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?