Fake Victims Lead to Real Arrests in Online Child Sex Stings
By Steven Yoder
Federally funded police task forces carry out thousands of online stings each year, despite little evidence that they prevent abuse.
However, the law enforcement agencies that run these task forces receive funding based in part on how many arrests and convictions they get. This may create an incentive to pursue fictitious-victim sting operations, which are often cheaper and less time-intensive than investigations of crimes with real victims. But experts on child trafficking say it’s unclear how many crimes against children these stings actually prevent, and the federal government hasn’t looked into whether the money spent on these task forces is actually keeping kids from being victimized.
That’s the basis of where my case came from. I’m not sure if I mentioned before, but I made a post on Craigslist years ago that I was looking for an older woman and I was still contacted by an undercover police officer who kept harassing me. Quite a few of these online stings lead to entrapment scenarios. Basically they’re creating false perpetrators.
wow really?
This is why I’ve made my peace with being alone. It feels too risky to look for a gf online (even an older one).
Phillip, and I can bet they claimed in the media that you were seeking minors online to exploit. Many times they just do it indirectly, but they still always make that false claim about their fake child predator sting operations.
Have you read Chelsea Reynold’s research about Craigslist? Her research can also be used to show law enforcement was clearly NOT targeting individuals who were targeting or seeking minors online to exploit as these fake heroes have falsely claimed. In fact, it shows that law enforcement were targeting LGBTQ and other sexual outsiders for the purpose of soliciting individuals from those groups to induce them to commit a crime. And you know what? It’s a federal crime to solicit others to commit a crime. They are the ones who committed a real crime and even civil rights violations by targeting men for this on an adult sex website that was being used primarily by LGBTQ and other sexual outsiders. They’ve hidden behind the statement, “The men were simply afforded an opportunity to commit a crime, not induced to do so.” The facts show otherwise. This has only worked for them because they’ve twisted truth and facts to fit their narrative. Once those truths and facts are untwisted, there is plenty of proof to show they are the ones who committed real crimes.
https://www.egattorneys.com/solicitation-to-commit-a-crime#:~:text=Simply%20put%2C%20defendants%20could%20be,them%20to%20commit%20a%20crime
I’m not one to bring race into arguments, but there was speculation that the county who did this to me targeted me because I am of Puerto Rican descent. The county that did this to me was Oconto Wisconsin. I have every single document saved from my case. I had to hire a new lawyer to prove entrapment because my original lawyer was working with the DA behind my back. Despite proving entrapment, the county wouldn’t budge. There were a few people who quit that jurisdiction over my case. I received about the same time in prison as a teacher from that county named Brynn Larsen, who committed actual child sexual assault and received only 2 years in prison.
It is a cruel joke when, in many cases, the more horrific the actual abuse is, the less time one gets. I know someone in prison for 12 years. He violated his teaching oath and had sex with a 17 year old. Another was 65 chatting with someone whom he thought reasonably was 24. After months of this, she typed 14 instead of 24. He questioned it. She assured him it was a clerical error. He got 33+ years. On appeal, VA said the prosecutor had a right to call a professional witness to attest that he had a propensity to desire children, but he was not allowed to refute that with his own professional witness. Justice in Action! In another case in North Dakota, a father rapes his three young daughters multiple times, gets 2.5 years.
Yes that’s exactly how the media interpreted it. Of course they have an image to maintain.
Steven Yoder has long been one of the best journalists in this area.
One thing he and others need to correct is the false claim that the investigations were of adults using electronic communications “to contact minors”. It’s a fact none of the men trapped by these sting operations were using the internet to try to contact minors. In these sting operations, law enforcement always first poses as an adult seeking men for sexual purposes in the right places for that. The men never made an initial contact with somebody they believed to be a minor. The men all first reached out to someone they believed to be an adult because the decoy claimed to be an adult to begin with. That’s a fact in all of these cases, and that fact keeps being overlooked. Not good!
Also, it’s a fact that what law enforcement has been doing in these sting operations meets the two elements required to show that the police officers who have done this have violated the federal law 18 U.S.C. 373 – Solicitation to commit a crime of violence. In most of these cases, it can be proven that police officers did not target individuals who were targeting or seeking minors online to exploit, as they falsely claimed. Rather they targeted LGBTQ and other “sexual outsiders” on sites frequented by those groups to lure individuals from those groups to solicit them to commit a crime (to provide sexual conversations to someone claiming to be a minor and to get them to show up). This can be proven.
1) It can be proven the men are not given an option to NOT make the conversations about sex in order to get to meet this person to find out more about this extremely rare situation.
2) If there is research about the website used, such as what the research shows about the website Craigslist, this can be used to prove LE were not targeting individuals who were seeking minors. Rather they were targeting LGBTQ and other sexual outsiders for the purpose of soliciting them to commit a crime. It can be proven that it was police who solicited the men, not the other way around, as they’ve falsely claimed.
3) To say that the men should have stopped communicating with the person claiming to be a minor is not a logical explanation because this did not happen on a site like Facebook where kids are expected to be, and the decoy was not acting like a real minor would be acting online. It is not logical to think it’s normal for 13 year old virgin girls to be seeking men on an adult sex website to demand sex from those strangers. Therefore, “he should have stopped communicating with her” is just not a logical explanation or reasonable excuse for what police have done in these cases.
Many of these cases have the proof to show that both elements that must be proven to show someone violated this federal law (18 U.S.C. 373 – Solicitation to commit a crime of violence) are met. The proof is there to check off both boxes.
Anybody think any of these officers will ever be charged and convicted of this even though the proof is there? Lol!
There was an article that F.A.C posted in the past that told of someone who once the person (A cop) said they were really 16 and not 18, that person left the room without saying anything else and logged off. They were still arrested for trying to contact minors and were found guilty.
That in and of itself should show that it is not about protecting kids but filling up with registry funding.
Damm Illegal stings operations, I was caught on one of those, even though I specifically said ” ohh I thought you were older, never mind about the wine, you should be playing with toys bot online talking to guys. Be careful there are a lot of crazy people out there” and I stop my communication and 8 hours later they came back at me again to get me to keep talking!! The judge said it was not entrapment!! My life ruined because of this stupid cops! I only hope someday someone will redeem those of us that were caught on this illegal stings!!
That’s what happened with my case. I made the post about looking for an older woman, but it was an undercover cop who kept contacting me. I quit the conversation with her, but she would still continuously contact me again days later. And some judges don’t want to see these cases as entrapment because they don’t want their jurisdiction to have to pay up. They’re imprisoning people for profit and it’s making a mockery of the justice system.
Exactly, it’s a real form of human trafficking (trafficking men into the justice system for profit), and there’s no accountability for them for conducting human trafficking operations disguised as work of trying to save and protect children from online predators.
Yes, same thing happened to me. I am the Norm Achin listed in the article by Yoder.
Norm! Thank you for sharing and joining our conversation.
It depends on the judge you get. When I worked in law enforcement, Powdered coke (Cocaine) was all the rage. The undercover agents were using flower, sugar or whatever looked like coke. All arrested either took a plea or were found guilty. One though that I remember, hired a high profile attorney who argued that if they were actually buying flour, that was not illegal and that they would introduce that to the jury.
The charges were dropped. But again, that was a judge who actually had a brain that was not swayed by falsehoods. Now do I believe all those arrested thought they were buying sugar or flour? No. The fact is the cops can lie and it is ok just to make an arrest.
After that many departments started using the real thing, signing out product from the evidence room from cases that had already been resolved (Otherwise it would have compromised that case the drugs belonged to.)
I saw so many things go on during my time in law enforcement I should write a book about it, but with my reputation tarnished by my own past, I would be considered unbelievable. Alas I still have the stories in my head, sometimes they keep me awake at night.
The fact is, there are good and bad people in every walk of life. Not all cops are bad. I once got pulled over for speeding. Since I was on the registry I just knew I was going to get a ticket. I remained calm and asked the deputy how his night was going and handed him my I.d. Once he found out I was on the registry he walked back and his demeanor changed. I said to him, if you need to give me a ticket, I understand but if I was not on the registry would you ruin my “Safe driver” on my license? He was not happy about it but let me go with a warning and I wished him a safe tour of duty.
And did you guys see the article about the thousands of kids that have been victimized with sextortion online?
https://fox59.com/news/fbi-seeing-explosion-in-reports-of-young-boys-being-extorted-online/
ICAC has received millions of dollars to protect kids exactly from this, but instead they’ve used the money and resources to focus on creating fake child predator cases by targeting men on adult dating/hookup sites and other adult sex platforms to solicit those men to commit a crime. What’s even worse is that they purposefully target the LGBTQ community to use those individuals to create these fake child predator cases. Yes, there is plenty of proof to show this is exactly what they have been doing.
ICAC has never even bothered to put out any information or education for parents and kids about this growing problem, even though they have very well been aware of the sextortion problem for years! And guess what? These kids are not being targeted on any adult dating or hookup site or any other sex platform. They are being targeted in the places where kids are expected to be, which are NOT the places ICAC has been conducting their “child predator” sting operations on. What a shocker, huh? That must be why they haven’t wanted to talk about this real problem. It goes against everting they’ve been doing. Where is the accountability for their unethical, immoral, disgusting behavior?
These online sex stings are failing thousands of young boys and leaving them vulnerable.
Always appreciate in-depth observations by Aracely.
How about turning the tables on LE. Hire 16 and 17 year olds to interact with these entrapment sights claiming to be adults and when they start turning the conversation to sex and requesting a meeting place agree , then mention by the way I’m a minor too and by the way the federal underage entrapment kings force(Fuekf) will be contacting you for impersonating a minor and other sex crimes.
So now we’re using FAC’s platform to advocate for deliberately placing minors into sexual conversations with adults.
I realize this post was meant as a joke, it’s just that someone out there reading it might not take it that way.
I didn’t say they would start a sexual conversation but if the LE did they would be liable for doing so the same as someone who engages in a sexual conversation with someone claiming to be an adult then switch’s and all of a sudden becomes a minor.
Lets find more practical solutions.
I suggested the senecio to show how ridiculous what they are doing is.
The Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Mandated Protocols and Procedures for Proper Rules of Engagement from the United States Department of Justice, Office of the United States Attorney General.
This Memorandum of Understanding for Proper Tactics and Rules of Engagement is According to the United States Department of Justice Federal Training Manual for the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Undercover Online Chat Training Course and the following Rules are Mandated:
1.) Law Enforcement Officers Shall not use and are Prohibited from using Online Dating Applications and/or Online Dating Websites for Consenting Adults.
2.) Law Enforcement Officers Shall not use and are Prohibited from using Online Instant Messaging Chatrooms for Consenting Adults.
3.) Law Enforcement Officers Shall not use and are Prohibited from using Adult Profiles of the Age of 18 Years Old and Older on Online Social Media/Social Networking Websites.
4.) Law Enforcement Officers are Allowed to use and Shall only use Profiles of the Age of 17 Years Old and Younger on Online Social Media/Social Networking Websites.
5.) Law Enforcement Officers are Prohibited from Committing and Shall Not Commit Egregious-Outrageous Conduct, Entrapment by Cajoling, Compelling, Convincing, Enticing, Inducing, Luring, Persuading, Seducing, Tempting a person who Is Not Pre-Disposed to Commit the Crime Nor Pre-Meditating to Commit the Crime.
6.) Law Enforcement Officers when Setting Up an Online Internet Undercover Sting Operation are Mandated to ask for Permission in Writing via a Cooperative Agreement to said Social Media/Social Networking Website’s Legal Counsel/Legal Team for the Express Purpose of Conducting said Online Internet Undercover Sting Operation and if not done so they would be in Violation of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 United States Code Annotated 1030.
7.) If Law Enforcement Officers Violate and Do not Honor the Liability Clause of the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Memorandum of Understanding and Violate and Do not Honor the Oversight Clause of the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Operational and Investigative Standards then they would be in Violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 United States Code Annotated 1961-1968.
Source: Office of the Attorney General of the United States Department of Justice.
Can you provide a copy of this? No lawyers or judges believe this to be real or true. We’ve tried to use this and have been told this is not real or true.
I don’t think it is true. A person in Florida tried to use it and the judge threw it out saying it was a fake document.
Debi,
I’m not sure how the judge established that. Based on my recollection through my research on my forthcoming book, it comes from a pre-2017 copy of an ICAC training manual. The language highlighted herein is stripped out of later versions.
There has been considerable discussion as to whether or not it is a fake. When I first encountered it, I contacted the ICAC office in the USDepartment of JUstice, and they were VERY upset that I had access to it, and told me that should not have it. That suggests to me that perhaps it is authentic, but unless we can gain access other corroborating documents that can be autheticated for certain, we will not know.
Bear in mind that unless you were at that trial in Florida, you or I don’t know under what circumstances the document may have been disallowed from evidence. For example, in my trial, the court refused to allow unredacted/untouched texts and chats from me and the undercover cop, even though it was clear that the dates had been stripped out, and disparate conversations were mushed together as if they were the same. Even when I, under oath, explained to the judge that fact, he did not care. Simply ignored me. He had disallowed the chats because there was no Verizon representative to authenticate them!
I have seen two versions of this. One claimed to be from a CIA employee who feared going public, and thus would not give his name. Another was from a supposed retired FBI agent. They were both very close in verbiage – the first claiming to be from an actual ICAC manual.
We did submit that in our case. The Vancouver City prosecutor told the judge that this document was in a draft of the manual but never ‘official’. Was he lying? His lips were moving so probably. But without proof its of no use to anyone. I do believe it’s possible someone with a conscience made these suggestions, or that it was even incorporated at some point. Then ICAC realized how much money they could rake in without the morals clause! If anyone has a way to validate something like this please do reach out ASAP.
My takeaway is that there’s no secret document exposing how ICAC does its job, just waiting to be discovered.
The answers instead are out in the open, and we (and journalists like Steven Yoder, and CAGE) are just trying to get more people to care.
For sure it wasn’t CIA— they have better things to do than domestic sex stings.
U.S. law enforcement protocols aren’t secret. So I’m surprised at the amount of disagreement here on what the ICAC protocols actually are and what’s in their training manual.
The ICAC Task Force is a lot of things. They are wasteful and cause harm. But they are not a secret police force.
Jacob,
While it is true ICAC is authorized under federal statute and is “out” (i.e., ‘not secret) they sure do act as secretly as they can. They avoid mentioning their name as often as they can. Under questioning by me, they hestitate to acknowledge their existence as a force, until I told them I knew they existed, and more. They also are rarely ascribed in news stories as “ICAC” when police spokesmen are asked for comment. If ICAC itself wanted its name mentioned, they would surely do so.
Three years ago or so, they did a huge trafficking sting in the Virginia Beach, VA area. But it was led by the US Marshals, not ICAC. Why? ICAC deals only with officers-as-fictitious-kids trolling online, though they love to conflate their zero-real-children-saved stats with the actual horrifying numbers of real children sex-trafficked (an actual problem) as if these two are the same. Conflating numbers is a common tactic among the disingenuous.
In short, cops know how to get the message out if they need to. They happily release glitzy advertisements about the “noble” police officer frequently enough when they are putting a high-gloss on their reputations before the communities they “serve.”
And, after all, why should they? They do not want scrutiny of their actions, which are opaque enough. They are also unusual in that they are a multi-agency, mulit-government-level consortium of law enforcement, which creates confusion on the part of the public.
Jacob
Having worked in law enforcement myself in the past, Not every officer, or Ranking officer follows the book/rules/protocol. Many a time did I experience situations that were so far out of protocol that I thought I was watching a movie in real life. If you have a lead detective on a sting and 4 to 5 other officers, one of them may “Improvise” which basically means entrapment.
My biggest thing is, if you go knowingly to meet an underaged kid, you knew what you were doing. But when on the computer when an agent pretends to be a kid and the adult logs off, doesn’t leave the house and think “Whew, that was a close one” then cops bust through the door and arrest them, do we live in Russia?
One thing I can look back on in my law enforcement career was, there was no internet, well at least not as we know it. I was still using a typewriter to write my reports back then if that tells you anything. The police cars we had then are probably classics by now.