Yes, that is the rub. It is very difficult for the defense to overcome that bias to produce reasonable doubt. That, coupled with the phrase “or attempts to do so” in many sex statutes pertaining to minors, can nearly close the defense door. There is also generally no mistake-of-fact defense regarding the age of consent. Even going online to indulge in a harmless fantasy exchange between two adults is a risky business. Just being charged without a conviction has both immediate and long-term negative consequences.

If you want some better background to your concept go to the Shawn Ryan podcast and listen to #284 Schlep about the horrors or Roblox. You will be blown away by what you hear and better understand and different take on what you are sayin. I was amazed at what I heard. The week after this was broadcast the company’s value drop billions in lost revenue. This is where the legislation and the police need to be focusing their dollars. Not on an outdated unconstitutional registry but seeking out the purveyors or child abuse and child sex abuse as a business and profit model.

It would never see a day in court but class action lawsuit against him for creating the entire entrapment situation?

I think Noah Prinsky is in chicago now doing new…. He will still talk to people regarding these stings. I talked to him last year about them

Juries tend to assume that if someone told you they were underage, you believed them.

Here are the problems with that. This shows how they’ve been misapplying these laws – to create these fake crimes.

1) Being told that it is a minor does not mean he believed it, even if he played along with the narrative they presented. He cannot fully believe something he is told to believe, especially when what he is told to believe is inconsistent with reality. (In this case: a minor going out of their way to find random adult male strangers online to engage with sexually – and sometimes those minors are as young as 13 or 12 or even younger).
He does not fully believe it until he goes there and sees it for himself. Once he shows up and is arrested (or confronted by vigilantes) now he fully believes that it WAS an actual minor.

By arresting him or shaming him for “trying to meet a minor”, he has now been made to believe that he was meeting an actual minor. Why would anybody be going out of their way to do this if it hadn’t been a real minor after all? That just doesn’t register in normal minds after being put through this.

This is why men will give in and supposedly “admit” that they were trying to meet a minor. At that point, they were made to believe that it had to be a real minor. Otherwise, it doesn’t make sense for anybody to be treating it so seriously.

The problem is that the law requires he had to believe he was meeting a minor BEFORE he went there to meet the person who claimed to be underage, not AFTER the event (they created) that convinced the man that it was a minor after all he was meeting. The event being the arrest or vigilantes telling him he was trying to meet a minor. They are not proving that his belief was formed BEFORE he went there. They are simply proving that he believed it was a minor. At what point that belief was formed is what makes the legal difference. And this is exactly why these cases are created and not real.

So, the questions are, “Did he believe he was meeting a minor before or after he was confronted about trying to meet a minor?” and “What proof do they have to show he believed this BEFORE he went there and that he was not just convinced that it was a real minor AFTER he was arrested or confronted?”

You see how they’re not following the law or applying it correctly?

2) He continued the conversation because his goal is to meet this person to find out who they really are. Many of these cases have evidence of police or vigilantes refusing to meet (withholding their location), while they continue to provide clues that they need him to agree to sex with them first, before they will meet him or provide their location. Many of the men will give in and provide the sexual conversation because it was their goal all along to meet anybody who engaged with them in this way, regardless of who they were or claimed to be. The goal is always to go and see for themselves who the person who has engaged them in this way really is.

This is the tactic they use to create this element of the crime (the sexual conversation) that they cannot prosecute this crime without. If the man did not volunteer the sexual conversation on his own, and the decoy withheld their location after the man requested it (in many cases multiple times), and the decoy would only agree to meet him if he provided a sexual conversation to them first (as they repeatedly prompt the men to do), then he did not pursue that online sexual interaction on his own. That part of the crime was created by police or the vigilante. That is “creating the crime”, NOT preventing a crime that would have happened without police or vigilante intervention.

So, the questions are: “Did he volunteer the sexual conversation on his own, or was he prompted to do so?”
“Did the decoy refuse to meet him (by withholding their location), followed by prompts for sexual conversation, and only provide their location after he complied with their wishes?
“What does the evidence show?” (Make sure the evidence is complete, so that they’re not hiding any part that shows they did this)

3) How are they proving that he believed he was meeting a minor BEFORE he went there and that it’s not a belief that was only formed AFTER he was arrested or told by vigilantes that he was trying to meet a minor?

The point is that these are created cases that would have not existed otherwise, and they are misrepresenting or conflating the facts to make it appear to be what they need it to be, to prove a crime that did not truly occur but was created by them.

These people are not heroes. They are simply sick and twisted. Think about it, they are promoting and encouraging sexual fantasies about kids for self-serving purposes. And then they pretend that it was others who were thinking about those things. They deny that they are the ones putting those ideas in the men’s heads and basically are trying to create a demand for a desire for sex with minors. They are trying to create exactly what they claim to be preventing.

Noah Prinsky, a journalist, exposed this process through a Tampa news article in 2014. Nothing happened. Judd still entraps, he knows how to word it, and train his underlings as to how to entrap, then he gets the publicity. I wish someone of a high level would step in here and bring this political scheme down. It’s costing lives, incrassation costs, perhaps suicides as evidenced by Hansen history. It is wrong.

I lived it with my autistic son with Grady Judd. That entire county is effected by the Judd regime as well as the justice system in that county is flawed. There should be an investigation of the entrapment tactics, the filming all setup immediately after take down, planned in advance and the wide distribution of material during a traumatic event for the victim, the entrapped. Ten years ago a journalist, Noah Prinsky did an expose on Judd and involved Hansen but Prinskly disappeared and no disciplinary or change of operation evolved. Judd sets up stings, he entraps, he or someone in that office sets it up with Hansen, the video is distributed, Judd’s victims are shamed and the the Polk County judicial system embraces what Judd proposes as a crime. It’s wrong.