In Kansas City MO, thirty-three year old Mario Antoine is facing 21 federal charges, from cyber-stalking to extortion, for scamming women into sex on the premise that he was a porn videographer and they were auditioning for a part. The FBI handled the investigation, and the Federal Prosecutor was quoted by the Kansas City Star as saying he’s a “serial rapist.” But rape is a state, not a federal crime.
And in order to press charges for rape, the state must take action!
Missouri law is very clear that “assent” is not “consent” when induced by deception, and that sex induced by deception is 2nd degree rape:
Section 556.0061(14) “Consent”: consent or lack of consent may be expressed or implied. Assent does not constitute consent if: (c) It is induced by force, duress or deception
566.031. 1. A person commits the offense of rape in the second degree if he or she has sexual intercourse with another person knowing that he or she does so without that person’s consent.
2. The offense of rape in the second degree is a class D felony.
Jill Icenhower, Kansas City MO’s Chief SVU Trial Attorney states that the FBI never presented the case to the state.
At first, she knew nothing of the case, and reminded me how many rape cases she handles. I mentioned that the state is not handling it, and that was the reason for my call. “Over 30 possible victims have come forward and I think it should warrant the state’s consideration,” I said. I also mentioned the headlines it was causing in Kansas City in the hope of jogging her memory.
“Oh, the case of the restaurant owner?” she asked.
“Nope” I said, “The wedding photographer.”
“Oh yeah! Isn’t that a “trafficking case?” she asked.
“They charged him with crimes like “cyber-stalking” I said, “but it seems clear that it’s a rape by deception case. Even the Federal Prosecutor called Antoine a “serial rapist.”
“We can’t charge the man for the same crimes that he’s charged by the Federal Prosecutor,” she said.
I reminded her, again, that 2nd degree rape is not a federal but a state offense and that the Feds did not charge him with rape.
“Well the law enforcement agency who investigated the case did not present the case to us,” she said, “You need to ask them, not me.”
I said, “Since over 30 women in your jurisdiction are complaining about what seems to be 2nd degree rape , wouldn’t it be good for you to contact the FBI? ”
“Your problem’s with them, not me,” she insisted. Then, “Thanks for calling,” as she abruptly hung up the phone.
What can you do?
You can have an impact on the Feds and the state working together by picking up the phone and letting them know how important this issue is to you! This case could provide a milestone in raising awareness about the harm and severity of rape by fraud or deception. You can be a part of that enlightenment!
The number for Jill Icenhower: 816-881-3000.
The number for Special Agent Trisha DeWet at the FBI office in Kansas City: 816-512-8200.
####
Read follow-up post at Convicted Sex Scammer- Mario Antoine
####
Can a book or a blog make a difference?
This one did!
Combating Romance Scams, Why Lying to Get Laid Is a Crime!
Learn why this crime should be outlawed in every state
and around the world!
Who is representing the 30 women? Have they gotten together and talked? Do the women have their stories together? My ex Narc. Had been preying on women for years and still doing it. One women e-mailed me a photo when she met him, it was like ten years old. They do not stop or change or care if they are hurting people. God help us all. Many do not understand. The only time I can get through to someone of them understanding how our free will was manipulated and our rites where taking away is referring to Hitler, Charlie Manson and his women following supply. Brain washed.
The Federal Prosecutor represents the 30+ victims in the Federal crimes. But no one is representing the victims regarding raping them. That’s the State Prosecutor’s job. That’s why everyone should contact Jill Icenhower and tell her to get off the dime! You have he number. Please make that call!
Joyce
On It tomorrow. 🙂
Let us know how you make out! Even leaving a message supporting rape charges, if you can’t get through, will help!
LOL. This isn’t rape. Number one, these aren’t pure and chaste women we are talking about. These are sluts and whores willing to prostitute themselves for money. If it wasn’t in them to be prostitutes, then the scam would have never worked.
Two, when a woman uses the allure of sex to get money from men, then hey, the man should have known better.
If a man uses the allure of money to get sex with women, then everyone is supposed to feel outraged.
Miss me with that.
I’m so glad you’ve expressed your totally absurd concept of rape. If I told people that your kind of ignorance exists, they wouldn’t believe me!
Yup folks! It’s not a hoax, it’s a real live ignoramus!
Women coldly and cruelly use men all the time for whatever they need. Women get pregnant by one man and then will lead another man into believing that it’s his baby and will think nothing of forcing him to pay child support or contribute financially to a child she knows isn’t his. Women will lie about being raped in order to make it seem as if they are chaste.
I have no empathy or sympathy for naive, gullible women who fall for smooth talking men who beguile them out of sex.
Frank-
Seems you’re trying to dismiss the crime that happens when the victim is a woman by claiming that it also happens to men.
Congratulations, now you’re beginning to understand….. Sexual Assault by Fraud or Deception happens to both men and women, it’s harmful, and it should be stopped.
Or should we take a page from your book and have no sympathy for naive, gullible men who fall for smooth talking women who beguile them out of sex? BTW- approximately 18% of romance scams happen to men.
Men don’t have to be “beguiled” out of sex because they, most times, are the one’s seeking it. But, men are beguiled out of money or other favors by women using their sexuality to coax it out of men. For instance, a woman had a soldier who was overseas paying for her apartment and sending her money, while she had another man living with her.
In another case I know of, a man I worked with at one time, was living in his truck while being forced by law to pay the mortgage on the house his ex wife lived in (she broke off the relationship) with her new lover that she got rid of him for.
Very few women would feel any guilt or remorse about using the legal system to force another man to pay the living expenses of her and the man she left him for. I mean, she could always do the right thing, move out and let the man have the house since he has to pay for it. No one feels sorry for any of these men.
A woman gets tricked out of sex, suffers no STDs, has every available option to terminate a pregnancy and all she ends up with is hurt feelings and that’s supposed to be a crime? But it’s not a crime for women to use men like in the above examples?
You’re making some pretty absurd assumptions, but the one that’s the most egregious is that nothing bad happens to a woman when she’s tricked into sex. You really don’t understand the entire concept of rape. It’s all about defilement…. a concept that you obviously don’t “get.”
Or what about women who lie about their sexual history in order to get a marriage proposal? Like the women in this porn scam may no doubt do one day. How would it sound to a prospective husband that the woman he’s about to marry was willing to sell her body for money? Should a woman be jailed for failing to disclose all of her sexual past to a prospective husband? If no, then this site is hypocritical.
You’re missing the point Frank. People, whether male or female, are depriving the other person of self determination over their reproductive organs when they lie to get laid. Can I make that any clearer?
Joyce,
Perhaps Frank experienced rape by fraud and received no justice, which would explain his resistance to consider this law AND why he’s not able to see how this law can protect all of us, men and women alike.
We have the right and responsibility to receive and be 100% honest with current, potential, and future romantic partners. Relationships are complicated enough without the added layer of illegal deception and con-artist tactics by males and females alike. We as humans MUST collectively interact with each other more humanely, especially in matters of the heart.
If one is only interested in the sex side of relationships, then, by all means, hook up with others who are only interested in sex for sex sake. Leave those of us interested in authentic human connection and interactions out of your schemes. It’s really very, very simple.
Paula 🙂
“Authentic!” I love that word! Amen to that!
I get the point. The problem is, these laws will only be used against men. In theory they may be gender neutral, in practice, they’d be anything but.
A woman lying to her husband about her sexual past in order to secure a ring, you don’t think that’s a romance scam? There was a man I read about who was complaining that his wife would hardly have sex with him. And if she did, the only thing she would allow is regular, vanilla missionary position sex. So he’s thinking that his wife was just this extremely, sexually modest woman as she was portraying herself to be. That’s what he thought, until in rummaging through the addict, he found a video tape.
Lo and behold, when he put the tape in, there was his wife, in a 3sum, with another woman and a man. According to him, that man was doing things to her she’d never let him do as she performed sex acts on the other woman.
Now of course, she utterly failed to mention any of this to him. Why? Because she knew it may have changed his mind about marrying her if he knew what his wife used to do. And there’s no telling what wild things she did that never got recorded.
Romance scam? I think so. But something tells me that you would be against this woman facing any criminal charges.
In another case, a 13 year old girl portrayed herself as 19 on Myspace. She hooks up with a 22 year old young man and a 24 year old young man. She even drives herself to meet one of the men. So when the whole thing got found out, the young men are the ones who ended up getting a year in jail, not her. Even though she purposely misrepresented her age.
And every woman who I mentioned this case to all say the same thing “The guys should have known” or “They should have kept it in their pants”. And all made excuses for the girl. Of course, none could tell me how exactly the men should have known. It’s even more absurd when you consider the fact that since she was driving, one would reasonably think that she was at least 16 and second, had this girl portrayed herself as old enough to buy liquor with a convincing fake ID, the liquor store would have zero liability. Yet, somehow, these men should be held accountable for something the liquor store wouldn’t be held accountable for?
So, should any of the women in this porn scam “should have just known” or “kept their legs closed”? Should the 13 year old girl go to jail, after all, she depriving the men “of self determination over their reproductive organs”, your own words. Had they known she was 13, they may have avoided her.
I know at least, the 22 year old would have. He called himself trying to do the right thing by calling her father and telling him what happened and what she was doing. He was repaid with a year in jail.
Frank-
In 8 states, the young man would have been able to file a rape by fraud defense against the lies told to him about her age. And I wholeheartedly support their ability to do so. In fact, if you read my comments about the Zack Anderson case, you would have seen that. Here’s the link, a simple apology will do. https://rapebyfraud.com/2015/07/31/is-zack-a-sex-offender-or-a-victim/
But here’s the thing…. although 8 states recognize that rape by fraud happens when an under-aged child lies, they don’t seem to recognize that rape by fraud also happens when an adult lies. It’s rather ironic, don’t you think?
As to your example of what a woman will tolerate being done to her…. no matter what a person did, they have the inherent right to never do it again if that’s their choice. Period.
My next question would be….how often are those laws enforced in the real world? Stautory rape laws, for instance, seemed to be enforced against heterosexual men more than anyone else. You know, if a 18 year old girl gets hired at a prison as a guard and she has a sexual relationship with a 35 year old convict doing time for say murder, by the book, she’s guilty of statutory rape. Now, how many will consider that convict a victim? And you’re living in fantasy land if you think for one second that any court of law will prosecute that 18 year old girl. In fact, she’ll be cast as the victim. Theyll say she was manipulated or some such nonsense.
These type of laws are never applied equally.
1. Did it occur to you that heterosexual men commit more statutory rape? But that surely does not mean that someone who is gay cannot be an offender, and prosecuted. What does that have to do with sexual assault by fraud? You lost me.
2. No prison guard should ever have sex with an inmate, regardless of age or gender.In many states, it’s a crime.
3. If you are attempting to dismiss the concept that people who lie to get laid are committing a crime, by citing examples of other crimes that you believe are unfairly administered, you are wasting your time. If you want to reform how laws are upheld, go for it… but don’t think because people abuse or misuse laws, that penal code shouldn’t recognize when a crime is committed.
Frank –
I would really like to know how you suggest meeting someone for a legitimate relationship. So boy meets girl and everything is going great. What can she do to make sure she isn’t used for sex……take it from there.
That’s her responsibility. One way she could make sure is to not have sex until after marriage, at least that’s how women in times past avoided romance scams and being used for sex.
She could have her father or other responsible male relative approve of her dating choices. It used to be this way because women are easily led astray and gullible. If a man is “confident and charming”, he can get a woman to believe anything. BTW, confident and charming doesn’t mean good person. “He seemed so charming” is what has been said about many a rapist and murderer.
Responsible fathers were like kryptonite to charmers and smooth talkers. A man’s daughter/granddaughter/niece may have easily been charmed by the confident smiling man, but he wasn’t so easily charmed. I have a 23 year old sister. Yeah, some man may be able to sweet talk and charm her, but our father isn’t so easily sweet talked and charmed and would quickly see through the man and if she listened to him, sh’ed avoid things like what’s on this site.
But women thought they were being oppressed, because dad/granddad would choose the good, honest hardworking man for them. Sure, the good guy may have been a little shy, he may not have been super confident, he may not have been able to whisper sweet nothings, but he was a good guy with a good heart. Women didn’t want that man, they wanted the charmer and sweet talker and they wanted to be able to pick their own men without any guidance from men who cared about her.
Hence, you get this website.
You are only talking about the young group. What about older people who are widowed or older and lonely? Obviously, this is a vulnerable group as well, and there father’s are dead. And do you think that people are living as they did centuries ago – they are not. There is only a small percentage of people that wait for sex until they are married and obviously divorced people are not virgins. So, do you think that if you meet someone and you lay down your consent lines up-front that those lines should be broken? Because if you do that than you are being smart and responsible, but also you have your reasons for not just jumping in bed with someone.
Actually Frank, they simply wanted to be loved. And Daddy’s guy, the one who bought her virginity at the highest price, was probably not someone who she could fall in love with.
Nina is 100% correct! I was asked to give testimony several months ago at a NY State Assembly hearing over defrauding the elderly. Romance scams happen to them at an alarming rate!
Your concept that people didn’t have sex before marriage in the “good old days” is a good old myth! Andrew G. Gardner, in his Colonial Williamsburg article, Courtship, Sex and the Single Colonist, described that even in the era of the Puritans, one third of marriages took place with a “bun in the oven.” Perhaps you thought that someone performed the marriage vows and signed the marriage certificate of Adam and Eve!