TruthMovement an internet research-guide for students and scholars. Best viewed in Chrome Browser

Blog Search

Thursday, April 30, 2015

"Persona Non Grata" author Tom Flanagan What happens when academics tell the truth?



"Persona Non Grata" author Tom Flanagan
What happens when academics tell the truth?


                   


                                      

Tom Flanagan and the Decline of Academic Freedom in Canada by Samuel Mosonyi .........................AND "Persona Non Grata" author Tom Flanagan

Tom Flanagan and the Decline of Academic Freedom in Canada


After Tom Flanagan, a professor at the University of Calgary, remarked at a University of Lethbridge lecture that he had grave doubts for jailing those who view child pornography "because of their taste in pictures," someone caught the footage on camera and posted it online. He was instantly cut from the CBC's Power and Politics show, the Manning Centre's Networking Conference, and the Wildrose Party of Alberta.


                                    


Additionally, the President of the University of Calgary issued a press release after Flanagan's incendiary remarks came to light:



Tom Flanagan has been on a research and scholarship leave from the University of Calgary since January of 2013. Tom Flanagan will remain on leave and will retire from the university on June 30, 2013.

Shortly after, the University issued a clarification that Flanagan had submitted his intent to retire before the incident occurred. The press release indicates that the University wanted to distance itself from Flanagan, and the initial wording created the impression that he had been fired.

The President and Executive Director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers wrote an open letter to the University of Calgary's President, noting that:


Though you are perfectly entitled to state your own views, you have neither the right nor the authority to appropriate the voices and opinions of the entire University of Calgary academic community. Your action sets a dangerous example, putting damage control ahead of expressive rights and responsibilities. There is a slippery slope here that leads only too readily to the silencing and purging of scholars in the name of orthodoxy or in response to public outcry.

The reaction to Tom Flanagan's comments by his institution should deeply worry all Canadian academics and students. Flanagan, in an interview with Maclean's, noted that this response will result in a chilling of discussion in classrooms across Canada.


I'm already getting emails from professors saying, "I talk about subjects like this in the classroom; I'm going to have to be more defensive in the future." I wasn't teaching a class. This could also happen in the classroom; students could bring in a camera with a prepared question, get a professor to make a statement and put it on YouTube. Everyone teaching in Canada should think of the implications of this.

I think and hope this will turn into a major topic. People have to think about the sanctity of the classroom in the age of social media and what degree of support they'll get from universities when universities come under pressure in the court of public opinion. It's one thing to talk about academic freedom; it's kind of self-serving. In order to teach well, you have to be able to challenge students--to put things in a provocative way. You can't have someone looking over your shoulder, making sure you use the right words. Students are going to be the losers.

The most meaningful courses for students are those with engagement. I have taken classes where professors have made outlandish claims, as Flanagan notes he does in his classes, in order to challenge students to voice contrary opinions. This results in robust academic discussion. It is to the detriment of students when professors must water down their inflammatory classroom discussions in order to avoid being recorded, placed on the web, and ridiculed.

Any issue which evokes deep emotive responses from the public will be acknowledged by politicians and catered to. Politicians must always worry about the next election, toe the party line, and keep the public happy. They will thus not be able to truly and fully debate hot-button issues. Discourse becomes limited to 10-second talking points. Academics, however, are not subject to these same pressures. Tenure and academic freedom promote deeper analyses of issues which may be politically untenable to touch. When academic freedom is threatened, it is to society's detriment.

While free and open legislative debate is a crucial requirement for a democracy, external pressures and constraints will prevent our representatives from taking an unpopular stance against an issue. True dialogue, then, cannot always occur in the legislature. The university must remain a place where faculty and students can voice unconventional and controversial opinions without intimidation to conform to a popular viewpoint.

When scholars within an academic environment are coerced into adopting certain viewpoints, what does this say about the state of our democracy and our ability to handle ideas which may radically differ from our own?

While Flanagan apologized for his remarks, he notes that professors often state controversial claims in order to shock students and engage them in debate.

Shortly after the incident, the editor of Policy Options, a Canadian public policy magazine, refused to publish an article by Flanagan on an unrelated topic because of his statements. Jonathan Kay and Terence Corcoran in the National Post aptly argue:


We bet the editors at CBC, Policy Options and others all know full well that Tom Flanagan doesn't actually believe child porn is harmless. These are smart people, after all -- people who have read Mr. Flanagan's work for years, and have met him in person. So why have they excommunicated him? Because they imagine that other people -- readers and listeners, and Canadians at large -- expect them to do so.

While Flanagan's statements were certainly abhorrent, they were also quite clearly taken out of context. There is no surprise that politicians have distanced themselves from him. But the response by the University of Calgary, CBC, and Policy Options is nothing short of unprofessional. The quest to discredit and ridicule Tom Flanagan will surely result in a chilling of the expression of controversial opinions.


Originally published in The Prince Arthur Herald.



                           



Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Before the United States Senate, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Washington, DC, Michael Heimbach Criminal Investigative Division, Crimes Against Children Unit Federal Bureau of Investigation

Before the United States Senate, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Washington, DC, Michael Heimbach Criminal Investigative Division, Crimes Against Children Unit Federal Bureau of Investigation

The Proper Remedy for Possession of Child Pornography: Shifting from Restitution to a Victims Compensation Program, by MICHELLE MINARCIK

The Proper Remedy for Possession of Child Pornography: Shifting from Restitution to a Victims Compensation Program

Ted Gunderson on "The BLEEPIN Truth" (US Government Child Trafficking & Sexual Abuse Exposed) X FBI Whistle-blower

       US Government Child Trafficking & Sexual Abuse Exposed

                                     

Former head of FBI Los Angeles, Memphis, Dallas, poisoned with Arsenic says Dr Ed Lucidi who saw the body and treated Mr Gunderson who suffered bladder cancer and died as a result of its spread. Reportedly Mr Gunderson had a very large FBI dossier being a whistleblower against the agency and left out of moral considerations. He spoke to many around the country about his first hand information..

                        

Father. Photographer. Child Pornographer? by Adam Ottke

Father. Photographer. Child Pornographer?




Wyatt Neumann took to Instagram to post photos he took of his daughter on a road trip. While she was clothed in some images, she was fully or partially nude in a number of them as well. But to Neumann, there was nothing unusual about a two-year-old girl without clothes. What he though was perfectly innocent, many called child pornography. The extreme hatred grew across the Internet, and overnight, his Instagram account was shut down.

Eventually, Newmann's Facebook was shut down, too. Comments flooded all his social media platforms and email inboxes with statements like, "He's an attention seeking fuck. Wake up, Wyatt, you fucking piece of shit."

This response led Neumann to build a gallery show (which he titled after one of these comments), I FEEL SORRY FOR YOUR CHILDREN: The Sexualization of Innocence in America. In fact, Neumann turned many of these comments into a key part of the show in which juxtaposed these quotes with the images that were being commented on. The show, which was held at the Safari Gallery, closed August 21st, but remains online in an entirely different way -- perhaps in its more original form. Comments can still be seen on Neumann's social media accounts, which were turned back on with the "legitimization" of his work through his show.

Naturally, this hatred, along with the temporary shutdown of Newmann's Internet accounts raises questions about censorship, the first amendment and child pornography laws. Does it matter that it was the father that took the photographs and not a stranger? Would one be "better" than the other? Are these photographs truly pornographic? Or is this a view that, perhaps, viewers bring to the table themselves? Does it matter if other, perhaps truly sick, people are sexually aroused by these images despite their original intentions? Does that mean all sexually arousing images, regardless of how we measure that, should be banned from the Internet? Some people are stimulated by inanimate objects and animals. Some may think that is sick, but it's a fact. So where does that leave us? And if "America" is so shy of nudity, why?

Personally, I think the images speak for themselves. There is purely innocence, here. Sexualization isn't created purely from the fact that she is not clothed. She's two years old! Who didn't walk around naked at two? Seeing these images in such a sexualized light in and of itself is, I believe, rather odd. And these are all views that were apparently echoed by hundreds of parents' decisions to take their own children to the gallery show.

In this context, Sally Mann's work simply cannot be ignored. Anyone who remembers the outrage with her images will instantly recognize a similarity in Newmann's situation. While it could be argued that a conversation about child pornography, art and nudity in general hasn't had the same attention given Mann's media circus until now, it is notable that in this case, it is the father that is the photographer, not the mother. Does this change your opinions in any way? What's your opinion?

Note: In the past, readers have commented about the NSFW tag applied to some posts. This decision does not signify our opinions on topics brought up in this post as a group nor as individuals. In this case, it is simply a precaution to be on the "more than safe" side for those in more conservative settings that still wish to read some of the great content Fstoppers provides. Additionally, plenty of the language is quite explicit. Thank you in advance for understanding our choice to keep this content tagged for mature audiences.

Child Porn Act: Mask for Privacy Invasion

Child Porn Act: Mask for Privacy Invasion



Government Runs Child Pornography Ring

               Government Runs Child Pornography Ring



             

Saturday, April 25, 2015

Former Alternative Media Head appealing criminal conviction, claimed he was framed with child pornography by Sheila


Former Alternative Media Head appealing criminal conviction, claimed he was framed with child pornography by Sheila

                                Brian D. Hill(left), Alex Jones(Center), and Stewart Rhodes(right)
 

                                  

Former Alternative Media head had been arrested on December 20, 2013 by Department of Homeland Security Agents in the indictment on a single-count charge of possession of child pornography in Rockingham County, North Carolina. According to Federal Court records(Free on Archive.org, Appeal case records free as well) for the fourth circuit, it turns out that the person was Brian D. Hill, the former head of USWGO Alternative News.  Now after his conviction in November of last year, he is appealing his conviction to overturn his guilty plea in his attempt to get a Jury Trial. There has been a discussion started on PrisonPlanet.com forum as of what has happened to Brian after he deleted his PrisonPlanet forum account mysteriously after the police raid. Brian claims he was set up with child pornography after writing articles that were critical of the Mayodan Town Government and North Carolina State Senator Philip Edward Berger Senior. He had no bond as the bond restrictions under the Adam Walsh Act are more severe such as electronic monitoring, home detention, and angle bracelet monitor. The court he is appealing from is the U.S. District Court in the Middle District of North Carolina, Greensboro Division. His criminal case docket # is 1:13-cr-435-1.Mr. Brian had attempted to file two Notices of Appeal which are to appeal both the Judgment entered on November 12, 2014 and on the Judgment in January 16, 2015 denying his motion to extend time to file the Notice of Appeal. Brian claims he was coerced or under duress to plead guilty to the sex charge. According to discussion on a Facebook post Brian was neglected of proper medical treatment prior to his guilty plea. It even went as far as Brian going to the emergency room due to one of the county jails failing to have a night nurse according to my sources. So apparently due to ineffective counsel and in combination of not being allowed to read all of the evidence from the Motion To Compel Discovery prior to Jury Trial, and even as far as medical neglect, he plead  guilty on June 10, 2014 to the charge, then months later attempted to 
withdraw his guilty plea. Photo of Brian during his incarceration in North Carolina in Guilford Co. Jail.

I don’t know what Brian will argue in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond, VA but it is easy to assume that some of the stuff he filed on Docket after the Judgment in November or even the pro se filings before sentencing will play a critical role in overturning his federal conviction which can in turn allow him to petition for removal from the Sex Offender Registry under SORNA. Prior to the Mayodan Police raid and arrest of Mr. Brian, he was involved in the Mayodan Town Council exposing Agenda 21 and it’s threat to small towns, then even went as far as going against the National Defense Authorization Act of fiscal year 2012. He even spoke at the town council against the torture of women, men, and children after the Nullify-NDAA Petition drive by lobbying the State of North Carolina to draft a law to resist the NDAA 2012 law to protect the Constitutional rights of North Carolinians. Unfortunately he was kicked out of the Mayodan town council on July 9, 2012 for asking Senator Berger a uncomfortable question and then threatened off-camera by the Chief of Police Charles J. Caruso. Chief Caruso was on site during the raid by  Mayodan Police. More articles were released after the threat by the Chief and that was when his mother was reportedly harassed. Later on Brian was threatened to make a false confession or the police stated they could hold his mother responsible.  That was when the trouble began for Mr. Brian. Brian even posted a online article about some of Sen. Berger’s campaign contributors are mega-banks that seem to be apart of the Agenda for Worl d Government.  He went underground and worked to uncover the eMule virus(FederalJack article cites the USWGO virus report) that he claimed was on his computer. Then he received threatening emails in 2013 from tormail.org stating that Brian is going to be a sex offender, that he was set up with child porn, that the police would never believe a word he says, and that his friends were next. Then later on a email with child pornography attached was sent to Luke Rudkowski the founder of WeAreChange.org in an attempt to frame him during the border crossing. Then later on more attempts were made to Dan Johnson and Stewart Rhodes, then even went as far as Melissa Melton a former news reporter of Infowars.com. One threatening email added to court record stated that Brian would lose in trial court which proves both that threat and the child porn set up threats were carried out against Brian and his allies, then Brian was to be called a “Sex  Offender” that needs to be away from children even though he takes no interest in children according to my investigation of him. Philip Edward Berger Jr. the former Rockingham County District Attorney in 2012/2013 was involved in the child porn investigation and  so was Reidsville, NC Police Detective Robert Bridge. Detective Bridge’s sister Melanie Bridge was also working at the DA Office around the time of the criminal investigation and Bridge had worked on the search  warrant inside the DA’s office before the police raid. The same DA publicly endorsed Melanie to be the new DA of Rockingham County. Sourced from Court Record: Under Page 8 of that report it stated that “On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 at 0940 hours, Detective Robert Bridge and I met with Rockingham County Chief Assistant District Attorney Julia Hejazi and reviewed the search warrant. Ms. Hejazi made  some minor grammatical changes to the search warrant. Detective Bridge  retyped it in the District Attorney’s Office before it was presented for approval.” However Detective Bridge failed to mention that his sister  was also working at the District Attorney’s Office at the time named Melanie Bridge. With the connections between the criminal investigators  involved in the defendant’s case and former District Attorney Phil Berger Jr. it draws very suspicious circumstances in the defendant’s case.

So it appears that the very people involved in Brian’s child porn case and criminal investigation against him had some form of connection  to either Phil E. Berger Jr. or Phil Berger Senior. Sen. Berger is the President Pro Tempore of the State Senate, 3rd in line to be governor,  and is the Mayodan Town Attorney. Berger Jr. lost in his bid for  Congress during the election against Mark Walker but became a administrative law Judge.of North  Carolina. So with a politician and a whole family that is successful with the Berger Law Firm,  the NC Senate, and even connections inside the criminal justice system,  could Berger have influenced the investigation, indictment, and prosecution of Brian David Hill? Well you be the Judge and do your own  research to find out the truth. The U.S. Department of Justice has received multiple complaints from Brian according to evidence on Docket and public record law. He even filed multiple complaints to the N.C. Office of the Ombudsman to the Crime Lab in the N.C. Department of Justice. Even went as far as writing he crime lab administration employee Joy Strickland(this link shows proof she works for the N.C. DOJ). He even asked her to forward emails to SBI Agent Rodney White in regards to his Innocence asking for holding off on the criminal indictment, however around the time there was a warrant already out for  his arrest since November 26, 2013. He has even attempted a written  application for a Presidential Pardon from U.S. President Barack Obama  to overturn his federal criminal conviction but to no avail. So as of right now a new attorney was appointed to Brian in his criminal case during the Federal Appeal process.


Source – Photo used in accordance with Fair Use exemption under Copyright law.  The attorney is Mark A. Jones and is apart of the Bell Davis & Pitt, Winston Salem, NC law firm. Even if this attorney is court appointed, he seems to have quite a lot of experience in criminal law  and is outside of the usual public defender office as he is under grant  by the Criminal Justice Act Board/Panel as you usually have to be in order to be appointed as counsel for indigent defendants. Question is with this new attorney and all the work he has done pro se, will he  succeed in appealing his conviction then overturning his whole criminal case which could led to case dismissal or acquittal by a Jury.Originally Posted at Planet Infowars and was reposted with permission.

UPDATE!
For those that assume Brian was guilty, here is a screenshot of an email sent to Brian David Hill of USWGO Alternative News threatening him and his friends with child porn set ups. Brian was clearly set up with child pornography and this threatening email isn't the only proof. There is more for those that take the time to read the U.S. District Court Docket.

upload images free or look below


Doc 30 - Motion To File Evidence, Proof Of Threatening Emails, Uswgo Article

https://www.scribd.com/doc/255625742/Doc-30-Motion-To-File-Evidence-Proof-Of-Threatening-Emails-Uswgo-Article

Doc 37 - Motion To File Evidence(75 Pages of evidence submitted to the District Court)

https://www.scribd.com/doc/255625543/Doc-37-Motion-To-File-Evidence-75-Pages-of-evidence-submitted-to-the-District-Court

Doc 46 - Declaration By Susan Basko In Regards To Brian Hill's Innocence

https://www.scribd.com/doc/255624912/Doc-46-Declaration-By-Susan-Basko-In-Regards-To-Brian-Hill-s-Innocence

Doc 57 - Judge Osteen Jr. Ordered Denial of Pro Se Motion to Extend Time to File Appeal

https://www.scribd.com/doc/255623773/Doc-57-Judge-Osteen-Jr-Ordered-Denial-of-Pro-Se-Motion-to-Extend-Time-to-File-Appeal

Doc 59-Main - Motion to Request a Delay on Destruction of Property

https://www.scribd.com/doc/255623581/59-Main-Motion-to-Request-a-Delay-on-Destruction-of-Property

Doc
58-Main - MOTION to STAY JUDGMENT - In Regards to Property Forfeiture
in - MOTION to STAY JUDGMENT - In Regards to Property Forfeiture

https://www.scribd.com/doc/255623504/Doc-58-Main-MOTION-to-STAY-JUDGMENT-In-Regards-to-Property-Forfeiture-in-MOTION-to-STAY-JUDGMENT-In-Regards-to-Property-Forfeiture

Doc 60-Main - New Evidence by Defendant

https://www.scribd.com/doc/255621899/Doc-60-Main-New-Evidence-by-Defendant

Doc 61-Main - New Evidence by Defendant - Evidence Brief

https://www.scribd.com/doc/255612634/Doc-61-Main-New-Evidence-by-Defendant-Evidence-Brief

Doc 62-Main - 2ND NOTICE of APPEAL With Additional Evidence

https://www.scribd.com/doc/255612388/Doc-62-Main-2ND-NOTICE-of-APPEAL-With-Additional-Evidence

Doc 66-Main - Request for Transcript With Cja-24 Voucher(66-1) and Letter

https://www.scribd.com/doc/255611905/Doc-66-Main-Request-for-Transcript-With-Cja-24-Voucher-66-1-and-Letter

Doc 66-Main - Request for Transcript With Cja-24 Voucher(66-1) and Letter by Sheila Dogwood

In the U.S. District Court in Greensboro, NC(4th Circuit) the Defendant has filed a CJA 24 form for the Court to authorize the payment of fees for the Transcripts to be ordered from the U.S. District Court in Greensboro, NC to be used in the U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit in Richmond, VA. CJA refers to the Criminal Justice Act United States Code.

Criminal case has been opened on appeal. These are documents from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Docket # 1:13-cr-435-1. This District Court case records show that the Defendant has claimed and provided proof of his claims that he was framed with child pornography, not given a fair trial, ineffective assistance of counsel, and deteriorating health which all led to a false guilty plea.

Defendant is Brian D. Hill the former news reporter of USWGO Alternative News.


Doc 62-Main - 2ND NOTICE of APPEAL With Additional Evidence by Sheila Dogwood

In the U.S. District Court in Greensboro, NC(4th Circuit) the Defendant has filed a NOTICE OF APPEAL to the Judge's denial of Pro Se Motion to Extend the time to file the Notice of Appeal, which opens up the criminal case for Appeal, then Assigned a Appeal Court Case Number. This U.S. District Court in Greensboro, NC has the Notice of Appeal on record.

Criminal case has been opened on appeal. These are documents from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Docket # 1:13-cr-435-1. This District Court case records show that the Defendant has claimed and provided proof of his claims that he was framed with child pornography, not given a fair trial, ineffective assistance of counsel, and deteriorating health which all led to a false guilty plea.

Defendant is Brian D. Hill the former news reporter of USWGO Alternative News.


Doc 61-Main - New Evidence by Defendant - Evidence Brief by Sheila Dogwood

United States of America v. Brian David Hill.

In the U.S. District Court in Greensboro, NC(4th Circuit) the Defendant has filed new evidence(additional evidence), aka a evidence brief, which appears to be filed on record before the NOTICE OF APPEAL has been officially filed by the Defendant.

Criminal case has been opened on appeal. These are documents from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Docket # 1:13-cr-435-1. This District Court case records show that the Defendant has claimed and provided proof of his claims that he was framed with child pornography, not given a fair trial, ineffective assistance of counsel, and deteriorating health which all led to a false guilty plea.

Defendant is Brian D. Hill the former news reporter of USWGO Alternative News.


Doc 60-Main - New Evidence by Defendant by Sheila Dogwood

United States of America v. Brian David Hill.

In the U.S. District Court in Greensboro, NC(4th Circuit) the Defendant has filed new evidence(additional evidence), aka not officially titled as a evidence brief, which appears to be filed on record before the NOTICE OF APPEAL has been officially filed by the Defendant.

Criminal case has been opened on appeal. These are documents from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Docket # 1:13-cr-435-1. This District Court case records show that the Defendant has claimed and provided proof of his claims that he was framed with child pornography, not given a fair trial, ineffective assistance of counsel, and deteriorating health which all led to a false guilty plea.

Defendant is Brian D. Hill the former news reporter of USWGO Alternative News.


Doc 58-Main - MOTION to STAY JUDGMENT - In Regards to Property Forfeiture in - MOTION to STAY JUDGMENT - In Regards to Property Forfeiture by Sheila Dogwood

United States of America v. Brian David Hill.

In the U.S. District Court in Greensboro, NC(4th Circuit) the Defendant has filed a Motion to STAY JUDGMENT, aka a Motion that prohibits the government from destroying or disposing of property which has been forfeited by the Defendant in his guilty plea, as the Defendant wishes to request a forensic examination of his hard drives, which appears to be filed on record before the NOTICE OF APPEAL has been officially filed by the Defendant.

Criminal case has been opened on appeal. These are documents from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Docket # 1:13-cr-435-1. This District Court case records show that the Defendant has claimed and provided proof of his claims that he was framed with child pornography, not given a fair trial, ineffective assistance of counsel, and deteriorating health which all led to a false guilty plea.

Defendant is Brian D. Hill the former news reporter of USWGO Alternative News.


Doc 57 - Judge Osteen Jr. Ordered Denial of Pro Se Motion to Extend Time to File Appeal by Sheila Dogwood

United States of America v. Brian David Hill.

In the U.S. District Court in Greensboro, NC(4th Circuit) the Chief Judge of the Court denied the Defendant Brian D. Hill's Motion to Extend Time to File Appeal (Doc. 55). That is the basis for the later NOTICE OF APPEAL filed by the Defendant which led to the Appeal of his case.

Criminal case has been opened on appeal. These are documents from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Docket # 1:13-cr-435-1. This District Court case records show that the Defendant has claimed and provided proof of his claims that he was framed with child pornography, not given a fair trial, ineffective assistance of counsel, and deteriorating health which all led to a false guilty plea.

Defendant is Brian D. Hill the former news reporter of USWGO Alternative News.


Doc 46 - Declaration By Susan Basko In Regards To Brian Hill's Innocence by Sheila Dogwood

In the U.S. District Court in Greensboro, NC(4th Circuit) an outside party that is a witness of some kind to the Defendant has filed a DECLARATION to the Court which angered the Federal Judge Osteen Jr. for declaring Defendant Brian D. Hill's Innocence, which may help in opening up the criminal case for Appeal, then Assigned a Appeal Court Case Number. This U.S. District Court in Greensboro, NC has the Notice of Appeal on record.

Criminal case has been opened on appeal. These are documents from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Docket # 1:13-cr-435-1. This District Court case records show that the Defendant has claimed and provided proof of his claims that he was framed with child pornography, not given a fair trial, ineffective assistance of counsel, and deteriorating health which all led to a false guilty plea.

Defendant is Brian D. Hill the former news reporter of USWGO Alternative News.


Doc 30 - Motion To File Evidence, Proof Of Threatening Emails, Uswgo Article by Sheila Dogwood

In the U.S. District Court in Greensboro, NC(4th Circuit) the Defendant has filed a Motion To File Evidence with the Court which contains evidence of two threatening emails claiming they(the unknown assailant or assailants) framed him(set him up) with child pornography and that others would be next, which throw serious doubt into the guilt of the Defendant Brian David Hill aka Brian D. Hill. The threats came from Tormail.org which is the same provider that the child porn set up attempts were made on political activists such as Luke Rudkowski of WeAreChange.org, Stewart Rhodes of OathKeepers.org, Daniel Johnson of PANDAUnite.org, and others. There were names like Dan in the threat email which would match Dan Johnson. So the threatening emails do seem to have ties with the set up attempts on political activists. Upon the Defendant getting a new trial, the lawyer can request subpoenaing of these witnesses in his trial for testimony. Defendant Brian D. Hill's Innocence can be further proved with this new evidence, which may help in opening up the criminal case for Appeal, then Assigned a Appeal Court Case Number. This U.S. District Court in Greensboro, NC has the Notice of Appeal on record.

Criminal case has been opened on appeal. These are documents from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Docket # 1:13-cr-435-1. This District Court case records show that the Defendant has claimed and provided proof of his claims that he was framed with child pornography, not given a fair trial, ineffective assistance of counsel, and deteriorating health which all led to a false guilty plea.

Defendant is Brian D. Hill the former news reporter of USWGO Alternative News.



Friday, April 24, 2015

Mr. SMITH of Texas, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following R E P O R T

Mr. SMITH of Texas, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following R E P O R T

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3796 would cost the TAXPAYERS $298 million over the 2013–2017 period. It w2ill be used by the justice Dept. so law enforcement can go after people that look at images, and doesn't rescue one child. The other aim of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 is to protect children by forcing sex offenders to register, and making the sex offender registry publicly available. In the case of juvenile sexting, though, the “victim” and the “perpetrator” can be the same person. Registering teens as sex offenders and subjecting them to public shame further victimizes these kids. States that do not comply with the federal law suffer a 10% loss of law enforcement grant money from the federal government. How much money is that? The federal law requires states that wish to receive grant money to register juveniles as sex offenders for life, if they have committed an aggravated sex offense. This requirement includes registering children as young as 14.
- Maryland stands to loose approximately $2 million
- California lost over $3 million; and,
- Texas lost over $2 million
Florida receives almost $2 million for complying with the federal law.

When exactly will you become concerned that these LAWS which you consider all fine and dandy go against you? What will you do when law enforcement software picks up child porn on your computer put there by spam? People that have P2P software do not realize that these programs scan your hard drive for media to share. Someone sends you child porn spam and its scanned by a P2P software and added to your share folder on your hard drive. Now the technique is being adopted by a different kind of a hacker—the kind with a badge. For the last two years, the FBI has been quietly experimenting with drive-by hacks as a solution to one of law enforcement’s knottiest Internet problems: how to identify and prosecute users of criminal websites hiding behind the powerful Tor anonymity system. Will you be concerned when they they come after your kids or grand-kids for sexting? Where will you get the money to bail out your father, mother, or child and the cost of lawyers; after law enforcement confiscates and seizes your personal property.


Evaluation of Media Claims Regarding Non-Reporting by the National Reconnaissance Office of Certain 2010 Admissions of Potential Crimes

The Radical Right continues to spread the myth that media is biased against conservatives; however the truth was obvious On July 10, 2012 when the McClatchy Company published an article claiming that the National Reconnaissance Office had not reported to local law enforcement admissions of child molestation and viewing of child pornography by a contractor and an Air Force officer. This has become apparent over and over again as white conservatives captivate the media, while the diverse progressive Left is invisible.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

THE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CRUSADE AND ITS NET WIDENING EFFECT; Melissa Hamilton

THE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CRUSADE AND ITS NET WIDENING EFFECT; Melissa Hamilton

THE EFFICACY OF SEVERE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY SENTENCING: EMPIRICAL VALIDITY OR POLITICAL RHETORIC? Melissa Hamilton


THE EFFICACY OF SEVERE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY SENTENCING: EMPIRICAL VALIDITY OR POLITICAL RHETORIC? Melissa Hamilton


An Illustration of Hashing and Its Effect on Illegal File Content in the Digital Age, by Stephen Hoffman

An Illustration of Hashing and Its Effect on Illegal File Content in the Digital Age, by Stephen Hoffman


UNDER PRESSURE: THE HAZARDS OF MAINTAINING INNOCENCE AFTER CONVICTION , Daniel S. Medwed

UNDER PRESSURE: THE HAZARDS OF MAINTAINING INNOCENCE AFTER CONVICTION , Daniel S. Medwed

Regulating Sexual Harm: Strangers, Intimates, and Social Institutional Reform, by Allegra M. McLeod

Regulating Sexual Harm: Strangers, Intimates, and Social Institutional Reform by Allegra M. McLeod

The Harms of Child Pornography Law by Bruce Ryder

The Harms of Child Pornography Law by Bruce Ryder

Blocks just move child porn under the counter by, Eerke Boiten

Blocks just move child porn under the counter
Google and Microsoft have agreed to install filters on their search engines to prevent them being used to search for child abuse images. Some queries on Google and Bing will be blocked, while others will produce a warning message alongside filtered results.


It is not as if people need to be told. Child porn has been illegal for a long time in most of the world. The question to ask is why it still hasn’t been eradicated. The ease with which digital media can be stored, transmitted and copied is only part of the problem. Beyond technology, social deprivation, poverty, sex tourism and child trafficking all play a part and require larger, more complex solutions.
Hurdle, not barrier

In terms of effectiveness, the introduction of filters by search engines is similar to moving porn under the counter at a newsagent’s. It creates a useful hurdle to prevent people accidentally or gradually entering the territory but it will not stop a determined person from accessing the material if they really want to. In principle, it will sharpen the boundary between innocent and criminal behaviour but serious criminal behaviour will not be affected. Most of this activity takes place in parts of the internet that are not visible to search engines anyway.

In this case, there is an echo of what happened with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Part III) in the late 2000s. This UK law requires people to hand over encryption keys if asked and allows them to be jailed for up to two years if they fail to comply. Security experts noted this would have little impact on serious criminals using encryption intelligently. Indeed, the first person to be convicted through this was not a hardened criminal, but someone with mental health issues.

To date, still only a single conviction is known to have been made under this part of the act against a man who refused to hand over the encryption password to his computer to police investigating child porn. Experts suggest most serious online child porn activity is taking place in the heavily encrypted and obscured “dark net” so Cameron’s announced intention to address this area next is very welcome. We can overlook his somewhat hyperbolic assertion that work to track online child porn is somehow comparable to the codebreakers of World War 2.
The trade-off

The basic technological ideas behind these internet search filters are well known. Given the complexity and evolution of natural language, any such filter can only make an educated guess at whether a query is looking for child abuse. Sometimes it will wrongly place a search query in that category (a “false positive”), and sometimes it will fail to identify one (a “false negative”).

Any filtering technique will show a trade-off between these two kinds of errors: reducing one kind will increase the other. Too many false positives leads to inappropriate censorship and too many false negatives makes the filter ineffectual. A middle category with warning messages and selected search results for these child abuse filters alleviates this to a limited extent, although the search engine still needs to choose between the three categories.

David Cameron’s comments that the search engine providers had so far been “unable” to implement these kinds of filters are rather surprising, though. Last century’s search engines started by just looking for bits of text in web pages, but their business model these days relies crucially on being able to decide the relevance of a given web page to a search query.

Both Google and Microsoft have had filtering technology in place to comply with the Chinese government’s censorship on internet search for some time. Google operated compliantly in the Chinese market until 2010; Microsoft’s Bing has collaborated with the main Chinese search engine Baidu since 2011. Clearly they have been reticent to implement it elsewhere, perhaps because blocking search terms, even for laudable causes such as tackling child abuse, raises questions for the future.

If this is indeed the first time such technologies are being rolled out in the UK, it is a landmark moment in internet freedom. Cameron may not be ready to acknowledge it, but after the Snowden revelations, many people will not feel able to trust the UK government not to try to extend censorship into other areas.


When a drawing or cartoon image can land you in jail, by Abhilash Nair

When a drawing or cartoon image can land you in jail, by Abhilash Nair

NSPCC accused of risking its reputation and 'whipping up moral panic' with study into porn addiction among children by, ADAM WITHNALL

NSPCC accused of risking its reputation and 'whipping up moral panic' with study into porn addiction among children by ADAM WITHNALL
In an open letter to the child protection organisation’s chief executive Peter Wanless, a group of doctors, academics, journalists and campaigners criticised the NSPCC for “suggesting that pornography is causing harm to new generations of young people”.


Peter Liver, director of the NSPCC’s ChildLine service, presented the survey of 700 12- to 13-year-olds and said: “Worryingly, [young people] tell ChildLine that watching porn is making them feel depressed, giving them body image issues, making them feel pressured to engage in sexual acts they’re not ready for and some even feel they are addicted to porn.”

The results of the NSPCC study saw the Conservative Culture Secretary, Sajid Javid, declare that his party would introduce new age-restriction measures designed to “protect our children from harmful material”.

But the open letter from experts said that “the existence of the kinds of harm [the NSPCC] reports remains contested”, adding that “the very existence of porn addiction is questionable”.

Jerry Barnett, a campaigner and author who posted the open letter on the Sex & Censorship website, said this progression from “flimsy research” to further censorship was “a very dangerous thing”.

He told The Independent: “The NSPCC and Childline, organisations that exist for the protection of children, are quite deliberately using an atrocious study to feed into moral panic, and it’s clearly been coordinated with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.”

Mr Barnett said that regulators had been using porn for several years to justify internet censorship and “create a case for turning Britain back into a digital island”.

“The panic itself is fairly old,” he said. “Falsely linking porn to sexual violence and body issues and so on are all old claims which have been discredited.

“But the fact that the NSPCC, with its trusted brand and reputation, is prepared to come out with such flimsy research is shocking.”

Mr Barnett said he supported better sex education and that the tools to stop younger children for viewing porn were already available.

And he said that there was research to suggest that the increased availability of porn in recent years had actually corresponded with a reduction in sexual violence.

“If you try to clamp down on that there’s a risk you reverse the clock on that beneficial trend over the past two to three decades,” he said.

An NSPCC spokesman said: "We listen to the worries of children everyday, including those about porn. What matters to us is that we address their concerns.

We take a diverse approach in listening to young people's voices and this poll is part of a wide body of research'

The open letter and a list of signatories is as follows. It first appeared here.

To: Peter Wanless, Chief Executive Officer, NSPCC

Dear Mr Wanless,

We write to express our deep concern about a report you published last week, which received significant press coverage. The report claimed that a tenth of 12-13 year olds believe they are addicted to pornography, and appears to have been fed to the media with accompanying quotes suggesting that pornography is causing harm to new generations of young people.

Your study appears to rely entirely on self-report evidence from young people of 11 and older, and so is not – as it has been presented – indicative of actual harm but rather, provides evidence that some young people are fearful that pornography is harming them. In other words, this study looks at the effects on young people of widely published but unevidenced concerns about pornography, not the effects of pornography itself.

It appears that your study was not an academic one, but was carried out by a “creative market research” group called OnePoll. We are concerned that you, a renowned child protection agency, are presenting the findings of an opinion poll as a serious piece of research. Management Today recently critiqued OnePoll in an article that opened as follows: “What naive readers may not realise is that much of what is reported as scientific is not in fact genuine research at all, but dishonest marketing concocted by PR firms.”

There have been countless studies into the effects of porn since the late 1960s, and yet the existence of the kinds of harm you report remains contested. In fact, many researchers have reached the opposite conclusion: that increased availability of porn correlates with healthier attitudes towards sex, and with steadily reducing rates of sexual violence. For example, the UK government’s own research generated the following conclusion in 2005: “There seems to be no relationship between the availability of pornography and an increase in sex crimes …; in comparison there is more evidence for the opposite effect.”

The very existence of “porn addiction” is questionable, and it is not an accepted medical condition. Dr David J Ley, a psychologist specialising in this field, says: “Sex and porn can cause problems in people’s lives, just like any other human behavior or form of entertainment. But, to invoke the idea of “addiction” is unethical, using invalid, scientifically and medically-rejected concepts to invoke fear and feed panic.”

Immediately following the release of your report, the Culture Secretary Sajid Javid announced that the Tories would be introducing strong censorship of the Internet if they win the next election, in order to “protect children” from pornography. The Culture Secretary’s new announcement would probably lead to millions of websites being blocked by British ISPs, should it come into force. We would point out the experience of the optional “porn filters”, introduced in early 2014, which turned out in practise to block a vast range of content including sex education material.

The BBC news website quotes you as saying, in response to the minister’s announcement: “Any action that makes it more difficult for young people to find this material is to be welcomed.” We disagree: we believe that introducing Chinese-style blocking of websites is not warranted by the findings of your opinion poll, and that serious research instead needs to be undertaken to determine whether your claims of harm are backed by rigorous evidence.

Signatories:

Jerry Barnett, CEO Sex & Censorship

Frankie Mullin, Journalist

Clarissa Smith, Professor of Sexual Cultures, University of Sunderland

Julian Petley, Professor of Screen Media, Brunel University

David J. Ley PhD. Clinical Psychologist (USA)

Dr Brooke Magnanti

Feona Attwood, Professor of Media & Communication at Middlesex University

Martin Barker, Emeritus Professor at University of Aberystwyth

Jessica Ringrose, Professor, Sociology of Gender and Education, UCL Institute of Education

Ronete Cohen MA, Psychologist

Dr Meg John Barker, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, The Open University

Kath Albury, Associate Professor, UNSW Australia

Myles Jackman, specialist in obscenity law

Dr Helen Hester, Middlesex University

Justin Hancock, youth worker and sex educator

Ian Dunt, Editor in Chief, Politics.co.uk

Ally Fogg, Journalist

Dr Emily Cooper, Northumbria University

Gareth May, Journalist

Dr Kate Egan, Lecturer in Film Studies, Aberystwyth University

Dr Ann Luce, Senior Lecturer in Journalism and Communication, Bournemouth University

John Mercer, Reader in Gender and Sexuality, Birmingham City University

Dr. William Proctor, Lecturer in Media, Culture and Communication, Bournemouth University

Dr Jude Roberts, Teaching Fellow, University of Surrey

Dr Debra Ferreday, Senior Lecturer in Sociology, Lancaster University

Jane Fae, author of “Taming the beast” a review of law/regulation governing online pornography

Michael Marshall, Vice President, Merseyside Skeptics Society

Martin Robbins, Journalist

Assoc. Prof. Paul J. Maginn (University of Western Australia)

Dr Lucy Neville, Lecturer in Criminology, Middlesex University

Alix Fox, Journalist and Sex Educator

Dr Mark McCormack, Senior Lecturer in Sociology, Durham University

Chris Ashford, Professor of Law and Society, Northumbria University

Diane Duke, CEO Free Speech Coalition (USA)

Dr Steve Jones, Senior Lecturer in Media, Northumbria University

Dr Johnny Walker, Lecturer in Media, Northumbria University

Fathers' Brains Change When Taking On Primary Caregiver Role ; source: Newsy / Powered by NewsLook.com

Fathers' Brains Change When Taking On Primary Caregiver Role
Date: May 27, 2014

Source:
Newsy / Powered by NewsLook.com

Summary:
According to a new study, fathers who are their child's primary caregiver undergo brain changes that make them more sensitive to baby's needs. Video provided by Newsy

http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/ce228bc4e17ef36dcb97036a46981405.htm

Viewing Child Porn Not A Risk Factor For Future Sex Offenses, Study Suggests; source, BioMed Central

Viewing Child Porn Not A Risk Factor For Future Sex Offenses, Study Suggests  BioMed Central

For people without a prior conviction for a hands-on sex offense, the consumption of child pornography alone does not, in itself, seem to represent a risk factor for committing such an offense. Researchers writing in the open access journal BMC Psychiatry studied 231 men convicted of consuming child pornography in 2002 and found that only 1% had gone on to commit a hands-on sex offense in the following six years.


Frank Urbaniok from the Canton of Zurich Department of Justice, Switzerland, worked with a team of researchers to investigate these consumers. He said: "When investigating the prevalence of internet child pornography consumption, an important practical question is whether consumers of child pornography pose a risk for hands-on sex offenses. Our results support the assumption that these consumers, in fact, form a distinct group of sex offenders. Probably, the motivation for consuming child pornography differs from the motivation to physically assault minors. Furthermore, the recidivism rates of 1% for hands-on and 4% for hands-off sex offenses were quite low."

As has been found in other studies, Urbaniok and colleagues were able to corroborate that the offenders were well educated and that most consumed other types of illegal pornography as well, such as pornography depicting sexual acts with animals, excrement, or involving brutality.

Commenting on the findings, Urbaniok said: "Due to the widespread use of the internet, child pornography consumers today may differ from our sample in some socio-economic aspects, such as in the level of education or level of income. Nevertheless, there are two relevant and practical findings that seem to be robust: For consumers of child pornography without a criminal history, the prognosis for hands-on sex offenses and for recidivism with child pornography is favourable."

Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by BioMed Central. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal Reference:
Jérôme Endrass, Frank Urbaniok, Lea C Hammermeister, Christian Benz, Thomas Elbert, Arja Laubacher and Astrid Rossegger. The consumption of Internet child pornography and violent and sex offending. BMC Psychiatry, (in press) [link]

Monday, April 20, 2015

Innocence Destroyed


SPECIAL REPORT: Police Pre-Crime Algorithm Uses Social Media Posts Against You in Real Time, BY AARON DYKES AND MELISSA MELTON POSTED IN CONNECT-THE-DOTS, VIDEO

SPECIAL REPORT: Police Pre-Crime Algorithm Uses Social Media Posts Against You in Real Time, BY AARON DYKES AND MELISSA MELTON POSTED IN CONNECT-THE-DOTS, VIDEO
SPECIAL REPORT: Police Pre-Crime Algorithm Uses Social Media Posts Against You in Real Time, BY AARON DYKES AND MELISSA MELTON POSTED IN CONNECT-THE-DOTS, VIDEO



ACLU questions validity of massive child pornography investigation in Louisa, VA

ACLU questions validity of massive child pornography investigation in Louisa
Posted: Apr 04, 2014 10:15 PM EDT Updated: Apr 14, 2014 10:35 PM EDT
LOUISA, VA (WWBT) -


The American Civil Liberties Union is speaking out, saying it's concerned with how police are handling a massive child porn investigation in Central Virginia.

NBC12 was the first to tell you that authorities are looking into more than one thousand inappropriate pictures and videos posted online involving teens in Louisa, Hanover and Goochland.

The ACLU goes as far to say that minors have the constitutional right to take nude photos of themselves and send it to most whomever they chose. While, according to investigators, they're trying to save these teens from committing crimes that will forever mar their record.

More than one hundred children and teens are allegedly involved in the scandal spanning at least three jurisdictions.

As part of their investigation, Louisa investigators say more than a dozen cell phones were confiscated.

"Do they have probable cause for each one of those seizures?" Asked Claire Gastanaga, Executive Director of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU. "A cell phone is a piece of property just like your house or your car. The police don't get to search it unless you give them permission and you're not required to give them permission unless they get warrant."

Gastanaga says, she saw NBC12's report and questions the validity of the police investigation. She believes minors have a constitutional right to take a picture of themselves however they want and send it to most whomever they want.

"We think that's protected by the First Amendment as an expressive activity," she said.

Louisa police are investigating an Instagram account that directs teens to a third party site they can only access if they submit nude photos of themselves.

Under federal and state law, if a minor takes a "naked selfie," it's considered manufacturing child pornography. If the minor sends it, that's distribution.

The recipient of that photo could be charged with possession of child pornography, even if they're underage.

Louisa police say, they're enforcing the law and trying to protect these children from themselves.

To that Gastanaga says, "We want to protect children but protecting children at the expense of their constitutional rights that's not protecting children."

Louisa police tell NBC12 it's doubtful any charges will come from this investigation and that no adults are involved. Still, investigators say, they want to teach these teens what they've allegedly done is serious business and illegal.

Sunday, April 19, 2015

Minor. Obscenity, Child pornography. Practice, Criminal, Required finding. Evidence, Sexual conduct, Expert opinion. Witness, Expert. Words, "live performance". by Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, Lenk, JJ.

If you kid gets busted for SEXTING, "SO BE IT"

VIDEOMinor. Obscenity, Child pornography. Practice, Criminal, Required finding. Evidence, Sexual conduct, Expert opinion. Witness, Expert. Words, "live performance"

COMMONWEALTH vs. HAROLD KAUPP.

COMMONWEALTH vs. HAROLD KAUPP Marshall, C.J., Ireland, Spina, Cowin, Cordy, & Botsford, JJ.
Middlesex. November 3, 2008. - January 16, 2009

VIDEOObscenity, Child pornography. Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress. Probable cause. Search and seizure, Probable cause, Computer, Affidavit, Warrant. Constitutional law, Search and seizure, Probable cause. Privacy.


Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress. Search and seizure, Probable cause, Warrant, Affidavit. Constitutional law, Search and seizure. Probable cause. Obscenity, Child pornography.

COMMONWEALTH vs. MARK ANTHONY.Suffolk. February 5, 2008. - April 2, 2008. Present: Marshall, C.J., Greaney, Ireland, Spina, Cowin, Cordy, & Botsford, JJ.
COMPUTERS ARE DIFFERENT

VIDEOPractice, Criminal, Motion to suppress. Search and seizure, Probable cause, Warrant, Affidavit. Constitutional law, Search and seizure. Probable cause. Obscenity, Child pornography. Marshall, C.J., Greaney, Ireland, Spina, Cowin, Cordy, Botsford, JJ.

COMMONWEALTH vs. JOHN K. ROLLINS; Opinion

COMMONWEALTH vs. JOHN K. ROLLINS; Opinion

Commonwealth v. Rollins

Summary
Obscenity, Child pornography. Constitutional law, Sentence, Double jeopardy, Freedom of speech and press. Due process of law, Sentence. Practice, Criminal, Sentence, Duplicative convictions, Double jeopardy, Argument by prosecutor. Evidence, Photograph, Relevancy and materiality, Opinion.



COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS v. JOHN K. ROLLINS BRIEF FOR THE COMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC COUNSEL SERVICES AS AMICUS CURIAE

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS v. JOHN K. ROLLINS BRIEF FOR THE COMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC COUNSEL SERVICES AS AMICUS CURIAE

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS vs. JOHN K. ROLLINS DEFENDANT; APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF AND SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD APPENDIX

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS vs. JOHN K. ROLLINS DEFENDANT; APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF AND SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD APPENDIX

COMMONWEALTH V. JOHN K. ROLLINS ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE HOLYOKE DISTRICT COURT

COMMONWEALTH V. JOHN K. ROLLINS ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE HOLYOKE DISTRICT COURT



COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS v. JOHN K. ROLLINS

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS v. JOHN K. ROLLINS

COMMONWEALTH vs. JOHN K. ROLLINS. by Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ.


COMMONWEALTH vs. JOHN K. ROLLINS. by Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ.

COMMONWEALTH vs. JOHN K. ROLLINS. by Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ.


Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment, by Kathleen Ann Ruane; Legislative Attorney

Freedom of Speech and Press:Exceptions to the First Amendment, by Kathleen Ann Ruane Legislative Attorney

A Call To Rewrite America’s Child Pornography Test: The Dost Factor Test by Kieran Dowling

A Call To Rewrite America’s Child Pornography Test: The Dost Factor Test by Kieran Dowling

DEVELOPMENTS IN FEDERAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE LAW By Stephen R. Sady, Chief Deputy Federal Public Defender District of Oregon September 2014

DEVELOPMENTS IN FEDERAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE LAW By Stephen R. Sady, Chief Deputy Federal Public Defender District of Oregon September 2014

Policing for Profit; The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture by Marian R. Williams, Ph.D. Jefferson E. Holcomb, Ph.D. Tomislav V. Kovandzic, Ph.D. Scott Bullock

Policing for Profit; The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture by Marian R. Williams, Ph.D., Jefferson E. Holcomb, Ph.D.,
Tomislav V. Kovandzic, Ph.D., Scott Bullock

Saturday, April 18, 2015

Online Solicitation Offenders Are Different From Child Pornography Offenders and Lower Risk Contact Sexual Offenders; Seto, Wood, Babchishin, Flynn

Online Solicitation Offenders Are Different From Child Pornography Offenders and Lower Risk Contact Sexual Offenders by Michael C. Seto, J. Michael Wood,
Kelly M. Babchishin, Sheri Flynn


Friday, April 17, 2015

Child Pornography, RoundUp and the Franks hearing; by Susan Brenner a law professor who speaks, writes and consults on cybercrime and cyberconflict.

           Child Pornography, RoundUp and the Franks hearing
by Susan Brenner  
http://cyb3rcrim3.blogspot.com/2014/04/child-pornography-roundup-and-franks.html
                     
--> 
After the federal government charged Paul Case with distribution and possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S. Code §§ 2252(a)(2) and 2252(a)(4)(B), he [moved, pursuant] to Franks v.Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant, arguing that the agent who applied for the warrant misled the issuing magistrate judge by failing to disclose the FBI's use of an automated computer program to discover child pornography files on defendant's computer available for download through a peer-to-peer (`P2P’) file sharing network.
U.S. v. Case, 2014 WL 1052946 (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin 2014). Case also argued, in his motion, that “the program may have infiltrated non-shared, private portions of his computer, in violation of the 4th Amendment.”U.S. v. Case, supra.
The U.S. District Court Judge who had the case began his opinion by explaining that [s]earch warrants enjoy a presumption of validity. See Franks v. Delaware, supra. . . . A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to examine the sufficiency of a search warrant only if he makes a `substantial preliminary showing’ that the warrant application contained a materially false statement made by law enforcement with deliberate or reckless disregard for the truth and that the false statement was necessary for the finding of probable cause. U.S. v. Williams, 718 F.3d 644, 649 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit 2013). . . .
A defendant may also challenge an affidavit by demonstrating that the affiant intentionally or recklessly omitted material information. U.S. v. Hoffman, 519 F.3d 672 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit 2008).
The court need not hold a Franks hearing based on conclusory or generalized assertions. See U.S. v. Currie, 739 F.3d 960 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit 2014); United States v. Taylor, 154 F .3d 675, 680 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit 1998). Rather, the defendant must offer direct evidence of the affiant's state of mind or inferential evidence that the affiant had obvious reasons for omitting facts in order to prove deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard. U.S. v. Souffront, 338 F.3d 809 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit 2003).
Finally, if the allegedly false statements are excluded -- or the omitted facts are included -- and the affidavit still supports a finding of probable cause, no hearing is required. U.S. v. Souffront, supra. . . . See also Betker v. Gomez, 692 F.3d 854, 862 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit 2012) (`We eliminate the alleged false statements, incorporate any allegedly omitted facts, and then evaluate whether the resulting ‘hypothetical’ affidavit would establish probable cause’).
U.S. v. Case, supra. If you would like to read about the process a U.S. officer uses to get a search warrant, check out this source. And if you are interested, you can read more about the process of obtaining a Franks hearing here.
The judge then began his analysis of Case’s arguments, which he outlined here:
[Case’s] argument has evolved throughout the course of these proceedings. In his original objection, supporting materials, and proposed statement, [h]e appeared to make two claims: (1) that the agent lied about the existence of the online covert employee (OCE5023) in order to conceal the use of RoundUp; and (2) that RoundUp allows law enforcement to invade the private spaces of a suspect's computer.
In his reply brief in support of the objection, he appears to abandon the first claim and raises a third—that RoundUp may not be sufficiently reliable. I address each of these three claims in turn.
U.S. v. Case, supra.
The judge then addressed all three arguments, in order: Citing other search warrant applications in this district, [Case] contends an FBI directive prevents the disclosure of RoundUp in such affidavits and requires its use be concealed by alleging the participation of a fictitious online covert employee.
In its response to the objection, the government indicates that OCE–5023 is a real person, whose name is not disclosed given his/her role in covert investigations; the government denies any deception in the warrant affidavit.
[Case] presents no evidence refuting the government's assertion; indeed, in his reply brief he appears to accept it, which dooms his request for a Franks hearing based on deception. . . .
Instead, he indicates that RoundUp may have been running unattended at the time of the downloads from his computer and argues that an evidentiary hearing is required to determine the reach of this program, how it was used in his case, and whether it is reliable.
U.S. v. Case, supra.
He then addressed Case’s argument regarding RoundUp’s invading private spaces:
Relying on the articles written by RoundUp's creators, [he] contends that the program surreptitiously enters the private spaces of a target's computer and inserts data into those private spaces. I cannot find any support for that claim in the articles. The authors state: `No unauthorized access to the target's machine is required; tags are inserted in the normal function of a system.’ . . .
The authors also suggest that the hash value of the tag be provided to the magistrate as part of the search warrant application . . . which controverts [Case’s] claim that agents using the program are instructed to conceal their activities. The articles provide no non-speculative basis for believing that RoundUp may be used to invade private spaces. Nor do the articles discuss tagging in relation to the `Ares’ P2P network, which was used in the present case.
Based on materials defendant previously submitted, it appears that RoundUp for Ares was developed by the Ontario Provincial Police, rather than the computer science professors who wrote the articles upon which [Case] now relies. . . .
In any event, even if RoundUp could be used improperly, [he] makes no claim that the government invaded the private spaces of his computer, to insert tags or to search for evidence, despite the fact that he had forensic experts examine the computer. He admits that he does not know whether tagging was even being used at the time his computer was accessed.
 
[Case] asks for a hearing so the court can determine whether agents used the program to enter the unshared space on his computer, but the district court is required to hold a hearing on a motion to suppress only if the defendant's allegations are sufficiently definite, specific, non-conjectural, and detailed. U.S. v. Curlin, 638 F.3d 562 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit 2011).
Given the speculative nature of [Case’s] claims, there is no need to hold a hearing and no basis for concluding that illegally obtained evidence was used to obtain the warrant. . . .
U.S. v. Case, supra (footnotes omitted).
[Case] notes that, according to the search warrant affidavit, OCE5023 downloaded files from [his] computer between 2:11 a.m. and 3:33 a.m. on November 25, 2012. [He] presents an affidavit from his computer expert, who indicates that the agent-affiant admitted to him that the computer program was running unattended during the time of the downloads. .
Even assuming that the program was running unattended at the time of the downloads, [Case] provides no authority in support of his claim that this precludes a finding of probable cause.
Nor does he claim that the FBI failed to confirm that the material downloaded was, in fact, child pornography. The warrant affidavit includes a detailed description of three of the files. . . .
This is not a situation where a computer program downloaded material believed to be contraband (based on, say, a keyword search or hash values) and no human being looked at the material before a warrant was sought.
The affidavit further indicates that, after the images were downloaded and confirmed to be child pornography, the FBI identified the IP address from which the images were downloaded and, pursuant to a subpoena to the internet service provider, identified defendant as the subscriber.
This process is sufficiently reliable to support the issuance of the warrant. . . .
Finally, I decline to hold an evidentiary hearing to explore the reliability and capabilities of RoundUp. Hearings on motions to suppress are not granted as a matter of course. U.S. v. Villegas, 388 F.3d 317 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit 2004).

District courts are required to conduct evidentiary hearings only when a substantial claim is presented, there are disputed issues of material fact that will affect the outcome of the motion, and the defendant's allegations are sufficiently specific and non-conjectural. . . . . Here, [Case] offers only speculation about RoundUp. Accordingly, there is no basis for holding a hearing.
U.S. v. Case, supra. 
The judge therefore denied Case’s motion to suppress.U.S. v. Case, supra. The article you can find here, discusses the use of RoundUp in child pornography investigations.