Matt Gaetz's Accomplice Joel Greenberg Accused of Making Fake I.D.s to Facilitate Commercial Sex Acts

      On March 30th, 2021, the Orlando Sentinel published an article titled "Sex trafficking probe of Rep. Matt Gaetz emerges from Joel Greenberg prosecution: report". That article revealed that Joel Greenberg - described by the British newspaper the Independent as Republican Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz's "tax collector friend" - is under investigation for numerous charges.
     [Note: That article can be viewed at the link below:
     http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/matt-gaetz-joel-greenberg-allegations-b1825263.html]

     These charges include stalking a political opponent, manufacturing fake identification documents, and illegally using a state database in order to create fake IDs and sex-traffic a minor. Allegedly, Greenberg also used a state database to access personal information of minor teenage girls whom he was paying for sex (in what is being described as "sugar daddy relationships"). According to the Orlando Sentinel, the youngest of these girls were somewhere between the ages of 14 and 17.
     [Note: That article can be viewed at the link below:
     http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-ne-joel-greenberg-matt-gaetz-investigation-sex-trafficking-20210330-moyyt73tbzhrlmpjcwkqv2oeyq-story.html]

     According to a report from the Sentinel in mid-April, Greenberg had also been charged with identity theft, and embezzling public funds. [Note: That article can be viewed at the link below.
     http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/editorials/os-op-florida-failed-to-investigate-joel-greenberg-20210416-offh4qxo3fde3o2ro4eebjdoie-story.html]
     But perhaps the most serious of all allegations was the claim that Greenberg made the fake identification documents in order to "facilitate his efforts to engage in commercial sex acts". Fake IDs and "Materials necessary for making fake IDs" were reportedly found in his car and office.

     The revelation that this former Seminole County tax collector (Greenberg) could have assisted Matt Gaetz in his alleged trafficking of one or more 17-year-old girls across state lines, is certainly a disturbing and troubling possibility.
     It is even more worrisome when we remember that it is not currently illegal to traffic 17-year-olds across state lines in the United States, which means that Matt Gaetz (if not Greenberg as well) has a chance of getting off.
     As I explained in my article "Don't Shoot the Messenger: Confirming Robby Soave's Observation That it's Legal to Traffic Sixteen- and Seventeen- Year-Olds" - published April 3rd, 2021 - what Matt Gaetz is accused of doing, is not currently illegal.
     That article can be read at the link below.
     http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/04/dont-shoot-messenger-affirming-robby.html

     In summary:
     Although Florida's general age of consent is eighteen years old, the federal government's definition of trafficking a minor or ward for sex, effectively creates a 16-year-old age of consent.
     So despite the fact that taking a teenager across state lines in order to have sex with them, should be treated as an aggravating factor, crossing state lines changes the jurisdiction of that sexual activity from state control to federal control. This causes the federal age of consent of 16 to win-out over Florida's age of consent of 18.
     This state of affairs is the outcome of the 2017 U.S. Supreme Court case of Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions. The aftermath of this case has been that twenty states, including many of the highest-population states in the Union, have had their age of consent laws effectively nullified.

     This is a truly sorry state of affairs for anyone who doubts that sixteen- and seventeen- year-old children can "consent" to - and truly understand all of the potential negative consequences possibly involved in - having sex, traveling across state lines, and potentially even getting married and having children of their own.
     And it is a truly chaotic state of affairs, as far as concern for geographic consistency on statutory rape laws, goes.
     As usual, the only way to truly understand this problem, is to be "radical" about it; that is, to go to the root.
     We must admit that a lax attitude towards 17-year-olds having sex, and running away with other teenagers (or even with adults), is a pervasive and ongoing problem in our society. This attitude is reflected in our music and other forms of entertainment, and the issue of child runaways and homeless children affects children much younger than seventeen.
     But also, we must go to the law.     

     To understand what is going on here - i.e., why it is so easy to get away with raping and kidnapping children in this country, especially if you are a politician or otherwise politically connected person - we must examine the federal law on sex trafficking of a minor or ward.
     The full text of that law - 18 U.S. Code Section 2243 - is available at the link below.
     http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2243
     
     The federal law on sex trafficking of a minor reads as follows:

     "Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who-
     (1) has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years; and
     (2) is at least four years younger than the person so engaging;
     or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both."

     To put this (somewhat) more simply:
     Whoever, under federal jurisdiction, has sexual contact with (or attempts to have sexual contact with) someone between 12 and 16, is guilty of federal statutory rape and shall be fined and/or imprisoned, provided that they are at least four years older than the "other person" (meaning the child they are raping).
     This means that it is legal to have sex with a 16-year-old - and traffic them for sex - as long as you are not older than 20 years old. If the state from which the child is taken, has an age of consent of 17 or 18 years, then the state cannot apply its age of consent to a child kidnapped from that state, because taking the child across state lines puts the case under federal jurisdiction.
     ...Where the federal government will not prosecute it because the federal government has a 16-year-old age of consent to sex law.

     To any normal person with a conscience, this should be horrifying.
     I attribute the lack of outrage at this law - and Esquivel-Quintana - to the facts that 1) most Americans are simply not aware of the sorry and chaotic state of age of consent and statutory rape laws, and 2) the fact that the federal law on trafficking a minor for sex is complex difficult to understand.

     Especially as it pertains to the status of children the ages of 12, 13, 14, and 15 years old.

     As I explained in a previous article on this topic - titled "Before Fully Legalizing Sex Work, Stop Lowering the Age of Consent" - if you keep reading the federal law on sex trafficking of a minor for sex, you will find a list of acceptable defenses for breaking the law (i.e., for raping a child).
     http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/03/before-fully-legalizing-sex-work-stop.html

     Section a of that law reads as follows:

     "(c) Defenses. -
     (1) In a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section, it is a defense, which the defendant must establish by a preponderance of this evidence, that the defendant reasonably believed that the other person had attained the age of 16 years.
     (2) In a prosecution under this section, it is a defense, which the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence, that the persons engaging in the sexual act were at that time married to each other."

     Simply put, the acceptable defenses for raping a child between 12 and 15 years old are: 1) The defendant reasonably thought the child was at least 16; and 2) The people involved were married at the time.
     In case you're wondering, there are fifteen states in which someone who has not yet attained the age of 16 years, can get married. I previously reported that fact in my September 2020 post and infographic titled "Child Marriage is Legal in Ten States, Due to Their Failure to Set Minimum Age of Consent Requirements", which can be viewed at the link below.
     http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2020/09/child-marriage-is-legal-in-ten-states.html
     Those fifteen states certainly need sixteen- or seventeen- year minimums on age of consent to marriage. Especially the ten of them which have declined to set any minimum, effectively making it legal in some states to marry infants as long as its parents and/or a judge are crazy enough to let you.
     But setting aside laws regarding age of consent to marriage, the issue we came here to talk about is the first acceptable defense for raping a child between 12 and 15 years old; i.e., reasonably thinking or believing that the child was at least sixteen years old.

     So here we have it: If a person charged with raping a child who's at least 12 but is not yet 16, establishes, "by a preponderance of this evidence" that they "reasonably believed that the other person had attained the age of 16 years", they can be let off. In fact, they have effectively not committed a crime, in the eyes of the law.
     This is unacceptable, and must change.
     But first, we must understand how this law - which includes a list of two acceptable defenses for breaking it - has enabled people like Matt Gaetz and Joel Greenberg to do what they're accused of doing.

     If you were charged with raping a minor, what do you think would suffice as convincing evidence that you "reasonably" believed, or thought, that your victim was actually at least 16 years old?
     Proof that the victim has an identification document that misrepresents their age - and/or proof that you saw such an I.D. - wouldn't be a bad guess.
     Given that 1) both Matt Gaetz and Joel Greenberg are suspected of having sexual relationships with (i.e., raping) minor girls; 2) Joel Greenberg has been alleged to have made fake identification documents in order to "facilitate his efforts to engage in commercial sex acts"; and 3) both Gaetz and Greenberg are politically well-connected and have access to legal databases, it seems clear what is going on here.
     The possibility that Greenberg used his access to I.D.-making equipment - while Gaetz contributed his legal knowledge regarding how to get away with raping minors under federal jurisdiction - doesn't seem so farfetched.
     It's possible that Gaetz and Greenberg were fully aware of the acceptable defenses for raping a minor, and provided some of those minors with I.D.s falsifying their ages, in order to ensure that at least some of what they did was legal (i.e., trafficking, and what would have been considered statutory rape if it were prosecutable in state courts).

     Despite the lack of concern from America's naive liberal mothers, there is nothing "cute" or "precocious" about children drinking alcohol; nor about getting fake I.D.s (the real object of which is usually obtaining alcohol).
     A child who is given alcohol at a young age, will develop an addiction, and at a time when their brains are fully forming, and moreover alcohol is a neurotoxic sedative. And, of course, a child who becomes dependent on alcohol to socialize or have a good time, will often resort to obtaining a fake I.D. in order to obtain access to alcohol, and possibly even clubs or adults-only shows.
     The revelations about the allegations regarding Congressman Matt Gaetz and Joel Greenberg should give every parent in the country cause to inform themselves, their spouses, their school officials and local politicians, and their children, about the dangers of getting fake I.D.s.

     Despite how the majority of the urbanites in places like New York and New Jersey evidently feel about this issue, juniors and seniors in high school should not be traveling across state lines for the purposes of drinking, driving, sex, and clubbing. Nor should they get tattoos, nor intimate piercings - nor fake I.D.s - which make them easy to mistake for adults (and thus more susceptible to being hit on, and possibly abducted).
     The amount of danger in which teenagers are being put - solely in the name of "sticking it" to prudish conservatives who don't want their children to have "freedom" (i.e., the freedom to be trafficked across state lines for sex) - is as unconscionable for me to ponder, as it is irrational, nihilistic, reactionary, and denialist for liberal parents to actually believe.

     This passive form of parenting must be called out for what it is: reckless endangerment of minors, which is probably illegal. Additionally, it is enabling of children's self-destruction and their own reckless behavior. Enabling a person who is self-destructive can only lead to their doom. To paraphrase a homeless man whom I once heard shouting in Portland, Oregon: That is not raising a child, it is razing a child.

     American parents must wake up to the insane level of legal and moral abandonment which they are committing against their children.
     That is why we must take the first steps towards putting the brakes on the seemingly endless cycle of abuses by one generation against the next, which thus far, regrettably, has been the gist of history.
     These steps must include: 1) creating a federal law on sex trafficking minors which will effectively reverse the decision in Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions; and 2) treating kids like kids, who deserve protection, instead of club-hopping adults, who deserve freedom. Children's freedom does not lie in the right to travel without restriction; that is the province of adults only. Children's freedom lies in their protection.
     Please make your children aware of the immense dangers, and potential negative consequences, which could result from obtaining a fake I.D. and showing it to adults.

Written and Published on April 21st, 2021