ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings


National

DOJ report: Agents used photos of FBI employees to lure sex offenders

Source: upi.com 8/2/21

FBI agents have used photos of young female support staff employees posing as children or sex workers to lure sexual predators on social media websites, Department of Justice inspectors say.

A report by the department’s Office of the Inspector General submitted late last week found that one agent used photos of FBI support employees who were not certified as undercover agents without getting consent from their superiors.

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz reported that the agent “said he was ‘fishing’ on social media sites but not recording which sites he used.

“The (agent) did not inform the support staff employees’ supervisors that the employees were involved in (undercover) operations, and the (agent) advised the support staff employees who provided photographs to not tell anyone, including their supervisors.”

Horowitz said that while employees’ faces were blurred and they were clothed in the photos, they were nevertheless potentially put in danger.

“The FBI had no documentation or information regarding whether the photographs still appear on the websites or how long the photographs appeared on the websites, during which time the photographs could have been — and potentially could still be — downloaded, copied, or further disseminated,” the report said.

The Inspector General said the conduct “poses potential adverse consequences for non-(agent) employees participating in (undercover) operations, including potentially placing them in danger of becoming the victims of criminal offenses.”

Horowitz demanded the FBI create a policy governing the use of such employees in undercover operations in which their written consent would be required and the operations be carefully documented and monitored.

FBI Executive Assistant Director Brian Turner wrote in response that the agent’s conduct is being reviewed by the bureau’s Office of Professional Responsibility and promised that new guidelines will be developed “in the coming weeks.”

“Upon publication, the FBI will also ensure that the FBI personnel who engage in (undercover) operations are aware of the new guidelines and trained on the requirements,” Turner wrote.

 

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 
Subscribe
Notify of
33 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The FBI agent probably took the pics home with him. Creep. 😒
Besides, I thought the FBI/DOJ had a huge cache of illegal images they could use for their perverted fishing schemes. 😒

So contacting a fake solicitation is illegal, but posing as a solicitor to entice is completely legit and legal.

So true… interesting also how “misrepresentation on the internet” is a SO also. Oh, but only if you’re one of the lowly US citizens as opposed to a gov or LE agency.

I noticed that the participants had to sign a consent form and give permission as well as being advised on their jobs. Gee ! That makes it all o.k. Then!
The F.B.I. Is following the same guidelines as the scum that do this illegally, yet they feel since they have a badge to fall back on, they are somehow cleansed of wrongdoing. I guess two wrongs DO make a right! As long as you’re law enforcement.

Unfettered use is just that. A perfect example here. How does this example figure in to the Byrne grant folks?

So they used photos of adult women? Yet the men are being charged with attempting to entice a child? Are they admitting that teenage girls and adult women really aren’t that different, and that, while it’s reasonable to have an age of consent and to expect men to abide by it, that treating violations of age of consent laws as abhorrent and unnatural is inconsistent with so many teenagers being virtually indistinguishable from adults? I’m not arguing to lower the age of consent, but simply to have laws pertaining to it that reflect that it is somewhat arbitrary and there is no reason to think that violators of age of consent laws have “unnatural” predilections any more than any other criminal does.

In my husband’s military case they used obvious pictures of adult females. She even had a visible arm tattoo… apparently they were “supposed” to computer enhance the pictures to look younger, but they “forgot”. They also seemed to forget that they were not supposed to entice deployed service members in Afghanistan to send pictures of themselves that were out of their “range” but that’s the Gov’t for you… they can break all the rules as long as it feeds the machine…

“FBI agents have used photos of young female support staff employees posing as children or sex workers to lure sexual predators on social media websites…”

So, they are using photos of adult women to put people in prison for seeking out underage females.

A lot of concern for the safety of support staff, but zero for the possibility that adults were not seriously considered children and so entrapment ensued. Or were the support staff minors?

Let me get this straight.

The FBI uses their employees to entice a person to commit a sexual crime. Meaning they put their resources out there and spend money on a crime that has not been committed yet but the FBI are forcing to take place by entrapment. So there are more resources lost for those that do not fall for it – but yet these employees are resources that can not now be used for actual crimes that are already committed and will be committed (such as terrorism, arson, ID theft). Think about all these crimes that slip by the FBI because they are concentrating on crimes that have not taken place yet.

Its time to turn the tables on these a**holes who want to entrap people. If someone tries to lure you online, REPORT them. I don’t care if its the FBI or not. Just report them. After all, THEY are the ones who are committing felonies by trying to offer sex.

Can also turn the tables by talking with the Senate Judiciary Committee (https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/), especially CA’s own Sen Feinstein (D) who sits on it, and voice your opposition to this. The House JC (https://judiciary.house.gov/) has CA members on it too.

Of course, they’re other members who sit on it from other states too, but in the end, they all work for the country, not just their own districts or states, when on a committee. They will tell you that if you contact them outside of their jurisdiction, they won’t address an issue possibly. You can correct them with their countrywide work for the taxpayer who pays their salary when on a committee.

Disgusted In Michigan- you are so right. Another abuse of power by the GESTOPO!!!!

Time to defund these abuses of power and lock these people up for fraud.

This reminds me of scene in ‘ A few good men ‘ where the JAG wants to charge Cruise’s client with smoking Oregano. They know it wasn’t weed, but that doesn’t make a difference to them.
It’s not about the actual actions, it’s about perceived intent. It’s about what’s supposedly in the mind. Very puritanical and reeks of the inquisition.

The FBI aren’t the only ones who do this every law enforcement agency in the country do this.
The interesting thing about this article is the agent was putting employees in danger of committing a crime i wonder what that crime was and how many law enforcement agencies have committed this crime while enticing people on the internet.
We all know the fed’s fight crime with crime they’ll give drug dealers the drugs, help them sale it, arrest them and seizes all their money and assets for themselves while systematically destroying an entire race of people.
Thanks to the FBI’s new nation wide SORNA database they have a new second class citizens to make money off of that’s why all these poor neighborhoods throughout country are being regentrified they don’t need ghettos and project buildings anymore they got Megan’s Law

Good luck

They (LE) think of it as “low-hanging fruit.” It’s very easy and safe — no agent is ever going to get shot at, and it’s very popular. They have too many resources and too much time on their hands if they’re spending it on this kind of crap.

That’s a really good point. It reminds me of when I was younger and went to a High School in a not so nice part of LA County where we had things security guards on school grounds because there were (supposedly) a lot of gangs. Funny thing was the security seemed more interested in telling nerdy kids they weren’t allowed to wear certain types of hats rather than break up fights or notice activity that would seem more gang related. They didn’t want to be put in any actual danger or actually protect the kids from shootings or anything, it was all about just getting by with a paycheck by seeming like you’re doing your job. That’s how I picture most of these agencies when it comes to protecting kids.

The inspector General is worried that the employees might become victims of criminal offenses but couldn’t give a rats ass about people being entrapped. Pathetic

Doesn’t this example prove a point that putting one’s face up on the internet means that anyone can harass or do worse to that person when they also discover their residency?

The FBI has to have consent that the possibility can occur to where you are stalked or worse.

Welp, isn’t that part and parcel today’s registry, but it’s done under the penalty of law?

So they use adult agents that appear to be underage to lure suspects in. This sure seems to undermine the states assertion that you are sure the individual you are talking to is underage. People claim all kinds of crap online and you are supposed to believe everything they tell you when in fact there is no way to tell if the person you are talking to are indeed underage or even who they say they are. This was one of my entire points in my case. Ludicrous, unless you have them on video talking to you live you have no idea who you are talking to for one thing, then you have no idea their age as many many many women, just as the undercover, look underage but are really adults. Insane… Just saying…

I agree. There is no doubt that people have been convicted of a crime in cases where they did not believe that they were talking to a minor and in fact, they were not. No doubt. There was no minor and not a single person thought that there was. That is the messed up part to me. It’s a “thought” crime, but yet what was thought/believed is not illegal.

But the lesson is that if anyone tells you that they are a minor, you stop communicating with them in any way that could be illegal (e.g. certainly no sex talk).

(or if you even suspect a person is a minor!)

It is crazy how this works though – if a person is not a minor but tells you that they are, then you are guilty of luring a minor.

If a person is a minor but tells you that they are not, then you are NOT guilty of luring an adult. Still guilty of luring a minor. You are always strictly liable, should’ve check their ID, ran a background check, and talked to their parents.

Yep, lessoned learned well.

This is so like my case. The girl I was with told me she was 18. I was 24 at the time. She looked and acted every day of 18. Even her parents told me she was 18 and they both liked me. It was only after her mother made a move on me and I turned her down that the truth of her only being 15 came out
So tell me who the irresponsible ones are. Me or her parents for allowing it and lying to me? I guess me since I’m the one on the registry for life because I’m so freaking dangerous.

I mean, any parent that would tell someone their child is 18 when they are not obviously has problems. That is beyond just being irresponsible. If you had proof they did that, no moral person ever should have charged you with a crime. But of course we know that most LE and prosecutors are immoral.

Daam for life did you get convicted of multiple charges involving the same victim ?

@AERO1 No. The State Legislature decided to change things in 2011. One of the changes was a tier designation which was done without any assessment or evaluation. They just blanket designated a tier designation to everyone which changed how often people have to verify and for how long. Everyone designated as a tier 3 was automatically changed from 25 years registration to life. Tier 3 is supposedly for people they deem violent or likely to reoffend. My case was not violent, nor will I ever reoffend.
This is one of the 2011 amendments that should have been litigated in our class action as it increased punishment and was applied retroactively.
@Will Allen, my attorney did raise that in court, but the judge said it did not matter because sexual contact with someone under 16 in Michigan is illegal, whether you are aware of her age or not. Yeah, the age of consent in Michigan is 16 and I later learned that her 16th birthday was 3 months later. She was even on birth control, which was raised in court as well. Obviously an underage girl cannot get birth control pills without parental consent, so looking back now it really shows what “great” parents hers were.
Had I known at the beginning she was only 15, I never would have touched her. But to be at her house with her father present, and him to approve of everything what was I supposed to think? Her parents were divorced, and I was visiting her at her mom’s place. Her mother told me she needed to talk to me and asked me to go on a short drive with her and I did. She parked the car and told me I was a good looking guy and asked me to kiss her. I told her I can’t because I don’t cheat on someone when I’m in a relationship. She kept pressing and I told her we need to return to the house. Once there, her mother grabbed a knife from the kitchen and was threatening to cut her wrist. I kept telling her to put the knife away or I would call the police to help, and she said “do it so I can tell the police you’ve been f***ing my 15 year old daughter!” That’s when the truth came out. I left and later that day I went to her father’s house to talk to him about it and he admitted it was true. When I asked him why he told me he liked me and that I was a decent guy and saw that I always treated his daughter right. He said his ex wife is all talk and won’t call the cops, but she did anyway. She later tried to get the charges dropped, but the prosecutor refused.
I’m adamant that the girl did NOT look or act like a 15 year old. She held conversations like an adult, and looked every day of being at least 18.
So for all this, I got 5-15 years, retroactively added to the hit list, then registration extended to life when the 2011 amendments were enacted. I’ll leave the other horror stories to your imagination because you all know what life on the registry is like.

Daam that sucks Bro …

If these staff people are over 18 then they are not minors whether they appear to be young looking or not. The staff members are of legal age and not a teenager or child. In other words DOJ if my Grandmother sends a photo but chats on line that she is 16 she is still a a legal adult, odd adult but a legal adult. To bad the DOJ victim doesn’t chat back saying they are 16 to the DOJ staff member trying to entrap them…would that staff member then be arrested for chatting to a alleged minor?

When I was arrested in one of these stings in 2004, the language of the statute read something like “enticement to sexual activity with someone the perpetrator knows or has reason to know is under 16.” Later that year (after my arrest), this language was changed by the Michigan legislature to “believes or has reason to believe.” I’ve always wondered if I could challenge that—“knows or has reason to know” is written so that men who do entice actual minors can’t say “but I thought she was 18.” But this shouldn’t be applied to a sting, because “know” implies truth. “Believe” does apply to stings where the law enforcement agent is not an actual minor but is pretending, but the word “believe” seems to bring with it Constitutional issues—how can the state prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, someone has “reason to believe” something? At the very least, that strikes me as unconstitutionally vague.

I think the difference between “knows” and “believes” absolutely would clear a person of wrongdoing. If there is no person under 16 then it is impossible to know or have reason to know that a person is under 16. That is why the legislature changed it. So they can weasel charges against people who probably don’t deserve it.

What is really sad is that they are imprisoning people for these stings and as a result of that they are surely not catching more people who are actually having sex with minors. They aren’t preventing or solving actual crimes. Personally, I think they do these stings just so they can make themselves feel a little better. They delude themselves that they are protecting someone. They probably feel bad that they aren’t good at stopping crimes. I would.

Wait a minute…That looks like Jane from HR!

The FBI’s values are supposedly “Respect, Integrity, Accountability, Leadership, Diversity, Compassion, Fairness, and Rigorous obedience to the Constitution.”

As an American Citizen, you be the judge to whether the FBI — who supposedly serves this country, with such high esteem from the mainstream media — has lived up to its values.

33
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.