Quote:
Originally Posted by EliteWebmaster
The government fabricated a lot of the evidence to make it more sensationalize the case. The money laundering charge was bogus. There was no evidence to collaborate the Pratt was money laundering. Same with the child pornography charges. All of the girls were 18 years old. The amount of falsified evidence by the government in this case is unprecedented.
Let’s be clear, I am not defending Pratt or his partners. They are guilty on many things and likely deserve jail time. HOWEVER, let’s not glazed over the fact that the government added some extra charges to fatten up their case.
Pratt was beyond stupid to go to Spain. He should have ran to Brazil, Thailand or other places with non extradition treaties.
|
1, that's a pretty bold claim without proof.
2, he should be right where he is, not in some non extradition country as an exploitative POS.
Quote:
✅ Evidence of Trafficking a Minor
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Michael Pratt admitted in his guilty plea that:
Victim 1 was under 18 at the time she was recruited and filmed for pornographic content in May 2012.
He knowingly engaged in sex trafficking of this minor — which under U.S. law requires no proof of force, fraud, or coercion if the victim is under 18.
Victim 1 was among hundreds of women lured under false pretenses, but this case stood out due to her age at the time of filming.
📎 Supporting Documentation and Statements:
Federal prosecutors confirmed that they had proof of age (from documentation, identity verification, or testimony) confirming Victim 1 was a minor.
Pratt’s own plea agreement specifically includes an admission to trafficking Victim 1 while she was underage, and federal judges do not accept pleas unless there’s sufficient corroborating evidence.
The trafficking took place in California, and authorities cross-referenced shoot dates, contracts, and video release timelines to establish the time frame and Victim 1’s age.
No public name or details have been released about the minor due to age and privacy protections, but the case was confirmed in official court releases.
🔗 Source: U.S. Department of Justice – Press Release, June 5, 2025
|
Running defense for this stuff on an industry forum should require a healthy helping of proof. Gross.