Posted by Doug Swinskey: 

its always good idea to be cautious and check references, but also remember you are more likely to be harmed by someone you know and trust then a professional photographer..

very true

Posted by Doug Swinskey: 

another thought is most commercial shoots dont allow for non-essential personel..they will not allow you to bring body guards..

the ones i have done they allowed for the chaperone to stay in the dressing room or had an area set up for people, waiting room type area. I believe they are understanding of this. But agree not in the room for the shoot it's self. Some that were like casting calls my chaperone would wait outside, YET were still there for me.

Posted by AshleyDanielle: 

Posted by Doug Swinskey: 
its always good idea to be cautious and check references, but also remember you are more likely to be harmed by someone you know and trust then a professional photographer..

very true

Posted by Doug Swinskey: 
another thought is most commercial shoots dont allow for non-essential personel..they will not allow you to bring body guards..

the ones i have done they allowed for the chaperone to stay in the dressing room or had an area set up for people, waiting room type area. I believe they are understanding of this. But agree not in the room for the shoot it's self. Some that were like casting calls my chaperone would wait outside, YET were still there for me.

i am just always leary when someone jumps to any conclusion..its nice to have the whole story to base a decision on..please dont think i was defending this photographer..
also,on a commercial shoot with photog, his grips, the MUA and stylists..theres already a croud of people there, thats why most dont allow a chaperone..

and when are you comming to florida???

Posted by AshleyDanielle: 
I just found out that one of the photographers i worked with from OMP is a registered and convicted sex offender/child molester. Not a pretty rap sheet.

This is exactly why I take a chaperone to all my shoots. This is exactly why I suggest to all the models I know not to go to a shoot without someone with them. I know photographers will probably hate me for saying this, but DON'T GO ALONE!! you never know!

If you can't get a chaperone and have a shoot set up, reschedule till you can take someone. Before you agree to a shoot put one in place would be best before agreeing for the shoot. Safety in this profession should come first.

I worked with him when I was starting out. I have learned a lot since then and I check out everyone I work with. I had not checked him out to that extent.

For you new models starting out.. please PLEASE be very careful. Being online and being on a modeling site is not protection against foul play. I just had to say something cuz I don't want to see anyone hurt. Check references, be prepared for anything, so you can have a great shoot with wonderful photographers that are in this for the work and not to take advantage of you.

Ashley

Why not include the OMP number of this photographer if you are posting to warn models?

Posted by Glamour Studio /Gary: 
Yes! it is slander if you cannot supply absolute proof of your statement legally. And even then the accused still has the right to make a defense and can still file suit. Everyone has the right to file suit and countersuits even when found guilty. Let's stop using hearsay people, the law is what matters here, not opinion.

If the person making the statement is 100% absolutly positive the person on the sex offender list is the OMP photographer then it's a matter of public record and fact not slander. BUT I was accused of being a offender after a photographer with a qestionable reputation searched the North Carolina criminal database and came back with 7 people with the same name as mine then out of those 7 came up with one who assaulted women. He tried to pass this off as me to people. He only had a name problem was I have never lived in NC I'm a bit younger then the person who he listed and I'm white not black like the person listed. I easily proved this person wrong.

In short if Ashley is 100% positive then I see no reason she can't say who the person is IF they are a convicted offender.

Posted by Robb Radford: 

In short if Ashley is 100% positive then I see no reason she can't say who the person is IF they are a convicted offender. 

But then just as you stated it might be confused with another person with the same name.   Anyone do a goggle search and you will see the names of many others.  I am a big high football star in many states.


The Administrators of OMP should be notified if they have not been already.

I do think that OMP should be notifed for there are children on that site.  The person could be using the good references from older models to convince the mothers of the young that he is safe.

Posted by Robb Radford: 

Posted by Glamour Studio /Gary: 
Yes! it is slander if you cannot supply absolute proof of your statement legally. And even then the accused still has the right to make a defense and can still file suit. Everyone has the right to file suit and countersuits even when found guilty. Let's stop using hearsay people, the law is what matters here, not opinion.

If the person making the statement is 100% absolutly positive the person on the sex offender list is the OMP photographer then it's a matter of public record and fact not slander. BUT I was accused of being a offender after a photographer with a qestionable reputation searched the North Carolina criminal database and came back with 7 people with the same name as mine then out of those 7 came up with one who assaulted women. He tried to pass this off as me to people. He only had a name problem was I have never lived in NC I'm a bit younger then the person who he listed and I'm white not black like the person listed. I easily proved this person wrong.

In short if Ashley is 100% positive then I see no reason she can't say who the person is IF they are a convicted offender. 

Rob,

I'm positive the world is flat, would you care to question my knowledge on this? lol Unfortunately Rob your not reading the posts and have done no research into what is being stated, very common on here unfortunately. "Convicted and "released" is the proper term, not just "convicted". It does make a difference. That person is now a legal citizen and in the eyes of the courts has paid his debt. You cannot do what you please just because a person was convicted. That is a fact.

In your case that would be your problem of straightening out the name relationship. That has nothing to do with this particular post. I've stated this before but I don't believe you were on here then, I have ten years of law enforcement background in the areas of the streets, in the courts and in the penal system. I do have a bit of knowledge on these subjects. As I said before, saying and showing what he is is fine. You just cannot makeup stories about these people based on their crimes.

Posted by Jenniferlicious: 
I'm really creeped out now

It is unfortunate that the actions of a few will have such far reaching consequences. I understand why Jennifer may feel like that, but keep in mind: anyone, anywhere could have such a record, or such potential. Look at the vast majority of serial killers, so many times, people say "gee, he was so quiet and kept to himself, never thought he'd do something like that". Actually, that type of behavior, is part of the psychological make-up of someone who commits serial homicide. Does it mean every person who is quiet and keeps to themselves is a serial killer? Of course not.

Ashley brought up a good point, and Gary D. provided us all with an excellent resource.

We must learn awareness, to think, to reason and to apply good judgement, not just in the context of photography and modeling, but to any situation in our lives.

With information, judgement and sound reasoning, this type of threat, while not totally eliminated, can be reduced to the point of near total safety.

Models have to remember something else: it's not just about you. A photographer may not be thrilled with having a guy whom he doesn't know lurking behind him while his attention is elsewhere. In addition to the obvious threat from bodily harm, most of us have some very expensive equipment that we'd prefer not to lose or have damaged in some way.

This type of discussion has taken place several times before...it's time we begin archiving and making available such information. I'll talk with Tyler regarding this upon his triumphant return from Europe.

Posted by Robb Radford: 

Posted by Glamour Studio /Gary: 
Yes! it is slander if you cannot supply absolute proof of your statement legally. And even then the accused still has the right to make a defense and can still file suit. Everyone has the right to file suit and countersuits even when found guilty. Let's stop using hearsay people, the law is what matters here, not opinion.

If the person making the statement is 100% absolutly positive the person on the sex offender list is the OMP photographer then it's a matter of public record and fact not slander. BUT I was accused of being a offender after a photographer with a qestionable reputation searched the North Carolina criminal database and came back with 7 people with the same name as mine then out of those 7 came up with one who assaulted women. He tried to pass this off as me to people. He only had a name problem was I have never lived in NC I'm a bit younger then the person who he listed and I'm white not black like the person listed. I easily proved this person wrong.

In short if Ashley is 100% positive then I see no reason she can't say who the person is IF they are a convicted offender. 

It's not worth the risk to Ashley, and frankly to this site, for her to post such information. This is not America's Most Wanted, this is a site called Model Mayhem.

Every reader of this thread has been provided the means to check anyone they wish, through the FBI's vast database. The FBI, and respective state agencies, are responsible for that information, and even they get sued from time to time.

If such information is posted here, I'll remove the thread and the person posting it.

Posted by marksora: 
Great writing Matthew in both posts. 

Indeed! Very well thought out.

Posted by Ken Long: 
One other thing to remember is the terms of release.

There was a gentlemen from CA who would come to Arizona for monthly shoots.  A 14 yo. model was found crying in the dressing area, and when asked what was wrong, she told some people what happened.  (Mom/Dad weren't around - they didn't stay around for the shoot, they just dropped her off) The police were called, and when they reviewed the images on his camera, they found shots of her with her skirt up, panties down, etc.  He was convicted of several offenses, and now is no longer supposed to own a computer, or any type of camera gear for the rest of his life. 

Depending on what the release situation was, he may be in violation of his parole, and getting away with it since some may not know. 

Bottom line, be careful!

Good points on the stipulations of release/parole.

Posted by Ken Long: 


There was a gentlemen from CA who would come to Arizona for monthly shoots.  A 14 yo. model was found crying in the dressing area, and when asked what was wrong, she told some people what happened.  (Mom/Dad weren't around - they didn't stay around for the shoot, they just dropped her off) The police were called, and when they reviewed the images on his camera, they found shots of her with her skirt up, panties down, etc.

Now... THAT'S SICK!!
I personally REFUSE to shoot anyone under the age of 18. The last people I shot under that age were family members.

Posted by Glamour Studio /Gary: 
"Convicted and "released" is the proper term, not just "convicted". It does make a difference. That person is now a legal citizen and in the eyes of the courts has paid his debt. 

If the person has "paid his debt" then he would not be required to register as a sex offender. Being that he is a registered sex offender means it IS public knowledge that this person is a possible DANGER. Anything listed in the public record is just that PUBLIC meaning it's open for anyone to see. There is nothing illegal in pointing out public record unless the person being talked about can prove that it is not him or her. As with the example I gave about me earlier I could easily prove I was not a black male in his 50's. This is also why I said if you are 100% sure the person is the one listed in the public file then it is legal to post a warning about the person.

Posted by AshleyDanielle: 
this made my stomach turn and sent chills up my spine.

No, I was not hurt by this photographer because I had my mother as my chaperone on this shoot. Also I know self defense (which every girl should learn in my book) which i feel is helpful but not full proof.

Never know what may have happened tho if no one was with me.

he has 7 counts of child molestation

this is what i could read next to his photo on meganslaw site

Offense Code
Description
288(b)(1) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH CHILD UNDER 14 YEARS W/FORCE
288a(b)(1) ORAL COPULATION WITH PERSON UNDER 18 YEARS
647.6 ANNOY/MOLEST CHILDREN
647.6(a) ANNOY/MOLEST CHILDREN

OMG! That is frightening.

Posted by Robb Radford: 

Posted by Glamour Studio /Gary: 
"Convicted and "released" is the proper term, not just "convicted". It does make a difference. That person is now a legal citizen and in the eyes of the courts has paid his debt. 

If the person has "paid his debt" then he would not be required to register as a sex offender. Being that he is a registered sex offender means it IS public knowledge that this person is a possible DANGER. Anything listed in the public record is just that PUBLIC meaning it's open for anyone to see. There is nothing illegal in pointing out public record unless the person being talked about can prove that it is not him or her. As with the example I gave about me earlier I could easily prove I was not a black male in his 50's. This is also why I said if you are 100% sure the person is the one listed in the public file then it is legal to post a warning about the person. 

Listen, Robb. DO SOME RESEARCH, PLEASE! Do the words "Megans Law" ring any bells?

You're talking without one ounce of research behind you, that's a fact. Do you think that they are registered when they're in prison? NO! They register upon release so the public knows of these people. It has nothing to do with paying their debt to society, that was their time served. Because of "other" laws being passed to protect society/children from possible further harm if one of these people starts acting up again is the purpose of registration.
Do we need bank robbers to register, car thieves, pickpockets? No, their crimes were not the direct intent to rape or other such actions. The sex offender's only intent is to do this. "Sex offender", does that name tell you something.
I'm not here to answer unknowledgable off the wall questions or statements. If you want the answers then look them up, geez! Don't get on my case, I know the facts from dealing with these people and being familiar with the laws. Buy the book.

Posted by Monsante Bey: 

Posted by Ken Long: 

There was a gentlemen from CA who would come to Arizona for monthly shoots.  A 14 yo. model was found crying in the dressing area, and when asked what was wrong, she told some people what happened.  (Mom/Dad weren't around - they didn't stay around for the shoot, they just dropped her off) The police were called, and when they reviewed the images on his camera, they found shots of her with her skirt up, panties down, etc.

Now... THAT'S SICK!!
I personally REFUSE to shoot anyone under the age of 18. The last people I shot under that age were family members.

I agree that it's sick, but why would that stop you from providing a qualified photographic service to a minor? They are customers just the same and are given equal rights to professional service, respect and courtesy. As long as you provide a safe environment and follow and stick to the photography guidelines for shooting with minors and the guidelines (code of conduct) for professional ethics, morals and behavior, then you should have no problem. Unless you're worried that you have weak convictions.