Florida State Seminoles

[innocentbystander]

I suspect nobody in here is going to watch a Rachel Maddow segment, but here's one that gives some interesting backstory to the Gaetz fiasco. It starts with some dude who was elected as tax collector for Seminole County in Florida, and soon after he was elected he started hiring his buddies and buying law enforcement gear at an alarming rate. He started pulling people over and flashing a badge and he also (when he was arrested) was found to have a large number of fake ID's on him. He was buddies with Gaetz and there are photos of them together at the White House and also many mentions of Gaetz on this fool's twitter feed. He is currently in jail awaiting trial for (wait for it) trafficking in underage girls. Pretty sure the investigation of Gaetz is directly related to this guy. It's the video on the bottom under the title "The even weirder backstory behind the bizarre Gaetz sex trafficking investigation story." Pretty good reporting if you ask me...

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show

I'll watch it.

We have two incredibly interesting court cases this year: Elizabeth Holmes and Ghislaine Maxwell. One of these cases is the single largest sex trafficking ring in all of world history. The other case? The defendant pulled a Dalia Dippiolito and intentionally got herself pregnant to delay the criminal proceedings as long as the pregnancy can delay it. We can add the Gaetz case to that list of interesting 2021 cases, as well.

[Jungle Rat]

Jim Jordan is upset with him because it wasn't underage boys.

[innocentbystander]

Jim Jordan is upset with him because it wasn't underage boys.

We actually had 6 guys arrested here in Maricopa County yesterday for sex trafficking.

https://www.azfamily.com/news/6-arrests ... b4598.html

I get very suspicious of these things being entirely POLITICAL because of the R. T. Rybak situation from 2007 which was just awful (but the democrat party swept it under the rug.) So I am always curious as to the details.

[eCat]

I was reading the typical sentencing of possession of child porn, first time offenders are typically sentenced to 105 months in jail.

and overwhelming number of them are white guys in their early 40's, no previous convictions.

The guy I worked with fit that profile pretty well.

Since this guy setup a fake profile and specifically went after a young girl, he is the definition of a predator. He ain't getting off with a good lawyer.

[Jungle Rat]

He is with a 16 year old though

[innocentbystander]

I was reading the typical sentencing of possession of child porn, first time offenders are typically sentenced to 105 months in jail.

and overwhelming number of them are white guys in their early 40's, no previous convictions.

The guy I worked with fit that profile pretty well.

Since this guy setup a fake profile and specifically went after a young girl, he is the definition of a predator. He ain't getting off with a good lawyer.

105 months for child "porn" or child "sex trafficking?" So if the FBI gets your computer and they can show you downloaded some porn where the girl in it is 16, you get 105 months for having that video file? I find that hard to believe. You can KILL someone, and get less than 105 months.

105 months for fucking the girl, that I can believe.

[eCat]

I think there is mandatory sentencing in many of the states.

that's the stats I found in regards to child pornography. The 105 months is for just possession, the distributor of child porn averaged something like 126 months

[hedge]

People still download porn??

[innocentbystander]

I think there is mandatory sentencing in many of the states.

that's the stats I found in regards to child pornography. The 105 months is for just possession, the distributor of child porn averaged something like 126 months

Fair enough.

If I was on a jury in a child pornography case, I would just vote "not guilty." After all, you can have a virus on your work station that can (unknowingly) automatically download porn to your hard drive. So if the mandatory sentencing is 105 months, then my mandatory verdict would be "not guilty." This is horrible legislation.

Fucking an underage girl, totally different story. You go to prison.

[hedge]

What about Traci Lords?

[eCat]

I had a Traci Lords porn back in the day that I got rid of. I don't remember the name of it but it had Tom Byron?

The only movie you can have of hers is Traci I love You.
which I have

I'm so paranoid I don't even watch the pretend teen porn where they girls are in catholic school outfits and pigtails.

[innocentbystander]

What about Traci Lords?

What about her? Ohio's own Traci!

Yes see that is the point, she did p0rn (criminally) when she was 16 or whatever. Anyone who downloads that, 105 months in prison?

Yeah, not going to happen. Not going to get a conviction in a court of law. There is not a person in this forum who would vote "guilty" if we were on the jury.

If you go to prison for 105 months for downloading porn with underage actresses, then you cut a DEAL to get the 105 months in prison for doing something terribly WORSE. That is just what you are convicted of, NOT what you are going to prison for. Its the same thing with mandatory drug sentencing. No one goes to prison for 3 years for smoking a joint. No one. You go to prison for 3 years when you cut a DEAL to smoking a joint but you wouldn't have had to cut that deal if you didn't knock over the liquor store with the sawed off shotgun while high on grass.

[hedge]

I have to admit there's a gray area if the "child" is post-pubescent. That doesn't make it right and there is still a difference b/w 13 (or even 14 or 15) and 16 or 17. But there's a huge difference b/w a teen of any age and a child under the age of 12. If that's the case, I'd be more than willing to send somebody down for 8 year or ever how long 105 months is. And I'm not even saying that children can't and don't have enjoyable sexual experiences, but it damn well better be from playing doctor with somebody their own age and not with an adult against their will. Again, no problem for me giving 105 months or more for that shit...

[innocentbystander]

I have to admit there's a gray area if the "child" is post-pubescent. That doesn't make it right and there is still a difference b/w 13 (or even 14 or 15) and 16 or 17. But there's a huge difference b/w a teen of any age and a child under the age of 12. If that's the case, I'd be more than willing to send somebody down for 8 year or ever how long 105 months is. And I'm not even saying that children can't and don't have enjoyable sexual experiences, but it damn well better be from playing doctor with somebody their own age and not with an adult against their will. Again, no problem for me giving 105 months or more for that shit...

Yeah I'm not going to send anyone to prison for 9 years because they have a "file" on their hard drive in their house. No. That is not going to happen.

I might not HIRE the person. I might not be FRIENDS with the person. I will not let my kids near that person. I don't want anything to do with perverts. But, incarcerate because of a sequence of zeros and ones on a hard drive in their house? No. NFW.

[Jungle Rat]

Hello

[hedge]

He might make an exception in your case...

[eCat]

here is the tax situation for my son

he paid about $1K in federal taxes this year.

because I claimed him as at a dependent, I saved $500 on my tax burden

he, not being able to claim himself as a dependent, is getting $59 back

however, had he claimed himself as a dependent do you think he'd get $559 back? nope, he would get $1860 back.

How the fuck do you pay in $1k and get $1800 back?

I assume its stimulus related as he didn't get a stimulus check, but even that doesn't add up.

I felt bad even though I shouldn't so I gave him $500 and he is going to claim himself from now on which won't matter since he is moving out in a few months anyways.

[eCat]

I have to admit there's a gray area if the "child" is post-pubescent. That doesn't make it right and there is still a difference b/w 13 (or even 14 or 15) and 16 or 17. But there's a huge difference b/w a teen of any age and a child under the age of 12. If that's the case, I'd be more than willing to send somebody down for 8 year or ever how long 105 months is. And I'm not even saying that children can't and don't have enjoyable sexual experiences, but it damn well better be from playing doctor with somebody their own age and not with an adult against their will. Again, no problem for me giving 105 months or more for that shit...

Yeah I'm not going to send anyone to prison for 9 years because they have a "file" on their hard drive in their house. No. That is not going to happen.

I might not HIRE the person. I might not be FRIENDS with the person. I will not let my kids near that person. I don't want anything to do with perverts. But, incarcerate because of a sequence of zeros and ones on a hard drive in their house? No. NFW.

look, if the guy used his real name, sought the girl out online and professed his love for her, well in the courts eyes that may not be any different but in my eyes, its still kinda fucked up but a 17 year old girl says she loves a 49 year old man, whatever - its no my daughter so that's between the two families.

but this guy made up a fake name, pretended to be 17 himself and went after the girl when she was in 8th grade. That's fucked up - thats a guy that is eventually building a dungeon in his basement and locking up the merry maid cleaning woman down there.

He's going to jail. For how long can be debatable but he ain't getting community service and going to a weekly meeting of sexaholics.

and those 1 and 0's drive demand for child porn. If there was no demand, there would be alot less of it, so yea, you get caught with some 1 and 0s that add up to be a young kid doing sexual stuff and you ain't seeing the moon for a few years.

[innocentbystander]

I have to admit there's a gray area if the "child" is post-pubescent. That doesn't make it right and there is still a difference b/w 13 (or even 14 or 15) and 16 or 17. But there's a huge difference b/w a teen of any age and a child under the age of 12. If that's the case, I'd be more than willing to send somebody down for 8 year or ever how long 105 months is. And I'm not even saying that children can't and don't have enjoyable sexual experiences, but it damn well better be from playing doctor with somebody their own age and not with an adult against their will. Again, no problem for me giving 105 months or more for that shit...

Yeah I'm not going to send anyone to prison for 9 years because they have a "file" on their hard drive in their house. No. That is not going to happen.

I might not HIRE the person. I might not be FRIENDS with the person. I will not let my kids near that person. I don't want anything to do with perverts. But, incarcerate because of a sequence of zeros and ones on a hard drive in their house? No. NFW.

look, if the guy used his real name, sought the girl out online and professed his love for her, well in the courts eyes that may not be any different but in my eyes, its still kinda fucked up but a 17 year old girl says she loves a 49 year old man, whatever - its no my daughter so that's between the two families.

but this guy made up a fake name, pretended to be 17 himself and went after the girl when she was in 8th grade. That's fucked up - thats a guy that is eventually building a dungeon in his basement and locking up the merry maid cleaning woman down there.

He's going to jail. For how long can be debatable but he ain't getting community service and going to a weekly meeting of sexaholics.

and those 1 and 0's drive demand for child porn. If there was no demand, there would be alot less of it, so yea, you get caught with some 1 and 0s that add up to be a young kid doing sexual stuff and you ain't seeing the moon for a few years.

I'm not sure we are communicating properly. Let me be specific.

You put your penis into the mouth, vagina, or anus of an under aged girl, you go to prison.

You masturbate in your own home to a video of a girl who is under legal age with another actor putting HIS penis into her mouth, vagina, or anus, then I don't care about you. Not guilty. Send the actor who fucked the little girl to jail. Send the producer to jail. Send the financier who paid to make the porn, to jail. The pervert who jerks off to ones-and-zeros? I don't care. And I don't think you care either. You really want your tax dollars to pay to incarcerate a guy who's crime is masturbation in isolation?

Mandatory sentencing is for the sole purpose to allow the District Attorney to negotiate with a perp on something far WORSE than the deal you are cutting. The was the whole purpose to mandatory sentencing for drug offenses in the 1980s, so that things didn't have to go to trial and a bleeding heart judge couldn't just let a punk walk with no prison time. You create a law with a mandatory sentence (say, smoking a joint gets you three years) so when the cops bust you for something far WORSE, the DA can bargain with your defense attorney and plea it down to smoking a joint and you go to jail for 3 years. That is what you are "convicted" of, but NOT what you are in prison for. 95% of our criminal cases are handled that way in the USA. We may have 1,000,000 in prison in the USA with a "conviction" for smoking a joint, but NONE OF THEM are prison because they smoked a joint.

I'm sure the same is true for mandatory sentencing for underage porn.

The supply and the demand argument (if there were no perverts to download the film then no underaged girls are fucked on camera) is about re-assigning blame. The blame is for the people making the movie, not the people who may (unknowingly) download it. But as hedge has said, who downloads porn?

[innocentbystander]

eCat, everyone,

This July, when Ghislaine Maxwell appears in court (if she hasn't suicided herself by then) we will be witnessing first hand, the single most important sex trafficking trial ever in human history. That is going to happen. Ghislaine will have two options:

#1) rat everyone OUT and cut a deal to give her some kind of immunity (so the federal government has all the names and dollar figures and they can go after everyone else) or
#2) go down with the ship and take all her secrets with her

I think she is going to take door #1. She is a selfish, selfish woman. Why would she go to prison for the rest of her life if she can avoid it? And she didn't care how many young girls she destroyed the whole time she was with Jeffrey Epstein. Why should she care about protecting people like Prince Andrew, Kevin Spacey, Chris Tucker, or POTUS Bill Clinton now? I think they are all going down.

See to me, the Epstein scandal in Palm Beach/Manhattan/Paris/New Mexico/Little St James is the REAL PROBLEM with the sexing of our underage daughters. I don't give a damn about the pitiful, obese, unloved, incel, who bitterly jerks off to on-line porn in the privacy of his own home, just for his own sexual gratification. He isn't hurting anyone other than himself. I don't give a shit what he watches on line. Those are zeros-and-ones, images. God can deal with his sins, not man. Man has far more important sin to deal with.