Case of Marc Evan Greenberg
(AKA: Mark Greenberg; Marc Greenberg; Marc E. Greenberg, M. Evan Greenberg)
Co-Owner Webe Web Corporation - Davies, FL
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Former Student - John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, NY
Former Student - State University of New York, Paltz, NY
Former Student - New Paltz High School, Paltz, NY
Former Student - John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, NY
Former Student - State University of New York, Paltz, NY
Former Student - New Paltz High School, Paltz, NY
Alabama federal grand jury indicted Marc Greenberg and Jeffrey Libman for operating a child modeling Web site that gained national attention for posting provocative photos of underage girls. Both were charged with 80 counts of conspiring to use minors for sexual photos and interstate transportation of such photos.
NOTE: There are several individuals by the name of Marc Greenberg. The individual on this page was born around 1964.
NOTE: There are several individuals by the name of Marc Greenberg. The individual on this page was born around 1964.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: Inclusion in this website does not constitute a recommendation or endorsement. Individuals must decide for themselves if the resources meet their own personal needs.
Table of Contents:
2006
- 'Fix For Pedophiles' Sites Targeted (09/16/2006)
- Florida `Child Modeling' Web Site Owners Indicted for Conspiring with Alabama Photographer to Produce Child Pornography (11/28/2006)
- 2 Fort Lauderdale men indicted for displaying 'child models' on web site (11/29/2006)
- 2 face child pornography charges (11/29/2006)
- Child modeling Web site probe leads to charges against 3 men (11/29/2006)
- Teen, preteen `model' sites busted: Florida firm's owners face child porn charges for provocative photos of kids (12/01/2006)
- Plea deal reached in child-porn case (12/15/2006)
2007
2010
2011
- United States of America Vs. Marc Evan Greenberg; Jeffrey Robert Libman and Webe Web Corporation (01/09/2007)
- Photographer said to help in porn case (03/09/2007)
2010
- Florida Corporation Pleads Guilty to Transportation of Child Pornography and Conspiracy to Produce Child Pornography (04/22/2010)
2011
- President of Florida Corporation Sentenced to 33 Months in Prison for Money Laundering Related to Child Pornography Distribution (01/14/2011)
2013
Also see:
- Federal Bureau Inmate Locator (08/09/2013)
Also see:
_________________________________________________________________________________
'Fix For Pedophiles' Sites Targeted
Bill Would Shut Down Web Sites Featuring 'Exploitive Child Modeling'
CBS News - September 16, 2006
NEW YORK-- Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., called the proposed anti-child pornography bill "a pedophile's worst nightmare." He's seen with Attorney General John Ashcroft, left, and other lawmakers in May. (AP)
Quote: "Maybe my bill will never pass. Half the battle sometimes is to alert the public." -- Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla.
(AP) The photos on the Web sites portray no nudity and no sex, yet men by the thousands pay to ogle them — shots of preteen girls posing in bikinis and halter tops.
Defended as free speech by some, such pictures are being blasted as a "fix for pedophiles" by a congressman who is waging an uphill campaign to banish them from the Internet.
The pool of photos is growing "at an unabated pace," said Rep. Mark Foley, a Florida Republican.
Foley has authored a bill, now before the House Judiciary Committee, intended to shut down the Web sites by outlawing "exploitive child modeling." Even he concedes, however, that the measure has potential loopholes, and anti-censorship groups say it would likely be struck down as an unconstitutional infringement of free expression.
"It's doomed from the start," said Garry Daniels of the National Coalition Against Censorship.
At Florida-based Webe Web Corp., which runs one of the largest networks of child-modeling sites, co-founder Marc Greenberg says he can't vouch for the motives of his customers. But he insists that no child featured on his sites has suffered any physical harm.
"If I said pedophiles are definitely not looking at these sites, that would be a crock," Greenberg said by phone from his Fort Lauderdale office. "But the majority of people looking at them are not bad people. ... If it's within the law and people want to do it, more power to them."
Greenberg said the girls featured on Webe Web sites wear outfits that could be bought at a typical mall and seen at a public beach or backyard picnic. Critics counter the pictures and videos of girls in swimsuits, leotards and sleepwear are intended to be erotic even while complying with anti-pornography laws.
Webe Web subscribers, who pay about $20 monthly, are not able to chat online with the models or e-mail them directly, Greenberg said. Foley contends some sites do provide direct contacts between customers and children, and worries that models are at risk of abduction, abuse, or even murder.
Any such crimes are covered by existing laws, said Kim Hart of the National Child Abuse Defense and Resource Center in Holland, Ohio.
"This is something best handled case-by-case by child protection services," Hart said. "If there's something of concern, let professionals talk to the girl, look at the background."
Personally, she said, "as a mother, I may not like it. But the question is whether it's illegal, whether it's harmful."
Foley isn't swayed by arguments that any abuse of child models could be prosecuted under current laws. "Taking care of the problem after it occurs — that's when the child is found dead or raped," he said. "My bill is an attempt to ward off problems before they occur."
Several modeling sites assert that the parents' share of profits will go toward their daughters' college tuition. But critics say the parents deserve as much blame as the entrepreneurs.
"Anyone from pedophiles to rapists can pay the monthly subscription fee and lust after the little ones," said Jan LaRue, chief counsel of Concerned Women For America. "Why would parents permit such a thing?"
Foley also believes some parents are blameworthy, and suggests others mistakenly think the modeling sites represent a legitimate chance to build a career for their daughters.
Daniels, of the Coalition Against Censorship, agrees that parental ambition is at play. "The parents think, 'Maybe my child is the next Britney Spears,"' he said. "If it takes putting her on the Internet in a bikini, so be it."
Greenberg guesses that 99 percent of parents wouldn't want their children posing on Webe Web sites. However, he says the parents he deals with are comfortable with the arrangements — "They don't have hang-ups" — and are little different than parents who push children into acting or traditional fashion modeling.
"The people we work with don't see anything wrong with this — they think it's fun, and the kids like it," Greenberg said. "They understand everything that goes with it ... they know there are people out there looking at the pictures. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out."
There are scores of child-modeling Web sites, though Foley's staff has been unable to pin down the number or calculate how much money they make.
Foley's bill would impose prison terms of up to 10 years for exploitive child modeling, defined as "marketing the child himself or herself in lascivious positions and acts, rather than actually marketing products."
The bill has possible loopholes, Foley admits. If Webe Web offered T-shirts online with the name of one of its sites, the company could claim the site was marketing a product.
Foley is seeking legal advice to address such problems, but he believes his efforts are worthwhile no matter what happens in Congress or the courts.
"Maybe my bill will never pass," he said. "Half the battle sometimes is to alert the public."
_________________________________________________________________________________
Florida `Child Modeling' Web Site Owners Indicted for Conspiring with Alabama Photographer to Produce Child Pornography
US Department of Justice - November 28, 2006 - 06-794
WASHINGTON – A federal grand jury in Birmingham, Ala., has indicted two Florida men and a Web site corporation on charges of conspiring to use minors to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing visual depictions and with knowingly transporting in interstate commerce visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher of the Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Alice H. Martin for the Northern District of Alabama announced today.
The 80-count indictment unsealed today charges Marc Evan Greenberg, 42, Jeffrey Robert Libman, 39, and Webe Web Corporation, all of the Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. area.
A two-count criminal information charging Jeff Pierson, 43, of Brookwood, Ala. was also unsealed today. Pierson was charged with conspiring to transport child pornography in interstate commerce using a computer from January 2003 through 2004, and with having transported child pornography in interstate commerce using a computer during that time.
"The indictment alleges that these defendants conspired to produce pornographic images of under-aged girls posing in lascivious positions for profit, under the pretense of offering professional modeling services," said Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher of the Criminal Division. "The Department of Justice is committed to the protection of our children from those who violate the law and sexually exploit minors for commercial gain."
"The images charged are not legitimate child modeling, but rather lascivious poses one would expect to see in an adult magazine. Here lewd has met lucrative, and exploitation of a child's innocence equals profits," said U.S. Attorney Alice H. Martin.
The Indictment alleges that from December 2002 through April 2005, Greenberg, Libman, and Webe Web, conspired with Pierson to use minors to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing visual depictions of that conduct. Specifically, it is charged that Greenberg and Libman established a purported "child modeling" Web site business under the name Webe Web Corporation. The business operated using three primary Internet Web sites: a central Web site, an advertising Web site, and Web sites for each individual child "model."
Webe Web's central Web site represented to be "a Web site to promote models ages 7 thru 16 and their photographers." On the central Web site, a "gallery" or "previews" of 15-21 photographs of various underage female children could be viewed for free. If the viewer wanted to see additional photographs, he would click "Join" and subscribe to the "models" individual Web site where he could view approximately 100 photographs of the child. The typical cost to view each individual child's website was $25 per month to subscribe and $20 per month thereafter.
Webe Web promoted subscriptions to these individual sites through its free advertising Web site. Babble Club allowed members to receive a "free sample" of images of the children. It encouraged the purchase of subscriptions to individual child Web sites, and hosted discussion boards/groups which were devoted to each individual child's Web site. Babble Club members made postings to the discussion boards, which included comments on specific images they liked, the type of clothing and poses they liked, and poetry written to the photographed child. Certain members posted expressions of fondness and devotion for a photographed child. Most of the Babble Club members were adult men who were not affiliated with the modeling industry.
After a viewer "subscribed" he could view numerous photographs of the individual child which were not accessible on Webe Web's central or advertising Web sites. These individual sites were similar in domain name style with the child's name followed by model. In order to encourage continued monthly subscriptions, Webe Web would regularly update the photographs posted and delete older photographs. Webe Web had groups of photographers under contract that supplied images and in return received a percentage of the gross subscription fees generated at the various sites.
The Indictment stated that Pierson was a photographer who produced visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct in Alabama and transmitted those images to Greenberg, Libman, and Webe Web in Florida. They then posted the images to the individual Web sites, and advertised and promoted photographs through Babble Club.
Specifically, the indictment alleges that in 2002, Libman and Pierson began communicating about this business venture. During 2003, Pierson sent children's photographs to Florida from Alabama which depicted sexually explicit conduct. These images were subsequently used to create different individual child websites for Webe Web in 2003. In December of 2003, Pierson received a "profitability detail statement" from Webe Web outlining his 2003 profits generated by the individual childs' websites.
In 2004, Pierson again sent children's photographs from Alabama to Florida which depicted sexually explicit conduct. These images were subsequently used to create additional individual child Web sites. During 2004, Pierson received monthly statements which detailed the number of subscriptions to each of the individual child Web sites, the gross income of each site, and his cut of the proceeds. He also had numerous conversations with the defendants regarding the updating of images, drop in subscriptions, issues with postings or banners, and suggestions on how to conceal dates of his pictures when discussions on Babble Club regarding a date were posted that could hurt sales on the site. Pierson's photography accounted for a substantial portion of the images of children posted by Webe Web.
If convicted of this conspiracy Greenberg and Libman face a penalty of imprisonment of not less than 15 years nor more than 30 years, and a fine of $250,000. The corporation faces a fine of $500,000.
If convicted on the charges in the Information, Pierson faces a penalty of imprisonment of not less than five years nor more than 20 years on each count and a fine of $250,000 on each count.
"The Webe Web investigation is the culmination of countless hours of dedicated law enforcement officers and prosecutors in an aggressive law enforcement action that will bring justice to those who exploit our children across the United States," stated Carmen Adams, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Birmingham Field Division.
"The U. S. Postal Inspection Service is very pleased to join in the efforts to investigate anyone suspected of trafficking child pornography. Postal Inspectors are committed to aggressively pursing anyone suspected of using the United States Mail to sexually exploit children and seeking their prosecution to the fullest extent of the law," said Martin D. Phanco, Inspector in Charge, Atlanta Division.
Counts 2 through 79 in the indictment charge Greenberg, Libman, and Webe Web with knowingly transporting in interstate commerce visual depictions of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. These allegations involve images of children which were published between 2004 and 2005. If convicted, the defendants face a possible penalty of not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years in federal prison, and a fine of $250,000 per count.
Count 80 in the indictment seeks forfeiture of proceeds traceable to these offenses but not less than $600,000 in addition to real property located at 1881 Middle River Drive, Condominium #201, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. 33305, and Internet domain names and Web site content associated with the business.
The joint investigation is being conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Phillips is prosecuting this case in cooperation with Department of Justice Trial Attorney Jennifer Toritto Leonardo of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section in the Criminal Division.
Members of the public are reminded that the indictment and information contain only charges. A defendant is presumed innocent of the charges and it will be the government's burden to prove a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.
_________________________________________________________________________________
2 Fort Lauderdale men indicted for displaying 'child models' on web site
By Robert Nolin
South Florida Sun-Sentinel - November 29 2006
An Alabama federal grand jury Tuesday indicted two Fort Lauderdale men for operating a child modeling Web site that gained national attention for posting provocative photos of underage girls.
Marc Evan Greenberg, 42, and Jeffrey Robert Libman, 39, were charged with 80 counts of conspiring to use minors for sexual photos and interstate transportation of such photos. Birmingham photographer Jeff Pierson, 43, is charged with sending and conspiring to send sexual photos of minors.
From 2002 to 2005, federal prosecutors said, Greenberg and Libman operated a now-defunct Web site that allowed viewers to select a "model" age 7 to 16, then direct them to that model's own Web site where they could pay a $20 monthly subscription to view more photos of the girl. The three defendants shared in the profits, Alice H. Martin, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, said in announcing the indictments.
Greenberg and Libman's company, Webe Web Corp., was one of the first to offer what news reports called "child erotica" online.
"We do legal, all-ages modeling for the sake of profit, something that just wasn't available before the Internet," Greenberg and Libman said in an e-mail featured in a 2002 broadcast of Dateline NBC.
Their photos, determined as sexually explicit by the grand jury, featured children in provocative poses such as yoga positions.
"I don't want them to be eye candy for perverts," Libman said in a 2003 appearance on the Oprah Winfrey Show.
But Martin deemed the photos pornographic. "The images ... are not legitimate child modeling, but rather lascivious poses one would expect to see in an adult magazine," she said. "Here, lewd has met lucrative and exploitation of a child's innocence equals profit."
Martin said Pierson provided many of the photos.
Attempts to reach Greenberg and Libman by phone were unsuccessful.
If convicted, Greenberg and Libman face up to 30 years in prison and fines of up to $750,000.
Staff Researcher Barbara Hi-jek contributed to this report.
_________________________________________________________________________________
2 face child pornography charges
Associated Press - November 29, 2006
BIRMINGHAM (AP) — A federal grand jury in Birmingham has charged two Florida men and one Alabama man on multiple charges related to an interstate child pornography business disguised as a child modeling agency.
An 80-count indictment was unsealed Tuesday charging Marc Evan Greenberg, 42, Jeffrey Robert Libman, 39, and Webe Web Corp., all of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
A two-count criminal information charging Jeff Pierson, 43, of Brookwood with conspiring to transport child pornography in interstate commerce using a computer was also unsealed Tuesday.
"The indictment alleges that these defendants conspired to produce pornographic images of underage girls posing in lascivious positions for profit, under the pretense of offering professional modeling services," said Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher of the Justice Department's Criminal Division.
Greenberg and Libman are charged with establishing a "child modeling" internet business called Webe Web Corp.. The indictment says Pierson was a photographer who provided images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct in Alabama and sent those images to Greenberg and Libman in Florida.
A statement from the Justice Department says that, from December 2002 through April 2005, Greenberg, Libman and Webe Web conspired with Pierson to "use minors to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing visual depictions of that conduct."
The Web site was presented as "a Web site to promote models age 7 thru 16 and their photographers." Visitors to the site could view between 15 and 21 photos of underage girls for free and could subscribe — for a $25 initial fee and then $20 per month — to the individual Web site of the "model" to see additional photos.
If convicted, Greenberg and Libman face 15 to 30 years in prison and a fine of $250,000. The corporation faces a $500,000 fine. And Pierson would face five to 20 years on each count and a $250,000 fine on each count.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Child modeling Web site probe leads to charges against 3 men
By VAL WALTON
Birmingham News - Wednesday, November 29, 2006
A federal investigation into a Florida child modeling Web site that offered images of underage girls in sexually suggestive poses has led to charges against three men, including a Tuscaloosa County photographer, officials announced Tuesday.
An 80-count indictment unsealed Tuesday in Birmingham's federal court accuses Marc Evan Greenberg, 42, Jeffrey Robert Libman, 39, and Webe Web Corp., all of Fort Lauderdale, with conspiring with Jeff Pierson, 43, who operated a photography studio.
Pierson, of Brookwood, is charged separately with conspiring to transport child pornography across state lines using a computer from January 2003 through 2004. Prosecutors contend he took photos in Alabama and sent them to Greenberg, Libman and Webe Web in Florida. He also is accused of using the mail to send the photos.
U.S. Attorney Alice Martin said many parents were unaware Pierson was taking illicit photos of their children, some of whom were wearing inappropriate clothing. Pierson's photos accounted for a third of the images posted by Webe Web, Martin said.
"These images are not legitimate child modeling, but rather lascivious poses one would expect to see in an adult magazine," Martin said. "Here, lewd has met lucrative, and exploitation of a child's innocence equals profits."
Prosecutors said Greenberg and Libman set up a bogus "child modeling" Web business under the name Webe Web. Webe Web involved three primary sites: a central site, an advertising site and site for each so-called child model.
Officials said the central Web site represented to be one to promote models ages 7 to 16 and their photographers. Viewers could see various photographs free and then were encouraged to join to see as many as 100 photos.
Prosecutors said the typical cost to view an individual child's site was $25 a month to subscribe and $20 a month after that.
Greenberg, Libman and the company, Webe Web, face dozens of charges of knowingly transporting visual depictions of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. The men could face five to 20 years in federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000 for each count if convicted.
Prosecutors also intend to seek forfeiture of any proceeds that can be traced to the offenses, such as $600,000 in property, Internet domain names and site content associated with the business.
Pierson is charged in a criminal information, indicating he is cooperating with officials.
The investigation was conducted by the FBI and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. Federal agents arrested Greenberg and Libman in Florida on Tuesday. They will be prosecuted in Birmingham later.
Chuck Regan, assistant special agent in charge of Birmingham's FBI office, said federal investigators are taking an aggressive stance against this type of crime.
The investigation continues.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Teen, preteen `model' sites busted: Florida firm's owners face child porn charges for provocative photos of kids
MSNBC - December 1, 2006
The operators of dozens of teen and preteen "modeling sites" that critics say are nothing more than eye candy for pedophiles have been indicted by a federal grand jury in Alabama for allegedly trafficking in "visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct."
The indictment, unsealed this week in Birmingham, Ala., charges Webe Web Corp. of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and its principals, Marc Evan Greenberg and Jeffrey Robert Libman, with 80 counts of conspiracy and interstate trafficking of the images of teen and preteen girls on dozens of Web sites operated by the company. Both men were arrested Tuesday in Fort Lauderdale and are due to be arraigned on Friday.
Photographer Jeff Pierson of Brookwood, Ala., also was charged with two counts of using a computer to "transport child pornography in interstate commerce" from January 2003 through 2004. Authorities said Pierson is cooperating with prosecutors.
"The images charged are not legitimate child modeling, but rather lascivious poses one would expect to see in an adult magazine," U.S. Attorney Alice H. Martin said in a statement announcing the indictments and the closure of all the Webe Web sites. "Here lewd has met lucrative, and exploitation of a child's innocence equals profits."
In an e-mail interview, Martin told MSNBC.com that prosecutors will press charges against the defendants for photos showing the young girls scantily clothed but not nude under a federal statute that deems images that "show lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" to be child pornography.
No nudity, but `sexually suggestive poses'
"There are no semi-nude or nude images," she said. "The children are dressed in underwear, adult lingerie, high heels, etc., and placed in sexually suggestive poses which focus the viewer's attention on the genital or pubic area. Some are posed with facial expressions and in positions that suggest a willingness to engage in sexual activity."
If convicted of all charges, Greenberg and Libman could be sent to prison for up to 20 years and fined up to $250,000 for each count. They also face forfeiture of all proceeds from the Web sites.
Phone calls to the company offices and the homes of Libman and Greenberg were not answered.
MSNBC.com interviewed the woman whose complaint triggered the investigation of Pierson and Webe Web, who agreed to talk on the condition that neither she nor her daughter be identified.
She said she naively answered an online advertisement for preteen models several years ago so that her then-10-year-old daughter could begin to build a portfolio.
She and her daughter drove to Pierson's home studio, where they met the photographer, his wife and the couple's 12-year-old daughter.
"They seemed like perfect people," she recalled. "They said she would have a Web site so that people looking for models would offer her jobs."
Mother recounts her horror
The woman said that everything seemed on the up and up during the initial visit, which included some test shots of the girl wearing different outfits, so she signed a contract.
But on the second visit, she said, Pierson kept her out of the studio, asking her to remain in an adjacent room where she could see him but not her daughter.
"He said it makes the models nervous," she said.
The woman said she sat chatting with the photographer and his wife during the daylong shoot and had no inkling what was going on until she walked into the studio when Pierson had left the room for a moment and saw her daughter wearing only a thong and a halter top.
"That feeling is a feeling I don't wish on anybody," she said.
The woman said that she and her daughter were frightened to leave because Pierson had earlier displayed a handgun he kept in the house, so they endured several more hours in the studio.
"I said `We can't do this,' but my daughter said she was scared to leave and let's get through this and then we won't come back," she said. "It was really hard."
Once they left, the woman said she "went straight to the FBI" in Birmingham and told them what Pierson had done.
Authorities seek other photographers
It is not known how many children Pierson photographed for Webe Web, but Martin said he was responsible for about 30 percent of the photos on the 60 or so sites that the company hosted from the Netherlands and has told prosecutors that the company paid him $270,000 for his work. Martin said investigators were continuing to try to identify other photographers who worked for the company.
Webe Web first drew scrutiny in 2001, when NBC's Miami affiliate, WTVJ, reported that the company was operating a handful of Web sites featuring young girls wearing bathing suits and other skimpy outfits and charging "members" to view additional photos.
Webe Web representatives defended the business model, denying the sites were aimed at pedophiles, but the controversy snowballed, and soon the company was featured in unflattering spots on national news programs like "Dateline NBC" and "Oprah."
The sites also attracted the attention of Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., who in 2002 introduced a bill called the Child Modeling Exploitation Prevention Act to attempt to tighten restrictions on the sale of photographs of minors. The bill died in committee amid objections from civil libertarians and commercial interests.
Foley resigned from Congress in September after it was reported that he exchanged inappropriate e-mails with a teenage page.
The filing of criminal charges against Webe Web is at least the second federal criminal case brought against operators of Web sites featuring minors in provocative poses. Two Utah men, Matthew Duhamel and Charles Granere, are facing federal child pornography charges for a child modeling site that featured minors in lingerie.
Will juries buy `child porn' argument?
But Frederick Lane, a lawyer who specializes in Internet issues and author of "Obscene Profits: The Entrepreneurs of Pornography in the Cyber Age," said it is an open question whether the hardball legal tactic will prove effective.
"It quickly gets into a legal gray area, like parents taking photos of their kids, so prosecutors have been reluctant to use it as a tool," he said. "... From what I've seen, there's too much gray area there in terms of persuading a jury that the photographs actually constitute child pornography."
But he said that the "financial piece" — the fact that Webe Web charged customers $20 a month to subscribe to each girl's Web site — may help the prosecution overcome that obstacle.
"That's one of the things that is more persuasive to juries, a sense of exploitation of these girls," he said.
For the defense, he said, the argument likely will hearken back to the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's oft-repeated comment about "hard-core" pornography: "I know it when I see it."
"For the defense point of view, the argument is, `Here is real child pornography, and that is not what this child is doing,'" he said.
No matter the outcome of the criminal case, it will do little to discourage other operators unless it leads to new legislation with clearer strictures against risqué photos of minors, said Don Austen, who has been active in pressuring ISPs to drop clients running preteen and teen modeling sites.
New laws needed, advocate says
"Just winning a case is not going to affect anything unless this brings to light what's going on," said Austen, who also runs the Thursday's Child hot line for teenage runaways.
He also said that while some defend the "modeling" sites as harmless, they desensitize the young girls to sex. He said he knows of two girls who started out as teen "models" on such Web sites that graduated into adult pornography after they turned 18.
"It's not just that she's feeling embarrassment and feeling used. ... It changes lives," he said.
The damage isn't exclusive to the children, said the woman who told authorities about Pierson.
She said she remains wracked with guilt because she didn't sense that she was putting her daughter at risk until it was too late. Now, she said, the girl is fearful of being alone with men and recently broke down when a male doctor sought to examine her.
"I blame myself so much, but I never dreamed that could happen," she said. "I thought love would protect her, but I guess I was just stupid."
Plea deal reached in child-porn case
By Jay Reeves
Associated Press - December 15, 2006
_________________________________________________________________________________
Plea deal reached in child-porn case
By Jay Reeves
Associated Press - December 15, 2006
BIRMINGHAM | The operators of a Florida-based Web site for child models pleaded not guilty Thursday to pornography charges that could hinge on whether prosecutors can prove that suggestive photos of clothed children are illegal.
Attorneys for Marc Evan Greenberg, 42, and Jeffrey Robert Libman, 39, contend the men did nothing wrong by posting photos of young girls at their Webe Web Corp. sites and charging people $20 a month to look at them.
Jeff Pierson of Brookwood, who took many of the photos used on the site, has reached a plea deal and is cooperating with the government.
Pierson, 43, is free and still operating a photography business and Web site with photos of cars, landscapes and adult women in bathing suits, lingerie and less.
Richard Jaffe, an attorney for Pierson, said the photographer got involved in Webe Web without realizing the photos he was taking of child models may have been illegal.
“I think his biggest mistake was not consulting a lawyer skilled in First Amendment law as to advise him where the line was," said Jaffe.
None of the photos showed nudity, but prosecutors say they still meet court-approved definitions of pornography because of the girls’ ages -- as young as 7 -- and the nature of the pictures, which included children in panties, high heels and adult-looking lingerie.
U.S. Attorney Alice Martin said the pictures -- which were billed as images of child models -- amount to “soft porn" that’s prohibited by federal law.
“[Webe Web] has been a big player in adult porn sites and in child sites," she said.
An attorney for Libman, H. Louis Sirkin, said he expects an acquittal. The photos on Webe Web are open to different interpretations, he said.
“It becomes a frightening issue in a sense because so much of it is in the eye of the beholder," said Sirkin.
Authorities shut down Webe Web before the indictments of Greenberg and Libman were unsealed Nov. 28 by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Birmingham.
A two-count criminal information against Pierson was revealed at the same time. A criminal information is an accusation or charge brought by a public prosecutor without a grand jury indictment and usually precedes a guilty plea.
He was charged with conspiring to transport child pornography in interstate commerce, using a computer from January 2003 through 2004, and with having transported child pornography in interstate commerce using a computer.
Both child-protection groups and free-speech advocates are watching the case, which resulted from complaints by an Alabama woman whose elementary school-age daughter was shown on Webe Web after being photographed by Pierson.
Svetlana Mintcheva of the National Coalition Against Censorship said even photographs from child beauty pageants could be considered obscene if courts adopt a broad definition of what is and what isn’t child porn.
“Clearly we want to protect children," said Mintcheva. “(But) I think our desire to protect children should not trample adults’ rights."
The founder of a California-based group that operates a national hotline for troubled teens is critical of the government for not prosecuting Greenberg and Libman years earlier, however.
The men have been repeatedly featured in news reports questioning whether Webe Web was an Internet portal for pedophiles, and Don Austen, founder of Thursday’s Child, said authorities spent two years investigating the site before finally filing charges.
“In those two years there were at least 50 more girls exploited by this Web site," said Austen, who has worked with at least one child whose photos were on Webe Web. “It’s like someone watching Ted Bundy while he’s on a killing spree to see if they can get his fingerprints. In the meantime, you have bodies piling up."
Martin said the investigation took time because of the size of the Web site, which was constantly posting new photos to keep customers coming back.
Neither Greenberg nor Libman said anything in court, where their attorneys entered the not guilty pleas on the 80-count indictment.
Both were dressed in orange jail uniforms during the hearing. The men are in custody until a judge decides whether to grant a bond hearing.
Greenberg and Libman face 15 to 30 years in prison and a fine of $250,000 if convicted. The corporation faces a $500,000 fine.
_________________________________________________________________________________
United States of America Vs. Marc Evan Greenberg; Jeffrey Robert Libman and Webe Web Corporation
U.S. District Court - January 9, 2007
Case No. CR-06-MJ-6418-BSS (S.D. Fla.), doc. no. 7 (Detention Order). Nota bene: to 1
save space, the court will in future citations simply refer to this document as “Detention Order,” and provide a page citation where necessary.
Case No. CR-06-S-417-S (N.D. Ala.), doc. no. 23 (Defendant Greenberg’s Motion to 2
Revoke Detention Order); doc. no. 30 (Defendant Libman’s Motion to Revoke Detention Order).
Nota bene: to save space, the court will in future citations refer to documents from this docket sheet by their document number only.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
vs. ) Case No. CR-06-S-417-S
)
MARC EVAN GREENBERG; )
JEFFREY ROBERT LIBMAN; )
and WEBE WEB CORPORATION )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter reaches the court following the decision of a United States Magistrate Judge sitting in the Southern District of Florida, who granted the government’s motion to detain defendants Marc Evan Greenberg and Jeffrey Robert Libman, prior to trial and until the conclusion thereof. Now appearing before this court, defendants have filed motions to revoke the pretrial detention order. Having reviewed the transcript from the prior proceedings, taken additional evidence, and heard arguments of counsel, the court finds that the motions to revoke are due to be granted, subject to those conditions specified in the separate orders to be entered contemporaneously with this opinion. Below, the court enters written findings of fact and statements of reasons for ordering pretrial release, in accordance with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3142(h).
I. INTRODUCTION
On December 1, 2006, Magistrate Judge Barry S. Seltzer of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida held a hearing to determine whether pretrial detention was appropriate for defendants Greenberg and Libman. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) (requiring such a hearing). At that hearing, as here, the government had the burden of persuading the court either: (1) by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendants pose a risk of flight; and/or (2) by clear and convincing evidence, that defendants pose a danger to the community. E.g., United States v. King, 849 F.2d 485, 489 (11th Cir. 1988).
Based upon the grand jury indictment, Magistrate Seltzer found probable cause to believe that defendants committed offenses involving minor victims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a),(e) and 2252(a)(1). See United States v. Hurtado, 779 F.2d 1467, 3 1479 (11th Cir. 1985) (holding that “an indictment is sufficient to demonstrate probable cause” for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)). That finding — with which this court concurs — gives rise to a rebuttable presumption “that no condition or combination of conditions [of release] will reasonably assure the appearance of the Case 2:06-cr-00417-CLS -RRA Document 31 Filed 01/09/07 Page 2 of 18 Detention Order, p. 7. Curiously, as a result of an apparent miscommunication, the 4 government failed to argue to Magistrate Seltzer that the circumstances of this case render it likely that defendants will attempt to flee. See id. Now before this court, however, the government has made clear that it believes defendants are flight risks, and asserts that detention is necessary to counteract that distinct possibility.
defendant as required and the safety of the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e) (listing offenses involving a minor victim under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251 and 2252(a)(1)). With that foundation in place, Magistrate Seltzer then proceeded to perform the same analysis that this court must now repeat. That is, he attempted to ascertain whether either defendant had proffered evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption that no conditions could prevent flight or assure community safety, ever mindful of the fact that, regardless of defendant’s proof, the presumption “remains in the case as an evidentiary finding militating against release, to be weigh[ed] along with other evidence.” United States v. Quartermaine, 913 F.2d 910, 916 (11th Cir. 1990). See also King, 849 F.2d at 488 (holding that the statutory presumption imposes only a burden of production upon the defendant). After hearing the evidence and considering the arguments, Magistrate Seltzer concluded that the presumption remained unrebutted with respect to the safety of the community, and ordered pretrial detention on that ground alone.
This court conducted a hearing concerning pretrial detention on January 5, 2007. In the following sections ofthis opinion, the court considers the arguments and Case 2:06-cr-00417-CLS -RRA Document 31 Filed 01/09/07 Page 3 of 18 Section 3142(g) requires the court to consider the following information in deciding 5 whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure community safety and prevent flight:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the
offense . . . involves a minor victim . . . ;
(2) the weight of the evidence against the person;
(3) the history and characteristics of the person, including —
(4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person’s release. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).
evidence for and against pretrial detention de novo, see King, 849 F.2d at 490, taking
into account the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).5
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Defendants stand before the court charged by an indictment, returned by a grant jury in this District, with one count of conspiring to use minors to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing visual depictions of such conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a) and (e); and seventy-eight counts of transporting and shipping in interstate commerce visual depictions of a minor under Case 2:06-cr-00417-CLS -RRA Document 31 Filed 01/09/07 Page 4 of 18See generally doc. no. 1 (Indictment). “Sexuallyexplicit conduct” is defined to include the 6 “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or public area of any person.” 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(A)(v).
See, e.g., doc. no. 1, ¶¶ 1, 2. 7
Id. at ¶ 9. 8
Id.
9
the age of eighteen engaging in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)
(1). As felony offenses that have been codified within Chapter 110 of Title 6 18, United States Code, they are defined by statute as “crime[s] of violence.” See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3156(a)(4)(c), 3142(g)(1).
2. The court has reviewed the indictment in this case, as well as the transcript from the detention hearing before Magistrate Seltzer and the visual images forming the foundation for Counts Two through Seventy-Eight of the indictment.
Those documents provide credible evidence that defendants committed the offenses with which they have been charged. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(2).
3. Marc Greenberg was the President and Jeffrey Libman was the Vice President of a business entity known as “Webe Web Corporation.” According to the 7 government, Libman was responsible for the computer/internetside of the operation, and he was directly involved in the actual production of the child images. Greenberg 8 was primarily responsible for the business aspects of the operation. Through the 9 corporation, Greenberg and Libman operated and maintained what they purported to Case 2:06-cr-00417-CLS -RRA Document 31 Filed 01/09/07 Page 5 of 18Id. at ¶ 4. 10
Id.
11
Id. at ¶ 6. 12
Id.
13
Id.
14
Id.
15
Id.
16
be “child modeling” websites. Most of the websites featured one child, ranging in 10 age from seven years to approximately sixteen years. 11
4. Individual websites showed either a picture or collage of pictures of the featured child. A viewer was able to click on “enter” and be directed to galleries of 12 preview pictures of the child in various clothing outfits. The viewer was given the 13 option to subscribe to the child’s website for an initial monthly fee of $25.00, followed by subsequent monthly fees of $20.00. Subscribers could view 14 approximately one-hundred pictures of the child in the same outfit as the preview picture. New galleries would be added every ten days to two weeks. 15 16
5. Although the government concedes that the children depicted in the photographs that are the subject of the indictment are “clothed,” the court has viewed the images and believes it would be more appropriate to describe the subjects as “scantily clad.” Moreover, the United States Postal Service Inspector who investigated this case testified before Magistrate Seltzer as to the offending Case 2:06-cr-00417-CLS -RRA Document 31 Filed 01/09/07 Page 6 of 18 Although it is apparently an unsettled question, the Third Circuit has held that, to be 17 deemed a “lascivious exhibition,” the law does not require nudity or discernibilityof the genitals or pubic area. United States v. Knox, 32 F.3d 733, 746 (3d Cir. 1994). See also United States v. Williams, 444 F.3d 1286, 1299 n. 63 (11th Cir. 2006) (noting with curiosity the conclusions of the Knox court). In any case, courts have looked to the following factors in determining whether a depiction is “lascivious,” mindful that agiven imageneed not involve all the factors and that it must be judged by its overall content:
6. Greenberg, Libman, and Webe Web Corporation also created, owned, and controlled “Babble Club,” an advertising tool and fan club for those persons interested in the children depicted in the website images. Membership in the Babble 19 Club was free, and members received “free sample” images of the children to encourage the purchase of subscriptions to individual child websites. The Babble 20 Club also hosted discussion boards or groups, with separate groups devoted to each Case 2:06-cr-00417-CLS -RRA Document 31 Filed 01/09/07 Page 8 of 18Id. at ¶ 11. 21 Id. 22 Id. 23 Case No. CR-06-MJ-6418-BSS (S.D. Fla.), Initial Detention Hearing Transcript, p. 59. 24 Id. 25
Government’s Ex. 1 at Second Detention Hearing (Government’s Proffer), ¶ 7. 26
child. Members commented on images of children they liked and on the type of 21 clothing and poses they would like to see for each child. Members also wrote poetry 22 to the child and expressed feelings of fondness and devotion to the child. According 23 to the Postal Inspector, the authors of these expressions were usually adult men (not affiliated with the modeling industry), and the content of their expressions were often romantic. Indeed, the removal of a child’s photographs from the website would 24 often generate an outcry from the adult men. 25
7. Although the indictment encompasses the time period of December 2002 through April 2005, Greenberg and Libman actually operated their websites, and continued to collect income therefrom, up to their arrest on November 28, 2006.26 The quantity of income generated from the enterprise was substantial. Investigation has revealed that Greenberg, who has no legitimate source of income, has known bank and benefit accounts containing at least $354,165.49; Libman, who also has no legitimate source of income, has known bank and benefit accounts containing at least $262,982.31; and the corporation has known accounts containing about Case 2:06-cr-00417-CLS -RRA Document 31 Filed 01/09/07 Page 9 of 18Id. at ¶ 8. 27 Id. 28 Id. at ¶ 9. 29 Id. 30 Id. at ¶ 13. 31
$530,000.00. This sum — $1,147,147.80 — does not necessarily represent the 27 totality of the gains. Greenberg, for example, also owns a condominium (which has been seized), and he reportedly boasted to a neighbor about having his “big money” tied up offshore.28
8. During the execution of a search warrant at Libman’s residence, agents discovered photographic backdrops, one of which was in the bedroom. These 29 photographic backdrops reportedly match the backdrops of various child internet images. 30
9. Finally, the government has pointed out that Greenberg and Libman each face substantial prison sentences if convicted of the instant offenses. Each faces a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years’ imprisonment and a maximum sentence of thirty years’imprisonment as to Count One of the indictment (conspiracy to use minors to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing visual depictions of such conduct). Each also faces a mandatory minimum sentence 31 of five years’ imprisonment and a maximum of twenty years’imprisonment as to each of the remaining seventy-seven counts of the indictment (charging transporting and Case 2:06-cr-00417-CLS -RRA Document 31 Filed 01/09/07 Page 10 of 18Id. 32 Id. at ¶ 14. 33 Id. 34
Greenberg Pretrial Services Report, p. 1; Libman Pretrial Services Report, p. 1. 35 Id.; Second Detention Hearing Transcript, pp. 16-19, 54. 36
shipping in interstate commerce visual depictions of a minor under the age of eighteen engaging in sexually explicit conduct). The government further proffered 32 that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines provide for various increases or enhancements based upon the existence of aggravating factors, including: the age of the child victims; the number of victims; the production of materials; and the distribution of materials. Were the government to prevail on all of these potential enhancements, 33 the sentencing range recommended by the advisory Guidelines may very well be higher than the statutory maximum sentence for each of the counts of the indictment.34
10. The pertinent personal history and characteristics of the defendants are significant to this court’s assessment of their candidacy for bond. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3142(g)(3)(A) and (B). Greenberg and Libman were born in Ohio and New York, respectively, and therefore are United States citizens. Greenberg has lived in South 35 Florida for thirty-three years, and currently resides with his girlfriend in Broward County. Libman is single and has no children, but has resided in South Florida for 36 Case 2:06-cr-00417-CLS -RRA Document 31 Filed 01/09/07 Page 11 of 18E.g., id. at pp. 26-27, 54. 37 Id. at pp. 16-19, 26-27. 38 E.g., id. at pp. 14, 23, 32; Initial Detention Hearing Transcript, pp 79-80. 39 Second Detention Hearing Transcript,pp. 23, 60-62; Initial Detention Hearing Transcript, 40 pp. 71-72, 79-81. E.g., Initial Detention Hearing Transcript, p. 78. 41 Second Detention Hearing Transcript, pp. 30, 33. 42
Greenberg Pretrial Services Report, p. 3; Libman Pretrial Services Report, p. 2. 43 Greenberg Pretrial Services Report, p. 1. 44
thirty-one years. Multiple members of both defendants’familiesreside in the South 37 Florida area, and many of them appeared at the detention hearings to show their 38 support and offer testimony. Indeed, members of both defendants’ families, as well 39
as some friends, were willing to co-sign on a bond to help ensure their appearance at
trial. Greenberg reported that he does not possess a passport and has never traveled 40
outside the United States, while Libman’s passport apparently has expired and he
41
has not traveled outside the United States in at least ten, and possibly as many as
twenty, years. The Pretrial Services Report shows that an automated check of law 42
enforcement data bases reflected no criminal history for either Greenberg or
Libman.
43
11. According to the Pretrial Services Reports, Greenberg has been
employed by the Webe Web Corporation for the past ten years. Libman’s Report 44
does not list an employer, but it does reveal that he previously held a position as a
Case 2:06-cr-00417-CLS -RRA Document 31 Filed 01/09/07 Page 12 of 18 Libman Pretrial Services Report, p. 2. 45
Greenberg Pretrial Services Report, p. 2. 46
Government’s Proffer, ¶ 8. 47
Doc. no. 1, ¶¶ 1, 2. 48
-13-
musician. Greenberg reported a monthly income of $10,000, but the Pretrial 45
Services Report estimates his net worth at more than $1,272,000. Libman has 46
known bank accounts containing approximately $263,000.47
12. The court reviewed and received evidence concerning the nature and
seriousness of the danger to the community that would be posed by the release of the
defendants. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(4). Greenberg was the President, and Libman
was the Vice President, of the company that was responsible for the distribution of
large numbers of images of children engaged in the apparent “lascivious exhibition
of the genitals or pubic area,” which Congress has defined as “sexually explicit
conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(A)(v). Greenberg and Libman distributed these
48
photographs over a period ofseveral years and garnered substantial wealth from their
activities. Indeed, as mentioned above, Libman allegedly told one of the
photographers that the more provocative the photograph, the more profitable it would
be. Both Greenberg and Libman ran a website that functioned as a fan-club forum,
in which adult men would post romantic expressions of their fondness for the child
Case 2:06-cr-00417-CLS -RRA Document 31 Filed 01/09/07 Page 13 of 18 Initial Detention Hearing Transcript, p. 59. 49
Second Detention Hearing Transcript, pp. 9-13; Government’s Proffer, ¶ 9. 50
Second Detention Hearing Transcript, pp. 18, 27. 51
Id. at p. 31. As for day care centers and schools, however, the parents of both Greenberg 52
and Libman testified that they are at least several miles removed. Id. at pp. 20, 31-32.
-14-
models. Finally, as previously noted, photographic backdrops and outfits similar 49
to those appearing in photographs were found in Libman’s residence.50
13. Magistrate Seltzer based his order of detention upon the finding that no
condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure the safety
of any other person and the community. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). The court
respectfully disagrees with this conclusion. Both defendants have proposed living
with their respective parent (or parents) in their South Florida homes pending trial.
51
Keeping in mind that the defendants are not accused of child molestation or other
physical contact with children, one principal risk associated with pretrial release is,
nonetheless, the government’s concern that defendants might continue to associate
with children. In other words, the fear is that, left alone, defendants could locate new
victims. Neither Greenberg’s nor Libman’s parents have children residing in their
homes. Libman’s father testified, however, that his house is located approximately
three-hundred feet from houses where neighborhood children live. Additionally, 52
there is a fear that, given internet access, the defendants could continue to operate
their business, committing further violations of the law. Both households currently
Case 2:06-cr-00417-CLS -RRA Document 31 Filed 01/09/07 Page 14 of 18Id. at pp. 21-22, 33. 53
Id. at pp. 20-21, 28. 54
Id. at pp. 17-18; 27-29. Greenberg’s brother, who also lives with his father, actually runs 55
an online T-shirt business out ofhis father’s home, but the father agreed on the record to temporarily
disconnect the internet access if this court called for that action as a condition of release. Id. at pp.
17-18.
Id. at p. 3. 56
-15-
have internet access. On the record, however, family members of both defendants
have assured that they could personally supervise the defendants’ activities at all
times, keeping them away from children, and also preventing any access to the 53 54
internet. Their assurances, combined with a substantial bond, home detention 55
without internet access, home monitoring, and daily reports to Pretrial Services,
appear to this court to be sufficient bulwarks against a continuing threat to public
safety. The court therefore declines to find that there exists no condition or
combination of conditions of release that will reasonably assure the safety of any
other person and the community. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e).
14. Although the government did not argue before Magistrate Seltzer that
there exists no condition or combination of conditions of release that will reasonably
assure the defendants’ appearances at trial, see 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), that is precisely
the argument that has been made to this court. The court agrees that there is 56
significant motivation for flight. As outlined above, both defendants face lengthy
Case 2:06-cr-00417-CLS -RRA Document 31 Filed 01/09/07 Page 15 of 18 Government’s Proffer, ¶ 14. 57
Id. at ¶ 12. 58
Initial Detention Hearing Transcript, p. 78; Second Detention Hearing Transcript, p. 33. 59
Second Detention Hearing Transcript, pp. 60, 61. 60
Id. at p. 62. 61
Id. at pp. 60, 61. 62
-16-
prison sentences if convicted. Both live in an area of the country that is renowned 57
as an international travel portal, and at least one (Greenberg) is believed to have offshore bank accounts. On the other hand, neither currently has a valid passport, and 58 59
counsel for defendants indicated that their clients would submit to the attachment of
Global Positioning Satellite (“GPS”) ankle monitors or other equivalent devices,
60
plus bear the expense of telephone caller identification systems that would enable
Pretrial Services to confirm the caller’s location. The court has received counsels’ 61
invitation to require a considerable bond as well. In light of all this, the court 62
believes that specially tailored conditions of release will insure against the risk of
flight. Therefore, the court declines to find that there exists no condition or
combination of conditions of release that will reasonably assure the defendants’
appearances as required by the court. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e).
III. CONCLUSIONS
1. Based upon the above findings of fact, this court concludes that pretrial
release of the defendants on bond under conditions prescribed by this court will not
Case 2:06-cr-00417-CLS -RRA Document 31 Filed 01/09/07 Page 16 of 18-17-
present an unreasonable risk of flight. The court is not unsympathetic to the
government’s concerns, but cannot overlook the fact that there are multiple conditions
of release that will serve to neutralize the risk. Requiring a large bond will tie up
assets; requiring confinement in the parents’ homes will ensure constant supervision;
disconnection of internet access will preclude further exposure of illegal child
pornography; home monitoring will provide the government with twenty-four hour
knowledge of defendants’ whereabouts; and daily reports to Pretrial Services officers
will confirm defendants’ compliance with the court’s orders. These conditions are
not exhaustive. They will be listed in precise detail in the two orders that accompany
this opinion.
2. Based upon the above findings of fact, this court concludes that the
release of the defendants on bond prior to trial will not present an unreasonable
danger to persons and to the community. Again, there are specific counter-measures
that will sufficiently protect the community. Even so, this court notes that it is not
presently persuaded by the defense argument that the visual depictions at issue here,
in which the children are photographed “clothed,” poses less of a danger than the
visual depictions in which children are photographed nude, or engaging in sexual
activity. Whether it is constitutional to proscribe photography of “clothed” children
is an issue of substantive law that may or may not need to be addressed later in this
Case 2:06-cr-00417-CLS -RRA Document 31 Filed 01/09/07 Page 17 of 18-18-
case. The fact that the children in the photographs forming the basis of this
indictment are wearing some form of clothing, however, does not mean that the
alleged perpetrators are somehow less threatening to children than those who insist
that their victims be naked. The court’s rationale in permitting pretrial release is
simply that there are practicable means by which the government can keep track of
defendants and simultaneously prevent further harm without the necessity of pretrial
imprisonment. Our constitutional norms are decidedly against unnecessary restraint
of liberty, and the Bail Reform Act reflects that stance, expressly preserving the
constitutional presumption of innocence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(j).
Separate orders specifying the conditions for releasing each defendant pending
trial shall be entered contemporaneously herewith.
DONE this 9th day of January, 2007.
______________________________
United States District Judge
Case 2:06-cr-00417-CLS -RRA Document 31 Filed 01/09/07 Page 18 of 18
_________________________________________________________________________________
Photographer said to help in porn case
Sun Sentinel - March 9, 2007
Florida Corporation Pleads Guilty to Transportation of Child Pornography and Conspiracy to Produce Child Pornography
The Business Journal - April 22, 2010
_________________________________________________________________________________
United States of America Vs. Marc Evan Greenberg; Jeffrey Robert Libman and Webe Web Corporation
U.S. District Court - January 9, 2007
FILED
2007 Jan-09 PM 03:40
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
Case 2:06-cr-00417-CLS -RRA Document 31 Filed 01/09/07
Case No. CR-06-MJ-6418-BSS (S.D. Fla.), doc. no. 7 (Detention Order). Nota bene: to 1
save space, the court will in future citations simply refer to this document as “Detention Order,” and provide a page citation where necessary.
Case No. CR-06-S-417-S (N.D. Ala.), doc. no. 23 (Defendant Greenberg’s Motion to 2
Revoke Detention Order); doc. no. 30 (Defendant Libman’s Motion to Revoke Detention Order).
Nota bene: to save space, the court will in future citations refer to documents from this docket sheet by their document number only.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
vs. ) Case No. CR-06-S-417-S
)
MARC EVAN GREENBERG; )
JEFFREY ROBERT LIBMAN; )
and WEBE WEB CORPORATION )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter reaches the court following the decision of a United States Magistrate Judge sitting in the Southern District of Florida, who granted the government’s motion to detain defendants Marc Evan Greenberg and Jeffrey Robert Libman, prior to trial and until the conclusion thereof. Now appearing before this court, defendants have filed motions to revoke the pretrial detention order. Having reviewed the transcript from the prior proceedings, taken additional evidence, and heard arguments of counsel, the court finds that the motions to revoke are due to be granted, subject to those conditions specified in the separate orders to be entered contemporaneously with this opinion. Below, the court enters written findings of fact and statements of reasons for ordering pretrial release, in accordance with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3142(h).
I. INTRODUCTION
On December 1, 2006, Magistrate Judge Barry S. Seltzer of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida held a hearing to determine whether pretrial detention was appropriate for defendants Greenberg and Libman. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) (requiring such a hearing). At that hearing, as here, the government had the burden of persuading the court either: (1) by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendants pose a risk of flight; and/or (2) by clear and convincing evidence, that defendants pose a danger to the community. E.g., United States v. King, 849 F.2d 485, 489 (11th Cir. 1988).
Based upon the grand jury indictment, Magistrate Seltzer found probable cause to believe that defendants committed offenses involving minor victims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a),(e) and 2252(a)(1). See United States v. Hurtado, 779 F.2d 1467, 3 1479 (11th Cir. 1985) (holding that “an indictment is sufficient to demonstrate probable cause” for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)). That finding — with which this court concurs — gives rise to a rebuttable presumption “that no condition or combination of conditions [of release] will reasonably assure the appearance of the Case 2:06-cr-00417-CLS -RRA Document 31 Filed 01/09/07 Page 2 of 18 Detention Order, p. 7. Curiously, as a result of an apparent miscommunication, the 4 government failed to argue to Magistrate Seltzer that the circumstances of this case render it likely that defendants will attempt to flee. See id. Now before this court, however, the government has made clear that it believes defendants are flight risks, and asserts that detention is necessary to counteract that distinct possibility.
defendant as required and the safety of the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e) (listing offenses involving a minor victim under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251 and 2252(a)(1)). With that foundation in place, Magistrate Seltzer then proceeded to perform the same analysis that this court must now repeat. That is, he attempted to ascertain whether either defendant had proffered evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption that no conditions could prevent flight or assure community safety, ever mindful of the fact that, regardless of defendant’s proof, the presumption “remains in the case as an evidentiary finding militating against release, to be weigh[ed] along with other evidence.” United States v. Quartermaine, 913 F.2d 910, 916 (11th Cir. 1990). See also King, 849 F.2d at 488 (holding that the statutory presumption imposes only a burden of production upon the defendant). After hearing the evidence and considering the arguments, Magistrate Seltzer concluded that the presumption remained unrebutted with respect to the safety of the community, and ordered pretrial detention on that ground alone.
This court conducted a hearing concerning pretrial detention on January 5, 2007. In the following sections ofthis opinion, the court considers the arguments and Case 2:06-cr-00417-CLS -RRA Document 31 Filed 01/09/07 Page 3 of 18 Section 3142(g) requires the court to consider the following information in deciding 5 whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure community safety and prevent flight:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the
offense . . . involves a minor victim . . . ;
(2) the weight of the evidence against the person;
(3) the history and characteristics of the person, including —
(A) the person’s character, physical and mental condition, family ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, past conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, criminal history, and record concerning appearance at court proceedings; and
(B) whether, at the time of the current offense or arrest, the person was on probation, on parole, or on other release pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or completion of sentence for an offense under Federal, State, or local law; and
(4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person’s release. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).
evidence for and against pretrial detention de novo, see King, 849 F.2d at 490, taking
into account the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).5
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Defendants stand before the court charged by an indictment, returned by a grant jury in this District, with one count of conspiring to use minors to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing visual depictions of such conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a) and (e); and seventy-eight counts of transporting and shipping in interstate commerce visual depictions of a minor under Case 2:06-cr-00417-CLS -RRA Document 31 Filed 01/09/07 Page 4 of 18See generally doc. no. 1 (Indictment). “Sexuallyexplicit conduct” is defined to include the 6 “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or public area of any person.” 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(A)(v).
See, e.g., doc. no. 1, ¶¶ 1, 2. 7
Id. at ¶ 9. 8
Id.
9
the age of eighteen engaging in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)
(1). As felony offenses that have been codified within Chapter 110 of Title 6 18, United States Code, they are defined by statute as “crime[s] of violence.” See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3156(a)(4)(c), 3142(g)(1).
2. The court has reviewed the indictment in this case, as well as the transcript from the detention hearing before Magistrate Seltzer and the visual images forming the foundation for Counts Two through Seventy-Eight of the indictment.
Those documents provide credible evidence that defendants committed the offenses with which they have been charged. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(2).
3. Marc Greenberg was the President and Jeffrey Libman was the Vice President of a business entity known as “Webe Web Corporation.” According to the 7 government, Libman was responsible for the computer/internetside of the operation, and he was directly involved in the actual production of the child images. Greenberg 8 was primarily responsible for the business aspects of the operation. Through the 9 corporation, Greenberg and Libman operated and maintained what they purported to Case 2:06-cr-00417-CLS -RRA Document 31 Filed 01/09/07 Page 5 of 18Id. at ¶ 4. 10
Id.
11
Id. at ¶ 6. 12
Id.
13
Id.
14
Id.
15
Id.
16
be “child modeling” websites. Most of the websites featured one child, ranging in 10 age from seven years to approximately sixteen years. 11
4. Individual websites showed either a picture or collage of pictures of the featured child. A viewer was able to click on “enter” and be directed to galleries of 12 preview pictures of the child in various clothing outfits. The viewer was given the 13 option to subscribe to the child’s website for an initial monthly fee of $25.00, followed by subsequent monthly fees of $20.00. Subscribers could view 14 approximately one-hundred pictures of the child in the same outfit as the preview picture. New galleries would be added every ten days to two weeks. 15 16
5. Although the government concedes that the children depicted in the photographs that are the subject of the indictment are “clothed,” the court has viewed the images and believes it would be more appropriate to describe the subjects as “scantily clad.” Moreover, the United States Postal Service Inspector who investigated this case testified before Magistrate Seltzer as to the offending Case 2:06-cr-00417-CLS -RRA Document 31 Filed 01/09/07 Page 6 of 18 Although it is apparently an unsettled question, the Third Circuit has held that, to be 17 deemed a “lascivious exhibition,” the law does not require nudity or discernibilityof the genitals or pubic area. United States v. Knox, 32 F.3d 733, 746 (3d Cir. 1994). See also United States v. Williams, 444 F.3d 1286, 1299 n. 63 (11th Cir. 2006) (noting with curiosity the conclusions of the Knox court). In any case, courts have looked to the following factors in determining whether a depiction is “lascivious,” mindful that agiven imageneed not involve all the factors and that it must be judged by its overall content:
1) whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child’s genitalia or pubic area;United States v. Villard,885 F.2d117,122(3d Cir.1989) (citing United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828, 832 (S.D. Cal. 1986)); see also Williams, 444 F.3d at 1299 n. 62 (noting that “[v]irtually all lower courts that have addressed the meaning of ‘lascivious exhibition’ have embraced the widely followed ‘Dost’ test”). characteristics that render the photographs unlawful “lascivious exhibitions.”17 Without stating which characteristics can be attributed to specific photographs, the Postal Inspector identified the following collection of features that render the images lascivious:
2) whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive — i.e., in a placeor pose generally associated with sexual activity;
3) whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, consideringthe age of the child;
4) whether the child is fully of partially clothed, or nude;
5) whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity;
6) whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in theviewer.
• Focal point – genital or public area;
• Setting – sexually suggestive, such as a bedroom or on a bed; Case 2:06-cr-00417-CLS -RRA Document 31 Filed 01/09/07 Page 7 of 18See generally, e.g., Case No. CR-06-MJ-6418-BSS (S.D. Fla.), Initial Detention Hearing 18 Transcript, pp. 8-9, 53-59. Doc. no. 1, ¶ 10. 19 Id. 20
• Pose – unnatural, such as with legs spread, legs up in the air, hands positioned to draw attention to genital area, or bodies bent over to expose the back side or genital area to the camera;
• Facial expressions – coyness or suggesting interest in sexual activity, such asmouth opened wide;
• Attire – age-inappropriate, such as high heel shoes, thongs (some of which are almost transparent), tight-fitting and small-sized clothing revealing the outline of the pubic area; and
• Intended viewer response – Libman reportedly told one photographer, the more provocative the photograph, the more profitable.18
6. Greenberg, Libman, and Webe Web Corporation also created, owned, and controlled “Babble Club,” an advertising tool and fan club for those persons interested in the children depicted in the website images. Membership in the Babble 19 Club was free, and members received “free sample” images of the children to encourage the purchase of subscriptions to individual child websites. The Babble 20 Club also hosted discussion boards or groups, with separate groups devoted to each Case 2:06-cr-00417-CLS -RRA Document 31 Filed 01/09/07 Page 8 of 18Id. at ¶ 11. 21 Id. 22 Id. 23 Case No. CR-06-MJ-6418-BSS (S.D. Fla.), Initial Detention Hearing Transcript, p. 59. 24 Id. 25
Government’s Ex. 1 at Second Detention Hearing (Government’s Proffer), ¶ 7. 26
child. Members commented on images of children they liked and on the type of 21 clothing and poses they would like to see for each child. Members also wrote poetry 22 to the child and expressed feelings of fondness and devotion to the child. According 23 to the Postal Inspector, the authors of these expressions were usually adult men (not affiliated with the modeling industry), and the content of their expressions were often romantic. Indeed, the removal of a child’s photographs from the website would 24 often generate an outcry from the adult men. 25
7. Although the indictment encompasses the time period of December 2002 through April 2005, Greenberg and Libman actually operated their websites, and continued to collect income therefrom, up to their arrest on November 28, 2006.26 The quantity of income generated from the enterprise was substantial. Investigation has revealed that Greenberg, who has no legitimate source of income, has known bank and benefit accounts containing at least $354,165.49; Libman, who also has no legitimate source of income, has known bank and benefit accounts containing at least $262,982.31; and the corporation has known accounts containing about Case 2:06-cr-00417-CLS -RRA Document 31 Filed 01/09/07 Page 9 of 18Id. at ¶ 8. 27 Id. 28 Id. at ¶ 9. 29 Id. 30 Id. at ¶ 13. 31
$530,000.00. This sum — $1,147,147.80 — does not necessarily represent the 27 totality of the gains. Greenberg, for example, also owns a condominium (which has been seized), and he reportedly boasted to a neighbor about having his “big money” tied up offshore.28
8. During the execution of a search warrant at Libman’s residence, agents discovered photographic backdrops, one of which was in the bedroom. These 29 photographic backdrops reportedly match the backdrops of various child internet images. 30
9. Finally, the government has pointed out that Greenberg and Libman each face substantial prison sentences if convicted of the instant offenses. Each faces a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years’ imprisonment and a maximum sentence of thirty years’imprisonment as to Count One of the indictment (conspiracy to use minors to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing visual depictions of such conduct). Each also faces a mandatory minimum sentence 31 of five years’ imprisonment and a maximum of twenty years’imprisonment as to each of the remaining seventy-seven counts of the indictment (charging transporting and Case 2:06-cr-00417-CLS -RRA Document 31 Filed 01/09/07 Page 10 of 18Id. 32 Id. at ¶ 14. 33 Id. 34
Greenberg Pretrial Services Report, p. 1; Libman Pretrial Services Report, p. 1. 35 Id.; Second Detention Hearing Transcript, pp. 16-19, 54. 36
shipping in interstate commerce visual depictions of a minor under the age of eighteen engaging in sexually explicit conduct). The government further proffered 32 that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines provide for various increases or enhancements based upon the existence of aggravating factors, including: the age of the child victims; the number of victims; the production of materials; and the distribution of materials. Were the government to prevail on all of these potential enhancements, 33 the sentencing range recommended by the advisory Guidelines may very well be higher than the statutory maximum sentence for each of the counts of the indictment.34
10. The pertinent personal history and characteristics of the defendants are significant to this court’s assessment of their candidacy for bond. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3142(g)(3)(A) and (B). Greenberg and Libman were born in Ohio and New York, respectively, and therefore are United States citizens. Greenberg has lived in South 35 Florida for thirty-three years, and currently resides with his girlfriend in Broward County. Libman is single and has no children, but has resided in South Florida for 36 Case 2:06-cr-00417-CLS -RRA Document 31 Filed 01/09/07 Page 11 of 18E.g., id. at pp. 26-27, 54. 37 Id. at pp. 16-19, 26-27. 38 E.g., id. at pp. 14, 23, 32; Initial Detention Hearing Transcript, pp 79-80. 39 Second Detention Hearing Transcript,pp. 23, 60-62; Initial Detention Hearing Transcript, 40 pp. 71-72, 79-81. E.g., Initial Detention Hearing Transcript, p. 78. 41 Second Detention Hearing Transcript, pp. 30, 33. 42
Greenberg Pretrial Services Report, p. 3; Libman Pretrial Services Report, p. 2. 43 Greenberg Pretrial Services Report, p. 1. 44
thirty-one years. Multiple members of both defendants’familiesreside in the South 37 Florida area, and many of them appeared at the detention hearings to show their 38 support and offer testimony. Indeed, members of both defendants’ families, as well 39
as some friends, were willing to co-sign on a bond to help ensure their appearance at
trial. Greenberg reported that he does not possess a passport and has never traveled 40
outside the United States, while Libman’s passport apparently has expired and he
41
has not traveled outside the United States in at least ten, and possibly as many as
twenty, years. The Pretrial Services Report shows that an automated check of law 42
enforcement data bases reflected no criminal history for either Greenberg or
Libman.
43
11. According to the Pretrial Services Reports, Greenberg has been
employed by the Webe Web Corporation for the past ten years. Libman’s Report 44
does not list an employer, but it does reveal that he previously held a position as a
Case 2:06-cr-00417-CLS -RRA Document 31 Filed 01/09/07 Page 12 of 18 Libman Pretrial Services Report, p. 2. 45
Greenberg Pretrial Services Report, p. 2. 46
Government’s Proffer, ¶ 8. 47
Doc. no. 1, ¶¶ 1, 2. 48
-13-
musician. Greenberg reported a monthly income of $10,000, but the Pretrial 45
Services Report estimates his net worth at more than $1,272,000. Libman has 46
known bank accounts containing approximately $263,000.47
12. The court reviewed and received evidence concerning the nature and
seriousness of the danger to the community that would be posed by the release of the
defendants. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(4). Greenberg was the President, and Libman
was the Vice President, of the company that was responsible for the distribution of
large numbers of images of children engaged in the apparent “lascivious exhibition
of the genitals or pubic area,” which Congress has defined as “sexually explicit
conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(A)(v). Greenberg and Libman distributed these
48
photographs over a period ofseveral years and garnered substantial wealth from their
activities. Indeed, as mentioned above, Libman allegedly told one of the
photographers that the more provocative the photograph, the more profitable it would
be. Both Greenberg and Libman ran a website that functioned as a fan-club forum,
in which adult men would post romantic expressions of their fondness for the child
Case 2:06-cr-00417-CLS -RRA Document 31 Filed 01/09/07 Page 13 of 18 Initial Detention Hearing Transcript, p. 59. 49
Second Detention Hearing Transcript, pp. 9-13; Government’s Proffer, ¶ 9. 50
Second Detention Hearing Transcript, pp. 18, 27. 51
Id. at p. 31. As for day care centers and schools, however, the parents of both Greenberg 52
and Libman testified that they are at least several miles removed. Id. at pp. 20, 31-32.
-14-
models. Finally, as previously noted, photographic backdrops and outfits similar 49
to those appearing in photographs were found in Libman’s residence.50
13. Magistrate Seltzer based his order of detention upon the finding that no
condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure the safety
of any other person and the community. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). The court
respectfully disagrees with this conclusion. Both defendants have proposed living
with their respective parent (or parents) in their South Florida homes pending trial.
51
Keeping in mind that the defendants are not accused of child molestation or other
physical contact with children, one principal risk associated with pretrial release is,
nonetheless, the government’s concern that defendants might continue to associate
with children. In other words, the fear is that, left alone, defendants could locate new
victims. Neither Greenberg’s nor Libman’s parents have children residing in their
homes. Libman’s father testified, however, that his house is located approximately
three-hundred feet from houses where neighborhood children live. Additionally, 52
there is a fear that, given internet access, the defendants could continue to operate
their business, committing further violations of the law. Both households currently
Case 2:06-cr-00417-CLS -RRA Document 31 Filed 01/09/07 Page 14 of 18Id. at pp. 21-22, 33. 53
Id. at pp. 20-21, 28. 54
Id. at pp. 17-18; 27-29. Greenberg’s brother, who also lives with his father, actually runs 55
an online T-shirt business out ofhis father’s home, but the father agreed on the record to temporarily
disconnect the internet access if this court called for that action as a condition of release. Id. at pp.
17-18.
Id. at p. 3. 56
-15-
have internet access. On the record, however, family members of both defendants
have assured that they could personally supervise the defendants’ activities at all
times, keeping them away from children, and also preventing any access to the 53 54
internet. Their assurances, combined with a substantial bond, home detention 55
without internet access, home monitoring, and daily reports to Pretrial Services,
appear to this court to be sufficient bulwarks against a continuing threat to public
safety. The court therefore declines to find that there exists no condition or
combination of conditions of release that will reasonably assure the safety of any
other person and the community. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e).
14. Although the government did not argue before Magistrate Seltzer that
there exists no condition or combination of conditions of release that will reasonably
assure the defendants’ appearances at trial, see 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), that is precisely
the argument that has been made to this court. The court agrees that there is 56
significant motivation for flight. As outlined above, both defendants face lengthy
Case 2:06-cr-00417-CLS -RRA Document 31 Filed 01/09/07 Page 15 of 18 Government’s Proffer, ¶ 14. 57
Id. at ¶ 12. 58
Initial Detention Hearing Transcript, p. 78; Second Detention Hearing Transcript, p. 33. 59
Second Detention Hearing Transcript, pp. 60, 61. 60
Id. at p. 62. 61
Id. at pp. 60, 61. 62
-16-
prison sentences if convicted. Both live in an area of the country that is renowned 57
as an international travel portal, and at least one (Greenberg) is believed to have offshore bank accounts. On the other hand, neither currently has a valid passport, and 58 59
counsel for defendants indicated that their clients would submit to the attachment of
Global Positioning Satellite (“GPS”) ankle monitors or other equivalent devices,
60
plus bear the expense of telephone caller identification systems that would enable
Pretrial Services to confirm the caller’s location. The court has received counsels’ 61
invitation to require a considerable bond as well. In light of all this, the court 62
believes that specially tailored conditions of release will insure against the risk of
flight. Therefore, the court declines to find that there exists no condition or
combination of conditions of release that will reasonably assure the defendants’
appearances as required by the court. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e).
III. CONCLUSIONS
1. Based upon the above findings of fact, this court concludes that pretrial
release of the defendants on bond under conditions prescribed by this court will not
Case 2:06-cr-00417-CLS -RRA Document 31 Filed 01/09/07 Page 16 of 18-17-
present an unreasonable risk of flight. The court is not unsympathetic to the
government’s concerns, but cannot overlook the fact that there are multiple conditions
of release that will serve to neutralize the risk. Requiring a large bond will tie up
assets; requiring confinement in the parents’ homes will ensure constant supervision;
disconnection of internet access will preclude further exposure of illegal child
pornography; home monitoring will provide the government with twenty-four hour
knowledge of defendants’ whereabouts; and daily reports to Pretrial Services officers
will confirm defendants’ compliance with the court’s orders. These conditions are
not exhaustive. They will be listed in precise detail in the two orders that accompany
this opinion.
2. Based upon the above findings of fact, this court concludes that the
release of the defendants on bond prior to trial will not present an unreasonable
danger to persons and to the community. Again, there are specific counter-measures
that will sufficiently protect the community. Even so, this court notes that it is not
presently persuaded by the defense argument that the visual depictions at issue here,
in which the children are photographed “clothed,” poses less of a danger than the
visual depictions in which children are photographed nude, or engaging in sexual
activity. Whether it is constitutional to proscribe photography of “clothed” children
is an issue of substantive law that may or may not need to be addressed later in this
Case 2:06-cr-00417-CLS -RRA Document 31 Filed 01/09/07 Page 17 of 18-18-
case. The fact that the children in the photographs forming the basis of this
indictment are wearing some form of clothing, however, does not mean that the
alleged perpetrators are somehow less threatening to children than those who insist
that their victims be naked. The court’s rationale in permitting pretrial release is
simply that there are practicable means by which the government can keep track of
defendants and simultaneously prevent further harm without the necessity of pretrial
imprisonment. Our constitutional norms are decidedly against unnecessary restraint
of liberty, and the Bail Reform Act reflects that stance, expressly preserving the
constitutional presumption of innocence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(j).
Separate orders specifying the conditions for releasing each defendant pending
trial shall be entered contemporaneously herewith.
DONE this 9th day of January, 2007.
______________________________
United States District Judge
Case 2:06-cr-00417-CLS -RRA Document 31 Filed 01/09/07 Page 18 of 18
_________________________________________________________________________________
Photographer said to help in porn case
Sun Sentinel - March 9, 2007
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — An Alabama photographer who pleaded guilty to taking suggestive pictures of young girls is cooperating with authorities pursuing child pornography charges against a Florida-based Web site where hundreds of the images were posted, attorneys in the case said Thursday.
Jeff Pierson, 44, of Brookwood could become a key government witness against two Fort Lauderdale men -- Marc Evan Greenberg and Jeffrey Robert Libman -- who were indicted in December on charges related to their Webe Web Internet site, where customers paid to look at photos that included images of young girls in underwear, bathing suits and adult-style lingerie.
Pierson pleaded guilty Wednesday to federal child pornography charges and faces a minimum sentence of five years in prison.
"He's doing everything he can to cooperate," said his lawyer, Richard Jaffe.
Prosecutors said Pierson was paid $270,000 for taking "child modeling" photos that were posted on the Webe Web site, which has since been shut down. Authorities said it was one of the largest Internet sites of its type.
Greenberg, 42, and Libman, 39, pleaded not guilty to child pornography charges in December and are free on bond. While their Web site operated from Florida, Pierson's involvement provided the link for their indictment in Alabama.
Children shown on the Web site were clothed, but prosecutors contend the photos amounted to pornography because of the way young girls were depicted as sexual objects. Many parents were unaware of the type of photos Pierson was taking of their children, prosecutors said.
An attorney for Libman said his client and Greenberg were innocent because photos on the Web site were open to interpretation and not patently pornographic.
Pierson remains in the photography business, "but he's not in the child modeling business at all" anymore, Jaffe said.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Florida Corporation Pleads Guilty to Transportation of Child Pornography and Conspiracy to Produce Child Pornography
The Business Journal - April 22, 2010
President and Director of Corporation Pleads Guilty to Money Laundering
WASHINGTON, April 22 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Webe Web Corporation, a Floridacorporation and the registered owner of several websites, pleaded guilty yesterday to one count of conspiracy to produce child pornography and 16 counts of transporting child pornography, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Criminal Division and U.S. AttorneyJoyce White Vance of the Northern District of Alabama. Marc Evan Greenberg, 45, of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and the president and director of Webe Web, also pleaded guilty yesterday to one count of money laundering.
Webe Web Corporation and Greenberg pleaded guilty before U.S. District Court Judge C. Lynwood Smith in the Northern District of Alabama.
According to court documents, Webe Web was the registered owner of the website "www.childsupermodels.com," which purported to be a child modeling website that promoted models 7 through 16 years old and their photographers. It contained hyperlinks to websites containing photographs of individual "child super models" featuring minor female children in various poses and wardrobes.
Greenberg and Webe Web admitted that the websites pertaining to 16 different children contained illegal images of child pornography. In some of the photos, the victims, all girls aged 8 to 15, were wearing underwear, lingerie, bathing suits and other revealing outfits, and were posed in positions that constituted child pornography.
According to court documents, viewers of the websites could preview a certain number of images for free on the website homepage. If viewers wanted to join the website to access additional photographs, they could purchase a 30-day membership for approximately $30 per month. Greenberg and Webe Web admitted that the websites depicting the sixteen victims generated approximately $1 million in revenue.
Webe Web also admitted that it promoted subscriptions to these individual sites through its free advertising website known as Babble Club. On Babble Club's website, members could receive a free sample of images of the children. According to court documents, the website encouraged the purchase of subscriptions to the individual websites of the children, and hosted discussion boards and groups which were devoted to each individual website. Babble Club members made postings to the discussion boards, which included comments on specific images they liked, the type of clothing and poses they liked, and poetry written to the photographed child. Certain members posted expressions of fondness and devotion for a photographed child.
According to court documents, the photographs of the 16 victims in this case were taken by Jeff Pierson, a former photographer based in the Birmingham, Ala., area. Pierson pleaded guilty in January 2007 to conspiracy to transport child pornography and transportation of child pornography.
Co-defendant Jeffrey Robert Libman, the vice president and director of Webe Web, was charged in anOctober 2006 indictment with conspiracy to produce child pornography and transportation of child pornography. These charges against Libman are pending and he is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
According to its plea agreement, Webe Web will forfeit $1 million and 19 internet domain names. Sentencing for Greenberg and Webe Web is scheduled for Aug. 19, 2010. At sentencing, Greenberg will face up to 10 years in prison.
This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jim Phillips and Daniel J. Fortune of the Northern District of Alabama, Assistant Deputy Chief Alexandra Gelber of the Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), and Assistant U.S. Attorney Elizabeth Yusi, a former CEOS Trial Attorney.
This case was investigated by the FBI and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. The Document and Media Exploitation Branch of the National Drug Intelligence Center provided assistance in ascertaining the revenue flow of this criminal enterprise to support analysis of and to identify the ill gotten gains of the defendants.
_________________________________________________________________________________
President of Florida Corporation Sentenced to 33 Months in Prison for Money Laundering Related to Child Pornography Distribution
United States Department of Justice - January 14, 2011
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, January 14, 2011
President of Florida Corporation Sentenced to 33 Months in Prison for Money Laundering Related to Child Pornography Distribution
WASHINGTON – The president and co-director of a Florida corporation was sentenced today to 33 months in prison for money laundering related to proceeds generated by the corporation through its distribution of child pornography, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Joyce White Vance of the Northern District of Alabama. The corporation, Webe Web Corporation, also was sentenced today to five years of probation for child pornography charges.
Marc Evan Greenberg, 45, of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., pleaded guilty in the Northern District of Alabama on April 21, 2010, to one count of money laundering. Webe Web pleaded guilty on April 21, 2010, to one count of conspiracy to produce child pornography and 16 counts of transporting child pornography. U.S. District Court Judge C. Lynwood Smith also sentenced Greenberg to three years of supervised release to follow his prison term and ordered Greenberg to pay $900,000 in restitution to six victims.
According to court documents, Webe Web was the registered owner of the website "www.childsupermodels.com," which purported to be a child modeling website that promoted models 7 through 16 years old and their photographers. It contained hyperlinks to websites containing photographs of individual “child super models” featuring minor female children in various poses and wardrobes.
Greenberg and Webe Web admitted that the websites pertaining to 16 different children contained illegal images of child pornography. In some of the photos, the victims, all girls aged 8 to 15, were wearing underwear, lingerie, bathing suits and other revealing outfits, and were posed in positions that constituted child pornography.
According to court documents, viewers of the websites could preview a certain number of images for free on the website homepage. If viewers wanted to join the website to access additional photographs, they could purchase a 30-day membership for approximately $30 per month. Greenberg and Webe Web admitted that the websites depicting the 16 victims generated approximately $1 million in revenue.
Webe Web also admitted that it promoted subscriptions to these individual sites through its free advertising website known as Babble Club. On Babble Club’s website, members could receive a free sample of images of the children. According to court documents, the website encouraged the purchase of subscriptions to the individual websites of the children, and hosted discussion boards and groups which were devoted to each individual website. Babble Club members made postings to the discussion boards, which included comments on specific images they liked, the type of clothing and poses they liked, and poetry written to the photographed child. Certain members posted expressions of fondness and devotion for a photographed child.
The vice president and co-director of Webe Web, Jeffrey Robert Libman, pleaded guilty on Sept. 15, 2010, to 16 counts of transporting child pornography and was sentenced on Dec. 17, 2010, to 108 months in prison.
According to court documents, the photographs of the 16 victims in this case were taken by Jeff Pierson, a former photographer based in the Birmingham, Ala., area. Pierson pleaded guilty in January 2007 to conspiracy to transport child pornography and transportation of child pornography.
This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jim Phillips and Daniel J. Fortune of the Northern District of Alabama, and Assistant Deputy Chief Alexandra Gelber of the Criminal Division’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS).
This case was investigated by the FBI and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. The Document and Media Exploitation Branch of the National Drug Intelligence Center provided assistance in ascertaining the revenue flow of this criminal enterprise to support analysis of and to identify the ill gotten gains of the defendants.
Federal Bureau Inmate Locator
United States Federal Bureau of Prisions. - August 9, 2013
_________________________________________________________________________________
Federal Bureau Inmate Locator
United States Federal Bureau of Prisions. - August 9, 2013
_________________________________________________________________________________
FAIR USE NOTICE
Some of the information on The Awareness Center's web pages may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml . If you wish to use copyrighted material from this update for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
_________________________________________________________________________________
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." –– Margaret Mead
_________________________________________________________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment