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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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?