ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote:
This doesn't sound right.  I think someone is playing you..


Did you check out the investigator's info?

Hey Chan, Congratulations on being the first one in this thread to who is intelligent enough to ask if Jake didn't go through some type of verification or in fact speak with the Agent in person. Several others have been railing him for something to which there is no information to back up. Whether they are correct or not is merely a coincidence.

Jake said nothing to lead anyone to believe he DIDN'T do this. Unfortunately the mere lack of stating that he did go through verification is enough for simple minded folk to start shouting their denouncements of his implied unintelligent process. You know what is unintelligent in my book? Don't guess, let me tell you. Then you will actually know. It is, Assuming.

studio36uk wrote:
You know what I find disturbing? That you would discuss something like that with someone on the phone that calls you without previous arrangement and identifies them self as an FBI agent.

They could come to you; or you could go to see them; but either way you would have been better off not saying shit until and unless you physically saw their identification and badge.

[ring][ring][ring]Hello?

[on the other end] Hello, my name is Donald Duck and I am a Postal Inspector. I need to ask you some questions about a letter you mailed last month.

[you] Uh... you can come and see me or I can come and see you. Good bye. [click]

DUH!!!!

Studio36

+1

Dove KT wrote:
I believe that in any question of sexual exploitation of minors, the FBI is in charge.  I only know this because I had a friend's who 13yr old little sister was "talking" with a 27 year old man across the country.  And by talking, I mean cybering and planning a meet up.  The mom found out, freaked out, and the FBI had to investigate.  And I may be completely wrong, that's my only experience with the feds.

And... sucky situation.

anything invloving crossing state lines is a federal matter

Dove KT wrote:
I believe that in any question of sexual exploitation of minors, the FBI is in charge.  I only know this because I had a friend's who 13yr old little sister was "talking" with a 27 year old man across the country.  And by talking, I mean cybering and planning a meet up.  The mom found out, freaked out, and the FBI had to investigate.  And I may be completely wrong, that's my only experience with the feds.

And... sucky situation.

No.....that's usually an issue because of multiple state jurisdictions

Click Hamilton wrote:
Things are weird here.

Let me ask some questions ...

1. Why did the FBI call you, rather than investigate you secretly and then raid you?

2. Why was it the FBI and not the local police?

3. If this was only November, how could they already have other photographers in jail, in that short of a period of time?

4. Who does anyone know who has ever taken the time and expense and interruption to have a model release notorized by a notary, and what would the notary be checking?

Amen. This is so full of holes it sounds like a poor synopsis for a grade b movie script.  The FBI doesn't do things this way.  Thats the reality of it.

Jake Garn wrote:

I'm LDS, and I'm actually highly offended by your stereotype.

Jake, then you know that the FBI does do major investigations in Utah, Being LDS, you know full well of what the FLDS has had upon the state, and they are looking for that.

I understand your offended. For that I apologize to you, but in the same turn of the hand the State is very very protective of children. Because of the FLDS.

Duncan Hall wrote:
Police don't call. They knock.

Or kick.

Brent Mosbrook wrote:
Law enforcement generally don't make phone calls of an investigative nature.
WHAT???

they do it all the time! 

And I'm guessing that since they didn't already have "questionable" photos from this particular photog, they wanted to contact everyone was known to have shot with to get just the kind of details that the photg was asked - such as whether or not the girl was being truthful and forthcoming with her info, and perhaps who suggested/requested certain shots.

They do? Really?? Uhhh, no.

The only time cops called I know of, was to find out if I was bringing beer to the softball game.

HarryL wrote:

+1

+500

And until I was convinced someone had actually been injured or hurt by the actions of someone else, I would not cooperate with such an investigation even after I had the investigator's bona fides on file and had reviewed the so called reason(s) for a criminal investigation.

There was a guy who called fast food places all over the United States claiming to be the police and who got stupid, gullible adults to do a lot of really dumb crap in the name of his "authority." You better show up in person with proper ID if you want to conduct business with me - I don't care what your supposed moral authority is.

StudioCMC II wrote:
Jake, then you know that the FBI does do major investigations in Utah, Being LDS, you know full well of what the FLDS has had upon the state, and they are looking for that.

I understand your offended. For that I apologize to you, but in the same turn of the hand the State is very very protective of children. Because of the FLDS.

I find it ridiculous that you think the reason The FBI or a State is protective of child abuse is because of a predominant religion.

If you think that no FLDS or LDS religion in a state = not being "very very protective of children", I think you are a little out of touch with reality. Do you honestly think this wouldn't have gone down in another state in a very similar manner? You are implying that the FBI is not as protective of children in other states because they lack a concentration of the aforementioned religions.

By the way, whether you agree with the theology or not, if it actually has caused a heightened level of protection, I wouldn't say that it is a bad thing. The level of protection, not the particular religion.

Click Hamilton wrote:
Things are weird here.

Let me ask some questions ...

1. Why did the FBI call you, rather than investigate you secretly and then raid you?

2. Why was it the FBI and not the local police?

3. If this was only November, how could they already have other photographers in jail, in that short of a period of time?

4. Who does anyone know who has ever taken the time and expense and interruption to have a model release notorized by a notary, and what would the notary be checking?

Because technically its considered child pornography and it probably went to the fbi because there was more than one photographer. all the photographers i know or have worked with get a copy of the models photo id to have proof of age. All photographers should do that at least if they are not getting  a notorized model release form

Elyce Wescott wrote:

Because technically its considered child pornography and it probably went to the fbi because there was more than one photographer. all the photographers i know or have worked with get a copy of the models photo id to have proof of age. All photographers should do that at least if they are not getting  a notorized model release form

A notary is really quite unnecessary. ID and signature on file are the legal requirements.

Jake Garn wrote:
If they are under 18 I require a notarized copy of the model release with their parent's signatures.

Isn't getting that notarized going a bit too far?

Elyce Wescott wrote:

Because technically its considered child pornography and it probably went to the fbi because there was more than one photographer. all the photographers i know or have worked with get a copy of the models photo id to have proof of age. All photographers should do that at least if they are not getting  a notorized model release form

ummm the mere act of shooting a minor is not pornography.  also I think  you are confusing 2257 requirements which apply to the shooting of suggestive (lascivious nature) pics of adults with the prohibition against child porn.  One is a housekeeping requirement (just like taxes) and failure to comply can get you jail in an extreme case.  the other is the commision of a felony.

Andrew Thomas Designs wrote:

Isn't getting that notarized going a bit too far?

Not if he wanted it and they were willing to do it. Courts don't like it though. Too much legal documentation is frowned upon. Wait a minute...

Odin Photo wrote:

I find it ridiculous that you think the reason The FBI or a State is protective of child abuse is because of a predominant religion.

If you think that no FLDS or LDS religion in a state = not being "very very protective of children", I think you are a little out of touch with reality. Do you honestly think this wouldn't have gone down in another state in a very similar manner? You are implying that the FBI is not as protective of children in other states because they lack a concentration of the aforementioned religions.

By the way, whether you agree with the theology or not, if it actually has caused a heightened level of protection, I wouldn't say that it is a bad thing. The level of protection, not the particular religion.

Tell that to Elizabeth Smart, Utah is on the super sensitive list.. And the FBI wants to know all.. To which Jake has told us about. The Republicans LOVE Utah, and they will react, when they seance a wild card LDS shooter.. Who shoots n00dz none the less..

Mormons have no value of fine nude art in Utah, Well that is unless its a Quilt.. Hand made of course..

Patrickth wrote:

Amen. This is so full of holes it sounds like a poor synopsis for a grade b movie script.  The FBI doesn't do things this way.  Thats the reality of it.

The legal authorities and protocol experts on MM are very amusing to me.  Do you have any advice about fixing my microwave as long as you're spewing nonsense?

Andrew Thomas Designs wrote:

Isn't getting that notarized going a bit too far?

Maybe, but I like to make sure the signatures weren't forged and I don't personally like witnessing them myself.  :-)

Odin Photo wrote:
Not if he wanted it and they were willing to do it.

Yes, but how does it really help?

Jake Garn wrote:
Maybe, but I like to make sure the signatures weren't forged and I don't personally like witnessing them myself.  :-)

But can't you check both Id's of the people involved in signing the release? Seems like you're either lazy, or don't know what you need so you overreact.

DW DALLAM PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
It's not illegal to shoot nudes of any person at any age, but it is illegal to shoot pornography of minors. Go to Barnes an Noble and you will see plenty of nude minors.

Yep, even here the criminal act states that exceptions to images of under 18's nude are legal for art, medical, scientific purposes etc.

DW DALLAM PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
How do you sexually offend yourself? Ludicrous.

I sexually offend/assault myself on a daily basis >.>

Lily Avengale wrote:
If she's leading people on that she is older then she is, I'd think that she would also have reprocussions.

If they lie about being an adult, they should be charged as an adult.

Jake Garn wrote:

The legal authorities and protocol experts on MM are very amusing to me.  Do you have any advice about fixing my microwave as long as you're spewing nonsense?

Yes. Avoid putting metal objects and living things inside your microwave and it probably will give you a long and faithful series of groups of highly excited molecules.

StudioCMC II wrote:
And, let me emphasize the full understanding of the Mormon Church:

The Colbert report:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber … respassing

This is how the Church Manipulates the State.. And in turn uses the Feds to exercise its will over the People.

can we not turn this into a religion-bashing exercise?

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
can we not turn this into a religion-bashing exercise?

I thought we were talking about the call the OP claims he got from the FBI?  I am not sure how religion even came into the discussion.

Jake Garn wrote:

The legal authorities and protocol experts on MM are very amusing to me.  Do you have any advice about fixing my microwave as long as you're spewing nonsense?

The only way to fix it is to microwave all the "free trial" AOL CDs in the world

rp_photo wrote:

If they lie about being an adult, they should be charged as an adult.

That's a childish sentiment.

The child is attempting to get away with something.   It's up to the adult to detect and deter that.

If the child puts on a sufficiently convincing front that a reasonable person would be taken in, and that includes a fake photo ID that would convince a reasonable person, then the photographer shouldn't be held at fault.

But if you are taking photos that fall in the 2257 category, then you are required to be checking ID for everyone.   Not doing that is stupid.   And accepting an obviously fake ID is also stupid.

And you need to be checking if your state has any laws regarding nudes of minors if you plan to shoot such.   

But kids are kids, and should be treated as such.   Punishment is in order, but to fit the crime.   And duping an adult isn't on the same order as committing a serious crime.

An adult whining that a kid fooled them is, well, pathetic.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

can we not turn this into a religion-bashing exercise?

Indeed we can, let the Mayhem decide if there is Religious controls, or if the FBI just calls people for the hell of it..

Perhaps this is "Intimidation" only Jake knows.. I left Utah long ago.. So, to each his own problems.

studio36uk wrote:
You know what I find disturbing? That you would discuss something like that with someone on the phone that calls you without previous arrangement and identifies them self as an FBI agent.

They could come to you; or you could go to see them; but either way you would have been better off not saying shit until and unless you physically saw their identification and badge.

[ring][ring][ring]Hello?

[on the other end] Hello, my name is Donald Duck and I am a Postal Inspector. I need to ask you some questions about a letter you mailed last month.

[you] Uh... you can come and see me or I can come and see you. Good bye. [click]

DUH!!!!

Studio36

Cherrystone wrote:
Law enforcement generally don't make phone calls of an investigative nature.

QFT

I was visited by the FBI recently. They were looking for a former tenant who was on the sex offender list (stupid charge, asked landlord about it) and didn't update his address.