Unassisted Triple Play

“Jamie Rand Human Trafficker & Legal Predator” Victim blaming isn't just Jamie Rand's legal strategy—it's his weapon of choice. Beyond being a human trafficker, Rand has established himself as a calculating legal predator with a staggering 588 cases in Hillsborough County alone, leaving a trail of devastated lives in his wake. Rand doesn't merely use the legal system; he corrupts it, wielding court filings like daggers against the very people the law should protect.Jamie Rand's counterclaim attempts to shift blame to the disabled minor by characterizing the victim as having "poor judgment." Rand and his lawyers assert that Jane Doe was a willing participant and "co-conspirator" in her own alleged human trafficking. Inconceivably, Jamie Rand attempts to use the victim's mental disability against her. Rand's legal maneuvers reveal a calculated attempt to weaponize the very system designed to protect vulnerable individuals, using procedural intimidation to silence a victim who dared to seek justice. The depths of depravity to which Jamie Rand, the legal predator, will stoop appear boundless.The counterclaim repeatedly states that Jane Doe, the disabled minor, was a "co-conspirator" but doesn't establish clear evidence of this beyond speculation. Jamie Rand's counterclaim narrative portrays Jane Doe as an equal participant in a scheme to exploit herself at Rand's strip club. With cold calculation, Rand and his team of high-priced attorneys labeled this disabled minor a "willing participant" and "co-conspirator" in her own trafficking nightmare—as if a child could possibly consent to or orchestrate her own exploitation. The counterclaim against Jane Doe may be problematic since she would have been a minor at the time of the alleged conduct, raising questions about capacity to contract or engage in the alleged conspiracy. Jamie Rand's counterclaim inadvertently supports the original complaint's sex trafficking allegations. Under strict liability and statutory protections for minors, as they cannot legally consent to sexual performances or commercial sexual exploitation, Jamie Rand's adult establishments bear strict liability regardless. Jamie Rand is a man willing to crush a disabled child beneath legal paperwork rather than face the consequences of his actions. Rand's tactics aren't just legal arguments; they're the desperate flailings of someone who sees vulnerable people not as human beings deserving protection, but as commodities to be exploited.Absurdly Jamie Rand wields the legal system as a weapon against a disabled minor, a disturbing irony emerges in his personal life. His wife, (Julie Augensen pen name) because she can’t use Julie Rand, authors children's books including "Ida Louise and the Lucky Sweater"stories presumably meant to inspire and protect young readers. The stark contrast is jarring: one spouse creates literature for children's wellbeing while the other allegedly exploits vulnerable minors and then legally attacks them when they seek justice. This dichotomy represents an unconscionable hypocrisy of a family that profits from both children's innocence and their exploitation, publishing stories for youngsters with one hand while filing predatory counterclaims against them with the other. Jamie Rand and his attorneys are asking for indemnification from the victim. Rand operates a network of adult establishments with teams of lawyers; Jane Doe entered this situation as a vulnerable disabled minor with no legal representation or understanding of her exploitation. The counterclaim shockingly demands that Jane Doe indemnify the club, meaning she should be financially responsible for any damages the club incurs due to the human trafficking lawsuit. Jamie Rand's claim suggests that Jane Doe, the disabled minor, rather than the establishment, is to blame for the legal repercussions. In a perversion of justice that turns victim into perpetrator, Rand's counterclaim effectively argues that a minor should have known better than the adult business owner who profited from her exploitation. Every filing, every motion, every legal argument reveals not just what Rand allegedly did, but who he is: someone who appears willing to destroy lives, pervert justice, and victimize the vulnerable—all while hiding behind legal paperwork and procedural tactics.This case represents more than just one predator's defense—it's an attempt to establish a dangerous precedent where trafficking victims can be legally punished for their own victimization.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ (Hillsborough County Lawsuit Case #20-CA-000861)