Perverted Justice made big money on aborted Murphy sex sting

05:50 PM CST on Saturday, November 10, 2007

By BYRON HARRIS / WFAA-TV


Also Online

Byron Harris reports

News 8 coverage of Murphy sex sting

11/8: DA defends record over Murphy sex sting

7/19: Sex sting leads to $105M lawsuit

7/19: Murphy sting: Who benefits?

6/22: DA: Sex sting cases may not reach court

6/8: Murphy to re-file sex sting cases

5/31: Video triggers more criticism

5/8: Validity of stings under scrutiny

City of Murphy
� official site

Murphy Police
� official site

Collin County District Attorney
� official site

To Catch a Predator
� from NBC

Perverted Justice
� official site

More News 8 Investigates

More stories by Byron Harris
The officers of the vigilante group, �Perverted Justice,� raked in big money for running the aborted sex sting in Murphy last fall.

The NBC Dateline show �To Catch a Predator� filmed the stings. Arrests were made, but there were no prosecutions.

Perverted Justice got paid to run the stings, and kept its income secret.

When News 8 asked Perverted Justice founder, Xavier Von Erck, how much he got paid per show, he said �You�re the reporter, you find out.�

We tried to find out last summer, by asking the Internal Revenue Service for Perverted Justice�s application to be a tax �exempt organization. The application had not been processed at that time, but Radar Magazine succeeded in getting the numbers this week.

Although Von Erck says the money doesn�t matter, the application shows Von Erck and his associates Del Harvey and Dennis Kerr each made $120,000 last year as �consultants� for NBC.

Perverted Justice members posed as children on the internet to lure sexual predators to houses where NBC had set up hidden cameras.

Although Murphy Police made 23 arrests as a result of the NBC sting in Murphy, Collin County DA John Roach did not prosecute the cases. He was concerned about the validity of the evidence, as well as the income Perverted Justice was making. The organization would not reveal it to him.

But Perverted Justice now tells the IRS it made $802,000 last year for seven shows, about $115,000 per sting. It expects to make another $450,000 this year.

The organization has been granted tax exempt status.

E-mail bharris@wfaa.com.

JAS

$802,000?!?!?! Man, I'm in the wrong line of work...

And, don't forget the tax exempt status!!

JAS

Guess we know why it's called "Perverted" Justice now!

I guess now we know ALL the reason$$$ why the Collin County DA's office didn't file those cases.

we are not the only guys that wear the white hats for the right reasons. Look at how PJ got started and how long they held on before most of us in law enforcement even had a clue these real perverts were preying on our kids. They were CERTAINLY around outing the weirdos before Chris Hanson and Dateline even thought about doing their show and my guess is they will continue to do what they do after the spotlight fades. I for one am glad they are getting big bucks and hope it continues.

Now Stacy, you know I generally agree with your statements and thinking, but I don't think we need amateurs doing LE work.

I would see nothing wrong if they trolled the net and reported hits on them to LE who could pick up the ball and take it from there, assuming the ID used by PJ. But I don't like a private entity doing LE work.

Leads to those pesky violations of civil rights. I mean, do you really want LE in your county to be carrying along news crews on your busts? Do you think that could lead to volatile reactions from suspects or even the police, in the name of or in fear of being on TV?

Kudus to them for getting us on the right track and lets devote some government dollars to taking up their work for them. Time for Perverted Justice to get out of the LE business. If they wanna be LE, then be LE and work for the government.

The question on the table was not whether they should be in law enforcement (although I think they are doing a better job in exposing not only the pervs but the extent of the problem to the general public than most of the LE agencies in this country, the majority of which don't even have a computer crimes division or even one TRAINED officer devoted to that area), the question on the table was their motivation.

They didn't start their mission for the money, they started because they were disgusted by all the pervs on the internet going after our kids. Why are we now questioning their motives and how can it not look to the public like sour grapes considering our timing !!!!!

Ethically, it is a bad idea. The workers for perverted justice financially benefit (directly) from creating an environment that lures pedophiles. If law enforcement or a prosecutor was working from that position, we would all agree that it was inappropriate and could easily be used to impeach the investigation's credibility.

Socially, it is a bad idea. Society is constructed to accept that an objective, appropriately trained group of people are elected to investigate and prosecute criminal cases for the benefit of the community. If a private group, working at least in part for financial gain, is allowed to determine how and when crime is investigated and prosecuted, you can easily see how it leaves quite unbalanced the original social structure for enforcing the law.

[This message was edited by JB on 11-17-07 at .]

What then do we say about CIs that financially benefit ? Did anyone see the figures on what the top FBI informants made last year?Unethical ? How many of us are insensed when breakfast type folks say those cases are crap because the UC got paid ??

What about citizens in neighborhoods that videotape drug deals or johns and hookers? Socially unacceptable ? I say socially responsible.

The people at PJ started out as citizens outing pervs before most of law enforcement knew what a chatroom was. Dateline put it on television and opened the eyes of a whole lot of naive parents. No one that I know of twisted law enforcements arm to tag along but now that LE did somehow PJ is the bad guy.

[This message was edited by Stacey L. Brownlee on 11-17-07 at .]

CI's involve some of the most difficult ethical cases. Any prosecutor that has handled drug cases with CI's knows that there is inevitably deception and hidden evidence lurking everywhere. CI's may be a necessary evil, but there is still the evil.

Citizens who act without financial motive generally do a better job of reporting the truth. But we all know that most of the time they should report the crime and let law enforcement act on the information.

TV likes to suggest that everyone should be a private eye solving crime and collecting evidence. But that isn't the reality of how a case is made.

Pasadena man remorseful about killings captured on 911 call, attorney says

By ALLAN TURNER and DALE LEZON
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

The Pasadena man who killed two suspected burglars as they left his next-door neighbor's home did not intend to kill them when he stepped outside with his 12-gauge shotgun, his lawyer said Friday.

In portraying Joe Horn as a victim of circumstances, lawyer and longtime friend Tom Lambright called the 61-year-old computer consultant "a good family man" who has been devastated by the Wednesday afternoon burglary and shooting.

Killed in the incident in the 7400 block of Timberline were Miguel Antonio DeJesus, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, both of Houston.

Each had a minor previous brush with the law. Records show DeJesus was charged with failure to identify himself to a police officer in July 2004. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 20 days in jail. Ortiz was charged with possession of marijuana in July 2005, but it was later dismissed.

"He (Horn) was just doing what everyone is supposed to do," Lambright said at a news conference in front of the Houston police memorial near downtown. "He called the police. He was cooperating with them as best he could, trying to give the police the direction of the burglars. He knew there was danger going outside."

Horn ignored repeated instructions from a 911 dispatcher to remain in his home. He told the dispatcher, "I'm not going to let them get away with it. I can't take a chance in getting killed over this. OK? I'm gonna shoot. I'm gonna shoot."

While lawyers and legal experts across the city continued to debate the legality of Horn's actions, he has left town with his family, Lambright said.

"Hopefully he will see a doctor and maybe get a sedative," he said. "He is not well mentally. This has devastated him. Not in his wildest dreams could he fathom this event."

Lambright said Horn, whom he has considered a friend for 41 years, wept inconsolably during their conversations.

"Joe is the absolute opposite of what everyone thinks he is," Lambright said. "He is not a cowboy. He is not physical. He's 61 years old and overweight. He's not confrontational. He's just a good guy."

Lambright read a written statement in which Horn said the killings would "weigh heavily on me for the rest of my life. My thoughts go out to the loved ones of the deceased."

Lambright said Horn was a hunter, but kept the shotgun in his pickup "for security."

No firearms in house

Horn lives with his daughter and granddaughter and does not keep firearms in the house, his lawyer said.
Lambright said Horn was upstairs working at a computer about 2 p.m. when he heard the sound of breaking glass next door. Horn called 911, engaging in a protracted conversation with the dispatcher, who repeatedly advised him to wait inside until police arrived.

"Mr. Horn, do not go outside the house. You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun," the dispatcher told Horn at one point.

"You wanna make a bet," Horn responded. "I'm gonna kill them. They're gonna get away."

Legal opinions conflict

Lambright contended that Horn was startled to find the burglars just 15 feet from his front door when he stepped onto his porch. "He was petrified at that point," the lawyer said. "You hear him say, 'I'll shoot. Stop!' They jumped. Joe thought they were coming for him. It's a self-defense issue."
Attorneys and legal experts said Horn's defense probably will be based on state law that allows people to use deadly force to protect neighbors' property.

"If you see someone stealing your neighbor's property, you can get involved and help to stop it," said Sandra Guerra Thompson, a law professor at the University of Houston Law Center.

Others disagreed.

The statutes that allow people to use deadly force to stop a burglary appear to require that the incident be occurring at night, said Craig Jett, a Dallas criminal defense attorney and president of the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer's Association.

"It can't be during the day," Jett said.

Experts said that a grand jury may sympathize with Horn. Some people believe that you should be able to protect your neighborhood, said Anthony Osso, a Houston criminal defense attorney.

Osso said that Horn's defense might be that he wanted to prevent the robbers from leaving until police arrived, but they tried to flee and he shot them.

"His best scenario is that he went out to use the threat of deadly force," Osso said. "But they came at him on his own property."

Osso said Horn's 911 call does not tell the whole story about the shooting. Investigators will need information about where the suspects were shot and if they had stopped when Horn ordered them not to move.

"Some people on the grand jury will sympathize with him," said Adam Gershowitz, a law professor at South Texas College of Law. "Maybe he shouldn't have done this, but he was acting in a way a lot of people feel."

But that does not mean he won't be charged, Gershowitz added.

"There's a reason we don't let people take the law into their own hands," he said. "We have a police force for that. As an established society, we believe we are better off with an authorized police force that has standards and training rather than untrained vigilantes."

A transcript of the 911 call suggests Horn intended to do what he felt necessary to stop the burglars. Despite a concerted effort by the dispatcher to persuade him to let police deal with the break-in, Horn was insistent on trying keep them from getting away.

"I don't want you going outside, Mr. Horn," the dispatcher said.

"Well, here it goes, buddy," Horn said. "You hear the shotgun clicking, and I'm going."

Seconds later three shotgun blasts are heard.

Praise for dispatcher

Experts who reviewed a recording of the call at the Chronicle's request said the dispatcher handled the call professionally and did all he could to defuse the situation until police arrived.
"He was doing everything he could to 'normalize' the conversation and not agitate the caller any further," said Sue Pivetta, a training consultant from Sumner, Wash. "Trust me when I say that he was indeed showing professional control at the highest level."

Charles Carter, a former police executive in Atlanta who has trained dispatchers for two decades, said the officer who handled Horn's call used proven techniques to dissuade him from leaving his home.

"We teach a technique called repetitive persistence," Carter said. "It needs to be at a level lower than the person calling to try to get him to calm down and listen to you. ... He did an outstanding job and needs to be commended."

Isn't that exactly what PJ is doing, finding the criminal and reporting to law enforcement ? I didn't see any PJers out there with handcuffs.

And are we then saying rooting out drugs in our society is worth the necessary evil but rooting out the kiddie pervs is not ? Last time I checked my file drawers were FULL of CI drug cases so the "ethics" of that issue doesn't seem to have stemmed the tide.

But while I sit here watching reruns of Americas Most Wanted, I'll have to agree TV would like us all to be solving crimes....ain't that a shame.

[This message was edited by Stacey L. Brownlee on 11-17-07 at .]

CI's, as distasteful as they are in drug cases, are at least under the control of a government agency. Under the best of circumstances, they are supervised, monitored, photographed, and videotaped. For PJ, they were hot dogs, subject to no supervision, free-styling on their own. Based on what I saw in the 20-20 show, the local police chief did not oversee their work and make sure it stayed within legal guidelines. PJ then did not turn over all their work, leaving prosecutors to wonder just what happened. And, now we learn that PJ was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, suggesting they had big reasons to push the limits. I'd say that's all problematic and not the sort of environment that leads to a successful prosecution.

Stacey, I just think that in cases like those in Collin County, the tail ends up wagging the dog, and huge mistakes get made. You know me well enough to know how I feel about these crimes, but I also point out how differently folks act when the TV camera is on. Had PJ isolated the pervs, then advised law enforcement who did their thing while not on the tv screen, well, it would've gone a whole lot better.

For those following this thread and wondering about the underlying facts, go back to this thread and check out the links.

Greg- Again, I'm not saying that LE made a wise decision being involved with the TV show or that the cases should have been prosecuted, I'm saying that for us to say they did it for the money ignores the history of that group and looks like sour grapes. Where was the hue and cry from us prior to Collin County catching a bad rap ?

JB-From what I saw (never thought you and I would ever base our premise on what we saw in the media ) on Dateline and 20/20 everything they did was videotaped, all verification calls taperecorded, and the computer chats should be there for any forensics guy to analyze not to mention that the police were there from the beginning (what chief overlooks every CI buy that goes on ? He might approve the standardized procedure yes, but isn't that what occurred with these ?) And how do we explain the 250 Dateline convictions until they got to Texas ? Think we are the only prosecutors to have to deal with the $$$ issue, no other defense attorneys in other states smart enough to ask that question ?

Well Stacey, I had never heard of PJ before that incident. I watch kiddy tv, and had never seen the Dateline shows, but had heard of them.

As you know, I strongly support the vigorous and aggressive prosecution of all child predators, including cyber crooks and their ilk. I realize they gotta pay their bills too, and applaud their efforts in working to stem the tide. I also support the citizens against crime type groups.

But I've just always been nervous around citizen vigilante types, whether paid or unpaid, and that goes back to the days when I was a deputy who remembers when Curtis Sliwa brought his guardian angels from NYC to Houston in 1981. Great concept, but they didn't count on as many Houston crooks packing heat as was the case in the Houston Wild Wild West early 1980's and it's a wonder none were killed.

If our State or Federal authorities had any sense, they'd put you and a special cop I know in charge of nationwide efforts to nab these perps. I know that would put fear in the heart of child perps in short order.

It's our job to encourage law enforcement to use the best practices in investigation and prosecution. We have to be careful not to accept whatever gets convictions or makes people cheer while watching TV. Show business as law enforcement is not the best practice.

I do not know all of the facts involved in the Collin County case and why they were summarily dismissed.

The method used by PJ is not ideal because they are not law enforcement personnel. However, I do believe they have been successful at exposing a growing problem and would encourage law enforcement to adopt similar creative methods for tracking down individuals who seek out sex with minors.

As far as the paying issue goes, I agree with Stacey.