http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/11/tech...ion/index.html
What drew attention to it and how did the FBI get the info to take it down ?
- Kloie
- 07-11-2014, 10:29 PM
- SunSetDreams
- 07-11-2014, 10:37 PM
There solicting underage females
- Kloie
- 08-21-2014, 05:50 PM
O hell, that's not good. Thanks for the reply Sunset
- davephx
- 08-25-2014, 06:44 AM
There solicting underage females Originally Posted by SunSetDreamsYour source?????
I have the indictment - not a word about children.
The only mention of underaged I have seen is from when maybe there were some from a LE statement years ago, based on pure speculation.
As far as I have seen there were ZERO under aged in the shutdown of RB, it was purely for aiding adults under the Travel Act under which they were charged which is for aiding consenting adults.
I have the indictment - not a word about children.
- ICU 812
- 08-25-2014, 08:35 AM
Do I understand this correctly?
If two adults in separate states contact over the internet and agree to meet for consensual PFP-BCD . . .the website may be prosecuted?
If two adults in separate states contact over the internet and agree to meet for consensual PFP-BCD . . .the website may be prosecuted?
- ck1942
- 08-25-2014, 09:33 AM
The website was seized by the Feds because its owners/operators were charged with money laundering and tax evasion.
For the most part, ANY ASSET used in criminal activities can be seized.
Cash, bank accounts, cars, houses, jewelry, etc.
And, seizure can happen even while the criminal defendant(s) is awaiting trial.
So much for innocent until proven guilty.
= = = = =
To answer ICU's question, for the most part websites are more or less immune from the feds, locals, etc. due to Federal law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section...ns_Decency_Act
Section 230 of the Federal Commmunications Decency Act which exempts the web operator from prosecution based on what its posters post. Note, the posters are not, per se, the website operator.
That said, however, the expense of mounting a defense can be a high bar for those charged. Prosecutors have been known to count on that most times. Think "plea bargaain."
For the most part, ANY ASSET used in criminal activities can be seized.
Cash, bank accounts, cars, houses, jewelry, etc.
And, seizure can happen even while the criminal defendant(s) is awaiting trial.
So much for innocent until proven guilty.
= = = = =
To answer ICU's question, for the most part websites are more or less immune from the feds, locals, etc. due to Federal law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section...ns_Decency_Act
Section 230 of the Federal Commmunications Decency Act which exempts the web operator from prosecution based on what its posters post. Note, the posters are not, per se, the website operator.
That said, however, the expense of mounting a defense can be a high bar for those charged. Prosecutors have been known to count on that most times. Think "plea bargaain."
- FoulRon
- 08-25-2014, 09:47 AM
Yea, the asset forfeiture law is whack! It essentially allows the govt. to seize any asset they think could be related to the supposed criminal activity and hold them until you are proven innocent, and even then, there is a process to get it returned to you, if they still have it. Many defendants have been left with so few assets that they have a hard time hiring a good defense attorney.
I don't understand how it passes 4th amendment scrutiny.
I don't understand how it passes 4th amendment scrutiny.