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?

Advertisements

8 Comments

  1. Sven said,

    March 22, 2008 at 5:22 pm

    tl;dr

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

    Because Tove Jensen was over 18 years old when she began starring in porn movies, even though she was petite. Besides, she didn’t even look that young. There’s an American porn actress called “Lil Miss Kitty” who looks much younger, at least at first glance, and noone questions her legality.

  2. Ceciliahf said,

    March 24, 2008 at 3:53 am

    well done, bro

  3. Wow said,

    March 25, 2008 at 12:29 am

    Indeed, if child porn was so prevalent then why stoop so low to these tactics?

  4. trewthe said,

    March 25, 2008 at 3:07 pm

    @Sven

    But, the U.S. feds testified under oath that these 2 females (info about a third female will be posted shortly) were underage in those commercial productions. They are forced to stand on that testimony. As long as they stand on that testimony that are obligated by law, ethics, oath of office, public reputation and integrity to ensure that said footage is removed from public consumption. Whether by indictment and prosecution or orders to the public for self destruction, backed up with threats of prosecution.

    The alternative is to inform the court(s) that they were wrong. To that extent, my source informs me that the prosecuting agency’s Inspector Generals Office: http://www.ignet.gov/ has twice been asked to investigate why the case agent’s testimony conflicted with their conduct regarding the Blue Vanities tapes. The second request was made pursuant to a recommendation by the IG’s Integrity Committee: http://www.ignet.gov/pande/integrity1.html

    As long as the U.S. feds stand on that testimony the conspiracy will reach into higher offices.

  5. Caroline-NL said,

    April 11, 2008 at 7:07 pm

    As Sven said, Tove Jensen was 18, exactly 18 1/2 years old, when she entered the porn industry. This is well known in Europe. The second model wasnt 18. And several other models werent 18, but 15, 16, 17. So if they testified under oath, TT was < 18, they testified WRONG. But why have they selected only ONE of the “minor” models, but not the other models ? TT looks maybe 2 years younger, but she was 18. Other looked sometimes older, but were 15, 16, 17.
    This is just arbitrary law.

  6. trewthe said,

    April 13, 2008 at 8:44 pm

    One interesting aspect to all this is, if anyone else is indicted for this footage, there will be numerous defense witnesses available, including the federal officials who signed the above documents.

    We are compiling a list of those individuals which include Congressmen and members of their staffs and a police chief whose department rented one of the tapes from a local video store, made a copy of it, confirmed it was part of the federal trial and offered it to the local US Attorneys Office–which wasn’t interested in the tape, but was interested in covering up the department’s investigation.

    The department now claims there is no record of their investigation. Except for the documents we have, which include the detective’s membership number from the video store, obtained legally.

  7. December 17, 2008 at 9:23 pm

    @trewthe: “But, the U.S. feds testified under oath that these 2 females (info about a third female will be posted shortly) were underage in those commercial productions.”

    How can they testify this under oath, when they dont have reliable age verifications ? They only made assumptions, they estimated the age, after looking at the material, it is very strange, that they only selected 3 models. Ive wrote this before, but I havent received a satisfying answer. When they looked at the material and they had the slightest suspicion, that some models were under 18, why havent they called the FBI H.Q. or the US Custom Service ? They have experts on this field, and even if these experts werent available at this time or for this low priority case, they only should have to contact the COPINE Archive, or call Prof. Quayle or other experts. Instead at verifying their assumptions, they testify this under oath and – that was it – for years….
    This is one of the greatest mysteries in this case.

  8. trewthe said,

    December 20, 2008 at 6:13 pm

    @Caroline

    Hello again:
    Once you understand the U.S. judicial system is easily corrupted, and has little to do with truth, evidence or justice, most of your questions are answered.

    The government does not look for evidence of innocence. Under federal law, Supreme Court precedents, and ethics obligations, the government is required to turn over anything that would be considered favorable to the accused. In short, anything material that would cast reasonable doubt on the accused’s guilt. To get around this, the government ignores, withholds, cover ups or refuses to investigate anything that might be favorable to the defendant. In short, they do not search for the truth of the matter.

    The numerous court documents offered here are but one example. Presented with evidence that they indicted commercial adult porn as child porn, they conspired to attack that evidence. The most glaring example is this scripted exchange between the agent and the prosecutor. Forced to admit that “Patsy Learns To Play” was the same footage, they accused the defendant of putting that footage on Blue Vanities #80. Forced to acknowledge the well known porn producer/distributor Color Climax is identified in the prosecuted “Teenage Tricks” footage, the agent testified it was irrelevant to the investigation. They conspired to taint the truth and succeeded. Any further prosecutions would require them to address the truth and their false testimony. Instead, they have been engaging in retaliation against those exposing the truth.

    Ironically, the prosecutor was in touch with experts. The Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) of the DOJ’s Criminal Division was consulted on the case (Trial Attorney J. S.). They are considered experts in the investigation and prosecution of child porn to the point they train others in this area, domestically and internationally. The prosecutor never informed them it was commercial footage that was being prosecuted. But since that time, CEOS has been informed about this prosecuted commercial footage…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: