Inquisition 21
 |
 |
|
|
| Log In
|
|
|
|
|
| Search Articles
|
|
|
|
|
| Comments
|
|
|
You don't have to,
but if you log in,
you can add comments.
|
| Page Referral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Child pornography
|
|
|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
Child porn is at the heart of our new sexual absolutism. Its laws have criminalized both artistic representation and objective intellectual examination and speculation.
Who did it? When child porn appears.
Chuck Redmonds (not his real name) is a physician in a small US town. He had a computer in his front reception office that by March 2004 needed repair. He sent it into the local computer repair shop. Like a familiar, emerging horror story, the reader will be aware of what comes next. The computer technician found ‘child pornography’ on the hard drive. There are several reasons for the quotations marks around ‘child pornography’. What did he actually find? Child nudity, art, erotica? Was it deleted, but still in unallocated clusters? At this stage neither Chuck nor we know.
The computer technician contacted the police. This is what happens in the Inquisition 21st century. The FBI were called in.
After talking with his lawyer and waiting anxiously for several months, Chuck contacted Jack of Mitsubishi fame. Jack gave him some advice and also told him to contact us.
Here now is the correspondence.
Dear Inquisition21,
My name is (name changed to Chuck Redmonds). I am a physician in a small US town. I was told by Jack to contact you. It all began March 31, 2004. Our front office computer had been acting up. It was running slow, freezing up, and even had a few pornographic pop-ups from time to time. I was going to be out of the office that morning, so I asked my office manager to call and have the local computer technician come and check it out. I soon received a call from the technician telling me it was a more complex problem than he thought and he needed to take it back to his shop for further evaluation. I called him later that afternoon after I returned, and he said he was still working on it and told me he needed a little more time.
Shortly after that I received a call from the local sheriff and he said he needed to speak to me. I asked him if I could chat with him after work because I was swamped with a waiting room full of patients and couldn't just leave. He said it couldn't wait. I asked him if he could come by the office, and he agreed. When I led him into my private office, what he told me nearly made me sick, I couldn't believe it. He informed me that the computer technician had found child pornography on my computer. The technician then contacted the sheriff's office. He then read me my Miranda rights and asked me if I knew anything about it. I was floored. I told him that I didn't know anything about it. He then asked be about employees etc. Then he left and there I was, devastated, and still had several patients yet to see that day. It was probably the hardest day of my life.
Of course I couldn't tell anybody, at least not until I got home. I explained the situation to my wife who had a similar reaction as I did. Thankfully she believed that I wouldn’t' t do such a horrible thing. I hired a lawyer and shortly after discovered that the local police had turned the case over to the FBI. This of course wasn't good news. Over the last several months I've had to live with this, not knowing what was going to happen to me. We had a beautiful baby girl in September, but at times it has been hard to enjoy the experience with the fear of having to leave her if sent to prison. I've done some research on my own and have found several stories of ruined lives and careers. You can imagine the stress I've been under. I still haven't heard anything from the FBI, other than they are investigating. I haven't been formally charged, but fear I will be. I don't know how long this nightmare will drag on. Can, can you help me or offer any suggestions. I don't know where to turn.
Chuck
Dear Chuck,
A. If they have no proof that you used a credit card to pay for CP or transferred the images to disks or CDs, they cannot prove that you either downloaded the images or even knew they were there.
B. If they found them on your disks or CDs, the only possible defences are that they are at the lower end - simple nudity, posing, which usually results in community service etc, or that others had access to the computer.
If it's A, you are in a very strong position and should admit nothing. There should be enough expert witness information under Internet Security in the main menu of this web site to get you off. Certainly a good lawyer could walk rings around them.
It should also be beyond doubt that only a very naive person would send in their computer for repair these days knowing there was CP on it.
Let me know if it's A or B above.
One way or the other, this is a very important issue that must be affecting thousands. I'd like to use it without naming you.
Let me know if it's A above.
Editor.
Dear Editor,
I certainly believe it's A. They haven't let us know exactly what proof that they have, other than CP on the hard drive. I've never purchased CP or copied any. Other employees have access to the computer. It was our front desk/reception room computer. Charges haven't been filed yet. They've interviewed one of my employees and have scoped out the set-up of my office building. This all began around April of this year. It's been an incredible amount of stress, especially the waiting. As a physician in a small town, I hope this doesn't go public. I do believe I have a good lawyer, but I don't know how I'll afford this if it goes to trial. You're welcome to use any of my situation to help others. I'll read the information you have on your web site. I appreciate any help or information you can give me.
Thanks,
Chuck.
Upon hearing that we had responded, Jack wrote him.
Chuck,
I hear you have been in touch with Inquisition21. Journalists can change public opinions about these kinds of cases. An article about me that originated on Inquisition21 and later appeared in Wired News was translated into many languages, and discussed by millions of people. Most people think that this is injustice. You can use this article in your trial, and can show it to jury. What will the jury decide? This is very trusted media in the USA. You should start contacting the media to express your opinion about the possible injustice in your case. You have nothing to lose, as you are already in such big trouble. You don’t even understand how huge your
legal problem is. Use my articles, try to search new articles in papers like the Washington Times. Send me your findings.
Jack. (Copied to Editor by Chuck)
Dear Chuck
About your question, should you give any information from the site to your lawyer, definitely, yes, and he and you should be able to build a defence from it, but I want to go farther below.
You certainly believe it's A, but they haven't let you know exactly what proof they have. They have no case and the only way they could try to build one is if they got you to admit something. My best opinion at this stage is that they won't proceed with it.
You say that it's been an incredible amount of stress, especially the waiting. It's a terrible time and the only consolation I can give you is that the experience is being shared by thousands of innocent men all over the Western world and again that in my opinion there is no case against you unless you help them to create one.
You say that you hope this doesn't go public. The fact that the police and prosecutor have not leaked it to the local press suggests that they don't have a case and don't want red faces later.
And that you don't know how you will afford this if it goes to trial. If it did, you could sue for false arrest. Cases are being thrown out all the time and the police and prosecution service, especially the latter, have become much more careful.
I do not agree with Jack, with whom I've been in touch since he first wrote me. His case became our most famous story that got all the publicity and he has indeed become an expert. But there is one big difference between him and you - he foolishly plea bargained guilty and his bad lawyer let him. Also he has no faith in the US justice system or in the legal profession. The only sympathy he got was from the media, but that whole media response was conditioned by my first story which attacked Mitsubishi and exposed the dangers to everyone from browser hijack placing unwanted images on hard drives, and other accidental possession. Also he was a
poor immigrant - you are a physician and the media are very dangerous when they have persons of substance in their sights. We are also living in a world where malice is supported by legislation and people, like your computer store technician, are encouraged to act as spies. The police could as easily accuse him of planting the porn as of accusing you, and would if they got half a chance.
Mainly however I disagree with Jack's somewhat alarmist assessment of your situation. In my opinion you are not in trouble - the police and prosecutors could be in trouble if they proceed against you.
You can quote the evidence on www.inquisition21.com in your support and many of the experts named there can be called upon also, but I don't think it's going to come to that.
One US writer has told me that if they proceeded with all the CP cases currently pending, or that they would like to proceed with, the new prison wardens needed would be mainly ex inmates.
Some details now.
They haven't let you know exactly what proof they have, other than CP on the hard drive. That's fairly typical, although if there was a lot or if it was real porn, they'd be making more noises. What they have is likely to be child nudity and erotica, the so called lower level, as there has been very little real porn with kids available for years because it was driven underground. Most of the hullabaloo is really about naked under aged (mainly) girls.
You’ve never purchased CP. Most of the convictions are because the credit cards details were found in cases such as Landslide, or someone had transmitted it - you, say, to a friend and they caught the friend and found your email sending it.
Nor have you copied any. There is no case against you.
Other employees have access to the computer. It was in the front desk/reception room. I can't see any possibility of a case unless they are trying to expose an employee. You'd hardly use your front office PC for CP.
They've interviewed one of your employees and have scoped out the set-up of your office building. I’d say they’re stuck.
Charges haven't been filed yet. My guess is that unless you say something stupid to them that there won't be any. I think that you should begin to relax.
Editor.
Dear Editor
I’m now about to brief my lawyer. Which bits of the web site should I print out for him?
Chuck
Dear Chuck
I’d be happier if you had someone better qualified than I to do it, as I’m basically a writer/journalist, but hopefully helpful readers will respond and add advice, but this is what I recommend for now.
Beginning at Internet security The US government warning about Windows “In a document titled Cross-Domain Redirect Vulnerability in Internet Explorer, the US government warns that the Microsoft Windows systems through a ‘Cross-Domain Redirect Vulnerability in Internet Explorer (IE)’ could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the user running IE. Meaning that with Windows you are open to attack from hijackers.”
And this: “The latest legal opinion to the courts for those who claim browser hijack in the event of child pornography being found on their hard drives (and of course who have not been involved in credit card transactions), regardless of what the expert witnesses for the prosecution try to allege, is ‘If the defendant used Windows you must acquit’. We believe that this is now a definitive and unassailable defence
There is general and helpful information at Tired-of-Spam. The publisher documents personal experiences with spyware and research on hijacking and adware/spyware companies. The publisher is also moderator of a help and information forum for victims of spyware attacks at Spywarewarrior.
We have now published a link under the Internet security section (in paragraph on where to get help) which accesses a list of articles to give to your lawyer. This is a comprehensive list of the URLs of the many articles that followed up either directly on our story about Jack or ran their own stories as a result. These which include journals such as Wired, The Register, Security Focus and the Washington Times clearly demonstrate that no one is safe from malicious or accidental child porn acquisition. These alone should create an unassailable defence.
We believe that most of the experts used by the police are charlatans, so it should be easy to defeat one. The only problem is the scarcity of witnesses for the defence as the state pays their own well and tends to recognize only those that act for the prosecution.
If you do decide to call in your own computer forensics expert to examine the police evidence, we can recommend one in the UK. We can also ask Jack about one or more in the US. We believe that most of the experts used by the police are charlatans, so it should be easy to defeat one. The only problem is the scarcity of witnesses for the defence as the state pays their own well and tends to recognize only those that act for the prosecution.
(After a further anguished message from Chuck.)
Dear Chuck
I will tell you what I now feel about your case. I feel very, very angry, and I feel frustrated. Why has your lawyer not reassured you that there is no case against you? This is the only aspect of your situation that worries me, because in case after case we hear about bad defence lawyers, who are incompetent, greedy or lazy. If our liberty is being taken away the absolutists may be taking it, but the lawyers are letting it happen.
At the same time, I still cannot see any case against you, as long as you don’t admit anything or plea bargain. But you should not be going through this.
The only other consolation I can offer you is that America and the Western world are going through a crisis of fear and depression, which has caused the moral panic to flourish. Post election America appears to be particularly bad with unfortunate men considering flight and seeking sanctuary. It’s a kind of nihilism or passive defeatism.
On this web site Gore Vidal is quoted saying, “We are cowed.” There are men written about here wearing electronic shackles, and some asking us what country they can flee to. These are very bad times.
But you are innocent and I cannot see even the most God-forsaken US state convicting you. There are also far too many in your situation. I can see only social collapse coming from all this as so many educated people have been terrorised by this brutal new moral absolutism.
Editor
PS It might cheer you (or further depress you) to know that there is now a web site with more than 5,000 photos, and growing daily, of US citizens apologising to the world for the election result at Sorry everybody.
Commentary
We have made a few calls and while anecdotal evidence is all we have to offer, we might be forgiven for suggesting that there is an unholy, if unacknowledged, alliance between the computer hardware and software industries, the servers and the Hotlines and the police and child rights activists. One striking example is that most of the 18 European Hotlines (monitoring for child porn) are operated by either the police or child rights groups. Another example is that the software responsible for allowing the greatest number of hijacks and accidental acquisition of potentially illegal material is Microsoft’s Windows. For Microsoft to offer to become involved in greater protection of children on the Net is disingenuous at the very least, and certainly not their business.
However, the most pressing lesson to be learned from Chuck’s case is that justice in America has been temporarily suspended. That this physician should be going through an ordeal such as this should be a wake up call for everyone.
The story continues
From Chuck:
3 January 2005. Today an FBI agent served subpoenas to testify before a grand jury to all of my employees. Any ideas or suggestions.
Dear Chuck
We’re stuck until we know what the charges are, but you have told me nothing yet that assures me that you have a good lawyer. If you think he is not doing a good job, we’ve just found (yesterday) what we have been assured are a good team - the father and son partnership of Hochheiser and Hochheiser in New York City. Someone with good reason to know how good they are just wrote me, “They are anything but the lazy incompetents you complain about, and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend them to any American defendant seeking your help. I was soon represented by the son, Dan Hochheiser, who although still a young man, had impressive credentials.”
Editor
From Chuck:
I'm not familiar with court proceedings. What do you think they are trying to do? What will the next steps be? How come I didn't get a subpoena? I'll hopefully talk to my lawyer today. From what I can tell, from other cases, he's a good attorney. Has been involved in a lot of high profile cases in this area. He's very busy, and hard to reach to talk to. I'll keep you informed.
From Editor:
It sounds like nothing I've ever heard of. Any hints from your employees? Are they open with you? If more than one was pretending to be open you'd know it. How many do you have? Is one a man? You asked “How come I didn't get a subpoena?” The most obvious is that you are not involved, and that another (likely male) in your office is, but one can't tell what the FBI are up to till they show their hand. Yes, keep me informed.
From Chuck:
I am very close with all of my employees. And they have nothing but good to say about me. They are all females (4), including my wife. However I'm sure their husbands could get access to the office, but I don't believe that this is the case. The one and only employee that was interviewed by the FBI said that they told her that her name was associated with some of the computer info. Not surprising because she uses the computer the most, and is the most computer intelligent. They also tried to tell her that one of the other employees implied that she was involved, which wasn't true.
From Editor:
It’s very strange. If they had not already told you they found CP I’d be guessing that they believed they had found information related to national security. It’s also very unusual, if not unbelievable, that they suspect a woman of involvement in CP, whatever about trafficking or child prostitution, which are also virtually non-existent in the West. If I had to make a guess at how it got there, now knowing the FBI had told the woman her name was involved with it, I’d say two possibilities – one, a malicious assault on her by an outsider, and two (probably most unlikely) that she was misled into accessing something – say paying for a password with her credit card that a man outside could use on his PC – really a bit far fetched.
From Chuck:
Three employees including my wife have now testified before a grand jury. They mostly asked things like who had access to the computer, if the computer was ever out of the office, if anyone had talked about pornography, and other specifics about what they new. They remarked that no one was under investigation, they were just trying to find out how the CP got there. But it's kind of weird that I was the only one not subpoenaed. My lawyer says it's because they do suspect me. And he expects that I will be indicted in the near future. This is just an educated guess from the lawyer. We still do not know what if any evidence they have. They won't tell my attorney anything. He says that all we can do is wait. I'm not sure what to do or think.
From Editor:
My opinion is that they still have nothing on you and that it's just another incident in our witch hunt society. They want someone else to accuse you or to accuse somebody or you to incriminate yourself. I think you can only wait, bad though that is. This is the stage where the police break people, so you must be strong. The police and the system don't want to admit that they were wrong.
Our advisers write to Chuck
Number One.
Dear Chuck,
The editor has asked me to contact you about your possible possession case. You say that your home hasn't been searched; what do you mean? Do you mean that your computer hasn't been searched for the images you supposedly possessed, or just your home and office hasn't been searched aside from the computer(s)?
I live in Australia so I can't look at the computer myself, but with a precise on what's happened and when it happened I can give you some advice. First, what have you said to the police, if anything? If they took possession of your computer, did you consent to any search of the computer? Where are you from (state?)
These cases are pretty awful. The punishments are severe, and the system is geared toward a conviction regardless of guilt, which is the opposite of what's supposed to happen. The judge, lawyers and all would rather just have a conviction and get on with it. And because they know it, they will attempt to offer a plea bargain. So on the threat of years in prison as a "child sex offender" and registration as a "sexually violent predator" (!) for years after prison, they force people to plead guilty to something they never did, sometimes for small sentences or none at all, and a reduced period of registration under Megan's law type of registers. Either way, it's not good.
If this goes to trial, you can try and fight it with anything and everything at your disposal. Otherwise the option is to plead guilty for a reduced punishment. If I were in your position, I would fight it with every fibre of my being. First and very importantly, if it goes to trial, tell all your trusted friends and family what has happened, and make sure they attend any and all court appearances with you. Make sure you have a lot of supporters at your side, literally, and fill the public gallery with them. Second, if the district attorney has had a forensic examiner look at the computer, cross-examine this frog. (If not, tell the judge this and argue that due process has not been given because of it.) If there has been a forensic examination, let me know ASAP and I'll get you a list of questions for the cross.
If you can fill me in on what's happened so far and what you are charged with, and what state you live in, I can try to find a good forensics technician that you can use for your defence.
Chin up; keep in touch.
James Baldwin
Australia
Number Two.
Hi Chuck,
Sorry to hear you are going through such a dreadful experience.
Based in the UK I am not familiar with US legal processes or with good forensics experts but this guy (Dean Boland below) does seem to be prepared to work hard for defendants. It seems to me that you really must press for someone to look independently at your computer hard disc.
I am not a legal or forensics expert but I was involved in a similar situation in recent years (though not quite so innocent!)
Good luck. Get yourself as much support as you can. By all means come back to me if you feel I can be of further help or just to chat.
There is also a wealth of material at Madbadorsad.
Regards,
Nugget
UK
Dean Boland's site is at Boland Consulting.
(While what follows may have no relevance to Chuck’s case, it is so interesting that we have left it in.)
Lawyer Dean Boland has testified as a defence expert in three child-pornography cases in Northeast Ohio . . . . Charges were thrown out in two of the . . . cases, which sent waves of alarm through the law-enforcement community. . . . Boland, 37, of Lakewood, is one of a handful of criminal-defence experts in the country with the knowledge to testify about digital-imaging technology and the ways pornographers are using it to enhance and distribute their wares via the Internet. . . .
Boland has teamed with criminal defence lawyers who are exploiting a provision of [child pornography] law that says to obtain a conviction, a prosecutor must prove that a digital portrait of suspected child pornography is, in fact, a picture of a child. To meet that requirement, the image must be authenticated as a child and not an adult digitally enhanced to look like a child -- an extremely difficult level of proof
for police and prosecutors, Boland says.
Without the evidence to refute Boland's testimony and prove authenticity, judges threw out child-pornography charges in Summit and Portage counties in March. A Columbiana County judge has reserved his ruling until trial. . . .
"The majority of child pornography downloaded from the Internet, as sick as the images are, really can't be determined to be actual children," Boland said. "It's very easy to fake these images, and prosecutors need to be required to authenticate their evidence." . . .
Recall that in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the government argued that non-obscene virtual child pornography -- i.e., material that looks like children having sex or posing lewdly, but that actually didn't involve the use of real children -- should be unprotected in part because otherwise it would be hard to enforce bans on actual child
pornography. The Court rejected that argument.
Finally, the Government says that the possibility of producing images by using computer imaging makes it very difficult for it to prosecute those who produce pornography by using real children. Experts, we are told, may have difficulty in saying whether the pictures were made by using real children or by using computer imaging. The necessary solution, the argument runs, is to prohibit both kinds of images. The argument, in essence, is that protected speech may be banned as a means to ban unprotected speech. This analysis turns the First Amendment upside down.
The Government may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech. Protected speech does not become unprotected merely because it resembles the latter.
The Constitution requires the reverse. "[T]he possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that protected speech of others may be muted . . . ." The overbreadth doctrine prohibits the Government from banning unprotected speech if a substantial amount of protected speech is prohibited or chilled in the process.
Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment (though his vote wasn't needed to form the Court's majority); he reasoned:
In my view, the Government's most persuasive asserted interest in support of the [CPPA] is the prosecution rationale -- that persons who possess and disseminate pornographic images of real children may escape conviction by claiming that the images are computer generated, thereby raising a reasonable doubt as to their guilt. At this time, however, the Government asserts only that defendants raise such defences, not that they have done so successfully. In fact, the Government points to no case in which a defendant has been acquitted based on a "computer generated images" defence.
While this speculative interest cannot support the broad reach of the CPPA, technology may evolve to the point where it becomes impossible to enforce actual child pornography laws because the Government cannot prove that certain pornographic images are of real children. In the event this occurs, the Government should not be foreclosed from enacting a regulation of virtual child pornography that contains an appropriate affirmative defence or some other narrowly drawn restriction.
The Court suggests that the Government's interest in enforcing prohibitions against real child pornography cannot justify prohibitions on virtual child pornography, because "[t]his analysis turns the First Amendment upside down. The Government may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech."
But if technological advances thwart prosecution of "unlawful speech," the Government may well have a compelling interest in barring or otherwise regulating some narrow category of "lawful speech" in order to enforce effectively laws against pornography made through the abuse of real children. . . .
Will cases such as the ones described in the Plain Dealer article -- assuming that they indeed reflect serious obstacles to prosecution of real child pornography, and not just easily remediable errors on the government's part -- persuade Justice Thomas, and perhaps even one of the Justices in the Free Speech Coalition majority (say, Justice Breyer)?
Thanks to reader John Waszak for the pointer to the newspaper article. Volokh.
Child pornography
Background reading
Mitsubishi abandons employee
Henry goes to prison
Dangers from your hard drive
Operations Ore and Amethyst are discredited
The Athlone story - State of malice
Irish judge in child porn allegations
Who did it? When child porn appears.
Operation Ore on the verge of collapse
Alabama man’s four year wait in Limbo
 |
|
|
