Thursday, July 3, 2014

The Letter

Edit: TLDR Summary
I have sent the below letter to the FBI tomorrow in response to their press release dated June 25th, 2014.


TLDR Notes:
My main points are simple.

1) Sex is a legal act.
2) Getting paid for sex is legal (see below, and California's enormous porn industry).
3) What has been criminalized is the discussing of getting paid with someone that would enjoy it.
4) And paying to enjoy sex personally.

Because #3 and #4 are speech, and not a criminal act, what has been criminalized is the speech of an otherwise noncriminal activity.

Also, in the FBI's announcement, they take credit for 2 other acts against free speech.
1) The removal of the Terms and Acronym list.
2) The shutting down of the MyRedbook VIP forums.

To protest each of these unlawful interferences with public and private speech, I have done the following.

1) Reposted the Terms and Acronym list in this blog.
2) Stated the claim on record that I was a VIP and used the forums often for speech purposes.

As such,

1) If the posting of the Terms and Acronym list was truly a crime, then the FBI should charge me with that same crime.
2) If the speech in the VIP forums was truly criminal, then they should charge me with such criminal activity as well.

However, what the FBI knows is that these were 'Speech' that was protected, and therefore lawful.

And the FBI not charging me is further proof that it was not a criminal speech but lawful speech that was happening in the VIP forums by many of its members.



(posted July 3rd, 2014 on


U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag of the Northern District of California
Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division
Special Agent in Charge David J. Johnson of the FBI’s San Francisco Field Office

To all those concerned, including the above mentioned persons,

My name is Bruce Boston, and I am a longstanding citizen of the USA and a 4th generation Californian.  I am also a longtime supporter and proponent of 1st Amendment Protected Free Speech and Free Expression Rights, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protected Rights of Privacy, and 4th Amendment Search Warrant Protections.  And I was taught from the time I was young, that "Rights are won by those who make their voices heard."

As a result of the FBI press release posted June 25, 2014, titled "California Operators of Website Arrested for Facilitating Prostitution and Money Laundering"; it has come to my attention that the FBI has seized data and information regarding my activity as a “VIP Member” of the MyRedBook community, data which may include password protected anonymous speech records, password protected "private forum" activity records and password protected "search activity".

I hereby state for the record, that I was a MyRedBook VIP member, and enjoyed the use of those "private and public forums" for the purposes of speech which had heightened expectations of privacy as characterized by anonymous, password protected speech on the Internet. (see:

It's my understanding that the FBI considers all speech activities on the domain 'unprotected speech' under the presumption that this speech was conducted entirety for the purpose of pursuing criminal activities.  The following is written in part as a response to that unsupported legal presumption, in a hope that this presumption be curtailed from use in future FBI search and seizure warrant requests.

Additionally, from the FBI Press Release dated June 25th 2014, it is also my understanding that the FBI believes that the “Terms and Acronyms” section of was unprotected speech due to its apparent lewdness or offensive nature to some members of the public, and to some members of the FBI itself.

Even so, I am under a different opinion. And I believe that the “Terms and Acronyms”  section was (and still is) protected speech.  That this “Terms and Acronyms” section is not without perfectly legal applications under both state and federal laws.  That this speech as found in the “Terms and Acronyms” section is not content which reaches the US Court's definition of Obscene Speech, and that this speech as found in the “Terms and Acronyms” section is thus protected speech under the US Constitution's 1st Amendment.  And, I will be taking the position that even seemingly  lewd and offensive speech is protected speech in modern America. (see:  Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 25, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 1788, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971))

And to the end of testing this legal theory, I have re-posted the “Terms and Acronyms” section of, on a blog with my full name and contact information so that the public can review the nature of this speech.  My guess is that each and every one of these terms are something that anyone can find in a local Adult Book Store, or within a rentable movie at a local Hotel in the Adult Movies section.  See:

Furthermore, from the Press Release it is clear that Eric Omuro may be guilty of multiple counts of tax evasion and money laundering, and to the degree that he is found guilty of these charges, I applaud the FBI's and IRS's efforts in deterring anyone and everyone that engages in these criminal activities against the State.

Additionally, also from the Press Release dated June 25th 2014, it is clear that there is a presumption being made that any and all sexual activity that was discussed on and in the private and public forums was illegal in nature. However, my guess is that after a full investigation you will find that the vast majority of these conversations were protected speech. (see:  Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 25, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 1788, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971))

Thus for the purposes of stating how this presumption of lewdness as found in the FBI press release is overly broad, and how these same terms may be used for perfectly legal activities, I cite the following additional cases:

People v. Freeman (1988) 46 Cal.3d 419, 250 Cal.Rptr. 598, 758 P.2d 1128

Under Freeman, sexual acts which are preformed for purposes other than "sexual arousal and gratification of the customer" can be considered protected speech, and thus are not punishable under California state prostitution, pimping and pandering statues.

Wooten v. Superior Court, 113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 195 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)

Under Wooten, sexual acts which are preformed for non-participants in those acts outside of simply watching, are not considered "acts of prostitution", and thus are not punishable under California state prostitution, pimping and pandering statues.

Wooten v. Superior Court, 113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 195 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) citing State v. Taylor, supra, 167 Ariz. 429, 808 P.2d 314, 316..

Also, under Wooten, near footnote 52, the Wooten Court noted that the California statue was written specifically narrow to exclude a large number of sexual acts which might be considered "lewd acts" in other states.  [quote: Hence, California's statute was not written "sufficiently broadly to encompass a sexual transaction for a customer who engages only as voyeur."]  

Under this Wooten interpretation, there are very few acts on the MyRedBook list of “Terms and Acronyms” that an individual cannot hire two or more private actors to perform on each other where the individual's participation level of engaging is that of "only as a voyeur". 

Private, consensual, commercialized sexual acts preformed for an audience of as small as one, are fully protected by both State and Federal Court interpretations of the 1st Amendment protections of free expression, and thus are not punishable under California state prostitution, pimping and pandering statues.

However if the FBI would like to test these cases in a California or Federal Court of law, I invite you to test them on me.  And if you would like to charge someone with counts of facilitating prostitution for reposting the “Terms and Acronyms”  for public viewing than I would ask that you charge me.

As a defense for reposting these terms, I will be claiming good old fashion 1st amendment rights.  That these terms are commonly found in all sorts of protected mediums of speech that thus cannot be censored by the government due to the location and manner in which they were posted on a public form.  I will be stating for the record, that the “Terms and Acronyms” found within that list are commonly used terms of sexual actors, and commonly used in the hiring of private actors for privately staged, and privately enjoyed consensual voyeurism.

Additionally, I am open to defending charges of engaging in marketing activities on as a VIP member.  And that these acts may be falsely classified by the FBI in your press release as unprotected market speech related to "a lewd act(s) between persons for money or other consideration".

For this defense, I will be citing and relying heavily on Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2653, 180 L.Ed.2d 544 (2011), which found heighten scrutiny protection for both market speech and would be customers of commercial transactions.

Again the argument will go as follows:

1) The vast majority of the sexual acts found on the “Terms and Acronyms” list are acts which can be legally engaged in as a private individual without consideration.  In fact, many of them are enjoyed by all adult members of the public, and protected by well established US and Sate privacy rights.

2) The vast majority of the sexual acts found on the “Terms and Acronyms” list are acts which can be legally engaged in as a participant with consideration, if these acts do not include the sexual gratification of the person offering the consideration.

3) The vast majority of the sexual acts found on the “Terms and Acronyms” list are acts which can be legally engaged in as a participant with consideration, if the person offering the consideration only acts as a voyeur.

4) The dissemination of information about any and all legally protected activities is also protected speech.  This is particularly true when the original acts were privacy protected acts of speech, such as privately consumed, and privately produced speech.

5) Unlike laws which prohibit actions by all actors, the California State Statues around prostitution do not prohibit specific acts. Again, the vast majority of these sexual activities are engaged in by each and every adult citizen in California.  These prostitution, pimping and pandering laws don't even prohibit the commercialization of these acts.  Nor do they limit the consumers of these acts, as anyone in the great State of California can engage in these acts as "only a voyeur".  The only thing these laws do is censor the marketing of these acts to certain individuals for personal pleasure.

6) Additionally, these laws are specifically designed to keep the commercialization of these very private acts in front of the camera and the crowds to encourage direct and indirect voyeurism of these acts through live performances and through recorded performances.  I have no idea what the State's interest is in encouraging these otherwise highly private sexual acts you consider 'lewd' to be done in such voyeuristic ways, but I am willing to go through the Court process to find out.

7) In stark contrast to the State's desire to promote commercialize voyeurism, I will be fighting for the individual's right to engage in these same activities in private, outside the view of the camera and outside the view of the crowds.  With the very same professional actors and coaches, but not for entertainment purposes but for the purpose of maintaining a healthy lifestyle with the lowest possible heath risk to my own self and those around me.

8) The solicitation of adult members of public in a respectful and consensual manner is also protected speech.  I can use the vast majority of the “Terms and Acronyms” in question to find and discover mutually interested 3rd parties to enjoy these sexual acts for both personal and mutual sexual arousal and sexual gratification, without an offer of consideration.  And thus, the act of using these terms for solicitation of uncompensated sexual acts is not punishable under California state prostitution, pimping and pandering statues.

9) The “Terms and Acronyms” is also a very powerful tool that helped people 'say no'.  It was often very easy for someone to post a list of terms of things they were not willing to do.  This would help a person decide what an actor was not willing to do for hire.  Therefore empowering people to stay within their own comfort zone as to what they are willing to do and what they are not.  Why the State has an interest in disempowering someone's ability to 'say no' is beyond me.  Each and every one of us has the right to 'say no' using whatever lingo, gestures or terminology we choose.

The rules and legal principles above stated are of course very different if one of the two parties is a minor, as in such a case consent cannot be generated, and thus the sexual acts in the “Terms and Acronyms” cannot be considered consensual under this analysis.

As such, at this point, may I also applaud each and every effort the FBI is taking to curb the ever increasing problem of minors engaging in adult sexual activities with adults.  Clearly there are consent questions that must be answered here, as minors lack the maturity to fully consent to these activities.  (see: T.A.J., 73 Cal. Rptr.2d at 337-38)

However, I would also encourage the Federal Government to review Federal funding of California Educational and Child Protection Services, as California is woefully underfunded in these areas. (see: Woods v. Horton, 167 Cal.App.4th 658, 679, 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 332 (2008), Mejia, supra, 99 Cal. App.4th 1448, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 23, California School Bds. Assn. v. Brown (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1507, 1514, fn. 4 [122 Cal.Rptr.3d 674])

See Also:

In this day and age, how is it that high school dropout rates are still above 1 in 3 in too many minority groups?  How is it that 1 in 7 youth between the ages of 10 and 18 will runaway from their home and into the streets of California?  Where will these youth live?  Where will these youth go to school?  Why is it that 75% of these youth that take to the streets are women?  How is it that 1 in 3 of these youth are sexual minorities?  How is it that 1 in 6 of these youth were subjected to unwanted sexual activities in their own homes without State or Federal protections against their attackers?

Please, please, please remember the words of those that came before us.  "All young people regardless of sexual orientation or identity, deserve a safe and supportive environment in which to achieve their full potential"

And what will prosecuting me for posting a list of “Terms and Acronyms” do to protect their World?  Nothing.  You want to change their life, you must fund the public services that protect their homes, their schools and their public life.

And if you find anyone that has intentionally or unintentionally caused direct harm to a minor through their activities I would ask that you pursue their prosecutions to the full extent of the law.

And if you have facts demonstrating that this type of direct harm was commonplace within the Myredbook forums, I welcome full disclosure of these individuals and their actions.  There are too many that treat interpersonal sexuality without the respect so many give the topic.  And bad apples are found in many communities especially where free and open expression is oppressed.  See: (Rita M. v. Roman Catholic Archbishop (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1453, 1460, 232 Cal.Rptr. 685.)(Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1103, 1112, 245 Cal.Rptr. 658, 751 P.2d 923.)(Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 509, 533, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 257, 976 P.2d 808.)  But even these bad apples have due process rights, and the acts of a few must never be the means of destroying the rights of the many.

It is my position that underfunded State budgets caused the many issues that far too many minors in California must face at a much too young an age.  And none of these issues are or were caused by the protected speech of the posting a list of “Terms and Acronyms”.

However, if my actions can be directly linked to the harm of another, I welcome a full and open discussion of these facts in the forum of your choice, public or private.  And if my actions can be directly linked to the harm of another, then underfunded budgets are no excuse.

That personal note added,  again I do have grave concerns about State budgets which I will state for the record here.  

We all know that State funding issues are not caused by the actions of a single individual.  And every Californian that has taken more than 30 secs to read any Californian voter guide published in the last 20 years knows of these budgeting challenges within the State.  And we all know, that these funding issues are not resolved by infringing upon the public's 1st amendment, 4th amendment or Due Process rights to Privacy.  And, these funding issues are not resolved by simply taking down a “Terms and Acronyms” list from an Internet domain.

There is no victory worthy of press release here. There is no victory when you take down protected speech from the Internet. Dropout rates will not decrease.  Runaway rates will not decrease.  Abuse rates will not decrease. And the continued disparity of economic opportunities based on gender and sexual orientation will not decrease.  Your claims are to a false victory, and not actions worthy of the name of the FBI.

If you care about the people of this great State of California, then you will need to link your actions to the ever increasing funding needs of Californians for education and child protection services within the Citizenry.

"Let me have my tax money go for my protection and not for my prosecution."  And let the tax money of all Internet users go for their protection.  Protect our homes.  Protect our streets.  Protect our property.  Protect our privacy.  Protect our speech.  And protect our bedrooms and our bedroom activities what ever they may be and where ever they may occur.

And yes, these state funding needs are why I applaud your prosecution of tax evasion and money laundering, how else do we find the funding to increase state budgets for these property protections and all civil rights protections.

That said, if you wish to make a RB-VIP example of someone, then you know who I am, and you know where I live.  You know how to reach me, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss the constitutionality of your actions in a State or Federal Court of law of your choice.  

And remember, that you are in the wrong Country if you believe that State incited fear and intimidation can be employed as an effective means of controlling the free expressions and free exercise of the timeless freedoms of the Citizenry.  And you are in the right Country if you wish to protect the equal opportunities of all people regardless of nationality, to the vast public educational resources of this State.  And you are in the right Federal Department if you believe in the equal protection of all people regardless of nationality or economic circumstance within our borders.

Please protect our homes.  Please protect our streets.  Please protect our property.  Please protect our privacy.  And please protect our speech.  And please protect all Citizens equally from unwanted sexual trespasses.  And please protect a person's right to consent to all wanted and all desired sexual experiences and expressions.

Bruce Boston
July 4th, 2014

Bruce Boston

No comments:

Post a Comment