Austin Wolf has been busted

[ejaculaTe]

7 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

But once you've produced obscene material (which isn't protected by the First Amendment), you can be prosecuted anywhere it's shipped (electronically, if it's online). 

From the DOJ Manual, §9-75.400: "Cases under the child pornography and obscenity statutes in which the crime was committed via computer may be prosecuted in the district where the defendant committed any of the acts proscribed in the statutes. In general, in cases in which the crime was committed via the computer, all of the charges (distribution, receipt, possession, etc.) should be brought in the district in which the target and his computer are located."

[PozBearWI]

@ejaculaTe the operative words in your post being "In general".  That doesn't mean charges can't be brought elsewhere...

[BootmanLA]

17 hours ago, ejaculaTe said:

From the DOJ Manual, §9-75.400: "Cases under the child pornography and obscenity statutes in which the crime was committed via computer may be prosecuted in the district where the defendant committed any of the acts proscribed in the statutes. In general, in cases in which the crime was committed via the computer, all of the charges (distribution, receipt, possession, etc.) should be brought in the district in which the target and his computer are located."

As PozBearWI noted, that's generally the case. But in the case we were discussing - the Florida obscenity charges for Paul Little (Max Hardcore) - the charges were brought in Florida, where the material was received.

I'm not certain whether the DOJ manual provision in question was adopted before or after that case.  But the convictions were upheld by the 11th Circuit in Atlanta - specifically holding that because the material was sent to Florida, it was acceptable to judge it by Florida's obscenity standards (which are, after all, specific to the community).

I'm guessing that DOJ felt that winning the case would be harder if brought in California possibly because California's "contemporary community standards" were different enough that a conviction would be more difficult.

[ejaculaTe]

17 hours ago, PozBearWI said:

@ejaculaTe the operative words in your post being "In general".  That doesn't mean charges can't be brought elsewhere...

Oh, I totally agree, and in fact the first sentence in the quote makes that point. The second sentence is no more than internal guidance expressed by the folks at Main Justice, likely because it's easier -- there's no need to bring the defendant to a different district for trial, etc. (And I suspect that any assistant US Attorney who wanted to depart from the administrative guidance would need a good reason.)

[Slammer62]

I never really watched him because he mostly was with such young-looking guys, that turned me off. We all make choices in life some good and some bad, but we are responsible none the less.  Obviously, he had some really bad choices which he will have to answer for. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. We just have to wait and see.  

[IrishBoi]

On 7/1/2024 at 1:13 AM, Sfmike64 said:

Sex addiction is NOT A THING. It's not a physical addiction. People can absolutely have out of control sex lives. We've all known people like that, but it's not addiction like booze, heroin, coke or meth.

Sex therapists and PsychoSexual therapists would beg to differ. I really hate to break it to you but sex addiction is very much a real thing 

[BootmanLA]

9 minutes ago, IrishBoi said:

Sex therapists and PsychoSexual therapists would beg to differ. I really hate to break it to you but sex addiction is very much a real thing 

The "thing" referred to as "sex addiction" exists. The open question is whether it fits the definition of "addiction".

There's debate among mental health professionals, for example, whether there is a solid distinction to be drawn between a compulsive behavior and a physical addiction. And there's also debate as to the proper kind(s) of treatment for each.

[Sfmike64]

20 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

The "thing" referred to as "sex addiction" exists. The open question is whether it fits the definition of "addiction".

There's debate among mental health professionals, for example, whether there is a solid distinction to be drawn between a compulsive behavior and a physical addiction. And there's also debate as to the proper kind(s) of treatment for each.

This of course was my point. Do people have compulsive sex? Absolutely. Does it interfere with their life? Absolutely. Is it a physical addiction like Crystal or heroin or even cigarettes. No it’s not.

co-opting the language of addiction seems a little bit problematic to me. But, if it helps, you get control over the compulsions in your life then I suppose it doesn’t really matter.

[BootmanLA]

There was some discussion earlier about the likely sentence in the event of a conviction. Here's a relevant example from an appeal I read today.

A man pled guilty in federal court to ONE count of possession of visual depictions of sexual activities by minors (the official name of the particular offense). He received 240 months in prison (20 years), a $250,000 fine, $10,100 in restitution and special assessments, and supervised release for life (ie, if he lives to be released, he'll have to report to a parole officer until he dies). He was appealing parts of the sentence. 

Sounds stiff? Sort of, but not really. It's a within-guidelines sentence (at the high end), at the statutory maximum, given the particulars of his crime.

His pre-sentence report (PSR), which provides the relevant background and facts alleged by the prosecution, found that the man possessed 3,699 images of what we call collectively "child porn" - which could include anything from nudity involving the genitals to actual sexual activity with the child (the evidence shows that it included all of the above). He also tried to hide one laptop and phone containing some of the images, leading to an enhancement on his sentence for obstruction of justice.

So it doesn't take conviction of having thousands of such images for those thousands of images to actually affect the sentence. In a case like this, I believe that the prosecutors provide the evidence of the additional images to the court, for instance, so as to establish their relevance, without having to actually prove each and every one of them he downloaded himself (because possession is the particular crime being charged). 

That's also why the sentencing guidelines are so steep for a single offense and why being charged with one count is pretty much as bad as being charged with everything they find.

The only part of his appeal with merit was that the sentence barred him from the internet or using a computer for life. The appellate courts have found that given how much of modern life requires the use of a computer and/or the internet, and given that it's possible to use software that restricts what you can do, a blanket ban on access for life is not permissible. So the appeals court sent that provision alone back to the sentencing judge to change - notably, without telling him HOW to change it, which the judge will have discretion to do within the limits set by the court.

[Hornedpigdc]

On 6/30/2024 at 3:53 PM, verslut said:

I learned he was banned from OnlyFans in the past due to misconduct. I guess he never reformed.

I believe he left onlyfans years ago once he started a hugely popular and lucrative competitor with 4Fans. 

[abm0011]

As far as i can tell, none of the materials he MADE are illegal, although some might be unethical. (the infamous flight attendant episode, starring barely-legal twinks, etc.).

[BootmanLA]

14 hours ago, abm0011 said:

As far as i can tell, none of the materials he MADE are illegal, although some might be unethical. (the infamous flight attendant episode, starring barely-legal twinks, etc.).

I suspect you're right, if only because his work (at least, that which has been made public) is professionally done, and no professional studio is going to come within a hundred feet if they know anyone in the scene is underage. (That obviously has not always been the case, but it has been true for decades.)

[abm0011]

8 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

I suspect you're right, if only because his work (at least, that which has been made public) is professionally done, and no professional studio is going to come within a hundred feet if they know anyone in the scene is underage. (That obviously has not always been the case, but it has been true for decades.)

Not since Brent Corrigan aka the gay Traci Lords. Also his OF collabs are mostly well known OF people and they need to keep records for the 2257.

[Vancityaladdin]

Yeah he was mostly trafficking content cause he sold a lot of porn.

I actually met him on an Atlantis cruise last Feb. We talked about how the "Goblin Cave" animation by Sana was so hot but could never be made with living actors because it's a non con scene. 

 

I guess he was low key admitting to watching Non consensual stuff already