adjective out·ra·geous \ (ˌ)au̇t-ˈrā-jəs \
going beyond all standards of what is right or decent
Today we filed a motion in the Clark County Superior Court to dismiss Jace case on grounds of “Outrageous conduct which shocks the universal sense of fairness constitutes the violation of dues process guaranteed by art. 1 & 3 of the Washington State Constitution and the Fifth and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”
This is part of a larger picture, which assumes that our government has all three of the following on their side before prosecuting a “crime”:
But we have found those missing in this case.
According to the ICAC training manual, created by the U.S. Attorney General, police are prohibited from creating fraudulent ads without the express permission of a websites owner, and can not create ads on consenting, adult only webpages…
“This Memorandum 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 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 17 Years Old and Younger on Online Social Media/Social Networking Websites. 5.) 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. Source: Office of the Attorney General of the United States Department of Justice.”
The prosecution has admitted that Detective Rob Givens, and this proactive ICAC sting did NOT EVEN ATTEMPT to get pre authorization to place this fraudulent ad on the craigslist ‘casual encounters’ webpage. Additionally, that page is a consenting, adults only, 18 and over webpage, an additional violation of the Attorney Generals mandates. If not followed, not only do these mandates leave the police task force open to lose of federal funding…
But they also leave the police involved, and any other government entity who knew OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
That will be the basis of Jace Federal Civil Rights lawsuit to be filed directly after his release OR imprisonment.
6 thoughts on “That’s just OUTRAGEOUS!”
Oh Baby….love reading how badly the rules were ignored!!!! Note – Don’t mess with the Mama Bear!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would say our work here is done but I have a feeling we’ve only scratched the surface. Getting our goal accomplished is one thing, getting this information into the proper hands to do the most good is something else that will have to be dealt with. After you’ve been through something like this where you’ve been entrapped, lied to, judged, caged, and slandered, you feel for others in the same situation.
I am not aware of a memo like this existing (do you have a link?). You say it is in the ICAC training manual? I will have to double check that. I know it doesn’t exist in their Operation & Investigative Standards. This would be huge if the Judges allow it. As for Due Process you can forget about that–no one who has made that argument has gotten anywhere. Good Luck.
Hi Samuel – yes, I know this could be HUGE, that’s why I am sharing this with you all. If it works I will share it with the entire country! Yes, others have attempted ‘Due process’, but not in connection with a specific federal law that their own manual says they broke. So wish me luck and hope this judge values the law! Thank you for reading and your comment.
Where exactly in the manual does it say this? Do you have a link to go directly to it so I can verify?
Did anything become of this motion filed?