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

Blog Search

Sunday, May 31, 2015

Child Pornography, Possession of by John P.Guidry II http://www.jgcrimlaw.com/child-pornography-possession-of.html

Child Pornography, Possession of by John P.Guidry II
http://www.jgcrimlaw.com/child-pornography-possession-of.html


Anderson Cooper 360° Blog.................. NCMEC

Anderson Cooper 360° Blog....... NCMEC
Monday, January 15, 2007

Raw Data: Kidnapping statistics

The discovery of the two missing boys in Missouri got some of us here at "360" wondering: Just how prevalent is kidnapping in the United States?

While researching this question today, I came across some interesting statistics. According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (citing U.S. Department of Justice reports), nearly 800,000 children are reported missing each year. That's more than 2,000 a day.

The NCMEC says 203,000 children are kidnapped each year by family members. Another 58,200 are abducted by non-family members. Many others are runaways or pushed out of the home by parents.

Despite these huge numbers, very few children are victims of the kinds of crimes that so-often lead local and national news reports. According to NCMEC, just 115 children are the victims of what most people think of as "stereotypical" kidnapping, which the center characterizes thusly: "These crimes involve someone the child does not know or someone of slight acquaintance, who holds the child overnight, transports the child 50 miles or more, kills the child, demands ransom, or intends to keep the child permanently."

Of these 115 incidents, 57 percent ended with the return of the child. The other 43 percent had a less happy outcome.
Posted By Gabe Falcon, CNN Writer: 6:04 PM ET
Hi. I was writing an article on child care tips (the primary audience is low-income workers, but it is really applicable to many working parents) this weekend, and one of the tips I wrote is to give any babysitter/childcare center a one-pager with your contact info, three backup people in case of an emergency, pediatrician info, allergies, food restrictions, medical conditions, and medicines (including dosages, times, and how to give it). In the tip and accompanying one-page template, I also talked about how important it is to list everyone with whom the child could go home and mention if there are custody issues and anyone who might be a problem. 

When investigating potential programs or schools, parents/guardians should also ask about how any entrances/exits are monitored/closed so strangers can't slip in and kids can't slip out.

I also made sure when I was teaching younger students with mental retardation that they always had important contact info on them (in their bookbags; you can also sew it into clothes or write it into shoes) and would quiz them on it periodically to make sure they remembered it (but worried they might freeze in an actual emergency, which is why I made them keep it on them). Actually, I was kind of evil and would make them do extra work (writing out their contact info repeatedly) if I ever found they did not have their school ID and emergency contacts cards on them. But, I gotta tell you it worked: several of our school's students were in a minor schoolbus accident, and one of my students was able to tell the hospital exactly how to reach her mom without looking at her info; the other two had their ID and info on them.

And parents and educators must talk to kids about street safety and what to do if they feel they are being followed. Kids should know that it is better to be "rude" by, say, not helping someone out with a lost puppy, than to be taken. But I also see a LOT of kids who seem way too young walking home by themselves, including in large cities like NYC (where I am from) and Philly, as well as smaller towns like West Chester. Parents, what are you thinking??? 

The other thing that freaks me out is when I see parents or caregivers in parks, in stores/restaurants, or on the street who are clearly not paying attention to where young kids are and what they are doing. Quit getting so involved in a conversation with the person next to you or over the phone that you don't pay attention! Plus, interacting more with kids is good for them (although you should give them time to play on their own, too, but you still need to pay attention). 

You can make learning contact info fun, such as putting it to a song or using cardboard and dice to create a game where the goal is to get home safely and they have to answer questions when they land on spaces (such as "What is mom's cellphone number?"). 

One more tip: Please don't let young kids wear their earphones when crossing. Not only is this bad for their hearing, it also makes them more of a robbery target and less likely to pay attention to what is going on around them.

If you have kids, log on to the NCMEC Web site for tips on keeping kids safe.

I used to think the worst thing was to have a child die, but I now think it is not knowing. Bless the missing and their families. 

Okay, class dismissed.
Posted By Norah, West Chester, PA : 7:24 PM ET
That is some startling information. We all need to be more aware of children around us; at the grocery, in parks, at the mall... If something looks out of the ordinary we need to speak up. The worst thing that could happen is a little embarassment.
Posted By Jess, Paris, KY : 7:40 PM ET
What about the kidnapper's relatives? Didn't they visit or talk with him? Who did they think this kid was?

I think we should stop focusing on the victims and let them have some peace. Let's focus on the kidnapper.
Posted By Pam Marrs, San Jacinto, CA : 8:09 PM ET
I once left my son in my car, accidentally, while I went in to buy some things from a hardware store. When I returned, he was still there - and my heart lept. How could I forget him? How could I leave him? The scariest moment I'd ever experienced as a parent was now behind me. I realized at the time, though, that if someone had taken my son and I never saw him again, I would have no one to blame but myself. The President, Congress, governor, state troopers, media, friends and family might be there to assist me afterwards, but it would have been on my own lack of parenting that he would have been lost. 
I see children wandering malls or sitting by themselves in movie theaters and I think back to my slip-up and how easy it would be for someone to snatch them up. It saddens me to know that some parents aren't willing to take the extra precaution and unstrap their kids when they go into the 7-11 to pay for gas. Maybe I'm a little over-zealous now - I won't even let them play on the front porch without my wife or me there as well. But, I'd rather be overzealous in watching out for my kids than missing my kids.
My heart goes out to those who have had a child taken from them under any situation and I'm glad to see the focus Anderson's blog is placing on this story.
Posted By David, Montgomery, AL : 8:10 PM ET
Please tell us about the school mate who noticed the white truck, which ultimately led to the police finding the two boys. I want to hear something good that someone can do. Kids are smart & know more than we thinks.
Posted By M. Lynne, Pinecrest, FL : 8:32 PM ET
To Nora, W. Chester, PA

I really liked your blog post and it is a great reminder to parents.

I have a few of my own to add. These have worked for my family.

1. Put your child's telephone numbers in his/her backpack and on an index card in his right front pocket. Also, I purchased iron-on telephone numbers that I put in his polo shirts. Since I travel frequently and take my son on all kinds of trips, I make sure he always has his information on planes, trains and buses. You never know if I were to get sick or there would be a train, bus or boat accident.

2. When your group or family goes to the theme park or zoo, wear the same color shirt. We all wear red shirts. I know it sounds really corny. When the children are at the playground, you can easily see them pronto. I have seen Moms put twins in matching bathing suits to find them faster.

3. Make stranger danger part of regular family discussions. It is OK to be rude to strangers if they make advances toward you or your child. My only experience with this was in Times Square in broad daylight. Two men made an unwelcome proposition toward my son. At first I thought, "What?" I was really in shock. Then they repeated themselves and I was very rude toward them to say the least. 

After we got back to the hotel, I had to explain to my 7 year old why I was rude to the men, what they said and what they wanted. I really had to explain things to him that I wish I had not had to explain. 

The next day we were going to the Met and we were sitting and waiting for the bus in front of the library. He wanted to know if we were still safe in NYC and if those 2 naughty men were still around. 

What do you say when your child asks you do you think those naughty men ride the bus, go to the library and visit the museum? There were questions I just couldn't answer for him. 

I quickly went from being upset with these 2 men to being thankful that I was there holding my sons hand and explaining these issues to him. He and I both learned a lot. We were both uncomfortable and we both left as soon as possible.
Posted By Renee Bradenton, FL : 9:31 PM ET
The numbers are frightening. I was listening to the stories of the two boys from Missouri this week-end and had chills. I made my son watched. I'm a protective mom by nature, but having lost a child, I have a tendancy to want to be overprotective. I have a 11 years old son who is independant,so that helps me to let go a bit. 
But, from a very young age, I have drilled my son about security and what to do if he's in trouble. He's learned that an adult shouldn't be asking a child for help, it is the only time he can be rude to people with my blessing. His name is everywhere(clothes,objects). I often tease him that I'm about to write his name on his forehead. 
He is very outgoing and I didn't want to crush that, but at a young age, he would talk to anyone, invite them over(strangers!)and would tell me to not worry, the police would find him. I had my work cut out! But now, he knows what to do. But I've always made sure to tell him that I wasn't doing that to scare him, but to give him tools if he needed it. You don't want to scare them out of their minds! They have to be part of the process. We go to all the safety tips frequently,even if he's going on 12. That's when they feel more sure of themselves and think they can take care of themselves and fight away anybody who would want to take them. Hormons!!! 
Losing a child is hell, not knowing where your child is, I don't know if there is a name to describe it.

Joanne R.
Laval Quebec
Posted By Joanne R. Laval Quebec : 11:02 PM ET
An abducted child above all looses his/her sense of security. Without that it doesn't take much for an abducter to keep the child to stay with him. 

Children also have a vivid imagination and create their own picture out of what they are being told. "You wouldn't want something to happen to your family, would you?" could actually be all that it takes to keep a child tied to the abducter. (As we know, sexually abused children often don't tell about their situation.)

I guess the saying "it takes a village to raise a child" is true. A village of adults taking responsibility and engaging in the well-being of all children, nor merely their own.
Posted By Kristina, Boden, Sweden : 11:35 PM ET
I see bulletins of missimg children all the time , but never see were they were picked up, seems like if a person knows that if it happend in there city they would more likely to remember that child ,and the same for the other kids in another city. (keep up the good work.)
Posted By James Bray, Wildomar CA. : 12:43 AM ET
In light of the fortunate outcome of this recent incident, I hope that people will realize the importance of civilian participation in the case. Perhaps there will be more hope and awareness for the thousands of children who remaim unaccounted for in this nation's communities.
Posted By Sarah Blanc, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida : 12:52 AM ET
Anderson, I'm going to pose this about the young man who was held captive for 4 year's(forget the syndromes)What if life with his parent's to him was messed up enough that he didn't care to go home??!He had chances to escape!!
Posted By John,Brooklyn,New York : 2:14 AM ET
Anderson

People need to understand two facts. Victims do not speak against their abusers because we feel:

#1 The adults in our life did not protect us from the crime being commited against us in the first place.

#2. How would they ever be able to keep us safe from the threats the abuser makes to keep us silent.

The abusers control starts the moment the crime is committed and continues well into adulthood when we make a pact with ourselves that "no one will ever hurt us again" Then and only then do we have the strength to speak of our abuse.
Posted By Jo Tambeau Toronto, Canada : 7:06 AM ET
Gabe/AC360:
Thank you Norah, West Chester, PA and Renee Bradenton, FL, for your child safety tips!

I guess my contribution to child safety is to get your children finger printed. I know local malls and some schools will have this service from time to time with local law enforcement, but if not, just call the police/sheriff department and see where it can be done for your children. Also, those footprints you receive when your baby is born from the hospital, the footprints don't change they just get bigger. It can identify a child/teen/adult for reference. 

My heart and prayers goes out to all the families with children missing. When my sister was 16 she ran away with an older man and we didn't hear from her for a month. It was the most painful experience I went through in my life. Fortunately, she connected with a relative and we were able to bring her home and put the man in jail.

AC360, thank you for covering this issue and thank you John Walsh for all the work he has done for Missing and Exploited Children.
Posted By Sharon D., Indianapolis, IN : 9:01 AM ET
Reading the comments it's clear that we missed the fact that 203,000 children are taken by family members each year. I'm not saying that the two creeps in the park are not a real threat, but they are a relatively small threat.
I live in WI and I'm mostly concerned with our custody and visitation laws. If a parent pays child support, then they basically have the right to see their children every other weekend. Even if there is a history of abuse! I know parents who are afraid to let their kids go on the weekends, but are equally afraid of the jail time that comes if they don't comply. It's really appauling and these are the laws that need to be looked at, for the children's safety.
Posted By Renae, Appleton, WI : 9:06 AM ET
I wonder how many end up as prostitutes?
Posted By Nicki, Calgary, Alberta : 10:23 AM ET

Thursday, May 28, 2015

Accused of child abuse: A family's story As told to Ros Wynne-Jones

Accused of child abuse: A family's story Ros Wynne-Jones

Julie and Keiron were adjusting to life with their new baby. She worked at home, he was soon to start a new job as a nanny. Then, one day, the police came to the door ...
'A Kafkaesque nightmare is beginning to unfold. I am being arrested' ... Keiron, Julie and Sam. Photograph: Sarah Lee for the Guardian Sarah Lee/Guardian


As told to Ros Wynne-Jones

Saturday 6 April 2013 08.00 BST Last modified on Wednesday 21 May 2014 19.10 BST

Julie's story

It's a Tuesday like any other. Then, in the afternoon, there's a knock at the door. The dog starts barking and wakes our 12-week-old baby, Sam. My partner, Keiron, looks out of the upstairs window to see two women at the front door. We assume they are Jehovah's Witnesses and Keiron leans out, saying he can't come down. Then everything changes.

The women are police. They work in child protection services. Keiron, Sam and I go downstairs to find out what's going on. They tell us to sit down and ask Keiron if he knows why they are here. He says no. Then they tell us an allegation about a sex offence made by a child at the nursery where he works.

My stomach turns to concrete. I have no shadow of doubt that this is a horrible mistake. I hold Sam in disbelief, calculating all the ways this is going to mess up our lives.

They take our computer away. I'm self-employed, so even though Sam is very young I am still working. I watch my livelihood vanish through the door and ask the police: "Are there any guarantees that it will come back unharmed?" No, they say, adding that it will be a minimum of four to six weeks until it is returned – assuming that it is clean of pornographic images of children. We're told that paedophiles look at on-screen images of children before moving on to the real thing, so the computer will indicate Keiron's guilt or otherwise.

Keiron is arrested and taken to the police station but released on bail on condition that he does not spend time unsupervised with anyone under the age of 18. This includes our child.

I cannot believe that this can happen. We are a sleepless couple with a baby, already struggling with all the things a new family faces.

My freedom is suddenly curtailed, too, because I will now have to care for our son 24/7. So neither of us can work.

Keiron is currently working out his notice at the nursery – he has resigned to become a nanny. He's just about to start the new job – we will have to tell them what he's been accused of and that he cannot be alone with a child.

In a final blow, we discover that this allegation will never be wiped from Keiron's record. From here on, if he is ever stopped at the side of the road by the police, they will know that he has been accused of one of the darkest crimes.

The following weeks

We discuss who to tell. On one hand, Keiron has absolutely nothing to hide. On the other, there are the cliches of "no smoke without fire" and "mud sticks". At least we know that old friends and family will know the truth. In the outside world, the Jimmy Savile scandal is unfolding. I hear experts explaining that paedophiles seek out jobs that allow them to get close to children. They say nothing about kind, loving men who adore bringing out the best in children.

Four weeks later

We get a call from the police saying both our computers have come back clean. We are delighted – the police originally implied that clean computers would mean an end to the whole business.

Next morning, there's a knock at the door. I'm feeding the baby so Keiron goes to answer. The arresting officer hands over our computers wrapped in plastic. When we unwrap mine, we see that the screen has been broken.

I am beside myself. This is a £2,000 computer, the one I do all my work on and the most valuable thing we own. We have almost no income at the moment. And we haven't done anything wrong. Seeing how angry I am with him for not checking the computer, Keiron breaks down for the first time throughout this whole ordeal. I feel terrible.

Next day, the arresting officer calls to apologise and says the police will pay for repairs. We now have a further 21 days to wait until Keiron's bail to return to the police station. That's another three weeks during which he is not allowed to spend time unsupervised with Sam, our now four-month-old son.

Another three weeks during which he cannot do his job, nor I mine.

Three weeks before Christmas

The end is in sight and we can almost touch it. From next week we can start to reconfigure our lives. Then, a phone call. Keiron is told that his bail is being extended a further three months to give them more time to gather evidence. It is Day One all over again, and I am devastated. Sam, now four and half months old, will have lived half his life without being allowed to be alone with his dad.

Our solicitor says we can request a change in bail conditions so that Keiron can be unsupervised with our child. With relief, we manage this just in time for Christmas.

Christmas

We get through Christmas and our family are wonderfully supportive. Keiron is subdued and I suspect it's because he worries about what they are all thinking. My brother and two young nephews come and stay. I love watching them play with Keiron as they get on like a house on fire, but I have to keep reminding myself that this lovely scene is somehow wrong and that they can't be left alone in a room together.

January

On Saturday at 9am, Keiron gets a phone call. I am out with Sam and receive a text. The police have called to say they have no evidence, so the case is dropped.

I thought I would feel relieved when this news came through. This was to be our happy ending. Instead, my overwhelming response is anger. No evidence? Why have our lives been put on hold for three months for no evidence? Why have our son's first few months of life been so horribly tainted for no evidence? Why has Keiron had to quit his new job for no evidence?

We go for dinner to "celebrate". Keiron is morose and says it doesn't make any difference to him. Next week, he could just as easily be accused of murder.

On the news it says that children's charities want to make it easier for allegations to be heard. Of course, I understand why, but I also fear that more innocent families could be hurt because of a string of celebrity paedophile accusations. I hope balance is found.

Two weeks later

Keiron comes home in tears. He has been sober for seven years, now he says he has an overwhelming urge to go out and get hammered. He feels ashamed, hopeless, angry and unsafe. All the emotions that had been suppressed while he was under suspicion are coming to the surface. He has been out running a lot, but it's not enough. He feels too vulnerable to go back to childcare. Who would hire a male nanny with suspected child abuse on his record? While he establishes a new career, our savings are dwindling fast. Because of a wrong accusation, our lives can never be the same ever again. Our happy ending still feels a long way away.
Keiron's story

October 2012

Two plainclothes police officers turn up and after some initial confusion I let them in. They take me – and Julie's computer – to their car. I am being arrested on child-abuse charges. A Kafkaesque nightmare is beginning to unfold.

As a man working in a nursery, I think a part of me has always been expecting this. When I started in childcare five years ago, I wasn't sure if I would ever become a dad, but I knew I loved kids. Nursery work filled that gap for me until I met Julie and our son came along. Soon after getting back from paternity leave, I decided to set myself up as a male nanny – to work more flexible and fewer hours, giving me more time with my new family.

Instead, I am at a police station. It takes nearly two hours to be booked in. Thanks to Julie, a solicitor calls the station and says he will represent me. I feel safer with this extra help.

The most upsetting part is that the allegations are repeated to the sergeant several times in full earshot of other people at the station. I'm there being charged with "sexual abuse on an under 13" and at least a couple of people hear. I just hope I'm not recognised by them while I'm out and about.

Up until now I've been trying to figure out who might have said something about me. Could I have done something at nursery that a child has found abusive and sexual? I can't think of anything that could possibly be thought of that way. Then I hear who has made the allegation and I'm shocked, mainly because this child and I hardly ever interact.

I give my statement and am given the bail date. Just before they let me go, they tell me that they will let me live at home, although they state there must be no unsupervised contact with any under 18s, including my own son. I am told to consider myself lucky to be allowed home. I get home at midnight, more than six hours after being arrested. I don't feel lucky.

The next day (Wednesday)

I wake up and call work – and find out that they had known this was coming for a few days. They say they won't suspend me as they are sure I'm innocent, so I'm on paid leave for the time being. I call the mother of the boy I'm due to start looking after and explain my situation. I have to apologise and say that I can no longer be left unsupervised with a child.

Thursday

Julie and I meet the nursery bosses and have an informal chat about what has happened. They tell me they were able to track the day-to-day movements of the child from activity plans and observations, and could work out my movements from job rotas and planning. Before I was arrested, they had shown the police that the boy in question and I were never together, and certainly not alone together at any point.

I tell the managers that they can let my colleagues know why I'm not at work. I want them to know how important the safeguarding procedures are for keeping the staff, as well as the children, safe.

Early November

"To call someone a paedophile is to consign them to the lowest circle of hell – and while they are still alive," London mayor Boris Johnson writes on the false allegations against Lord McAlpine. I feel a rare moment of agreement with Johnson.

Mid-November

The police ring to say they have checked our computer and found no child porn. This morning they dropped the computer off and I signed for it. I took it upstairs to Julie only to find a huge crack across the screen. This is the point at which I feel totally broken.

Julie tells me how resentful she is, getting over my stupidity in this situation. I feel huge waves of shame washing over me. I go to the spare room and cry, trying not to sob too loudly, but it's there: real, hard crying.

Julie comes in and sits next to me with our boy and he starts to cry. I look up at Julie and say: "Now you have two babies." This makes us laugh heartily, and our boy cheers up too.

Julie says she would like some space so I leave the house. It's midday and I walk through the busy cold streets with the salt of my tears sticking to my cheeks. I buy groceries and sit in a park, waiting until 5pm before I head home. Waiting, thinking and writing. I briefly entertain the notion of getting drunk, but as I haven't had a drink for seven years, I decide it's a very bad idea.

Early January

My phone goes in the morning. It's the police. The officer says it's over. There is insufficient evidence. I think she is expecting some sign of relief from me, but I'm not feeling that. I ask if there is some way of getting a fuller explanation, some evidence that someone had told the boy to say those things or evidence that he had been abused by someone else.

She says I know everything there is to know. When I ask, she tells me that any future police checks on my name will bring up my arrest with a note about no further evidence, and that if I were under more suspicion a different report would be issued. I thank her for letting me know and spend the morning looking after my boy until Julie returns.

We go out for dinner to celebrate, but hardly speak. Julie tries to raise a toast to justice but I refuse, going into a rant about justice being bullshit. I go out and get drunk, looking for some release from all the anger I'm feeling.

Sunday

We are getting a lot of messages of support from friends and family. Most talk about moving forward. Julie and I hold each other and agree that we will be all right. But we know that this is not really over – there will be aftershocks from this experience that will affect the rest of our lives and the life of our son.

Names have been changed

How the Government Creates Child Abuse

How the Government Creates Child Abuse by sbakersville
http://humanevents.com/2006/04/13/how-the-government-creates-child-abuse/

Operatives of the child abuse industry often wax righteous about the "scandal" of child abuse. "We cannot tolerate the abuse of even one child," says an HHS press release. But the real scandal is the armies of officials who have been allowed to acquire — using taxpayers’ dollars — a vested interest in abused children. Child abuse is largely a product of the feminist-dominated family law and social work industries. It is a textbook example of the government creating a problem for itself to solve. A few decades ago, there was no child abuse epidemic; it grew up with the welfare system and the divorce revolution. It continues because of entrenched interests who are employed pretending to combat it. It is not married fathers but single mothers who are by far the most likely to injure and kill their children.

"Contrary to public perception," write Patrick Fagan and Dorothy Hanks of the Heritage Foundation, "research shows that the most likely physical abuser of a young child will be that child’s mother, not a male in the household." Mothers accounted for 55% of child murders, according to a Justice Department report (1,100 out of 2,000, with fathers committing 130). women aged 20 to 49 are almost twice as likely as men to be perpetrators of child maltreatment: "almost two-thirds were females." Given that "male" perpetrators are not usually fathers but much more likely to be boyfriends and stepfathers, fathers emerge as by far the least likely child abusers. "Children are seven times more likely to be badly beaten by their parents than they are to be sexually abused by them," according to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. The NSPCC found that father-daughter incest is "rare, occurring in less than 4 in 1,000 children," and that three-fourths of incest perpetrators are brothers and stepbrothers rather than fathers. The child abuse industry's own figures show that reported sexual abuse is a tiny minority of reported child abuse, and of this little is committed by real fathers. Feminists would have us believe that father-daughter incest is rampant, and conservatives credulously swallow their propaganda.

It is difficult to believe that judges are not aware that the most dangerous environment for children is precisely the single-parent homes they themselves create when they remove fathers in custody proceedings. Yet they have no hesitation in removing them, secure in the knowledge that they will never be held accountable for any harm that comes to the children.
If they do not they may be punished by the bar associations, feminist groups, and social work bureaucracies whose earnings and funding depend on a constant supply of abused children. It is a commonplace of political science that bureaucracies relentlessly expand, often by creating the problem they exist to address. Appalling as it sounds, the conclusion is inescapable that we have created a huge army of officials with a vested interest in child abuse. Twenty years ago, Hopkins explains, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act was signed into law as a response to witnesses who came before the Congress with horrible tales of violence against infants, augmented by photos of dead and mutilated children. "With the best of intentions," Hopkins says, "Congress instituted laws to protect those fragile citizens."


Though many young lives doubtless have been saved by the programs established by this law, it has also been responsible for unintended consequences, for one, the emergence of a "child-abuse industry" more invested in its own perpetuation and growth than the protection of children and the preservation of families.


For example, the "child-abuse industry" defined the evidence of outright violence brought before Congress as "child abuse." Since then, that definition has been expanded to include neglect due to poverty, cultural differences in child rearing, lawful corporal punishment, failure to protect, truancy child pornography and emotional abuse. The American people and Congress heard "child abuse" and imagined the horrors of violence against children, but as the definition kept expanding, the face of "child abuse" was expanded sufficiently to become the face of every family, at one time or another. In fact, what has happened in the past decade is much worse than what those puritans did in Salem three centuries ago. That witchcraft mind-set is still with us where hysteria spreads rapidly. . Our message should be "Enough!"


Monday, May 25, 2015

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Between A Rock And A Hard Drive by Scott Greenfield

Between A Rock And A Hard Drive
Let’s say a client screwed up. That’s one of the reasons they come to a lawyer, since they avoid us like the plague otherwise. They downloaded some porn and, included within it, was pornography involving a minor. That wasn’t their thing, and they, like you, are disgusted and appalled by it. Yet, there it is, on their hard drive, with the trail from the file sharing site leading straight to their computer.

Mark Bennett raises the dilemma.


It’s illegal for him to continue possessing the images. So you can’t advise him to do nothing (and keep breaking the law).

The smart thing for him to do would be to destroy the hard drive (if I could, I would recommend swisscheesing it with a drill press).

But tampering with evidence is illegal under both Texas and federal law. Is it a crime to destroy the hard drive? To advise the client to do so?

This was the situation faced by Connecticut lawyer Phillip Russell:


Russell’s client, the Greenwich Christ Church (not a bad client, I would say), did what any self-respecting church would do when it found child pornography on its church computer: It turned to its lawyer for help. No fed was knocking on the church door. There was no hint of an investigation. There was no reason to believe that anyone would ever know that some sick, disgusting human being using this computer purchased with monies from the tithing of its congregents (I’m making this part up, since I have no idea where the money came from to buy the computer and in Greenwich, they could just as easily live off the interest from the Church’s trust fund), would download photographs that would sicken any normal human being.

So Russell finds himself in the position of having to decide what to do with this computer. The Church no doubt wants its computer back, since it wouldn’t have gotten the computer if it didn’t have any need for it, But the Church does not want this pics on it. Russell, in the meantime, knows of the photos as a result of confidential communications (no argument from any source about whether this was as confidential as it comes) and has to decide what to do about it. He can’t keep the kiddie porn pics, for then he would be violating the law.

So Philip Russell does the only reasonable thing possible. He deletes the horrific photos. BAM, he’s indicted for obstruction, having destroyed evidence.

And in case you’re wondering, this case, like Yates, fell under Sarbanes–Oxley, prohibiting the destruction of evidence. Though it’s clearly closer to the nature of prohibited destruction than fish, it’s also applied here to kiddie porn, though SOX was directed toward financial crime. Well, that was what was meant, anyway. The web of law is a curious thing.

What Bennett raises is an unsolvable problem.


You can’t tell your client to do the smart thing and destroy the hard drive. (Why is it smart? Because the penalty for possessing child pornography is much more severe than the penalty for tampering with evidence, and if the client destroys the hard drive properly and keeps his mouth shut there will be no evidence that he has tampered with evidence.) You can’t tell your client to do the dumb thing and keep the hard drive. What do you do?

We are problem solvers. We hate for the answer to be, “I can’t answer that.” But “I can’t answer that” is the only possible advice in this situation.

Most clients won’t really give a damn about this legal and ethical dilemma, and who can blame them? They are in deep doo doo, and need a way out. They’ve come to a lawyer to find that way. They have a constitutional right to the assistance of counsel, and there you are, counsel. So counsel them, right?

It’s perverse that the law, which is intended to serve to guide us away from conduct that society deems wrongful, denies us a way out when we inadvertently find ourselves in a Catch-22. And this scenario is by no means limited to child pornography, but would apply, at least theoretically, to the destruction of any contraband, the possession of which is itself illegal.

The dilemma arises from the back end desire to not only prevent crime, but to punish it. To do so requires prosecution, and to be successful at prosecution, proof is needed. Thus, preserving the evidence is critical to the government’s ability to prosecute and punish, and the only bludgeon in the government’s arsenal is to criminalize the destruction of evidence. Problem solved. Problem created.

The implicit solution, of course, is that while a lawyer cannot counsel a client to commit a crime, he can lay out the law, the relative punishments, the concerns and the options that he cannot, and does not, suggest the client employ. After that, the client walks away and does what he pleases, without the lawyer’s approval or knowledge. Yeah, it’s an unacceptable solution, and itself problematic, as plausible deniability which bears the stink of conscious avoidance is hardly a sound defense.

Some will respond to this dilemma with the facile, “so don’t download porn and you won’t have this problem.” Aside from the fact that this isn’t just a porn problem, people are allowed to enjoy porn. Just not kiddie porn. Plus, people make mistakes, sometimes inadvertent, without any evil intent. Plus, people do stuff with evil intent, which they thereupon regret and seek to undo. Is it not societally beneficial for people who make a mistake to foster regret and the chance to make things right?

But, some self-righteous prig will ask, if this wasn’t the case, wouldn’t you scum-sucking criminal defense lawyers be allowed to tell criminals how to commit their crimes and avoid prosecution and punishment? Yup. That would also happen. That’s the price. That’s why it’s a dilemma.


Monday, May 18, 2015

How the Government Creates Child Abuse; sbaskerville

How the Government Creates Child Abuse by 
sbaskerville |

Just in time for "Child Abuse Prevention Month," the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) publishes its annual contribution to obfuscating the causes of child abuse.


Operatives of the child abuse industry often wax righteous about the "scandal" of child abuse. "We cannot tolerate the abuse of even one child," says an HHS press release. But the real scandal is the armies of officials who have been allowed to acquire — using taxpayers’ dollars — a vested interest in abused children.



Devising child abuse programs makes us all feel good, but there is no evidence they make the slightest difference. In fact, they probably make the problem worse. Child abuse is largely a product of the feminist-dominated family law and social work industries. It is a textbook example of the government creating a problem for itself to solve.

Child abuse is entirely preventable. A few decades ago, there was no child abuse epidemic; it grew up with the welfare system and the divorce revolution. It continues because of entrenched interests who are employed pretending to combat it.

A few undisputed facts will establish this — facts that are passed over and even distorted year after year by HHS and others whose budgets depend on abused children.

Almost all child abuse takes places in single parent homes. A British study found children are up to 33 times more likely to be abused when a live-in boyfriend or stepfather is present than in an intact family. HHS has its own figures demonstrating that children in single-parent households are at much higher risk for physical violence and sexual molestation than those living in two-parent homes. Yet this basic fact is consistently omitted from its annual report.

Shorn of euphemism, what this means is that the principal impediment to child abuse is a father. "The presence of the father … placed the child at lesser risk for child sexual abuse," conclude scholars in the journal Adolescent and Family Health. "The protective effect from the father’s presence in most households was sufficiently strong to offset the risk incurred by the few paternal perpetrators."

In fact, the risk of "paternal perpetrators" is miniscule. Contrary to the innuendo of child abuse "advocates," it is not married fathers but single mothers who are by far the most likely to injure and kill their children. "Contrary to public perception," write Patrick Fagan and Dorothy Hanks of the Heritage Foundation, "research shows that the most likely physical abuser of a young child will be that child’s mother, not a male in the household." Mothers accounted for 55% of child murders, according to a Justice Department report (1,100 out of 2,000, with fathers committing 130). Here again, HHS itself has figures that women aged 20 to 49 are almost twice as likely as men to be perpetrators of child maltreatment: "almost two-thirds were females." Given that "male" perpetrators are not usually fathers but much more likely to be boyfriends and stepfathers, fathers emerge as by far the least likely child abusers.

While men are thought more likely to commit sexual as opposed to physical abuse, sexual abuse is much less common than severe physical abuse and much more likely to be perpetrated by boyfriends and stepfathers. "Children are seven times more likely to be badly beaten by their parents than they are to be sexually abused by them," according to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. The NSPCC found that father-daughter incest is "rare, occurring in less than 4 in 1,000 children," and that three-fourths of incest perpetrators are brothers and stepbrothers rather than fathers. HHS’s own figures show that reported sexual abuse is a tiny minority of reported child abuse, and of this little is committed by real fathers. The Journal of Ethnology and Sociobiology reports that a preschooler not living with both biological parents is forty times more likely to be sexually abused.

Yet feminists would have us believe that father-daughter incest is rampant, and conservatives credulously swallow their propaganda. A recent PBS documentary, "Breaking the Silence: Children’s Stories," asserts without evidence and contrary to known scientific data that "Children are most often in danger from the father."

Feminist child protection agents implement this propaganda as policy. "One scholarly study concluded that "An anti-male attitude is often found in documents, statements, and in the writings of those claiming to be experts in cases of child sexual abuse." Social service agencies systematically teach children to hate their fathers and inculcate in the children a message that the father has sexually molested them. "The professionals use techniques that teach children a negative and critical view of men in general and fathers in particular," the authors write. "The child is repeatedly reinforced for fantasizing throwing Daddy in jail and is trained to hate and fear him." A San Diego grand jury investigative report found that false accusations during divorce were positively encouraged by government officials. "The system appears to reward a parent who initiates such a complaint," it states. "Some of these involve allegations which are so incredible that authorities should have been deeply concerned for the protection of the child." Such behavior by officials is driven by federal financial incentives. "The social workers and therapists played pivotal roles in condoning this," charged the grand jury. "They were helped by judges and referees."

Seldom does public policy stand in such direct defiance of undisputed truths, to the point where the cause of the problem — separating children from their fathers — is presented as the solution, and the solution — allowing children to grow up with their fathers — is depicted as the problem. If you want to encourage child abuse, remove the fathers.

That is precisely what officials do — not only social workers but also family court judges. It is 

difficult to believe that judges are not aware that the most dangerous environment for children is precisely the single-parent homes they themselves create when they remove fathers in custody proceedings. Yet they have no hesitation in removing them, secure in the knowledge that they will never be held accountable for any harm that comes to the children. On the contrary, if they do not they may be punished by the bar associations, feminist groups, and social work bureaucracies whose earnings and funding depend on a constant supply of abused children. It is a commonplace of political science that bureaucracies relentlessly expand, often by creating the problem they exist to address. Appalling as it sounds, the conclusion is inescapable that we have created a huge army of officials with a vested interest in child abuse.

Source;
http://humanevents.com/2006/04/13/how-the-government-creates-child-abuse/


Laurie Penny on the porn debate: the genie of unlimited filth is out of the bottle and no law can stop us polishing our lamps The worst thing about this debate is that it turns a real-world, complex problem into a simple moral choice.

Laurie Penny on the porn debate: the genie of unlimited filth is out of the bottle and no law can stop us polishing our lamps
The worst thing about this debate is that it turns a real-world, complex problem into a simple moral choice.





When ordinary human beings do evil, unspeakable things, it is always tempting to look for something to blame and to ban. In May, Mark Bridger was convicted of the murder of April Jones, aged five, and the newspapers, keen to impose an overarching narrative on his senseless crime, chose to blame internet pornography. It was reported that Bridger had been watching violent porn only hours before he killed April, and anti-porn campaigners have seized on the chance to draw a causal link. It’s the latest development in a handy alliance between social conservatives, antiporn feminists and those who seek to restrict access to communications technology for more sinister reasons.

This summer, with the relaunch of Spare Rib magazine and the centenary of various suffragette protests, the mainstream press has temporarily rediscovered feminism. Sadly, most of those who have been given broadsheet and broadcast news slots to define what “feminism” means have been middle-class, white women campaigning against porn and prostitution. The anti-smut group Object has launched a campaign against lads’ mags even though the internet seems to be destroying the audience for corner-shop, softcore skin mags all on its own. Internet porn is also being targeted in the name of protecting young people. That child murder has not increased since online pornography became widely available does not matter, and nor does the fact that we already have strict laws against the possession of images of child abuse.

The parents of murdered children are often called on to make an emotive rather than an evidence-based case for censorship. The last round of anti-porn legislation was led by Liz Longhurst, the mother of Jane Longhurst, the music teacher strangled by a pervert in 2003. Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2008 outlawed the possession of very limited kinds of specialist images involving animals and pretend corpses. One of the most significant results of this piece of legislation was that in 2009 a man was cleared of possessing a film depicting a sexual act with a tiger, after it was proved conclusively that the beast in question was not, in fact, a real tiger. Meanwhile, women and children continue to be abused, raped and murdered, sometimes by strangers, but more often by their intimate partners, parents and other close relatives.

We’ve been here before. The debate about the causes of sexual violence has been going on since the feminist porn wars of the 1980s, which were both more and less exciting than they sound and involved a great deal of shouting in draughty meeting rooms. The internet is the current culprit, but the arguments against explicit material are exactly the same as they were when the main smut delivery systems were rental videos and grubby mags. In 1981, the writer Ellen Willis noted that “if anti-porn feminists see pornography as a brutal exercise of predatory male sexuality, a form of (and incitement to) violence against women, the right also associates pornography with violence and with rampant male lust broken loose from the saving constraints of God and Family”. Today, the same social conservatives who are cutting child benefit and closing domestic violence shelters still borrow freely from feminist rhetoric about exploitation of women and children when it suits them.

The worst thing about this debate is that it turns a real-world, complex problem into a simple moral choice: porn is either good or bad, right or wrong, and not one shade of grey can be permitted, let alone 50. Having watched a great deal of pornography in the name of research and recreation, I can assure you that not all of it is violent, and indeed that almost any sexual taste, from the placid and petal-strewn to the eyebrow-raisingly reptilian, is catered to online for a modest fee. It is equally true that there is something traumatic about a lot of modern-day pornography, something repressed, violent and deeply involved with a particularly vengeful misogyny that has been on the rise only since women have become more economically independent over the past two generations. Some people like that sort of thing; others have grown up learning it as an erotic script, because sex is fundamentally a social idea. To say that dirty pictures are the problem in themselves, rather than a structure of violent misogyny and sexual control, is to confuse the medium with the message.

One of the most common retorts to the anti-porn alliance is that to campaign against online smut is to do something disgusting and decidedly post-watershed into the wind. The genie of unlimited filth has been let out of its dodgy bottle and no amount of legislation will stop us polishing our lamps.

That’s true, but it’s inadequate. After all, I spend my life, as an idealist and a feminist, arguing that vast, ambitious social change is not only possible but essential. Controlling the consumption of online pornography would require an enormous programme of state and corporate censorship, and the argument against this sort of socio-sexual state control should be not that it is unfeasible, but that it is monstrous. I do not want to live in a world where the government and a select few conservative feminists get to decide what we may and may not masturbate to, and use the bodies of murdered women or children as emotional pawns in that debate.

It is supremely difficult to achieve radical ends by conservative means. Feminists and everyone who seeks to end sexual violence should be very cautious when their immediate goals seem to line up neatly with those of social conservatives and state censors. I believe in a world where violence against women and children is not routine. After all, the idea of a world without sexism is no more unrealistic than getting rid of pornography – and a lot more fun.

Friday, May 15, 2015

Child Sex Trafficking: Dispelling the Myths by Rebecca Kantar

Child Sex Trafficking: Dispelling the Myths by Rebecca Kantar
Child Sex Trafficking: Dispelling the Myths by Rebecca Kantar


Human Trafficking Charities lying to get government Grants................................Real Men Get Their Facts Straight Ashton and Demi and Sex Trafficking

Human Trafficking Charities lying to get government Grants................................Real Men Get Their Facts Straight Ashton and Demi and Sex Trafficking
Human Trafficking Charities lying to get government Grants................................Real Men Get Their Facts Straight Ashton and Demi and Sex Trafficking



Thursday, May 14, 2015

Title IV Funding The Root Cause of Problems in the Child Abuse Industry............ Child Abuse Industry paid to destroy your family..........With your tax dollars............Judges trained by welfare state to deliver children into foster care



Title IV Funding The Root Cause of Problems in the Child Abuse Industry
                                       

Encase computer forensics








                         Making the Move to v7 Part 1: Preparing for your Investigation               
                      

        Making the Move to v7 Part 2: Index Search, Email Review, and Smartphone Analysis
                       
 Making the Move to v7 Part 3: Bookmarking, Tagging, and the EnCase Review Package

                       

Making the Move to v7 Part 4: Taking Advantage of the New Capabilities in EnCase® Forensic v7

Computer Forensics videos





EnCase Remote Recovery +: How to Search for Files on Remote Computers

                                      

CIT2553 EnCase 7 10 File Carving Demo



Intermediate - How to create MD5 and SHA-1 hash values for files and add them to a new hash set



MD5 Hash Tutorial - What the MD5 hash means and how to use it to verify file integrity.
                       

HTG Explains: Why Deleted Files Can Be Recovered and How You Can Prevent It

HTG Explains: Why Deleted Files Can Be Recovered and How You Can Prevent It


When you a delete a file, it isn’t really erased – it continues existing on your hard drive, even after you empty it from the Recycle Bin. This allows you (and other people) to recover files you’ve deleted.

If you’re not careful, this will also allow other people to recover your confidential files, even if you think you’ve deleted them. This is a particularly important concern when you’re disposing of a computer or hard drive.

What Happens When You Delete a File

Windows (and other operating systems) keep track of where files are on a hard drive through “pointers.” Each file and folder on your hard disk has a pointer that tells Windows where the file’s data begins and ends.


When you delete a file, Windows removes the pointer and marks the sectors containing the file’s data as available. From the file system’s point of view, the file is no longer present on your hard drive and the sectors containing its data are considered free space.


However, until Windows actually writes new data over the sectors containing the contents of the file, the file is still recoverable. A file recovery program can scan a hard drive for these deleted files and restore them. If the file has been partially overwritten, the file recovery program can only recover part of the data.


Note that this doesn’t apply to solid-state drives (SSDs) – see below for why.

Image Credit: Matt Rudge on Flickr
Why Deleted Files Aren’t Erased Immediately

If you’re wondering why your computer doesn’t just erase files when you delete them, it’s actually pretty simple. Deleting a file’s pointer and marking its space as available is an extremely fast operation. In contrast, actually erasing a file by overwriting its data takes significantly longer. For example, if you’re deleting a 10 GB file, that would be near-instantaneous. To actually erase the file’s contents, it may take several minutes – just as long as if you were writing 10 gigabytes of data to your hard drive.


To increase performance and save time, Windows and other operating systems don’t erase a file’s contents when it’s deleted. If you want to erase a file’s contents when it’s deleted, you can use a “file-shredding” tool – see the last section for more information.


Solid-State Drives Work Differently: None of this applies to solid state drives (SSDs). When you use a TRIM-enabled SSD (all modern SSDs support TRIM), deleted files are removed immediately and can’t be recovered. Essentially, data can’t be overwritten onto flash cells – to write new data, the contents of the flash memory must first be erased. Your operating system erases files immediately to speed up write performance in the future – if it didn’t erase the file data immediately, the flash memory would first have to be erased before being written to in the future. This would make writing to an SSD slower over time.




Recovering Deleted Files

If you’ve accidentally deleted a file and need to get it back, there are some things you should bear in mind:
You should recover the file as soon as possible: As Windows continues to write files to your hard drive, the chances of it overwriting the deleted files increases. If you want to be sure you can recover the file, you should perform a recovery immediately.
You should try to use the hard drive as little as possible: The best way to recover a deleted file from a hard drive is powering the computer down immediately after the file is deleted, inserting the hard drive into another computer, and using an operating system running on another hard drive to recover it. If you try to recover a file by installing a file-recovery program on the same hard drive, the installation process and normal use of the hard drive can overwrite the file.


Windows doesn’t include a built-in tool that scans your hard drive for deleted files, but there are a wide variety of third-party tools that do this. Recuva, made by the developers of CCleaner, is a good option. Recuva and other utilities can scan a hard drive for deleted files and allow you to recover them.




Preventing Deleted Files From Being Recovered


If you have confidential, private data on your computer, such as financial documents and other sensitive pieces of information, you may be worried that someone could recover your deleted files. If you’re selling or otherwise disposing of a computer or hard drive, you should exercise caution.


You can use a utility that automatically wipes your hard drive’s free space – by writing other data over the free space on your hard drive, all deleted files will be erased. For example, CCleaner’s integrated Drive Wiper tool can do this.





To make sure that a single file can’t be recovered, you can use a “file-shredding” application such as Eraser to delete it. When a file is shredded or erased, not only is it deleted, but its data is overwritten entirely, preventing other people from recovering it. However, this may not always protect you – if you made a copy of the file and deleted the original at some point, another deleted copy of the file may still be lurking around your hard disk.


Note that this process takes longer than deleting a file normally, so it’s a bad idea to delete every file this way — it’s only necessary for confidential ones.




To really prevent someone from recovering any of your data, you can use a disk-wiping program, such as DBAN (Darik’s Boot and Nuke.) Burn DBAN to a CD, boot from it, and it will erase everything from your hard drive, including your operating system and all your personal files, overwriting them with useless data. This is very useful when getting rid of a computer — it helps you ensure all your personal data is erased.


While some people think that files can still be recovered after they’re overwritten, the evidence shows us that one wipe should be good enough.




You should now understand why deleted files can be recovered and when they can’t. Remember this when getting rid of a computer or hard drive – your confidential files may still be present on your hard drive if you haven’t properly erased them.
Measure
Measure

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

How Many Juveniles are Involved in Prostitution in the U.S.? by Michelle Stransky and David Finkelhor.

How Many Juveniles are Involved in Prostitution in the U.S.? by Michelle Stransky and David Finkelhor.

This is what Anti-prostitution groups including the Salvation Army, Ashton Kutcher, Demi Moore, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, government officials, and various anti-prostitution groups: Traffick911, Not for Sale, Change-org, A Future Not A Past, Polaris Project, Salvation Army, Women’s Funding Network, and the Dallas Women’s Foundation, believe.

This is what Anti-prostitution groups including the Salvation Army, Ashton Kutcher, Demi Moore, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, government officials, and various anti-prostitution groups: Traffick911, Not for Sale, Change-org, A Future Not A Past, Polaris Project, Salvation Army, Women’s Funding Network, and the Dallas Women’s Foundation, believe.

They want to promote and encourage – Telling lies to the public about Sex Trafficking, and Prostitution: