Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: U.S. v. McCOY 678 F.Supp.2d 1336 (2009) United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Albany Division. December 24, 2009.__Question Raised___Does Frank McCoy Post Child Porn To Usenet?
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Ace♠
Feb 2, 2012, 12:31:08 PM2/2/12
to
Frank McCoy wrote:
> Lou Keemia <sava...@ojooo.ru> wrote:
>
> >Frank McCoy is far from a writer unless you consider stories depicting
> >*Grandpa* molesting a newborn baby writing. Most consider it
> >deplorable trash not worthy of recognition.
> >
> I could show you at least 50,000 pieces of evidence to the contrary.
There are 7 billion people on earth and a mere 50,000 of the dregs of
society stands behind you.
> My material has also been judged to be real "literature" by at least
> one independent authority.
N.A.M.B.L.A. doesn't count, Frank. You are nothing but a purveyor of
tasteless trash that appeals only to child molesters. A actual
authority wouldn't give you the time of day. You're a dirty old man
with mental issues and are probably a Paedophile yourself.
> However, "Grandpa molesting a baby" is FAR from what I usually write.
Thank God, ''Grandpa's little Fuck-Toy__From the crib, right into
Grandpa's bed" is quite enough, Frank. Here's one you can explain
though.
''Her Father's Daughter__ In Postscript! (Sorry, no pictures}
*Sorry no pictures*?? Are you in the habit of posting pictures,
Frank? Maybe you couldn't access your hard-drive that day to add a
few.
ftp://ftp.asstr.org/pub/Authors/Frank_McCoy/files.htm
> Now if you want REAL "trash", there's a lot worse out there than any
> of mine. Worse in story-line, grammar, punctuation (or lack thereof),
> subject-matter, readability, consensuality, and more.
Ah, The o-so typical ploy of attempting to spotlight somebody else in
an effort to make what you did seem benign. You, Frank are just as
sick and deplorable as anybody who writes sick Paedophile trash.
> However, THOSE aren't being judged ... yet.
> Sometime read about Jake Baker.
We're talking about *Frank McCoy* in this thread.
> However, bad as HIS stories were, there were (and are) far worse.
Again it doesn't make you respectable by any means. It only means
there are other Paedophile deviants out there to be caught.
A*
> Lou Keemia <sava...@ojooo.ru> wrote:
>
> >Frank McCoy is far from a writer unless you consider stories depicting
> >*Grandpa* molesting a newborn baby writing. Most consider it
> >deplorable trash not worthy of recognition.
> >
> I could show you at least 50,000 pieces of evidence to the contrary.
There are 7 billion people on earth and a mere 50,000 of the dregs of
society stands behind you.
> My material has also been judged to be real "literature" by at least
> one independent authority.
N.A.M.B.L.A. doesn't count, Frank. You are nothing but a purveyor of
tasteless trash that appeals only to child molesters. A actual
authority wouldn't give you the time of day. You're a dirty old man
with mental issues and are probably a Paedophile yourself.
> However, "Grandpa molesting a baby" is FAR from what I usually write.
Thank God, ''Grandpa's little Fuck-Toy__From the crib, right into
Grandpa's bed" is quite enough, Frank. Here's one you can explain
though.
''Her Father's Daughter__ In Postscript! (Sorry, no pictures}
*Sorry no pictures*?? Are you in the habit of posting pictures,
Frank? Maybe you couldn't access your hard-drive that day to add a
few.
ftp://ftp.asstr.org/pub/Authors/Frank_McCoy/files.htm
> Now if you want REAL "trash", there's a lot worse out there than any
> of mine. Worse in story-line, grammar, punctuation (or lack thereof),
> subject-matter, readability, consensuality, and more.
Ah, The o-so typical ploy of attempting to spotlight somebody else in
an effort to make what you did seem benign. You, Frank are just as
sick and deplorable as anybody who writes sick Paedophile trash.
> However, THOSE aren't being judged ... yet.
> Sometime read about Jake Baker.
We're talking about *Frank McCoy* in this thread.
> However, bad as HIS stories were, there were (and are) far worse.
Again it doesn't make you respectable by any means. It only means
there are other Paedophile deviants out there to be caught.
A*
Frank McCoy
Feb 2, 2012, 2:54:10 PM2/2/12
to
Ace? <avlasv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Frank McCoy wrote:
>> Lou Keemia <sava...@ojooo.ru> wrote:
>>
>> >Frank McCoy is far from a writer unless you consider stories depicting
>> >*Grandpa* molesting a newborn baby writing. Most consider it
>> >deplorable trash not worthy of recognition.
>> >
>> I could show you at least 50,000 pieces of evidence to the contrary.
>
>There are 7 billion people on earth and a mere 50,000 of the dregs of
>society stands behind you.
>
>> My material has also been judged to be real "literature" by at least
>> one independent authority.
>
>N.A.M.B.L.A. doesn't count, Frank. You are nothing but a purveyor of
>tasteless trash that appeals only to child molesters. A actual
>authority wouldn't give you the time of day. You're a dirty old man
>with mental issues and are probably a Paedophile yourself.
>
>> However, "Grandpa molesting a baby" is FAR from what I usually write.
>
>Thank God, ''Grandpa's little Fuck-Toy__From the crib, right into
>Grandpa's bed" is quite enough, Frank. Here's one you can explain
>though.
>
>''Her Father's Daughter__ In Postscript! (Sorry, no pictures}
>
>*Sorry no pictures*?? Are you in the habit of posting pictures,
>Frank? Maybe you couldn't access your hard-drive that day to add a
>few.
>
Nope. Read the rest of the post, or the preamble.
>Frank McCoy wrote:
>> Lou Keemia <sava...@ojooo.ru> wrote:
>>
>> >Frank McCoy is far from a writer unless you consider stories depicting
>> >*Grandpa* molesting a newborn baby writing. Most consider it
>> >deplorable trash not worthy of recognition.
>> >
>> I could show you at least 50,000 pieces of evidence to the contrary.
>
>There are 7 billion people on earth and a mere 50,000 of the dregs of
>society stands behind you.
>
>> My material has also been judged to be real "literature" by at least
>> one independent authority.
>
>N.A.M.B.L.A. doesn't count, Frank. You are nothing but a purveyor of
>tasteless trash that appeals only to child molesters. A actual
>authority wouldn't give you the time of day. You're a dirty old man
>with mental issues and are probably a Paedophile yourself.
>
>> However, "Grandpa molesting a baby" is FAR from what I usually write.
>
>Thank God, ''Grandpa's little Fuck-Toy__From the crib, right into
>Grandpa's bed" is quite enough, Frank. Here's one you can explain
>though.
>
>''Her Father's Daughter__ In Postscript! (Sorry, no pictures}
>
>*Sorry no pictures*?? Are you in the habit of posting pictures,
>Frank? Maybe you couldn't access your hard-drive that day to add a
>few.
>
Didn't want to get into copyright issues; especially with Playboy.
>
>> Now if you want REAL "trash", there's a lot worse out there than any
>> of mine. Worse in story-line, grammar, punctuation (or lack thereof),
>> subject-matter, readability, consensuality, and more.
>
>Ah, The o-so typical ploy of attempting to spotlight somebody else in
>an effort to make what you did seem benign. You, Frank are just as
>sick and deplorable as anybody who writes sick Paedophile trash.
>
>> However, THOSE aren't being judged ... yet.
>
>> Sometime read about Jake Baker.
>
>We're talking about *Frank McCoy* in this thread.
>
>> However, bad as HIS stories were, there were (and are) far worse.
>
>Again it doesn't make you respectable by any means. It only means
>there are other Paedophile deviants out there to be caught.
>
The POINT being they deliberately picked far-from-the-worst.
>> Now if you want REAL "trash", there's a lot worse out there than any
>> of mine. Worse in story-line, grammar, punctuation (or lack thereof),
>> subject-matter, readability, consensuality, and more.
>
>Ah, The o-so typical ploy of attempting to spotlight somebody else in
>an effort to make what you did seem benign. You, Frank are just as
>sick and deplorable as anybody who writes sick Paedophile trash.
>
>> However, THOSE aren't being judged ... yet.
>
>> Sometime read about Jake Baker.
>
>We're talking about *Frank McCoy* in this thread.
>
>> However, bad as HIS stories were, there were (and are) far worse.
>
>Again it doesn't make you respectable by any means. It only means
>there are other Paedophile deviants out there to be caught.
>
Their argument would have been much more effective against others.
OTOH, I was prepared for the case; and willing to take it on.
So, from their point of view: Why not?
Actually, from mine as well.
This way the issue gets decided on the merits, not on personal "gut"
feelings. Well, OK, that's the hope anyway.
To some extent, it's a positive sign that so-far there's been no
verdict yet. It allows the hope that the judge really IS trying to
decide the case on its true legal merits, and not how he personally
feels one way or the other about the stories themselves.
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H
Feb 3, 2012, 1:20:44 AM2/3/12
to
On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 13:54:10 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
wrote:
>Ace? <avlasv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Frank McCoy wrote:
>>> Lou Keemia <sava...@ojooo.ru> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Frank McCoy is far from a writer unless you consider stories depicting
>>> >*Grandpa* molesting a newborn baby writing. Most consider it
>>> >deplorable trash not worthy of recognition.
>>> >
>>> I could show you at least 50,000 pieces of evidence to the contrary.
>>
>>There are 7 billion people on earth and a mere 50,000 of the dregs of
>>society stands behind you.
>>
>>> My material has also been judged to be real "literature" by at least
>>> one independent authority.
An academic for hire bloviating in your defense is hardly independent
Frank.
Haven't you read his comments when throwing out your frivolous barrage
of motions?
He has already told you there are no legal merits to your filth.
Here's what he said about your "works".
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=23&xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020100527789.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR&SizeDisp=7
The Kaplan Court upheld the defendant's conviction for violating a
California obscenity statute on a finding that a non-illustrated
fictional book entitled "Suite 69," which was "made up entirely of
repetitive descriptions of physical, sexual conduct, `clinically'
explicit and offensive to the point of being nauseous" with "only the
most tenuous `plot,'" was "not protected by the First Amendment." Id.
at 116-18, 93 S.Ct. 2680.
The Court, being familiar with Defendant's stories, observes that a
jury could equate his works with the Kaplan book.
wrote:
>Ace? <avlasv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Frank McCoy wrote:
>>> Lou Keemia <sava...@ojooo.ru> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Frank McCoy is far from a writer unless you consider stories depicting
>>> >*Grandpa* molesting a newborn baby writing. Most consider it
>>> >deplorable trash not worthy of recognition.
>>> >
>>> I could show you at least 50,000 pieces of evidence to the contrary.
>>
>>There are 7 billion people on earth and a mere 50,000 of the dregs of
>>society stands behind you.
>>
>>> My material has also been judged to be real "literature" by at least
>>> one independent authority.
Frank.
of motions?
He has already told you there are no legal merits to your filth.
Here's what he said about your "works".
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=23&xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020100527789.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR&SizeDisp=7
The Kaplan Court upheld the defendant's conviction for violating a
California obscenity statute on a finding that a non-illustrated
fictional book entitled "Suite 69," which was "made up entirely of
repetitive descriptions of physical, sexual conduct, `clinically'
explicit and offensive to the point of being nauseous" with "only the
most tenuous `plot,'" was "not protected by the First Amendment." Id.
at 116-18, 93 S.Ct. 2680.
The Court, being familiar with Defendant's stories, observes that a
jury could equate his works with the Kaplan book.
Frank McCoy
Feb 3, 2012, 3:42:26 AM2/3/12
to
I'm not discussing the actual arguments in the case or the case
itself. You have your ideas about Constitutional issues. I have
mine. I merely stated WHY I'm fighting and on what issues.
I could easily point out my defense, and the Supreme Court rulings
against your claims, but I'm not here to argue the case again. My
lawyer has already done so quite well; and probably far better than I
could have done on my own.
However, I WILL just note that *IF* the issue was what you claim, the
judge would have ruled against me the same day the trial ended; and
this case would already have gone to appeal ... On the very issues you
so blithely dismiss.
You might actually READ the Supreme Court rulings in the original,
that you claim deny my case. They don't. The actual decisions are
easily found from the actual cases quoted. Look them up. There's a
lot more there than the short passages quoted.
But, like I said, I'm not here to argue the case ... again.
Obviously your "gut feeling" is that stories like mine are NOT
Constitutionally protected. Thankfully, Freedom-of-Speech is not
dependent on whether or not your gut likes the idea.
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 3, 2012, 5:07:53 AM2/3/12
to
On Feb 3, 3:42 am, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:
> ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H <¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H> wrote:
> >On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 13:54:10 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
> >wrote:
>
> ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H <¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H> wrote:
> >On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 13:54:10 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
> >wrote:
>
repeatedly explain the same point over and over to the same people who
understood you perfectly well the first time, yet ... LOL. You really
are too smart to appear this clueless, aren't you?
¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H
Feb 3, 2012, 8:45:23 AM2/3/12
to
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 02:42:26 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
wrote:
Rationalizations Frank.
You are up to your neck in child pornography and have been brought to
book.
"After Defendant's writings came to the attention of federal
authorities during the child pornography prosecution of a separate
criminal defendant, federal agents from the Middle District of Georgia
conducted an investigation into Defendant."
>I could easily point out my defense, and the Supreme Court rulings
>against your claims, but I'm not here to argue the case again. My
>lawyer has already done so quite well; and probably far better than I
>could have done on my own.
Yes, a veritable barrage of motions that were all denied.
>However, I WILL just note that *IF* the issue was what you claim, the
>judge would have ruled against me the same day the trial ended; and
>this case would already have gone to appeal ... On the very issues you
>so blithely dismiss.
The judge did rule against you, dismissing your motions and pointing
out your ignorance of the law.
>
>You might actually READ the Supreme Court rulings in the original,
>that you claim deny my case. They don't. The actual decisions are
>easily found from the actual cases quoted. Look them up. There's a
>lot more there than the short passages quoted.
>
>But, like I said, I'm not here to argue the case ... again.
>Obviously your "gut feeling" is that stories like mine are NOT
>Constitutionally protected. Thankfully, Freedom-of-Speech is not
>dependent on whether or not your gut likes the idea.
Frank, they are not "my claims" they are Judge Sands's rulings after
careful and lengthy consideration of the arguments when he denied all
your motions, calling your arguments "far fetched".
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=11&xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020100527789.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR&SizeDisp=7
"it would be an absurdity to find that holding the parties to the true
facts of the case is "unfair." The facts are what they are."
FACTUAL SUMMARY
Defendant, a resident of Minnesota, is a fiction writer. As many
authors tend to do, Defendant's body of work pertains to a particular
range of subject matter.
In Defendant's case, according to the Indictment against him, the
preferred literary milieu is "obscene `fantasy' stories describing in
explicit and graphic detail the sexual abuse, rape, and murder of
children." (Doc. 1 at 2). At all times relevant to the Indictment,
Defendant's fiction was posted on the Internet.
wrote:
You are up to your neck in child pornography and have been brought to
book.
"After Defendant's writings came to the attention of federal
authorities during the child pornography prosecution of a separate
criminal defendant, federal agents from the Middle District of Georgia
conducted an investigation into Defendant."
>I could easily point out my defense, and the Supreme Court rulings
>against your claims, but I'm not here to argue the case again. My
>lawyer has already done so quite well; and probably far better than I
>could have done on my own.
>However, I WILL just note that *IF* the issue was what you claim, the
>judge would have ruled against me the same day the trial ended; and
>this case would already have gone to appeal ... On the very issues you
>so blithely dismiss.
out your ignorance of the law.
>
>You might actually READ the Supreme Court rulings in the original,
>that you claim deny my case. They don't. The actual decisions are
>easily found from the actual cases quoted. Look them up. There's a
>lot more there than the short passages quoted.
>
>But, like I said, I'm not here to argue the case ... again.
>Obviously your "gut feeling" is that stories like mine are NOT
>Constitutionally protected. Thankfully, Freedom-of-Speech is not
>dependent on whether or not your gut likes the idea.
careful and lengthy consideration of the arguments when he denied all
your motions, calling your arguments "far fetched".
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=11&xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020100527789.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR&SizeDisp=7
"it would be an absurdity to find that holding the parties to the true
facts of the case is "unfair." The facts are what they are."
FACTUAL SUMMARY
Defendant, a resident of Minnesota, is a fiction writer. As many
authors tend to do, Defendant's body of work pertains to a particular
range of subject matter.
In Defendant's case, according to the Indictment against him, the
preferred literary milieu is "obscene `fantasy' stories describing in
explicit and graphic detail the sexual abuse, rape, and murder of
children." (Doc. 1 at 2). At all times relevant to the Indictment,
Defendant's fiction was posted on the Internet.
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 3, 2012, 9:51:54 AM2/3/12
to
On Feb 3, 8:45 am, ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H <¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H> wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 02:42:26 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > $)A #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H < #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H> wrote:
>
> >>On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 13:54:10 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
> >>wrote:
>
> On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 02:42:26 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > $)A #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H < #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H> wrote:
>
> >>On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 13:54:10 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
> >>wrote:
>
>
> "it would be an absurdity to find that holding the parties to the true
> facts of the case is "unfair." The facts are what they are."
>
> FACTUAL SUMMARY
>
> Defendant, a resident of Minnesota, is a fiction writer. As many
> authors tend to do, Defendant's body of work pertains to a particular
> range of subject matter.
>
> In Defendant's case, according to the Indictment against him, the
> preferred literary milieu is "obscene `fantasy' stories describing in
> explicit and graphic detail the sexual abuse, rape, and murder of
> children." (Doc. 1 at 2). At all times relevant to the Indictment,
> Defendant's fiction was posted on the Internet.- Hide quoted text -
> "it would be an absurdity to find that holding the parties to the true
> facts of the case is "unfair." The facts are what they are."
>
> FACTUAL SUMMARY
>
> Defendant, a resident of Minnesota, is a fiction writer. As many
> authors tend to do, Defendant's body of work pertains to a particular
> range of subject matter.
>
> In Defendant's case, according to the Indictment against him, the
> preferred literary milieu is "obscene `fantasy' stories describing in
> explicit and graphic detail the sexual abuse, rape, and murder of
> children." (Doc. 1 at 2). At all times relevant to the Indictment,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Please read Freedom of the Press and "obscene" Literature - Three
Essays written by Theodore Shroedor in 1906 and available through
Google Books at the following link http://tinyurl.com/852ednb
READ THIS PAMPHLET that you may know what OUTRAGES ON LIBERTY you are
tolerating. THEN READ "Practical Suggestions" on the back cover AND DO
SOMETHING!
I. MORE LIBERTY OF PRESS ESSENTIAL TO MORAL PROGRESS.
II. WHAT IS CRIMINALLY OBSCENE?
III. LIBERTY OF DISCUSSION DEFENDED WITH SPECIAL APPLICATION TO SEX-
DISCUSSION.
Frank McCoy
Feb 3, 2012, 2:03:13 PM2/3/12
to
¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H <¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H> wrote:
considering the case prior to Judge Sands.
Also, those were all pre-trial motions; which denial CAN be appealed
if the ruling goes against me; and several of which are a good basis
for such appeal.
However, several more important motions, made in the trial itself,
were not denied. The most important one is still pending.
>"it would be an absurdity to find that holding the parties to the true
>facts of the case is "unfair." The facts are what they are."
>
>FACTUAL SUMMARY
>
>Defendant, a resident of Minnesota, is a fiction writer. As many
>authors tend to do, Defendant's body of work pertains to a particular
>range of subject matter.
>
> In Defendant's case, according to the Indictment against him, the
>preferred literary milieu is "obscene `fantasy' stories describing in
>explicit and graphic detail the sexual abuse, rape, and murder of
>children." (Doc. 1 at 2). At all times relevant to the Indictment,
>Defendant's fiction was posted on the Internet.
NOT according to the facts of the case.
For THAT, you'd have to read the actual trial files, and what was
stipulated-to by the defendant (me) as what actually happened; and
agreed-to-be-the-actual-facts-of-what-happened by the Prosecution.
Most of the facts-of-the-case were agreed-to by stipulation of both
parties.
I agreed that I posted more than 100 specific stories on the net.
What those stories actually WERE, and whether they were "obscene" and
if they are literature or art, and whether they are protected by the
Constitution, was what the trial was (and still is) all about.
The Prosecution can CHARGE anything they wish; and a Grand Jury only
has to decide whether there's enough evidence to bother with a trial.
They do NOT decide the actual facts of the case; and are ONLY
presented with whatever the DA wants to show them, in the worst
possible light and interpretation.
It's a FACT, that such charges were BROUGHT.
It's NOT a fact that said charges are TRUE.
That's what the trial is supposed to decide.
If charges-brought were always actual facts, there would never be a
need for trials, would there?
But then, you're the, "Let's give the Guilty-SOB a fair trial and then
hang him!" type; so you wouldn't understand that.
Like I said before:
If it was so easy to decide that my stories are NOT protected Free
Speech, then the verdict would have been given the moment the trial
finished. We wouldn't be waiting for over two years now.
Having attended the trial, I think that the judge would have to use
some truly strange and fantastic logic to square a verdict of guilty
with the stipulated facts of the case and the actual trial itself when
compared to the past rulings of the Supreme Court on how such matters
are to be judged. Specifically involving "The Miller Test".
Read about it sometime.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0413_0015_ZS.html
Read not only the syllabus, but the Opinion of the Court, and both
Dissents.
That's not saying the judge CAN'T.
However, reading any such ruling would be interesting, to say the
least. Since the records are sealed (for now at least), I'm not
really at liberty to say exactly why.
And no; I'm NOT going to explain in detail why you're wrong.
But my lawyer did a bang-up great job in doing so.
Personally, I think the trial-records should be open to anybody.
But then, since some of my stories WERE discussed in some detail; and
the whole case is built on whether they're legal or not, I can see why
the actual trial-records are presently sealed. ;-{
The Prosecution, of course, would like them to remain sealed forever.
AND ... I think I've said enough.
Nothing I can say will affect what you think.
Nothing you can say will change my opinion.
Probably anybody listening in has already made up their own minds.
So ... I don't think I'll be responding any more to this particular
thread.
The soapbox is now empty.
¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H
Feb 4, 2012, 12:17:06 AM2/4/12
to
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:03:13 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
wrote:
Of course you won't.
For any fair minded person not part of your ring or embarrassed by
having supported you in the past, the discovery of your collection
of thousands of videos and photographs of children being sexually
assaulted removes any last vestige of benefit of the doubt you may
have been graced with.
wrote:
For any fair minded person not part of your ring or embarrassed by
having supported you in the past, the discovery of your collection
of thousands of videos and photographs of children being sexually
assaulted removes any last vestige of benefit of the doubt you may
have been graced with.
Fred E Brown
Feb 4, 2012, 8:13:01 AM2/4/12
to
"Frank McCoy" <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote in message
news:gr8oi7l1jcrbf5rfe...@4ax.com...
probably thinks Casey Anthony is guilty of murdering her child even though a
jury found her not guilty.
This is too be expected from those who reside at the bottom level of the IQ
pool.
Their greatest joy in their miserable lives is reveling in other people's
misery.
Once a person is accused of a crime, people like Numbnuts will never accept
a
Judge or juries decision of not guilty.
Fred E Brown
Feb 4, 2012, 8:20:01 AM2/4/12
to
"民主諉過於人" <民主諉過於人 民主諉過於人> wrote in message
news:uhfpi7l31r7k5uaos...@4ax.com...
>> $)A #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H < #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H
Frank's guilt or innocence.
¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H
Feb 4, 2012, 11:21:18 AM2/4/12
to
On 4 Feb 2012 07:20:01 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>
>"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in message
Nonsense.
The collection of child pornography on McCoy's computers is
simply a fact, not something the judge is deciding in the more
technical matter of the transmission of his infant rape stories.
wrote:
>
>"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in message
>news:uhfpi7l31r7k5uaos...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:03:13 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:03:13 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H <￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H
The collection of child pornography on McCoy's computers is
simply a fact, not something the judge is deciding in the more
technical matter of the transmission of his infant rape stories.
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 4, 2012, 11:26:09 AM2/4/12
to
On Feb 4, 11:21 am, ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H <¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H> wrote:
> On 4 Feb 2012 07:20:01 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com>
> >>>>>>http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=23&xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020100...
> >>>>http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=11&xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020100...
> >>>http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0413_0015_ZS....
Remind me again exactly why he isn't being prosecuted for possession
of child pornography?
> On 4 Feb 2012 07:20:01 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in message
> >news:uhfpi7l31r7k5uaos...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:03:13 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
> >> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> >"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in message
> >news:uhfpi7l31r7k5uaos...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:03:13 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> $)A #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H < #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H
> >>> #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H> wrote:
>
> >>>>On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 02:42:26 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
> >>>>wrote:
>
> >>>>>???D??1L???H <???D??1L???H ???D??1L???H> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 13:54:10 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
> >>>>>>wrote:
>
>
> >>>>On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 02:42:26 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
> >>>>wrote:
>
> >>>>>???D??1L???H <???D??1L???H ???D??1L???H> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 13:54:10 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
> >>>>>>wrote:
>
of child pornography?
¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H
Feb 4, 2012, 11:36:07 AM2/4/12
to
On 4 Feb 2012 07:13:01 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>> / ' / ?
other's IQs, it's odd you have failed to grasp McCoy doesn't deny
sending his grotesque obscene texts to the undercover federal agent he
simply, and erroneously, claims he had the right to transmit them.
That McCoy is up to his neck in child pornography is beyond dispute.
All that is the Judge is deciding is whether or not he can wriggle out
of it on legal technicalities.
wrote:
>> ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
>> (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
>
> ￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H <￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H ￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H AKA Numbnuts
>> (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
>
>probably thinks Casey Anthony is guilty of murdering her child even though a
>jury found her not guilty.
>This is too be expected from those who reside at the bottom level of the IQ
>pool.
>Their greatest joy in their miserable lives is reveling in other people's
>misery.
>Once a person is accused of a crime, people like Numbnuts will never accept
>a
>Judge or juries decision of not guilty.
For someone grandiosely making otiose claims about
>jury found her not guilty.
>This is too be expected from those who reside at the bottom level of the IQ
>pool.
>Their greatest joy in their miserable lives is reveling in other people's
>misery.
>Once a person is accused of a crime, people like Numbnuts will never accept
>a
>Judge or juries decision of not guilty.
other's IQs, it's odd you have failed to grasp McCoy doesn't deny
sending his grotesque obscene texts to the undercover federal agent he
simply, and erroneously, claims he had the right to transmit them.
That McCoy is up to his neck in child pornography is beyond dispute.
All that is the Judge is deciding is whether or not he can wriggle out
of it on legal technicalities.
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 4, 2012, 12:20:30 PM2/4/12
to
On Feb 4, 11:36 am, ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H <¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H> wrote:
> On 4 Feb 2012 07:13:01 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com>
> >>>>>http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=23&xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020100...
> >>>http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=11&xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020100...
> >>http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0413_0015_ZS....
> > $)A #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H < #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H AKA Numbnuts
> On 4 Feb 2012 07:13:01 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"Frank McCoy" <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote in message
> >news:gr8oi7l1jcrbf5rfe...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> >"Frank McCoy" <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote in message
> >news:gr8oi7l1jcrbf5rfe...@4ax.com...
> >> $)A #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H < #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H> wrote:
>
> >>>On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 02:42:26 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
> >>>wrote:
>
> >>>>???D??1L???H <???D??1L???H ???D??1L???H> wrote:
>
> >>>>>On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 13:54:10 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
> >>>>>wrote:
>
>
> >>>On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 02:42:26 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
> >>>wrote:
>
> >>>>???D??1L???H <???D??1L???H ???D??1L???H> wrote:
>
> >>>>>On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 13:54:10 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
> >>>>>wrote:
>
> >probably thinks Casey Anthony is guilty of murdering her child even though a
> >jury found her not guilty.
> >This is too be expected from those who reside at the bottom level of the IQ
> >pool.
> >Their greatest joy in their miserable lives is reveling in other people's
> >misery.
> >Once a person is accused of a crime, people like Numbnuts will never accept
> >a
> >Judge or juries decision of not guilty.
>
> For someone grandiosely making otiose claims about
> other's IQs, it's odd you have failed to grasp McCoy doesn't deny
> sending his grotesque obscene texts to the undercover federal agent he
> simply, and erroneously, claims he had the right to transmit them.
>
> That McCoy is up to his neck in child pornography is beyond dispute.
> All that is the Judge is deciding is whether or not he can wriggle out
> of it on legal technicalities.
Can you please remind me what exactly constitutes obscene text?
> >jury found her not guilty.
> >This is too be expected from those who reside at the bottom level of the IQ
> >pool.
> >Their greatest joy in their miserable lives is reveling in other people's
> >misery.
> >Once a person is accused of a crime, people like Numbnuts will never accept
> >a
> >Judge or juries decision of not guilty.
>
> For someone grandiosely making otiose claims about
> other's IQs, it's odd you have failed to grasp McCoy doesn't deny
> sending his grotesque obscene texts to the undercover federal agent he
> simply, and erroneously, claims he had the right to transmit them.
>
> That McCoy is up to his neck in child pornography is beyond dispute.
> All that is the Judge is deciding is whether or not he can wriggle out
> of it on legal technicalities.
Fred E Brown
Feb 4, 2012, 4:01:02 PM2/4/12
to
>>> For any fair minded person not part of your ring or embarrassed by
>>> having supported you in the past, the discovery of your collection
>>> of thousands of videos and photographs of children being sexually
>>> assaulted removes any last vestige of benefit of the doubt you may
>>> have been graced with.
>>
>>If you were 'fair minded' you would wait for the judges decision on
>>Frank's guilt or innocence.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> The collection of child pornography on McCoy's computers is
> simply a fact, not something the judge is deciding in the more
> technical matter of the transmission of his infant rape stories.
The CP on McCoy's computer is irrelevant and immaterial to his
>>> having supported you in the past, the discovery of your collection
>>> of thousands of videos and photographs of children being sexually
>>> assaulted removes any last vestige of benefit of the doubt you may
>>> have been graced with.
>>
>>If you were 'fair minded' you would wait for the judges decision on
>>Frank's guilt or innocence.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> The collection of child pornography on McCoy's computers is
> simply a fact, not something the judge is deciding in the more
> technical matter of the transmission of his infant rape stories.
trial on obscenity charges.
The FBI fucked up with their search warrant which did not include
any reference to child porn and the judge denied the prosecution's
attempt to retroactively add it to the search warrant.
The fact that his computer had child porn is inadmissible and can't
ever be prosecuted.
Tough titty, get used to it.
Remember, God acts in mysterious ways.
Fred E Brown
Feb 4, 2012, 4:10:02 PM2/4/12
to
>> ￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H <￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H
>> ￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H AKA Numbnuts
>>probably thinks Casey Anthony is guilty of murdering her child even though
>>a
>>jury found her not guilty.
>>This is too be expected from those who reside at the bottom level of the
>>IQ
>>pool.
>>Their greatest joy in their miserable lives is reveling in other people's
>>misery.
>>Once a person is accused of a crime, people like Numbnuts will never
>>accept
>>a
>>Judge or juries decision of not guilty.
>
> For someone grandiosely making otiose claims about
> other's IQs, it's odd you have failed to grasp McCoy doesn't deny
> sending his grotesque obscene texts to the undercover federal agent he
> simply, and erroneously, claims he had the right to transmit them.
has yet to be decided.
> That McCoy is up to his neck in child pornography is beyond dispute.
> All that is the Judge is deciding is whether or not he can wriggle out
> of it on legal technicalities.
anything found during a search not listed on the search warrant is
inadmissible in any current or future legal action.
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 4, 2012, 4:35:28 PM2/4/12
to
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 4, 2012, 4:40:09 PM2/4/12
to
On Feb 4, 4:10 pm, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> $)A #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H < #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H
> >> #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H AKA Numbnuts
> >> $)A #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H < #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H
text because ignorance of the law is no excuse and I sure don't want
to fuck up and say the wrong thing when my career is at stake. LOL.
¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H
Feb 4, 2012, 5:10:15 PM2/4/12
to
On 4 Feb 2012 15:01:02 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>>>> For any fair minded person not part of your ring or embarrassed by
>>>> having supported you in the past, the discovery of your collection
>>>> of thousands of videos and photographs of children being sexually
>>>> assaulted removes any last vestige of benefit of the doubt you may
>>>> have been graced with.
>>>
>>>If you were 'fair minded' you would wait for the judges decision on
>>>Frank's guilt or innocence.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>>
>> The collection of child pornography on McCoy's computers is
>> simply a fact, not something the judge is deciding in the more
>> technical matter of the transmission of his infant rape stories.
>
>The CP on McCoy's computer is irrelevant and immaterial to his
>trial on obscenity charges.
True, but totally relevant to what a disgusting irredeemable piece of
human garbage he is.
>The FBI fucked up with their search warrant which did not include
>any reference to child porn and the judge denied the prosecution's
>attempt to retroactively add it to the search warrant.
Identify evidence of violations of Title 18, U.S.C. § 2252 and § 2252A
per search warrant 1:08-MJ-37 (RLH).
Perhaps you should update yourself
>The fact that his computer had child porn is inadmissible and can't
>ever be prosecuted.
You are confused.
He can be prosecuted any time up to and including November
2017.
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/statlmt.pdf
The statute of limitations to prosecute a possession of child
pornography charge in Minnesota is 9 years.
>Tough titty, get used to it.
>Remember, God acts in mysterious ways.
More like the Devil looking after his own so far.`
wrote:
>>>> For any fair minded person not part of your ring or embarrassed by
>>>> having supported you in the past, the discovery of your collection
>>>> of thousands of videos and photographs of children being sexually
>>>> assaulted removes any last vestige of benefit of the doubt you may
>>>> have been graced with.
>>>
>>>If you were 'fair minded' you would wait for the judges decision on
>>>Frank's guilt or innocence.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>>
>> The collection of child pornography on McCoy's computers is
>> simply a fact, not something the judge is deciding in the more
>> technical matter of the transmission of his infant rape stories.
>
>The CP on McCoy's computer is irrelevant and immaterial to his
>trial on obscenity charges.
human garbage he is.
>The FBI fucked up with their search warrant which did not include
>any reference to child porn and the judge denied the prosecution's
>attempt to retroactively add it to the search warrant.
per search warrant 1:08-MJ-37 (RLH).
Perhaps you should update yourself
>The fact that his computer had child porn is inadmissible and can't
>ever be prosecuted.
He can be prosecuted any time up to and including November
2017.
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/statlmt.pdf
The statute of limitations to prosecute a possession of child
pornography charge in Minnesota is 9 years.
>Tough titty, get used to it.
>Remember, God acts in mysterious ways.
¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H
Feb 4, 2012, 5:31:35 PM2/4/12
to
On 4 Feb 2012 15:10:02 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>
sentence is he not?
>> That McCoy is up to his neck in child pornography is beyond dispute.
>> All that is the Judge is deciding is whether or not he can wriggle out
>> of it on legal technicalities.
>
>There is no legal technicality to be decided, it's settled case law,
Indeed , as Judge Sands pointed out
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=12&xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020100527789.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR&SizeDisp=7
"Ashcroft did not find unconstitutional, however, the prosecution of
virtual child pornography if the depiction is deemed obscene. If
Ashcroft does not protect obscene virtual images of child sex from
criminal liability, then it cannot protect obscene fictional writings
of child sex from prosecution."
"`[t]he Miller standard, like all general definitions of what may be
banned as obscene, does not reflect the State's particular and more
compelling interest in prosecuting those who promote the sexual
exploitation of children.'"
>anything found during a search not listed on the search warrant is
>inadmissible in any current or future legal action.
You are totally confusing the two issues of the verdict and sentence
for transporting obscenity and prosecution for possession of child
pornography., perhaps deliberately, perhaps not
Whether to prosecute McCoy for his massive collection
of child pornography and investigating to whom he may have distributed
it, has nothing whatsoever do with the judge's pending ruling on
whether he transported obscenity.
wrote:
>
>>> ￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H <￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H
>>> ￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H AKA Numbnuts
>>>probably thinks Casey Anthony is guilty of murdering her child even though
>>>a
>>>jury found her not guilty.
>>>This is too be expected from those who reside at the bottom level of the
>>>IQ
>>>pool.
>>>Their greatest joy in their miserable lives is reveling in other people's
>>>misery.
>>>Once a person is accused of a crime, people like Numbnuts will never
>>>accept
>>>a
>>>Judge or juries decision of not guilty.
>>
>> For someone grandiosely making otiose claims about
>> other's IQs, it's odd you have failed to grasp McCoy doesn't deny
>> sending his grotesque obscene texts to the undercover federal agent he
>> simply, and erroneously, claims he had the right to transmit them.
>
>Wether Frank is in error over his right of Free Speech with his stories
>has yet to be decided.
Not according to Judge Sands and he is delivering the verdict and
>>> ￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H AKA Numbnuts
>>>probably thinks Casey Anthony is guilty of murdering her child even though
>>>a
>>>jury found her not guilty.
>>>This is too be expected from those who reside at the bottom level of the
>>>IQ
>>>pool.
>>>Their greatest joy in their miserable lives is reveling in other people's
>>>misery.
>>>Once a person is accused of a crime, people like Numbnuts will never
>>>accept
>>>a
>>>Judge or juries decision of not guilty.
>>
>> For someone grandiosely making otiose claims about
>> other's IQs, it's odd you have failed to grasp McCoy doesn't deny
>> sending his grotesque obscene texts to the undercover federal agent he
>> simply, and erroneously, claims he had the right to transmit them.
>
>Wether Frank is in error over his right of Free Speech with his stories
>has yet to be decided.
sentence is he not?
>> That McCoy is up to his neck in child pornography is beyond dispute.
>> All that is the Judge is deciding is whether or not he can wriggle out
>> of it on legal technicalities.
>
>There is no legal technicality to be decided, it's settled case law,
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=12&xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020100527789.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR&SizeDisp=7
"Ashcroft did not find unconstitutional, however, the prosecution of
virtual child pornography if the depiction is deemed obscene. If
Ashcroft does not protect obscene virtual images of child sex from
criminal liability, then it cannot protect obscene fictional writings
of child sex from prosecution."
"`[t]he Miller standard, like all general definitions of what may be
banned as obscene, does not reflect the State's particular and more
compelling interest in prosecuting those who promote the sexual
exploitation of children.'"
>anything found during a search not listed on the search warrant is
>inadmissible in any current or future legal action.
for transporting obscenity and prosecution for possession of child
pornography., perhaps deliberately, perhaps not
Whether to prosecute McCoy for his massive collection
of child pornography and investigating to whom he may have distributed
it, has nothing whatsoever do with the judge's pending ruling on
whether he transported obscenity.
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 4, 2012, 5:39:10 PM2/4/12
to
On Feb 4, 5:31 pm, ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H <¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H> wrote:
> On 4 Feb 2012 15:10:02 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com>
> http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=12&xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020100...
bigger than yours. LOL.
> On 4 Feb 2012 15:10:02 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> $)A #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H < #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H
> >>> #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H AKA Numbnuts
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> $)A #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H < #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H
>
> "Ashcroft did not find unconstitutional, however, the prosecution of
> virtual child pornography if the depiction is deemed obscene. If
> Ashcroft does not protect obscene virtual images of child sex from
> criminal liability, then it cannot protect obscene fictional writings
> of child sex from prosecution."
>
> "`[t]he Miller standard, like all general definitions of what may be
> banned as obscene, does not reflect the State's particular and more
> compelling interest in prosecuting those who promote the sexual
> exploitation of children.'"
>
> >anything found during a search not listed on the search warrant is
> >inadmissible in any current or future legal action.
>
> You are totally confusing the two issues of the verdict and sentence
> for transporting obscenity and prosecution for possession of child
> pornography., perhaps deliberately, perhaps not
>
> Whether to prosecute McCoy for his massive collection
> of child pornography and investigating to whom he may have distributed
> it, has nothing whatsoever do with the judge's pending ruling on
> whether he transported obscenity.
LOL, "massive" made me laugh. No offense. I'm sure it's huge, much
> "Ashcroft did not find unconstitutional, however, the prosecution of
> virtual child pornography if the depiction is deemed obscene. If
> Ashcroft does not protect obscene virtual images of child sex from
> criminal liability, then it cannot protect obscene fictional writings
> of child sex from prosecution."
>
> "`[t]he Miller standard, like all general definitions of what may be
> banned as obscene, does not reflect the State's particular and more
> compelling interest in prosecuting those who promote the sexual
> exploitation of children.'"
>
> >anything found during a search not listed on the search warrant is
> >inadmissible in any current or future legal action.
>
> You are totally confusing the two issues of the verdict and sentence
> for transporting obscenity and prosecution for possession of child
> pornography., perhaps deliberately, perhaps not
>
> Whether to prosecute McCoy for his massive collection
> of child pornography and investigating to whom he may have distributed
> it, has nothing whatsoever do with the judge's pending ruling on
> whether he transported obscenity.
bigger than yours. LOL.
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 4, 2012, 5:51:12 PM2/4/12
to
On Feb 4, 5:10 pm, ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H <¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H> wrote:
> On 4 Feb 2012 15:01:02 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com>
> 2017.http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/statlmt.pdf
another prosecution doesn't make sense. The People can't afford it. If
they were going to get him for possessing and distributing they'd do
it all in one trial if they could. The government is frugal that way.
But illegally obtained evidence will always be illegally obtained
evidence. If they can't use it to charge him now they never will.
> On 4 Feb 2012 15:01:02 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com>
>
> The statute of limitations to prosecute a possession of child
> pornography charge in Minnesota is 9 years.
>
> >Tough titty, get used to it.
> >Remember, God acts in mysterious ways.
>
> More like the Devil looking after his own so far.`
Trials are expensive for both sides. In terms of practical dollars
> The statute of limitations to prosecute a possession of child
> pornography charge in Minnesota is 9 years.
>
> >Tough titty, get used to it.
> >Remember, God acts in mysterious ways.
>
> More like the Devil looking after his own so far.`
another prosecution doesn't make sense. The People can't afford it. If
they were going to get him for possessing and distributing they'd do
it all in one trial if they could. The government is frugal that way.
But illegally obtained evidence will always be illegally obtained
evidence. If they can't use it to charge him now they never will.
~ஜ۩۞۩ஜ~
Feb 5, 2012, 3:40:40 AM2/5/12
to
On Feb 4, 1:40 pm, Hieronymous Corey <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As a professional writer I need someone to define the term obscene
> text because ignorance of the law is no excuse and I sure don't want
> to fuck up and say the wrong thing when my career is at stake. LOL.
The scope in this instance can be narrowed down to any "spank
>
> As a professional writer I need someone to define the term obscene
> text because ignorance of the law is no excuse and I sure don't want
> to fuck up and say the wrong thing when my career is at stake. LOL.
material" involving children. Pretty simple really. Most professional
writers don't seem to have a problem with figuring out not writing
material along those lines LOL.
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 5, 2012, 4:37:30 AM2/5/12
to
their work. Some are simply mercenary. Writers who write for the love
of writing are amateurs by definition. If I were writing this body of
text for my benefit alone, you'd never see it. I can't say I'm not
self satisfied with its composition though, having presented it here
to you specifically. This, of course, is my version of spank material
involving children. Pretty simple really. If you don't perceive it
that way, I guess I got lucky this time. Please don't call the cops on
me. I'm just a poor writer.
~ஜ۩۞۩ஜ~
Feb 5, 2012, 9:48:18 AM2/5/12
to
professional writer, you should be more goal orientated towards
producing original material, which this most certainly is not. Every
tactic of reasoning and philosophy has been presented in asbl over and
over again for over a decade and it hasn't changed a single thing. I
think at this point you're maybe only going to be using me as a tool
to hone your linguistic prowess, you cunning linguist.
Me, I'm just dropping by to flame a few pedophiles. My lengthy debate
days regarding pedophilia and child pornography are long over with.
Been there done that and we won, making further debates moot.
Fred E Brown
Feb 5, 2012, 10:12:00 AM2/5/12
to
"民主諉過於人" <民主諉過於人 民主諉過於人> wrote in message
on a federal warrant out of Georgia charging him with obsecenity, not
possession of child porn. The warrant used by the FBI to sieze Frank's
computers made no mention of child porn, when it was found it was
"fruit of the poisoned tree", inadmissable in any federal or state court.
> The statute of limitations to prosecute a possession of child
> pornography charge in Minnesota is 9 years.
court.
>>Tough titty, get used to it.
>>Remember, God acts in mysterious ways.
>
> More like the Devil looking after his own so far.`
>
If Obama can ignore the country's laws, so can Frank.
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 5, 2012, 10:25:35 AM2/5/12
to
circles from your perspective are actually spirals, like a double
helix. Thanks for the demonstration. From it I can see exactly who you
fought, how and what you won. Congratulations! Please enjoy these fine
parting gifts. LOL!
Fred E Brown
Feb 5, 2012, 11:25:01 AM2/5/12
to
"民主諉過於人" <民主諉過於人 民主諉過於人> wrote in message
>>>> $)A #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H < #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H
>>>> #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H AKA Numbnuts
>>>>probably thinks Casey Anthony is guilty of murdering her child even
>>>>though
>>>>a
>>>>jury found her not guilty.
>>>>This is too be expected from those who reside at the bottom level of the
>>>>IQ
>>>>pool.
>>>>Their greatest joy in their miserable lives is reveling in other
>>>>people's
>>>>misery.
>>>>Once a person is accused of a crime, people like Numbnuts will never
>>>>accept
>>>>a
>>>>Judge or juries decision of not guilty.
>>>
>>> For someone grandiosely making otiose claims about
>>> other's IQs, it's odd you have failed to grasp McCoy doesn't deny
>>> sending his grotesque obscene texts to the undercover federal agent he
>>> simply, and erroneously, claims he had the right to transmit them.
>>
>>Wether Frank is in error over his right of Free Speech with his stories
>>has yet to be decided.
>
> Not according to Judge Sands and he is delivering the verdict and
> sentence is he not?
If and when Judge Sands ever delivers a verdict.
>>>>though
>>>>a
>>>>jury found her not guilty.
>>>>This is too be expected from those who reside at the bottom level of the
>>>>IQ
>>>>pool.
>>>>Their greatest joy in their miserable lives is reveling in other
>>>>people's
>>>>misery.
>>>>Once a person is accused of a crime, people like Numbnuts will never
>>>>accept
>>>>a
>>>>Judge or juries decision of not guilty.
>>>
>>> For someone grandiosely making otiose claims about
>>> other's IQs, it's odd you have failed to grasp McCoy doesn't deny
>>> sending his grotesque obscene texts to the undercover federal agent he
>>> simply, and erroneously, claims he had the right to transmit them.
>>
>>Wether Frank is in error over his right of Free Speech with his stories
>>has yet to be decided.
>
> Not according to Judge Sands and he is delivering the verdict and
> sentence is he not?
>>> That McCoy is up to his neck in child pornography is beyond dispute.
>>> All that is the Judge is deciding is whether or not he can wriggle out
>>> of it on legal technicalities.
>>
>>There is no legal technicality to be decided, it's settled case law,
>
> Indeed , as Judge Sands pointed out
transporting obsecene materials, not child porn.
To quote Judge Sands:
"The Indictment charges Defendant with violating 18 U.S.C. �1462,
Transportation of Obscene Matters. (Doc. 1). Therefore, this is an
"obscenity" case. Although the stories for which Defendant is charged
describe sexual acts with children, this is not-the Court emphasizes the
word not- a "child pornography" case. Child pornography is addressed in
separate sections of United States Code Title 18"
> http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=12&xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020100527789.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR&SizeDisp=7
>
>
> "Ashcroft did not find unconstitutional, however, the prosecution of
> virtual child pornography if the depiction is deemed obscene. If
> Ashcroft does not protect obscene virtual images of child sex from
> criminal liability, then it cannot protect obscene fictional writings
> of child sex from prosecution."
> "`[t]he Miller standard, like all general definitions of what may be
> banned as obscene, does not reflect the State's particular and more
> compelling interest in prosecuting those who promote the sexual
> exploitation of children.'"
>
>
>>anything found during a search not listed on the search warrant is
>>inadmissible in any current or future legal action.
>
> You are totally confusing the two issues of the verdict and sentence
> for transporting obscenity and prosecution for possession of child
> pornography., perhaps deliberately, perhaps not
of child porn. Frank was charged under USC 18 sect 1462, not USC 18
2251-2256
> Whether to prosecute McCoy for his massive collection
> of child pornography and investigating to whom he may have distributed
> it, has nothing whatsoever do with the judge's pending ruling on
> whether he transported obscenity.
¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H
Feb 5, 2012, 1:23:37 PM2/5/12
to
On 5 Feb 2012 09:12:00 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>
>"￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H" <￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H ￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H> wrote in message
Again you confuse the issues.
You seem to be under the delusion that being arrested and tried for
transmitting obscenity to Georgia grants some kind of immunity
against prosecution for possession of child pornography on Minnesota.
It does not.
> The warrant used by the FBI to sieze Frank's
>computers made no mention of child porn, when it was found it was
>"fruit of the poisoned tree", inadmissable in any federal or state court.
Title 18 S2252 is perfectly clear.
� 2252. CERTAIN ACTIVITIES RELATING TO MATERIAL INVOLVING THE SEXUAL
EXPLOITATION OF MINORS
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2252.html
(4) either�
(A) in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United
States, or on any land or building owned by, leased to, or otherwise
used by or under the control of the Government of the United States,
or in the Indian country as defined in section 1151 of this title,
knowingly possesses, or knowingly accesses with intent to view, 1 or
more books, magazines, periodicals, films, video tapes, or other
matter which contain any visual depiction; or
(B) knowingly possesses, or knowingly accesses with intent to view, 1
or more books, magazines, periodicals, films, video tapes, or other
matter which contain any visual depiction that has been mailed, or has
been shipped or transported using any means or facility of interstate
or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce,
or which was produced using materials which have been mailed or so
shipped or transported, by any means including by computer, if�
(i) the producing of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor
engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(ii) such visual depiction is of such conduct;
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
>
>> The statute of limitations to prosecute a possession of child
>> pornography charge in Minnesota is 9 years.
>
>So what?
There is plenty of time to charge him, perhaps as a gate arrest when
he is released after serving the maximum for his obscenity conviction.
>The Child porn on Frank's computers is inadmissable in any court.
being tried on separate charges in Georgia does not grant immunity to
possessing child pornography in Minnesota, any more than he would have
had immunity from being prosecuted were dangerous drugs discovered
in the course of other investigations.
wrote:
>
>"￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H" <￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H ￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H> wrote in message
You seem to be under the delusion that being arrested and tried for
transmitting obscenity to Georgia grants some kind of immunity
against prosecution for possession of child pornography on Minnesota.
It does not.
> The warrant used by the FBI to sieze Frank's
>computers made no mention of child porn, when it was found it was
>"fruit of the poisoned tree", inadmissable in any federal or state court.
� 2252. CERTAIN ACTIVITIES RELATING TO MATERIAL INVOLVING THE SEXUAL
EXPLOITATION OF MINORS
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2252.html
(4) either�
(A) in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United
States, or on any land or building owned by, leased to, or otherwise
used by or under the control of the Government of the United States,
or in the Indian country as defined in section 1151 of this title,
knowingly possesses, or knowingly accesses with intent to view, 1 or
more books, magazines, periodicals, films, video tapes, or other
matter which contain any visual depiction; or
(B) knowingly possesses, or knowingly accesses with intent to view, 1
or more books, magazines, periodicals, films, video tapes, or other
matter which contain any visual depiction that has been mailed, or has
been shipped or transported using any means or facility of interstate
or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce,
or which was produced using materials which have been mailed or so
shipped or transported, by any means including by computer, if�
(i) the producing of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor
engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(ii) such visual depiction is of such conduct;
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
>
>> The statute of limitations to prosecute a possession of child
>> pornography charge in Minnesota is 9 years.
>
>So what?
he is released after serving the maximum for his obscenity conviction.
>The Child porn on Frank's computers is inadmissable in any court.
possessing child pornography in Minnesota, any more than he would have
had immunity from being prosecuted were dangerous drugs discovered
in the course of other investigations.
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 5, 2012, 1:26:24 PM2/5/12
to
On Feb 5, 1:23 pm, ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H <¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H> wrote:
> On 5 Feb 2012 09:12:00 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >" $)A #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H" < #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H> wrote in message
> >news:mg9ri7dsgpnjc9jee...@4ax.com...
> >> On 4 Feb 2012 15:01:02 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com>
Obfuscation noted. That's not confusing the issue at all.
> On 5 Feb 2012 09:12:00 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >" $)A #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H" < #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H> wrote in message
> >news:mg9ri7dsgpnjc9jee...@4ax.com...
> >> On 4 Feb 2012 15:01:02 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> For any fair minded person not part of your ring or embarrassed by
> >>>>>> having supported you in the past, the discovery of your collection
> >>>>>> of thousands of videos and photographs of children being sexually
> >>>>>> assaulted removes any last vestige of benefit of the doubt you may
> >>>>>> have been graced with.
>
> >>>>>If you were 'fair minded' you would wait for the judges decision on
> >>>>>Frank's guilt or innocence.
>
> >>>> Nonsense.
>
> >>>> The collection of child pornography on McCoy's computers is
> >>>> simply a fact, not something the judge is deciding in the more
> >>>> technical matter of the transmission of his infant rape stories.
>
> >>>The CP on McCoy's computer is irrelevant and immaterial to his
> >>>trial on obscenity charges.
>
> >> True, but totally relevant to what a disgusting irredeemable piece of
> >> human garbage he is.
>
> >>>The FBI fucked up with their search warrant which did not include
> >>>any reference to child porn and the judge denied the prosecution's
> >>>attempt to retroactively add it to the search warrant.
>
> >> Identify evidence of violations of Title 18, U.S.C. $)A !l 2252 and !l 2252A
>
> >>>>>> For any fair minded person not part of your ring or embarrassed by
> >>>>>> having supported you in the past, the discovery of your collection
> >>>>>> of thousands of videos and photographs of children being sexually
> >>>>>> assaulted removes any last vestige of benefit of the doubt you may
> >>>>>> have been graced with.
>
> >>>>>If you were 'fair minded' you would wait for the judges decision on
> >>>>>Frank's guilt or innocence.
>
> >>>> Nonsense.
>
> >>>> The collection of child pornography on McCoy's computers is
> >>>> simply a fact, not something the judge is deciding in the more
> >>>> technical matter of the transmission of his infant rape stories.
>
> >>>The CP on McCoy's computer is irrelevant and immaterial to his
> >>>trial on obscenity charges.
>
> >> True, but totally relevant to what a disgusting irredeemable piece of
> >> human garbage he is.
>
> >>>The FBI fucked up with their search warrant which did not include
> >>>any reference to child porn and the judge denied the prosecution's
> >>>attempt to retroactively add it to the search warrant.
>
¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H
Feb 5, 2012, 1:35:17 PM2/5/12
to
On 5 Feb 2012 10:25:01 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>
>"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in message
Obscene materials that are not constitutionally protected as Frank
suggests , is the point.
>
>To quote Judge Sands:
>"The Indictment charges Defendant with violating 18 U.S.C. ?? 1462,
>> "`[t]he Miller standard, like all general definitions of what may be
>> banned as obscene, does not reflect the State's particular and more
>> compelling interest in prosecuting those who promote the sexual
>> exploitation of children.'"
>>
>>
>>>anything found during a search not listed on the search warrant is
>>>inadmissible in any current or future legal action.
>>
>> You are totally confusing the two issues of the verdict and sentence
>> for transporting obscenity and prosecution for possession of child
>> pornography., perhaps deliberately, perhaps not
>
>You are the one who keeps harping about prosecuting Frank for possesion
>of child porn. Frank was charged under USC 18 sect 1462, not USC 18
>2251-2256
Again you pedophiles seem to delude yourselves that being prosecuted
for transporting obscenity confers some sort of immunity for
in your echo chamber .
>> Whether to prosecute McCoy for his massive collection
>> of child pornography and investigating to whom he may have distributed
>> it, has nothing whatsoever do with the judge's pending ruling on
>> whether he transported obscenity.
>
>Then why do you keep harping about it???????
You seem to have forgotten where you entered this thread.
Of course you won't.
wrote:
>
>"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in message
>news:m7bri7l0t9vagdgtm...@4ax.com...
>> On 4 Feb 2012 15:10:02 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>> On 4 Feb 2012 15:10:02 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>> ￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H <￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H
>>>>> ￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H AKA Numbnuts
suggests , is the point.
>
>To quote Judge Sands:
>"The Indictment charges Defendant with violating 18 U.S.C. ?? 1462,
>Transportation of Obscene Matters. (Doc. 1). Therefore, this is an
>"obscenity" case. Although the stories for which Defendant is charged
>describe sexual acts with children, this is not-the Court emphasizes the
>word not- a "child pornography" case. Child pornography is addressed in
>separate sections of United States Code Title 18"
>
>> http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=12&xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020100527789.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR&SizeDisp=7
>>
>>
>> "Ashcroft did not find unconstitutional, however, the prosecution of
>> virtual child pornography if the depiction is deemed obscene. If
>> Ashcroft does not protect obscene virtual images of child sex from
>> criminal liability, then it cannot protect obscene fictional writings
>> of child sex from prosecution."
>
>Again, this is not a child pornography case.
" If Ashcroft does not protect obscene virtual images of child sex
from criminal liability, then it cannot protect obscene fictional
writings of child sex from prosecution."
is clear enough.
>"obscenity" case. Although the stories for which Defendant is charged
>describe sexual acts with children, this is not-the Court emphasizes the
>word not- a "child pornography" case. Child pornography is addressed in
>separate sections of United States Code Title 18"
>
>> http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=12&xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020100527789.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR&SizeDisp=7
>>
>>
>> "Ashcroft did not find unconstitutional, however, the prosecution of
>> virtual child pornography if the depiction is deemed obscene. If
>> Ashcroft does not protect obscene virtual images of child sex from
>> criminal liability, then it cannot protect obscene fictional writings
>> of child sex from prosecution."
>
>Again, this is not a child pornography case.
" If Ashcroft does not protect obscene virtual images of child sex
from criminal liability, then it cannot protect obscene fictional
writings of child sex from prosecution."
>> "`[t]he Miller standard, like all general definitions of what may be
>> banned as obscene, does not reflect the State's particular and more
>> compelling interest in prosecuting those who promote the sexual
>> exploitation of children.'"
>>
>>
>>>anything found during a search not listed on the search warrant is
>>>inadmissible in any current or future legal action.
>>
>> You are totally confusing the two issues of the verdict and sentence
>> for transporting obscenity and prosecution for possession of child
>> pornography., perhaps deliberately, perhaps not
>
>You are the one who keeps harping about prosecuting Frank for possesion
>of child porn. Frank was charged under USC 18 sect 1462, not USC 18
>2251-2256
for transporting obscenity confers some sort of immunity for
prosecution for possession of child pornography.
It does not, no matter how many times you repeat it to yourselves
in your echo chamber .
>> Whether to prosecute McCoy for his massive collection
>> of child pornography and investigating to whom he may have distributed
>> it, has nothing whatsoever do with the judge's pending ruling on
>> whether he transported obscenity.
>
>Then why do you keep harping about it???????
Of course you won't.
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 5, 2012, 1:50:31 PM2/5/12
to
On Feb 5, 1:35 pm, ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H <¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H> wrote:
> On 5 Feb 2012 10:25:01 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com>
> >>http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=12&xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020100...
Do a search for 'obscene text' and see what part of Pakistan you end
up in. LOL.
> On 5 Feb 2012 10:25:01 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in message
> >news:m7bri7l0t9vagdgtm...@4ax.com...
> >> On 4 Feb 2012 15:10:02 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in message
> >news:m7bri7l0t9vagdgtm...@4ax.com...
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>>> $)A #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H < #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H
> >>>>> #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H AKA Numbnuts
>
> >>>>> $)A #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H < #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H
up in. LOL.
~ஜ۩۞۩ஜ~
Feb 6, 2012, 3:27:59 AM2/6/12
to
On Feb 5, 7:25 am, Hieronymous Corey <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You're only going in circles with your circular reasoning. As a
> > professional writer, you should be more goal orientated towards
> > producing original material, which this most certainly is not. Every
> > tactic of reasoning and philosophy has been presented in asbl over and
> > over again for over a decade and it hasn't changed a single thing. I
> > think at this point you're maybe only going to be using me as a tool
> > to hone your linguistic prowess, you cunning linguist.
> > Me, I'm just dropping by to flame a few pedophiles. My lengthy debate
> > days regarding pedophilia and child pornography are long over with.
> > Been there done that and we won, making further debates moot.
>
> My reasoning is indeed my reasoning. It serves me.
Self satisfaction isn't much of a goal for a professional writer,
>
> > You're only going in circles with your circular reasoning. As a
> > professional writer, you should be more goal orientated towards
> > producing original material, which this most certainly is not. Every
> > tactic of reasoning and philosophy has been presented in asbl over and
> > over again for over a decade and it hasn't changed a single thing. I
> > think at this point you're maybe only going to be using me as a tool
> > to hone your linguistic prowess, you cunning linguist.
> > Me, I'm just dropping by to flame a few pedophiles. My lengthy debate
> > days regarding pedophilia and child pornography are long over with.
> > Been there done that and we won, making further debates moot.
>
> My reasoning is indeed my reasoning. It serves me.
unless you intend on being your only customer.
> What looks like
> circles from your perspective are actually spirals, like a double
> helix.
> Thanks for the demonstration. From it I can see exactly who you
> fought, how and what you won.
them.
> Congratulations! Please enjoy these fine
> parting gifts. LOL!
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 6, 2012, 5:30:26 AM2/6/12
to
Fred E Brown
Feb 6, 2012, 8:33:01 AM2/6/12
to
"民主諉過於人" <民主諉過於人 民主諉過於人> wrote in message
> On 5 Feb 2012 10:25:01 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in
>>message
>>news:m7bri7l0t9vagdgtm...@4ax.com...
>>> On 4 Feb 2012 15:10:02 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in
>>message
>>news:m7bri7l0t9vagdgtm...@4ax.com...
>>> On 4 Feb 2012 15:10:02 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> $)A #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H < #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H
>>>>>> #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H AKA Numbnuts
a ruling that Frank's stories are obscene or that Frank's stories pass the
Miller test.
As you know Miller is a three part test and a work has to meet ALL three
parts to be declared obscene.
Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards",
would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient
interest,
Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual
conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic,
political or scientific value.
So Frank's stories could appeal to purient interest, could be patently
offensive, but still have serious
literary, artistic, political or scientific value and thus NOT be obscene.
>>To quote Judge Sands:
>>"The Indictment charges Defendant with violating 18 U.S.C. ?? 1462,
>>Transportation of Obscene Matters. (Doc. 1). Therefore, this is an
>>"obscenity" case. Although the stories for which Defendant is charged
>>describe sexual acts with children, this is not-the Court emphasizes the
>>word not- a "child pornography" case. Child pornography is addressed in
>>separate sections of United States Code Title 18"
>>
>>> http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=12&xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020100527789.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR&SizeDisp=7
>>>
>>>
>>> "Ashcroft did not find unconstitutional, however, the prosecution of
>>> virtual child pornography if the depiction is deemed obscene. If
>>> Ashcroft does not protect obscene virtual images of child sex from
>>> criminal liability, then it cannot protect obscene fictional writings
>>> of child sex from prosecution."
>>
>>Again, this is not a child pornography case.
>
> " If Ashcroft does not protect obscene virtual images of child sex
> from criminal liability, then it cannot protect obscene fictional
> writings of child sex from prosecution."
>
> is clear enough.
>
>>> "`[t]he Miller standard, like all general definitions of what may be
>>> banned as obscene, does not reflect the State's particular and more
>>> compelling interest in prosecuting those who promote the sexual
>>> exploitation of children.'"
>>>
>>>
>>>>anything found during a search not listed on the search warrant is
>>>>inadmissible in any current or future legal action.
>>>
>>> You are totally confusing the two issues of the verdict and sentence
>>> for transporting obscenity and prosecution for possession of child
>>> pornography., perhaps deliberately, perhaps not
>>
>>You are the one who keeps harping about prosecuting Frank for possesion
>>of child porn. Frank was charged under USC 18 sect 1462, not USC 18
>>2251-2256
>
> Again you pedophiles seem to delude yourselves that being prosecuted
> for transporting obscenity confers some sort of immunity for
> prosecution for possession of child pornography.
being charged with transporting obscenity across state lines with possession
of child porn.
How many times do I have to reiterate Judge Sands declaration that Frank's
trial was about obscenity and not child pornography?
> It does not, no matter how many times you repeat it to yourselves
> in your echo chamber .
>>> Whether to prosecute McCoy for his massive collection
>>> of child pornography and investigating to whom he may have distributed
>>> it, has nothing whatsoever do with the judge's pending ruling on
>>> whether he transported obscenity.
>>
>>Then why do you keep harping about it???????
>
> You seem to have forgotten where you entered this thread.
> Of course you won't.
> For any fair minded person not part of your ring or embarrassed by
> having supported you in the past, the discovery of your collection
> of thousands of videos and photographs of children being sexually
> assaulted removes any last vestige of benefit of the doubt you may
> have been graced with.
>
Silly boy.
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 6, 2012, 9:23:30 AM2/6/12
to
On Feb 6, 8:33 am, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H" <¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H> wrote in message
>
> news:7aiti79dnek64vkc6...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5 Feb 2012 10:25:01 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com>
> >>>http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=12&xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020100...
A favorite poem:
"The dirty word hops in the cage of the mind like the Pondicherry
vulture, stomping with its heavy left claw on the sweet meat of the
brain and tearing it with its vicious beak, ripping and chopping the
flesh. Terrified, the small boy bears the big bird of the dirty word
into the house, and grunting, puffing, carries it up the stairs to his
own room in the skull. Bits of black feather cling to his clothes and
his hair as he locks the staring creature in the dark closet.
All day the small boy returns to the closet to examine and feed the
bird, to caress and kick the bird, that now snaps and flaps its wings
savagely whenever the door is opened. How the boy trembles and
delights at the sight of the white excrement of the bird! How the bird
leaps and rushes against the walls of the skull, trying to escape from
the zoo of the vocabulary! How wildly snaps the sweet meat of the
brain in its rage.
And the bird outlives the man, being freed at the man's death-funeral
by a word from the rabbi.
But I one morning went upstairs and opened the door and entered the
closet and found in the cage of my mind the great bird dead. Softly I
wept it and softly removed it and softly buried the body of the bird
in the hollyhock garden of the house I lived in twenty years before.
And out of the worn black feathers of the wing have I made pens to
write these elegies, for I have outlived the bird, and I have murdered
it in my early manhood." -- The Dirty Word by Karl Shapiro.
On second thought [...] Fuck, I hope I'm allowed to do that.
> "¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H" <¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H> wrote in message
>
> news:7aiti79dnek64vkc6...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5 Feb 2012 10:25:01 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in
> >>message
> >>news:m7bri7l0t9vagdgtm...@4ax.com...
> >>> On 4 Feb 2012 15:10:02 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com>
>
> >>"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in
> >>message
> >>news:m7bri7l0t9vagdgtm...@4ax.com...
"The dirty word hops in the cage of the mind like the Pondicherry
vulture, stomping with its heavy left claw on the sweet meat of the
brain and tearing it with its vicious beak, ripping and chopping the
flesh. Terrified, the small boy bears the big bird of the dirty word
into the house, and grunting, puffing, carries it up the stairs to his
own room in the skull. Bits of black feather cling to his clothes and
his hair as he locks the staring creature in the dark closet.
All day the small boy returns to the closet to examine and feed the
bird, to caress and kick the bird, that now snaps and flaps its wings
savagely whenever the door is opened. How the boy trembles and
delights at the sight of the white excrement of the bird! How the bird
leaps and rushes against the walls of the skull, trying to escape from
the zoo of the vocabulary! How wildly snaps the sweet meat of the
brain in its rage.
And the bird outlives the man, being freed at the man's death-funeral
by a word from the rabbi.
But I one morning went upstairs and opened the door and entered the
closet and found in the cage of my mind the great bird dead. Softly I
wept it and softly removed it and softly buried the body of the bird
in the hollyhock garden of the house I lived in twenty years before.
And out of the worn black feathers of the wing have I made pens to
write these elegies, for I have outlived the bird, and I have murdered
it in my early manhood." -- The Dirty Word by Karl Shapiro.
On second thought [...] Fuck, I hope I'm allowed to do that.
¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H
Feb 6, 2012, 10:27:18 AM2/6/12
to
On 6 Feb 2012 07:33:01 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com>
You are in error.
The point of then trial is to determine whether McCoy transported
pornography.
"The relevant text of 18 U.S.C. ? 1462 reads: "Whoever ... knowingly
uses any... interactive computer service ... for carriage in
interstate or foreign commerce?(a) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or
filthy ... writing ... or other matter of indecent character;
...?Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned...."
Judge Sands has already made his view quite clear.
While Supreme Court precedent shows that the private possession of
obscenity in one's home is narrowly protected, once taken outside the
home obscene materials are subject to broad regulation and
prosecution. The obscenity statute properly reaches Defendant's
alleged conduct."
>As you know Miller is a three part test and a work has to meet ALL three
>parts to be declared obscene.
>Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards",
>would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient
>interest,
>Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual
>conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
>Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic,
>political or scientific value.
Judge Sands has already made his view on this, that Miller does NOT
protect Frank , quite clear when rejecting his motions.
>So Frank's stories could appeal to purient interest, could be patently
>offensive, but still have serious
>
>literary, artistic, political or scientific value and thus NOT be obscene.
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020100527789.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR
The landmark case of Miller v. California was couched in the context
of "the application of a State's criminal obscenity statute to a
situation in which sexually explicit materials have been thrust by
aggressive sales action upon unwilling recipients who had in no way
indicated any desire to receive such materials." Miller v.
California,413 U.S. 15, 18, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973).
But obscenity jurisprudence was not pigeonholed by the public
nuisance context of Miller.
For while on the one hand the Supreme Court "recognized that the
States have a legitimate interest in prohibiting dissemination or
exhibition of obscene material when the mode of dissemination carries
with it a significant danger of offending the sensibilities of
unwilling recipients or of exposure to juveniles," id. at 18-19, 93
S.Ct. 2607, on the other hand the Supreme Court did not say that such
was the only governmental interest regarding obscenity.
wrote:
>
>"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in message
>news:7aiti79dnek64vkc6...@4ax.com...
>> On 5 Feb 2012 10:25:01 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in
>>>message
>>>news:m7bri7l0t9vagdgtm...@4ax.com...
>>>> On 4 Feb 2012 15:10:02 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>
>"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in message
>news:7aiti79dnek64vkc6...@4ax.com...
>> On 5 Feb 2012 10:25:01 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in
>>>message
>>>news:m7bri7l0t9vagdgtm...@4ax.com...
>>>> On 4 Feb 2012 15:10:02 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> ￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H <￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H
>>>>>>> ￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H AKA Numbnuts
The point of then trial is to determine whether McCoy transported
pornography.
"The relevant text of 18 U.S.C. ? 1462 reads: "Whoever ... knowingly
uses any... interactive computer service ... for carriage in
interstate or foreign commerce?(a) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or
filthy ... writing ... or other matter of indecent character;
...?Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned...."
Judge Sands has already made his view quite clear.
While Supreme Court precedent shows that the private possession of
obscenity in one's home is narrowly protected, once taken outside the
home obscene materials are subject to broad regulation and
prosecution. The obscenity statute properly reaches Defendant's
alleged conduct."
>As you know Miller is a three part test and a work has to meet ALL three
>parts to be declared obscene.
>Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards",
>would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient
>interest,
>Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual
>conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
>Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic,
>political or scientific value.
protect Frank , quite clear when rejecting his motions.
>So Frank's stories could appeal to purient interest, could be patently
>offensive, but still have serious
>
>literary, artistic, political or scientific value and thus NOT be obscene.
The Kaplan Court upheld the defendant's conviction for violating a
California obscenity statute on a finding that a non-illustrated
fictional book entitled "Suite 69," which was "made up entirely of
repetitive descriptions of physical, sexual conduct, `clinically'
explicit and offensive to the point of being nauseous" with "only the
most tenuous `plot,'" was "not protected by the First Amendment." Id.
at 116-18, 93 S.Ct. 2680.
The Court, being familiar with Defendant's stories, observes that a
jury could equate his works with the Kaplan book.
>
>
California obscenity statute on a finding that a non-illustrated
fictional book entitled "Suite 69," which was "made up entirely of
repetitive descriptions of physical, sexual conduct, `clinically'
explicit and offensive to the point of being nauseous" with "only the
most tenuous `plot,'" was "not protected by the First Amendment." Id.
at 116-18, 93 S.Ct. 2680.
The Court, being familiar with Defendant's stories, observes that a
jury could equate his works with the Kaplan book.
>
>
>>>To quote Judge Sands:
>>>"The Indictment charges Defendant with violating 18 U.S.C. ?? 1462,
>>>Transportation of Obscene Matters. (Doc. 1). Therefore, this is an
>>>"obscenity" case. Although the stories for which Defendant is charged
>>>describe sexual acts with children, this is not-the Court emphasizes the
>>>word not- a "child pornography" case. Child pornography is addressed in
>>>separate sections of United States Code Title 18"
>>>
>>>> http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=12&xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020100527789.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR&SizeDisp=7
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Ashcroft did not find unconstitutional, however, the prosecution of
>>>> virtual child pornography if the depiction is deemed obscene. If
>>>> Ashcroft does not protect obscene virtual images of child sex from
>>>> criminal liability, then it cannot protect obscene fictional writings
>>>> of child sex from prosecution."
>>>
>>>Again, this is not a child pornography case.
>>
>> " If Ashcroft does not protect obscene virtual images of child sex
>> from criminal liability, then it cannot protect obscene fictional
>> writings of child sex from prosecution."
>>
>> is clear enough.
>
>
>Provided they fail the Miller test, all three parts.
Incorrect.
>>>"The Indictment charges Defendant with violating 18 U.S.C. ?? 1462,
>>>Transportation of Obscene Matters. (Doc. 1). Therefore, this is an
>>>"obscenity" case. Although the stories for which Defendant is charged
>>>describe sexual acts with children, this is not-the Court emphasizes the
>>>word not- a "child pornography" case. Child pornography is addressed in
>>>separate sections of United States Code Title 18"
>>>
>>>> http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=12&xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020100527789.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR&SizeDisp=7
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Ashcroft did not find unconstitutional, however, the prosecution of
>>>> virtual child pornography if the depiction is deemed obscene. If
>>>> Ashcroft does not protect obscene virtual images of child sex from
>>>> criminal liability, then it cannot protect obscene fictional writings
>>>> of child sex from prosecution."
>>>
>>>Again, this is not a child pornography case.
>>
>> " If Ashcroft does not protect obscene virtual images of child sex
>> from criminal liability, then it cannot protect obscene fictional
>> writings of child sex from prosecution."
>>
>> is clear enough.
>
>
>Provided they fail the Miller test, all three parts.
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020100527789.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR
The landmark case of Miller v. California was couched in the context
of "the application of a State's criminal obscenity statute to a
situation in which sexually explicit materials have been thrust by
aggressive sales action upon unwilling recipients who had in no way
indicated any desire to receive such materials." Miller v.
California,413 U.S. 15, 18, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973).
But obscenity jurisprudence was not pigeonholed by the public
nuisance context of Miller.
For while on the one hand the Supreme Court "recognized that the
States have a legitimate interest in prohibiting dissemination or
exhibition of obscene material when the mode of dissemination carries
with it a significant danger of offending the sensibilities of
unwilling recipients or of exposure to juveniles," id. at 18-19, 93
S.Ct. 2607, on the other hand the Supreme Court did not say that such
was the only governmental interest regarding obscenity.
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 6, 2012, 10:45:05 AM2/6/12
to
On Feb 6, 10:27 am, ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H <¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H> wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2012 07:33:01 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com>
I'm in my office, but I'll admit that could be a mistake. There are
certainly other places I'd rather be. I read your post, but might well
have spent the time more productively. Who knew, right?
> On 6 Feb 2012 07:33:01 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in message
> >news:7aiti79dnek64vkc6...@4ax.com...
> >> On 5 Feb 2012 10:25:01 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in message
> >news:7aiti79dnek64vkc6...@4ax.com...
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in
> >>>message
> >>>news:m7bri7l0t9vagdgtm...@4ax.com...
> >>>> On 4 Feb 2012 15:10:02 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com>
>
> >>>"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in
> >>>message
> >>>news:m7bri7l0t9vagdgtm...@4ax.com...
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> $)A #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H < #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H
> >>>>>>> #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H AKA Numbnuts
>
> >>>>>>> $)A #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H < #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H
certainly other places I'd rather be. I read your post, but might well
have spent the time more productively. Who knew, right?
¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H
Feb 6, 2012, 11:02:03 AM2/6/12
to
On 6 Feb 2012 07:33:01 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com>
You never did, *I* in fact, pointed that out to you.
That seems to be the evolving tactic in trying to defend the
indefensible.
When McCoy is called on his obscenities babble about how it's not
child pornography.
When McCoy is called on his child pornography, babble about
he's being tried for obscenity.
>
>
>> It does not, no matter how many times you repeat it to yourselves
>> in your echo chamber .
>
>
>Maybe you should clean the wax out of your ears.
>
>
>>>> Whether to prosecute McCoy for his massive collection
>>>> of child pornography and investigating to whom he may have distributed
>>>> it, has nothing whatsoever do with the judge's pending ruling on
>>>> whether he transported obscenity.
>>>
>>>Then why do you keep harping about it???????
>>
>> You seem to have forgotten where you entered this thread.
>
>
>Awww, is that the best you can do?
>
>
>> Of course you won't.
>
>
>Don't have too.
>
Why are you responding as if you were Frank?
>
>> For any fair minded person not part of your ring or embarrassed by
>> having supported you in the past, the discovery of your collection
>> of thousands of videos and photographs of children being sexually
>> assaulted removes any last vestige of benefit of the doubt you may
>> have been graced with.
>>
>Is that supposed to put me in fear of the FBI knocking at my door?
How telling you seem to think the dialogue about you in some weird
way.
FYI knocking is old hat.
They are far more likely to use a chain saw or knock your door down.
wrote:
>
>"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in message
>news:7aiti79dnek64vkc6...@4ax.com...
>> On 5 Feb 2012 10:25:01 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in
>>>message
>>>news:m7bri7l0t9vagdgtm...@4ax.com...
>>>> On 4 Feb 2012 15:10:02 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>
>"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in message
>news:7aiti79dnek64vkc6...@4ax.com...
>> On 5 Feb 2012 10:25:01 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in
>>>message
>>>news:m7bri7l0t9vagdgtm...@4ax.com...
>>>> On 4 Feb 2012 15:10:02 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> ￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H <￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H
>>>>>>> ￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H AKA Numbnuts
That seems to be the evolving tactic in trying to defend the
indefensible.
When McCoy is called on his obscenities babble about how it's not
child pornography.
When McCoy is called on his child pornography, babble about
he's being tried for obscenity.
>
>
>> It does not, no matter how many times you repeat it to yourselves
>> in your echo chamber .
>
>
>Maybe you should clean the wax out of your ears.
>
>
>>>> Whether to prosecute McCoy for his massive collection
>>>> of child pornography and investigating to whom he may have distributed
>>>> it, has nothing whatsoever do with the judge's pending ruling on
>>>> whether he transported obscenity.
>>>
>>>Then why do you keep harping about it???????
>>
>> You seem to have forgotten where you entered this thread.
>
>
>Awww, is that the best you can do?
>
>
>> Of course you won't.
>
>
>Don't have too.
>
>
>> For any fair minded person not part of your ring or embarrassed by
>> having supported you in the past, the discovery of your collection
>> of thousands of videos and photographs of children being sexually
>> assaulted removes any last vestige of benefit of the doubt you may
>> have been graced with.
>>
>Is that supposed to put me in fear of the FBI knocking at my door?
way.
FYI knocking is old hat.
They are far more likely to use a chain saw or knock your door down.
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 6, 2012, 12:38:03 PM2/6/12
to
On Feb 6, 11:02 am, ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H <¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H> wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2012 07:33:01 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com>
> >>>>http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=12&xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020100...
You're missing a verb there, IS. The dialogue IS about you in some
weird way. It would be telling if you seemed to think the dialogue
isn't about you and your right to write like you do. Personally I
don't think you think that. Not one little bit. But of course I have
no way of knowing what you really think. I'm not a mind reader or
anything like that.
> On 6 Feb 2012 07:33:01 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in message
> >news:7aiti79dnek64vkc6...@4ax.com...
> >> On 5 Feb 2012 10:25:01 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in message
> >news:7aiti79dnek64vkc6...@4ax.com...
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in
> >>>message
> >>>news:m7bri7l0t9vagdgtm...@4ax.com...
> >>>> On 4 Feb 2012 15:10:02 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com>
>
> >>>"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in
> >>>message
> >>>news:m7bri7l0t9vagdgtm...@4ax.com...
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> $)A #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H < #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H
> >>>>>>> #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H AKA Numbnuts
>
> >>>>>>> $)A #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H < #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H
weird way. It would be telling if you seemed to think the dialogue
isn't about you and your right to write like you do. Personally I
don't think you think that. Not one little bit. But of course I have
no way of knowing what you really think. I'm not a mind reader or
anything like that.
Frank McCoy
Feb 7, 2012, 1:20:22 AM2/7/12
to
Hieronymous Corey <hierony...@gmail.com> wrote:
>God does not act in mysterious ways, you moron. God obeys the Law.
That's because you CANNOT disobey any of the laws God actually made.
>God does not act in mysterious ways, you moron. God obeys the Law.
You can't disobey the Law of Gravity.
You can't disobey the Law of Entropy.
Any other laws that you CAN disobey are man-made laws; no matter what
any particular Holy Book says.
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
Frank McCoy
Feb 7, 2012, 1:55:39 AM2/7/12
to
Actually, it's ANY material that somebody somewhere can find offensive
or "obscene"; which pretty much depends on which particular preacher
(not religion) you happen to follow; and be found to be so-offensive
by a jury in the neighborhood being tried-in.
Thus Federal Prosecutors almost always jury-shop around the country
for the most restrictive area in the Bible-Belt to prosecute ANY
"obscenity" case, no matter where it originates. Supposedly the
Supreme Court said this wasn't supposed to happen; with the
most-restrictive parts of the country setting what's allowed for all;
but so-far, no court has yet been hauled-up-short for doing-so.
However, once found offensive, the material STILL has to get by the
third leg of "The Miller Test"; which is NOT supposed to be dependent
on local "community values" like the offensiveness-test is.
Supposedly, if even the most offensive material has significant
literary, scientific, social, artistic, or political value, then it
*cannot* be banned because of the First Amendment. Any of those five
values *supposedly* are fairly universal; and if found to be true in
San-Francisco in a Hippie Village, then they are also true in a Bible
College in Nashville.
And claiming that *because* something is horribly offensive removes
any artistic or literary value just doesn't work; no matter how some
people believe it should.
Thus Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses", while wildly abhorrent and
even "obscene" to any Muslim community (and yes, there ARE such here
in the USA, that said book COULD be prosecuted under) to the point
that many people even here in the USA would gladly kill the man if
they could, has widely recognized "literary and social value" in
communities OUTSIDE the Moslem community that so-despises his works.
Likewise, just because *I* find most of Steven King's horror-stories
far more "obscene" than any sex-story; and wouldn't want MY kid ever
reading such crap; it's well-protected against other people like me
who would want such scare-stuff banned.
Being offensive, is only ONE leg of three in being declared legally
"obscene" and not protected by the First Amendment ... At least so
says the Supreme Court in Miller v California; the present standard
put forth on such matters.
It's a case of, "Obscenity is not protected under the First Amendment,
BUT ...." Like in everything else, the statements following the "but"
often takes on far more importance and force than the original
utterance.
And yes, the Supreme Court has ruled many times in many cases that it
DOES have more interest in protecting Freedom-of-Speech for the whole
Country than any State has in protecting it's citizens from literature
deemed to be offensive or even advocating very illegal things.
The difference being between *advocating* something illegal, and DOING
something or CONSPIRING to do something. The first is legal. The
second two are not. The state's very real interest in keeping police
from being shot, does NOT extend to their suppressing political
messages suggesting that the only "cure" for police brutality is to
shoot said cops. Only when people either start shooting or collecting
guns TO shoot, or gathering together to PLAN on such shooting, is the
law being broken.
If it was illegal to even suggest that people should do something
presently illegal, no matter how offensive, then we could never change
or remove bad laws. Look at Prohibition, for example. If people
couldn't write and advocate that drinking and yes, getting completely
smashed-drunk, wasn't far better than the problems caused by outlawing
booze, then we'd still have Scarface Al or his cronies running the
country.
Frank McCoy
Feb 7, 2012, 2:03:11 AM2/7/12
to
Hieronymous Corey <hierony...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 5, 3:40 am, ~?????~ <rpres...@gobot.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 4, 1:40 pm, Hieronymous Corey <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > As a professional writer I need someone to define the term obscene
>> > text because ignorance of the law is no excuse and I sure don't want
>> > to fuck up and say the wrong thing when my career is at stake. LOL.
>>
>> The scope in this instance can be narrowed down to any "spank
>> material" involving children. Pretty simple really. Most professional
>> writers don't seem to have a problem with figuring out not writing
>> material along those lines LOL.
>
>Most professional writers I know have a professional attitude about
>their work. Some are simply mercenary. Writers who write for the love
>of writing are amateurs by definition.
There's not the slightest hint that what is written has to be
"professional" in nature to be considered literature or art or
social-commentary, or scientific, or otherwise protected by the First
Amendment. In fact, the courts have specifically said that such
doesn't have to be the case.
A dirty-ditty of a poem, is STILL a poem and both literature and art.
You'd have a heck of a lousy time prosecuting Noël Coward for posting
the lyrics of "The Ballad of Eskimo Nell"; even though it's fully as
bawdy (and perhaps by some measure more-so) than any of mine.
>If I were writing this body of
>text for my benefit alone, you'd never see it. I can't say I'm not
>self satisfied with its composition though, having presented it here
>to you specifically. This, of course, is my version of spank material
>involving children. Pretty simple really. If you don't perceive it
>that way, I guess I got lucky this time. Please don't call the cops on
>me. I'm just a poor writer.
>On Feb 5, 3:40 am, ~?????~ <rpres...@gobot.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 4, 1:40 pm, Hieronymous Corey <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > As a professional writer I need someone to define the term obscene
>> > text because ignorance of the law is no excuse and I sure don't want
>> > to fuck up and say the wrong thing when my career is at stake. LOL.
>>
>> The scope in this instance can be narrowed down to any "spank
>> material" involving children. Pretty simple really. Most professional
>> writers don't seem to have a problem with figuring out not writing
>> material along those lines LOL.
>
>Most professional writers I know have a professional attitude about
>their work. Some are simply mercenary. Writers who write for the love
>of writing are amateurs by definition.
"professional" in nature to be considered literature or art or
social-commentary, or scientific, or otherwise protected by the First
Amendment. In fact, the courts have specifically said that such
doesn't have to be the case.
A dirty-ditty of a poem, is STILL a poem and both literature and art.
You'd have a heck of a lousy time prosecuting Noël Coward for posting
the lyrics of "The Ballad of Eskimo Nell"; even though it's fully as
bawdy (and perhaps by some measure more-so) than any of mine.
>If I were writing this body of
>text for my benefit alone, you'd never see it. I can't say I'm not
>self satisfied with its composition though, having presented it here
>to you specifically. This, of course, is my version of spank material
>involving children. Pretty simple really. If you don't perceive it
>that way, I guess I got lucky this time. Please don't call the cops on
>me. I'm just a poor writer.
¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H
Feb 7, 2012, 2:28:52 AM2/7/12
to
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:55:39 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
wrote:
>~?????~ <rpre...@gobot.com> wrote:
Neither grandfathers raping babies, your child pornography videos
nor any other of the other types of child molestation you attempt to
incite are ever going to be legal.
wrote:
>~?????~ <rpre...@gobot.com> wrote:
nor any other of the other types of child molestation you attempt to
incite are ever going to be legal.
~ஜ۩۞۩ஜ~
Feb 7, 2012, 2:54:28 AM2/7/12
to
On Feb 6, 5:33 am, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> So Frank's stories could appeal to purient interest, could be patently
> offensive, but still have serious
>
> literary, artistic, political or scientific value and thus NOT be obscene.
It's obvious you've never read the material. What are you going to
> So Frank's stories could appeal to purient interest, could be patently
> offensive, but still have serious
>
> literary, artistic, political or scientific value and thus NOT be obscene.
defend next, restroom walls?
At least with that you'd be appealing to a higher standard of
literature.
~ஜ۩۞۩ஜ~
Feb 7, 2012, 3:03:09 AM2/7/12
to
On Feb 6, 10:55 pm, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:
>
> Um ... The law isn't nearly that limited.
> Actually, it's ANY material that somebody somewhere can find offensive
> or "obscene"; which pretty much depends on which particular preacher
> (not religion) you happen to follow; and be found to be so-offensive
> by a jury in the neighborhood being tried-in.
Frank, that's just typical broad brushing. Misdirection is the only
>
> Um ... The law isn't nearly that limited.
> Actually, it's ANY material that somebody somewhere can find offensive
> or "obscene"; which pretty much depends on which particular preacher
> (not religion) you happen to follow; and be found to be so-offensive
> by a jury in the neighborhood being tried-in.
leg you have to stand on.
Frank McCoy
Feb 7, 2012, 4:26:26 AM2/7/12
to
But not by ME; by people opposed to anything they find "obscene".
After all, THAT IS THE LAW.
My case is just a test-case.
They COULD have found much worse stories than mine.
They COULD have found far better ones also.
I was "the volunteer case".
Depending on the ruling (and appeals) they'll either go after far less
offensive material, or limit their future prosecutions to far more
crappy stuff with far less literary or artistic value.
Those bringing the case want to remove ALL porn, if possible, soft or
hard, written or picture, foul language or nicely uttered.
It's POPULAR to be agin' porn ... of ANY kind.
Even though most people look at and read it.
Well, more-correctly, it's decidedly unpopular to be FOR porn.
Even (or especially) if you like to look at or read the stuff.
Especially-so, if you're a politician.
Even more-so, if you're a politician that gets caught screwing around
on his wife.
And ... It looks good on your resume (as a politico) if you claim to
be hard on porn ... especially down in the "Bible Belt".
Frank McCoy
Feb 7, 2012, 4:30:47 AM2/7/12
to
~?2?6?1?3?1?2?1?3?2?6~ <rpre...@gobot.com> wrote:
>On Feb 6, 5:33 am, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> So Frank's stories could appeal to purient interest, could be patently
>> offensive, but still have serious
>> literary, artistic, political or scientific value and thus NOT be obscene.
>
>It's obvious you've never read the material.
Even more obvious, that neither have you.
>On Feb 6, 5:33 am, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> So Frank's stories could appeal to purient interest, could be patently
>> offensive, but still have serious
>> literary, artistic, political or scientific value and thus NOT be obscene.
>
>It's obvious you've never read the material.
>What are you going to defend next, restroom walls?
There are at least five books out about restroom graffiti.
Quite popular books in fact. Sales in the hundreds of thousands.
Nobody is even thinking about charging them with being obscene.
>At least with that you'd be appealing to a higher standard of
>literature.
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 7, 2012, 5:05:19 AM2/7/12
to
On Feb 7, 1:20 am, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:
God only made one law, Love. Love is the Law, Frank. What you do with
the law is up to you. That's free will. You're free to Love your wife
more than you presently do, or not.
the law is up to you. That's free will. You're free to Love your wife
more than you presently do, or not.
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 7, 2012, 5:09:35 AM2/7/12
to
On Feb 7, 2:03 am, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:
Quoting professional wasn't a very professional thing to do in
context. Please excuse my pedantics. I'm trying to be instructive.
context. Please excuse my pedantics. I'm trying to be instructive.
¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H
Feb 7, 2012, 5:21:29 AM2/7/12
to
On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 23:54:28 -0800 (PST), ~ 2‘6 1—3 1–2 1—3 2‘6~
<rpre...@gobot.com> wrote:
Sure he has read them.
"Fred" is a regular in the pedophile groups and has been defending
pedophiles and child pornography for years.
Isn't that right "Fred"?
<rpre...@gobot.com> wrote:
"Fred" is a regular in the pedophile groups and has been defending
pedophiles and child pornography for years.
Isn't that right "Fred"?
Frank McCoy
Feb 7, 2012, 6:17:11 AM2/7/12
to
Hieronymous Corey <hierony...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 7, 1:20 am, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:
>> Hieronymous Corey <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >God does not act in mysterious ways, you moron. God obeys the Law.
>>
>> That's because you CANNOT disobey any of the laws God actually made.
>> You can't disobey the Law of Gravity.
>> You can't disobey the Law of Entropy.
>> Any other laws that you CAN disobey are man-made laws; no matter what
>> any particular Holy Book says.
>>
>On Feb 7, 1:20 am, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:
>> Hieronymous Corey <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >God does not act in mysterious ways, you moron. God obeys the Law.
>>
>> That's because you CANNOT disobey any of the laws God actually made.
>> You can't disobey the Law of Gravity.
>> You can't disobey the Law of Entropy.
>> Any other laws that you CAN disobey are man-made laws; no matter what
>> any particular Holy Book says.
>>
>God only made one law, Love. Love is the Law, Frank. What you do with
>the law is up to you. That's free will. You're free to Love your wife
>more than you presently do, or not.
Don't know how I could love her more.
>the law is up to you. That's free will. You're free to Love your wife
>more than you presently do, or not.
She can have everything I own, have me do anything legal that she
wants, or even have me go just by saying so.
The only thing I won't (and cannot) give her is my soul.
And I WON'T be a liar or a hypocrite about it. I won't fake it.
As Bujold pointed-out, the only thing I cannot give to get my
heart's-desire, is my heart itself.
If I tried to, or even became the type of Christian she wants me to
be, then I'm afraid I wouldn't be the same person who fell in love
with her in the first place.
I cannot give up being ME to get HER.
Anything else, including life itself, yes.
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 7, 2012, 6:26:39 AM2/7/12
to
serious so out of respect for your feelings I won't do that, here. The
idea that you'd have to give up being you in order to get her just
sounds silly to me. You just think you're smarter than she is and
refuse to 'dumb down' your approach to Christianity or religious
activity in order to accommodate her belief system. You think religion
is dumb, the opiate of the masses, so your wife thinks you think she's
dumb too. You do nothing to disabuse her of that notion.
Frank McCoy
Feb 7, 2012, 7:44:01 AM2/7/12
to
Hieronymous Corey <hierony...@gmail.com> wrote:
>OMG. [...] I had the urge to laugh, but I think you're actually being
>serious so out of respect for your feelings I won't do that, here. The
>idea that you'd have to give up being you in order to get her just
>sounds silly to me. You just think you're smarter than she is and
>refuse to 'dumb down' your approach to Christianity or religious
>activity in order to accommodate her belief system. You think religion
>is dumb, the opiate of the masses, so your wife thinks you think she's
>dumb too. You do nothing to disabuse her of that notion.
Something to that. Quite a bit actually.
>OMG. [...] I had the urge to laugh, but I think you're actually being
>serious so out of respect for your feelings I won't do that, here. The
>idea that you'd have to give up being you in order to get her just
>sounds silly to me. You just think you're smarter than she is and
>refuse to 'dumb down' your approach to Christianity or religious
>activity in order to accommodate her belief system. You think religion
>is dumb, the opiate of the masses, so your wife thinks you think she's
>dumb too. You do nothing to disabuse her of that notion.
Back when I was a child, I really *DID* believe.
I probably would have made a pretty good priest ....
If I hadn't read so darned much.
However, SHE really believes.
I don't try to put her down for that.
In fact, I TRY to help her keep on believing.
It keeps her alive.
I just can't convince myself to believe what she does.
And no, I don't want to either.
Funny though:
When my wife has a religious question, she comes to ME, not her
preacher. She knows I'll give her an honest answer, explained not as
an agnostic or atheist, but as those who accept her religion would.
And, I do. She uses me as a convenient reference-book for religion in
the same way she uses me as a convenient dictionary or thesaurus or
encyclopedia. She knows that if I don't know the answer, I'll say so;
but if I don't know, I usually know where to find out. And, I do.
(Having a computer helps a lot. She's computer-illiterate.)
Well, unless she asks me specifically what *I* believe; and then I'll
usually beg off or avoid the question. I really DON'T want to
convince her to believe as I do. Honestly!
Like I said above, her belief keeps her alive.
I'm NOT claiming to be smarter than her. I'm *different*.
In some things, she's smarter than I am.
Just not in how things work.
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 7, 2012, 9:10:29 AM2/7/12
to
On Feb 7, 7:44 am, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:
Please tell me how things work. I want to know too. She's trying to
find a practical application for religious literature in here life. I
read. I'm a tradesman. I find practical applications in most of what I
read because I mostly read manuals of necessity. I write also. I write
from experience and hope that people can draw from that and find
practical applications for my writings in their own lives. I mostly
write funny rhyming things that I post to a blog. In real life I'm a
passionate advocate for medical cannabis and people dying for lack of
it. I know how my advocacy is perceived and objected to by parents
concerned for their children. I'm a parent. I went through, go
through, live that concern for my own son, so most of what I write I
suppose can be read in that way, like nursery rhymes. Like a dad
trying to humor his son and teach him something at the same time. I
don't know how else to explain it.
find a practical application for religious literature in here life. I
read. I'm a tradesman. I find practical applications in most of what I
read because I mostly read manuals of necessity. I write also. I write
from experience and hope that people can draw from that and find
practical applications for my writings in their own lives. I mostly
write funny rhyming things that I post to a blog. In real life I'm a
passionate advocate for medical cannabis and people dying for lack of
it. I know how my advocacy is perceived and objected to by parents
concerned for their children. I'm a parent. I went through, go
through, live that concern for my own son, so most of what I write I
suppose can be read in that way, like nursery rhymes. Like a dad
trying to humor his son and teach him something at the same time. I
don't know how else to explain it.
~ஜ۩۞۩ஜ~
Feb 7, 2012, 9:29:29 AM2/7/12
to
On Feb 7, 1:26 am, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:
cases over the last ten years?
> They COULD have found much worse stories than mine.
> They COULD have found far better ones also.
And they have.
> I was "the volunteer case".
No, you were stupid and let yourself get caught.
> Depending on the ruling (and appeals) they'll either go after far less
> offensive material, or limit their future prosecutions to far more
> crappy stuff with far less literary or artistic value.
Dude, it's just child porn. Nothing more, nothing less. And you're
just one of many who got nabbed producing and distributing it. In the
grand scheme of thing's you're quite garden verity. Not that I'm
encouraging you to escalate to higher levels of depravity. Hopefully
you'll just eat a bullet like so many others of your kind.
> ~?????~ <rpres...@gobot.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 6, 10:55 pm, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:
>
> >> Um ... The law isn't nearly that limited.
> >> Actually, it's ANY material that somebody somewhere can find offensive
> >> or "obscene"; which pretty much depends on which particular preacher
> >> (not religion) you happen to follow; and be found to be so-offensive
> >> by a jury in the neighborhood being tried-in.
>
> >Frank, that's just typical broad brushing. Misdirection is the only
> >leg you have to stand on.
>
> Oh, it's DEFINITELY broad-brushing.
> But not by ME; by people opposed to anything they find "obscene".
> After all, THAT IS THE LAW.
>
> My case is just a test-case.
Then how come I've seen dozens of other similar child pornography
> >On Feb 6, 10:55 pm, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:
>
> >> Um ... The law isn't nearly that limited.
> >> Actually, it's ANY material that somebody somewhere can find offensive
> >> or "obscene"; which pretty much depends on which particular preacher
> >> (not religion) you happen to follow; and be found to be so-offensive
> >> by a jury in the neighborhood being tried-in.
>
> >Frank, that's just typical broad brushing. Misdirection is the only
> >leg you have to stand on.
>
> Oh, it's DEFINITELY broad-brushing.
> But not by ME; by people opposed to anything they find "obscene".
> After all, THAT IS THE LAW.
>
> My case is just a test-case.
cases over the last ten years?
> They COULD have found much worse stories than mine.
> They COULD have found far better ones also.
> I was "the volunteer case".
> Depending on the ruling (and appeals) they'll either go after far less
> offensive material, or limit their future prosecutions to far more
> crappy stuff with far less literary or artistic value.
just one of many who got nabbed producing and distributing it. In the
grand scheme of thing's you're quite garden verity. Not that I'm
encouraging you to escalate to higher levels of depravity. Hopefully
you'll just eat a bullet like so many others of your kind.
Fred E Brown
Feb 7, 2012, 9:31:02 AM2/7/12
to
"Hieronymous Corey" <hierony...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9a8467c9-d3cc-4c33...@y10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 4, 11:21 am, 锟斤拷锟紻锟接筁锟斤拷H <锟斤拷锟紻锟接筁锟斤拷H 锟斤拷锟紻锟接筁锟斤拷H> wrote:
> On 4 Feb 2012 07:20:01 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in
> >message
> >news:uhfpi7l31r7k5uaos...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> >"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in
> >message
> >> On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:03:13 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> $)A #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H < #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H
> >>> #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H> wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> $)A #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H < #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H
>
> >>>>On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 02:42:26 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
> >>>>wrote:
>
> >>>>>???D??1L???H <???D??1L???H ???D??1L???H> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 13:54:10 -0600, Frank McCoy
> >>>>>><mcc...@millcomm.com>
> >>>>>>wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>Ace? <avlasvery...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>Frank McCoy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Lou Keemia <savage...@ojooo.ru> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> >Frank McCoy is far from a writer unless you consider stories
> >>>>>>>>> >depicting
> >>>>>>>>> >*Grandpa* molesting a newborn baby writing. Most consider it
> >>>>>>>>> >deplorable trash not worthy of recognition.
>
> >>>>>>>>> I could show you at least 50,000 pieces of evidence to the
> >>>>>>>>> contrary.
>
> >>>>>>>>There are 7 billion people on earth and a mere 50,000 of the dregs
> >>>>>>>>of
> >>>>>>>>society stands behind you.
>
> >>>>>>>>> My material has also been judged to be real "literature" by at
> >>>>>>>>> least
> >>>>>>>>> one independent authority.
>
> >>>>>>An academic for hire bloviating in your defense is hardly
> >>>>>>independent
> >>>>>>Frank.
>
> >>>>>>>>N.A.M.B.L.A. doesn't count, Frank. You are nothing but a purveyor
> >>>>>>>>of
> >>>>>>>>tasteless trash that appeals only to child molesters. A actual
> >>>>>>>>authority wouldn't give you the time of day. You're a dirty old
> >>>>>>>>man
> >>>>>>>>with mental issues and are probably a Paedophile yourself.
>
> >>>>>>>>> However, "Grandpa molesting a baby" is FAR from what I usually
> >>>>>>>>> write.
>
> >>>>>>>>Thank God, ''Grandpa's little Fuck-Toy__From the crib, right into
> >>>>>>>>Grandpa's bed" is quite enough, Frank. Here's one you can explain
> >>>>>>>>though.
>
> >>>>>>>>''Her Father's Daughter__ In Postscript! (Sorry, no pictures}
>
> >>>>>>>>*Sorry no pictures*?? Are you in the habit of posting pictures,
> >>>>>>>>Frank? Maybe you couldn't access your hard-drive that day to add a
> >>>>>>>>few.
>
> >>>>>>>Nope. Read the rest of the post, or the preamble.
> >>>>>>>Didn't want to get into copyright issues; especially with Playboy.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Now if you want REAL "trash", there's a lot worse out there than
> >>>>>>>>> any
> >>>>>>>>> of mine. Worse in story-line, grammar, punctuation (or lack
> >>>>>>>>> thereof),
> >>>>>>>>> subject-matter, readability, consensuality, and more.
>
> >>>>>>>>Ah, The o-so typical ploy of attempting to spotlight somebody else
> >>>>>>>>in
> >>>>>>>>an effort to make what you did seem benign. You, Frank are just as
> >>>>>>>>sick and deplorable as anybody who writes sick Paedophile trash.
>
> >>>>>>>>> However, THOSE aren't being judged ... yet.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Sometime read about Jake Baker.
>
> >>>>>>>>We're talking about *Frank McCoy* in this thread.
>
> >>>>>>>>> However, bad as HIS stories were, there were (and are) far
> >>>>>>>>> worse.
>
> >>>>>>>>Again it doesn't make you respectable by any means. It only means
> >>>>>>>>there are other Paedophile deviants out there to be caught.
>
> >>>>>>>The POINT being they deliberately picked far-from-the-worst.
> >>>>>>>Their argument would have been much more effective against others.
> >>>>>>>OTOH, I was prepared for the case; and willing to take it on.
>
> >>>>>>>So, from their point of view: Why not?
> >>>>>>>Actually, from mine as well.
> >>>>>>>This way the issue gets decided on the merits, not on personal
> >>>>>>>"gut"
> >>>>>>>feelings. Well, OK, that's the hope anyway.
>
> >>>>>>>To some extent, it's a positive sign that so-far there's been no
> >>>>>>>verdict yet. It allows the hope that the judge really IS trying to
> >>>>>>>decide the case on its true legal merits, and not how he personally
> >>>>>>>feels one way or the other about the stories themselves.
>
> >>>>>>Haven't you read his comments when throwing out your frivolous
> >>>>>>barrage
> >>>>>>of motions?
>
> >>>>>>He has already told you there are no legal merits to your filth.
>
> >>>>>>Here's what he said about your "works".
>
> >>>>>>http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=23&xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020100...
>
> >>>>>>The Kaplan Court upheld the defendant's conviction for violating a
> >>>>>>California obscenity statute on a finding that a non-illustrated
> >>>>>>fictional book entitled "Suite 69," which was "made up entirely of
> >>>>>>repetitive descriptions of physical, sexual conduct, `clinically'
> >>>>>>explicit and offensive to the point of being nauseous" with "only
> >>>>>>the
> >>>>>>most tenuous `plot,'" was "not protected by the First Amendment."
> >>>>>>Id.
> >>>>>>at 116-18, 93 S.Ct. 2680.
>
> >>>>>> The Court, being familiar with Defendant's stories, observes that a
> >>>>>>jury could equate his works with the Kaplan book.
>
> >>>>>Like I've said before:
> >>>>>>The Kaplan Court upheld the defendant's conviction for violating a
> >>>>>>California obscenity statute on a finding that a non-illustrated
> >>>>>>fictional book entitled "Suite 69," which was "made up entirely of
> >>>>>>repetitive descriptions of physical, sexual conduct, `clinically'
> >>>>>>explicit and offensive to the point of being nauseous" with "only
> >>>>>>the
> >>>>>>most tenuous `plot,'" was "not protected by the First Amendment."
> >>>>>>Id.
> >>>>>>at 116-18, 93 S.Ct. 2680.
>
> >>>>>> The Court, being familiar with Defendant's stories, observes that a
> >>>>>>jury could equate his works with the Kaplan book.
>
> >>>>>I'm not discussing the actual arguments in the case or the case
> >>>>>itself. You have your ideas about Constitutional issues. I have
> >>>>>mine. I merely stated WHY I'm fighting and on what issues.
>
> >>>>Rationalizations Frank.
>
> >>>>You are up to your neck in child pornography and have been brought to
> >>>>book.
>
> >>>>"After Defendant's writings came to the attention of federal
> >>>>authorities during the child pornography prosecution of a separate
> >>>>criminal defendant, federal agents from the Middle District of Georgia
> >>>>conducted an investigation into Defendant."
>
> >>>>>I could easily point out my defense, and the Supreme Court rulings
> >>>>>against your claims, but I'm not here to argue the case again. My
> >>>>>lawyer has already done so quite well; and probably far better than I
> >>>>>could have done on my own.
>
> >>>>Yes, a veritable barrage of motions that were all denied.
>
> >>>>>However, I WILL just note that *IF* the issue was what you claim, the
> >>>>>judge would have ruled against me the same day the trial ended; and
> >>>>>this case would already have gone to appeal ... On the very issues
> >>>>>you
> >>>>>so blithely dismiss.
>
> >>>>The judge did rule against you, dismissing your motions and pointing
> >>>>out your ignorance of the law.
>
> >>>>>You might actually READ the Supreme Court rulings in the original,
> >>>>>that you claim deny my case. They don't. The actual decisions are
> >>>>>easily found from the actual cases quoted. Look them up. There's a
> >>>>>lot more there than the short passages quoted.
>
> >>>>>But, like I said, I'm not here to argue the case ... again.
> >>>>>Obviously your "gut feeling" is that stories like mine are NOT
> >>>>>Constitutionally protected. Thankfully, Freedom-of-Speech is not
> >>>>>dependent on whether or not your gut likes the idea.
>
> >>>>Frank, they are not "my claims" they are Judge Sands's rulings after
> >>>>careful and lengthy consideration of the arguments when he denied all
> >>>>your motions, calling your arguments "far fetched".
>
> >>>>http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=11&xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020100...
>
> >>>You might read the summaries of two OTHER Minnesota judges,
> >>>considering the case prior to Judge Sands.
>
> >>>Also, those were all pre-trial motions; which denial CAN be appealed
> >>>if the ruling goes against me; and several of which are a good basis
> >>>for such appeal.
>
> >>>However, several more important motions, made in the trial itself,
> >>>were not denied. The most important one is still pending.
>
> >>>>"it would be an absurdity to find that holding the parties to the true
> >>>>facts of the case is "unfair." The facts are what they are."
>
> >>>>FACTUAL SUMMARY
>
> >>>>Defendant, a resident of Minnesota, is a fiction writer. As many
> >>>>authors tend to do, Defendant's body of work pertains to a particular
> >>>>range of subject matter.
>
> >>>> In Defendant's case, according to the Indictment against him, the
> >>>>preferred literary milieu is "obscene `fantasy' stories describing in
> >>>>explicit and graphic detail the sexual abuse, rape, and murder of
> >>>>children." (Doc. 1 at 2). At all times relevant to the Indictment,
> >>>>Defendant's fiction was posted on the Internet.
>
> >>>"According to the indictment against him."
> >>>NOT according to the facts of the case.
> >>>For THAT, you'd have to read the actual trial files, and what was
> >>>stipulated-to by the defendant (me) as what actually happened; and
> >>>agreed-to-be-the-actual-facts-of-what-happened by the Prosecution.
>
> >>>Most of the facts-of-the-case were agreed-to by stipulation of both
> >>>parties.
>
> >>>I agreed that I posted more than 100 specific stories on the net.
> >>>What those stories actually WERE, and whether they were "obscene" and
> >>>if they are literature or art, and whether they are protected by the
> >>>Constitution, was what the trial was (and still is) all about.
>
> >>>The Prosecution can CHARGE anything they wish; and a Grand Jury only
> >>>has to decide whether there's enough evidence to bother with a trial.
> >>>They do NOT decide the actual facts of the case; and are ONLY
> >>>presented with whatever the DA wants to show them, in the worst
> >>>possible light and interpretation.
>
> >>>It's a FACT, that such charges were BROUGHT.
> >>>It's NOT a fact that said charges are TRUE.
> >>>That's what the trial is supposed to decide.
>
> >>>If charges-brought were always actual facts, there would never be a
> >>>need for trials, would there?
>
> >>>But then, you're the, "Let's give the Guilty-SOB a fair trial and then
> >>>hang him!" type; so you wouldn't understand that.
>
> >>>Like I said before:
> >>>If it was so easy to decide that my stories are NOT protected Free
> >>>Speech, then the verdict would have been given the moment the trial
> >>>finished. We wouldn't be waiting for over two years now.
>
> >>>Having attended the trial, I think that the judge would have to use
> >>>some truly strange and fantastic logic to square a verdict of guilty
> >>>with the stipulated facts of the case and the actual trial itself when
> >>>compared to the past rulings of the Supreme Court on how such matters
> >>>are to be judged. Specifically involving "The Miller Test".
>
> >>>Read about it sometime.
> >>>http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0413_0015_ZS....
> >>>Read not only the syllabus, but the Opinion of the Court, and both
> >>>Dissents.
>
> >>>That's not saying the judge CAN'T.
> >>>However, reading any such ruling would be interesting, to say the
> >>>least. Since the records are sealed (for now at least), I'm not
> >>>really at liberty to say exactly why.
>
> >>>And no; I'm NOT going to explain in detail why you're wrong.
> >>>But my lawyer did a bang-up great job in doing so.
> >>>Personally, I think the trial-records should be open to anybody.
> >>>But then, since some of my stories WERE discussed in some detail; and
> >>>the whole case is built on whether they're legal or not, I can see why
> >>>the actual trial-records are presently sealed. ;-{
>
> >>>The Prosecution, of course, would like them to remain sealed forever.
>
> >>>AND ... I think I've said enough.
> >>>Nothing I can say will affect what you think.
> >>>Nothing you can say will change my opinion.
> >>>Probably anybody listening in has already made up their own minds.
>
> >>>So ... I don't think I'll be responding any more to this particular
> >>>thread.
>
> >> Of course you won't.
>
> >> Of course you won't.
>
> >> For any fair minded person not part of your ring or embarrassed by
> >> having supported you in the past, the discovery of your collection
> >> of thousands of videos and photographs of children being sexually
> >> assaulted removes any last vestige of benefit of the doubt you may
> >> have been graced with.
>
> >If you were 'fair minded' you would wait for the judges decision on
> >> having supported you in the past, the discovery of your collection
> >> of thousands of videos and photographs of children being sexually
> >> assaulted removes any last vestige of benefit of the doubt you may
> >> have been graced with.
>
> >Frank's guilt or innocence.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> The collection of child pornography on McCoy's computers is
> simply a fact, not something the judge is deciding in the more
> technical matter of the transmission of his infant rape stories.
Remind me again exactly why he isn't being prosecuted for possession
of child pornography?
Because the search warrant used to seize Frank's computers did not
mention child porn. The subsequent discovery by the FBI forensic
investigator made it "fruit of the poisoned tree." IOW the CP can never
be used in any state or federal prosecution. There was an attempt by the
prosecution to amend the charges against Frank to include the CP but
it was denied for the above reason.
Fred E Brown
Feb 7, 2012, 9:39:00 AM2/7/12
to
news:9e9814ae-fbe6-4e4c...@c6g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
> trial on obscenity charges.
> The FBI fucked up with their search warrant which did not include
> any reference to child porn and the judge denied the prosecution's
> attempt to retroactively add it to the search warrant.
> The fact that his computer had child porn is inadmissible and can't
> ever be prosecuted.
> Tough titty, get used to it.
> Remember, God acts in mysterious ways.
God does not act in mysterious ways, you moron. God obeys the Law.
No, moron, God does not obey man's laws, God is the ultimate
law maker.
On Feb 4, 4:01 pm, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>> For any fair minded person not part of your ring or embarrassed by
> >>> having supported you in the past, the discovery of your collection
> >>> of thousands of videos and photographs of children being sexually
> >>> assaulted removes any last vestige of benefit of the doubt you may
> >>> have been graced with.
>
> >>If you were 'fair minded' you would wait for the judges decision on
> >>Frank's guilt or innocence.
>
> > Nonsense.
>
> > The collection of child pornography on McCoy's computers is
> > simply a fact, not something the judge is deciding in the more
> > technical matter of the transmission of his infant rape stories.
>
> The CP on McCoy's computer is irrelevant and immaterial to his
> >>> For any fair minded person not part of your ring or embarrassed by
> >>> having supported you in the past, the discovery of your collection
> >>> of thousands of videos and photographs of children being sexually
> >>> assaulted removes any last vestige of benefit of the doubt you may
> >>> have been graced with.
>
> >>If you were 'fair minded' you would wait for the judges decision on
> >>Frank's guilt or innocence.
>
> > Nonsense.
>
> > The collection of child pornography on McCoy's computers is
> > simply a fact, not something the judge is deciding in the more
> > technical matter of the transmission of his infant rape stories.
>
> trial on obscenity charges.
> The FBI fucked up with their search warrant which did not include
> any reference to child porn and the judge denied the prosecution's
> attempt to retroactively add it to the search warrant.
> The fact that his computer had child porn is inadmissible and can't
> ever be prosecuted.
> Tough titty, get used to it.
> Remember, God acts in mysterious ways.
God does not act in mysterious ways, you moron. God obeys the Law.
law maker.
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 7, 2012, 9:45:26 AM2/7/12
to
On Feb 7, 9:31 am, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "Hieronymous Corey" <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9a8467c9-d3cc-4c33...@y10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
Do you understand the meaning and function of the word rhetorical in a
rhetorical question? I'm just asking. LOL.
> "Hieronymous Corey" <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9a8467c9-d3cc-4c33...@y10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
rhetorical question? I'm just asking. LOL.
~ஜ۩۞۩ஜ~
Feb 7, 2012, 9:34:08 AM2/7/12
to
On Feb 7, 1:30 am, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:
conversed from time to time over a period of ten years at least.
> >What are you going to defend next, restroom walls?
>
> Doesn't need to.
> There are at least five books out about restroom graffiti.
> Quite popular books in fact. Sales in the hundreds of thousands.
> Nobody is even thinking about charging them with being obscene.
>
> >At least with that you'd be appealing to a higher standard of
> >literature.
>
> That, I guess, depends purely on your tastes.
In other words one needs to have a taste for men raping infants to
appreciate your garbage.
> ~?2?6?1?3?1?2?1?3?2?6~ <rpres...@gobot.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 6, 5:33 am, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> So Frank's stories could appeal to purient interest, could be patently
> >> offensive, but still have serious
> >> literary, artistic, political or scientific value and thus NOT be obscene.
>
> >It's obvious you've never read the material.
>
> Even more obvious, that neither have you.
Wrong-o Frank. I've been around a long time and you and I have
> >On Feb 6, 5:33 am, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> So Frank's stories could appeal to purient interest, could be patently
> >> offensive, but still have serious
> >> literary, artistic, political or scientific value and thus NOT be obscene.
>
> >It's obvious you've never read the material.
>
> Even more obvious, that neither have you.
conversed from time to time over a period of ten years at least.
> >What are you going to defend next, restroom walls?
>
> Doesn't need to.
> There are at least five books out about restroom graffiti.
> Quite popular books in fact. Sales in the hundreds of thousands.
> Nobody is even thinking about charging them with being obscene.
>
> >At least with that you'd be appealing to a higher standard of
> >literature.
>
> That, I guess, depends purely on your tastes.
appreciate your garbage.
Fred E Brown
Feb 7, 2012, 9:48:04 AM2/7/12
to
"民主諉過於人" <民主諉過於人 民主諉過於人> wrote in message
news:lrgti75b3n9g01dmo...@4ax.com...
> On 5 Feb 2012 09:12:00 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>" $)A #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H" < #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H
>> #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H> wrote in message
>
>>
>>" $)A #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H" < #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H
>>news:mg9ri7dsgpnjc9jee...@4ax.com...
>>> On 4 Feb 2012 15:01:02 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> For any fair minded person not part of your ring or embarrassed by
>>>>>>> having supported you in the past, the discovery of your collection
>>>>>>> of thousands of videos and photographs of children being sexually
>>>>>>> assaulted removes any last vestige of benefit of the doubt you may
>>>>>>> have been graced with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you were 'fair minded' you would wait for the judges decision on
>>>>>>Frank's guilt or innocence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> The collection of child pornography on McCoy's computers is
>>>>> simply a fact, not something the judge is deciding in the more
>>>>> technical matter of the transmission of his infant rape stories.
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> For any fair minded person not part of your ring or embarrassed by
>>>>>>> having supported you in the past, the discovery of your collection
>>>>>>> of thousands of videos and photographs of children being sexually
>>>>>>> assaulted removes any last vestige of benefit of the doubt you may
>>>>>>> have been graced with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you were 'fair minded' you would wait for the judges decision on
>>>>>>Frank's guilt or innocence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> The collection of child pornography on McCoy's computers is
>>>>> simply a fact, not something the judge is deciding in the more
>>>>> technical matter of the transmission of his infant rape stories.
>>>>
>>>>The CP on McCoy's computer is irrelevant and immaterial to his
>>>>trial on obscenity charges.
>>>
>>> True, but totally relevant to what a disgusting irredeemable piece of
>>>>trial on obscenity charges.
>>>
>>> human garbage he is.
>>>
>>>>The FBI fucked up with their search warrant which did not include
>>>>any reference to child porn and the judge denied the prosecution's
>>>>attempt to retroactively add it to the search warrant.
>>>
>>> Identify evidence of violations of Title 18, U.S.C. $)A !l 2252 and
>>>>The FBI fucked up with their search warrant which did not include
>>>>any reference to child porn and the judge denied the prosecution's
>>>>attempt to retroactively add it to the search warrant.
>>>
>>> !l 2252A
>>> per search warrant 1:08-MJ-37 (RLH).
>>>
>>> Perhaps you should update yourself
>>>
>>>>The fact that his computer had child porn is inadmissible and can't
>>>>ever be prosecuted.
>>>
>>> You are confused.
>>>>The fact that his computer had child porn is inadmissible and can't
>>>>ever be prosecuted.
>>>
>>>
>>> He can be prosecuted any time up to and including November
>>> 2017.
>>> http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/statlmt.pdf
>>
>>The above refers to Minnesota's statute of limitations, Frank was charged
>>on a federal warrant out of Georgia charging him with obsecenity, not
>>possession of child porn.
>
> Again you confuse the issues.
> You seem to be under the delusion that being arrested and tried for
> transmitting obscenity to Georgia grants some kind of immunity
> against prosecution for possession of child pornography on Minnesota.
>
> It does not.
>
>> The warrant used by the FBI to sieze Frank's
>>computers made no mention of child porn, when it was found it was
>>"fruit of the poisoned tree", inadmissable in any federal or state court.
>
> Title 18 S2252 is perfectly clear.
>
> �2252. CERTAIN ACTIVITIES RELATING TO MATERIAL INVOLVING THE SEXUAL
> EXPLOITATION OF MINORS
>
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2252.html
>
> (4) either-
> (A) in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United
> States, or on any land or building owned by, leased to, or otherwise
> used by or under the control of the Government of the United States,
> or in the Indian country as defined in section 1151 of this title,
> knowingly possesses, or knowingly accesses with intent to view, 1 or
> more books, magazines, periodicals, films, video tapes, or other
> matter which contain any visual depiction; or
> (B) knowingly possesses, or knowingly accesses with intent to view, 1
> or more books, magazines, periodicals, films, video tapes, or other
> matter which contain any visual depiction that has been mailed, or has
> been shipped or transported using any means or facility of interstate
> or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce,
> or which was produced using materials which have been mailed or so
> shipped or transported, by any means including by computer, if-
>
> (i) the producing of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor
> engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
>
> (ii) such visual depiction is of such conduct;
> shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
>
>
>
>>
>>> The statute of limitations to prosecute a possession of child
>>> pornography charge in Minnesota is 9 years.
>>
>>So what?
>
> There is plenty of time to charge him, perhaps as a gate arrest when
> he is released after serving the maximum for his obscenity conviction.
>
>>The Child porn on Frank's computers is inadmissable in any court.
>
> being tried on separate charges in Georgia does not grant immunity to
> possessing child pornography in Minnesota, any more than he would have
> had immunity from being prosecuted were dangerous drugs discovered
> in the course of other investigations.
The warrant siezing Frank's computer did not mention child porn and thus
it's discovery CANNOT be used in ANY court be it STATE or FEDERAL.
>>>>Tough titty, get used to it.
>>>>Remember, God acts in mysterious ways.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>And doing a damned good job!
>>If Obama can ignore the country's laws, so can Frank.
>>
Fred E Brown
Feb 7, 2012, 9:54:01 AM2/7/12
to
news:6383e665-486e-4876...@15g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 4, 11:36 am, 民主諉過於人 <民主諉過於人 民主諉過於人> wrote:
> On 4 Feb 2012 07:13:01 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"Frank McCoy" <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote in message
> >news:gr8oi7l1jcrbf5rfe...@4ax.com...
> >> The soapbox is now empty.
>
> >> --
> >> _____
> >> / ' / ?
nothing on that subject for the judge to decide. What the judge did
decide was that the child porn found on Frank's computer was inadmissable.
Can you please remind me what exactly constitutes obscene text?
Try Google......Miller v California
On Feb 4, 11:36 am, 民主諉過於人 <民主諉過於人 民主諉過於人> wrote:
> On 4 Feb 2012 07:13:01 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"Frank McCoy" <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote in message
> >news:gr8oi7l1jcrbf5rfe...@4ax.com...
> >> $)A #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H < #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H #$("#$ D? (. 1L?
>
> >> --
> >> _____
> >> / ' / ?
> >> ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
> >> (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
>
> >> (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
>
> > $)A #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H < #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H #$("#$ D? (. 1L?
> > (.!h H AKA Numbnuts
> >probably thinks Casey Anthony is guilty of murdering her child even
> >though a
> >jury found her not guilty.
> >This is too be expected from those who reside at the bottom level of the
> >IQ
> >pool.
> >Their greatest joy in their miserable lives is reveling in other people's
> >misery.
> >Once a person is accused of a crime, people like Numbnuts will never
> >accept
> >a
> >Judge or juries decision of not guilty.
>
> For someone grandiosely making otiose claims about
> other's IQs, it's odd you have failed to grasp McCoy doesn't deny
> sending his grotesque obscene texts to the undercover federal agent he
> simply, and erroneously, claims he had the right to transmit them.
>
> >probably thinks Casey Anthony is guilty of murdering her child even
> >though a
> >jury found her not guilty.
> >This is too be expected from those who reside at the bottom level of the
> >IQ
> >pool.
> >Their greatest joy in their miserable lives is reveling in other people's
> >misery.
> >Once a person is accused of a crime, people like Numbnuts will never
> >accept
> >a
> >Judge or juries decision of not guilty.
>
> For someone grandiosely making otiose claims about
> other's IQs, it's odd you have failed to grasp McCoy doesn't deny
> sending his grotesque obscene texts to the undercover federal agent he
> simply, and erroneously, claims he had the right to transmit them.
>
> That McCoy is up to his neck in child pornography is beyond dispute.
> All that is the Judge is deciding is whether or not he can wriggle out
> of it on legal technicalities.
Since Frank was never charged with possession of child porn there is
> All that is the Judge is deciding is whether or not he can wriggle out
> of it on legal technicalities.
nothing on that subject for the judge to decide. What the judge did
decide was that the child porn found on Frank's computer was inadmissable.
Can you please remind me what exactly constitutes obscene text?
Try Google......Miller v California
Fred E Brown
Feb 7, 2012, 9:55:00 AM2/7/12
to
news:f8ebb4f4-ae11-4e56...@i2g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
Usenet.
On Feb 4, 4:10 pm, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> $)A #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H < #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H
> >> #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H AKA Numbnuts
> >>probably thinks Casey Anthony is guilty of murdering her child even
> >>though
> >>a
> >>jury found her not guilty.
> >>This is too be expected from those who reside at the bottom level of the
> >>IQ
> >>pool.
> >>Their greatest joy in their miserable lives is reveling in other
> >>people's
> >>misery.
> >>Once a person is accused of a crime, people like Numbnuts will never
> >>accept
> >>a
> >>Judge or juries decision of not guilty.
>
> > For someone grandiosely making otiose claims about
> > other's IQs, it's odd you have failed to grasp McCoy doesn't deny
> > sending his grotesque obscene texts to the undercover federal agent he
> > simply, and erroneously, claims he had the right to transmit them.
>
> >> $)A #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H < #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H
> >> #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H AKA Numbnuts
> >>probably thinks Casey Anthony is guilty of murdering her child even
> >>though
> >>a
> >>jury found her not guilty.
> >>This is too be expected from those who reside at the bottom level of the
> >>IQ
> >>pool.
> >>Their greatest joy in their miserable lives is reveling in other
> >>people's
> >>misery.
> >>Once a person is accused of a crime, people like Numbnuts will never
> >>accept
> >>a
> >>Judge or juries decision of not guilty.
>
> > For someone grandiosely making otiose claims about
> > other's IQs, it's odd you have failed to grasp McCoy doesn't deny
> > sending his grotesque obscene texts to the undercover federal agent he
> > simply, and erroneously, claims he had the right to transmit them.
>
> Wether Frank is in error over his right of Free Speech with his stories
> has yet to be decided.
>
> has yet to be decided.
>
> > That McCoy is up to his neck in child pornography is beyond dispute.
> > All that is the Judge is deciding is whether or not he can wriggle out
> > of it on legal technicalities.
>
> > All that is the Judge is deciding is whether or not he can wriggle out
> > of it on legal technicalities.
>
> There is no legal technicality to be decided, it's settled case law,
> anything found during a search not listed on the search warrant is
> inadmissible in any current or future legal action.
> inadmissible in any current or future legal action.
As a professional writer I need someone to define the term obscene
text because ignorance of the law is no excuse and I sure don't want
to fuck up and say the wrong thing when my career is at stake. LOL.
Then hire competent legal council, don't depend on legal advice from
text because ignorance of the law is no excuse and I sure don't want
to fuck up and say the wrong thing when my career is at stake. LOL.
Usenet.
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 7, 2012, 9:48:57 AM2/7/12
to
On Feb 7, 9:39 am, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "Hieronymous Corey" <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Duh. You think God's too big to obey His own Law? Scary thought.
> "Hieronymous Corey" <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Fred E Brown
Feb 7, 2012, 10:07:01 AM2/7/12
to
"民主諉過於人" <民主諉過於人 民主諉過於人> wrote in message
the an author of a bank robbery story is trying to incite his readers.
You keep trying to raise the silliest connections.
Fred E Brown
Feb 7, 2012, 10:17:01 AM2/7/12
to
"Hieronymous Corey" <hirunny...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ff686e64-6968-4470...@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 6, 10:27 am, 民主諉過於人 <民主諉過於人 民主諉過於人> wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2012 07:33:01 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in
> >message
> >news:7aiti79dnek64vkc6...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in
> >message
> >> On 5 Feb 2012 10:25:01 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in
> >>>message
> >>>news:m7bri7l0t9vagdgtm...@4ax.com...
>
> >>>"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in
> >>>message
> >>>> On 4 Feb 2012 15:10:02 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com>
> >>>> sentence is he not?
>
> >>>If and when Judge Sands ever delivers a verdict.
>
> >>>>>> That McCoy is up to his neck in child pornography is beyond
> >>>>>> dispute.
> >>>>>> All that is the Judge is deciding is whether or not he can wriggle
> >>>>>> out
> >>>>>> of it on legal technicalities.
>
> >>>>>There is no legal technicality to be decided, it's settled case law,
>
> >>>> Indeed , as Judge Sands pointed out
> >>>>>> That McCoy is up to his neck in child pornography is beyond
> >>>>>> dispute.
> >>>>>> All that is the Judge is deciding is whether or not he can wriggle
> >>>>>> out
> >>>>>> of it on legal technicalities.
>
> >>>>>There is no legal technicality to be decided, it's settled case law,
>
>
> >>>You keep confusing child porn with obsecenity. Frank was charged with
> >>>transporting obsecene materials, not child porn.
>
> >> Obscene materials that are not constitutionally protected as Frank
> >> suggests , is the point.
>
> >Which was the point of Frank's trial, which Judge Sands has yet to issue
> >a ruling that Frank's stories are obscene or that Frank's stories pass
> >the
> >Miller test.
>
> You are in error.
I'm in my office, but I'll admit that could be a mistake. There are
certainly other places I'd rather be. I read your post, but might well
have spent the time more productively. Who knew, right?
You could save bandwidth by not posting your drivel at all, that
would be constructive.
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 7, 2012, 10:21:53 AM2/7/12
to
On Feb 7, 10:17 am, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "Hieronymous Corey" <hirunnymouse...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ff686e64-6968-4470...@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Opinions abound. That's what we're here for. You could save me the
trouble of pointing that out to you if you really wanted to.
> "Hieronymous Corey" <hirunnymouse...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ff686e64-6968-4470...@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
trouble of pointing that out to you if you really wanted to.
Fred E Brown
Feb 7, 2012, 10:32:01 AM2/7/12
to
"チ接筁" <チ接筁 チ接筁> wrote in message
news:iku1j757uqqdldgj4...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 23:54:28 -0800 (PST), ~�����~
suppress to support their particular beliefs.
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 7, 2012, 10:18:47 AM2/7/12
to
On Feb 7, 10:07 am, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H" <¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H> wrote in message
Paladin Press made much the same argument but eventually settled out
of court.
> "¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H" <¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H> wrote in message
>
> news:2fk1j75cpfatm3pra...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:55:39 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
> > wrote:
>
> news:2fk1j75cpfatm3pra...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:55:39 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
> > wrote:
>
of court.
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 7, 2012, 10:02:02 AM2/7/12
to
On Feb 7, 9:54 am, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "Hieronymous Corey" <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6383e665-486e-4876...@15g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
Again, rhetoric. Thanks.
> "Hieronymous Corey" <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6383e665-486e-4876...@15g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
Mike Hunt
Feb 7, 2012, 11:17:08 AM2/7/12
to
On Feb 7, 7:07 am, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> Frank's stories never tried to incite anyone to those activities any more
> the an author of a bank robbery story is trying to incite his readers.
> You keep trying to raise the silliest connections.
Society as a whole makes the connection that erotic stories of how
>
> Frank's stories never tried to incite anyone to those activities any more
> the an author of a bank robbery story is trying to incite his readers.
> You keep trying to raise the silliest connections.
pedophiles rape children encourage pedophiles to rape children. It
appeals to no audience other than pedophiles
Mike Hunt
Feb 7, 2012, 11:20:13 AM2/7/12
to
On Feb 7, 7:32 am, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> What I defend is the right of free speech, a right some people try to
> suppress to support their particular beliefs.
Fred, what you defend is the abuse of free speech. As long as it isn't
>
> What I defend is the right of free speech, a right some people try to
> suppress to support their particular beliefs.
something that you personally find objectionable, that is.
¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H
Feb 7, 2012, 1:09:49 PM2/7/12
to
On 7 Feb 2012 08:31:02 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>
>"Hieronymous Corey" <hierony...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:9a8467c9-d3cc-4c33...@y10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
Interesting speculation but not a shred of evidence presented to
support it.
As much of the case is sealed and the examination was specifically
requested for child pornography I suspect that's unlikely.
wrote:
>
>"Hieronymous Corey" <hierony...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:9a8467c9-d3cc-4c33...@y10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
support it.
As much of the case is sealed and the examination was specifically
requested for child pornography I suspect that's unlikely.
¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H
Feb 7, 2012, 1:16:02 PM2/7/12
to
On 7 Feb 2012 08:48:04 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>
>"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in message
>>>> § 2252A
It's no good just endless asserting your groundless theory Fred.
If you have a shred of evidence to support it, present it.
Identify evidence of violations of Title 18, U.S.C 2252 and
l 225A per search warrant 1:08-MJ-37 (RLH
wrote:
>
>"??????D???1L?????H" <??????D???1L?????H ??????D???1L?????H> wrote in message
>news:lrgti75b3n9g01dmo...@4ax.com...
>> On 5 Feb 2012 09:12:00 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>> On 5 Feb 2012 09:12:00 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H" <￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H
>>>￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H> wrote in message
>>>news:mg9ri7dsgpnjc9jee...@4ax.com...
>>>> On 4 Feb 2012 15:01:02 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> For any fair minded person not part of your ring or embarrassed by
>>>>>>>> having supported you in the past, the discovery of your collection
>>>>>>>> of thousands of videos and photographs of children being sexually
>>>>>>>> assaulted removes any last vestige of benefit of the doubt you may
>>>>>>>> have been graced with.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If you were 'fair minded' you would wait for the judges decision on
>>>>>>>Frank's guilt or innocence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The collection of child pornography on McCoy's computers is
>>>>>> simply a fact, not something the judge is deciding in the more
>>>>>> technical matter of the transmission of his infant rape stories.
>>>>>
>>>>>The CP on McCoy's computer is irrelevant and immaterial to his
>>>>>trial on obscenity charges.
>>>>
>>>> True, but totally relevant to what a disgusting irredeemable piece of
>>>> human garbage he is.
>>>>
>>>>>The FBI fucked up with their search warrant which did not include
>>>>>any reference to child porn and the judge denied the prosecution's
>>>>>attempt to retroactively add it to the search warrant.
>>>>
>>>> Identify evidence of violations of Title 18, U.S.C. § 2252 and
>>>> On 4 Feb 2012 15:01:02 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> For any fair minded person not part of your ring or embarrassed by
>>>>>>>> having supported you in the past, the discovery of your collection
>>>>>>>> of thousands of videos and photographs of children being sexually
>>>>>>>> assaulted removes any last vestige of benefit of the doubt you may
>>>>>>>> have been graced with.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If you were 'fair minded' you would wait for the judges decision on
>>>>>>>Frank's guilt or innocence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The collection of child pornography on McCoy's computers is
>>>>>> simply a fact, not something the judge is deciding in the more
>>>>>> technical matter of the transmission of his infant rape stories.
>>>>>
>>>>>The CP on McCoy's computer is irrelevant and immaterial to his
>>>>>trial on obscenity charges.
>>>>
>>>> True, but totally relevant to what a disgusting irredeemable piece of
>>>> human garbage he is.
>>>>
>>>>>The FBI fucked up with their search warrant which did not include
>>>>>any reference to child porn and the judge denied the prosecution's
>>>>>attempt to retroactively add it to the search warrant.
>>>>
>>>> § 2252A
>>>> per search warrant 1:08-MJ-37 (RLH).
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you should update yourself
>>>>
>>>>>The fact that his computer had child porn is inadmissible and can't
>>>>>ever be prosecuted.
>>>>
>>>> You are confused.
>>>>
>>>> He can be prosecuted any time up to and including November
>>>> 2017.
>>>> http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/statlmt.pdf
>>>
>>>The above refers to Minnesota's statute of limitations, Frank was charged
>>>on a federal warrant out of Georgia charging him with obsecenity, not
>>>possession of child porn.
>>
>> Again you confuse the issues.
>> You seem to be under the delusion that being arrested and tried for
>> transmitting obscenity to Georgia grants some kind of immunity
>> against prosecution for possession of child pornography on Minnesota.
>>
>> It does not.
>>
>>> The warrant used by the FBI to sieze Frank's
>>>computers made no mention of child porn, when it was found it was
>>>"fruit of the poisoned tree", inadmissable in any federal or state court.
>>
>> Title 18 S2252 is perfectly clear.
>>
>> ?? 2252. CERTAIN ACTIVITIES RELATING TO MATERIAL INVOLVING THE SEXUAL
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you should update yourself
>>>>
>>>>>The fact that his computer had child porn is inadmissible and can't
>>>>>ever be prosecuted.
>>>>
>>>> You are confused.
>>>>
>>>> He can be prosecuted any time up to and including November
>>>> 2017.
>>>> http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/statlmt.pdf
>>>
>>>The above refers to Minnesota's statute of limitations, Frank was charged
>>>on a federal warrant out of Georgia charging him with obsecenity, not
>>>possession of child porn.
>>
>> Again you confuse the issues.
>> You seem to be under the delusion that being arrested and tried for
>> transmitting obscenity to Georgia grants some kind of immunity
>> against prosecution for possession of child pornography on Minnesota.
>>
>> It does not.
>>
>>> The warrant used by the FBI to sieze Frank's
>>>computers made no mention of child porn, when it was found it was
>>>"fruit of the poisoned tree", inadmissable in any federal or state court.
>>
>> Title 18 S2252 is perfectly clear.
>>
If you have a shred of evidence to support it, present it.
Identify evidence of violations of Title 18, U.S.C 2252 and
l 225A per search warrant 1:08-MJ-37 (RLH
¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H
Feb 7, 2012, 1:21:48 PM2/7/12
to
On 7 Feb 2012 08:54:01 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>
>"Hieronymous Corey" <hierony...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:6383e665-486e-4876...@15g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
Care to document this purported decision?
An explain your leap in logic from inadmissible in the obscenity case
to he can never be charged for possession of it?
wrote:
>
>"Hieronymous Corey" <hierony...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:6383e665-486e-4876...@15g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
An explain your leap in logic from inadmissible in the obscenity case
to he can never be charged for possession of it?
¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H
Feb 7, 2012, 1:25:28 PM2/7/12
to
On 7 Feb 2012 09:07:01 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>
>"￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H" <￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H ￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H> wrote in message
"Embolden" child molesters were the words used by the federal
prosecutors to the Grand Jury were they not?
wrote:
>
>"￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H" <￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H ￥á￥D?ó1L?ó¤H> wrote in message
prosecutors to the Grand Jury were they not?
Frank McCoy
Feb 7, 2012, 3:39:08 PM2/7/12
to
¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H <¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H> wrote:
>As much of the case is sealed and the examination was specifically
>requested for child pornography I suspect that's unlikely.
Mistaken AGAIN.
>requested for child pornography I suspect that's unlikely.
See what happens when you ASS-U-ME things that aren't so?
--
_____
/ ' / ™
Frank McCoy
Feb 7, 2012, 3:52:11 PM2/7/12
to
¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H <¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H> wrote:
>"Embolden" child molesters were the words used by the federal
>prosecutors to the Grand Jury were they not?
Possibly, even probably.
>prosecutors to the Grand Jury were they not?
No evidence to support it; and even some evidence contrary; but ....
It's the job of the DA to make things seem as bad as possible to get
an indictment. Nobody BUT the Prosecution is even notified.
The job of the Grand Jury is to see if there's enough cause or
evidence to make it worth the bother of the state prosecuting a case.
They are NOT to decide guilt or innocence.
Supposedly a Grand Juries are there to protect people from frivolous
trials. In reality, they're more of a rubber-stamp for the DA.
In this case, they couldn't get a search-warrent; so they got an
indictment locally in Georgia. That allowed them to pick ME up.
There's some argument about whether or not the DA is obliged to tell
the GJ about evidence NOT supporting said case that the DA knows
about. Judges and appeals-courts have ruled both ways.
Dead Ted
Feb 7, 2012, 3:53:22 PM2/7/12
to
Frank McCoy wrote:
> ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H <¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H> wrote:
>
> >As much of the case is sealed and the examination was specifically
> >requested for child pornography I suspect that's unlikely.
>
> Mistaken AGAIN.
> See what happens when you ASS-U-ME things that aren't so?
Nobody has to assume that you are one sick puppy, Frank, that's a
> ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H <¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H> wrote:
>
> >As much of the case is sealed and the examination was specifically
> >requested for child pornography I suspect that's unlikely.
>
> Mistaken AGAIN.
> See what happens when you ASS-U-ME things that aren't so?
given. Or maybe you can explain why a man who supposedly likes his
sexual partner to be of legal age would spend as much time as you
writing about child rape? And yes, it's rape Frank..sex with minors
under the age of consent is considered statutory rape whether they
were willing or not. How can anybody believe you are anything close to
normal when your stories are among the most abnormal out there?
Tedward
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 7, 2012, 3:57:24 PM2/7/12
to
On Feb 7, 3:39 pm, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:
> ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H <¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H> wrote:
> >As much of the case is sealed and the examination was specifically
> >requested for child pornography I suspect that's unlikely.
>
> Mistaken AGAIN.
> See what happens when you ASS-U-ME things that aren't so?
What a Question
> ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H <¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H> wrote:
> >As much of the case is sealed and the examination was specifically
> >requested for child pornography I suspect that's unlikely.
>
> Mistaken AGAIN.
> See what happens when you ASS-U-ME things that aren't so?
What stiffness parts my lips and comes
softly out? No doubt my gum's
flavor, savored while I chew,
will not end up on my shoe.
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 7, 2012, 3:59:31 PM2/7/12
to
Someone said a kitchen bitch is
what I am, a goddamned witch's
tit as old and cold as ice who'd
cut your throat and not think twice. You'd
think the stinking fucker who said
that, in fact, was soon to be dead,
and you would be right. Despite the
years of queer like fights, we might be
gone, forgotten. Not in minutes,
but in moments. Finished. Then it's
passed, at last, and settled for life.
Fuck that stinking fucker, my wife!
You'll note my nose, its width and length.
It's meant to tell me smells and stinks.
It tells me now how last night lingers
stinking up my nose with fingers
thrust in just the perfect way
as [...] Well, that's all I'm going to say.
The politics of compromise
when once resolved between one's thighs
extends unending through the mind.
At least that's what I hope to find
Frank McCoy
Feb 7, 2012, 4:12:39 PM2/7/12
to
Dead Ted <dead...@live.com> wrote:
>Frank McCoy wrote:
>> ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H <¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H> wrote:
>>
>> >As much of the case is sealed and the examination was specifically
>> >requested for child pornography I suspect that's unlikely.
>>
>> Mistaken AGAIN.
>> See what happens when you ASS-U-ME things that aren't so?
>
>Nobody has to assume that you are one sick puppy, Frank, that's a
>given.
For YOU. Not necessarily for anybody else.
>Frank McCoy wrote:
>> ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H <¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H> wrote:
>>
>> >As much of the case is sealed and the examination was specifically
>> >requested for child pornography I suspect that's unlikely.
>>
>> Mistaken AGAIN.
>> See what happens when you ASS-U-ME things that aren't so?
>
>Nobody has to assume that you are one sick puppy, Frank, that's a
>given.
> Or maybe you can explain why a man who supposedly likes his
>sexual partner to be of legal age would spend as much time as you
>writing about child rape? And yes, it's rape Frank..sex with minors
>under the age of consent is considered statutory rape whether they
>were willing or not. How can anybody believe you are anything close to
>normal when your stories are among the most abnormal out there?
>
Secondary argument is calling something "rape" when it is not.
Another case of making the "crime" seem far worse than it is; while at
the same time making true rape seem insignificant.
Saying somebody has to be 18 to have "legal sex" is ridiculous.
Having an AoC about the age of puberty, I could support.
My stories are caricatures making fun of existing AoC laws.
That's how you point out how silly a law is.
Rape is FORCING somebody to have sex when they don't want to.
A truly horrible HORRIBLE thing.
Calling a sixteen-year-old who seduced her older boyfriend somebody
who has been "raped" because that's what a stupid law *defines* it as,
demeans the true tragedy of somebody who really has been forced to
have sex.
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 7, 2012, 4:25:26 PM2/7/12
to
On Feb 7, 4:12 pm, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:
> My stories are caricatures making fun of existing AoC laws.
> That's how you point out how silly a law is.
The point is, Frank, that the point you're making and the way you're
> My stories are caricatures making fun of existing AoC laws.
> That's how you point out how silly a law is.
making it makes you look even sillier than the law you're making fun
of. So what if AoC laws establish arbitrary ages? Kids are kids, and
kids will do what kids do. Sometimes parents set arbitrary boundaries
simply to establish the concept of boundaries, self-discipline, for
their kids. "Because I said so, Damn it!" doesn't have to sound
reasonable because it isn't reason. It's caring for somebody else more
than you care for yourself. It's laying down the law. It goes against
all instincts for self-preservation. It's love.
Frank McCoy
Feb 7, 2012, 4:30:49 PM2/7/12
to
Something being a law, does NOT make it right!
Conversely, something being wrong, doesn't mean we should pass a law
against it. Look what happened with Prohibition.
Laws should be *carefully* crafted; not just passed to get votes.
OTOH, that last is the commonest reason laws ARE passed. ;-{
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 7, 2012, 4:44:43 PM2/7/12
to
On Feb 7, 4:30 pm, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:
> (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't see a problem with the amount of care used to craft
legislation. Maybe I only know the careful legistators. The ones I
know care deeply about their jobs and their constituents. I look at
what happened with Prohibition every day as a matter of fact, and as a
matter of daily course with an eye toward repeal of cannabis
prohibition. I have a job and constituency as well, real people I know
and care deeply about. For better or worse, laws are passed by people
for people, to protect and safeguard people. The law that you think is
silly has a constituency it safeguards. Who is your constituency,
Frank? Who are you fighting for besides yourself and your own silly
little idea of right and wrong?
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't see a problem with the amount of care used to craft
legislation. Maybe I only know the careful legistators. The ones I
know care deeply about their jobs and their constituents. I look at
what happened with Prohibition every day as a matter of fact, and as a
matter of daily course with an eye toward repeal of cannabis
prohibition. I have a job and constituency as well, real people I know
and care deeply about. For better or worse, laws are passed by people
for people, to protect and safeguard people. The law that you think is
silly has a constituency it safeguards. Who is your constituency,
Frank? Who are you fighting for besides yourself and your own silly
little idea of right and wrong?
Frank McCoy
Feb 7, 2012, 6:32:30 PM2/7/12
to
Hieronymous Corey <hirunny...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 7, 4:30 pm, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:
>> Hieronymous Corey <hirunnymouse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Feb 7, 4:12 pm, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> My stories are caricatures making fun of existing AoC laws.
>>
>> >> That's how you point out how silly a law is.
>>
>> >The point is, Frank, that the point you're making and the way you're
>> >making it makes you look even sillier than the law you're making fun
>> >of. So what if AoC laws establish arbitrary ages? Kids are kids, and
>> >kids will do what kids do. Sometimes parents set arbitrary boundaries
>> >simply to establish the concept of boundaries, self-discipline, for
>> >their kids. "Because I said so, Damn it!" doesn't have to sound
>> >reasonable because it isn't reason. It's caring for somebody else more
>> >than you care for yourself. It's laying down the law. It goes against
>> >all instincts for self-preservation. It's love.
>>
>> And sometimes it's jealousy or "living through your kids."
>> Something being a law, does NOT make it right!
>> Conversely, something being wrong, doesn't mean we should pass a law
>> against it. Look what happened with Prohibition.
>> Laws should be *carefully* crafted; not just passed to get votes.
>> OTOH, that last is the commonest reason laws ARE passed. ;-{
>>
>
>On Feb 7, 4:30 pm, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:
>> Hieronymous Corey <hirunnymouse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Feb 7, 4:12 pm, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> My stories are caricatures making fun of existing AoC laws.
>>
>> >> That's how you point out how silly a law is.
>>
>> >The point is, Frank, that the point you're making and the way you're
>> >making it makes you look even sillier than the law you're making fun
>> >of. So what if AoC laws establish arbitrary ages? Kids are kids, and
>> >kids will do what kids do. Sometimes parents set arbitrary boundaries
>> >simply to establish the concept of boundaries, self-discipline, for
>> >their kids. "Because I said so, Damn it!" doesn't have to sound
>> >reasonable because it isn't reason. It's caring for somebody else more
>> >than you care for yourself. It's laying down the law. It goes against
>> >all instincts for self-preservation. It's love.
>>
>> And sometimes it's jealousy or "living through your kids."
>> Something being a law, does NOT make it right!
>> Conversely, something being wrong, doesn't mean we should pass a law
>> against it. Look what happened with Prohibition.
>> Laws should be *carefully* crafted; not just passed to get votes.
>> OTOH, that last is the commonest reason laws ARE passed. ;-{
>>
>
>I don't see a problem with the amount of care used to craft
>legislation. Maybe I only know the careful legistators. The ones I
>know care deeply about their jobs and their constituents. I look at
>what happened with Prohibition every day as a matter of fact, and as a
>matter of daily course with an eye toward repeal of cannabis
>prohibition. I have a job and constituency as well, real people I know
>and care deeply about. For better or worse, laws are passed by people
>for people, to protect and safeguard people. The law that you think is
>silly has a constituency it safeguards.
It also has a constituency almost as large that it unfairly restricts
>legislation. Maybe I only know the careful legistators. The ones I
>know care deeply about their jobs and their constituents. I look at
>what happened with Prohibition every day as a matter of fact, and as a
>matter of daily course with an eye toward repeal of cannabis
>prohibition. I have a job and constituency as well, real people I know
>and care deeply about. For better or worse, laws are passed by people
>for people, to protect and safeguard people. The law that you think is
>silly has a constituency it safeguards.
and punishes: Those "kids" that in any other society would be adults,
expected to date, marry, have sex, and raise a family.
>Who is your constituency,
>Frank? Who are you fighting for besides yourself and your own silly
>little idea of right and wrong?
Like the cannabis issue, I merely support sensible laws there.
Trying to fight several battles at once not only divides your efforts
and dilutes them to the point of uselessness, but is stupid as well.
I'm fighting for people's rights to speak and say pretty much anything
except where actually damaging others, like in libel, slander, and the
old saw of, "Yelling FIRE in a crowded theater." That somebody is
offended by my speech, doesn't mean they have to listen to it. That
they despise my writing, doesn't mean they have to read it. For that
reason I *deliberately* made said writing as offensive as possible
without being mean or nasty to anybody.
What's offensive to YOU, isn't necessarily offensive to me.
And, vice-versa.
Nobody should have what they are able to say censored and decided to
be "Obscene" or illegal by the most hide-bound and restrictive people
in the country. That isn't free speech, that's pretty much making a
State Religion out of whatever the most blue-nosed preacher decides is
offensive to him/her.
And yes, I have thousands of supporters.
Not many actually send *money*; the true test of real support; but a
few do. Surprisingly, even when mentioning what my case was about to
strangers (like my cab-driver) while down in the Bible Belt, I got
unexpected support instead of dislike.
More people than you might suspect actually seem to VALUE
freedom-of-speech for even unpopular or "obscene" ideas.
Probably because most people have had their own ideas and words
suppressed or shut off by people who only value Majority Opinions.
The idea that censorship is WRONG along with WHO decides what is
censorable? has more support than the loud and popular people think.
The most telling point?
Who would YOU trust to tell you WHAT is fit for you to read and think?
wouldn't said person be most likely to hide from you anything that
might change your mind; from whether that person is trustworthy, to
what he/she looks at that is not allowed for people "less trustworthy"
to see.
Think about it:
What type of person WANTS to be a censor deciding what material is
"Child Porn" and what is not? Doesn't the very fact that somebody
LIKES the job disqualify him/her from it?
Even worse is Government censorship, where the censors decide what YOU
can hear, good or bad, about said government; and especially about the
censors themselves.
We always complain when OTHER governments crack down on protesters and
shut down dissenting newspapers. And yet ... We allow such things to
happen HERE, under the guise that supposedly we need to "Protect
National Security" or other crap.
Having other people decide what is or is-not fit for me to read, is
what I am fighting. To do so, I need to challenge the whole idea that
the government has a legitimate interest (other than specific people
feeling their jobs are threatened by the truth) in suppressing freedom
of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to READ dissenting views, and
most-of-all, freedom to THINK differently from the establishment.
More people agree with those issues than you would suspect.
That actually is WHY such freedoms are enshrined in the FIRST
Amendment in the Bill-of-rights. Without the ability to freely speak
without censorship, to publish works and art without others deciding
for us that we shouldn't see or read it, the right to gather together
to discuss changing laws we find burdensome, and yes, the right to be
FREE from religious oppression, we pretty much don't have any true
rights at all.
So, yes, I DO have lots of supporters.
However, my particular material I use, being unpopular with most ...
Who likes to be thought of as supporting a "sinner"? ... Isn't the
type that brings out thousands of people in Public Marches.
I get well-wishes from hundreds of people.
I see support in various blogs and web-pages.
I don't see much money coming in to help me.
OTOH, I've never really ASKED for such support either.
My Public Defender was VERY good indeed.
He actually knew more than me about most issues I brought up.
Since I'd been saving information for over ten years on just this very
subject, that surprised me ... a lot.
But yes, I *DO* have supporters.
Probably far more people who DON'T read my stories than do.
I actually prefer that.
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 7, 2012, 6:47:15 PM2/7/12
to
efforts as much as most. I certainly have here. You still leave me
wondering though. Wondering why you convince yourself that the easiest
things are the most difficult, and self love out ranks selflessness.
Wondering why you insist on being objectionable and rail against all
objections. I wonder why you're not a happy man. That's probably a
good thing. I think living in wonder of one another makes us better
people. Thanks, Frank. You're wonderful.
Dead Ted
Feb 7, 2012, 7:49:54 PM2/7/12
to
staunchly against Frank McCoy and the internet manifestations of his
mental illness.
> Thanks, Frank. You're wonderful.
sexual purposes.
Tedward
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 7, 2012, 8:07:14 PM2/7/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't know what you see, where you look, or how you interpret
> - Show quoted text -
images. I don't even know what you're asking when you write 'As much
as most??' or why you even responded to my post. I don't know why you
say you're sorry when you obviously are not sorry. I don't know who
you are, or why you do anything. Nevertheless, I'm pleased to meet
you. If you want to talk, we'll talk. If not, we won't. I really don't
have anything else to offer. Good to know you though. I mostly like
meeting new people. I'm not very good at it, but I like it.
Dead Ted
Feb 7, 2012, 8:27:52 PM2/7/12
to
get it, and I'll bet I support your efforts as much as most"
It seems logical that only Paedophiles and various purveyors of
socially unacceptable materials could support Frank McCoy in his quest
to decorate the internet with appalling stories having absolutely no
social or redeeming qualities at all. Frank is not a novelist or
writer. Actual mainstream writers wouldn't give Frank or his
reprehensible rubbish the time of day.
> or why you even responded to my post.
Tedward
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 7, 2012, 8:34:45 PM2/7/12
to
you're a liar. So, why lie about being shocked at that which obviously
isn't shocking to you at all. Like that's even a question. You just
wanted somebody to talk to. Luckily I was here for you, and vice
versa.
~ஜ۩۞۩ஜ~
Feb 7, 2012, 9:37:32 PM2/7/12
to
~ஜ۩۞۩ஜ~
Feb 7, 2012, 9:35:07 PM2/7/12
to
On Feb 7, 10:25 am, ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H <¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H> wrote:
>
> "Embolden" child molesters were the words used by the federal
> prosecutors to the Grand Jury were they not?
Embolden, encourage, contribute, facilitate, condone...
>
> "Embolden" child molesters were the words used by the federal
> prosecutors to the Grand Jury were they not?
They keep hoping we'll succumb to their delusional way of seeing their
own depravity.
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 7, 2012, 9:45:51 PM2/7/12
to
"mid range? Who the fuck are you callin mid range? We're exceptional!"
Frank McCoy
Feb 7, 2012, 11:47:03 PM2/7/12
to
Whoever said I'm not?
When I'm in the company of my wife, I have an almost permanent grin
plastered all over my face.
When alone, I'm lonely about 1/4 of the time; which really isn't all
that bad. Most of the time I'm too busy to notice being lonely.
It's when I go to bed at night to a bed with only three cats on it
beside me, that my heart aches. Somehow a pillow just isn't the same.
OTOH, sometimes she DOES stay over.
It's too bad you can't save up the good times to get you through the
empty ones; like you can't save up nice summer days to get you through
the dreary depths of Winter.
Luckily however, unlike seemingly endless cold (or heat in the
summer), I seem to get to see the wife enough, if only every so often,
that my life seems ... well, OK, and not like an endless winter with
no sign of a break for months.
Overall, especially compared to depressed people, I don't do too bad.
Just not nearly as good as I did with her living here with me.
It's like going from an almost constant 80% to 90% high, all day and
every day, to about 60% to 70% feeling good, with a day or so every
month with euphoria back in the 90% range. Talking to her every day
on the phone keeps me WELL above just "OK". Knowing I'll see her
sometime in a week or two also keeps me feeling OK.
The norm is only "bad" in comparison to what I had before.
I understand it's actually quite *good* compared to what many people
feel all the time.
The only real *crashes* were when she told me she'd never see me
again. Thankfully, that didn't last.
Many people (including her) keep telling me I shouldn't base so much
of my personal happiness on one person. If nothing else, if/when she
dies, it's going to be horrible ... and she's in her mid seventies.
Her parents and grandparents all died in that age-range.
I can see why so many happily married couples the second partner dies
within weeks of their loved partner dying; yet with nothing wrong.
When I'm in the company of my wife, I have an almost permanent grin
plastered all over my face.
When alone, I'm lonely about 1/4 of the time; which really isn't all
that bad. Most of the time I'm too busy to notice being lonely.
It's when I go to bed at night to a bed with only three cats on it
beside me, that my heart aches. Somehow a pillow just isn't the same.
OTOH, sometimes she DOES stay over.
It's too bad you can't save up the good times to get you through the
empty ones; like you can't save up nice summer days to get you through
the dreary depths of Winter.
Luckily however, unlike seemingly endless cold (or heat in the
summer), I seem to get to see the wife enough, if only every so often,
that my life seems ... well, OK, and not like an endless winter with
no sign of a break for months.
Overall, especially compared to depressed people, I don't do too bad.
Just not nearly as good as I did with her living here with me.
It's like going from an almost constant 80% to 90% high, all day and
every day, to about 60% to 70% feeling good, with a day or so every
month with euphoria back in the 90% range. Talking to her every day
on the phone keeps me WELL above just "OK". Knowing I'll see her
sometime in a week or two also keeps me feeling OK.
The norm is only "bad" in comparison to what I had before.
I understand it's actually quite *good* compared to what many people
feel all the time.
The only real *crashes* were when she told me she'd never see me
again. Thankfully, that didn't last.
Many people (including her) keep telling me I shouldn't base so much
of my personal happiness on one person. If nothing else, if/when she
dies, it's going to be horrible ... and she's in her mid seventies.
Her parents and grandparents all died in that age-range.
I can see why so many happily married couples the second partner dies
within weeks of their loved partner dying; yet with nothing wrong.
¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H
Feb 8, 2012, 1:18:51 AM2/8/12
to
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:12:39 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
wrote:
However these rationalizations and noble claims bear no relationship
whatsoever to the pedophile filth you churn out.
"George said it because he finally realized what he had done; now that
his prick wasn't doing all his thinking for him. He had just
raped his own granddaughter; actually ******* the little
7-year-old, and squirting his sperm right up in the child's womb."
wrote:
whatsoever to the pedophile filth you churn out.
"George said it because he finally realized what he had done; now that
his prick wasn't doing all his thinking for him. He had just
raped his own granddaughter; actually ******* the little
7-year-old, and squirting his sperm right up in the child's womb."
~ஜ۩۞۩ஜ~
Feb 8, 2012, 1:59:17 AM2/8/12
to
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 8, 2012, 4:17:03 AM2/8/12
to
On Feb 7, 11:47 pm, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:
etc. Not too bad is not the same as good. Compared to depressed people
isn't a valid method do determining your happiness. You're not happy
unto yourself. You use words like 'sadly'. You describe the life of a
sad man with every word you claim not to be all that bad.
> Hieronymous Corey <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I wonder why you're not a happy man.
>
> Whoever said I'm not?
> When I'm in the company of my wife, I have an almost permanent grin
> plastered all over my face.
>
> When alone, I'm lonely about 1/4 of the time; which really isn't all
> that bad. Most of the time I'm too busy to notice being lonely.
>
> It's when I go to bed at night to a bed with only three cats on it
> beside me, that my heart aches. Somehow a pillow just isn't the same.
>
> OTOH, sometimes she DOES stay over.
> It's too bad you can't save up the good times to get you through the
> empty ones; like you can't save up nice summer days to get you through
> the dreary depths of Winter.
>
> Luckily however, unlike seemingly endless cold (or heat in the
> summer), I seem to get to see the wife enough, if only every so often,
> that my life seems ... well, OK, and not like an endless winter with
> no sign of a break for months.
>
> Overall, especially compared to depressed people, I don't do too bad.
I've noticed you use phrases like 'not too bad' 'don't do too bad'
> >I wonder why you're not a happy man.
>
> Whoever said I'm not?
> When I'm in the company of my wife, I have an almost permanent grin
> plastered all over my face.
>
> When alone, I'm lonely about 1/4 of the time; which really isn't all
> that bad. Most of the time I'm too busy to notice being lonely.
>
> It's when I go to bed at night to a bed with only three cats on it
> beside me, that my heart aches. Somehow a pillow just isn't the same.
>
> OTOH, sometimes she DOES stay over.
> It's too bad you can't save up the good times to get you through the
> empty ones; like you can't save up nice summer days to get you through
> the dreary depths of Winter.
>
> Luckily however, unlike seemingly endless cold (or heat in the
> summer), I seem to get to see the wife enough, if only every so often,
> that my life seems ... well, OK, and not like an endless winter with
> no sign of a break for months.
>
> Overall, especially compared to depressed people, I don't do too bad.
etc. Not too bad is not the same as good. Compared to depressed people
isn't a valid method do determining your happiness. You're not happy
unto yourself. You use words like 'sadly'. You describe the life of a
sad man with every word you claim not to be all that bad.
Hieronymous Corey
Feb 8, 2012, 4:18:36 AM2/8/12
to
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages