THIS IS OFFICIAL. NOT SPECULATION. HE HAS BEEN CHARGED ON TWO COUNTS. HE'S BEEN SENTENCED. Short story, the gist if you will, feel free to look into this as much or little as you want, but this type of thing should be known in the community: Last year Bill Borgida was crossing the border,…
I think if Bill had Gary as his defense lawyer, he wouldn't be going to jail. I'm going to let Tom get into all the details of the case as he promised, but here is my take from talking to Bill that haven't been covered yet.
1) Bill was charged for images with teenage girls (or teenage looking), not pre-pubescent girls. He said that he thought some of them looked young, but was not sure if they were underage. The prosecution were able to come up with evidence to prove that the girls were underage. Bill's defense had nothing.
2) Several pictures that Bill was charged with had been deleted from his hard drive. The feds were able to recover the images and charge him with it.
3) Apparently Bill got the fiercest female prosecutor in Detroit. He also had some personal legal problems, having to fire his first lawyer who did nothing (not even warn him of the proceedings of the trial). He fired his first lawyer, got a better one, but by that time, the feds had enough stacked up against Bill that he was advised to enter into a lesser plea or face as much as 20 years in prison.
What Bill did was obviously wrong, and I can't say that I'm very surprised that he downloads and watches porn. What he did was also stupid, crossing international borders with that stuff. The only 3 things I got from his case was:
1) Do not ever download porn online. You never know what you are going to get, and the feds can always bust you on it.
2) Do not ever cross international borders with ANY incriminating stuff.
3) Be much more careful, if I ever get busted for anything, in selecting my defense attorney. It could be the difference between freedom and years in prison.
Bill has been an inspiration to both my wife and I, and we feel very sad about the current situation with him. If you ever knew him, you know him to be a gentle soul who tend to avoid confrontations, and I don't think this personality helped him very much during this trial process.
Originally posted Saturday, January 16, 2010 (2 years ago)
I am saddened by this on a number of levels.
Firstly, incidents such as this cause people (as they have already done) to discriminate against older members of the dance community. Young people don't own the dance scene, even though there are generally more of them. Not every person with (some) grey hair is a creep, or is out to be inappropriate with someone younger. Be careful with the discrimination - it's not fair. Please don't label people based on physical looks.
Secondly, it's not the porn that tipped off the border patrol that Bill was possibly doing something else illegal ... he was carrying more than $10K in cash. Why didn't he deposit that in a bank account? Sure, his earnings were proved (by his lawyers) to be legitimate, but why the need for so much cash on a car trip? It makes me think.
Going back to Bill's own words in his letter posted by Neon:
Quote But they confiscated all of my electronic equipment, including my laptop and several hard drives which contained years of personal digital storage.
This included pornography.... mostly downloaded from legal file sharing sites in large batches.
Mostly downloaded from legal file sharing sites ... and the source for the rest?
Quote These included a sizable number of images stored in folders on my external hard drive. I would periodically sort through and delete any undesirable pictures such as child porn. I was aware that some images remained which included girls who were considered minors.
Bill knew the pictures were of minors.
Quote My attorneys and I resolved the money issue and proved it was legit. I heard nothing for almost a year. That is, until August ’09. I heard through my attorney that they went through every image on every hard drive, and found some photos which they determined to be of girls under the age of 18.
Was he hoping the feds weren't going to figure the pictures were of minors? This is what saddens me - was he thinking he would get away with it?
"Change your thoughts, and you change your world" - Norman Vincent Peale.
Originally posted Saturday, January 16, 2010 (2 years ago)
Quote And to Marcelo - in your mind, there's no difference between the 50 year old chasing 22-25 year olds (but never, and clearly never, anyone under 18) and the 40 year old chasing girls under 18? There's no difference in how we should treat them?
To me there is a difference, but not much. I appreciate your point about it being a continuum as opposed to a discreet line, but I still have a serious discomfort with people dating so far under their age. Maybe that makes me a prude or a puritan, but I DO blink when I see a middle aged man macking on someone 30+ years younger than them. I don't think it's appropriate at all. Legal, sure. But I don't have to like everything that is legal. And my social mores don't have to fall right in line with the law. I can look at both of those relationships and call them completely gross, while recognizing that one is illegal and one is not.
IMO, the fact that more than a few people don't blink at that behavior (and actually celebrate it and rationalize it) in our scene is a serious problem within our culture, and it's the elephant in the room in this discussion.
Originally posted Saturday, January 16, 2010 (2 years ago)
Edited on Saturday, January 16, 2010 3:35 pm (2 years ago)
Quote Firstly, incidents such as this cause people (as they have already done) to discriminate against older members of the dance community. Young people don't own the dance scene, even though there are generally more of them. Not every person with (some) grey hair is a creep, or is out to be inappropriate with someone younger. Be careful with the discrimination - it's not fair. Please don't label people based on physical looks.
Has anyone done this? I know Chuck Knuckles and you have mentioned this over and over and I don't see anyone saying "stay away from all old people" or "old people are out to get you!" What we have been saying is that older men have a responsibility to make responsible decisions about who they want to pursue within our scene. That's not ageist, that's just being smart and responsible.
Who specifically in this thread has discriminated against older people? If anything I think the attitude that it's okay for a 50 year old man to date someone in their early 20's is far more harmful to older people (specifically older women) than anything else that's been said here.
The rest of your post I agree with 100%. I can't fathom a scenario where Bill was not aware of exactly what was on his computer.
I'm guy who used to be six/seventeen trying to convince 20-something women to forget the age difference, or get older dancers to supply booze, or let me come to their parties until four in the morning, I'm a little more reticent than you to stop treating everybody like they're 23.
I've lived in scenes where the younguns get treated like adults, and I've lived in scenes where they get put in the playpen.
And it was Mark Twain who invented the half your age plus seven rule. The reason was that he wanted to be funny and sell copy.
Why are you reticent? Do you think adults should have given you booze at 16 and 17? Or that the 20 something women should have dated you even though you were underage? I'm not clear on your reasoning.
As for Twain, it may have been a joke but it's a surprisingly useful joke. And even then we're not talking about a 20-something dating a younger person, we're talking about a 50 year old dating a younger person. HUGE diff.
Are you seriously asking me if I think I shouldn't have had access to booze and women when I was 16 and 17? You're kidding, right? It was the time of my life.
My reasoning is not every person is victimized by the behavior that many would demonize or label inappropriate.
You're giving me way too much credit. Federal prosecutors don't lose very often. And this particular crime, like drug possession or gun possession by a felon, is virtually always a win for the prosecutor. Take a look at the statute - it's damn near strict liability - or, in other words, if he has certain items in his possession, he's toast.
Quote Secondly, it's not the porn that tipped off the border patrol that Bill was possibly doing something else illegal ... he was carrying more than $10K in cash. Why didn't he deposit that in a bank account? Sure, his earnings were proved (by his lawyers) to be legitimate, but why the need for so much cash on a car trip? It makes me think.
OpeningMinds - why does that make you think? It's not illegal to carry that much cash, so far as I remember. It's suspicious, in that drug traffickers tend to engage in that behavior, but it's not illegal. And there are plenty of reasons why he might not have deposited that cash in a bank (especially if there wasn't a branch of his bank handy), none of which are problematic.
Originally posted Saturday, January 16, 2010 (2 years ago)
Edited on Saturday, January 16, 2010 4:16 pm (2 years ago)
I don't mean to be a pain in the ass when I bring up the age issue. Once I reached 50 it became apparent that 80% of the dance community was under 30. This is not just me, I think anyone over 50 feels this to some extent. If you are under 30 you have no idea what the older folks are feeling. This is life and everyone will reach this point in time if they are lucky.
An older dancer with a spouse who loves Lindy Hop is rare. I have to take the little woman to a disco so she will be happy dancing without a partner. At some of these clubs there are no dance partners only single people wiggling around.
Older dance instructors do have opportunities to get close to their young students (in a dance environment) and they should know how to behave properly.
I was of the understanding that you have to declare to authorities if you are transporting $10K or more across the border. It's stated clearly on the customs forms. But it seems that Bill didn't declare it. I was wondering why. And it seems strange to me that someone would want so much cash on them for such a lengthy period. But your explanation makes some sense.
"Change your thoughts, and you change your world" - Norman Vincent Peale.
Originally posted Saturday, January 16, 2010 (2 years ago)
Thanks NEON for posting the letter from Bill.
OpeningMinds, yes, I recall that on the customs declaration form. Canada has the same thing however when crossing by car a customs declaration form is not usually filled out. Sometimes the border agent will ask, often not. I've never been asked that question by a U.S. border agent but have been a couple of times by Canadian border agents. If they're not happy with your answer they will ask follow-up questions to try and verify your answer.
I actually have a lot of respect for border agents, they are well trained and very good at sniffing out malcontents. It was an attentive border agent that discovered the millennium bomber trying to cross the border from Victoria, BC in 1999. The may be hard asses and often address you very curtly but I've found as long as you are cooperative and aren't doing anything wrong you will be treated fairly. If you're evasive, that gets you extra attention and scrutiny.
Originally posted Saturday, January 16, 2010 (2 years ago)
Edited on Saturday, January 16, 2010 5:06 pm (2 years ago)
I think there may be a general misconception that when you cross the U.S./Canada border the laws in both countries regarding "unreasonable search and seizure" apply.
They do NOT.
When I was out for the evening last night, I mentioned that a prominent instructor in the dance scene had been convicted of possession of child pornography. She asked, "Can border guards conduct an inspection that can turn that sort of thing up without probable cause or a search warrant?"
I explained to her, "Yes they can."
When you cross the border and go through customs you are voluntarily asking for permission to enter someone else's country. Their border patrol has the right to inspect anything you bring with you for contraband, drugs, weapons, and items that require payment of customs duties. Or anything at all ... your vehicle itself, items in your pockets, etc.
All people in your vehicle are subject to the same inspection - and if you have a minor not related to you in your vehicle, you should expect that the border guard will make a determination as to whether that minor is being transported across an international border for "immoral purposes".
Them's the rules ... and similar rules apply when you cross ANY international border. Items that are legal in the U.S. but forbidden in the country you visit (or require specific permission for you to bring in) can cause you trouble in certain cases.
If you don't like these rules - too bad. You have the option to stay home. Never assume you can get away with bringing "whatever" into a foreign country under ANY circumstances.
Or back into the U.S. when you return.
"A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having" - V
Originally posted Saturday, January 16, 2010 (2 years ago)
Racetrack, I believe Bill is a U.S. citizen entering the U.S. and was on U.S. soil being inspected by U.S. customs and immigration. You would be correct if Bill were not a U.S. citizen.
For U.S. citizens, you are not entirely correct. "Routine" searches for contraband are permitted. There are a few legal precedents cited on Wikipedia page describing the 4th amendment. In one case the law was interpreted that a routine search is fine but an invasive search required reasonable suspicion.
The documents I read form the plea bargain didn't mention the money. I sense from customs agents' questions that money is a key indicator of a high probability of illegal activity and contraband. Finding undeclared cash in excess of $10,000 in a routine search was likely the trigger and sufficient probable cause to perform a more invasive search of the computer equipment.
As a Canadian, I have to assume that this reasonable test is not required as I'm not a U.S. citizen. In my case, I should expect border agents could, if they wish, search my electronic devices without probable cause. Similarly, because of my lack of legal standing in the eyes of the U.S. constitution data on my web server hosted in the U.S. by a U.S. company could be searched without probable cause. Both of these are a big issue among Canadian businesses and business travelers who are subject to Canadian privacy law. I.T. security professionals basically recommend to leave your data at home if you are crossing a border.
I must assume you know something regarding limitations of customs searches of U.S. citizens re-entering the country that I may be unaware of.
However, I DO know this: When I re-enter the U.S. from abroad, the customs agents can and sometimes do have me open my bags and submit to a "warrantless" search of their contents to verify that I am not bringing anything into the U.S. that I should have declared on my landing form, but didn't.
People who have certain banned items (like house plants, fresh fruit, etc.) generally just get the item(s) confiscated. But people (like our buddy Rush Limbaugh) who, say, bring in pharmaceuticals without a proper doctor's prescription have to deal with the law.
The only prudent thing for a U.S. citizen to do when re-entering the country is assume that ANYTHING they carry with them is subject to inspection and behave accordingly.
"A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having" - V
There are a few points of interest in the article.
while not really great factual reporting, the writer said this:
Quote Not once did he mention the children raped and exploited for his computer viewing pleasure. He minimized and lied about his crimes, directly contradicting the court record. His voice trembled. He rarely made eye contact.
There's a good chance the authorities had already catalogued the images found on Bill's computer.
Quote Child pornography has exploded on the Internet. The Internet Crimes Against Children task force in the United States has catalogued 28 million pornographic photos and videos of children. Tens of thousands are added weekly and the children exploited are getting younger.
This suggests authorities don't treat all cases equally:
Quote Because of the overwhelming volume, police have to prioritize. Small collections and old images rank low. Websites or personal collections with thousands of files, or new images that signal a child is in imminent danger, catch the attention of the authorities.
Offenders can come from all walks of life. I think we've been luck in our community to not have more such cases. Bill's case is unfortunate in that he was in a position of respect, trust and authority but it's not unusual.
Quote In Saskatchewan, recent cases have involved a civil servant, a former health board member, a prison guard and a career criminal. They are from all income levels, ages and walks of life. One Saskatoon man apparently committed suicide just before he was sentenced. Some were abused or have drug problems, but others lead seemingly normal lives. Like the Saskatoon man interviewed, many are married with children. Most declined interview requests.
Some posters in this discussion have said that kiddie porn may lead to something more serious. Others disagree, Bill himself states in his letter that he had no other intentions. I encourage everyone who doesn't believe that to read the plea bargain document and consider this:
Quote This is a common refrain among offenders, but a landmark American study casts doubt on the claim. The Butner studies of prison inmates concluded what police have been saying for years. Of the men who were studied, unchecked child pornography consumption was undeniably linked to child sexual abuse.
At the beginning of the study, 40 of 155 child pornography viewers were known child abusers. In the course of an 18-month treatment program, 131 of them admitted to "hands-on" offences with kids. The number of unique child victims rose from 75 to 1,777.
Yes. Being questioned and a cursory search of your bags (or car) is one thing. An invasive search such as forensic analysis of a laptop is another. If Bill had declared his money and provided accompanying documentation to satisfy the border agent that is was legitimately earned, there would have been no cause for an invasive search.
I disagree that you say the only prudent thing to do is to not have anything. While I don't usually agree with the "if you're not doing anything illegal you have nothing to fear" pundits, they're right in this case.
You need to be aware of what's prohibited and isn't as well as what you're obliged to declare. The $10K cash is one of those things.
Be honest and cooperative with the border agent and they'll cut you a break. On one trip back from Seattle after a weekend of dancing I crossed the border early in the morning to catch my flight in Vancouver. I probably looked a little strung out and for the first and only time I had to submit to inspection. I was cooperative and the agents were considerate of the fact that I had a fight to catch in about an hour and a half. After a quick search with a dog (presumably for drugs), I was on my way. A couple of times I brought back a few hundred dollars more in goods than was exempt for my stay. I was honest and declared the value (and had documentation), both times, the agent exempted by purchases. I've always been treated fairly and professionally by border agents. An invasive search has never been necessary. I'm sure most people who regularly cross the border would agree.
Eff, perhaps we're of different generations, but I don't see the gender making a difference. A sexualized woman doesn't threaten my worldview. I feel no need to be paternalistic. The simultaneous offer of booze and sex might be predatory and legitimately a problem. But if you think someone can't make the informed decision to drink and hook up with someone ten or fifteen years older then they are, you're wrong. And if someone is suggesting that we as a community make that presumption on behalf of other people, I have a problem with that.
I'm trying to check Marcelo's extremist claim that we as a community should start caring about age more than we do now, and set standards for acceptable behavior on an individual basis by age.
Bill being 59 is not the problem here. 50 year olds who date/couple with 20 year olds is not the problem. Teenagers with their wits about them who decide they can chew an adult size bite of recreation isn't the problem here.
An instructor was caught with child porn. That's the problem. If you don't think there are any 25 year old sexual predators/criminals out there, then you're wrong.
If we start getting ourselves in a tizzy every time two dancers with an age difference are attracted to each other we're not going to have any time left to dance.
Safety is great. I like safety. But people are suggesting that appropriate behaviors stop being tolerated as a general rule.
That's not concern for safety. That's fear, and verges on moral policing.
Originally posted Saturday, January 16, 2010 (2 years ago)
The fact is that the community should be concerned about questionable activity within our scene. The dance community, in general, tolerates behavior that would not be acceptable in most other social venues.
We do it because we often place the talent (dancing) over any other concerns.
Now, as far as this matter is concerned, it just sucks. All the way around.
But to say that it is an extremist position to become more aware and proactive in our own scene misses the point. We should. We take extraordinary measures to protect 25-30 year old women from creepy dancers, we throw people out of dances for bad behavior. But we have some kind of hang-up if similar behavior occurs around younger dancers.
Why?
That's the root cause. We've had, what, three of these instances to date?
Originally posted Saturday, January 16, 2010 (2 years ago)
Edited on Saturday, January 16, 2010 6:53 pm (2 years ago)
Quote Yes, 7and8, they're both inappropriate. One of them is more inappropriate. Also true - those who can or would possess images may but do not always proceed to actual sexual abuse. Treating the former the same as the latter makes no sense from a criminal justice standpoint...
I think that depends on the nature of the pictures. It may not exactly be the same, but if you're paying someone for evidence that they hurt someone else, you definitely bear significant responsibility for the hurting.
Quote They found over 300 images of illicit images of children's genitals and children performing oral sex on an adult male.
There's no way this person is not responsible for supporting the hurting of children.
And my question for those who are saying what if they're 17 -- what's the big diff between 17 and 18? I ask you (and admittedly I don't know much about porn, I'm just applying logic here) WHY would anyone take the risk of doing porn with children who looked like adults, when producing child pornography is a very serious crime with serious penalties, and they could legally produce porn with young adults?!? Now maybe people who make porn are that stupid, but it's a little hard to imaging.
Originally posted Saturday, January 16, 2010 (2 years ago)
So, here's what baffles me.
1) Why carry that much cash? I cannot imagine being paid $10,000 in cash from a single workshop payment, or working enough private lessons to get that much $. When I hired people, we paid check or money order. I also can't imagine continuing to carry it around. That's a LOT of cash. That says to me that he wasn't declaring the payments to the IRS or he got the money somewhere else
2) Why carry external drives with you? I mean, really, how many people travel with multiple external drives in addition to their laptop? It's suspicious, to me. It says to me that they had just cause to investigate him for trafficking, especially with the large amount of cash he was carrying. I'm guessing that year was spent investigating him for trafficking, which they ultimately couldn't prove.
3) After his computer was confiscated, etc.... his internet was watched, and he was caught AGAIN downloading more illegal porn, and subsequently had his internet and computer rights revoked. That's where we start getting into seriously bizarre behavior. The feds have your computer, you know you're being investigated, but you keep doing it? That's a symptom of someone who can't help themselves.
It's sad... but I'm sorry, I feel much worse for the children who are being abused. While his letter makes a great case for how he feels sorry and he understands what he did wrong, apparently putting him in jail was the only way to get him to stop, and that isn't unusual in people who find pleasure in such things.
I think the lessons in YSB's post above are good. I don't have a problem with porn itself, but I prefer that it be from the regulated adult industry - which, although it still has issues, at least tries to protect the people involved. Amateur and illicit porn is just asking for trouble - who was drugged, who was forced, who was paid, who was desperate, who was underage. Don't support it. Period.
By your numbers: an adult in his early 30's offering alcohol and sex to your High School junior daughter?
You're gonna be cool with that? No gender bias on your part? And she's mature enough to make her own decisions. Power, control, influence of alcohol on decision-making...all non-issues. You won't step up to the plate and be the grownup in that situation, should ya be fortunate enough to catch wind of it? You'll be all like "Hey, that's cool, Man."
This is the kind of thinking that bothers me. Informing your moral decisions based on how someone does things differently than you would, or further assuming that you can assess their motivations from these differences is deceptive.
Please be upset about what actually happened and the actual damage it caused (however indirectly). Please do not drag in mostly unrelated things to support your ideas of how you are better than someone else, or to justify your dislike for someone.
In broad strokes it appears that those here who like Bill are giving him a lot of benefit of what doubt exists, and those who don't are painting him to be as much of a monster as they can get away with. I suppose it is human nature, but it seems that a lot of what is being said reflects almost as much about the person saying it as the person they are talking about.
Child pornography is an emotionally charged subject, and as with many such subjects, open discourse is a good thing. I'm mostly surprised, though, with how important it seems to be to many people here that their specific moral views be what everyone should adopt. What makes you a better moral guide than the Christian Right, or extremist Muslims? I'm not saying anyone's morals are wrong here, just wondering how people justify condemning other moral codes while at the same time castigating those on this board who don't adhere to their own? (I shouldn't have to specify, but I'm talking about age differences in dating and maintaining friendships or working relationships with people who have made mistakes, not child molestation or child pornography)
I think we'd all like our legal system to figure out what the actual damage is that someone has done, and to punish them appropriately for it. Our current system is much more of a blunt instrument than a surgical tool, and there are a lot of factors that go into why we have which penalties. As we move forward, do we want to enforce social standards and moral codes that are preventative in nature? Do we want to get into figuring out how to prosecute intentions and thought-crimes as well? Just asking.
Bill Borgida: Two Counts: Child Porn.
THIS IS OFFICIAL. NOT SPECULATION. HE HAS BEEN CHARGED ON TWO COUNTS. HE'S BEEN SENTENCED. Short story, the gist if you will, feel free to look into this as much or little as you want, but this type of thing should be known in the community: Last year Bill Borgida was crossing the border,…
Page(s): < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 34 35 Next > (1048 items total)
I think if Bill had Gary as his defense lawyer, he wouldn't be going to jail. I'm going to let Tom get into all the details of the case as he promised, but here is my take from talking to Bill that haven't been covered yet.
1) Bill was charged for images with teenage girls (or teenage looking), not pre-pubescent girls. He said that he thought some of them looked young, but was not sure if they were underage. The prosecution were able to come up with evidence to prove that the girls were underage. Bill's defense had nothing. 2) Several pictures that Bill was charged with had been deleted from his hard drive. The feds were able to recover the images and charge him with it. 3) Apparently Bill got the fiercest female prosecutor in Detroit. He also had some personal legal problems, having to fire his first lawyer who did nothing (not even warn him of the proceedings of the trial). He fired his first lawyer, got a better one, but by that time, the feds had enough stacked up against Bill that he was advised to enter into a lesser plea or face as much as 20 years in prison.
What Bill did was obviously wrong, and I can't say that I'm very surprised that he downloads and watches porn. What he did was also stupid, crossing international borders with that stuff. The only 3 things I got from his case was: 1) Do not ever download porn online. You never know what you are going to get, and the feds can always bust you on it. 2) Do not ever cross international borders with ANY incriminating stuff. 3) Be much more careful, if I ever get busted for anything, in selecting my defense attorney. It could be the difference between freedom and years in prison.
Bill has been an inspiration to both my wife and I, and we feel very sad about the current situation with him. If you ever knew him, you know him to be a gentle soul who tend to avoid confrontations, and I don't think this personality helped him very much during this trial process.
I am saddened by this on a number of levels.
Firstly, incidents such as this cause people (as they have already done) to discriminate against older members of the dance community. Young people don't own the dance scene, even though there are generally more of them. Not every person with (some) grey hair is a creep, or is out to be inappropriate with someone younger. Be careful with the discrimination - it's not fair. Please don't label people based on physical looks.
Secondly, it's not the porn that tipped off the border patrol that Bill was possibly doing something else illegal ... he was carrying more than $10K in cash. Why didn't he deposit that in a bank account? Sure, his earnings were proved (by his lawyers) to be legitimate, but why the need for so much cash on a car trip? It makes me think.
Going back to Bill's own words in his letter posted by Neon:
Mostly downloaded from legal file sharing sites ... and the source for the rest?
Bill knew the pictures were of minors.
Was he hoping the feds weren't going to figure the pictures were of minors? This is what saddens me - was he thinking he would get away with it?
"Change your thoughts, and you change your world" - Norman Vincent Peale.
To me there is a difference, but not much. I appreciate your point about it being a continuum as opposed to a discreet line, but I still have a serious discomfort with people dating so far under their age. Maybe that makes me a prude or a puritan, but I DO blink when I see a middle aged man macking on someone 30+ years younger than them. I don't think it's appropriate at all. Legal, sure. But I don't have to like everything that is legal. And my social mores don't have to fall right in line with the law. I can look at both of those relationships and call them completely gross, while recognizing that one is illegal and one is not.
IMO, the fact that more than a few people don't blink at that behavior (and actually celebrate it and rationalize it) in our scene is a serious problem within our culture, and it's the elephant in the room in this discussion.
Has anyone done this? I know Chuck Knuckles and you have mentioned this over and over and I don't see anyone saying "stay away from all old people" or "old people are out to get you!" What we have been saying is that older men have a responsibility to make responsible decisions about who they want to pursue within our scene. That's not ageist, that's just being smart and responsible.
Who specifically in this thread has discriminated against older people? If anything I think the attitude that it's okay for a 50 year old man to date someone in their early 20's is far more harmful to older people (specifically older women) than anything else that's been said here.
The rest of your post I agree with 100%. I can't fathom a scenario where Bill was not aware of exactly what was on his computer.
I'm guy who used to be six/seventeen trying to convince 20-something women to forget the age difference, or get older dancers to supply booze, or let me come to their parties until four in the morning, I'm a little more reticent than you to stop treating everybody like they're 23. I've lived in scenes where the younguns get treated like adults, and I've lived in scenes where they get put in the playpen.
And it was Mark Twain who invented the half your age plus seven rule. The reason was that he wanted to be funny and sell copy.
Why are you reticent? Do you think adults should have given you booze at 16 and 17? Or that the 20 something women should have dated you even though you were underage? I'm not clear on your reasoning.
As for Twain, it may have been a joke but it's a surprisingly useful joke. And even then we're not talking about a 20-something dating a younger person, we're talking about a 50 year old dating a younger person. HUGE diff.
Hoya, he'll be 60 years old next year, so he was 30 years old in 1981 (at least for part of it).
Are you seriously asking me if I think I shouldn't have had access to booze and women when I was 16 and 17? You're kidding, right? It was the time of my life.
My reasoning is not every person is victimized by the behavior that many would demonize or label inappropriate.
You're giving me way too much credit. Federal prosecutors don't lose very often. And this particular crime, like drug possession or gun possession by a felon, is virtually always a win for the prosecutor. Take a look at the statute - it's damn near strict liability - or, in other words, if he has certain items in his possession, he's toast.
OpeningMinds - why does that make you think? It's not illegal to carry that much cash, so far as I remember. It's suspicious, in that drug traffickers tend to engage in that behavior, but it's not illegal. And there are plenty of reasons why he might not have deposited that cash in a bank (especially if there wasn't a branch of his bank handy), none of which are problematic.
I don't mean to be a pain in the ass when I bring up the age issue. Once I reached 50 it became apparent that 80% of the dance community was under 30. This is not just me, I think anyone over 50 feels this to some extent. If you are under 30 you have no idea what the older folks are feeling. This is life and everyone will reach this point in time if they are lucky.
An older dancer with a spouse who loves Lindy Hop is rare. I have to take the little woman to a disco so she will be happy dancing without a partner. At some of these clubs there are no dance partners only single people wiggling around.
Older dance instructors do have opportunities to get close to their young students (in a dance environment) and they should know how to behave properly.
Puppydog, then imagine it's a 16 year old daughter being offered booze by a man.
Still feel the same?
Imagine the offer is for booze and sex.
No longer the time of one's life, huh?
Thank you, Eff. It's not the same, and I've seen some scary stuff happen to young people who didn't know their limits and the adults who enabled them.
This is what I'm I'm talking about, folks. This one-dimensional view that this is all one big party and everyone's invited. We need to grow up.
I was of the understanding that you have to declare to authorities if you are transporting $10K or more across the border. It's stated clearly on the customs forms. But it seems that Bill didn't declare it. I was wondering why. And it seems strange to me that someone would want so much cash on them for such a lengthy period. But your explanation makes some sense.
"Change your thoughts, and you change your world" - Norman Vincent Peale.
Thanks NEON for posting the letter from Bill.
OpeningMinds, yes, I recall that on the customs declaration form. Canada has the same thing however when crossing by car a customs declaration form is not usually filled out. Sometimes the border agent will ask, often not. I've never been asked that question by a U.S. border agent but have been a couple of times by Canadian border agents. If they're not happy with your answer they will ask follow-up questions to try and verify your answer.
I actually have a lot of respect for border agents, they are well trained and very good at sniffing out malcontents. It was an attentive border agent that discovered the millennium bomber trying to cross the border from Victoria, BC in 1999. The may be hard asses and often address you very curtly but I've found as long as you are cooperative and aren't doing anything wrong you will be treated fairly. If you're evasive, that gets you extra attention and scrutiny.
I think there may be a general misconception that when you cross the U.S./Canada border the laws in both countries regarding "unreasonable search and seizure" apply.
They do NOT.
When I was out for the evening last night, I mentioned that a prominent instructor in the dance scene had been convicted of possession of child pornography. She asked, "Can border guards conduct an inspection that can turn that sort of thing up without probable cause or a search warrant?"
I explained to her, "Yes they can."
When you cross the border and go through customs you are voluntarily asking for permission to enter someone else's country. Their border patrol has the right to inspect anything you bring with you for contraband, drugs, weapons, and items that require payment of customs duties. Or anything at all ... your vehicle itself, items in your pockets, etc.
All people in your vehicle are subject to the same inspection - and if you have a minor not related to you in your vehicle, you should expect that the border guard will make a determination as to whether that minor is being transported across an international border for "immoral purposes".
Them's the rules ... and similar rules apply when you cross ANY international border. Items that are legal in the U.S. but forbidden in the country you visit (or require specific permission for you to bring in) can cause you trouble in certain cases.
If you don't like these rules - too bad. You have the option to stay home. Never assume you can get away with bringing "whatever" into a foreign country under ANY circumstances.
Or back into the U.S. when you return.
"A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having" - V
Irrelevant, because the amount of cash Bill had on him gave the cops probable cause.
Racetrack, I believe Bill is a U.S. citizen entering the U.S. and was on U.S. soil being inspected by U.S. customs and immigration. You would be correct if Bill were not a U.S. citizen.
For U.S. citizens, you are not entirely correct. "Routine" searches for contraband are permitted. There are a few legal precedents cited on Wikipedia page describing the 4th amendment. In one case the law was interpreted that a routine search is fine but an invasive search required reasonable suspicion.
The documents I read form the plea bargain didn't mention the money. I sense from customs agents' questions that money is a key indicator of a high probability of illegal activity and contraband. Finding undeclared cash in excess of $10,000 in a routine search was likely the trigger and sufficient probable cause to perform a more invasive search of the computer equipment.
As a Canadian, I have to assume that this reasonable test is not required as I'm not a U.S. citizen. In my case, I should expect border agents could, if they wish, search my electronic devices without probable cause. Similarly, because of my lack of legal standing in the eyes of the U.S. constitution data on my web server hosted in the U.S. by a U.S. company could be searched without probable cause. Both of these are a big issue among Canadian businesses and business travelers who are subject to Canadian privacy law. I.T. security professionals basically recommend to leave your data at home if you are crossing a border.
I must assume you know something regarding limitations of customs searches of U.S. citizens re-entering the country that I may be unaware of.
However, I DO know this: When I re-enter the U.S. from abroad, the customs agents can and sometimes do have me open my bags and submit to a "warrantless" search of their contents to verify that I am not bringing anything into the U.S. that I should have declared on my landing form, but didn't.
People who have certain banned items (like house plants, fresh fruit, etc.) generally just get the item(s) confiscated. But people (like our buddy Rush Limbaugh) who, say, bring in pharmaceuticals without a proper doctor's prescription have to deal with the law.
The only prudent thing for a U.S. citizen to do when re-entering the country is assume that ANYTHING they carry with them is subject to inspection and behave accordingly.
"A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having" - V
There is an article in our local newspaper that interviews a man convicted of possessing child porn.
There are a few points of interest in the article.
while not really great factual reporting, the writer said this:
There's a good chance the authorities had already catalogued the images found on Bill's computer.
This suggests authorities don't treat all cases equally:
Offenders can come from all walks of life. I think we've been luck in our community to not have more such cases. Bill's case is unfortunate in that he was in a position of respect, trust and authority but it's not unusual.
Some posters in this discussion have said that kiddie porn may lead to something more serious. Others disagree, Bill himself states in his letter that he had no other intentions. I encourage everyone who doesn't believe that to read the plea bargain document and consider this:
Yes. Being questioned and a cursory search of your bags (or car) is one thing. An invasive search such as forensic analysis of a laptop is another. If Bill had declared his money and provided accompanying documentation to satisfy the border agent that is was legitimately earned, there would have been no cause for an invasive search.
I disagree that you say the only prudent thing to do is to not have anything. While I don't usually agree with the "if you're not doing anything illegal you have nothing to fear" pundits, they're right in this case.
You need to be aware of what's prohibited and isn't as well as what you're obliged to declare. The $10K cash is one of those things.
Be honest and cooperative with the border agent and they'll cut you a break. On one trip back from Seattle after a weekend of dancing I crossed the border early in the morning to catch my flight in Vancouver. I probably looked a little strung out and for the first and only time I had to submit to inspection. I was cooperative and the agents were considerate of the fact that I had a fight to catch in about an hour and a half. After a quick search with a dog (presumably for drugs), I was on my way. A couple of times I brought back a few hundred dollars more in goods than was exempt for my stay. I was honest and declared the value (and had documentation), both times, the agent exempted by purchases. I've always been treated fairly and professionally by border agents. An invasive search has never been necessary. I'm sure most people who regularly cross the border would agree.
The Honorable Elijah Muhammad liked that rule too. It means nothing.
Kalman
Eff, perhaps we're of different generations, but I don't see the gender making a difference. A sexualized woman doesn't threaten my worldview. I feel no need to be paternalistic. The simultaneous offer of booze and sex might be predatory and legitimately a problem. But if you think someone can't make the informed decision to drink and hook up with someone ten or fifteen years older then they are, you're wrong. And if someone is suggesting that we as a community make that presumption on behalf of other people, I have a problem with that. I'm trying to check Marcelo's extremist claim that we as a community should start caring about age more than we do now, and set standards for acceptable behavior on an individual basis by age.
Bill being 59 is not the problem here. 50 year olds who date/couple with 20 year olds is not the problem. Teenagers with their wits about them who decide they can chew an adult size bite of recreation isn't the problem here.
An instructor was caught with child porn. That's the problem. If you don't think there are any 25 year old sexual predators/criminals out there, then you're wrong. If we start getting ourselves in a tizzy every time two dancers with an age difference are attracted to each other we're not going to have any time left to dance. Safety is great. I like safety. But people are suggesting that appropriate behaviors stop being tolerated as a general rule. That's not concern for safety. That's fear, and verges on moral policing.
Dave, the fight on terror has really pushed these limits. Probable cause is a joke.
I would recommend you read a few of the various articles about laptop confiscations.
I also agree with your point about the dangers of creating a witch hunt mentality in our community.
The fact is that the community should be concerned about questionable activity within our scene. The dance community, in general, tolerates behavior that would not be acceptable in most other social venues.
We do it because we often place the talent (dancing) over any other concerns.
Now, as far as this matter is concerned, it just sucks. All the way around.
But to say that it is an extremist position to become more aware and proactive in our own scene misses the point. We should. We take extraordinary measures to protect 25-30 year old women from creepy dancers, we throw people out of dances for bad behavior. But we have some kind of hang-up if similar behavior occurs around younger dancers.
Why?
That's the root cause. We've had, what, three of these instances to date?
Kalman
I think that depends on the nature of the pictures. It may not exactly be the same, but if you're paying someone for evidence that they hurt someone else, you definitely bear significant responsibility for the hurting.
There's no way this person is not responsible for supporting the hurting of children.
And my question for those who are saying what if they're 17 -- what's the big diff between 17 and 18? I ask you (and admittedly I don't know much about porn, I'm just applying logic here) WHY would anyone take the risk of doing porn with children who looked like adults, when producing child pornography is a very serious crime with serious penalties, and they could legally produce porn with young adults?!? Now maybe people who make porn are that stupid, but it's a little hard to imaging.
-- Rachel
So, here's what baffles me.
1) Why carry that much cash? I cannot imagine being paid $10,000 in cash from a single workshop payment, or working enough private lessons to get that much $. When I hired people, we paid check or money order. I also can't imagine continuing to carry it around. That's a LOT of cash. That says to me that he wasn't declaring the payments to the IRS or he got the money somewhere else
2) Why carry external drives with you? I mean, really, how many people travel with multiple external drives in addition to their laptop? It's suspicious, to me. It says to me that they had just cause to investigate him for trafficking, especially with the large amount of cash he was carrying. I'm guessing that year was spent investigating him for trafficking, which they ultimately couldn't prove.
3) After his computer was confiscated, etc.... his internet was watched, and he was caught AGAIN downloading more illegal porn, and subsequently had his internet and computer rights revoked. That's where we start getting into seriously bizarre behavior. The feds have your computer, you know you're being investigated, but you keep doing it? That's a symptom of someone who can't help themselves.
It's sad... but I'm sorry, I feel much worse for the children who are being abused. While his letter makes a great case for how he feels sorry and he understands what he did wrong, apparently putting him in jail was the only way to get him to stop, and that isn't unusual in people who find pleasure in such things.
I think the lessons in YSB's post above are good. I don't have a problem with porn itself, but I prefer that it be from the regulated adult industry - which, although it still has issues, at least tries to protect the people involved. Amateur and illicit porn is just asking for trouble - who was drugged, who was forced, who was paid, who was desperate, who was underage. Don't support it. Period.
Because they get paid a lot of money for it.
By your numbers: an adult in his early 30's offering alcohol and sex to your High School junior daughter?
You're gonna be cool with that? No gender bias on your part? And she's mature enough to make her own decisions. Power, control, influence of alcohol on decision-making...all non-issues. You won't step up to the plate and be the grownup in that situation, should ya be fortunate enough to catch wind of it? You'll be all like "Hey, that's cool, Man."
Righhhttt...
Bowing outta this one then.
If someone is paying more to see a 17 year old actress, than an 18 old actress, that person knows she's not 18, and is absolutely responsible then.
-- Rachel
This is the kind of thinking that bothers me. Informing your moral decisions based on how someone does things differently than you would, or further assuming that you can assess their motivations from these differences is deceptive.
Please be upset about what actually happened and the actual damage it caused (however indirectly). Please do not drag in mostly unrelated things to support your ideas of how you are better than someone else, or to justify your dislike for someone.
In broad strokes it appears that those here who like Bill are giving him a lot of benefit of what doubt exists, and those who don't are painting him to be as much of a monster as they can get away with. I suppose it is human nature, but it seems that a lot of what is being said reflects almost as much about the person saying it as the person they are talking about.
Child pornography is an emotionally charged subject, and as with many such subjects, open discourse is a good thing. I'm mostly surprised, though, with how important it seems to be to many people here that their specific moral views be what everyone should adopt. What makes you a better moral guide than the Christian Right, or extremist Muslims? I'm not saying anyone's morals are wrong here, just wondering how people justify condemning other moral codes while at the same time castigating those on this board who don't adhere to their own? (I shouldn't have to specify, but I'm talking about age differences in dating and maintaining friendships or working relationships with people who have made mistakes, not child molestation or child pornography)
I think we'd all like our legal system to figure out what the actual damage is that someone has done, and to punish them appropriately for it. Our current system is much more of a blunt instrument than a surgical tool, and there are a lot of factors that go into why we have which penalties. As we move forward, do we want to enforce social standards and moral codes that are preventative in nature? Do we want to get into figuring out how to prosecute intentions and thought-crimes as well? Just asking.
Page(s): < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 34 35 Next > (1048 items total)
BBCode is no longer supported. Use Markdown instead: