PeeJ Opinions: Discussing topics relating to what we do

Why we don't do things the "Posey" way.

UPDATE: - Less than two weeks after this write-up was posted, Julie Posey rushed to change the layout of her website after we pointed out less than ethical redirections and blog entries. A full list of changes can be found at the bottom, along with a few things we've noticed since the original writing of this article.

Recently, site founder Xavier Von Erck went head-to-head with Julie Posey on Fox News Channel. The results were predictable. Julie Posey continually claimed that PeeJ doesn't work with law enforcement, despite the host mentioning a recent arrest and Xavier bringing out various statistics about the arrest/indictment/conviction rate of Still, Julie stuck to her guns like a mind-set robot on attacking the website for supposedly not working with police, with a snide attitude and a worse tone. The audience of the program, Dayside with Linda Vester, saw through Julie's attacks and applauded Xavier's retort that with the ratio of arrests, indictments and convictions, we will have a greater number in one year than Julie Posey did in seven whole years.

Hey, don't take our word for it, download and Watch Xavier vs. Julie yourself. If you can't see it, download the Divx codec from

Now, you have to wonder... shouldn't such statistics please Julie Posey? Shouldn't it please this woman that the website has garnered seven convictions in eight months, over 30 arrests and indictments, not to mention the locating and recovery of an abducted teen by website administration? Wouldn't Julie Posey applaud thousands upon thousands of people coming together to help combat this problem? You'd think she would... but she hasn't. Instead after that embarrassment on national TV for Ms. Posey, an appearance she had her local paper shill for her beforehand, Julie has gone on the attack against the efforts of She even has released statements to pedophile-defending websites to help boost their confidence! Recently, one such letter showed up on a website that is seeking to help individuals not even posted on stave off prosecution from various state governments.

But why would Julie Posey hate

The answer is fairly simple. You simply have to look at the who and why of Julie Posey to figure it out.

Julie Posey, her motivations and track record

First, let it be said that we're happy that Julie Posey worked adult chat-rooms and got some males convicted. We're pleased that she took the initiative to do so. We don't approve of the rooms she worked, but any bad guy behind bars is a positive step. That's our attitude. Julie Posey's work putting people behind bars is appreciated. Sadly, we have to illustrate the dark side of Julie Posey simply because this person is flawed, and is trying to drag us down with her record. We take no pleasure in pointing out the following facts about Julie Posey, we find it very disappointing that someone who purports to be anti-pedophile would make some of the outrageous comments she has made. Yet, we reserve the right to defend ourselves and to point out exactly why someone like Julie Posey would want to see us shut down, despite our numerous successes with law enforcement.

The sad tale of Julie Posey took over the group several years ago. She turned it into a portal to pimp her book "They call me Kendra" and her lifetime movie, as well as a donation link. Still, there was some content on there (Pedowatch in 2003) at one point. However, we encourage you to visit now. That's right, it's now a redirection to the "Julie Posey safety store" where she shills everything from cheap amateur detective gear to "hidden button cameras" that are commonly used by yes, voyeurs, to photograph unsuspecting females. has nothing to do with "watching pedos" anymore, it's just a shill redirection to a store where you can line Julie Posey's pockets. could've been turned into an effective fighting force against online pedophiles. If Julie Posey were so confident in her techniques, she could have trained others to fight pedophilia. Yet, she did not. (Click UPDATE for what resulted when Posey read this)

Julie Posey's origins: Julie Posey was not a cop seven years ago. She was not a cyber crimes investigator. She wasn't even a forensic specialist. She's not even a cyber crimes investigator now, nor a forensic specialist, sadly. Julie Posey seven years ago was a concerned housemom. Her kid went into a bad chat-room one night and Julie decided to go "nail the bad guys." She had no training, no background. She was nobody. Yet, she went into adult rooms and due to the work of a local detective, got convictions. Again, we applaud that. However, it should be pointed out that Julie Posey was not a police officer, nor a investigator nor a specialist. She was a house mother. She was an ordinary citizen who sought to do something about the problem. Julie Posey is of today, not a cybercrimes investigator and not a forensics specialist. She is however, a reserve police officer. This becomes important because of her attitude.

Julie Posey's attitude: In our opinion, Ms. Posey has the worst attitude on the planet when it comes to herself and the public. There are many shining examples on her website, so let's take one at oh, nearly random. Read the following blog entry (UPDATE: The blog article in question was removed after the original publication of this opinion article). The blog entry I've linked to is a great example of her very, very poor attitude. It is of a concerned citizen, no different than Posey was seven years ago, who ran across an online pedophile and wanted help finding the proper people to contact. We at PeeJ get emails like this daily, and we point people in the proper direction so they can contact cybercrime units. What did Julie Posey choose to do? She chose to sarcastically write the following:

I think you may have completely missed the whole point of the movie. Did you happen to catch the part where I work with law enforcement?

I never recommend that a person take the vigilante approach to justice.

She snidely chastises the poor concerned citizen for even bothering to email her. The italics on "with law enforcement" are from her. She berates the person for not paying attention to the movie yet it is Julie herself that doesn't pay attention to the email. Literally, Posey just told a person asking for help contacting law enforcement that the person missed the part of the movie where Julie herself works with law enforcement! The person was asking for help contacting law enforcement to work with them, and gets nothing more in return than Julie Posey thumbing her nose. If Julie Posey of the 1990's contacted Julie Posey of the 2000's for help contacting Law Enforcement, the modern Posey would viciously attack her as a vigilante. Is that right? We at PeeJ don't think so. We believe that you, the public, do have a role to play. The problem is huge out there in chat-rooms. The more fish in the sea protecting kids from actual predators, the better. If you contact us seeking help, we won't attack you and tell you to go watch our Dateline NBC
hour-long special. We'll try to give you some actual help. (Click UPDATE for what resulted when Posey read this)

Her attitude continues to be horrendous in other ways as well. For example, during the "Dayside" show, the host Linda Vester read an email sent in by a woman who was abused. Julie Posey's response? "Well, that's too bad" before launching into a hate-filled diatribe against the work done here. Another example, visit her website. See the verbiage? She calls herself "The CyberCrime Fighter", as if she is the only person on the planet who has ever gone into a chat-room. Such verbiage is an insult to the police she worked with who actually did the brunt of the official government work in convicting people she turned over. In the past, she has had text telling you to "do things the Julie Posey way."

Julie Posey's lies: The following is taken from her FAQ, which covers such important questions as stuff about her cat to her kid's career writing short stories. Buried down deep is the following "gem."

Q. I want to help! Should I go online and pose as a kid?

A. NO!! Please leave that to the experts. If you don't have the proper training, equipment and law enforcement supervision, you can land in jail real fast. Many already have and some are still there.

She also states...

Please do not initiate or respond to conversations pertaining to adult/child sexual relationships. I know it looks so simple in the movies but so many people say or do the wrong thing and end up in prison longer than most child molesters. I've seen it happen over and over. Please don't do it.

To date, there has not been one reported instance of a person going online as a child, speaking only to adults, and then going to jail. There is no law against doing so in any state in this nation. Not one law. Not one person has gone to jail. yet Julie is informing her website visitors that yes, there are people going to jail because they posed as a child and kept a child predator busy, or worked one to the fullest extent before turning the predator over to police. We believe that this is a lie. We can't imagine such incorrect verbiage being simply Posey having the wrong impression because there is nothing out there to give anyone that impression... other than Julie Posey. But why would Julie Posey not want you out there, taking up predator time on the internet?

Julie Posey's attacks on

Julie Posey has consistently attacked us for nearly over a year. She has specifically contacted media sources about us, and has made it a point to try to slur our name with law enforcement. First, it is important to point out that Julie Posey has never contacted our administration. She has never asked us any questions about what we do. Julie Posey has only attacked us. Nary a form of communication otherwise, nor does she have any idea of how we operate day-to-day. She only knows what she has been told. We have technologies that Julie Posey has never had access to. But she doesn't know that. We have over 100+ agreements with law enforcement across the nation with our "Information First" program. But Julie Posey doesn't know this. She only knows what she's been told.

Attacks on our sliminess scale: The following was written by Julie Posey in email.

At the end of each chat log is a "slimyness scale" where viewers can rate how "slimy" the accused child predator is using a scale of 1-5. Some of the alleged predators have a few hundred votes but most don?t quite make it to the top of the "slimyness scale." This might be because the public doesn?t believe that the accused are true pedophiles.

Oddly enough, Posey tries to claim that the "sliminess scale" is there for entertainment on TV, but in writing, she actually almost comes close to understanding the purpose of this
important site feature. The sliminess scale is there for people to rank the worst of the worst. This is not for entertainment value, but for educational purposes. For example, the most slimy chat-log as rated by website viewers is currently the chat-log of "Fleet_captain_jamie_wolfe." Link: This will make you disgusted. Over 5,000 individuals have seen this chat-log and left a vote. It is also the most viewed chat-log on the website due to the vote totals being a 4.94 out of 5.00. Tens of thousands of parents have viewed this chat-log of Paul Short. They now know what kinds of extreme evil lurk in online chat-rooms due to this conversation. if there were no Sliminess scale, this log would be off the main page. It wouldn't be viewable. Parents wouldn't be able to see the worst of the worst.

What Posey doesn't get is that the scale is ranked as not very slimy, somewhat slimy, plain slimy, really slimy, and very very slimy. A vote of a three doesn't mean the man isn't a predator nor does it mean the guy isn't a pervert. It means that compared to the worst of the worst, that of Paul Short, the "fleet captain" himself, the person doesn't rank a five. We are proud that the worst of the worst of the internet is there for parents to view. We're even more proud that the worst chat-log as rated by our visitors was also convicted due to that very same log. An under-appreciated aspect of what we do is the fact that we are unique in being the only website you can visit to view the actual text your kids will face online if they enter a chat-room. Posey has never done this. We are the most open group of people on the internet, and we want you to know the reality of what we see out there. Posey would rather you never know.

Posey's assertions that we are an "entertainment" site simply must be laughed off. Between Julie Posey and ourselves, contrast: We have worked with national media news sources to illustrate the dangers of online chatting for teens. We have appeared on Dateline NBC, CNN, CBS National News, The Abram's report on MSNBC, the aforementioned "Dayside" program on Fox News, the documentary "" on CourtTV, educational programming designed for school-children, Parenting Today, The Montel Williams show, the CBC, the BBC, NHK TV in Japan, along with literally hundreds of local radio and television interviews warning people of internet dangers.

Julie Posey? She had a movie made about herself by the Lifetime Channel which touted her, her child, and her "struggle."

Which is the entertainment site? The one which goes out and engages the public view news programs, or the one which has a biopic made for an entertainment network?

You be the judge.

Attacks on our chat-logs: The following was written by Julie Posey in email.

The "chat logs" posted on this site do not appear to be complete and there doesn?t appear to be any other evidence to support the accusation that makes in claiming that the person is a child sexual predator. Throughout the chat scripts are derogatory comments making light of the potential suspect and the finding humor in the crime itself. That further damages the evidence and makes it useless. There are so many angles for a good defense attorney to get these charges dropped.

Posey here couldn't be more incorrect. First, our chat-logs are stored in multiple locations with pristine versions. Did you know that every chat-log our contributors have is recorded in an encrypted format on two different computers? The first is the contributors hard-drive themself. The second is a secure server located in another state that the contributor cannot get access to. That leaves two pristine and full logs of every letter typed by one of our people. Once the chat-log is posted on our website, the contributor adds personal comments to the side. This is done for two reasons. The first reason is to let the contributor have
an opportunity to point out the methodology of the person being posted. The second reason is because we want logs to be readable. These logs are not a joy to read, ever. But if you can make them more readable by giving people something positive, be it a crack at the predator or a sarcastic comment, there is nothing wrong with doing so. People need to be able to get through these logs and the side-comments help them do so by educating them or giving them a bit of dark humor. This dark humor is nothing new to us, such "graveyard" humor is often used by people in stressful situations to cope with what they are being put through. Police use such humor, paramedics do, US soldiers often do. It is a coping mechanism that serves our website well.

Lastly, no good defense attorney is going to get charges dropped due to those comments. We have seven convictions in eight months and so many charges pending against people that it is a chore to keep track of. The logs on the main page are not what is sent to law enforcement for evidence. We have a file-sharing system developed by our website that we give law enforcement access to. This system stores every bit of information gathered by our contributors. From the chat-logs in their original format to screencaps of webcams, everything is downloaded in one .zip package. Of course, Julie Posey can't know this because Julie Posey has never made one inquiry about how our website operates.

Attacks on our administration: The following was written by Julie Posey in email.

I was shocked that even a vigilante would be this reckless and so unconcerned about sexual abuse crimes.

Unlike Julie Posey, the administration of this website has actually located an abducted child. In September of 2004, site admin Del Harvey and Xavier Von Erck worked together to help locate a missing Camas 14 year old. She was held by a sadistic man named Stanley Sadler. Sadler had chained her up, beaten her, drugged her over a two week period. The police in charge of the case were unconcerned, not even bothering to do forensics on the girl's computer until stepped in. After getting the police to do forensics, the two young administrators worked with the mother of the girl to garner information about her online habits. Noticing that she had quickly logged in and out of a poetry website, Xavier, Del and site administrator Frag worked together to track down the website owner to be given the IP address of where the girl was. They received this information, used search tools on the IP and contacted the provider. They were able to call the vacationing detective in charge of the case and hand that detective a phone number where, as Xavier told the detective, "you will be given the address of the abductor." That night, the girl was rescued.

We recount this tale because of Julie Posey's obscene allegation that we are not concerned about sexual abuse crimes. We are concerned. We haven't turned our website into a redirection link that shills tiny cameras you can use to take photographs of unsuspecting people. We are on the forefront of private groups working with law enforcement. Julie Posey's insane, literally, insane accusation that two people who worked so diligently to help actually locate a real abducted teen is unacceptable on every level. She should be ashamed.

Julie Posey, why?

The obvious question after all these facts is simply... why? Why is Julie Posey attacking and the very idea of citizen involvement fighting online solicitation? As we've pointed out, this woman has turned a group she took over into a front for her online store. She uses the problem of internet pedophilia to solicit for direct donations. She has an attitude attacking anyone who dares step up to fight this problem, even if they're just asking for help contacting law enforcement. And, perhaps the most telling indicator... she refers to herself as "The Cyber Crime Fighter."

Why is that the most telling
indicator? Because Julie Posey wants to be a one-woman show. She would rather online solicitations rise by over 1000% during the last seven years of her "activism" rather than educate the public, organize the public and teach the public how to fight this epidemic. Each month, more and more kids are being abducted due to internet predators. Each month, more predators and more kids come online. Julie Posey's answer is to "step back and let Julie Posey handle it." Our attitude is that you should come, you should watch, you should learn... and you can help. Julie says to let overworked and overburdened law enforcement do everything... that you have no role, only she does. Her attitude is that she's special, she's unique... when in actuality she was nothing more than what most of you are at this very moment, a concerned parent. What is her opinion about the thousands of site volunteers who help out on our forums? Nothing more than concerned citizens, like she herself was?

Julie Posey writing in email:

The "followers" of this site are vile and filthy and full of hate.

Unfortunately, Julie lost sight of her roots. She had seven years to organize the public and fight this problem. In those seven years, she instead concentrated on writing a book promoting herself, helping a movie promote herself, and using her internet presence to, that's right, promote herself. We find it unfortunate that a woman who had such an opportunity chose the selfish route. Chose to puff herself up to be "above" you citizens. We're not above you. We're college students, we're parents, we're retired detectives, we're blue collar workers, we're teachers, doctors, lawyers, reporters, day-care providers, tech support specialists, cab drivers and we're you. Most importantly, we're organized, professional and effective. One thing we're not, is out for ourselves.

We welcome you to research what we do. Read our FAQ. View our Convictions. Check out media coverage of arrests and the problem in general. Join our Forums and observe exactly what it is that we do. And once you do, you will be what Julie Posey terms "vile" and "filthy", because then you'll start on the road to volunteering with the largest anti-pedophile group in the nation, which continues to rack up arrests, indictments and convictions at one great rate... all without aggravating self-promotion.


Update on fallout from this opinion piece: Well, this opinion piece nearly immediately caused changes to Julie Posey's website and her redirections. Less than a couple weeks after we wrote it, two major changes happened with Julie Posey's website.

The sad tale of - After reading our paragraph describing how she disbanded into a redirection where she sells voyeurcams and other security junkware, Julie Posey has changed where redirects to. Perhaps ashamed, now redirects to Unfortunately, is little more than the same junkware outlet that her online store is. More on that at the bottom of this update. We find it interesting that such a long-standing redirection was only changed after our write-up. We commend Julie Posey on taking a hard look in the mirror and realizing that such a redirection and the content of that store were simply inappropriate. Still, we find it regrettable that Posey had such a disgusting redirection in place to begin with. One word of note to Posey, who likely will read this... when you click the link to off, it redirects back to So basically, it refreshes the page. Since you actually added some content back to, you should change
the redirection to some form of index page for Just a friendly bit of advice from your friends here at the largest anti-pedophile organization on the internet.

Julie Posey's attitude: After our opinion piece was posted, we noticed something on her blog. There was a "recent referrers" list on her blog. It had been there quite a while. Oddly enough, the "recent referrers" were usually gambling websites and other sites of questionable natures. Why Posey had it set-up to link people to her recent referrers was her decision. However, we find it unlikely that she didn't notice such links. However now, the "recent referrers" section of her blog is gone. Why? Because of such opportunistic immoral websites that linked to her? Or because it just so happened that a link to this online article started appearing in her "recent referrers" listing? Apparently Julie Posey had no qualms with it linking to online casinos and other questionable sites, but when her blog starts linking to an honest appraisal of her online presence, she immediately has her blog redesigned, taking that function out. It appears that Julie Posey is more concerned with stifling criticism of herself than the fact that her online blog linked to shady casino's and other disturbing websites for quite a long time.

Additionally, the blog entry we remarked upon when we wrote the piece has been removed from her blogging history. Was Julie ashamed of this response in retrospect? We think she should be. We're glad she removed this very inconsiderate blog entry from public view. We could not find a link to it off the revamped blog, so we have to assume that she agreed that her attitude with that poor concerned woman was very, very inappropriate.

Julie Posey's books: On our forums, much discussion has occurred due to this article. After this article was posted, Posey offered up two new "books" for purchase. Both are very small books and she was trying to charge 3 dollars for an eleven page... pamphlet, not book. After our readers voiced outrage about such a rip-off (The download of the books were less than 500 kilobytes, yet the cost of the download was more expensive than most paid MP3 downloads... which usually rate in size between 3,000 kilobytes and 5,000 kilobytes.) Posey then went and combined the books into a dual download for a new price of five dollars. Why it would cost five dollars to download that likely doesn't amount to 1 megabyte of safety information is beyond us. Why she would even charge concerned parents for such a small amount of material is again, beyond us. We find it to be opportunistic, taking advantage of a very real problem for her own personal gain. The FAQ claims that such funds cover expenses, but the only expense we see that is of note is the payment she makes to her "entertainment" attorney. Why would someone who attacks us as being "entertainment" have an "entertainment" attorney? How weird.

Lastly, we do applaud Posey for reading this honest criticism article of her and attempting to change various things we have pointed out. Now, Julie, this is directed right to you. You can make the best change for yourself by not attacking the largest anti-pedophile organization on the internet in the future, an organization which has agreements with over 100+ Law Enforcement departments, detectives, cybercrime units and agencies across the United States. An organization that has located an actual abducted 14 year old, an organization which continues to rack up arrests, indictments and convictions at a rate that you could never reach on your own. Take care of your own back yard before going around and attacking others. Thanks.

Return to