GREG STEPHEN HAS ADMITTED TO FILMING PLAYERS NAKED

Wow.

From the Gazette article in the Tweet ...

Stephen shouldn’t be “punished” under this charge because he transported digital images of teenage boys that aren’t pornographic and don’t involve lascivious depictions of the minors, he said.

Meyer points out that the teens didn’t know they were being recorded, there’s no evidence they were touched or directed to pose, the camera doesn’t focus on the teens’ anatomy, and the images weren’t distributed.


 
Wow.

From the Gazette article in the Tweet ...

Stephen shouldn’t be “punished” under this charge because he transported digital images of teenage boys that aren’t pornographic and don’t involve lascivious depictions of the minors, he said.

Meyer points out that the teens didn’t know they were being recorded, there’s no evidence they were touched or directed to pose, the camera doesn’t focus on the teens’ anatomy, and the images weren’t distributed.


But teenage boys had their innocence permanently revoked. And no price tag can cover that bill.

The stigma could haunt them for a lifetime. No price tag for that either.
 
It doesn't take deep thought to know its wrong to tape high school basketball players taking showers after practice.
The guy should have the book thrown at him. Its all pretty disgusting.
 
At the end of the day all of the aforementioned in the Gazette article, none of which is false, will get his sentence greatly reduced. It won't take too much for a lawyer to jump on those angles.

But he can never convince me that he didnt betray trust, and he never will. I've heard the story from a mother of one of the boys and how she had to explain certain things to a thirteen year old (a conversation you hope to never have with your child). Trust means a thing or two to me. I've been married twenty one years. You don't survive a marriage in this day and age, with all the modern pressures and social capabilities, without strong trust.
 
Sounds like he'll get off just like the NSA's been doing for several decades. What a wonderful world we live in.
 
But teenage boys had their innocence permanently revoked. And no price tag can cover that bill.

The stigma could haunt them for a lifetime. No price tag for that either.

Yes and No. What he did was reprehensible, but at least he didn't have contact with the boys... like Sandusky. There's quite a difference between secretly taping someone and engaging them directly. Now do NOT knee jerk and say I'm defending a pervert. I AM NOT. He needs to be punished for what he did, betraying the trust of the parents and kids he was supposed to be working FOR. Just pointing out it's significantly less serious than actual contact with a kid. (which has happened to someone in my extended family). No doubt they feel violated, but it's nothing like being physically abused. Thank god it didn't go to that level.
 
Yes and No. What he did was reprehensible, but at least he didn't have contact with the boys... like Sandusky. There's quite a difference between secretly taping someone and engaging them directly. Now do NOT knee jerk and say I'm defending a pervert. I AM NOT. He needs to be punished for what he did, betraying the trust of the parents and kids he was supposed to be working FOR. Just pointing out it's significantly less serious than actual contact with a kid. (which has happened to someone in my extended family). No doubt they feel violated, but it's nothing like being physically abused. Thank god it didn't go to that level.
Didn't one of the boys wake up to Greg pleasuring himself next to him?
 
It will be interesting to see how this goes: The statement about contact was his. A March articles suggests contact may have occurred.

Images of child pornography are not protected under First Amendment rights, and are illegal contraband under federal law. Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor. Undeveloped film, undeveloped videotape, and electronically stored data that can be converted into a visual image of child pornography are also deemed illegal visual depictions under federal law.

Notably, the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that an image depict a child engaging in sexual activity. A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive. Additionally, the age of consent for sexual activity in a given state is irrelevant; any depiction of a minor under 18 years of age engaging in sexually explicit conduct is illegal.

Federal law prohibits the production, distribution, reception, and possession of an image of child pornography using or affecting any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce (See 18 U.S.C. § 2251; 18 U.S.C. § 2252; 18 U.S.C. § 2252A). Specifically, Section 2251 makes it illegal to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for purposes of producing visual depictions of that conduct. Any individual who attempts or conspires to commit a child pornography offense is also subject to prosecution under federal law.

Federal jurisdiction is implicated if the child pornography offense occurred in interstate or foreign commerce. This includes, for example, using the U.S. Mails or common carriers to transport child pornography across state or international borders. Additionally, federal jurisdiction almost always applies when the Internet is used to commit a child pornography violation. Even if the child pornography image itself did not travel across state or international borders, federal law may be implicated if the materials, such as the computer used to download the image or the CD-ROM used to store the image, originated or previously traveled in interstate or foreign commerce.

In addition, Section 2251A of Title 18, United States Code, specifically prohibits any parent, legal guardian or other person in custody or control of a minor under the age of 18, to buy, sell, or transfer custody of that minor for purposes of producing child pornography.

Lastly, Section 2260 of Title 18, United States Code, prohibits any persons outside of the United States to knowingly produce, receive, transport, ship, or distribute child pornography with intent to import or transmit the visual depiction into the United States.

Any violation of federal child pornography law is a serious crime, and convicted offenders face severe statutory penalties. For example, a first time offender convicted of producing child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2251, face fines and a statutory minimum of 15 years to 30 years maximum in prison. A first time offender convicted of transporting child pornography in interstate or foreign commerce under 18 U.S.C. § 2252, faces fines and a statutory minimum of 5 years to 20 years maximum in prison. Convicted offenders may face harsher penalties if the offender has prior convictions or if the child pornography offense occurred in aggravated situations defined as (i) the images are violent, sadistic, or masochistic in nature, (ii) the minor was sexually abused, or (iii) the offender has prior convictions for child sexual exploitation. In these circumstances, a convicted offender may face up to life imprisonment.

It is important to note that an offender can be prosecuted under state child pornography laws in addition to, or instead of, federal law.
 
A legal interpretation:
So, how is child pornography defined?

Under federal law, child pornography means "any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct."

Though many acts are obviously sexually explicit, "sexually explicit conduct" under federal law also includes "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person." Federal court have identified some factors to help decide whether genitals in particular images constitute a lascivious exhibition. These factors include:

  • Whether the genitals or pubic area are the image's focal point;
  • Whether the setting is sexually suggestive;
  • Whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose or age-inappropriate attire;
  • Whether the subject is nude, partially or fully clothed;
  • Whether the image suggests a willingness to engage in sexual activity; and
  • Whether the image is intended to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.
 
If these were local charges I'd be concerned. You don't beat the Feds.

Since the didn't know it wont be seen as horsing around. He's toast

My guess 8 to 12 years.assuming contact is not a part of this case. Probably on the lighter side of this range.
 
When the kid in question gives testimony about this instance and they add it to the video evidence, it will weigh heavily against Greg.
I would sure as hell hope so. He's even arguing that the tapes or whatever form it's in were acquired illegally. If his lawyer is able to sell that to the judge and walk...
Does it really matter how evidence is acquired in something like this? I mean if you are guilty as sin of committing the worst of worst crimes (outside of murder itself) then how's it matter? I get entrapment by police and things like that but that isn't what this was. Not even close. The ex brother in law or whatever he is to him that saw it and did what he did turning it over is a hero. Nothing short of it
 
Whoa...really? That takes it to another level.
"Taking matters into his own hands" in view of players did happen on at least two occasions and is up there with the most henious of his actions. Other than that what you said is 100% fact and I understand perfectly that it is short of Jerry Sandusky territory. He should still be in a world of hurt all the same and I still thank God he was mainly looking for post players March of 2017 when my son tried out for his team. The fact that the tapes seemed to be for his own perverse pleasure (e.g. no internet posts, no distribution, no direct contact with the kids will save him from a more grisly fate. Then it becomes a trust issue and a lost innocence issue that any parent or player can testify to on a witness stand. Hats off to anyone who has the courage to do it and thoughts to you extended family member who lives a nightmare that poor defense and ridiculous contract extensions will never touch in a thousand lifetimes.
 

Latest posts

Top