|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Online pedophile hunter Alex Rosen recently leveled harsh criticism of South Carolina attorney general Alan Wilson over his office’s purported mishandling of alleged sex crimes against minors. Rosen called Wilson “the most pro- child predator AG in the country” after he was informed Wilson’s office wouldn’t pursue cases of alleged pedophilia documented by civilian activist groups.
Rosen’s organization, Predator Poachers, uses a similar methodology the one employed on Chris Hansen‘s hit NBC television series, To Catch a Predator. Rosen and his associates pose as minors in online chatrooms and collect incriminating evidence against individuals who send sexually explicit messages to people they believe are children.
Rosen next arranges meetings with these individuals, who usually believe they are about to engage in sexual relations with minors – or trade in child pornography. Using hidden cameras, Rosen documents their reactions when confronted with the evidence he and his team have collected against them. Rosen then uploads these videos to various online platforms (Rumble, X and YouTube) and tenders his evidence to authorities, who in many states have charged and convicted the alleged pedophiles featured in his work.
***
***
Rosen’s frustration with Wilson piqued when he recently confronted registered sex offender Tony Adkins. Adkins was convicted of two counts of indecent exposure in 2018, and was arrested in 2019 after investigators with South Carolina’s Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) task force received a tip from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
Adkins was charged with nineteen (19) felony counts of second degree sexual exploitation of a minor – each charge carrying a potential ten-year prison sentence – and was also alleged to have distributed child pornography.
Adkins’ 2019 charges were handled by Wilson’s office, which dropped all nineteen felony counts on the same day Adkins was indicted on a single charge of third degree sexual exploitation of a minor. Adkins entered a guilty plea on the exploitation charge and received a three year prison sentence – which was suspended to time served (and three years of probation) by circuit court judge Kristi F. Curtis.
FITSNews has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the attorney general’s office requesting case disposition and plea deal documentation.
Back in society, Adkins was confronted by Rosen after arranging what he believed to be a meeting with a minor.
***
***
Rosen possesses a unique ability to employ the interrogatory techniques used by law enforcement to encourage individuals to reveal incriminating information about themselves in hours-long conversations which are always posted online – and which are often used as evidence in subsequent criminal proceedings.
Unlike law enforcement officers, Rosen’s “suspects” are free to go if they please.
In his conversation with Adkins, Rosen made it clear his compliance was “fully voluntary.” Despite not being compelled to speak, Adkins volunteered many disturbing details.
When asked about his 2017 indecent exposure incident, Adkins recounted going to a “Walmart in North Charleston” when he encountered two little girls “between eight and ten.”
“I was hooked on drugs and I just whipped it out and just exposed it,” he said. “One just ran to her mom and told them.”
“I didn’t say nothing,” Adkins continued. “I just walked out… but the manager got the license tag.”
***
***
According to Adkins, his consumption of child pornography started well before his first run-in with the law. Specifically, he told Rosen it began “before I went to prison, because I’ve been on Kik since 2000.”
Kik is a messaging application popular with children. It is also notorious for being a playground for child predators.
Adkins described his membership on various online groups dedicated to the exchange of pornography, some of which he admitted depicted minors.
But Adkins went beyond just viewing online materials and engaged in extensive conversations with disguised “predator poachers” – conversations he believed were taking place with a prepubescent girl.
***
Adkins admitted to creating a decoy Facebook account posing as a 12-year-old girl to increase his odds of luring minors to meet with him. He explained minors “won’t even talk to someone who’s older than them” without such false pretenses.
“Do you think you’re a threat to kids right now in this moment?” Rosen asked Adkins. “If you were to read over these messages and it’s from somebody else, do you think they’d be a threat to kids?”
“Yes, they would,” Adkins replied.
“We’re talking someone who literally made a fake Facebook of a 12-year-old to go get them more comfortable to have sex with you,” Rosen pressed. “This is what you told me. I mean, that’s pretty dangerous, I think. Don’t you think so?”
Adkins agreed.
When asked about his first stint behind bars, Adkins said he “wasn’t there that long.”
“Do you think you need more prison time?” Rosen asked.
“If that helps then yeah, and counseling,” he responded.
Incredibly, Rosen was able to convince Adkins to voluntarily accompany him to the Berkeley County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO) where he confessed to attempting to lure a child.
***
***
During the twenty minute drive to the station, Rosen called ahead and put Adkins on speaker phone to let sheriff’s deputies know he was coming.
“My name is Tony Adkins, and I would like to turn myself in,” Adkins said.
Rosen explained Adkins was “soliciting multiple minors online to have sex with,” adding that he and his team “were posing as one of them, and he invited us over for to have what he called a sex sleepover party with a twelve and a ten-year-old.”
“He is currently on the sex offender registry as well for indecent exposure back in 2017 and he confessed everything on camera. And he’s made it very clear to me that he thinks he needs some help, and he’s willing to take accountability for his actions.”
Despite Adkins’ willingness to speak with investigators about the situation – a choice which he acknowledged would likely lead to his re-incarceration – Berkeley County sheriff’s (BCSO) deputies declined to open an investigation, citing a prosecutorial inability to pursue cases which are not initiated by government officials.
Rosen was incensed.
“I’m happy to work with you guys on the case, but you guys don’t take this shit seriously,” he said. “You guys are fucking retards, and that’s why we do what we do, because you guys don’t take child safety seriously. So we will.”
“In other states, the cops do take it seriously, and we’re happy to assist them and whatever help we can do… but in South Carolina, there’s obviously some good old boy ego shit going on, and it really sucks,” Rosen added.
After the failed attempt turn Adkins in, Rosen took to X to blast the Wilson, the state’s top prosecutor.
***
Attorney General @agalanwilson of south carolina is the most pro child predator AG in the country.
— Alex Rosen (@iFightForKids) December 18, 2024
Why is he defending pedophiIes? pic.twitter.com/kNhNhA66gd
***
“The three term attorney general in South Carolina has announced that he is not taking any predator catcher cases,” Rosen said. “The guy who says in his bio is ‘protecting the families of South Carolina’ has let multiple sex offenders walk, not only that we’ve caught, but that Bikers Against Predators have caught.”
According to Rosen, Wilson’s “own ego and pedo-sympathizing ways have been getting in the way of justice.”
Wilson responded rapidly on X, writing that he is “proud to stand up for our kids and protect them from harm” – and adding that he’d “be happy to meet with (Rosen) and Bikers Against Predators to discuss how we can work together to make our communities safe and our children safer.”
After FITSNews indicated our interest in the situation on social media, Rosen reached out and offered to speak with us. Rosen argued that while some states have statutes which strictly mandate the collection of evidence by law enforcement officers, South Carolina’s law seems to allow civilian evidence collection.
“The fact is, it, from what I understand from the law, it can be prosecuted” Rosen said.
“At the very least, you’re telling me they couldn’t have gotten Tony Adkins with a probation violation?” Rosen argued. “The fact that nothing was done is ridiculous.”
Wilson says it’s not that simple, and that cases brought by civilians do not stand up in South Carolina’s courtrooms. In a press statement released after Rosen’s broadside, Wilson wrote that there are “a number of well-intentioned private groups who are making an effort to protect children. However, their private investigations without law enforcement involvement endanger themselves and the public and jeopardize legitimate law enforcement investigations.”
***
***
Wilson argued “the tactics they employ are often not authorized by South Carolina law and may be in violation of South Carolina criminal law. Our policy is to follow the law; these are not my discretionary policies.”
“I want to make it clear: if these cases were taken to court, under South Carolina law they would not stand,” Wilson added.
Wilson’s communications director Robert Kittle told FITSNews the state’s Criminal Solicitation of a Minor statute (§ 16-15-342) provides a defense for cases brought using civilian-obtained evidence.
“The statute says in section (B) that consent is a defense to a prosecution pursuant to this section if the person is under eighteen or the person believed to be under eighteen is at least sixteen years old. In other words, if the ‘child’ is a person sixteen years or older then consent is a defense” Kittle explained.
“This would normally kill any type of undercover operation” if Section (D) did not dictate that consent “is not a defense if the person believed to be under 18 is a law enforcement officer acting in their official capacity.”
Because of the way the statute is worded, this means exclusively “law enforcement can make these types of investigations.”
Wilson called it “deeply concerning that some individuals have resorted to categorically false accusations and personal attacks against me” and concluded his office “will continue to focus on what matters — ensuring the safety and security of the people of South Carolina.”
At the time of this writing, Wilson and Rosen are still planning to meet and discuss their differences.
“(If) AG Wilson comes around on this, or we reach a resolution, or we figure out different ways to go about getting these predators arrested in South Carolina, then you know what? I’ll gladly revoke what I said,” Rosen told FITSNews. “And you know, I’ll be happy to say he’s one of the most proactive AGs in the country.”
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
(Via: Travis Bell)
Dylan Nolan is the director of special projects at FITSNews. He graduated from the Darla Moore school of business in 2021 with an accounting degree. Got a tip or story idea for Dylan? Email him here. You can also engage him socially @DNolan2000.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
5 comments
Don’t blame Wilson at all for not wanting to get involved with Rosen. He creates self promoting controversies more than he actually contributes to any meaningful legal actions.
There’s no need to blame Alan Wilson for not wanting to get involved with Rosen when we can blame him for not protecting victims from pedophiles in the State of South Carolina. Period.
IN RE WILSON:
It is “deeply concerning” that Alan Wilson refuses to prosecute pedophiles based on an absurd statutory interpretation. It is “deeply concerning” that Alan Wilson has not raised the issue with the General Assembly that the statute is written in a way that provides an “out” for pedophiles. If the statute is broken, then fix it. Period.
It’s not a personal attack. JUST. FIX. IT.
I, 2023, I watched Alan Wilson’s sham performance calling for judicial reform during the Ad-Hoc Committee meetings on Judicial reform. I watched how that process play out resulting in “reforms” that will only make things worse, will only cost taxpayers more money.
On Judge Kristi Curtis, the judge who gave Tony Adkins time served (after Wilson dropped 19 felony counts)…
I attended the JMSC screening of Judge Curtis at the Gressette Building in Columbia, SC on November 18, 2024.
In the waiting room, I met Ms. Carol Honeycutt from Horry County prior to entering the hearing. Ms. Honeycutt’s story followed the same narrative of so many others who have attempted to be heard before the JMSC.
After being irrevocably harmed by Judge Kristi Curtis, Ms. Honeycutt submitted her Complaint to the JMSC well before the October 28, 2024 deadline.
Ms. Honeycutt did not know JMSC Lead Counsel, Erin Crawford’s main job was to block relevant testimony.
Ms. Honeycutt’s Complaint was returned to her with a request to provide additional information, which Ms. Honeycutt instantly did. When Ms. Honeycutt followed up with the JMSC to see when she would be allowed to speak, she was informed that her Complaint had not arrived before the deadline and she would not be allowed to testify.
The JMSC pulls this scam frequently.
Ms. Honeycutt did not know she needed to send the Complaint certified mail (or drop off paperwork in person and demand a time-stamped receipt). She did not know the JMSC would not acknowledge her first mailing, and would reference only the follow up. This is why the JMSC does not allow email Complaints, because there would be a digital trial to confirm timely delivery.
Prior to entering the November 18, 2024 screening of Judge Curtis, Ms. Honeycutt informed me she had driven all the way to Columbia in hopes of being heard. She’d brought copies of her Complaint and supporting material for that purpose.
When Judge Curtis entered, Senator Luke Rankin (Chairman of the JMSC) stated there were no Complaints filed against Judge Curtis. I told Ms. Honeycutt I would stand up for her and ask if she could be heard because she had met the JMSC’s filing requirements and the purpose of the screenings was to inform the General Assembly about the misconduct of judicial candidates.
When I attempted to speak, I was rushed by security guards while Senator Rankin attempted to shut me down. Senator Rankin then agreed to speak with me outside, which he did AFTER Judge Curtis’s screening was completed (unchallenged). Meanwhile, Ms. Honeycutt fled the Gressette Building at the first opportunity because she said she was frightened by the rush of the security guard.
The point is, as long as we continue to rely solely on the corrupt JMSC to screen judicial candidates, we will continue to suffer under the corrupt judges on South Carolina’s benches and the corrupt attorneys who put them there.
The General Assembly has the right to know the truth about the harm judges like Kristi Curtis are inflicting on innocent citizens. They have a right not to have the JMSC hide this important information.
This article emphasizes the fact that corrupt judges not only do harm through corrupt judgements, but also by influencing whether or not a prosecutor chooses to prosecute. When a state’s attorney general will not hold (repeat offender) pedophiles accountable because he claims a case will not stand up in court, then the SC court system has reached catastrophic failure. If we can’t keep our children safe, what is the point?
This article emphasizes the fact that the statute is poorly worded (giving criminal defense attorneys room to maneuver).
It also emphasizes the fact that we have no effective judicial screening system to protect the public from judges like Kristi Curtis who release a dangerous pedophile like Tony Adkins with time served… and move through screening without any input from the public.
If no one else will say so:
Shame on you, Attorney General Alan Wilson, Esquire
Shame on you, Senator-JMSC Chairman-Senate Judiciary Committee Head Luke Rankin, Esquire
Shame on you, Judge Kristi Curtis, Esquire
On behalf of Tony Adkins’ next child victim and the next and the next – SHAME. ON. YOU. ALL.
~ Ginger Dunn
It’s not just judge Curtis, the SC judiciary is replete with judges who consistently fail to punish sex offenders. Start pulling the records of other judges. One who recently aged out but was allowed to come back in retired status, is well known for giving probation to sex offfenders over the objection of prosecutors sometimes when an active jail sentence was agreed upon by the defense.
Thank you for the information. I believe I know the active retired judge you referenced, but I will research to confirm.
SECTION 16-15-342.Criminal solicitation of a minor; defenses; penalties.
(A) A person eighteen years of age or older commits the offense of criminal solicitation of a minor if he knowingly contacts or communicates with, or attempts to contact or communicate with, a person who is under the age of eighteen, or a person reasonably believed to be under the age of eighteen, for the purpose of or with the intent of persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing the person to engage or participate in a sexual activity as defined in Section 16-15-375(5) or a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60, or with the intent to perform a sexual activity in the presence of the person under the age of eighteen, or person reasonably believed to be under the age of eighteen.
(B) Consent is a defense to a prosecution pursuant to this section if the person under the age of eighteen, or the person reasonably believed to be under the age of eighteen, is at least sixteen years old.
(C) Consent is not a defense to a prosecution pursuant to this section if the person under the age of eighteen, or the person reasonably believed to be under the age of eighteen, is under the age of sixteen.
(D) It is not a defense to a prosecution pursuant to this section, on the basis of consent or otherwise, that the person reasonably believed to be under the age of eighteen is a law enforcement agent or officer acting in an official capacity.
(E) A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both.
HISTORY: 2004 Act No. 208, Section 4, eff April 26, 2004.
Law student: If we use case law from other states, they do allow citizens to participate in stings. South Carolina is the only one that’s having a trouble based on Alan Wilson’s interpretation of the statute.
GOOGLE’s Genini: You’re right, while Section D of the statute doesn’t explicitly prohibit citizen involvement in sting operations, it also doesn’t automatically make it permissible.
Legal precedent in other states might vary: Some states may have different legal frameworks or case law that allows for greater citizen involvement in certain law enforcement activities, including sting operations.
South Carolina’s approach may be more cautious: Attorney General Wilson’s stance likely reflects a more cautious approach in South Carolina regarding citizen involvement in these types of operations.
However, it’s important to note:
Legal precedent from other states is not always directly applicable in South Carolina. Each state has its own laws and legal interpretations.
The legality and appropriateness of citizen involvement in sting operations can be complex and depend on various factors. These may include:
The specific nature of the operation.
The level of supervision and guidance provided by law enforcement.
The potential risks to civilians and the rights of suspects.
Disclaimer: This is an interpretation of the statute and does not constitute legal advice.
It’s crucial to consult with legal professionals for any specific legal questions or concerns.
I hope this explanation provides a more nuanced understanding of the issue.
Law student: All they have to do is ask the legislators who wrote the law what they meant. The Attorney General’s opinion is subservient to the legislative intent.
GOOGLE’s Gemini: You’re absolutely correct.
Legislative Intent: The principle of legislative intent holds that courts and other government officials should interpret and apply laws in accordance with the original intent of the lawmakers who enacted them.
Attorney General Opinions: While Attorney General opinions are valuable and carry significant weight, they are not binding on the courts.
Legislative Authority: The legislature has the primary authority to enact and amend laws. If there’s ambiguity or disagreement regarding the interpretation of a law, the legislature can clarify its intent through amendments or further legislation.
In this case:
If there’s disagreement about whether the existing law allows for citizen participation in sting operations, the legislature could:
Amend the law: Explicitly clarify whether citizens are permitted to assist law enforcement in such operations.
Pass new legislation: Specifically address the issue of citizen involvement in sting operations.
By clarifying the legislative intent, the legislature can provide a clearer legal framework and address any concerns raised by the Attorney General or other stakeholders.
Disclaimer: This is a general explanation of legal principles and does not constitute legal advice.