us back to the 22 USC 1702 definition.

Regardless, though, 22 USC 1702 is plenty for the cops involved to go "it meets the definition of 'sex trafficking' under federal law so we were entirely accurate to say that there was sex trafficking involved" if they were ever called on it.


Nope. Title 18 - 18 USC nnn - is the federal criminal code. That's the one that defines crimes at the federal level. Statutes in other titles are either enforced by the courts, such as civil actions (e.g. title 35 (patent law), title 47 (telecommunications), title 17 (copyright), etc.), or cover funding for various governmental agencies.
There are not two federal crimes of "sex trafficking" in title 22 and "sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion" in title 18 - it's just the latter.

If you don't believe me, go back and read 22 USC 1702 et seq. and look for any mention of felonies, misdemeanors, years in prison, etc. They're not there, because it's not part of the criminal code.
 
2020-09-25 3:42:11 AM  
Hell, just look at the chapter titles. Here's title 22:
§7101. Purposes and findings
§7102. Definitions
§7103. Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking
§7103a. Creating, building, and strengthening partnerships against significant trafficking in persons
§7104. Prevention of trafficking
§7104a. Compliance plan and certification requirement
§7104b. Monitoring and investigation of trafficking in persons
§7104c. Notification to Inspectors General and cooperation with government
§7104d. Rules of construction; effective date
§7104e. Preventing future trafficking in the United States through receipt of complaints abroad
§7105. Protection and assistance for victims of trafficking
§7105a. Increasing effectiveness of anti-trafficking programs
§7105b. Improving domestic victim screening procedures
§7106. Minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking
§7107. Actions against governments failing to meet minimum standards
§7108. Actions against significant traffickers in persons
§7109. Strengthening prosecution and punishment of traffickers
§7109a. Research on domestic and international trafficking in persons
§7109b. Presidential Award for Extraordinary Efforts To Combat Trafficking in Persons
§7110. Authorizations of appropriations
§7111. Report by Secretary of State
§7112. Additional activities to monitor and combat forced labor and child labor
§7113. Accountability
§7114. Efforts to end modern slavery

Compared to title 18:
§1581. Peonage; obstructing enforcement
§1582. Vessels for slave trade
§1583. Enticement into slavery
§1584. Sale into involuntary servitude
§1585. Seizure, detention, transportation or sale of slaves
§1586. Service on vessels in slave trade
§1587. Possession of slaves aboard vessel
§1588. Transportation of slaves from United States
§1589. Forced labor
§1590. Trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced labor
§1591. Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion
§1592. Unlawful conduct with respect to documents in furtherance of trafficking, peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced labor
§1593. Mandatory restitution
§1593A. Benefitting financially from peonage, slavery, and trafficking in persons
§1594. General provisions
§1595. Civil remedy
§1595A. Civil injunctions
§1596. Additional jurisdiction in certain trafficking offenses
§1597. Unlawful conduct with respect to immigration documents

Which one of those looks like things cops enforce as opposed to things agencies do?
 
2020-09-25 11:06:14 AM  

Theaetetus: dywed88: Theaetetus: dywed88: Under the absurdly broad Federal legal definition of "sex trafficking"? There was sex trafficking involved.

22 USC 7102

(12)Sex trafficking

The term "sex trafficking" means the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act.

Under this definition any prostitution results in both parties being sex traffickers.

Sorta yes, sorta no... That's from title 22, which is statutes related to foreign relations, and that particular definition is in part of a section on providing funds for education and investigation.  18 USC 1591 is the federal criminal statute on sex trafficking, and it recites:
(a)Whoever knowingly-
(1) in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, obtains, advertises, maintains, patronizes, or solicits by any means a person...knowing... that means of force, threats of force, fraud, coercion described in subsection (e)(2), or any combination of such means will be used to cause the person to engage in a commercial sex act...shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

So it doesn't apply to consensual prostitution, but forced prostitution, which makes more sense for the common colloquial definition of "trafficking". A trip to Nevada's brothels wouldn't qualify, for example.

That is the crime of "sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion". So presumably the listed acts in (1) not involving those items would still be part of the broader definition of "sex trafficking" which brings us back to the 22 USC 1702 definition.

Regardless, though, 22 USC 1702 is plenty for the cops involved to go "it meets the definition of 'sex trafficking' under federal law so we were entirely accurate to say that there was sex trafficking involved" if they were ever called on it.

Nope. Title 18 - 18 USC nnn - is the federal criminal code. That's the one that defines crimes at the federal level. Statutes in other titles are either enforced by the courts, such as civil actions (e.g. title 35 (patent law), title 47 (telecommunications), title 17 (copyright), etc.), or cover funding for various governmental agencies.
There are not two federal crimes of "sex trafficking" in title 22 and "sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion" in title 18 - it's just the latter.

If you don't believe me, go back and read 22 USC 1702 et seq. and look for any mention of felonies, misdemeanors, years in prison, etc. They're not there, because it's not part of the criminal code.


I didn't say it was a crime. I said it is enough for law enforcement to justify saying something involves "sex trafficking" when trying to make something sound like a much bigger deal than it is.
 
2020-09-25 11:41:15 AM  

dywed88: I didn't say it was a crime. I said it is enough for law enforcement to justify saying something involves "sex trafficking" when trying to make something sound like a much bigger deal than it is.


Ah, gotcha. Still no. Law enforcement would get laughed out of court if they tried that. That's as bad as sovereign citizens quoting the UCC as to why they're travelers and not drivers.
Stupid journalists who can't tell the difference saying that? Totally. But they should be mocked for the lazy idiots they are.
 
2020-09-25 12:14:46 PM  

WoolyManwich: Soooooooo does this effectively make rub 'n tugs legal now or is this just an "only if you're rich" kinda thing?


I think its a "no one ever gets arrested for this and we just arrested him to make a point" thing.

Because all over america, police departments wink and nod at forced sexual slavery as if its okay.

it is not okay.
 
Displayed 41 of 41 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.