Any lawyers in the house? Based on my research of the Mann Act & definition of Online Grooming, it does appear that Greg & Kai’s initial use of the internet to solicit minors for sexual purposes makes a case for both; certainly online child grooming.

While the act was ammended to preclude prosecution of consenting adults, it still applies to any case that originates with illegal procurement of children for sexual acts. I think this would apply to the initial online meetings of Greg/Kai, Greg/Shiloh, Kai/Sarah & Kia/ Regina.

The originating offense would be online child grooming in each case. Based on one of the parties being a minor at introduction. With an aggravating factor being that it occurred multiple times with multiple underage girls in both Greg & Kai’s case.

I think Greg’s establishing a relationship with Kai & Shiloh online when they were minors & the subsequent sexual relationships fulfills the requirements completely. Greg/Kai’s intro & pursuit of Sarah fits well too, with all eventual sexual contact originating online as a minor.

As well as Kai’s relationship with Regina online. While the federal statute broadly defines a minor as anyone under 16, it defers to the state law where often the definition of a minor is anyone under 18, this is the case is Washington.

Greg’s initial internet contact with each person while they were under 18 is a felony in Washington, and therefore breaks the federal statute. Any exchange of sexual images is an additional felony. The same goes for Kia. We know this occurred in the cases of Kai, Shiloh & Sarah.

Is the age of consent 16 in Washington? Yes. This is an base statute. Meaning in some cases, it is legal. When it starts with online communication with a minor leading to sexually explicit transmissions, exchange of nudes & interstate travel, it becomes child grooming/porn.

My issue with Greg & Kai has always been their use of the internet to initially contact minors leading to the exchange of nudes or sex; initial online contact starting when the child was under 18 & traveling to the child for sex in a state where they can consent.

Greg has admitted to all of this in live-streams he has published himself. He thinks the broad consent statute of each state absolves him. It does not.

Further under WA law, Greg’s receipt & dissemination of underage photos of girls, could be called into question, if contact via the forums lead to sexual communication w someone under 18. This is a grey area, but could be considered when looking at the totality of online behavior

Defense would likely, cite the age of consent laws for each state & state that all behavior was legally within the state & at the ages in the moment. Also point to marriage as an indicator of Greg’s altruistic intentions. May point to victims mental health & relationship...

& claim bitterness as motivation for claiming victimization. May bring up OnlyFans & online behavior as indicators of poor character.-Some attorneys may avoid attacking the victims completely & focus on presenting Greg as well-intentioned romantic....

who plays a fictional character online. That this is misunderstood. Will likely say that use of the internet to connect with potential partners is the way of today’s technological world. That state age of consent laws should apply the internet just like they do the real world...

That it would be legal to meet/sleep with/marry a 16-17 year old if they met in person. Downplaying the interstate online relationship. This would likely be a key argument & the jury would have to decide whether to apply the online grooming law or the basic age of consent law.