Dippy writes on www.xxxporntalk.com: Mike south has been insinuating that he has some secret informiation that will lead to all charges against Kayden Kross being dismissed.
It is not true. Kayden is completely cooperating with the authorities as part of a deal to have the charges against her dropped. Mike, you know as well as anyone that the dismissal she is facing is not because she is innocent but because she is guilty and has the information needed to nail those who were higher up the food chain. Thats some good spin youre putting out there Mike, youre earning your money on this one, but like most PR people, you are full of shit.
Paperchase responds: If Kayden was cooperating I doubt they would drop charges against her until they had convicted those whom she supposedly informed upon. (they would want such leverage over her to require her to testify if need be)
Secondly if she did cut a deal the proescutor would still demand restitution for the alleged victim in this case. And no, the government would not be paying this bill Kayden would.
If the charges are dropped in January it probably won’t be because of what the OP is alleging.
Dippy responds: The deal is dismissal of charges for her testimony. If the jury convicts, so be it. The ‘deal’ is not for a conviction, but for her truthful testimony. Kayden was the ‘bottom’ rung in this ladder. Restitution will come form those higher up the chain. There is also the possibility that she will be charged with one count of wire fraud(she is not currently charged with this). And to clear up one og=ther point of contention…some are saying she is federally charged….they are state ‘felony’ charges.
Paperchase counters: Dippy, do you understand the risk that the prosecution would take if they dismissed charges against her, she took the stand, and then became a hostile witness, or had a “lapse of memory”?
Perhaps she could enter a plea now and wait for sentencing until after the trials of anyone else who was involved, but for now, your version of events lacks credibility.
Finally, the victim in this case is not going to want to wait several years for his restitution from someone who has yet to even be charged with a crime. True, the prosecution can ignore the victim, but that will hurt them if they need his testimony at a later date.
In conclusion your story doesn’t make sense.
Dippy comments: The prosecution is not taking any risk. If (Kayden) renigs on the deal, or has a lapse of memory they are free to refile the charges. That is also why the “wire fraud” charge is being bought. She pleads guilty to that. If she commits perjury on the stand, or becomes hostile, she has broken the plea deal and the files get reinstated. As part of the guilty plea on the lesser counts she also allocutes to all the other crimes she participated in or knew about. This is under oath.
Thats how plea deals in exchange for testimony work. The deal is in exchange for truthful testimony, a conviction can never be guaranteed.
Paperchase: Err, no. First of all it is unclear, when, if ever the other people will be brought to trial. So the prosecution has to work against a statute of limitations for bringing their case against Kayden. Once they file the case it tolls this statute, but if they drop this case they would normally go back to the original deadline. It might take them over two years to get to trial on these other defendants.
Instead look what the prosecution did in the Las Vagas O.J. Simpson trial. Secure a guilty plea, with an agreed upon recommendation for a lesser sentence, or for lienency (sp) at a sentencing that occurs AFTER the trial of the “bigger fish”.
I do not know if Kayden is guilty or innocent but it sounds like you have a serious grudge going.
Dippy writes: Exactly,…that is why the lesser “wire fraud’ charges are being discussed. No deal has been finalized as of yet. There is no grudge here, just pointing out some facts about a person in the adult industry on an adult industry message board. Why is there always a need for people to try to ascribe some sinister motives to every word someone writes on these boards. I was just pointing out the “spin” that ‘advisor’ Mike South was trying to put on the upcoming ‘dismissal’ of charges against “kayden.”
But the sentence recieved by the person making the deal is not dependant on the conviction of those she testifies against, but on her honoring the deal to testify truthfully.
It might also be noted that other defendants in this case are facing similar charges in serveral unrelated cases of similar nature. These guys wer professional con men, and the blonde bombsell was part of their scheme. Kayden was not the only ‘faceplate'(old con man term) in their scams.
Paperchase says: Wirecharges being discussed? Pleaze, if your story had any credibility they wouldn’t be talking, they would be substituting these charges and having her plead guilty to them in the same court proceeding in which the other charges were dismissed. It looks like your chronology is off.
As for your motivation, you appear anonymously with this complex scenario and no proof.
I call bullshit