California Attorney General Kamala Harris, who will be resigning soon prior to joining Congress as a U.S. Senator, has filed new "pimping" charges against the CEO and other executives of Backpage. The previous set of charges were dismissed by a judge less than two weeks ago. Backpage is an online classified advertising website known for its listings of escort services:
Harris said the new charges were based on new evidence. A Sacramento County judge threw out pimping charges against the men on 9 December, citing federal free-speech laws. In the latest case, filed in Sacramento County superior court, Harris claims Backpage illegally funnelled money through multiple companies and created various websites to get around banks that refused to process transactions. She also alleged that the company used photos of women from Backpage on other sites without their permission in order to increase revenue and knowingly profited from the proceeds of prostitution."By creating an online brothel – a hotbed of illicit and exploitative activity – Carl Ferrer, Michael Lacey, and James Larkin preyed on vulnerable victims, including children, and profited from their exploitation," Harris said in a statement.
Harris said the new charges were based on new evidence. A Sacramento County judge threw out pimping charges against the men on 9 December, citing federal free-speech laws. In the latest case, filed in Sacramento County superior court, Harris claims Backpage illegally funnelled money through multiple companies and created various websites to get around banks that refused to process transactions. She also alleged that the company used photos of women from Backpage on other sites without their permission in order to increase revenue and knowingly profited from the proceeds of prostitution.
"By creating an online brothel – a hotbed of illicit and exploitative activity – Carl Ferrer, Michael Lacey, and James Larkin preyed on vulnerable victims, including children, and profited from their exploitation," Harris said in a statement.
It's less likely than you think. More likely Kamala [wikipedia.org] wants to pull an Obama.
On November 8, 2016, she defeated Loretta Sanchez in the 2016 U.S. Senate election to replace outgoing Democratic senator Barbara Boxer, becoming the second black woman and first Indian American elected to serve in the United States Senate.
illegally funnelled money through multiple companies and created various websites to get around banks that refused to process transactions
That doesn't sound like "pimping." No mention of them being charged with anything related to "money funneling."
She also alleged that the company used photos of women from Backpage on other sites without their permission
That sounds kinda bad, if it's really true. Maybe putting photos on the site implied permission according to the terms of service. Sounds sketchy, but it still doesn't sound like pimping. Sounds more like making excuses for charging them with something that you don't have evidence to charge them with.
What new evidence?
It's right here in the summary:
A Sacramento County judge threw out pimping charges against the men on 9 December, citing federal free-speech laws.
That was evidence she had to try a different tactic to try to put them in jail.
The previous charges were dismissed because the Communications Decency Act specifically exempted website owners from legal responsibility of the actions of their third-party users. For example, Craigslist isn't guilty of a crime just because someone tries to sell stolen goods via a Craigslist Ad.
To get around that defense, it appears the prosecution is alleging that the owners of Backpage weren't simply providing a neutral service that was used by others to facilitate a crime, but rather that Backpage executives were active participants in the crime itself.
It appears they're taking two approaches on this. If Backpage actively and knowingly helped facilitate payment activity for illegal activities, they can't claim to be just an unknowing communication service provider. That could potentially defeat the shield from the Communications Decency Act.
Second, if the owners of the site used the illegal content to privately profit from it, it would be hard to argue they didn't know about anything illegal going on. And if they actively created some of the offending content, it's not third parties who did the bad actions. The Communications Decency Act only protects platform providers, not content creators.
It's not clear what, if any, evidence there is to back up either of these claims. Allegations are not evidence. The previous dismissal made it pretty clear that the court won't hold Backpage liable for user-created content, so they need to have something substantial to prove Backpage execs were more actively involved in the illegal activity. Whether they have enough evidence to convince a court is something that we'll have to see.
sounds exactly like what facebook does to me!
No mention of them being charged with anything related to "money funneling."
Harris, an incoming US senator, said she had charged Backpage executives Carl Ferrer, Michael Lacey and James Larkin with 13 counts of pimping and conspiracy to commit pimping. They also are charged with 26 counts of money laundering.
We've seen this a number of times. Someone with an over inflated sense of self importance just can't let things go. These people were dismissed, but this woman won't allow some stupid judge to over rule her judgement. The defendants are evil, so they must pay. In this case, "Because I'm a congress critter now, I'm going to work on new laws formed to burn these evil bastards!"
Ah, you're just saying that because the pervs she is prosecuting are Republican disruptive entrepreneurs of Web2.0! Prostitution, on a computer!
so this "I AM THE LAW" idiot is going to be in the US Senate? :( :( :(
You know this has nothing to do with actually helping victims and everything to do with making a name for themselves when they use hot button phrases like "preyed on vulnerable victims, including children,"
There are already separate laws to protect children and others from slave traffickers/abusers. Legalize prostitution and almost all the problems associated with it will vanish almost completely overnight. Why doesn't a woman turn in a violent client/pimp who assaults her or forces her to work? Because they know they'll get arrested too. Why doesn't a client report a suspected trafficking victim? because they'll get arrested too if they try.
She's just beating a dead horse. It's just a little more dead this time around. Hopefully she doesn't find herself wearing it in January when she goes to Washington next month.
There is a similar, unrelated case [latimes.com], of a man wrongly convicted; quoting from the LA TIMES, the guy was indicted in 1998 and released until 2013 thanks to Kamala Harris, AG for California, who appealed his motions to keep him in jail:
"[...] A federal magistrate reviewed those facts and determined that Larsen deserved to have his conviction overturned because his lawyer was inadequate.[...] 'Had the jury heard the exculpatory testimony,' the magistrate wrote, 'no reasonable juror would have found [Larsen] guilty.' The magistrate's recommendations were reviewed and upheld by a second federal judge in 2009. [...] Yet the California attorney general's office objected to releasing Larsen, and he remains behind bars while the fight over his release is appealed. [...] it is exceptionally rare for a federal judge to conclude that an inmate is 'actually innocent.' Under these circumstances, Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris would be wise to back off and let Larsen go. "
Apparently when she decides you're guilty, you are, regardless of judges or juries.
Although it doesn't reflect well on her character, that seems to be the norm for AGs. And if they are shuffling into higher political offices, it's no surprise that they want to be seen as tough on crime.
"Tough on crime" also means incarcerating drug users, putting everyone on the sex offender list, and 3 strikes laws. It doesn't have to make sense. It just has to be tough. There can be no sign of weakness, compromise, or remorse.
guy pulls away his down comforter looks around and realizes prosecuters and politicians are scum bags. welcome to reality!
We get bang up Senators and maybe even US Presidents out of them!
DAs don't care about guilt or innocence, just convictions. Any body will do.
As for exploiting children: Men who rape female children are to keep them and pay the father
Filter error: Please troll elsewhere.Filter error: You having fun yet?
It's only peripheral to this case, but I have now heard of numerous situations where the big credit cards cut some organization off. For better or for worse, they have become fundamental to online commerce. I'm slowly of the opinion that they should be required to process any payments that are not provably illegal. Letting the credit cards pass their own judgements is essentially letting them become a second, independent legal system, but one with no recourse to due process.
Any thoughts on this from the Soylentils?
this is why I have a JCB card (available in some US states)... no monthly fee, no late fee, no overlimit fee, and is accepted by some merchants which have been cut off by Visa/MC
yes and this extends to paypal, stripe, etc. those socialist whores won't let you use their services if you're selling ammo, much less guns. they should be brought up on charges of sedition.