URGENT notice from trafficcashgold

[rscott]

LOS ANGELES – The FBI is reportedly investigating allegations that a performer using the name Mieke Michele Jackson was underage while working in the adult industry.
Jackson was allegedly using the stage names Seduction and Chantae.

The Free Speech Coalition sent out an alert advising all adult professionals to remove content associated with any performers named Seduction or Chantae and “seal it for attorney review and consultation.”

The age of the actress at the time she performed in adult films and how many films she appeared in remains unconfirmed.

The FSC also stated that Jackson has in her possession government-issued IDs to prove her alleged age, specifically, a California DMV-issued ID, with the date of birth listed as July 22, 1982, and a social security card, both with the name Mieke Michele Jackson.

"We have no knowledge as to the validity of the IDs in her possession," the FSC said.

Industry attorney Greg Piccionelli told XBiz that he had been contacted earlier by a party who was contacted by the FBI regarding Jackson.

Piccionelli confirmed that Jackson is African-American, but was unsure of her stage name Seduction or subsequent stage names.

“There appears to be a person who has done some photography and video in the industry known as Mieka Jackson who seems to have presented false identification and we’re looking into it,” Piccionelli said. “This could very well be another Traci Lords,” he said, referring to the 1980s actress who worked in more than 100 adult films while underage.

Piccionelli added that the Jackson case could possibly have ramifications for the FSC lawsuit with the Justice Department if in fact Jackson was a minor when she performed in adult videos.

“There is a chance we might be seeing 2257 inspections based around this person,” he said

[Maj. Stress]

Originally Posted by rscott

Piccionelli added that the Jackson case could possibly have ramifications for the FSC lawsuit with the Justice Department if in fact Jackson was a minor when she performed in adult videos.

I'm not sure I understand that statement.
All I see is that someone underage somehow obtained illegal documentation. The focus on this should have nothing to do with 2257 issues but does raise a question as to how the illegal documents were obtained.

[SirMoby]

Originally Posted by Maj. Stress

I'm not sure I understand that statement.
All I see is that someone underage somehow obtained illegal documentation. The focus on this should have nothing to do with 2257 issues but does raise a question as to how the illegal documents were obtained.

I'm guessing here but ....

If she obtained valid government issued IDs just like Tacy Lords then it's a good example of how 2257 does nothing to protect minors. On the other hand if they accepted something silly such as a school ID then it could give 2257 some traction.

[lassiter]

Originally Posted by Maj. Stress

I'm not sure I understand that statement.
All I see is that someone underage somehow obtained illegal documentation. The focus on this should have nothing to do with 2257 issues but does raise a question as to how the illegal documents were obtained.

The 2257 issue is that this shows that the 2257 regs do not, and can not, in any way prevent underage models from appearing in adult porn content. Presumably the primary producer and the sponsor have all their 2257 docs for this model in impeccable shape - so what? Nothing in 2257 prevents deliberate deceit on the part of an underage model.

I think the judge ruling on the validity of 2257 regs would have to look at this case as an example and agree with the FSC that the regulations do not and can not do what the DoJ claims for them (to prevent underage models from appearing in porn shoots), and therefore the claim that 2257 creates an "unnecessary burden" on producers and sponsors is a valid one.