Webeweb's Sandi and Lily Speak Out: "We are NOT Victims"

The notion of there being "victims" of the Webeweb child modeling websites is ridiculous. "Victims" of photos, fully clothed? It trivializes the very concept of victimhood. Now come Sandi and and Lily, two former Webeweb models, to proclaim that they were definitely NOT "victims." They appeared on youtube, here and here, in two clips making affirmative statements that they were never victims, enjoyed modeling and benefitted from the experience. Sandi (Shekinah Christian Pierson) is the daughter of Jeff Pierson, who photographed her and 15 other Webeweb models, most notoriously Savannah Haile (a/k/a Bailey model), who made a number of spurious complaints about her photo sessions when the government came knocking. (One can guess that her mother was alarmed at the prospect of being charged with supplying her daughter to alleged child pornographers. Much better to be a "victim," no?)

Pierson already pled guilty in 2005, with a few months of the arrests, and agreed to provide information and testify against Marc Greenberg and Jeff Libman, the principals of Webeweb. On February 11 of this year, Pierson was sentenced to 67 months, of which he will have to serve 57 months (85% of the sentence) -- just under five years. (There is no parole in the federal system and no release earlier than that 85% sentence completion.) As Pierson was not yet technically in jail, but "merely" confined to his home on electronic monitoring for 6 years, he surrendered himself on March 9, 2011. The next time he'll see the light of day is December 2016. On his release from prison, he'll be on supervised release for 10 years. During that time, if he commits another "offense" of any kind, or leaves the jurisdiction without permission of his probation officer, or fails to notify his probation officer that he has a new job or residence, or he gets excessively drunk, or assosciates with anyone convicted of a felony, or engages in numerous other activities the government might not like, he can be sent back to jail for whatever remains of that ten year supervised release period. It's a Sword of Damocles. Pierson will also have to register as a Sex Offender. Failure to keep his registration information current can result in new charges, subjecting him to a 10 year prison sentence IN ADDITION to imprisonment for the rest of his supervisory period. Pierson's body, personal property and residence will be subject to search, with or without a warrant during this time. He will have to participate in a "mental health" treatment program. Around 2027, he'll finally be free.

Jeff Libman will never be free. He got 108 months (9 years, serving 8 years and 7 months) but will be on supervised release for life (in addition to having to register as a sex offender). All for pictures of fully clothed girls that he didn't even take. It's a total abuse of human rights. Marc Greenberg was a bit luckier. The government allowed him to plead guilty to money laundering under 18 U.S.C. 3353(a)(1)(6). He was hoping to get probation, but he was sentenced to 33 (serving 2 years and 4 months) months with a "mere" 3 years of supervised release.

If Pierson cooperated, why did he receive a higher sentence than Greenberg? Aren't informants supposed to be prized by the government? Well, the government argued how magnanimous it was in a very revealing sentencing memorandum filed with the court on February 7, 2011. "The pre-sentence report," the government noted,

"correctly calculates an offense level 33 and a criminal history category I [for Pierson], resulting in a Guidelines sentencing range of 135-168 months. Howevever, the government has filed a motion for a downward departure under United States Sentencing Guideline Section 5K1.1 based on the defendant's substantial assistance. U.S.S.G. Section 5K1.1 allows for consideration of substantial assistance in the investigation of another person and substantial weight should be given to the government's evaluation of the extent of the defendant's assistance, particularly where the extent and value of the assistance are difficult to ascertain."

"Difficult to ascertain." Pause over those words for a moment. Why was his assistance "difficult to ascertain"? Because, as the government admitted in the very next sentence, the government's case was deeply flawed:

"The government's investigation involved commercial websites, more than a terabit of data on several computer servers at various locations, co-conspirators, UNCOOPERATIVE WITNESSES, numerous accounts and NO BINDING CASE LAW within the Eleventh Circuit. For the aforementioned reasons ... the defendant's assistance warrants a downward departure to a sentence of 67 months followed by 10 years of supervised release."

(The capital letters were not in the original.)

So Pierson's information wasn't that valuable. The government's case was hobbled by uncooperative witnesses, i.e., girls and parents who refused to do the government's bidding, and the inconvenient truth that there was "no binding case law" that could guarantee conviction. Indeed, there was no binding case law anywhere because the theory of criminality in the Webeweb case -- that modeling pictures constitute child pornography -- is insane. (Not even the Third Circuit precedent of United States v. Knox would have been terribly useful in the case of Webeweb, where there was no "zooming in" on the clothing covering the genitals.) Still, all of the defendants wisely pleaded guilty here because none of them wanted to risk being sentenced to a guaranteed 20-30 years in jail upon conviction. Not incidently, "all" of the defendants means Pierson, Libman and Greenberg. There were other photographers, but none of them were ever charged and none will be.

Why did Marc Greenberg get a lower sentence? The government accepted the fact that he sought advice of counsel to ascertain whether the images Webeweb was buying and selling were legal. Renowned California criminal defense attorney Jeffrey Douglas told Greenberg they were, but that opinion was still not enough to save Greenberg from being unjustly imprisoned. Douglas assured Greenberg with facts, among them, that Greenberg had no criminal record, no previous history wtih pornography and that the highest law enforcement agency in the State of Florida had been monitoring Webeweb for years and did not find the images illegal. And Greenberg believed him. The government credited that belief to some degree. (While Douglas's advice saved Greenberg a lot of years in jail on the plea, it may not have saved Greenberg from conviction if he went to trial. "Advice of counsel" is a completely untested defense in this area.)

But Pierson had also sought legal advice. Pierson's lawyer proclaimed the images legal and Pierson also knew that the DHR in Tuscaloosa, where Pierson lived, had investigated him and found no cause to take any action. Funny enough, though, Greenberg told the government that he sought legal advice BECAUSE OF Pierson's images, while Pierson told the government that he sought legal advice because he argued with Libman that his images should be LESS provocative. The goverment took the bizarre position that Pierson was simply acting in his economic interest by arguing for LESS provocative images and was not earnestly concerned about running afoul of the law. This makes no sense, but it's precisely the kind of "through the looking glass" argument one can expect from the U.S. Justice Department, one moment claiming that the defendants were pushing the limits of the law in order to make the most money they could and the next moment claiming that they wanted less provocative images to make even more money. That prosecutors can make such arguments with a straight face is deplorable.

So what about Pierson's "victims"? Pierson maintained (and Sandi and Lily attest to it) that each parent knew of the images, were present for the shootings or had access to the pictures. Nevertheless, when Pierson's "victims -- i.e., the 16 girls he photographed -- were pushed by the government, 6 agreed to request restitution (a few asked for $150,000 each); 6 declined (some of them vehemently), 3 others refused even to speak with the Governent regarding the issue and 1 is Sandi, his daughter. It's not really a surprise that 6 agreed with the government's request to push for restitution. After all, through these prosecutions they learned that Webeweb made well over a million dollars (albeit now forfeited to the government). It was like, "wake up and smell the money."

Images courtesy the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.