Click to go to Forum Home Click to go to maXbimmer Home

Go Back   maXbimmer Forums > Misc > Off-topic
User Name
Password


Welcome to Maxbimmer.com!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 12-04-2009, 12:25 PM   #16
ACS_DAN
16/F/Cali
 
ACS_DAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: OJ Didn't Do it.
Posts: 1,312
Send a message via MSN to ACS_DAN


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fel View Post
lol.... limewire. What a moron.
Indeed, that was so 2004.
__________________

95 530i|Modifications - Work.
ACS_DAN is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2009, 12:55 PM   #17
hockeyfan27
5th Gear Member
 
hockeyfan27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Durham Region
Posts: 961
Quote:
Originally Posted by drivetolive View Post
...Simply he was stupied for pleading guilty, seems like he was probably pressured/persuaded into it.
It is also possible that to save face in the public eye & with his family that he says it was an accident, where as the investigation turned up other damning evidence of intent to search out and download exactly what he was caught for.

You don't get on FBI radar by "accidentally" downloading 2 or 3 mis-titled videos.

If it was that easy to trace and catch what people download, 1/2 of us would be in jail or paying fines for downloading CD's and DVD's.
__________________

1998 328ic - Sold
hockeyfan27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2009, 02:27 PM   #18
chromius
6th Gear Member
 
chromius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,006
^^^I think that's very likely.
__________________
Photobucket
chromius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2009, 03:12 PM   #19
hockeyfan27
5th Gear Member
 
hockeyfan27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Durham Region
Posts: 961
If that isn't the case, I hope a quality lawyer hears about the situation and offers some assistance.
__________________

1998 328ic - Sold
hockeyfan27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2009, 09:27 PM   #20
sirex
King Sirex
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 9,850
The charge isn't about Intent or not. The charge is for possession. For example, you have possession of an illegal firearm.. Well it doesn't matter what youre intent was, you still have possession of an illegal firearm period and the charge associated with having an illegal fire arm = X years. By pleading guilty you might get ar educed setnence though.

secondly its the USA its not Canada so things are different.

The reason why the computer laws are so ****ed up is because you can never prove intent. all he can say is a virus put it there. but that doesn't get you off so easily anymore because they know how computers work.

anyway this story may be deeper then we thought, things dont add up that he just downloaded 1 picture by accident, deleted it, and thats that.. he could be trying to save face or get the media on his side so that he can get a reduced setence by the jury.

Also wnated to mention, it doesn't matter what your plea is, because like the article says, THEY ALREADY HAVe dug up the infromation from your computer.. The information is that YOU HAVE Child porn on board. SO YOU ARE GUILTY OF POSSESSION PERIOD. LOL.

You argue that "they still have to prove youre guilty"

Do you know how easy that would be:

Defendant: I plead not guilty of possession of child porn.
Prosecution: Evidence shows here that youre computer did have child porn on it.
Defendant: Im still not guilty of possession though.
Prosecution: Evidence on display from defendants computer..

RIGHT GOOD MOVE !!! check and mate by prosecution.

the only thing you could argue is ignorance about how it got there and maybe to sway the jury/judge, w/e. But too late for that anyway.
"I dont know what that is. all Idid was download a file called "hotcollege girl sluts.jpeg" but I never viewed it, i didn't know it was child porn, I would never have downloaded if it was." but seriously now, thinking about this, you think the FBI is going to waste time like this over someone who downloaded 1 image of child porn (doing it on purpose, or by accident?)
__________________

Last edited by sirex; 12-04-2009 at 09:40 PM.
sirex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2009, 10:44 PM   #21
bmdbley'sBro
wouldu like some tinfoil?
 
bmdbley'sBro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in your attic!
Posts: 4,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by chromius View Post
If I didn't, then that's what public defenders are for. It's completely free to say "Not Guilty". No way am I gonna admit to a crime I didn't commit, and be labeled as a sex offender for the rest of my life. Pleading guilty really hurts any chances for an appeal too.

Would you admit to it, just because it's "too hard" to fight it?
people make false confessions all the time. if they authorities were threating that they could just as easily charge your parents for possesion? 'cause it was some1's & if it wasn't u it must be one of them? come on matt do the right thing admit it' looking at that 'threat' its very easy to see how not drawing your parents into that would be 'the right thing to do'









now to back my scenerios, opinions, showing of realities






this ones really sick - cia funded mkultra done in montreal mental wards!

how science can be used to imprint a false reality on victims of MKultra monarch programming. Victim in Canada recounts how he was shackled, drugged, and programmed to believe that he had killed his mother. It is now officially on the record that the CIA and Canadian government jointly funded MKultra brainwashing and torture experiments at a mental institution in Montreal. This poor man is able to clearly recall the taped message that was played in his ears for 23 days




oprah? - the expert is the last 2 mins

^ 'dna has exhonerated these people - its unarguable, 25% of them confessed.'


Quote:
Videos Expected To Reduce False Confessions

While police often believe they can tell whether a suspect is being truthful, research shows they "are no more accurate in detecting deception than the average person," the report said.

The report noted one 1996 psychological experiment with college students who were told that hitting a particular computer key would cause a malfunction. They didn't know the computer was programmed to shut down automatically, regardless of what they did.

Interrogated afterward, and presented with fabricated "eyewitness" testimony, 69 percent confessed they caused the malfunction, even though they had not. Nearly 1 in 3 were convinced of their own guilt.

Dr. Saul Kassin, a psychology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said false confessions were involved in about 50 of the more than 200 overturned convictions tracked by the Innocence Project, a legal aid group. In the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, he wrote in 2008 that documented cases in studies "represent the tip of the iceberg the size of which is unknown."

"What is particularly amazing is that innocent people seldom invoke their Miranda rights and lawyer up, precisely because they are innocent and feel like they have nothing to hide," Kassin told The Associated Press. He calls videotaping a progressive step.


http://wcbstv.com/local/videotaping....2.1240169.html



that may sound great (^that they're recording it) but check this Law Proffesor out, he goes into video interviews
- NEVER TALK TO COPS


part 2 is a detective agreeing with him - tells of his past metods




Quote:
Originally Posted by chromius View Post
Story doesn't really have enough info to know for sure. But obviously there was evidence that led them to this kid's house in the first place, so they probably could have gotten warrants. But who knows, there's too much info missing from the story. Like how the police got his name, and why was it a year or two years later?
yeah its like its own seperate issue/story of the survailance they're not doing on all internet traffic, i guess?
__________________

Last edited by bmdbley'sBro; 12-04-2009 at 10:46 PM.
bmdbley'sBro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2009, 12:25 AM   #22
chromius
6th Gear Member
 
chromius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirex View Post
The charge isn't about Intent or not. The charge is for possession. For example, you have possession of an illegal firearm.. Well it doesn't matter what youre intent was, you still have possession of an illegal firearm period and the charge associated with having an illegal fire arm = X years. By pleading guilty you might get ar educed setnence though.

secondly its the USA its not Canada so things are different.

The reason why the computer laws are so ****ed up is because you can never prove intent. all he can say is a virus put it there. but that doesn't get you off so easily anymore because they know how computers work.

anyway this story may be deeper then we thought, things dont add up that he just downloaded 1 picture by accident, deleted it, and thats that.. he could be trying to save face or get the media on his side so that he can get a reduced setence by the jury.

Also wnated to mention, it doesn't matter what your plea is, because like the article says, THEY ALREADY HAVe dug up the infromation from your computer.. The information is that YOU HAVE Child porn on board. SO YOU ARE GUILTY OF POSSESSION PERIOD. LOL.

You argue that "they still have to prove youre guilty"

Do you know how easy that would be:

Defendant: I plead not guilty of possession of child porn.
Prosecution: Evidence shows here that youre computer did have child porn on it.
Defendant: Im still not guilty of possession though.
Prosecution: Evidence on display from defendants computer..

RIGHT GOOD MOVE !!! check and mate by prosecution.

the only thing you could argue is ignorance about how it got there and maybe to sway the jury/judge, w/e. But too late for that anyway.
"I dont know what that is. all Idid was download a file called "hotcollege girl sluts.jpeg" but I never viewed it, i didn't know it was child porn, I would never have downloaded if it was." but seriously now, thinking about this, you think the FBI is going to waste time like this over someone who downloaded 1 image of child porn (doing it on purpose, or by accident?)
You obviously don't understand what mens rea (intent) actually is. It absolutely applies to possession, and every other criminal law. It's a fundamental part of how justice systems work, in Canada, the U.S, anywhere in europe, pretty much anywhere where a stable judicial system exists. It has nothing to do with the charge itself. It's a fundamental requirement to prove guilt. The only time it doesn't apply is in relation to civil, or similar monetary cases like contracts, or corporate legal actions. These are called absolute liability cases, and don't require proof of mens rea.

Simply having possession isn't enough to prove guilt. You have to knowingly seek it out, and save it, and know what it is. The prosecutor has to prove the person had intent to have that file on his computer, and that he knew it was an illegal file, and that has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. For example, receiving a spam e-mail with images of child porn without actually knowing what it is would not be sufficient grounds to prove mens rea, and as a result you would not be able to be prosecuted for that crime.
__________________
Photobucket
chromius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2009, 12:32 AM   #23
chromius
6th Gear Member
 
chromius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmdbley'sBro View Post
people make false confessions all the time. if they authorities were threating that they could just as easily charge your parents for possesion? 'cause it was some1's & if it wasn't u it must be one of them? come on matt do the right thing admit it' looking at that 'threat' its very easy to see how not drawing your parents into that would be 'the right thing to do'
A confession during interrogation is quite a different thing than entering a guilty plea in court. This kid didn't confess while being questioned by police, he's planning on entering a guilty plea in front of a judge in a court proceeding.
__________________
Photobucket
chromius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2009, 11:01 AM   #24
sirex
King Sirex
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 9,850
Its pretty cut and dry to be an internet lawyer these days it seems. Why dont you take it to court for him, sounds like you know better then a federal appointed lawyer.

tell me, how are you going to disprove you didn't have intent to download those files? oh because you said so.

"no judge i didn't have intent to download that porn, it was all just a big accident"

prosecution can easily pin you down. youre a sexually deviant man, you went out looking for naked photos. then they draw up all your computer history, and everything youve searched for, done for the past 10 years of your life and formulate a mens rhea for you lol.
__________________

Last edited by sirex; 12-05-2009 at 11:36 AM.
sirex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2009, 12:06 PM   #25
chromius
6th Gear Member
 
chromius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirex View Post
Its pretty cut and dry to be an internet lawyer these days it seems. Why dont you take it to court for him, sounds like you know better then a federal appointed lawyer.

tell me, how are you going to disprove you didn't have intent to download those files? oh because you said so.

"no judge i didn't have intent to download that porn, it was all just a big accident"

prosecution can easily pin you down. youre a sexually deviant man, you went out looking for naked photos. then they draw up all your computer history, and everything youve searched for, done for the past 10 years of your life and formulate a mens rhea for you lol.
I wouldn't defend him, but I certainly would tell him to get a different lawyer. This story is most definitely deeper than this story says it is. No lawyer, public defender or not, would tell him to plead guilty over one file downloaded by accident.

You don't have to take my word for it, here's a quote from the June issue of Harvard law review, which pretty much deals with exactly this subject.

"Since its inception, the federal child pornography act has included
the mens rea term “knowingly” in defining each of the offenses prohibited
by 18 U.S.C. § 2252.3 Congress intended the mens rea term to
help prevent the prosecution and conviction of inadvertent recipients
of illicit materials. In the years since the statute was drafted, the expansion
of personal computer ownership and internet use have fundamentally
transformed the ways in which child pornography is collected
and exchanged, increasing the likelihood of mistaken receipt. The
mens rea term “knowingly” is sufficiently flexible to accommodate this
technological change and to continue to serve the purpose for which
Congress intended it — distinguishing between innocent and culpable
conduct
"

"Federal courts have long required almost all criminal statutes defining
offenses to include a mens rea term.6 The inclusion of a mens
rea element helps to sort cases that span a wide range of human behavior
and to provide some form of moral evaluation for different individuals
and their actions.7 The Supreme Court considers this func-
tion of mens rea so important that it may read a state-of-mind component
into a criminal statute that lacks an express mens rea term.8 The
Court has also recognized that the mens rea determination is a question
of fact, leaving to the factfinder the responsibility of evaluating
whether the defendant acted with the requisite intent.9 The intent
element of criminal offenses “serve[s] a key screening function in our
criminal justice system. [It] prevent[s] the conviction, punishment, and
social disgrace of those who had no intent to engage in any criminal
activity, and therefore have shown no need for corrective action"


The burden of proof is on the prosecutor. You don't have to prove that you didn't intend to download it, the prosecutor has to prove you did.
__________________
Photobucket
chromius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2009, 12:21 PM   #26
sirex
King Sirex
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 9,850
well there is clearly more then meets the eye to this story. otherwise it wouldnt have gotten that far.
__________________
sirex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2009, 07:44 PM   #27
Dr. Flyview
Formerly Flav_cool
 
Dr. Flyview's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,396
Send a message via MSN to Dr. Flyview
Those files must not have been deleted all that long ago though. Any deleted files will eventually become unrecoverable as they are overwritten by new files that need that space on the harddrive. Right?
__________________

1998 BMW 328is - summer
1993 BMW 525i - daily
1994 BMW 325i - sold
1992 BMW 325i - gone
1988 Mercedes Benz 190E 2.3-8V -
sold

Dr. Flyview is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2009, 07:57 PM   #28
sirex
King Sirex
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 9,850
ya its really tricky stuff.

google up dban, some software out there taht after your format makes it almost unrecoverable.
__________________
sirex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2009, 09:22 PM   #29
bmdbley'sBro
wouldu like some tinfoil?
 
bmdbley'sBro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in your attic!
Posts: 4,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by chromius View Post
I wouldn't defend him, but I certainly would tell him to get a different lawyer. This story is most definitely deeper than this story says it is. No lawyer, public defender or not, would tell him to plead guilty over one file downloaded by accident.

You don't have to take my word for it, here's a quote from the June issue of Harvard law review, which pretty much deals with exactly this subject.

"[i]Since its inception, the federal child pornography act has included
the mens rea term “knowingly” in defining each of the offenses prohibited
by 18 U.S.C. § 2252.3 Congress intended the mens rea term to
help prevent the prosecution and conviction of inadvertent recipients
of illicit materials. .
i agree his lawyer sucks & if his parents just knew their rights better or knew that the law is now a for profit corporation & their agents job performance is based on Convictions. imprisonment is big biz, convictions show results and allow adding or keeping of Funding (& power) in the $Billions.


a few posts up you accuse me of black & white thinking. i'm sitting here thinking: no thats you. look at all the vid's im dropping with info, causing more thought and disscussion...they directly relate to lawyers, prosecutors, plea deals, guilt, innocence, perverse injustice, Child pornography & the internet;


g.wilson -17yr old hi-school football star -convicted of ORAL SODOMY for having consensual oral with a 15yr old schoolmate. he was offered a plea deal, he refused, & was convicted: felony child molester -10years in federal prison. all his buddies plead to the deal (molester status) and got probation. Fact

he refused to admit guilt to something he didn't do, he did years in prison, attempting to fight it. about half of his 10yr sentence. oddly if he had slept with her/ got her pregnant it would only be a misdimeanor. but the oral sex is the FELONY!?



And upto 1998 in goergia
a Husband & Wife could get 20years in prison for performing oral sex on each other under Mandatory sentencing laws. wtf! can u even believe that?




18yr ild boy -16yr old girl-
they fight he interneted a nude picture, bam Sex Offender Registry for being a Child Pornoghrapher.
His lawyer didn't know that he'd be in the registry after pleading no contest. shitty lawyer he can sue,
but look at his current REALITY





watch this Prosecutor speak - this is the kind of 'person' that gets to decide whether 2 girls (sending pic's of themselves in bras, to each other) are Child Pornographers




this is their reality
__________________

Last edited by bmdbley'sBro; 12-05-2009 at 09:30 PM.
bmdbley'sBro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2009, 09:47 PM   #30
Dr. Flyview
Formerly Flav_cool
 
Dr. Flyview's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,396
Send a message via MSN to Dr. Flyview
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirex View Post
ya its really tricky stuff.

google up dban, some software out there taht after your format makes it almost unrecoverable.
That's overkill, all you need is the cipher command in command prompt. cipher /w:c:\ google it.
__________________

1998 BMW 328is - summer
1993 BMW 525i - daily
1994 BMW 325i - sold
1992 BMW 325i - gone
1988 Mercedes Benz 190E 2.3-8V -
sold

Dr. Flyview is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Maxbimmer Copyright 2001 - 2015