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?

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?