The hollowness of the child porn smear: Ketanji Brown Jackson has been bold and prescient
Soon after her nomination, it was reported that as a law student in 1996, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a Harvard Law Review note analyzing the constitutionality of sex offense registries and that during her judicial career she did not always give the maximum sentence in child pornography cases. Unsurprisingly, she was immediately accused by Sen. Josh Hawley of âendangering our childrenâ and not âprotecting the most vulnerable.â
These entirely meritless allegations show the extreme risks of speaking the truth about our disastrous and cruel sex offense legal regime. While even conservatives defended her moderate and even âmainstreamâ child pornography sentencing history, calling the attack a âsmearâ that âappears meritless to the point of demagoguery,â others said itâs fair to âcriticize her for giving too little weight to the public interest in protecting children from sexual predatorsâ because of her early writing analyzing registries.
Iâve never been arrested or convicted of having CP and Iâm not casting judgment on registrants who have. Even though what got me on the registry isnât porn related doesnât mean Iâll throw you or anyone in front of/ Behind/ over the bus. Hopefully others will follow, but Iâm not quite sure.
What gets lost in all of this talk between people who have been conviicted, and then, become narrators for the shame/ blame narratives of the deep state crime cartels that distribute this stuff is this:
all of the real pedos who sit at the internet switch, along the internet backbone, anonymously viewing child porn by proxy. The Fusion Centers, Utah databases, NSA and CIA servers are LOADED WITH CP. Itâs all viewed by little cal, state and federal cops, n every case, and also military vets who work that beat too.
The explosion of CP under Clinton-Bush-Obama FVEYs-CIA-Mossad has only that fact as a constant. Itâs as if they decided to both plant and harvest the stuff.
In other words, the real purveyors are always out there, acting as man-in-the-middle CP viewers, collectors, and distributors. Every story where some group is caught with terabytes of CP traces right back to NSA/USAF/Infragard, etc.
Meanwhile, the US Cybercommand is using this stuff in all kinds of honeypots and blackmailed asset ops. Its weaponized pornography, straight out of the most devious minds in historyâ and none of them are going to jail for it, or sitting on SO registries.
And every time a journalist or an agency affiliate tries to blow the whistle-OOOPS! Looking here, whaddayaknow, Donald Sachtleben et al get busted for CP.
There were about a dozen such cases in the Bush-Obama era, and almost none under Trump.
That ugly trend started with journalist Larry Mathewâs back in the 90s, but it has roots in post WW2 CIA trance formation.
Food for thought.
âThe government made me look at itâ is not an explanation I think Iâve heard.
Nor âUS and Israeli intelligence/ US armed forces employ child pornography as a weapon.â
Well I do agree they need to go after those posting the child porn as hard as they do the easy catches they make of those watching it.
I think they need to go after them harderâsince when does a cop bust a dealer and an addict in the same room, and charge the addict more severely- or arrest the bystanders who ogle a murder scene?
These heavy penalties for viewing are solely designed to mask the nefarious behind the scenes activity of government, and to maintain a false narrative of âharm.â
The goal is to stop defendants and attorneys from digging deeper, one data point after another, and asking hard questions about government programs like total surveillance.
For example, in the Josh Duggar case, it had potential to reveal illegal, unconstitutional spying via Fusion Center activity, but only one PD provided evidence, out of three that were monitoring him.
In the other cases I linked to, we see military and CIA deeply involved in these types of activity. State police in every state have a hand at the table too in these cases.
The evidence is at the top secret Fusion Centers.
Itâs not often someone on here calls for âgoing harderâ against cp offenders. But we welcome a diversity of opinions.
Penalties are heavier for posting than they are for viewing. In the feds, distribution or âpostingâ carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years, with sentencing guidelines higher still, while possession carries no mandatory minimum. The Feds prosecute many of both types of cases, and the Florida registry lists a number of individuals who have been convicted of one or the other or both.
“Receipt” carries the 5 year mandatory minimum also. This is one of the issues with the sentencing guidelines, since you cannot be in possession of something without having received it, unless you produced it, which should be a much more heinous crime.
The “use of a computer” enhancement is also nonsensical, because downloading something from the internet does not involve the same degree of complexity as meeting up with someone in person to exchange images or ordering them through the mail. I’m hesitant to use the term “minimize” when it comes to this crime, but it almost seems that someone who accessed the images on the internet through the use of a computer took an easier path than other options.
Hey, citation bot, hereâs another link You will have to look it up by headline, due to FAC TOS
CIA Files Reveal Staffers Committed Child Abuse Crimes, Avoiding Prosecution
I do not at all support viewing, distributing, making or anything related to child porn. But I do know this, when speaking with one lawyer (My case had nothing to do with child porn) he was giving me some of his wins in cases and how he won some of them.
One of the things he mentioned was, He would challenge the judge to find this person in the photo and prove they were under the legal age to pose nude. During the defense trial, he brought in a young girl of about 12 and asked the judge to guess how old the girl was. The judge said somewhere between 9 and 11.
The attorney said he then asked the girl to tell the jury how old she was, and she hand her drivers license to the attorney who handed it to the judge. The girl was 19. This came up because when I was arrested I was in my 20s but still looked 16.
My point is, many people are convicted on porn charges where the “Victim” is actually not known. I wonder in how many cases the person/child/citizen in those photos actually shows up to testify or are even found or contacted to press charges?
Again, not at all downplaying looking at such things, but as former law enforcement myself, I do not a lot of people are/were put in jail/prison that shouldn’t be there. Regardless, if because they were not guilty at all or were set up. There are actually some innocent people locked up. And even those who maybe were guilty, were coerced into admitting things they didn’t do under pressure by law enforcement.
C-Jack,
I entered this forum to ask about your case specifically, because your claims mirror the claims of many who say they are gang stalked.
Richard Moore, of the North Mississippi Anti Gang Stalking Association is one such person.
I have read his case front to back, and in that case, here was the evidence:
exactly ONE web search in his cache for any kind of pornography of any kind ( not child, BTW)
one Xerox copied image of two nude boysâ the typical kind of really badly done state police type imagery that is used in frame jobs. Anyone anywhere can get âbetterâ porn than what they framed him with
So, that was the evidence, and he did ten years over it. No one tested the paper image for prints or DNA.
In frame jobs, itâs a siloed event- the police, pros, and judge are all in on it, and states get fed- funds based upon convictions. His case reeks of frame job.
There are many challenges that good defense attorneys can put forwardâ but states and the fed have put the penalty bar so high that defendants plead out rather than go to trial.
And that bar should be lowered so that the public can gain insight into the dirt that states do in order to make cases.
Reality TV star Josh Duggars case, for example, had no less than three separate jurisdictions spying on his internet connection, and only one came forward with paperwork.
Do you know why? Because constitutional violations, and suspect â police investigation privilegedâ methods were in play. He was being triangulated online with suspect surveillance.
In other words, states and feds are stomping all over the constitution behind the scenes in EVERY CASE in order to keep this political football inflated.
These days, Fusion Centers from multiple states, US military surveillance of ENTIRE STATES and more are behind the scenes in these cases, doing constitutionally repugnant stuff.
So, thatâs the reality.
I really donât think our armed forces are planting child pornography on civiliansâ computers.
A large quantity of this material is out there, people are looking and sharing, and thatâs normally why they get prosecuted.
This isnât really the forum to solicit members for details on their own cases.
Some may volunteer that information, but otherwise, these are conversations that normally take place between members and their lawyers.
This forum is a safe place for members.
ROGS
My charges had nothing to do with the computer or porn. In fact, I did not even own or use a computer for the first time until after I was released from prison. That was the first time I had ever even used one, after I got released.
Although my probation officer tried to frame me saying she found porn on my computer while I was on probation. Funny because when she came over to accuse me, she demanded to see my new computer.(I was required to report any computer use even though my crime had nothing to do with the internet).
So she tells me she remotely scanned my computer(I gave her a screen name I was going to use). When I showed her the computer still taped up in the box, she had a fit. I said there was no way you found porn on my computer because I had not even open the box yet LOL