U.S. v. McCOY 678 F.Supp.2d 1336 (2009) United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Albany Division. December 24, 2009.

[-̮̮̃-̃ ̾●̮̮̃̾•̃̾ ™Usenet Legends bobandcaяole ▲▲▲▲]

Everything you always wanted to know about a pure SHITBAG.... 29 pages
of the charges against frank mccoy

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020100527789.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR

Here's a sample:

''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''

''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. (Doc. 37 at 1 to 2). In
2005 and 2006, an undercover agent engaged in email correspondence
with Defendant in which Defendant provided links to websites on which
his writings could be obtained. (Doc. 37 at 3 to 7). The agent
activated the links and downloaded numerous stories attributed to
Defendant from the websites into the Middle District of Georgia. (Doc.
37 at 7). One of the websites, www.youngstuff.com, was hosted in the
Southern District of Texas; another website, ftp.asstr.org, was hosted
in the Northern District of California. (Doc. 37 at 2, 7). All of the
stories were allegedly written and posted by Defendant in the District
of Minnesota. (Doc. 37 at 6)''

Much more at the site....


-------

"Well he's a friend of those long haired, hippy type, pinko fags
I'll betcha he's even got a Commie flag tacked up on the wall
inside of his garage"~~The Charlie Daniels Band.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^|^^^^^^^ |P
| ♥~♥ Usenet Legends bobandcarole ♥~♥ ||”"”;..\___.
| ……_______________| l______________l _||__|…, ]P
“(@)’(@)”""""""*l'(@)l'(@)l """"""""""""""(@)'(@)""""'(@)

̾●̮̮̃̾•̃̾ ™bobaлdcaяole -̮̮̃-̃
Copyright © 2012
all rights reserved
News*Justice*Social Commentary
"Bringing you the ultimate uncensored truth since 1997"
___

"Blobby doesn't know about the forgeries I post and get away
with. That morbidly obese coward doesn't even begin to
suspect me"~~ "Pat Magroyne" aka Scott Salberg proves
once and for all he's a deceitful liar. <patmagroyne @null.net>
http://img98.imageshack.us/f/screenshotpatmagroynead.jpg/.
...........................................................................................
"I mean, it's not as if I'm bringing up "ass pounding" all the time,
or doing it right in front of you."~~ Deviant homosexual sodomite
Scott Allen Salberg, aka "Enos Penvy" convicted of battery in
Broward County Florida and currently running from the humiliation
of being outed as a convicted offender to usenet.
.............................................................................................
Image snap of Court and Conviction Record, Scott Salberg.
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u20/ninety7gt/Intelius.jpg
Conclusive evidence of the countless deceptions and forgeries
perpetrated by Scott Allen Salberg:
http://img98.imageshack.us/i/screenshotpatmagroynead.jpg/
...........................................................................................
"That changed, the complaint to IC3 is sent, it was received, I got
the complaint number and password, and we have begun the process.
It is out of my hands. THEY contact the proper authorities down
here. I did make clear that I want this matter handled in Broward
County, in which county I reside. And I've already linked you to the
precedent in matters such as this. Too late. I've already sent the
complaint. I'm going through with this. I've had enough"~~ Just
another Scott Salberg ko0kso0t/meltdown from 2008 and we're
STILL waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting.... <LOL~!!!>
............................................................................................

"I think we'll be seeing less of bobandcarole...at least while I'm
around"
~Scott Allen Salberg, Resident Fool & Court Jester of APH
...............................................................................................
#1 pedophile hunter: The Urban Dictionary

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bobandcarole
..........................................................................................
#5 ruiner of usenet.
.......................................................................................
Owner and trainer of Tom Evans aka "mad as a box of frogs"
Tom Evans actual picture: http://yfrog.com/5zt0mevansj
.........................................................................................
"Publicity is publicity, good or bad it's STILL publicity"~ Alice
Cooper
.........................................................................................
"Did you plug the hole yet Daddy?"~~Malia Obama
.........................................................................................
Now I know why they call him tiger, "ELDRICK TONT Woods"??
LMAO!! .
..............................................................................................
"There are 1000 or more reasons for a person INNOCENT of child
molesting to kill themselves"~ Arrested filth-monger frank mccoy
..............................................................................................
"A victory for one pornographer is a victory for all of the human
race"--pedophile "XXX"
...........................................................................................
Image snap of Court and Conviction Record, Scott Salberg.
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u20/ninety7gt/Intelius.jpg
..........................................................................................
"I am so superior to you that you can't even see it"~ScottyFLL
aka "Enos Penvy" aka scott salberg-- <enospenvy @null.net>
violent criminal Broward County Fla.
............................................................................................
"You are not decent citizens, you are sick, degenerate filth. The
fact that you attend church regularly proves it"~W.T.S.--
<m14m @earthlink.net>
................................................................................................
"Only becasue they [bestiality and necrophilia] both ARE,
[harmless] for those who get off on that sort of thing. And what
*they* do is absolutely NONE of my busines NOR any of my concern.
NOR that of anyone else!!"~~Craig Chilton <r @z.com> showcases
why he's designated a ko0k even by those he claims to defend and
shows his ignorance in using a spell checker..
..............................................................................................

Why should I have to press one for English??? This is AMERICA .
<This space for rent>

[Hieronymous Corey]

On Feb 1, 5:37 pm, -̮̮̃-̃ ̾●̮̮̃̾•̃̾ ™Usenet Legends bobandcaяole ▲▲▲▲

<usenetlegends0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Everything you always wanted to know about a pure SHITBAG.... 29 pages
> of the charges against frank mccoy

You sound more like a publicist than a prosecutor. Are you trying to
secure a book deal or what?

[-̮̮̃-̃ ̾●̮̮̃̾•̃̾ ™Usenet Legends bobandcaяole ▲▲▲▲]

You paying? LMAO!!

Actually frank phreek is looking for a book deal. He'll even include
some of his finest literary concoctions like the one where the
pedophile splits the little boys asshole open with his dick, cums in
the bloody mess and cuts off the boys head. Sick shit like THAT is
why the bastard was arrested and by God he DESERVED to be arrested...

[Hieronymous Corey]

On Feb 1, 6:01 pm, -̮̮̃-̃ ̾●̮̮̃̾•̃̾ ™Usenet Legends bobandcaяole ▲▲▲▲

> Image snap of Court and Conviction Record, Scott Salberg.http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u20/ninety7gt/Intelius.jpg

>   ........................................................................... ...............

>  "I am so superior to you that you can't even see it"~ScottyFLL
>   aka "Enos Penvy" aka scott salberg-- <enospenvy @null.net>
>   violent criminal Broward County Fla.
>   ........................................................................... .................
>   "You are not decent citizens, you are sick, degenerate filth. The
>    fact that you attend church regularly proves it"~W.T.S.--
>   <m14m @earthlink.net>
>   ........................................................................... .....................
>   "Only becasue they [bestiality and necrophilia] both ARE,
> [harmless] for those who get off on that sort of thing.  And what
> *they* do is absolutely NONE of my busines NOR any of my concern.
> NOR that of anyone else!!"~~Craig Chilton <r @z.com> showcases
> why he's designated a ko0k even by those he claims to defend and
> shows his ignorance in using a spell checker..
>    ........................................................................... ...................
>
>  Why should I have to press one for English??? This is AMERICA .
>                                 <This space for rent>

That's what I meant. You sound like Frank's publicist and you're just
trying to create a hubbub, bub. I mean Bob.

[Frank McCoy]

-???-? ??????•?? ™Usenet Legends bobandca?ole ????

<usenetle...@gmail.com> wrote:

>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."

A completely FALSE accusation.
NONE of the 130+ stories presented by the prosecution described the
abuse, rape, or murder of any child. Having sex, yes. Abuse, no.

However, making it as part of the charge, in order to prejudice the
judge or jury, is de-riguer for a prosecutor.

Of course, to many, any person under eighteen having sex is being
abused; so ....

However, the prosecution kept using that very charge; showing that:
A. Either none of the prosecution-team ever read any of the stories.
Or:
B. They care nothing about the truth; only the charges.

Since that point wasn't germane to our argument of the stories being
legal, we didn't argue it.

On the other hand ... It might actually have *weakened* the case I was
trying to make about the stories being legal *even so*, if we had
objected loudly to that misrepresentation. So, perhaps better not.

Anybody there (and I presume the judge too) noticed that the two
stories specifically read into the record by the prosecution had NONE
of the accused evil specifications; and you can be damned sure they
*would* have chosen ones that did, if any such actually existed.

Yeah, I know:
I shouldn't be discussing the actual case.
But THAT in particular GRIPED me.
I felt it *should* have been brought up; but wasn't.
Perhaps better-so. ;-{

The soapbox is empty.
NEXT.

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

[Frank McCoy]

Hieronymous Corey <hierony...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 1, 5:37 pm, -???-? ??????•?? ™Usenet Legends bobandca?ole ????

><usenetlegends0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Everything you always wanted to know about a pure SHITBAG.... 29 pages
>> of the charges against frank mccoy
>
>You sound more like a publicist than a prosecutor. Are you trying to
>secure a book deal or what?

The Prosecutor OR my defense-lawyer could quite possibly write books
about this case ... AFTER it's finally decided.

It will probably be argued long after that.
B&C?
They don't even have a CLUE as to what went on; even though I've
tossed them a truckload.

OTOH ... Whenever did actually *knowing* jack-shit about a case ever
prevent a "historian" from writing books about it?

Look at all the crap about Kennedy's assassination.
The idea of writing a book is to make MONEY, not to be accurate.
Ask any journalist for a "yellow sheet".

[Hieronymous Corey]

On Feb 1, 7:26 pm, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:

Exactly my point. If you and this Bob and Carol character aren't
conspiring in some sort of Usenet promotional firestorm designed to
sell books then you should be. I never heard of you before information
about your case started getting crossposted to a group I read. His
commentary isn't doing you any personal damage. A little publicity
never did a writer any harm either. If I didn't believe your
contention to the contrary I'd swear he was your best friend or
something. He definitely appears to have your best interests at heart,
flamboyant rhetoric notwithstanding.

[Lou Keemia]

Hieronymous Corey wrote:
> On Feb 1, 7:26 pm, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:
> > Hieronymous Corey <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > Look at all the crap about Kennedy's assassination.
> > The idea of writing a book is to make MONEY, not to be accurate.
> > Ask any journalist for a "yellow sheet".
> >
> > --
> >     _____
> >      /  '               / ™
> >   ,-/-, __  __.  ____  /_
> >  (_/   / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
>
> Exactly my point. If you and this Bob and Carol character aren't
> conspiring in some sort of Usenet promotional firestorm designed to
> sell books then you should be.

bobandcarole have done well in posting facts and cites regarding Frank
McCoy.

> I never heard of you before information
> about your case started getting crossposted to a group I read.

Meaning *what*?? Frank McCoy and his sick and illegal stories have
been common knowledge in these groups for years, especially since his
arrest, noobie. Your ignorance isn't an excuse.

> His
> commentary isn't doing you any personal damage.

Frank McCoy has no friends or supporters here besides *you* perhaps.
The comments and cites provided over the years by bobandcarole,
Brandon Cartwright, etal, have shown Frank to be mentally and very
likely sexually deranged. Frank says he would love to be the leading
character in his stories.

> A little publicity
> never did a writer any harm either.

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.

> If I didn't believe your
> contention to the contrary I'd swear he was your best friend or
> something.

I would suggest you are his best friend since you choose to insinuate
he has done no wrong.

> He definitely appears to have your best interests at heart,
> flamboyant rhetoric notwithstanding.

Frank McCoy is a mental case and more than likely a Paedophile.
As provided by 'bobandcarole'.

''Frank McCoy is a man who started writing sex stories for his own
enjoyment.''

This is proof that he in fact *likes* this type of material and isn't
writing it entirely for usenet.

''His stories mostly involve incest, (family members having sex)
pedophilia, (young children having sex) pregnancy (yes, having babies)
and quite often several other quirks as well''

A sick medley to be sure.


''These stories (with a few notable exceptions) are usually completely
consensual (That means that all parties involved want to do whatever
they are doing.) and are basically love-stories. Even though most
people might consider this "abuse," nobody (with the above noted
exceptions) gets abused in his stories. If a little girl has sex,
(gets fucked) it's because she wants to get fucked, and asks for it''

http://www.asstr.org/~Frank_McCoy/

Oh, a preteen girl *asked for it* How quaint and telling about what
gets Franks dick hard. Only In Frank McCoy's world or perhaps Craig
Chilton's maybe.

[Hieronymous Corey]

LOL. Encore! Encore! LOL.

[Frank McCoy]

Hieronymous Corey <hirunny...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Exactly my point. If you and this Bob and Carol character aren't
>conspiring in some sort of Usenet promotional firestorm designed to
>sell books then you should be. I never heard of you before information
>about your case started getting crossposted to a group I read. His
>commentary isn't doing you any personal damage. A little publicity
>never did a writer any harm either. If I didn't believe your
>contention to the contrary I'd swear he was your best friend or
>something. He definitely appears to have your best interests at heart,
>flamboyant rhetoric notwithstanding.

Some time, if I can get them declared "legal", I'd like to see my
stories published in dead-tree format. Not because I want to make
money off them. I have already stated that almost all are in the
Public Domain because I declared them to be.

It's just that *I* enjoy reading stories in a format I can hold in my
hand; and I'm not talking about iPad, Nook, or Kindle. Though I
wouldn't mind them being available for-free there, either.

However, FIRST I have to win the case.

[Frank McCoy]

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.
My material has also been judged to be real "literature" by at least
one independent authority.

However, "Grandpa molesting a baby" is FAR from what I usually write.

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.

However, THOSE aren't being judged ... yet.

Sometime read about Jake Baker.
However, bad as HIS stories were, there were (and are) far worse.

[¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H]

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:21:56 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
wrote:

>-???-? ????????? ?Usenet Legends bobandca?ole ????

Let's get to the heart of the matter Frank, as the judge did when he
slapped down all your waffling,rationalizing and prevaricating.

You are in the position you are because you PROMOTE the sexual
exploitation of children by adults-right?

Nothing to do with free speech issues.

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=14&xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020100527789.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR&SizeDisp=7

"`[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.'"

[Hieronymous Corey]

On Feb 1, 11:14 pm, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:

To tell you the truth I have no interest in your stories whatever and
couldn't care less about your court case or whether your stories ever
get published or not. I read what you wrote about trying to get back
together with your wife and the emotion and honesty in your comment
touched me. Good luck. I hope everything works out for you two.

[Odin]

You sure respond and make your presence known a hell of a lot for
somebody who doesn't care.

> I read what you wrote about trying to get back
> together with your wife and the emotion and honesty in your comment
> touched me.

Awwwww, why not blow him a kiss? Maybe he'll share some of his child
porn with you.

> Good luck. I hope everything works out for you two.

Why would his wife want to get back together with a sick bastard who
truly believes he's doing no wrong by polluting the internet with
stories about preteen incest and raping babies? I would guess the rest
of his family disowned him too. I know i would.

[Hieronymous Corey]

'kiss'

[Frank McCoy]

Hieronymous Corey <hirunny...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I read what you wrote about trying to get back
>together with your wife and the emotion and honesty in your comment
>touched me. Good luck. I hope everything works out for you two.

It has it's ups and downs.
Sometimes she says she can't ever see me again because, "I'm not with
Christ," or something similar. Others ....

Well, last week I got to have her over here for *five whole days*!!
Yay!

I'm even going to be seeing her on the 12th; and *possibly* on
Valentine's Day as well. ;-}

Of course, the DOWN side of having her sleep over here for almost a
week, is waking up in the morning and turning over to talk to her ...
and she's not there.

So, things are going MUCH better right now.
She says she loves me. I love her. But she says she just can't LIVE
with me if I can't, "Accept Christ as my Savior." ;-{

[Hieronymous Corey]

On Feb 2, 9:50 am, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:

Easy breezy. All you have to do is figure out a context in which you
can honestly relate to Christ as your personal Savior and then commit
to it as if he were real. For a writer of your calibre that's no
contest with respect to syntax and semantics. A personal savior can be
something as simple as a life preserver, or what we used to call a
Life Saver which spawned a candy by that name so if you think of Jesus
as a fruity piece of candy then maybe you can take that idea to the
mint because they make those too. Then maybe you can cash in on what
I've been rambling about which is really nothing more complicated than
accepting a piece of candy from a stranger, and believe me when I tell
you you're not going to find anybody any stranger than me! LOL!

[Frank McCoy]

You're reading the Prosecution's argument, not any court's judgement.

No, I DON'T "promote the sexual exploitation of children."

However, even if I *DID*, that would definitely be protected speech
under the First Amendment!

The First Amendment is *NOT* there to protect those people who agree
with existing laws, rules, religious-beliefs, or mores. It is there
to protect those who want to FIGHT, CHANGE, or REMOVE such laws, even
very popular ones like anti-drug laws, and yes, sex-with-children.

That is *NOT* my particular intent; but if it was, then surely my
right to fight to change such laws or even such rulings by the Supreme
Court would be the MOST protected kind of free speech there is!

Look, for example, at all the anti-abortion people fighting to change
the past rulings of the SCOTUS.

After all, if we're not allowed to complain or fight to change laws
and court-rulings we feel are unfair or wrong, then what real freedom
DO we have?

The State, MAY indeed "have a compelling interest in prosecuting those
who sexually exploit children." However, the Prosecution in this case
makes a HUGE mistake in arguing that they have the right to suppress
arguments by anybody who wants to change laws against such
sexual-exploitation.

Just like the State can't stop Skinheads from publishing literature
arguing the legality of killing Jews and Catholics, nor NAMBLA from
posting arguments for the very things you accuse ME of.

The Government has a MUCH more compelling interest in allowing people
to advocate unpopular and even "obscene" practices and activities than
it ever does to prevent same.

That's WHY the Article enshrining Freedom-of-Speech is the very FIRST
article in the Bill-of-Rights.

People like you (and obviously the Prosecution too) seem to think that
if something is illegal, then people like me should be prevented from
even arguing that it should be made legal. That is NOT the case!

And THAT is what I'm fighting for; and what the whole case is about.

Yes, it *IS* a free-speech issue.

If somebody like me, or even somebody arguing that adults SHOULD have
free access to children for sex (Ick!) can be prevented from even
arguing that the laws should be changed, then ANY popular law can be
so-judged as being above even discussion of being removed, no matter
how unfair. If popular opinion of such arguments is allowed to rule,
then we quickly have the tyranny of the majority where ANY minority
can be subject to loss of freedom, liberty, belongings, or life.

The First Amendment is there to PROTECT our right to dissent.
Yes, even (or perhaps especially) in very unpopular issues.

If I want to argue the benefits of eating babies for breakfast (Like
Jonathan Swift did in "A Modest Proposal") then the State's "interest
in preventing cannibalism" does NOT override my right to PROPOSE,
DISCUSS, and yes ADVOCATE such an "obscene" idea.

That, after all, is what FREE SPEECH is all about.
NOT, as you and so many others seem to think, advocating popular
ideas.

The soapbox is empty.
NEXT!

[Frank McCoy]

Hieronymous Corey <hirunny...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 2, 9:50 am, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:
>> Hieronymous Corey <hirunnymouse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >I read what you wrote about trying to get back
>> >together with your wife and the emotion and honesty in your comment
>> >touched me. Good luck. I hope everything works out for you two.
>>
>> It has it's ups and downs.
>> Sometimes she says she can't ever see me again because, "I'm not with
>> Christ," or something similar.  Others ....
>>
>> Well, last week I got to have her over here for *five whole days*!!
>> Yay!
>>
>> I'm even going to be seeing her on the 12th; and *possibly* on
>> Valentine's Day as well.   ;-}
>>
>> Of course, the DOWN side of having her sleep over here for almost a
>> week, is waking up in the morning and turning over to talk to her ...
>> and she's not there.
>>
>> So, things are going MUCH better right now.
>> She says she loves me.  I love her.  But she says she just can't LIVE
>> with me if I can't, "Accept Christ as my Savior."   ;-{
>>
>

>Easy breezy. All you have to do is figure out a context in which you
>can honestly relate to Christ as your personal Savior and then commit
>to it as if he were real. For a writer of your calibre that's no
>contest with respect to syntax and semantics. A personal savior can be
>something as simple as a life preserver, or what we used to call a
>Life Saver which spawned a candy by that name so if you think of Jesus
>as a fruity piece of candy then maybe you can take that idea to the
>mint because they make those too. Then maybe you can cash in on what
>I've been rambling about which is really nothing more complicated than
>accepting a piece of candy from a stranger, and believe me when I tell
>you you're not going to find anybody any stranger than me! LOL!

Easy enough to SAY.
However, I have to live with myself.
I don't lie to my wife; and am not about to start now.
(I don't always TELL her everything; but then she doesn't always tell
ME everything either.)
I'm not going to be a hypocrite and pretend to be the Christian she
wants me to be. If I "went Christian" it would be "for real" and the
whole way. Ain't gonna' happen. I can't force myself to believe.

And, as Bujold had her character Miles point out, "The one thing you
cannot trade for your heart's desire, is your heart itself."

I cannot give up being ME to get HER; because then I likely would be a
person who no longer loved her.

[Frank McCoy]

¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H <¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H> wrote:

>You are in the position you are because you PROMOTE the sexual
>exploitation of children by adults-right?
>
>Nothing to do with free speech issues.

I should point out that Free Speech allows us to ADVOCATE blowing up
the government and killing all the politicians.

What is NOT allowed, is actually starting, working, and/or "conspiring
with others" to actually DO so.

HUGE difference; though people like you might not think so.

So, yes, it IS a Free Speech issue; even though I don't, as you
accuse, "PROMOTE the sexual exploitation of children by adults."

I don't promote the exploitation (sexual or otherwise) of ANYBODY.
I also don't promote the suppression of normal feelings or desires of
people, just because they happen to be sexual in nature and the people
suppressed are now defined as "children" because a law says they are.

To me, that's rather like accepting a law preventing Jews and Blacks
from selling to Aryans, because the Law defines them as sub-normal and
lesser people.

Deciding for OTHER people what they can and cannot do when nobody is
being hurt other than themselves is wrong. However, such "morality
laws" are all too common in this world.

Now when somebody ELSE is hurt, that's a different story.
However, THEN we get into arguments about whether somebody else
actually IS being hurt, as in abortion-rights and gun-control, and
yes, Age-of-Consent issues.

My objection is when YOU decide for ME, if I'm being hurt, and I don't
agree. Worse yet, is punishing ME for not agreeing that I was hurt;
and then claiming that the punishment you give me is the hurt I
received; and thus justifying the punishment!

Circular arguments like that justify many laws.
The most obvious being ones like those outlawing marijuana.
The WORST bad-effect of smoking weed is getting arrested.
And yet, THAT is used to justify making weed illegal.
Say what?

Same thing with most anti-sex laws.
The laws should outlaw abuse ... PERIOD.
Laws against a woman selling HERSELF should themselves be illegal.
Pimps taking their money should be illegal as theft or extortion.

[Hieronymous Corey]

You're over thinking this, Frank. Nobody asked or suggested you lie to
your wife. In fact nobody asked you to do anything you don't do
already of your own accord except to see what you do in a different
context. Jesus already saved you whether you like it or not. I don't
care one whit whether you believe me or not. Jesus the man is long
long dead so I know he doesn't give a shit whether you believe that he
existed or not. All you have to go on is the Jesus legend which you as
a writer have to parse in order to find the truth, if any, in it. If
it doesn't ring true don't believe it. Simple. Reduce to the truth,
the least common denominator between you and what you understand of
the life of Jesus, or of any man or woman who would offer their life
in sacrifice for another. I'm a veteran so that kind of sacrifice is
easy for me to identify with. I've lost friends that way.

[Frank McCoy]

>You're over thinking this, Frank. Nobody asked or suggested you lie to
>your wife. In fact nobody asked you to do anything you don't do
>already of your own accord except to see what you do in a different
>context. Jesus already saved you whether you like it or not. I don't
>care one whit whether you believe me or not. Jesus the man is long
>long dead so I know he doesn't give a shit whether you believe that he
>existed or not. All you have to go on is the Jesus legend which you as
>a writer have to parse in order to find the truth, if any, in it. If
>it doesn't ring true don't believe it. Simple. Reduce to the truth,
>the least common denominator between you and what you understand of
>the life of Jesus, or of any man or woman who would offer their life
>in sacrifice for another. I'm a veteran so that kind of sacrifice is
>easy for me to identify with. I've lost friends that way.

But she would expect me to go to Church every Sunday with her, bow my
head, and yes, agree with what the preacher says (and of course, all
the OTHER religious friends she has). IOW, do all the EXTERNAL things
that a believer of the type she is, does.

THAT is what I feel would make me a hypocrite.
I'm not going to *pretend* to be her type of believer.
Can't do that.

[Hieronymous Corey]

If your wife asked you to sing Girls Just Want To Have Fun with all
the heart feeling and sincerity you could muster would you simply
refuse because doing so would amount to nothing more than pretending
for her benefit? Do you really want to be happy or don't you? Sheesh.

[Ace♠]

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*

[Frank McCoy]

>If your wife asked you to sing Girls Just Want To Have Fun with all
>the heart feeling and sincerity you could muster would you simply
>refuse because doing so would amount to nothing more than pretending
>for her benefit? Do you really want to be happy or don't you? Sheesh.

Um ... I've turned down a temp-job that I REALLY needed, because it
was a telemarketing job pushing a product that I KNOW is a bad deal;
and telling people on the phone that there wouldn't be any pressure
from salesmen, when I also know (from personal experience) that the
whole idea was to get salesmen in-the-door to high-pressure the
prospective customers into buying the essentially worthless machines.

Oh yeah: I would have been really GOOD at selling the product ... If I
could ever live with myself for doing-so.

The only things I can sell, are those I personally believe in.
A GOOD salesman convinces himself that whatever he's selling IS great.

Because of that, that particular temp-agency refused to EVER offer me
another job.

Some things are just too much to ask, no matter what the cost.

[Frank McCoy]

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.
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.

[Hieronymous Corey]

LOL. OMG, you're hopeless. LOL.

We're not talking about a temp sales job, or at least I'm not. I'm
talking about loving your wife. In that context I don't understand too
much to ask or no matter the cost. I'd do anything for my wife.
Absolutely anything. Because I know. Know. Know. Know. With ABSOLUTE
certainty. That she ONLY wants the best for me so that doing WHATEVER
she says to do, INCLUDING those things I am resistant to, MUST be in
our mutual best interest. Basically, if you really loved your wife and
really wanted to be happy you'd grow the fuck up and do as you're told
and love it. You just don't really love your wife. You just want to
get laid and are feeling sexually frustrated at not having her steady
piece of ass at your disposal. No big deal. Go jerk off. You'll feel a
little better for a minute. LOL.

[¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H]

On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 09:22:06 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
wrote:

Nonsense.
It's part of the court's reasoning for why your motion was denied

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=12&xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020100527789.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR&SizeDisp=7

IV. DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT ON GROUNDS OF GOVERNMENT
MISCONDUCT BEFORE THE GRAND JURY (Doc. 50)

For the following reasons, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment on
Grounds of Government Misconduct Before the Grand Jury (Doc. 50) is
DENIED.

B. Court's Analysis and Conclusion

>
>No, I DON'T "promote the sexual exploitation of children."
>
>However, even if I *DID*, that would definitely be protected speech
>under the First Amendment!

Not according to the judge

"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."

[ 678 F.Supp.2d 1362 ]

>
>The First Amendment is *NOT* there to protect those people who agree
>with existing laws, rules, religious-beliefs, or mores. It is there
>to protect those who want to FIGHT, CHANGE, or REMOVE such laws, even
>very popular ones like anti-drug laws, and yes, sex-with-children.
>
>That is *NOT* my particular intent; but if it was, then surely my
>right to fight to change such laws or even such rulings by the Supreme
>Court would be the MOST protected kind of free speech there is!
>
>Look, for example, at all the anti-abortion people fighting to change
>the past rulings of the SCOTUS.
>
>After all, if we're not allowed to complain or fight to change laws
>and court-rulings we feel are unfair or wrong, then what real freedom
>DO we have?

You might as well argue for the legalization of murder.

>The State, MAY indeed "have a compelling interest in prosecuting those
>who sexually exploit children." However, the Prosecution in this case
>makes a HUGE mistake in arguing that they have the right to suppress
>arguments by anybody who wants to change laws against such
>sexual-exploitation.

Your arguments were listened to and rejected.

You are being tried for transmitting obscenity of the foulest kind not
for arguing that adults sexually abusing children should be legalized.

>Just like the State can't stop Skinheads from publishing literature
>arguing the legality of killing Jews and Catholics, nor NAMBLA from
>posting arguments for the very things you accuse ME of.
>
>The Government has a MUCH more compelling interest in allowing people
>to advocate unpopular and even "obscene" practices and activities than
>it ever does to prevent same.

Nonsense .
The protection of children is paramount.

>
>That's WHY the Article enshrining Freedom-of-Speech is the very FIRST
>article in the Bill-of-Rights.
>
>People like you (and obviously the Prosecution too) seem to think that
>if something is illegal, then people like me should be prevented from
>even arguing that it should be made legal. That is NOT the case!
>
>And THAT is what I'm fighting for; and what the whole case is about.

That's just your self-serving rationalization.

>Yes, it *IS* a free-speech issue.
>
>If somebody like me, or even somebody arguing that adults SHOULD have
>free access to children for sex (Ick!) can be prevented from even
>arguing that the laws should be changed, then ANY popular law can be
>so-judged as being above even discussion of being removed, no matter
>how unfair. If popular opinion of such arguments is allowed to rule,
>then we quickly have the tyranny of the majority where ANY minority
>can be subject to loss of freedom, liberty, belongings, or life.



>The First Amendment is there to PROTECT our right to dissent.
>Yes, even (or perhaps especially) in very unpopular issues.

It's not about dissent Frank, it's about transmitting obscenity of the
worst kind as the judge made clear.

"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...."

"As the history of obscenity jurisprudence shows, the federal
obscenity statutes are aimed at protecting society's morals from the
corruptive influence of obscene matter, and thus delve deeper than
merely prohibiting the public display of obscenity.

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."

>
>If I want to argue the benefits of eating babies for breakfast (Like
>Jonathan Swift did in "A Modest Proposal") then the State's "interest
>in preventing cannibalism" does NOT override my right to PROPOSE,
>DISCUSS, and yes ADVOCATE such an "obscene" idea.
>
>That, after all, is what FREE SPEECH is all about.
>NOT, as you and so many others seem to think, advocating popular
>ideas.

As the judge clearly told you, you are plain wrong.

"Roth has squarely placed obscenity and its distribution outside the
reach of the First Amendment and they remain there."

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=21&xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020100527789.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR&SizeDisp=7

Just two years later, to show that Stanley protected only the
possession of obscenity in the home and nothing more, the Supreme
Court held that obscenity distributors "have no claim, and could make
none, about unwanted governmental intrusions into the privacy of their
home" because "Roth has squarely placed obscenity and its distribution
outside the reach of the First Amendment and they remain there."
United States v. Reidel,402 U.S. 351, 355-56, 91 S.Ct. 1410,

[¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H]

On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 09:53:05 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
wrote:

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.

[¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H]

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

[Frank McCoy]

¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H <¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H> wrote:

Like I've said before:
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]

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:
>

> >>Ace? <avlasvery...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Frank McCoy wrote:

> >http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=23&xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020100...

LOL. You're not here to argue, yet you argue. You're not here to
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]

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.

[Hieronymous Corey]

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:
>

> >>>Ace? <avlasvery...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>Frank McCoy wrote:

> >>http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=23&xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020100...

> http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=11&xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020100...

>
> "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 -
>
> - 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]

¥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:
>

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.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.

[Usenet Legends -̮̮̃-̃ ̾●̮̮̃̾•̃̾ ™ ► ♫♫♫ ◄]

Frank McCoy wrote:
> -???-? ??????•?? ™Usenet Legends bobandca?ole ????

> <usenetle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >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."
>

> A completely FALSE accusation.
> NONE of the 130+ stories presented by the prosecution described the
> abuse, rape, or murder of any child. Having sex, yes. Abuse, no.

Sex with children is considered rape whether they give consent or not,
frank. It's called child molestation. Even you should know that. They
aren't old enough to give consent, especially that ''baby in the
cradle "Grandpa had sex with story" you polluted the internet with.

[¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H]

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.

[~ஜ۩۞۩ஜ~]

On Feb 1, 4:21 pm, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:
> -???-? ??????•?? ™Usenet Legends bobandca?ole ????
>

> <usenetlegends0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >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."
>

> A completely FALSE accusation.

That's what they all say.

> NONE of the 130+ stories presented by the prosecution described the
> abuse, rape, or murder of any child.  Having sex, yes.  Abuse, no.

Still hoping to dupe the pubic with the same nonsense for over 10
years now and still no one who matters is buying any of it.

> However, making it as part of the charge, in order to prejudice the
> judge or jury, is de-riguer for a prosecutor.

Still playing the "witch-hunt" card eh?

> Of course, to many, any person under eighteen having sex is being
> abused; so ....

Any child being sexually exploited by an adult is, was and always will
be abuse. Any form of sex between a child and an adult is always abuse
and molestation. Always has been, always will be. Only a child-
molester/pedophile type would claim it's not.

Hoping you get done to you what children are having done to them in
your stories, Frankiepoo.

Ralph

[~ஜ۩۞۩ஜ~]

On Feb 1, 5:44 pm, Hieronymous Corey <hirunnymouse...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> Exactly my point. If you and this Bob and Carol character aren't
> conspiring in some sort of Usenet promotional firestorm designed to
> sell books then you should be. I never heard of you before information
> about your case started getting crossposted to a group I read. His
> commentary isn't doing you any personal damage. A little publicity
> never did a writer any harm either. If I didn't believe your
> contention to the contrary I'd swear he was your best friend or
> something. He definitely appears to have your best interests at heart,
> flamboyant rhetoric notwithstanding.

If any actual publicity is desired, it'll have to be taken beyond
Usenet LOL.

[Hieronymous Corey]

Exactly. That's the constant underlying threat. That's what EVERYBODY
is so worried about. That's why everyone is discussing what they're
discussing. They're AFRAID the WORDS will get out, and that the WORDS
will be SEEN as OBSCENE. That's the issue here, OBSCENITY, not child
molestation or rape or nazi hunting. If you don't want people to know
what you write, or that you write here, fine. I'm sure you can
rationalize your need for anonymity. I don't feel the same need to
hide and apparently neither does Frank. For better or worse, we're
writers and only as good as our word. Frank took his stand in court. I
wouldn't read or write what he does, but I believe he has the right to
write it.

[Fred E Brown]

"Frank McCoy" <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote in message
news:gr8oi7l1jcrbf5rfe...@4ax.com...

¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H <¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©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.

[Fred E Brown]

"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...

> On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:03:13 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
> wrote:
>

>> $)A #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H < #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H

If you were 'fair minded' you would wait for the judges decision on
Frank's guilt or innocence.

[~ஜ۩۞۩ஜ~]

I was just making fun of the steady demise of an antiquated Usenet :-P

From what I understand about them, based on cometary, Frank's stories
are erotically appealing to those who like the idea of children being
victimized. A lot of child molestation begins with the predator's
exposure to child pornography, both pictures/video and in written
form. I've heard too many testimonials from convicted child molesters
stating that such exposure is what motivated them to start molesting
kids, to be convinced otherwise. Those who facilitate pedophiles
should be convicted the same as drug dealers. No wait, they should be
convicted far more severely than drug dealers.

[Hieronymous Corey]

> convicted far more severely than drug dealers.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

We're talking about text here. Information related in text. If anyone
provided specific information relating to the molestation of specific
children, then that to my mind would constitute what you refer to as
'those who facilitate pedophiles'. I don't think, because there is no
historic evidence to support it, that eliminating texts such as
Frank's fictional stories and imprisoning writers serves anybody's
best interests. It doesn't reduce the incidence of crime in society,
or pervse acts commited amongst people. Pervs are pervs. There have
always been pervs. There will always be pervs. They won't disappear
simply by criminalizing and taking away their spank material. Perverse
thinkers may be attracted to certain types of literature, but the act
of reading is not and cannot be the root cause of any mental
deficiency or defect because if it were we would have to close every
school immediately and return to family farming for fear of WORD
infection. LOL.

[Hieronymous Corey]

Type. Type. Type. Type. Type. Type. Type. We're talking/typing about
people, you specifically in this instance, typing people by what they
type. One can only wonder what type of person that makes you for
hoping what you hope happens to somebody else whose only crime was
typing things you wish didn't happen in real life.

[¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H]

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

>news:uhfpi7l31r7k5uaos...@4ax.com...
>> 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

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.

[Hieronymous Corey]

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>

> 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:
>

> >>>>>>>Ace? <avlasvery...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>Frank McCoy wrote:

> >>>>>>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?

[¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H]

On 4 Feb 2012 07:13:01 -0600, "Fred E Brown" <frede...@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>
>"Frank McCoy" <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote in message
>news:gr8oi7l1jcrbf5rfe...@4ax.com...

>> / ' / ?

>> ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
>> (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
>

> ￥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.

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]

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>

> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"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:
>

> >>>>>>Ace? <avlasvery...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>Frank McCoy wrote:

> >>>>>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

> >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?

[Fred E Brown]

>>> 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.
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]

>> ￥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.

> 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,
anything found during a search not listed on the search warrant is
inadmissible in any current or future legal action.

[Hieronymous Corey]

God does not act in mysterious ways, you moron. God obeys the Law.

[Hieronymous Corey]

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

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.

[¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H]

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.`

[¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H]

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
>>>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?

>> 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.

[Hieronymous Corey]

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>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>  $)A #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H < #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H

> >>>  #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H  AKA Numbnuts

> http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=12&xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020100...

>
> "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
bigger than yours. LOL.

[Hieronymous Corey]

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

>
> 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
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~]

Actually there's reams of historic evidence to support it. Unless
you've studied it as thoroughly as I have over a very long period of
time, and worked within the system, then you're pitting your
assumptions against my experience. Producing material involving child
abuse as a from of entertainment is dangerous and damaging. Convicted
child molesters themselves have proven this to be true by way of their
own testimony. Child pornography in any form is child pornography and
child pornography is illegal for good reason. The minute a
stranglehold on child pornography is loosened, incidents of child
abuse/exploitation/molestation increase. This is what happened in the
United States in the late 70's when the type of reasoning you're
appealing to was applied. To this day a large bulk of child
pornography still circulating on the internet, is stuff from that time
period (most of it these days containing only a minimally explicit
excerpt). The same thing happened in Russia beginning in the 90's and
it took a long time to get it under control. The pedophile must at all
times be given the message that pedophilia and child pornography is
not okay and never will be okay, even to the smallest degree. In the
90's and into the 00's child pornography was rampant on the internet.
Now it's been mostly completely shut down in regard to general public
access.
Again, convicted child molesters themselves have condemned child pron
"spank material" and made it clear that its existence is what got them
into acting it out for themselves in real life. It is an infection
that needs to be kept under control. And please don't act like the
written word carries no impact on influencing behavior, culture,
government, religion, crime, law, war and peace etc because history of
course has most certainly proven otherwise.

Ralph

[~ஜ۩۞۩ஜ~]

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.

[Hieronymous Corey]

I'd have to appeal to you expertise for the reams of historical
evidence you say exists. I know your data with respect to porn
availability and the prevalence and increase of pedophilia is flawed.
I'd like to know where you get your numbers. But all of that
notwithstanding, I see your commitment and feel your passion. I'm not
arguing with you about how heinous a crime child molestation is, but
if you think it appropriate to burn books and imprison writers then we
will always be in disagreement as to how to address the issue.

[Hieronymous Corey]

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. 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~]

For you this seems to be a purely Fahrenheit 451 issue, when it's
really about keeping children safe from predictors. Written child
pornography is and always will be illegal.The small minority who
oppose this for whatever misguided or deviant reasons, will never
change the vast majority's decision to keep it illegal.
You may think you know my data with respect to porn availability and
the prevalence and increase of pedophilia is flawed, but the experts
and law makers dealing with this matter know it to be accurate and
correct. A simple cold hard fact that endless debating between us will
never change.

[~ஜ۩۞۩ஜ~]

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.

[~ஜ۩۞۩ஜ~]

On Feb 5, 6:37 am, ~ஜ۩۞۩ஜ~ <rpres...@gobot.com> wrote:

> For you this seems to be a purely Fahrenheit 451 issue, when it's
> really about keeping children safe from predictors.

Predators.

[Hieronymous Corey]

LOL. I'm the adult son of a psychiatrist whose early specialty was
deviant sexual behavior. I'm also the father of an adult son who is
the same horn dog I was at twenty-five. For me it is a purely personal
issue. I'm really really really not trying to debate any issue with
you with respect to child rearing or child protection at all. All I'm
doing is expressing my right as a writer to write whatever I choose. I
represent myself as a writer. To restrict the rights of one writer
affects the rights of all writers. I personally don't find anything
abhorrent about the written word. There are texts that I agree with
and texts that I don't agree with. There are books and genres that
interest me and those that don't. Popular writers become popular for a
reason. Others are lost to oblivion for the same reason. Hiding the
cookie jar wasn't the prevalent parenting philosophy in our house. It
would've been pointless. My mom's cookie is legendary.

[Fred E Brown]

"民主諉過於人" <民主諉過於人 民主諉過於人> wrote in message

news:mg9ri7dsgpnjc9jee...@4ax.com...

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. 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.

So what? The Child porn on Frank's computers is inadmissable in any
court.

>>Tough titty, get used to it.
>>Remember, God acts in mysterious ways.
>
> More like the Devil looking after his own so far.`
>

And doing a damned good job!
If Obama can ignore the country's laws, so can Frank.

[Hieronymous Corey]

My reasoning is indeed my reasoning. It serves me. 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. Congratulations! Please enjoy these fine
parting gifts. LOL!

[Fred E Brown]

"民主諉過於人" <民主諉過於人 民主諉過於人> 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

>>>>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.

>>> 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

You keep confusing child porn with obsecenity. Frank was charged with
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."

Again, this is not a child pornography case.

> "`[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

> 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???????

[¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H]

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.

[Hieronymous Corey]

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>

> >> 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

Obfuscation noted. That's not confusing the issue at all.

[¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H]

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

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,

>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.

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.

[Hieronymous Corey]

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>

> 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>

> >> wrote:
>
> >>>>>  $)A #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H < #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H

> >>>>>  #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H  AKA Numbnuts

> >>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.

[~ஜ۩۞۩ஜ~]

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,
unless you intend on being your only customer.

> What looks like
> circles from your perspective are actually spirals, like a double
> helix.

i.e. scribbling. Hey, you said it, not me.

> Thanks for the demonstration. From it I can see exactly who you
> fought, how and what you won.

You can see exactly who I fought in alt.support.boy-lovers? Okay, name
them.

> Congratulations! Please enjoy these fine
> parting gifts. LOL!

What makes you think I'm parting?

[~ஜ۩۞۩ஜ~]

On Feb 5, 7:02 am, Hieronymous Corey <hieronymous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 9:37 am, ~ஜ۩۞۩ஜ~ <rpres...@gobot.com> wrote:

> > For you this seems to be a purely Fahrenheit 451 issue, when it's
> > really about keeping children safe from predictors. Written child
> > pornography is and always will be illegal.The small minority who
> > oppose this for whatever misguided or deviant reasons, will never
> > change the vast majority's decision to keep it illegal.
> > You may think you know my data with respect to porn availability and
> > the prevalence and increase of pedophilia is flawed, but the experts
> > and law makers dealing with this matter know it to be accurate and
> > correct. A simple cold hard fact that endless debating between us will
> > never change.
>
> LOL. I'm the adult son of a psychiatrist whose early specialty was
> deviant sexual behavior.

Any chance he could trade places with you?

> I'm also the father of an adult son who is
> the same horn dog I was at twenty-five.

You sound much younger than that.

> For me it is a purely personal
> issue.

Uh yeah, that's what I said. A purely personal issue regarding
literature. Frank doesn't produce literature any more than an
orangutang banging garbage cans produces music.
Unless that is you want to stay safe on eye-of-the-beholder base.

> I'm really really really not trying to debate any issue with
> you with respect to child rearing or child protection at all. All I'm
> doing is expressing my right as a writer to write whatever I choose. I
> represent myself as a writer. To restrict the rights of one writer
> affects the rights of all writers.

Someone who cranks out sloppy pulp for the sole intention of providing
deviant erotic fodder for those who prey upon children, can hardly be
considered a writer. Your stance makes as little sense as a painter
objecting to graffiti tagging being against the law. Or a butcher
objecting to animal cruelty being against the law. Get my drift?...

> I personally don't find anything
> abhorrent about the written word.

So you're saying that no one has ever or will ever write anything
you'd consider abhorrent?
Riiiight.

> There are texts that I agree with
> and texts that I don't agree with. There are books and genres that
> interest me and those that don't. Popular writers become popular for a
> reason. Others are lost to oblivion for the same reason. Hiding the
> cookie jar wasn't the prevalent parenting philosophy in our house. It
> would've been pointless. My mom's cookie is legendary.

That's all very poetic, but poetry really doesn't address the issue of
someone basically encouraging depraved adults to sexually abuse
children.
And since you feel the need of bringing up your dad's credentials for
whatever reason, it might interest you to know that I'm a profiler
with a PhD in behavioral science. I've been working within the system
regarding both perpetrators and victims of pedophilia since a little
before your horn dog son was born.
I guarantee you'd be quite abhorred at what I've seen, heard and read
in all that time. And if your son had been molested because someone
had read some tantalizing stories about having a secret sexual
relationship with the little boy next door (a case study I've seen by
the hundreds), you'd be singing a different tune. I guarantee it.

[Hieronymous Corey]

Good morning. How's it going?

[Hieronymous Corey]

Good morning, again. I wouldn't be "singing a different tune". I sing
the tunes I sing. As a PhD in behavioral science, you know that
already. I appreciate your effort. I am abhorred by what I've seen
people do to each other like I am heartened by how I've seen people
help one another. People are people. Everybody is fucked up. Everybody
needs treatment for something. If your purpose in life is to track,
chase, catch, and kill baby fuckers then be my guest. I imagine that
to be very emotionally challenging work. I hope you get the help you
so obviously need in dealing with what you've witnessed.

[Fred E Brown]

"民主諉過於人" <民主諉過於人 民主諉過於人> 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:
>>>
>>>>

>>>>>> $)A #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H < #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H

>>>>>> #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H AKA Numbnuts

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.
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.

Provided they fail the Miller test, all three parts.

>
>>> "`[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.

And again you from the lower end of the IQ pool fail to distinguish between

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 .

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?

Silly boy.

[Hieronymous Corey]

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>

> > 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>

> >>>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]

On 6 Feb 2012 07:33:01 -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

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.

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.

>
>
>>>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.

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]

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>

> 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>

> >> 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>

> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>  $)A #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H < #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H

> >>>>>>>  #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H  AKA Numbnuts

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?

[¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H]

On 6 Feb 2012 07:33:01 -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

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.

[Hieronymous Corey]

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>

> 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>

> >> 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>

> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>  $)A #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H < #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H

> >>>>>>>  #$("#$ D? (. 1L? (.!h H  AKA Numbnuts

> >>>>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.

[Frank McCoy]

Hieronymous Corey <hierony...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I don't feel the same need to
>hide and apparently neither does Frank. For better or worse, we're
>writers and only as good as our word. Frank took his stand in court. I
>wouldn't read or write what he does, but I believe he has the right to
>write it.

FWIW: I didn't really WANT to stand up in court.
Only, I didn't see anybody ELSE doing it. ;-{
I really expected publishers to do so; after all, THEY were the people
making money off of "soft porn" as they called erotic stories; but
none did.
They all caved in without even being charged.
So, I figured somebody had to
All documented in the preamble to the first story I ever posted in
about mid-1994.

Some people (my wife included) think I was bloody stupid to do so.
"Why not let somebody ELSE stand up for that?"
Only nobody else was. ;-{

So, I sat down, and with help, I set out to deliberately offend as
many people as possible (A La Jonathan Swift and "A Modest Proposal")
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
by writing a true SEX story and not a bowdlerized one, that was also a
love-story and as nearly completely consensual as possible. Many
(most) of the truly BAD stories on the net in both grammar,
punctuation, spelling, and story-lines are of rape, murder, force, and
abuse. I thought I could offend nearly everybody WITHOUT including
any one of those items in a SEX story that would be fun, funny, art,
and an easy-to-read STORY that would entertain, not bore. It would
also be (rather weakly hidden) propaganda against certain truly
idiotic laws that have no real purpose other than to support this
society's religious viewpoints. "Blue Laws"

By doing so, like Swift's rather offensive monograph, the story would
definitely be literature, art, and social-commentary; any one of which
would meet the "Miller Test" for obscenity.

But I really wished I could have kept my stories to myself and the few
people who seemed to really enjoy them. It would have been SO much
less trouble and expense to do so.

That was then.
This is now.
The unexpected RESPONSE I got, was overwhelming.
I once told people that if I got more negative responses than positive
ones, I'd stop posting. I would have too.

Only: I've got about 50,000 positive responses, all the way from
one-word comments like, "Wonderful!" or, "More!" to studied discourses
on everything from my punctuation and grammar to whether or not some
obscure thing in a particular story would actually WORK.

In contrast, I've gotten only about 35 negative email or newsgroup
responses (counting several posts from the same person as one). About
five of those I discussed what was bothering them with; and three I
managed to make understand what and why I was doing.

OTOH, by discussing my stories and explaining why, I also managed to
turn at least two supporters into detractors and possible enemies;
when I explained that I wasn't a pedophile or interested in having sex
with children; but wanted young people to be free to HAVE sex; since
with today's modern prophylaxis there isn't the NEED to enforce
chastity.

So, one woman said that meant I wasn't a pedophile, but worse: "An
enabler". Geesh.

Ah well. The response was STILL close to 1000 to 1 in-favor.
The longer it went, the less able I was to back down.
It seems *nobody* else was willing to stand up and fight; so I felt it
my Civic Duty to do so.

SINCE that first story was posted, tens of thousands of OTHER, far
WORSE stories than mine have been posted to the Net and newsgroups.
However, I'm still the only one who has publicly posted his
willingness to fight, in court, for the right to write, post, and read
explicitly erotic stories that are yes, literature, art, humor, and
fun-reading.

OTOH, I've noticed that more and more mainline stories, from "Romance
Novels" you find on the Supermarket shelves to the better
Science-Fiction have been including far more explicit and detailed
love-scenes than they ever did before my stories came out.

Whether or not that's a secondary result of my posts, I'll never know;
but I tend to believe it is a side-effect of such stories being out
there and (up until now) not being prosecuted.

If so, even if I get sent to jail, I'll figure I had a good effect on
the world of literature by my efforts.

Of course, those who absolutely HATE sex and think it's an invention
of the Devil ....

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

[Frank McCoy]

~?????~ <rpre...@gobot.com> wrote:

>> Of course, to many, any person under eighteen having sex is being
>> abused; so ....
>
>Any child being sexually exploited by an adult is, was and always will
>be abuse. Any form of sex between a child and an adult is always abuse
>and molestation. Always has been, always will be. Only a child-
>molester/pedophile type would claim it's not.
>
You're calling sex between two fifteen-year-old adults abuse.
Both parties being both abuser and victim. Yes, it HAS happened.

Rather like the boy that age jacking-off being accused of child-abuse
for having sex with himself.

Be careful with your definitions of "child being abused".

[Frank McCoy]

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.
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.

[¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:14:27 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
wrote:

>~?????~ <rpre...@gobot.com> wrote:
>
>>> Of course, to many, any person under eighteen having sex is being
>>> abused; so ....
>>
>>Any child being sexually exploited by an adult is, was and always will
>>be abuse. Any form of sex between a child and an adult is always abuse
>>and molestation. Always has been, always will be. Only a child-
>>molester/pedophile type would claim it's not.
>>
>You're calling sex between two fifteen-year-old adults abuse.
>Both parties being both abuser and victim. Yes, it HAS happened.
>
>Rather like the boy that age jacking-off being accused of child-abuse
>for having sex with himself.

Pathetic attempt at diversion.

The OP clearly stated "any child being sexually exploited by an adult

is, was and always will be abuse."

>Be careful with your definitions of "child being abused".

"Any form of sex between a child and an adult is always abuse

and molestation" is what was said.

That clearly covers your twisted desires for grandfathers raping
babies in their cribs, doesn't it?

[Frank McCoy]

~?????~ <rpre...@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.

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.

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.

[¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 23:02:46 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
wrote:

>It seems *nobody* else was willing to stand up and fight; so I felt it
>my Civic Duty to do so.

Spare us the tedious, endless rationalizing and self-serving bull
crap.

You had no choice whatsoever, and it's a matter of public record
were utterly stunned when the Federal Marshals came and dragged you
off in chains.

You lost all claim to victim status when the Justice Department
released details of the thousands of photographs and videos of
children being sexually assaulted you amassed.

It also showed your wife was perfectly truthful when she told the
police you had a collection of child pornography, as opposed to the
lies you spouted to try to worm your way out of it.

[Frank McCoy]

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.

[¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H]

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.

[¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 23:02:46 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
wrote:

> but wanted young people to be free to HAVE sex;

Yeah right Frank.

You want babies in cribs to be free to have sex with old men and
that's why you write pedophile pornography?

Got it.

>since with today's modern prophylaxis there isn't the NEED to enforce
>chastity.

There is the need to protect minors from contracting AIDS from those
you "embolden" in their sexual assaults

[~ஜ۩۞۩ஜ~]

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?
At least with that you'd be appealing to a higher standard of
literature.

[~ஜ۩۞۩ஜ~]

On Feb 6, 10:14 pm, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:

> ~?????~ <rpres...@gobot.com> wrote:
> >> Of course, to many, any person under eighteen having sex is being
> >> abused; so ....
>
> >Any child being sexually exploited by an adult is, was and always will
> >be abuse. Any form of sex between a child and an adult is always abuse
> >and molestation. Always has been, always will be. Only a child-
> >molester/pedophile type would claim it's not.
>
> You're calling sex between two fifteen-year-old adults abuse.

No Frank, that was your selection, not mine.

[~ஜ۩۞۩ஜ~]

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.

[~ஜ۩۞۩ஜ~]

On Feb 6, 10:32 pm, ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H <¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:14:27 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
> wrote:
>

Now that's the type of selection I'd make.

[Frank McCoy]

¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H <¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H> wrote:

>On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 23:02:46 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
>wrote:
>
>>It seems *nobody* else was willing to stand up and fight; so I felt it
>>my Civic Duty to do so.
>
>Spare us the tedious, endless rationalizing and self-serving bull
>crap.
>
>You had no choice whatsoever, and it's a matter of public record
>were utterly stunned when the Federal Marshals came and dragged you
>off in chains.
>

Surprised as hell that it took them FOURTEEN BLOODY YEARS, yes.
I *expected* them to come knocking the next day after I first posted.

>You lost all claim to victim status when the Justice Department
>released details of the thousands of photographs and videos of
>children being sexually assaulted you amassed.
>
>It also showed your wife was perfectly truthful when she told the
>police you had a collection of child pornography, as opposed to the
>lies you spouted to try to worm your way out of it.

She called *my stories* CP.
That's what she had out for the cops to look at.
They are NOT CP. No way; no how.
Yes, I admitted writing AND posting them to the police.
I even showed them more of the same.
No charges ever filed.
The cops agreed; and at least three judges here in Minnesota ALSO
agreed that my stories weren't illegal.

Never tried to "worm my way out of it" at all.
Never denied that I wrote AND posted them.
Just claimed my stories are legal.
And nobody has EVER charged in Court that they are Child Pornography.
Just that they might be "obscene".
And THAT is what the trial was all about.

[Frank McCoy]

¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H <¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H> wrote:

You, OTOH, want to arrest kids for having sex with ... kids.
And no, they shouldn't be getting AIDS.
Kids should be TAUGHT to protect themselves; whether from catching
STDs when having consensual sex, *OR* from adults who want to "abuse
them".
But then, I feel education solves most social problems; while the
religious-bound feel that keeping children ignorant is better; because
then they get punished by catching horrid diseases or getting
pregnant, or even being abused by some slimy pedophile. They feel
kids SHOULD have such nasty results for even thinking about sex.

And no, most kids do NOT need some nasty old man "grooming them" to
get interested in sex. Especially not today, what with TV and the
movies and even games pushing sex like a dope-peddler pushes crack.
Not that most "kids" even need such stimulation. Most adults somehow
tend to forget (or perhaps WANT to forget) just how sexual they were
at the ages they now want to prevent their children from knowing
anything about said sex. It never DID work. It doesn't now.

It ain't "babies having sex". It's teenagers in the prime of their
sexuality and fertility having *unprotected* sex, because their
parents don't want to admit that their children are interested; and
refuse to teach them or allow schools to do so, under the idiotic idea
that if nobody ever talks about sex, teenagers won't discover it.

Blech!
And THAT (OK, I'll finally admit it.) is the REAL propaganda I
include, if subliminally, in every story I write: EDUCATION.
Kids who are taught in school about sex have LESS sex than those kept
ignorant. They also have FAR less pregnancies and STDs.

That lesson, no matter how true, is something the religious fanatics
REALLY hate. Actually, they hate it MORE because it IS so true.

[Frank McCoy]

¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H <¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H ¥Á¥D½Ó¹L©ó¤H> wrote:

Sorry, but you won't find THAT in any of my stories.
Kinda takes the wind out of THAT argument.

[Frank McCoy]

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.
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]

~?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.

>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.