Footage Prosecuted As Child Porn Put Back On Store Shelf By Police Chief

Commercial adult footage is prosecuted as child porn by the U.S. feds. Two of the alleged minors and their prosecuted footage can be found on “Blue Vanities” tapes #80 and #82. A government witness testifies the female on tape #80 is no older than 14. Post-conviction, the prosecutor is handed a sworn Affidavit documenting that these tapes are available over the counter just miles from their office. Still available eighteen months later, this information is provided to the local police.

The police rent, view and copy the prosecuted footage on tape #80 and offer their investigation to the same U.S. Attorney’s Office that prosecuted the footage, and they decline prosecution.  The tape is taken back to the video store for public distribution, along with two other tapes containing footage prosecuted as child porn by the same office.  Chief then claims there was no investigation by his department.  Adult porn or child pornography, what’s the trewthe?

PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR:

The alleged minors are vintage performers Tove Jensen and Christa. Their prosecuted footage is the Color Climax produced “Teenage Tricks”, and the Film Lab A/S produced “Group Sex” which are found on “Blue Vanities” (B.V.) tapes #80 and #82. (B.V. #80 contains the Caballero Control release of “Teenage Tricks”, titled, “Patsy Learns To Play”, Swedish Erotica #293).

This information is provided to the prosecution before and during trial.  Forced to acknowledge it was the same footage, the prosecutor alleges the defendant may have tampered with B.V. #80, and successfully objects to B.V. #82 on the grounds the government needed time to authenticate the tape. In post-conviction correspondence, the prosecutor refers to the producer/distributor of the B.V. tapes as “other traffickers” in child porn that have yet to be caught.

P.I. Affidavit

B.V. Tapes In Video Store

B.V. Tapes In Store

Several years later, a private investigator (P.I.) is hired to document the availability of the B.V. tapes in the same jurisdiction as the prosecution.  The P.I. discovers five local stores renting/selling the B.V. tapes, including one distributing B.V. tapes #80 and #82 just miles from the U.S. Attorney’s Office that prosecuted the footage.

Eight months later, the P.I. confirms that B.V. tapes #80 and #82 are still available over the counter at the video store. The P.I. swears out an Affidavit documenting this information.  The Affidavit is hand delivered to the same federal prosecutor who claims; “every law enforcement officer, juror and judge who reviewed the tapes in question…have unanimously found that the tapes depict minors”.

Eighteen months later, the P.I. visits the same video store, and confirms that B.V. tapes #80 and #82 are still available over the counter. Again the P.I. swears out an Affidavit, this time documenting that the tape covers description of the content is consistent with trial testimony and statements.

CITY INVESTIGATION:

A visit is made to the police department where the video store is located. A patrol officer and his Sargent are informed that footage prosecuted as child porn is available over the counter, on B.V. tapes #80 and #82, at a video store in their jurisdiction. They are further informed that a hired P.I. confirmed as much that morning. A copy of the case cover of B.V. #80 (Defense Exhibit 200) is offered to the officer, who makes a copy of it.

On a follow up visit two months later, the same officer claims the investigation is pending, but is upset that the issue was brought to their attention, claiming, “You’re trying to get us involved in the federal government’s problems”.

Five months after the initial contact, the City Manager is now involved, and the Chief of Police is personally handling the investigation. In phone conversations, the Chief confirms that a Lieutenant bought a membership at the video store. The Lieutenant confirms that he rented B.V. tape #80, viewed and copied “Patsy Learns To Play”, and is in contact with the U.S. Attorney’s Office that prosecuted the footage.

B.V. #80 Rental List

An index card with rental dates and member IDs is left in B.V. #80’s video case, indicating the Lieutenant rented the tape on January 9, 200x, using membership number 16751.

The department confirms that footage on B.V. #80 was part of a federal prosecution, presents their investigation and B.V. tape #80 to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and that office declines prosecution. This is confirmed in a telephone conversation with the Assistant U.S. Attorney, who stated, “I have declined prosecution, I’m not going to talk to ya about the details of our decision”.

According to the U.S. Attorney Manual, the only official who can decline a child porn case is the U.S. Attorney in charge of that jurisdiction.

The city refuses to take the case any further, and the investigation is confirmed to be inactive by several sources. The police take B.V. tape #80 back to the video store and it’s re-shelved for public distribution, along with Christa’s prosecuted footage, “Group Sex”, on B.V. #82. Also in the store is GM Video’s, “Nineteen & Lovin It”, containing a third alleged minor and her prosecuted footage, and additional loops of Christa and Tove on B.V. tapes #147, #151, #433, and #397.  Note: images taken at the video store in question: female on cover of “Nineteen & Lovin It” is not the one alleged.

B.V. Tapes 80/82

B.V. Tapes 80/82

B.V. Tapes 147/151/433

"Nineteen & Lovin It"

B.V. Tape 397--back

B.V. Tape 397--back

REQUEST FOR RECORDS:

Under state law, police departments are required to create and retain certain records, and incident reports and reports of inactive investigations are considered open (public) records. Pursuant to their investigation, a request for copies of these reports is filed with the city under the state Sunshine Law. Although exhibits were secured, and tax money, time and resources spent on the investigation, the city denies the request on the grounds that no records were created.

After a confrontation regarding their obligation to create and retain the records, the City Manager offers to meet with the Chief and his Lieutenants to determine the scope of their investigation. In a phone conversation, the City Manager states; “they don’t believe there is any crime, nor is the movie child pornography….the feds can say what they want….that’s not child pornography”.

City Manager Letter

City Manager Letter

When asked if a citizen can legally possess, view and own B.V. tape #80 with “Patsy Learns To Play”, he replies, “that’s exactly what I’m telling you”, and offers to put it in writing.

 

 

In his letter, the City Manager states:

____ Police Lieutenant ____ went to ____ and after two attempts, located the alleged tape and reviewed it. In the opinion of the ____ Police Department, this tape did not contain child pornography….it was verified with the federal prosecutors that the Tape 80 was one of the tapes that was involved in the criminal case in which you were convicted….Due to the fact that there was no crime committed in the City of ____ in regards to this tape, no police report was required or prepared.

A complaint is filed with the state Attorney General, alleging the city is in violation of the state Sunshine Law. An assistant state attorney general (AAG) is provided background on the federal prosecution and per his request, a chronology of communications with the city, which spans nine months, and is signed under penalty of perjury. The AAG makes an inquiry with the Chief of Police, after confirming the following:

I contacted Assistant U.S. Attorney ____ who told me that, while your department did consult with ____ about the case, ____ never received any written report.

The Chief responds that no records were created, or required to be created, because:

All the detective did was get a copy of the tape, reviewed it, and determined that there was no violation of State law or City ordinances. There was no police report written.

The AAG accepts this response, even though he knows it conflicts with information previously provided to him, including the City Manager’s letter.

It’s clear in this instance that at least 12 state and federal authorities are knowingly allowing footage prosecuted as child porn to be openly distributed, including the individual and office that prosecuted the footage.

The alternative is that the city knows, or has reason to believe, the feds used false testimony.

QUESTIONS:

Under what circumstances would a Police Chief violate his oath of office and subject himself to a misprision of felony charge by overruling a federal jury verdict based on sworn testimony?

Under what circumstances would a Police Chief state on the record that footage prosecuted as child porn is legal to possess, after consulting with the individual and office that prosecuted the footage?

Under what circumstances would a city conspire with the U.S. feds to deprive a citizen of their civil rights by withholding evidence of actual innocence?

Under what circumstances would the U.S. feds deviate from their sworn testimony and statements in court filings regarding alleged minors being sexually exploited?  What’s the trewthe?

 

FBI Ignores Senate Requests To Investigate Company Distributing Footage Prosecuted As Child Porn

NOTE: NSFW=ADULT CONTENT

BACKGROUND

U.S. feds prosecute commercial footage as child porn. The alleged minors include vintage performers Tove Jensen, and a long-haired blond female known as “Christa”. A government witness testifies that Tove is no older than 14 in her prosecuted footage, “Teenage Tricks”. The government is repeatedly made aware that the Tove and Christa footage could be found on “Blue Vanities” tapes #80 and #82, distributed by a company the prosecutor referred to as “other traffickers” in child porn, Filmfare Video Labs.

Yet post conviction, federal officials allowed Filmfare and retailers to distribute the tapes containing the prosecuted footage as adult material, while a federal agency renewed their trademark.

Senator’s Letter

This conflicting conduct calls into question the integrity and public reputation of the government, and denies citizens the right to know what conduct is legal or illegal. With that background, two U.S. Senators requested the FBI to investigate Filmfare and their “Blue Vanities” (B.V.) tapes. One of those requests, pictured at left, states:

The information you provided to my office, including the name of the company distributing the tapes, has been forwarded to both the US Attorneys Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I have requested that the matter be investigated and I am confident this issue will be reviewed.

An attorney with this Senator confirmed that a personal call was made to FBI Headquarters (and the local U.S. Attorney). A staffer with the second Senator confirmed discussions with a regional FBI supervisor.

FBI Response

Recently, an FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request was made to the FBI for all documents related to any investigation of Filmfare Video Labs and their “Blue Vanities” tapes. By policy, any investigation would have been completed long before the request was made. In a response, dated March 4, 2008 (pictured above), the FBI confirms they ignored the Senators’ requests:

No records responsive to your FOIPA request were located by a search of the automated indices.

If the FBI had conducted an investigation, what would they have found?

TOVE

First, they would have confirmed what the prosecution team refused to acknowledge; that the Tove Jensen “Teenage Tricks” footage prosecuted on government exhibit 17-A, is the same as the “Patsy Learns To Play” footage on B.V. #80.

Diplomat Film Catalog Cover Catalog Ad For Tove's "Teach My Sister" 8mm Cover of Diplomat Film #1027-"Teach My Sister" CC Video Ad For Sex Orgy #806-"Teach My Sister"  Second, they would have discovered that Tove appeared in a number of loops, including the Color Climax produced “Teach My Sister”. As detailed in the photos above and below, this loop was released on their Diplomat label, identified as #1027, then re-released on the video compilation Sex Orgy #806.  The FBI would have discovered that this same footage is identified on B.V. tape #397, (NSFW) with an altered title. NOTE: None of the B.V. tape covers contain the alleged females.

Tove Jensen Index Of Appearances

This would have led to the other appearances of a known female which are well documented  and openly distributed.  And which were produced in the time frame the DOJ claims Tove was a young teen being abused.

CHRISTA

Again, the FBI would have confirmed what the prosecution team refused to investigate; that the prosecuted “Group Sex” footage on government exhibit 17-E, is the same footage as the “Group Sex” loop found on B.V. #82.

Second, as noted previously, Christa appeared in a number of the Teenage Climax loops produced by Film Lab A/S. In addition to the prosecuted “Group Sex” loop, identified as TA Climax #1509, she also appeared in TA Climax #1501 “After School Time”. The FBI would have discovered this footage on B.V. tape #147. (NSFW)

This would have led to the other appearances of Christa, including Color Climax #1435, “Disco Gang Bang”, which can be found on B.V. tapes #151 and tape #433. (NSFW)

The FBI also would have discovered a company operating out of a St. Louis, MO post office box named New Path. New Path bought a large volume of B.V. tapes and is advertising them for sale in the Softcore, Miscellaneous and European categories on their website, adultvid.com. This includes the prosecuted footage of Christa on Tape 82, and footage of her on Tapes 147 and 151, (Euorpean category) which contain the same content and numbering system as the B.V. tapes.

UPDATE: Adultvid.com, registered in 1996, was not set to expire until 2009. But it is currently in limbo. Yet, as the photos below detail, the Christa loops “Group Sex” and “After-school Time” were available on tapes 82 and 147. And the site Contact info was a St. Louis, MO address and phone number.

adultvid_82

Adult Vid #82

adultvid_147

Adult Vid #147

adultvid_contact

Adult Vid Contact Page

QUESTIONS:

Under what circumstances would the FBI refuse to honor Congressional requests to investigate a company distributing footage prosecuted as child porn?

Under what circumstances would the FBI allow the unrestricted public access of pornographic footage containing a known female the DOJ claims is 14 years old?

What does the FBI know about the evidence used in this prosecution that they refused to acknowledge to the Senators?

Child porn or continuing conspiracy? What’s the trewthe?

DOJ Filed False Declaration In 2257 Litigation

LITIGATION

Pursuant to the Protect Act, the DOJ issued new 2257 regulations addressing adult pornography on the Internet, which became effective in June of 2005.  In response, the U.S. adult industry filed suit in Colorado District court seeking a temporary restraining order, which was converted to a motion for preliminary injunction; Free Speech Coalition, Inc. et al., v Gonzales (05-cv-1126).

The plaintiffs were Free Speech Coalition, Inc. (FSC), the non-profit trade association of the U.S. adult entertainment industry; Lenjo, Inc. (dba as New Beginnings), a wholesaler of adult materials; and David Connors, an adult performer/producer who operates Dave Cummings Productions.  A number of the court documents can be found on FSC’s website.

Discovery in a U.S. federal civil suit falls under Chapter V of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 26-37.  Rule 33 covers Interrogatories, of which the response must be signed under penalty of perjury.

In July, 2005, the government filed a response to the plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories/admissions, including No.5 at pages 5-7:

5. Identify any document, study, report, or other information within Defendant’s possession that any Plaintiff or any of Plaintiffs’ members have been involved with or linked to the creation, dissemination, or distribution of actual child pornography. For the purposes of this interrogatory, assume that Plaintiffs’ membership includes all corporate entities in the United States that produce material depicting adults engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct.

Because the master list of FSC members was sealed, the government limited its response to corporate entities:

Subject to these objections and qualifications, Defendant is unaware of any non-privileged report or study that references the involvement of specific “corporate entities,” defined as specified supra, with child pornography.

And the declaration was made by:

I, Richard A. Hertling, hereby declare that the foregoing responses are true and correct.

This was false.  At the time of the July, 2005 filing, material owned or distributed by the following commercial adult companies had been charged or prosecuted as actual child pornography, including six that fit the definition of “corporate entit[y]”.

Als Scan, Inc.: Incorporated in Maryland and a member of FSC, 37 images from alsscan.com were charged as child porn in 2003.  The 8 females were alleged to be no older than 13 by the state of Massachusetts.

Digital Palette, Inc.: Administers the colorclimax website, and contracts with Color Climax for the digital Internet rights of their inventory, which includes footage and images of the Tove Jensen loop “Teenage Tricks” prosecuted as child porn by the DOJ.

Filmfare Video Labs, Inc.: Incorporated in Delaware, they distributed the “Blue Vanities” tapes, through their website, bluevanities.com, and through the mail.  B.V. tapes #80 and #82 contain footage prosecuted as child porn by the DOJ.

NewPath Inc.: Incorporated in Missouri, they bought and resold others’ video tapes as their own thru their recently closed website, adultvid.com.  These tapes included B.V. tapes #80 and #82, which contain the Tove and Christa footage prosecuted as child porn by the DOJ.

Caballero Control Corp.: Incorporated in California, they produced/distributed the Swedish Erotica adult movies, which includes #293, “Patsy Learns To Play”, the U.S. title of Tove Jensen’s “Teenage Tricks”, prosecuted as child porn by the DOJ.

A&B Video: Corporate status unclear of the defunct Florida based company, but they owned/distributed the flashing footage prosecuted as child porn by the DOJ.

GM Video, Inc.: An FSC member, they owned/distributed the A&B Video flashing footage prosecuted as child porn by the DOJ.

Dave Connors Productions: Known as Dave Cummings, and a plaintiff in the FSC v Gonzales case, Connors produced and uploaded to his website images of himself with Melissa Bertsch (Melissa-Ashley), that were charged by the U.S. feds as child porn in 2003.

FALSE DECLARATIONS

Knowingly making a false declaration in a court proceeding is a violation of 18 USC 1623:

(a) Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

In addition to Hertling, who at the time was Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, seven other DOJ officials contributed to the response (pg.12), including:

Laura Parsky…Criminal Division, Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Andrew Oosterbaan…Criminal Division, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Branch, Director

William Hall…Criminal Division, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Branch, Trial Attorney

At the time of Hertling’s filing, a number of DOJ employees had been informed directly or indirectly that “Blue Vanities” tapes distributed by Filmfare Video Labs, Inc., contained footage prosecuted as child porn, including:

* Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division

* Assistant Director Criminal Investigative Division–FBI

* Several CEOS attorneys

* At least 3 DOJ attorneys

* At least 4 federal prosecutors

* At least 4 federal agents

QUESTIONS

More questions.  Did the DOJ subject Hertling to a perjury charge by refusing to acknowledge they have charged and prosecuted commercial adult porn as child porn?

Was expert testimony/Tanner Staging used in all those cases, and is that what the DOJ is protecting?

Is that why the U.S. feds are allowing the prosecuted footage of “Teenage Tricks”, “Group Sex”, “L**ita Climax”, and “Nineteen & Lovin It” to be commercially distributed?

If so, then which of the more than 50 public servants who are knowingly allowing said prosecuted footage to be distributed, will be called as a defense witness in the R Kelly child porn trial?

How many will be called to refute the testimony of Dr. Sharon Cooper?  What’s the trewthe?

U.S. Feds Say Female On “Nineteen & Lovin It” Is Underage

NOTE: NSFW=ADULT CONTENT

This is the third female whose prosecuted footage the U.S. feds are allowing to be distributed.

Female accused by U.S. feds of being underage in video footage. Defendant recognizes footage as flashing material from a legitimate adult distributor, A&B Video, and requests redacted copies of footage to assist in identifying the alleged female. Feds initially agree to the discovery request but later renege. The jury convicts. Feds made aware of origin of footage, but fail to follow up. Footage now distributed by GM Video, and advertised for sale, rental, VOD on the Internet, and over the counter in thousands of video stores. Child porn or adult porn, what’s the Trewthe?

THE FOOTAGE

Before trial, defendant’s attorney renews a request for the footage:

…of the first four girls on that tape which does not contain sexually explicit conduct of the alleged underage girl.

The prosecutor responds, identifying the tape as government exhibit 17-B, requesting clarification while describing the footage of the first four females:

…(on the tape you identify, female 1 parades and poses and masturbates in a room having a refrigerator by a dresser; female 2, a blonde in boots, uses a dildo while outside what appears to be a house and on a park bench; female 3, a different blonde wearing an open black blouse, is shown outdoors by patio doors, a hammock and a plant; and female 4, a dark haired possibly-Oriental female, is shown by a parked blue car; both of the latter females are also involved in graphic sexual displays).

In a follow up letter, the prosecutor again requests clarification:

Thus, if the copying you seek is possible, I don’t want to have the wrong four females’ images copied.

Later, after presented with the Blue Vanities exhibits, the prosecutor reneges on the discovery agreement.

During opening remarks, the prosecutor describes the footage for the jury:

…Exhibit 17-B will show a well-developed high-school-aged girl, most of the time she’s naked or just about so, putting on and taking off various combinations of lingerie, a leotard-type top or sheer scarves, while she poses and examines herself in a mirror. At various times she rubs lotion on herself, she rubs her breasts, she puts her hands to her crotch. At times the camera shows an extreme closeup of the vagina or of her nipple on one of her breasts…

Later, the case agent testifies they “determined” this female to be under the age of 18.

In a post conviction petition, the defendant identifies “female 1” as the alleged minor, describes the attempt to secure the footage, and in a footnote explains why it was needed, and why it was refused:

…requested a portion of the first female…and all of the footage of the next four females, including the pregnant flasher, as obscenity was not alleged. As indicated, females 2, 4 and 5 are, or were, part of A&B Video’s Flashing series of tapes. Their record keeper was waiting for the footage to research his files for the identity of the female alleged.

A&B VIDEO

A&B Video, based in Florida, was one of many that jumped into the amateur adult market in the ’80’s. The company appears to have been a distributor that packaged amateur and pro-am content from third parties. A number of well known adult film stars can be found early in their career on A&B videos, including Ona Zee, Ginger Thomas, Samantha York, Britt Morgan and Chessie Moore. Their tapes claim 2257 compliance, with a copyright warning and the record keepers were identified as either H. Samuelson or Anthony Papileo. They also cooperated with law enforcement on undercover operations; U.S. v Moore 916 F.2d 1131 (6th Cir. 1990).

a&b flashing tapesa&b preview tape #800 One of their product lines were Flashing Videos, which, like their other lines, could be viewed on Preview tapes. One of their Flashing Preview tapes, AB #800, contains previews from Flashing tapes # 13-16, 18-21, 23-25, 28, 30 and 33.

a&b flashing 24a&b flashing 24 Female No.2 described above on government exhibit 17-B (blonde in boots) is on FL-24. Screencaps of this preview footage from AB #800 can be found here. (NSFW)

a&b flashing 25a&b flashing 25 Female No.4 described on government exhibit 17-B (dark haired female) is on FL-25. Screencaps of this preview footage from AB #800 can be found here. (NSFW)

a&b flashing 19a&b flashing 19 Female No.5 on government exhibit 17-B, described above in defendant’s footnote (pregnant flasher) is on FL-19. Screencaps of this preview footage from AB #800 can be found here. (NSFW)

The five flashing segments identified on government exhibit 17-B were the copyrighted property of A&B Video. They went out of business several years ago, but at least 4 of the 5 flashing segments on government exhibit 17-B are now distributed by GM Video; including the footage the U.S. feds say is child porn. NOTE: Just so it’s clear, only one of the females was alleged to be underage.  The three females in the above images were not alleged to be minors.

Cover of GM Video Vol.16Female No.3 described above by the feds as;  “a different blonde wearing an open black blouse, is shown outdoors by patio doors, a hammock and a plant”; can be found on GM Video Vol.16, pictured at left.

GM VIDEO

GM Video bills itself as the “pioneers of reality porn” and were profiled in a November, 2001 issue of LA Weekly:

GM Video is the province of George Martin, a 58-year-old entrepreneur, family man and former nuclear Research and Development man, who, in the middle of a career slump shooting wedding videos, stumbled onto the party scene at Arizona’s Lake Martinez and inadvertently pioneered the amateur porn market. He launched GM in 1981, a year before Homegrown Video, the acknowledged market leader. GM currently offers over 200 specialty titles.

In addition to their own productions, they also buy footage from third parties who have properly documented the models. Their tapes and website maintain a 2257 compliance/disclaimer and a copyright warning. They are known for their public nudity tapes, but do have a hardcore product line called Nasty Amateurs (NSFW). Within this line is a series of tapes titled Nasty Amateur 1st Timers. At some point GM Video acquired the A&B Flashing footage described above and released it as part of their Nasty Amateur 1st Timers series, first on video (vol. 16),then on DVD under the title “Nineteen & Lovin It.” (NOTE: Female on cover is not the one alleged)

gm video pagegrab-"Naughty Girls"gm video pagegrab-"Nineteen and Loving It"DVD Coverlionsden

 

 

 

 

 

This DVD contains 4 of the 5 A&B flashing segments described above on government exhibit 17-B, including the footage of “female 1” who the U.S. feds say is underage.

This DVD is advertised for sale or rental on numerous web sites, including Lions Den, (NSFW) a well established adult superstore which offers the U.S. Postal Service as a shipping option. With respect to the females on “Nineteen & Lovin It,” Lions Den states (NSFW) explicitly:

The individuals appearing in this feature are verified to be 18 years of age or older.

(Note: Lions Den no longer advertises the video, but the pagegrab above documents that they did at one time.)

In addition, “Nineteen & Lovin It” is also offered as streaming VOD (video on demand) on numerous sites, with payment through the usual processors and thumbnails of the females.

UPDATE: There’s no reason to believe Martin and GM Video were aware of the above referenced. But apparently as a pre-caution, Martin has pulled the tape(s) from the GM site, and VOD access. But the truth of the matter is evident through the Internet Archive.

It’s clear the footage of “female 1” was part of A&B Video and is now part of GM Video, and that the U.S. feds have gone to great lengths not to investigate the prosecuted commercial footage.

It’s also clear that they don’t believe their own testimony. The question is why. What are they hiding, who are they protecting, and how many are involved? What’s the trewthe?

Why Are The U.S. Feds Allowing The Distribution Of Footage They Prosecuted As Child Porn?

NOTE: NSFW=ADULT CONTENT

Child porn defendant provides the government with physical exhibits indicating some of the charged footage is sold over the counter as adult porn through a recognized commercial distributor. Government refuses to investigate and the jury convicts. Post-conviction, prosecutor refers to the distributor as “other traffickers” in child porn that haven’t been caught, while federal agencies claim ignorance of the prosecution. Years later, the prosecuted footage (including Tove Jensen) is still available over the counter, and everywhere else, through a number of distributors. Are the U.S. feds trafficking in lies? Adult porn or child porn, what’s the trewthe?

THE FOOTAGE

Before trial, the defense gives notice of its intent to introduce the following exhibits:

(2) “Blue Vanities” videotape (Tape 80, 1970’s ) Filmfare Video Labs, Inc. (3) “Blue Vanities” Catalog of Adult Videotapes, Filmfare Video Labs, Inc.

The government files a Motion In Limine acknowledging the Filmfare exhibits, stating:

The defense has provided copies of or permitted the Government to copy items (a) through (f).

During opening statements, the defense makes reference to Blue Vanities tape #80 (B.V.#80), the government objects and the following argument takes place at sidebar:

…And it’s sold over the counter. It’s a manufactured Blue Vanities tape under a normal label, and as is another tape. We haven’t been able to find the exact footage on that. But these aren’t children. They’re sold at adult book stores and you can go out there right now and buy that tape and I have it.

The fact that they sell it doesn’t prove that it’s not children. It makes no difference. They don’t have any license to sell child pornography.

Cover of BV 80/defense exhibit 200 On cross, the case agent acknowledges the receipt and viewing of B.V. #80, admitting that the loop, “Patsy Learns To Play” on B.V. #80 is the same footage and female as the loop, “Teenage Tricks,” charged by the government in 17-A as being child porn. When asked if they had seized B.V. #80 or charged anyone with possessing it, the agent replied:

No, I don’t know where it came from.

pg. 13 of BV catalog Later on cross, the case agent acknowledges: a) the receipt and viewing of B.V. #80, and the B.V. Catalog; b) that “Patsy Learns To Play” is the same footage and female as that charged in government exhibit 17-A, “Teenage Tricks”; c) that B.V. #80 is advertised on page 13 of the Blue Vanities catalog. The agent also implied that 2257 somehow protected Filmfare from prosecution, and that consumers could not rely on an adult distributor’s claim that the product contains adults.

The agent also read into the record the address of Filmfare, printed on the case cover, and yet when asked why they were not prosecuting Filmfare and their B.V. tapes, replied:

I don’t know that Blue Vanities isn’t being investigated. I think I mentioned yesterday, I haven’t heard of Blue Vanities. I don’t know where they’re located.

BV 82/defense exhibit 236 During this same cross, defense offered B.V. #82 into evidence, which contains the same “Group Sex” loop, with the same long haired blond female, as that charged in government exhibit 17-E. As noted in a prior post, the government objected on the need to investigate the tape’s authenticity, and the court sustained.

Later on redirect, the prosecutor elicited from this agent that they had no idea who put “Patsy Learns To Play” on B.V. #80, and the fact that the alleged underage female (Tove Jensen) was holding a Color Climax magazine held no investigative relevance:

Had she been holding Ladies Home Journal, would you assume that somehow they made that tape?

No, I wouldn’t.

BLUE VANITIES

“Blue Vanities” is a registered trademark, renewed in 2002 by the federal Patent and Trademark Office. Ironically, one of the specimens offered by Filmfare was the cover of Prevue tape #3, which contains excerpts from B.V. tapes #80 and #82.

B.V. tapes #80 and #82 were released in 1988 under the categories Peepshow Loops, and European Loops respectively. The bluevanities website, registered in 1997, have offered tapes #80 and #82 from the beginning, either directly or indirectly through their Prevue tapes.

Filmfare, which has been collecting, archiving, and distributing vintage adult material for over two decades, recently sold the business to KB Media Services:

For over 20 years, Blue Vanities has been a well-respected source for classic stag films and loops ranging from the silent movie era to Golden Age hardcore of the ’70s and ’80s. Former Caballero owner Howie Klein recently purchased the Seattle-based company and has moved the operation to the San Fernando Valley, where partner Wesley Emerson is now cataloging and restoring the films with new digital transfers.

(UPDATE: The “Blue Vanities” trademark has been reassigned to KB Media Services, aka Howard Klein, although it appears they have not followed up on the paperwork; and the Blue Vanities web store is now handled by a third party.)

The digital transfers on B.V. #80 and #82 (NSFW) have been completed, and are currently available on the revamped website. NOTE: Female on cover of #82 is not the blond in question.

The B.V. tapes are unique in their attempt to preserve the historical background of the footage, including producer/distributor and performers. For example, tape #80 describes “Patsy Learns To Play” as 2f-3m, SE #293, Euro.

SE is Swedish Erotica. This description is consistent with the Swedish Erotica collection of the Kinsey Institute, which has a copy of Swedish Erotica #293 housed at the University of Indiana-Bloomington.

SWEDISH EROTICA

Swedish Erotica is the classic American series of adult films produced by Caballero Control Corporation, first as 8mm loops and later on video. Litigation as to who owns the Swedish Erotica films, and in what format, has apparently been resolved.

What’s not in dispute is that Caballero Control Corporation has hundreds of Swedish Erotica titles copyrighted in the Library of Congress, and the Swedish Erotica film trademark is owned by Caballero Control Corporation. There’s also no dispute that “Patsy Learns To Play” is the same footage as “Teenage Tricks,” the Tove Jensen loop produced by Color Climax.

cover of Swedish Erotica Catalog-8th edition The 8th edition of the Swedish Erotica catalog contains covers of films #276-527.  The cover of #293, “Patsy Learns To Play”, contains images that are consistent with the  “Teenage Tricks” footage shown at trial.  (Note: The film’s description mentions three females but there are only two, the blond and Tove Jensen).

POST-CONVICTION

In a post-conviction response to a pro-se motion, the prosecutor describes Filmfare as “other traffickers in child pornography” and states:

That “Blue Vanities” may be a federally-registered mark hardly means “the U.S. Government has twice found the Blue Vanities products…to be legal…”. To even reach such a conclusion reflects an illogic that pervades the defendant’s diatribes….Not only would that AUSA find that the defendant’s videotapes contained child pornography but, more importantly, every law enforcement officer, juror and judge who reviewed the tapes in question…have unanimously found that the tapes depict minors.

In a post-conviction petition, defendant argues that he was denied equal protection of the law, as 2257’s exemption appeared to protect Filmfare from prosecution of the same footage, yet consumers have no option but to rely on Filmfare’s claim that the models are over 18. The court dismissed the argument, noting:

…contrary to [defendant’s] argument, nothing prevents the Government from prosecuting Filmfare under 18 U.S.C. 2252….if [defendant] were a producer and was in the business of producing videotapes, or possessed videotapes, in violation of 2252, the Government could prosecute him relying on much the same evidence that it relied on during his trial…

FEDERAL OFFICIALS

letter from Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section/DOJ letter from FBI letter from U.S. Senatorletter from U.S. Postal Inspection Service Meanwhile, the public has been asking federal officials about the legality of B.V. tapes, and getting responses that conflict with the information posted here:

The FBI is not in a position to make a determination of the criminality of the tapes and has no desire to provide such a decision.

I have requested that the matter be investigated and I am confident this issue will be reviewed….I have been unable to locate any statement made by [U.S. Attorney] or any of [their] attorneys acknowledging criminal conduct by this company.

If you can provide specific information regarding this company…

More questions. What was the evidence the U.S. feds relied on to convince “every law enforcement officer, juror and judge who reviewed the tapes” that this footage contains minors, and why are they afraid to use it against anyone else, or inform the public?

Under what circumstances would federal agents, prosecutors, officials and politicians jeopardize their careers and liberty by knowingly allowing footage, found by a jury to be child porn, to be distributed worldwide with impunity? What’s the trewthe?

U.S. Feds Accuse Second Color Climax Model Of Being Underage

NOTE: NSFW=ADULT CONTENT

Another popular vintage Color Climax Corporation (CC) actress from the same case accused by U.S. feds of being under age in two of her films (loops). Like Tove, the claim calls into question all of her productions, some of which are copyrighted in the Library of Congress. And yet, her catalog of films are being re-issued on DVD, including the ones found to be child pornography by the feds. What’s the trewthe?

In the opening remarks the prosecutor described the two loops on government exhibit 17-E to the jury:

The segments to be shown from this tape include scenes where a male motorcyclist and a high-school-aged female companion wind up on a park bench. Then they go into some woods and they engage in what you see as actual sexual intercourse as well as oral sex. This first segment is captioned “Lolita Climax.” As you’ll learn from the testimony, the word “Lolita” is a tip word or a code reference to depictions of underaged participants.

In another segment of the tape captioned “Lolita 2, Group Sex,” the same long-haired blond female from “Lolita Climax” participates with other high-school-aged girls and with males in a variety of actual sexual behavior…

Later, the prosecutor elicited from the case agent that they “determined” this long-haired blond female to be under 18.

On cross, the case agent acknowledged the receipt and copying of defense exhibit #201, Blue Vanities Catalog of Adult Videotapes distributed by Filmfare Video Labs. The witness also acknowledged that Blue Vanities #82 (B.V. #82) is found on page 21 of the catalog and that the video tape contains a loop entitled “Group Sex.”

cover of BV 82/defense exhibit 236 The defense attempted to introduce B.V. #82 into evidence stating this was the same “Group Sex” loop as that alleged in government’s exhibit 17-E. The prosecutor objected, the judge sustained and an offer of proof was made:

If the defense were allowed to introduce Defendant’s Exhibit 236 into evidence, which is a Blue Vanities tape of “Classic Vintage Stag Films, Arcade Nudes and Strippers, ’70s and ’80s” and “European Peep Show Loops” which includes “Group Sex, 3f-2m, TA, Climax, No. 1509,” the court would find that…

The above is consistent with the archived (NSFW) European Loops catalog page of the Blue Vanities web site (which is no longer available).bv_CATALOG_archive-82

 

 

 

 

FILMLAB/VICOM

cover of 1980 Filmlab Video Catalog Filmlab catalog Index Catalog ad for video TC-403 containing Christa's prosecuted footage English page from catalog

 

 

 

 

 

 

TA Climax is Teenage Climax , one of several film series produced or distributed by Film Lab A/S, Copenhagen. Film Lab was a content producer which sold content to CC as well as competed with them. Another of their film series, Master Film, contain the early Tove Jensen films, including a different “L**ita Climax.” These film series were re-issued by Film Lab into video compilations, as noted in their 1980 Video Guide.

At some point, the Danish company Vicom ApS took control of the Film Lab inventory and combined the various film series into extended video compilations, currently under the Schoolgirls and Teenagers product lines. Vicom has been offering said products on the web since 1998, along with several affiliates including climaxdeluxe.  A representative of Vicom said the first two volumes of Schoolgirls are available on DVD, with the remaining four set for a later date. He also said the footage is copyrighted under Danish law and the models are all over 18. A word of caution if you choose to visit their sites: Vicom deals in extreme adult porn including fisting and bestiality.

It bears noting that terms such as “L**ita” were (and are) commonly used by Euro adult porn producers in film and magazine story lines. These titles remain for copyright reasons but are routinely flagged by governments and search engines as suspect child pornography.

This explains, in part, the results of a file sharing study (pdf) conducted by the U.S. government in which terms associated with child porn were used to search the shared network. Less than half of the file name hits were considered suspect child porn, and less than half of the images downloaded by Customs were believed to be child porn.

COLOR CLIMAX

Many of the Film Lab actors can be found in CC productions. The long-haired blond female described above in Teenage Climax No. 1509 is in a number of Teenage Climax productions including No. 1501, 1505, 1511 and 1512–(“L**ita Special”).

Index from Color Climax Magazine Catalog TS 19 Melodi d' Amour Vicom owns the film rights to Teenage Climax No. 1512–(“L**ita Special”), but CC owns the rights to the photos from the same film. These photos were published in Teenage Sex No. 19, one of the many magazine titles produced by CC. The story line is entitled “Melodi d’Amour.”

The digital images of CC’s extensive magazine inventory are copyrighted in the Library of Congress, and consistently being uploaded to their own site as well as rodox.com. The rodox site is administered by International Media Company BV (IMCO) under a licensing agreement with CC, and stipulates all images are 2257 compliant. Thanks to the Internet Archive, we know that “Melodi d’Amour” was added to the rodox site in April, 2005(NSFW). This business relationship is why IMCO was a plaintiff in Digital Graphic Systems, et al. v Bile.

In addition, this same long-haired blond female appears in a number of other CC film and magazine productions, two of which are on their Teenage Bestsellers compilations, No. 251 and 257. These compilations were recently re-issued on DVD by CC through a contractual agreement with Musketier Media (NSFW). As noted in a prior post, these DVD re-issues are available in the states.

UPDATE:  XploitedCinema, based in Cleveland, is no longer online.  But the site has been preserved by the Internet Archive, along with it’s catalog of Color Climax films, including Tove and Christa, on pages 14 and 15.

UPDATE: Musketier Media has either dropped their association with Color Climax, or no longer advertises it on their revamped website. However, the Internet Archive has preserved the association, at least in German.

How is all this possible in light of the fact my source informs me that numerous past and present U.S. federal and state officials, including two members of Congress, are aware that the U.S. feds say this long-haired blond female is underage.

So the questions persist. Are the U.S. feds knowingly allowing child porn to be copyrighted, re-produced, advertised and distributed worldwide? Are the U.S. feds conspiring with adult companies to protect them from child porn prosecutions?

Or did the U.S. feds lie under oath about the ages of Tove Jensen and the long-haired blond female, and have enlisted third parties, including members of Congress, to cover it up. What is the trewthe?

Color Climax Can’t Prove Tove Jensen Is Legal

A  defendant is charged and convicted for possessing child porn.  The footage includes “Teenage Tricks.”  Alleged minor includes vintage star Tove Jensen (see prior post).  The commercial copyright to the footage is owned by Color Climax Corporation (CC).  CC has a 2257 compliance page on their website, identifying Thom Flies as the Custodian of Records and informing the public that:

In compliance with United States Code, Title 18, Section 2257, all models, actors, actresses and other persons who appear in any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct appearing or otherwise contained in or at colorclimax.com, were over the age of eighteen years at the time of the creation of such depictions.

In January, 2006, defendant’s attorney makes a formal request to Thom Flies requesting a number of admissions and records verifying Tove was over the age of 18 in the loop “Teenage Tricks”.

Flies responds that they have no records:

…we simply do not have any records of Tove Jensen dating back some 28 years.  Please know however  that Color Climax has always used a strict company policy of only hiring models of 18 years of age or older.

That’s not what the U.S. FBI says.  In a report dated August, 2005, an FBI analyst with the Forensic Audio, Video & Image Analysis department identified the origin of two images in a child porn case:

The Q1 image “11 yr old kiddy porn (1).jpg” is a cropped copy of an image found on page 22 of a magazine titled “Nymph Lover No. 4.”  Page 2 of “Nymph Lover No. 4” contains the text “Printed June 1978 by CCC-Print Copyright (c) 1978 Color Climax Corporation.”  Likewise…

We know that the U.S. FBI has been conducting records checks of the adult industry.  We  know from a recent posting that the U. S. government tends to focus on the consumer and ignore the source of alleged child porn images, even when the source is right down the street.  We know that third parties license Tove images and footage from CC.  We also know that a company making claims to the public about their products are required to back up those claims, under threat of fraud allegations:

“People subscribe to our Website because we run a trustworthy operation,” said Tom Flies, which seemed to echo some of Knipe’s thoughts. “The trust of our subscribers has been earned by showing them that we take our business seriously;

What we don’t know is how and why CC and others are being allowed to profit from material the DOJ claims is child porn, when CC claims they can’t prove Tove was over 18 in her productions.   What we don’t know is how many other CC models were part of that prosecution.  What is the Trewthe?

U.S. Feds Prosecuting Tove Jensen Images As Child Porn.

NOTE: NSFW = adult material

UPDATE: Wikipedia has deleted the Tove Jensen article.

Tove Jensen, classic adult film star or child victim?  U.S. Department of Justice claims she is underage in her loop “Teenage Tricks”.  They say it under oath.  They convict.  It calls into question all of Tove’s performances.  Yet her catalog of images can be found everywhere, including the Library of Congress.  So what’s the trewthe?

Tove (aka Tiny Tove), is the commercial name of a popular vintage adult performer who starred for European producers and distributors in the late 70’s, most notably the Danish Color Climax Corporation (CC).

There is an element of myth to Tove’s career, past and present, but a general consensus exists regarding her performances, which include the loop  “Teenage Tricks” (NSFW).  A photo set entitled, “A Hole New Experience” was culled from the filming.

That loop was taken into U.S. federal court, marked as government exhibit 17-A in a child porn trial, and testimony elicited that Tove was underage.  After conviction, the defendant informed the prosecutor, and the court, that Tove was one of the females alleged, and that she was over 18 in the footage.  The prosecutor’s response was dismissive, and concluded with:

…and factually, you were and remain properly convicted.

One may assume the prosecutor’s response to the court was similar.

But CC has copyrighted all their material, including Tove’s “Teenage Tricks” with the Library of Congress.  These measures were taken in response to piracy, the most prolific of whom was sued in Digital Graphic Systems, et al. v Bile. The suit created much discussion in the newsgroups which were trading Tove material.

Bile defaulted, and his domain was awarded to CC which continues to use it as a warning to potential infringers.

The CC website, on-line since 1997, is  administered out of Chicago, Illinois, (previously Florida).   The site is hosted on servers registered to Amazon.com (awsdns.net), which in turn is registered to their legal department with a post office box in Nevada.  Awsdns.net appears to be hosted on Amazon’s servers, presumably in Washington state, subjecting it to U. S. law.  The site states all models are over the age of 18, with proof on file, consistent with 2257 regulations.  There are also unconfirmed reports that CC was dragged into Euro courts within the last decade and forced to verify the ages of their models.

And for a short time, someone claiming to be Tove had a blog on Google’s Blogspot.  The blog was little more than advertisement for what was claimed to be her “official” website, tovejensen.com, which is owned by a chap well known in England, Guy Wingate.  Wingate’s site is a teaser, directing one thru text and links to the CC site, for images of Tove.

Enom Whois for tovejensen.comEnom Whois for tovejensen.com(UPDATE: Wingate has opted for privacy protection with ENOM, but the photos at left document his ownership.  In addition, tovejensen.com is housed on servers owned by Wingate; Coreserver.com.)

Meanwhile, CC contracted with the German Musketier Media to transfer their Bestsellers films to digital.  The DVD film rights belong to Ervin Peterson, of EP-video (NSFW) which has released three in the Teenage series with Tove (260, 255, 252).  They are available in the states.

UPDATE:  Peterson’s website, epvideo.dk, appears to be offline.  Cannot access the version containing the CC dvds thru the Internet Archive.

All this begs the question.  Are the feds knowingly allowing child porn to be disseminated worldwide?  Is the Library of Congress registering images of child porn for copyright protection?  Is CC conspiring with the feds to entrap unwary consumers into downloading child porn onto their computers?

Or was Tove factually over 18 in “Teenage Tricks” thus presenting another example of why the U.S. should clean their own house before exporting “the rule of law” to other nations.  What is the trewthe?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.