Re: Frank McCoy's babyrape videos discovered by Feds frankie freek's caught with his hand in teh cookie jar ...
Usenet Legends bobandcarole £
> http://ia311026.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.71112/gov.uscourts.gamd.71112.100.4.pdf
>
> Generic PC�
> a. �Master Drive� is an image copy of a 250GB disk drive seized from
> the residence of Frank McCoy
> and created by SA Tad Schlatre.
> b. �Slave Drive� is an image copy of a 250GB disk drive seized from
> the residence of Frank McCoy
> and created by SA Tad Schlatre.
> 2. �Generic PC # 2�
> a. �Master Drive� is an image copy of a 40GB disk drive seized from
> the residence of Frank McCoy
> and created by SA Tad Schlatre.
> b. �Slave Drive� is an image copy of a 40GB disk drive seized from the
> residence of Frank McCoy and
> created by SA Tad Schlatre.
> 3. �NetDisk Ext. USB Drv� is an image copy of a 160GB disk drive
> seized from the residence of Frank
> McCoy and created by SA Tad Schlatre.
> 4. �Toshiba Laptop� is an image copy of a 40GB disk drive seized from
> the residence of Frank McCoy and
> created by SA Tad Schlatre.
> EXAMINATION REQUESTED:
> Identify evidence of violations of Title 18, U.S.C. � 2252 and � 2252A
> per search warrant 1:08-MJ-37 (RLH).
> FINDINGS:
> ITEM 1 �Generic PC�
> 1. Child Pornography Images: Thousands of images and videos of minors
> engaged in sexually explicit
> conduct were identified.
> a. Item 1a: Generic PC Master Drive
> i. C:\Adult: This folder contains 68 video files and includes videos
> of minors engaged in
> sexually explicit conduct. File names of the video files include:
> Examiner: James Fottrell Acts Number: 200500456
> Subject: Forensic Examination Report � Frank McCoy
> Case Type: Child Exploitation Report Date: November 19, 2008
> Attachments: 12 Page 1
> Case 1:07-cr-00018-WLS-RLH Document 100-5 Filed 03/04/2009 Page 1 of 8
> Form HT-11
> Examiner: James Fottrell Acts Number: 200500456
> Subject: Forensic Examination Report � Frank McCoy
> Case Type: Child Exploitation Report Date: November 19, 2008
> Attachments: 12 Page 2
> Vicky-Suckcum.avi
> YNGSEX1.AVI
> 10yr_old_fucking.avi
> 13ontop.avi
> BabyJ-Little-Shot.avi
> Babyj-Lover.avi
> BabyShiv.avi
> OhDaddy.avi
Let's see the pedo filth and the callahans trash flail about trying to
explain this. :-)
I'm not surprised at all as I've said all along mccoy is a sick piece
of shit. Only
a demented mind would write the sickening things he does and normal
people
would be appalled at the thought of being responsible for publishing
such vile filth.
---
#1 pedophile hunter: the wikisposure project.
http://www.wikisposure.com/Alt.support.boy-lovers
#5 ruiner of usenet.
Owner and trainer of Tom Evans aka "mad as a box of frogs"
http://yfrog.com/5zt0mevansj
"Publicity is publicity, good or bad it's STILL publicity"~ Alice
Cooper
Now I know why they call him tiger, "Eldrick Tont Woods"?? LMAO!!
Fred B. Brown
"Ultima Thule" <PYT...@THULE.COM> wrote in message
news:mo0h06ph7n7f3u2r4...@4ax.com...
>>Case Type: Child Exploitation Report Date: November 19, 2008
>>Attachments: 12 Page 1
>>Case 1:07-cr-00018-WLS-RLH Document 100-5 Filed 03/04/2009 Page 1 of 8
>>Form HT-11
>>Examiner: James Fottrell Acts Number: 200500456
>>Case Type: Child Exploitation Report Date: November 19, 2008
>>Attachments: 12 Page 2
>>Vicky-Suckcum.avi
>>YNGSEX1.AVI
>>10yr_old_fucking.avi
>>13ontop.avi
>>BabyJ-Little-Shot.avi
>>Babyj-Lover.avi
>>BabyShiv.avi
>>OhDaddy.avi
Ultima was so thrilled at finding this tidbit he forgot to comment
before hitting the enter key.
Fred B. Brown
(1.) There was no mention of examiner Forttrell testifying in court.
(2.) Frank's computers were not seized until after his indictment
by the Georgia grand jury who only indicted him on the inter-
state transportation and obscenity charges.
(3.) There was no mention of child pornography charges at trial.
(4.) The time line of motions filed shows a defense motion being
granted prohibiting the prosecution from raising a certain issue,
not spelled out, during Frank's trial.
(5.) A defense motion was entered requesting the prosecution be
blocked from amending the original indictment.
What this all means probably won't be clear until the judgment
is handed down.
If Frank is acquitted of the obscenity charges the search warrant
becomes invalid and anything found on his computers can't be
used against him since the warrant did not specifically mention
child porn. They were looking for his stories.
Usenet Legends bobandcarole ♫
> "Ultima Thule" <PYTH...@THULE.COM> wrote in message
>
> news:99vg06troojgsf2eh...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://ia311026.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.71112/gov.us...
LOL!!!! BULL-shit!!!!!!!!!!
Using your pedo/ignorant logic if they happened to find a kilo
of cocaine he wouldn't be charged with that either, right, Jethro?
They had a valid warrant to search for some illegal activity, if
they happen to find more illegal activity it's icing on teh cake.
If a cop pulls you over for speeding and finds drugs in teh car
do they throw it out of court because he pulled him over for speeding
and not drugs?
pedo frankie teh freek is in a shitload of trouble, freddie boi.
Looks
like hiz old deviant ass will die in prison and that's a good thing!
Think he's nervous now!???
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Fred B. Brown
> On 4 Jun 2010 08:50:03 -0500, "Fred B. Brown" <fredb...@nowhere.com>
>
> Do you foolishly imagine he gets a pass because he has yet to be
> convicted and sentence on a lesser charge?
>
> Staring 25 years to life and certain death in prison Frank has almost
> certainly thrown the rest of his ring under the bus.
>
> Stick a fork in them they are done.
Come on, this wasn't a mafia or terrorist trial that lasted 6 months.
It was a 2 day trial. The judge should have handed down a ruling
in a week at the most. It's not like he had to wade through 30K
pages of testimony.
Looks to me like the judge is between a rock and a hard place.
Find Frank guilty and be overturned by the appellate court or
find Frank innocent and face the wrath of the outraged Christian
sex hysterics.
What to do, what to do.
Fred B. Brown
> On 4 Jun 2010 08:50:02 -0500, "Fred B. Brown" <fredb...@nowhere.com>
Then why did you comment 8 minutes later?
Tell the truth, you were drooling so badly you
had to dry out the keyboard before the 'puter
shorted out.
Nobody posts an FYI and then comments with a reply.
Silly boy.
ThePsyko
heard Ultima Thule cry out in
news:ai3h06ls1lili0ack...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 21:46:09 -0700 (PDT), Usenet Legends bobandcarole �
> <usenetleg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Ultima Thule schreef:
>>> http://ia311026.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.71112/gov.us
>>> courts.gamd.71112.100.4.pdf
>>>
>>> Generic PC?
>>> a. ?Master Drive? is an image copy of a 250GB disk drive seized from
>>> the residence of Frank McCoy
>>> and created by SA Tad Schlatre.
>>> b. ?Slave Drive? is an image copy of a 250GB disk drive seized from
>>> the residence of Frank McCoy
>>> and created by SA Tad Schlatre.
>>> 2. ?Generic PC # 2?
>>> a. ?Master Drive? is an image copy of a 40GB disk drive seized from
>>> the residence of Frank McCoy
>>> and created by SA Tad Schlatre.
>>> b. ?Slave Drive? is an image copy of a 40GB disk drive seized from
>>> the residence of Frank McCoy and
>>> created by SA Tad Schlatre.
>>> 3. ?NetDisk Ext. USB Drv? is an image copy of a 160GB disk drive
>>> seized from the residence of Frank
>>> McCoy and created by SA Tad Schlatre.
>>> 4. ?Toshiba Laptop? is an image copy of a 40GB disk drive seized
>>> from the residence of Frank McCoy and
>>> created by SA Tad Schlatre.
>>> EXAMINATION REQUESTED:
>>> Identify evidence of violations of Title 18, U.S.C. ? 2252 and ?
>>> 2252A per search warrant 1:08-MJ-37 (RLH).
>>> FINDINGS:
>>> ITEM 1 ?Generic PC?
>>> 1. Child Pornography Images: Thousands of images and videos of
>>> minors engaged in sexually explicit
>>> conduct were identified.
>>> a. Item 1a: Generic PC Master Drive
>>> i. C:\Adult: This folder contains 68 video files and includes videos
>>> of minors engaged in
>>> sexually explicit conduct. File names of the video files include:
>>> Examiner: James Fottrell Acts Number: 200500456
>>> Subject: Forensic Examination Report ? Frank McCoy
>>> Case Type: Child Exploitation Report Date: November 19, 2008
>>> Attachments: 12 Page 1
>>> Case 1:07-cr-00018-WLS-RLH Document 100-5 Filed 03/04/2009 Page 1 of
>>> 8 Form HT-11
>>> Examiner: James Fottrell Acts Number: 200500456
>>> Subject: Forensic Examination Report ? Frank McCoy
>>> Case Type: Child Exploitation Report Date: November 19, 2008
>>> Attachments: 12 Page 2
>>> Vicky-Suckcum.avi
>>> YNGSEX1.AVI
>>> 10yr_old_fucking.avi
>>> 13ontop.avi
>>> BabyJ-Little-Shot.avi
>>> Babyj-Lover.avi
>>> BabyShiv.avi
>>> OhDaddy.avi
>>
>>
>>Let's see the pedo filth and the callahans trash flail about trying to
>>explain this. :-)
>>I'm not surprised at all as I've said all along mccoy is a sick piece
>>of shit. Only
>>a demented mind would write the sickening things he does and normal
>>people
>>would be appalled at the thought of being responsible for publishing
>>such vile filth.
>
> He is looking at 25 years to life now not 5 years.
>
> I suspect the next step may well be his victims stepping up now they
> know they are safe.
Unless he's the one that made the videos and they know he kept them to
himself, I doubt all of them will feel "safe" stepping up. Once a child
has been violated in that way, trust is a hard thing to come by.
I'm surprised David hasn't popped in yet to say that unless you have
actually SEEN the videos, you don't know what's in em and they're
probably nothing.
--
ThePsyko
Public Enemy #7
**Pissing off the planet, one person at a time**
Mort Davis
"ThePsyko" <thep...@itookmyprozac.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9D8DB1EDC8...@nntp.petitmorte.net...
the same for the others. They're more likely a world away and the videos to
be years old. Doubtful he has any "victims".
XXX
Who says that Frank MADE those movies? The person who made the "Vicky"
movies was her father and he was already arrested.
Blob and Crap Hole Usenet Luzerz
> (2.) My wife left me cuz my cock was so small
> (3.) There was no mention of Red Dog when she left
> (4.) The time line of motions Red Dog makes on my arsehole is hourly
> (5.) Red Dog entered requesting NO KY Jelly
> What this all means probably won't be clear until I have a dump tommorrow
>LOL!!!! I need to take a shit!!!!!!!!!!
>Using my pedo/ignorant logic if they happened to find a kilo
>of cocaine at my house Red Dog would be right in there
> I'm gettin' nervous now!???
>HARDER RED DOG MMMMMMMMMMMM UNNNNNNNNHHHH
>YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
>---
>#1 poopie hunter: the bungholers project.
>#1 Goof of usenet.
>Owner and trainer of Red Dog's jimmy pipe
>Now I know why they me Blob.
Word, you fat fuck luzer.
ThePsyko
heard XXX cry out in news:20100604232843.383$K...@newsreader.com...
> ThePsyko <thep...@itookmyprozac.com> wrote:
>> On 03 Jun 2010 I stormed the castle called alt.activism.children and
>> heard Ultima Thule cry out in
>> news:ai3h06ls1lili0ack...@4ax.com...
>>
>> > On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 21:46:09 -0700 (PDT), Usenet Legends
>> > bobandcarole £ <usenetleg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Ultima Thule schreef:
>> >>> http://ia311026.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.71112/gov
>> >>> .us courts.gamd.71112.100.4.pdf
I never said he made them
XXX
No, but the Ultimate Tool and the REAL psychos are implying it.
Usenet Legends bobandcarole ----->♫♫♫♫
It doesn't matter who made teh movies. what matters iz they were on
frankie freeks hard-drive and now he's toast. I actually drank a glass
of
champagne in celebration of frankies impending doom. Ya gotta luv it
when a plan comes together!!
---
#1 pedophile hunter: the wikisposure project.
http://www.wikisposure.com/Alt.support.boy-lovers
#5 ruiner of usenet.
Owner and trainer of Tom Evans aka "mad as a box of frogs"
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
Mort Davis
>
> Whether he raped victims on or off-camera is unknown at this stage.
>
Hard to rape" a "victim" he nevedr met. "Vicky" was a grown woman by the
timr zfrank alegedly edited her videos. The others were ten or fifteen years
old and none of them live within hundreds of miles of Frank.
You're owning yoursel;f again, dipshit.
Fred B. Brown
"ThePsyko" <thep...@itookmyprozac.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9D8DB1EDC8...@nntp.petitmorte.net...
Many of these videos were made from the legal Color Climax
8mm films from the 70's. The film would be projected on a
screen and VHS video taped and then processed into an .avi
which was the popular format at that time.
Fred B. Brown
> On 4 Jun 2010 12:09:02 -0500, "Fred B. Brown" <fredb...@nowhere.com>
> regards the search warrant.
>
> The verdict on the stories has become the least of Frank and his rings
> problems.
>
> http://ia311026.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.71112/gov.uscourts.gamd.71112.100.4.pdf
>
> Identify evidence of violations of Title 18, U.S.C. � 2252 and � 2252A
> per search warrant 1:08-MJ-37 (RLH).
UhHuh, but no mention of child porn at Frank's trial. Hmmmmm.
Court ruling blocking the prosecution from raising certain issues
during trial. Hmmmmmm.
Motion by the defense to block prosecution from amending grand
jury indictment. Hmmmmmmm.
Could it be that because the search warrant did not specify child
porn that the issue could not be raised?
Search warrants have to specify exactly what the police expect to
find and why they expect to find it.
Now if the cops raid your house to say, arrest you for bank robbery
and find a brick of marjuana on your coffee table they can get you
for drug possession too even though it's not on the warrant merely
because the illegal drug was in plain sight.
Now whatever was on Frank's hard drive was not in plain sight
since a forensic computer examiner had to extract it after the fact.
You really should watch more Perry Mason, Matlock and Murder
She Wrote episodes. Improve your legal knowledge.
And I know how to find Title 18 USC on Find Law and Cornel edu.
> � 2252A. Certain activities relating to material constituting or
> containing child pornography
>
> � 2252. Certain activities relating to material involving the sexual
> exploitation of minors
>
> You just don't get it do you?
>
> Frank is going down, his supporters like yourself are being
> thoroughly investigated with a fine tooth comb and all those in his
> contact lists and newsgroups that received and transmitted his
> depraved filth are going down with him.
They can investigate me til the cows come home and pigs fly. Other
than exchanging a few comments in the groups back in the 90's
I've had no contact with Frank, e-mail or otherwise. While I liked
Frank, I didn't care for his stories. Whatever I may have had on
my computer is long gone, in fact so are the computers. This one
was purchased new in '06 long after CP was off Usenet.
>
>
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00002252---A000-.html
>
> Child Exploitation Enterprises.-
>
> (1) Whoever engages in a child exploitation enterprise shall be fined
> under this title and imprisoned for any term of years not less than 20
> or for life.
>
> (2) A person engages in a child exploitation enterprise for the
> purposes of this section if the person violates section 1591, section
> 1201 if the victim is a minor, or chapter 109A (involving a minor
> victim), 110 (except for sections 2257 and 2257A), or 117 (involving a
> minor victim), as a part of a series of felony violations constituting
> three or more separate incidents and involving more than one victim,
> and commits those offenses in concert with three or more other
> persons.
>
> http://ia311026.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.71112/gov.uscourts.gamd.71112.100.4.pdf
>
> At least 5 are retouches by yours truly.
>
> -I just wanted to blow my own horn! ;-)
> ll-e1-99DOMret.JPG is a complete rebuild of ll-e1-99. I dropped the
> color out, retouched the greyscale, "borrowed" some of the colors from
> a similar pic that was small and very poor res. I brought out some of
> the other colors/details by painting and filtering. It is still
> terribly imperfect, but a great improvement over the "original", which
> is a cropped, retouched copy of the Joy cover. I did this retouch back
> in '97, but I believe this is the first time it's been posted...
> (I hope not EVERYONE who reads this finds it boring.) ;)
>
Laurence Taylor
> What is known is that he edited videos and photographs of children
> being raped and supplied them to the pedophiles and child molesters,
> like yourself ,now being investigated as we speak.
>
> In Frank's own words
> http://ia311026.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.71112/gov.uscourts.gamd.71112.100.4.pdf
>
> "At least 5 are retouches by yours truly.
> ll-e1-17r.jpg and ll-e1-26r.jpg, as posted to the LL-series ng.
> -I just wanted to blow my own horn! ;-)
How do you know those were pictures of children being raped?
--
rgds
LAurence
<><
...Why do those signs say "Intel Inside"? As a warning.
---*TagZilla 0.059* http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
Fred B. Brown
> On 5 Jun 2010 12:37:02 -0500, "Fred B. Brown" <fredb...@nowhere.com>
Then kindly post either a copy of the warrant or a link where it
can be found.
> What part of
>
> "§ 2252A. Certain activities relating to material constituting or
> containing child pornography"
>
> don't you understand?
>
>>Search warrants have to specify exactly what the police expect to
>>find and why they expect to find it.
>>Now if the cops raid your house to say, arrest you for bank robbery
>>and find a brick of marjuana on your coffee table they can get you
>>for drug possession too even though it's not on the warrant merely
>>because the illegal drug was in plain sight.
>>Now whatever was on Frank's hard drive was not in plain sight
>>since a forensic computer examiner had to extract it after the fact.
>>You really should watch more Perry Mason, Matlock and Murder
>>She Wrote episodes. Improve your legal knowledge.
>
> Nonsense.
Apparantly you don't understand or want to understand the rules
of search and siezeure. If it's not on the fucking warrant or in plain
sight when the warrant is served, it is IN_FUCKING ADMISSABLE.
It's the way the courts prevent the police from going in fishing
expeditions.
You keep ducking the issue that child porn was not mentioned at
Frank's trial. If he was not tried on CP charges he can't be found
guilty of possession. If he's found innocent on the obscenity charge,
every thing the cops found is thrown out, can't ever be used against
him.
> Pedophiles, like yourself, now commonly have wirelessly connected hard
> drives hidden behind walls to store their collections of visual
> records of children being sexually assaulted.
>
> Do you really imagine it a defense that they have hidden them.
>
> In Frank's case it seems he was so obsessed and deluded he actually
> had *screen savers* of children being sexually assaulted on his
> computers.
>
>
>>And I know how to find Title 18 USC on Find Law and Cornel edu.
>
> Yet apparently you fail to realize it specifically concerns visual
> materials not text.
>>
>>
>>
>>> § 2252A. Certain activities relating to material constituting or
>>> containing child pornography
>>>
>>> § 2252. Certain activities relating to material involving the sexual
>>> exploitation of minors
>>>
>>> You just don't get it do you?
>>>
>>> Frank is going down, his supporters like yourself are being
>>> thoroughly investigated with a fine tooth comb and all those in his
>>> contact lists and newsgroups that received and transmitted his
>>> depraved filth are going down with him.
>>
>>They can investigate me til the cows come home and pigs fly. Other
>>than exchanging a few comments in the groups back in the 90's
>>I've had no contact with Frank, e-mail or otherwise.
>
> Many others are wishing to God they could say the same.
>
>>While I liked Frank, I didn't care for his stories. Whatever I may have
>>had on
>>my computer is long gone, in fact so are the computers. This one
>>was purchased new in '06 long after CP was off Usenet.
>
> Like dogs returning to their vomit it's unusual for pedophiles to give
> up their collections or stop involving themselves for long.
>
> YMMV of course.
Fred B. Brown
"Usenet Legends bobandcarole ----->♫♫♫♫" <usenetleg...@gmail.com>
wrote in message
news:58991a27-8358-476a...@5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
First it wasn't your plan and second you seem to have missed the part
where Frank was tried on obscenity charges and not possession of
child porn. It appears from the sequence of events in the time line that
the child porn was not on the search warrant, the prosecution was
prohibited from adding it to the indictment or mentioning it at trial
because it is inadmissable. Not only could it not be used at this trial
it's inadmissable in any future trial. The warrant was faulty for not
mentioning child porn and anything not mentioned is inadmissable.
Essentually, it seems the government, so fixated on punishing Frank
for his stories overlooked the possibility he might have collected
child porn. Betcha some one at DOJ got his ass kicked.
Fred B. Brown
> On 05 Jun 2010 12:15:26 GMT, xxxxx...@hotmail.com (XXX) wrote:
>
>
> Whether he raped victims on or off-camera is unknown at this stage.
>
> being raped and supplied them to the pedophiles and child molesters,
> like yourself ,now being investigated as we speak.
>
> In Frank's own words
Absolutely wrong!
Read the last line of the quote.
DOM
This is a copy of a newgroup message from DOM aka Dominic who
was a poster in the pre-teen, LL and MCLT child porn newsgroups.
Collectors who didn't have the full LL sets frequently renumbered them,
puting them out of sequence. Some were scannned with the early
scanners whose pixel rates were not the same as the pixel rates in the
color magazine photos of that era. It affected the coloration and produced
a cross hatch pattern on the scanned image. Posters like DOM 'filled'
the missing photos and corrected the numbering. They also used Photo
Shop and similar software to correct color and clarity.
Frank was never known to be a photo poster since he posted text
under his real name. Had he posted CP he would have been promptly
arrested.
Sorry to bust your baloon but glad I could straaighten out your
misconception.
> http://ia311026.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.71112/gov.uscourts.gamd.71112.100.4.pdf
>
> "At least 5 are retouches by yours truly.
> The "real" names for ll-e1-17DOMret.JPG and ll-e1-26DOMret.JPG are
> ll-e1-17r.jpg and ll-e1-26r.jpg, as posted to the LL-series ng.
> -I just wanted to blow my own horn! ;-)
>
> ll-e1-99DOMret.JPG is a complete rebuild of ll-e1-99. I dropped the
> color out, retouched the greyscale, "borrowed" some of the colors from
> a similar pic that was small and very poor res. I brought out some of
> the other colors/details by painting and filtering. It is still
> terribly imperfect, but a great improvement over the "original", which
> is a cropped, retouched copy of the Joy cover. I did this retouch back
> in '97, but I believe this is the first time it's been posted...
>
> (I hope not EVERYONE who reads this finds it boring.) ;)
> Damn, I hate having to post with Nutscrape..."
> DOM
Fred B. Brown
> latest ones were or how many of them might have been videos of
> children being tortured.
>
> It seems kind of ironic that Frank suggests some of the
> Japanese ones who specialize in torture were censored with
> pixellations.
It's how the Japanese 'legalize' the photos and videos. Jap
anime just about always has the genitals masked. Their adult
porn is frequently masked too. Japanese beastiality can be
found in the newsgroups, if it's a homeland version it will be
masked, the export versions are not.
TomBa
> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 12:51:05 +0000, Laurence Taylor
> <see-h...@nospam.plus.com> wrote:
>
>>Ultima Thule wrote:
>>> What is known is that he edited videos and photographs of children
>>> being raped and supplied them to the pedophiles and child molesters,
>>> like yourself ,now being investigated as we speak.
>>>
>>> In Frank's own words
>>>
>>> http://ia311026.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.71112/gov.us
>>> courts.gamd.71112.100.4.pdf
>>>
>>> "At least 5 are retouches by yours truly.
>>> The "real" names for ll-e1-17DOMret.JPG and ll-e1-26DOMret.JPG are
>>> ll-e1-17r.jpg and ll-e1-26r.jpg, as posted to the LL-series ng.
>>> -I just wanted to blow my own horn! ;-)
>>
>>How do you know those were pictures of children being raped?
>
> Legally, without exception any adult having sex with a child is
> raping the child whatever rationalizations pedophiles throw up to hide
> from themselves the true horror of their activities.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape
>
> Different jurisdictions use many different statutory terms for the
> crime, such as "sexual assault," "rape of a child," "corruption of a
> minor," "carnal knowledge of a minor," "unlawful carnal knowledge", or
> simply "carnal knowledge." Statutory rape differs from forcible rape
> in that overt force or threat need not be present.
>
> The laws presume coercion, because a minor or mentally challenged
> adult is legally incapable of giving consent to the act.
>
How do you know that those pictures were of chldren having sex with an
adult?
--
TomBa NP-f36
Fred B. Brown
"Ultima Thule" <PYT...@THULE.COM> wrote in message
news:34qn06llj5jtpofnf...@4ax.com...
> On 6 Jun 2010 13:05:02 -0500, "Fred B. Brown" <fredb...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Usenet Legends bobandcarole ----->????" <usenetleg...@gmail.com>
Well that certainly refutes my argument in two words.
I should have known better than to tangle with your
great legal mind.
Fred B. Brown
> On 6 Jun 2010 13:05:03 -0500, "Fred B. Brown" <fredb...@nowhere.com>
> computers specifically to look for child pornography and found it.
>
> Whether he was being investigated for other charges is totally
> irrelevant.
>
>
>
>>You keep ducking the issue that child porn was not mentioned at
>>Frank's trial. If he was not tried on CP charges he can't be found
>>guilty of possession. If he's found innocent on the obscenity charge,
>>every thing the cops found is thrown out, can't ever be used against
>>him.
>
And you're dizzy from going around in circles.
Explain why Frank was not tried on child porn charges.
Explain why it was not raised at his trial.
Quit ducking the issue with irrevelant replies.
Put up or shut up.
> Do you really think that if they had found his long suffering wife's
> dead body stuffed in a trunk he couldn't be charged with homicide?
Laurence Taylor
>> How do you know those were pictures of children being raped?
>
> Legally, without exception any adult having sex with a child is
> raping the child whatever rationalizations pedophiles throw up to hide
> from themselves the true horror of their activities.
Even though that legal definition (which is not universal) is a world
away from the idea of _actual_ rape (and which in my view demeans
those victims of actual rape), how do you know those pictures were of
children having sex with adults?
--
rgds
LAurence
<><
...I Never Knew A Cat Who Suffered From Insomnia.
---*TagZilla 0.059* http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
Laurence Taylor
>> How do you know that those pictures were of chldren having sex with an
>> adult?
>
> Because the forensic examination of his computer for child
> exploitation showed that they were of course.
>
> Have you read it yet?
I have, but I'm not sure you have. The _only_ mention of adults and
children having sex was in reference to a cartoon used as a
screensaver. Nowhere does it mention that any of the various photos or
videos consisted of adults and children having sex.
--
rgds
LAurence
<><
..."Hmm, I don't know," said Quasimodo, "but I've got a hunch."
---*TagZilla 0.059* http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
Laurence Taylor
> First it wasn't your plan and second you seem to have missed the part
> where Frank was tried on obscenity charges and not possession of
> child porn. It appears from the sequence of events in the time line that
> the child porn was not on the search warrant, the prosecution was
> prohibited from adding it to the indictment or mentioning it at trial
> because it is inadmissable. Not only could it not be used at this trial
> it's inadmissable in any future trial. The warrant was faulty for not
> mentioning child porn and anything not mentioned is inadmissable.
> Essentually, it seems the government, so fixated on punishing Frank
> for his stories overlooked the possibility he might have collected
> child porn. Betcha some one at DOJ got his ass kicked.
I am a little confused about this. If child porn was found on Frank's
PC, why isn't it admissible in court? And if I understand you
correctly, a future separate prosecution cannot be brought either.
Surely if someone is found to be breaking the law, they can be
arrested and charged for that offence, regardless of how they were
discovered?
--
rgds
LAurence
<><
...It is not down in any map; true places never are. - Melville
---*TagZilla 0.059* http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
moonstorm
Putrescent excresence.
Pied Piper
<see-h...@nospam.plus.com> wrote:
>Fred B. Brown wrote:
>
>> First it wasn't your plan and second you seem to have missed the part
>> where Frank was tried on obscenity charges and not possession of
>> child porn. It appears from the sequence of events in the time line that
>> the child porn was not on the search warrant, the prosecution was
>> prohibited from adding it to the indictment or mentioning it at trial
>> because it is inadmissable. Not only could it not be used at this trial
>> it's inadmissable in any future trial. The warrant was faulty for not
>> mentioning child porn and anything not mentioned is inadmissable.
>> Essentually, it seems the government, so fixated on punishing Frank
>> for his stories overlooked the possibility he might have collected
>> child porn. Betcha some one at DOJ got his ass kicked.
>
>I am a little confused about this. If child porn was found on Frank's
>PC, why isn't it admissible in court? And if I understand you
>correctly, a future separate prosecution cannot be brought either.
>
>Surely if someone is found to be breaking the law, they can be
>arrested and charged for that offence, regardless of how they were
>discovered?
I think that in some US states they have a "fruit of a poisoned vine"
law where evidence improperly obtained can't be presented in court.
About the only way to force police to keep to the rules.
--
Pied Piper
Fred B. Brown
> On 7 Jun 2010 12:55:02 -0500, "Fred B. Brown" <fredb...@nowhere.com>
> already?
>
> The chances are that to avoid dying in prison he has finally
> seen sense and struck a deal and given up his co-conspirators.
>
>>Explain why it was not raised at his trial.
>
>
> I am no more privy to the sealed parts of the
> record than you are.
>
> The obscenity trial concerns his written child pornography not his
> thousands of videos and photos.
>
>>Quit ducking the issue with irrevelant replies.
>>Put up or shut up.
>
> but where you get the crazy idea that Frank walks if his child
> pornography collection wasn't in plain sight.
>
> No YOU answer the question you keep avoiding.
>
> Do you really think that if they had found his long suffering wife's
> dead body stuffed in a trunk he couldn't be charged with homicide?
>
>
You're losing your credibility, you circle around the valid points I've
made without refuting them. If I'm wrong then show me why.
Don't just keep quoting the law.
I didn't make up the rules on search and seizure, the US Supreme
Court did, they are common knowledge.
Evidence found without a warrant is inadmissable.
Fred B. Brown
"Laurence Taylor" <see-h...@nospam.plus.com> wrote in message
news:5uOdnVJsktJE_pDR...@brightview.co.uk...
> Fred B. Brown wrote:
>
>> First it wasn't your plan and second you seem to have missed the part
>> where Frank was tried on obscenity charges and not possession of
>> child porn. It appears from the sequence of events in the time line that
>> the child porn was not on the search warrant, the prosecution was
>> prohibited from adding it to the indictment or mentioning it at trial
>> because it is inadmissable. Not only could it not be used at this trial
>> it's inadmissable in any future trial. The warrant was faulty for not
>> mentioning child porn and anything not mentioned is inadmissable.
>> Essentually, it seems the government, so fixated on punishing Frank
>> for his stories overlooked the possibility he might have collected
>> child porn. Betcha some one at DOJ got his ass kicked.
>
> I am a little confused about this. If child porn was found on Frank's PC,
> why isn't it admissible in court? And if I understand you correctly, a
> future separate prosecution cannot be brought either.
The 4th Amendment to the Bill Of Rights in the US Constitution reads
thus:
"The right of the people to be secure in their houses, papers and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath
or affirmation, and particulary describing the place to be searched,
and the persons or things to be seized."
IOW, fishing expeditions looking for possible wrong doing are prohibited.
To obtain a warrant the police have to accuratly describe what they believe
they will find during a search and also convince a judge that they have
probable cause. IOW, reasonable certainty that what they are searching
for will be found. The warrant must specificly state what is expected to
be found, anything else, NOT IN PLAIN SIGHT, found during the search is
inadmissable in court and can't be used in the future.
Since the child porn resided on Fran's hard drives it was not in plain sight
and was only found during the forensic examination.
Frank lives in Minnesota but was indicted in Georgia and was later arrested
by the FBI. His computers were seized during his arrest. Frank was indicted
for violating a Georgia obscenity law and for interstate transportation of
obscene materials via computer. The indictment was handed down and
charges filed before Frank's computers were siezed and examined.
While they found child porn, it was not mentioned on the search warrant
and is inadmissable in court, nor can it be used in a future prosecution.
> Surely if someone is found to be breaking the law, they can be arrested
> and charged for that offence, regardless of how they were discovered?
Evidence found without a warrant is inadmissable. The only exception
is the "plain sight" rule. If the evidence is in "plain sight" no warrant is
needed. IOW, the police show up at your door with a warrant to search
for child porn and there is a brick of marjuana on your coffe table, they
can arrest and prosecute you on drug charges too. But if the marjuana
is hidden in a locked trunk in your basement and they find it, they are
shit out of luck.
Laurence Taylor
>>> Have you read it yet?
>> I have, but I'm not sure you have. The _only_ mention of adults and
>> children having sex was in reference to a cartoon used as a
>> screensaver. Nowhere does it mention that any of the various photos or
>> videos consisted of adults and children having sex.
>
> I am pretty certain that you are as well aware of the nature of the
> named videos as LE or the pedophiles in these forums who admit
> familiarity with them.
I have no idea what was in those videos beyond what was stated in the
document. I have never seen them.
--
rgds
LAurence
<><
...Cats don't brag about whom they have slept with.
---*TagZilla 0.059* http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
Laurence Taylor
Thank you. Fascinating.
Here in the UK there is a law (largely ignored) that the police must
show a reasonable expectation of finding what they are looking for,
but (as far as I know) anything else found in the search can also be
removed and, if necessary, prosecuted.
So in your example above, if the police open my safe with a warrant
for CP and find my stash of pot, I'll still get done! (And before
anyone gets excited, I'm speaking hypothetically - naturally, I have
neither).
--
rgds
LAurence
<><
...Transvestite. He who lives to eat, drink and be Mary.
---*TagZilla 0.059* http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
XXX
> Ultima Thule wrote:
>
> >>> Have you read it yet?
> >> I have, but I'm not sure you have. The _only_ mention of adults and
> >> children having sex was in reference to a cartoon used as a
> >> screensaver. Nowhere does it mention that any of the various photos or
> >> videos consisted of adults and children having sex.
> >
> > I am pretty certain that you are as well aware of the nature of the
> > named videos as LE or the pedophiles in these forums who admit
> > familiarity with them.
>
> I have no idea what was in those videos beyond what was stated in the
> document. I have never seen them.
But Ultima Thule apparently has!
Fred B. Brown
Our rules here are fairly strict but the police sometimes try to skirt them
claiming 'probable cause' based on information from 'confidentual
informants' whom they insist must remain anonymous. Most of the
time judges want solid information prior to signing a search warrant.
> So in your example above, if the police open my safe with a warrant for CP
> and find my stash of pot, I'll still get done! (And before anyone gets
> excited, I'm speaking hypothetically - naturally, I have neither).
Too late, you said the magic words, Ultima turned you in. <G>
Laurence Taylor
>
>>
>> Here in the UK there is a law (largely ignored) that the police must
>> show a reasonable expectation of finding what they are looking for,
>> but (as far as I know) anything else found in the search can also be
>> removed and, if necessary, prosecuted.
>
> Our rules here are fairly strict but the police sometimes try to skirt them
> claiming 'probable cause' based on information from 'confidentual
> informants' whom they insist must remain anonymous. Most of the
> time judges want solid information prior to signing a search warrant.
It's often just a rubber-stamp exercise here. I once heard of a
policeman say he was actually surprised that the judge granted the
warrant!
>> So in your example above, if the police open my safe with a warrant
>> for CP and find my stash of pot, I'll still get done! (And before
>> anyone gets excited, I'm speaking hypothetically - naturally, I have
>> neither).
>
> Too late, you said the magic words, Ultima turned you in. <G>
How nice. Various idiots on here have been threatening to turn me in
for years, but of course since I keep out of trouble, they just look
silly.
--
rgds
LAurence
<><
..."To baldly go where no-one has gone before" - Picard
---*TagZilla 0.059* http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
Mort Davis
morons like Thule.
Fred B. Brown
> Fred B. Brown wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Here in the UK there is a law (largely ignored) that the police must
>>> show a reasonable expectation of finding what they are looking for, but
>>> (as far as I know) anything else found in the search can also be removed
>>> and, if necessary, prosecuted.
>>
>> Our rules here are fairly strict but the police sometimes try to skirt
>> them
>> claiming 'probable cause' based on information from 'confidentual
>> informants' whom they insist must remain anonymous. Most of the
>> time judges want solid information prior to signing a search warrant.
>
> It's often just a rubber-stamp exercise here. I once heard of a policeman
> say he was actually surprised that the judge granted the warrant!
You might want to Google Barry Bonds, baseball player accused of
using steroids. Records of Bond's urine samples gathered by LE
investigating his trainer, were ruled 'inadmissable as hearsay" by
a lower and appellate courts. Prosecutors are prohibited from
using that information at Bond's trial.
IOW, they discovered information not specified on the warrant and
it is now inadmissable.
>>> So in your example above, if the police open my safe with a warrant for
>>> CP and find my stash of pot, I'll still get done! (And before anyone
>>> gets excited, I'm speaking hypothetically - naturally, I have neither).
>>
>> Too late, you said the magic words, Ultima turned you in. <G>
>
> How nice. Various idiots on here have been threatening to turn me in for
> years, but of course since I keep out of trouble, they just look silly.
Haven't seen Ultima in a while, I may have overloaded him with
information. He was chortling over finding out Frank had CP on his
computer and I set him straight. Not a bad guy really, we've actually
agreed on a few things. I think he's sincere, just mis-guided.
Mort Davis
"XXX" <xxxxx...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:20100613174541.309$g...@newsreader.com...
> Ultima Thule <PYT...@THULE.COM> wrote:
>> On 11 Jun 2010 09:08:01 -0500, "Fred B. Brown"
>> to be turned in for.
>
> So, what is it that I have done "to be turned in for" and WHY haven't you
> done it, yet???
>
>> On the contrary he has persistently counseled against XXX's activities
>> and made a policy of advising pedophiles NOT to have sex with
>> children.
>>
>> I don't know if he would go as far as the Pedophile apologist 4s00th
>> and turn XXX in himself were he to be made aware of his identity, but
>> he certainly neither condones nor emulates his activities AFAIAA.
>
> You are obviously a Hater apologist, Ultima. Why won't YOU turn me in???
> Tell us more about those child porn videos found on Frank's computer.
> Which ones are the best, in your opinion?
Thule's a troll.
Mort Davis
> On 14 Jun 2010 01:51:46 GMT, xxxxx...@hotmail.com (XXX) wrote:
>
>>best sex with underage children
>
> Actually I am not in favor of vigilantism but would cheerfully make an
> exception in your case.
>
> Given the piece of utterly irredeemable human garbage you are,
> and your active encouragement of others to sexually assault children,
> you deserve everything that comes to you when inevitably slip up.
You are the biggest piece of utterly irredeemable human garbage.
Usenet Legends bobandcarole ♫
> Ultima Thule <PYT...@THULE.COM> wrote:
> > On 11 Jun 2010 06:01:17 GMT, xxxxx...@hotmail.com (XXX) wrote:
> >
> > >Ultima Thule <PYT...@THULE.COM> wrote:
> > >> doubt the forensic examiner or the conclusions of his report.
> > >
> > >Did the report say that the movies were of children being raped? You
> > >say that the movies ARE of children being raped. How do you know that
> > >if the report doesn't say it and you haven't seen them? Well, we DO
> > >know that the report doesn't say it!
> >
> > Whatever criminally insane sexual predators on children, such as
> > yourself, may tell themselves and other pedophiles, every time you
> > sexually assault a child you are committing rape.
>
> Evasion noted. So, tell us Ultima, which is YOUR favorite child porn
> video?
The one where the abused child slits your throat ...
--
#1 pedophile hunter: the wikisposure project.
http://www.wikisposure.com/Alt.support.boy-lovers
#5 ruiner of usenet.
Owner and trainer of Tom Evans aka "mad as a box of frogs"
Tom Evans 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!!
XXX
> <usenetleg...@gmail.com> wrote: XXX schreef:
So you are into both child abuse movies AND snuff? Figures.
Usenet Legends bobandcarole ♫
Movies depicting the horrible death of YOU and/or similar turds
with eyes would be well worth watching ...
XXX
Is it the movies that have the eyes or is it the turds? Oh wait! Don't
tell me! You told everyone in another newsgroup that I would say that,
didn't you????
Fred B. Brown
> to be turned in for.
Uhhh, I was making a funny.
XXX
Ultimate Tool is sexually attracted to me, that is why he is constantly
referencing me, even in threads that I don't post in.
Mort Davis
> tried , you always manage to surpass yourself.
>
> Nobody is sexually attracted to you, you are the kind of person
> prostitutes wisely turn away.
>
> That's why you slake your perverted lusts on helpless children.
>
Must be what you do, you piece of shit. He that smelt it dealt it.
Fred B. Brown
Have you been wearing that pink TuTu while you post?
XXX
I generally wear jeans and a t-shirt when I am reading and posting in the
newsgroups, but Ultimate Fool tends to picture me in leather.
Baal
Hash: SHA512
Ultima Thule wrote in alt.support.boy-lovers on Sunday 13 June 2010 22:32
in Message-ID: <gk4b16l0nbfh4elik...@4ax.com>:
[snip]
> Nobody except a demented, serial child molesting,headcase in denial
> like yourself has any reason to disbelieve either the forensic
> examiner or the federal agents who brought him to book.
Call me a cynic, but I don't trust the police any farther than I can throw
them. Case in point: there were at least /two/ Feds who gave testimony in
British courts with respect to Operation Ore who perjured themselves on the
stand.
Furthermore, it appears that one or more judges must have had some degree
of diffidence with respect to this evidence.... Why else would Frank *NOT*
have been prosecuted based on this evidence?
Let's face it... in cases involving child pornography, judges tend to give
a /very/ wide latitude to the prosecution; they aren't typically noted for
cutting defendants any slack. You yourself have noted Judge Sands' harsh
attitude towards child pornography offenders... it only stand to reason
therefore that the evidence was either not convincing, or it was illegally
obtained, and thereby inadmissible.
Baal <Ba...@Usenet.org>
PGP Key: http://wwwkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1E92C0E8
PGP Key Fingerprint: 40E4 E9BB D084 22D5 3DE9 Â 66B8 08E3 638C 1E92 C0E8
Retired Lecturer, Encryption and Data Security, Pedo U, Usenet Campus
- --
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?" Â Â -- Â Â "Who will watch the Watchmen?"
                 -- Juvenal, Satires, VI, 347. circa 128 AD
"We learned during the McCarthy era that when the State gets behind a moral
panic, no one is safe."
                              -- Bob Chatelle
"If you read the same things as others and say the same things they say,
then you're perceived as intelligent. I'm a bit more independent and
radical and consider intelligence the ability to think about matters on
your own and ask a lot of skeptical questions to get at the real truth,
not just what you're told it is."
                        -- iWoz - Steve Wozniak 2006
Mistrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong.
                           --Friedrich Nietzsche
He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from
oppression.
                              -- Thomas Paine
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJMGWISAAoJEAjjY4weksDoVpwIAI1YMP9i24qEWantLE0DVEih
/kBqF/JOIPpGGZoReTfkZSmBUHvHxj1z4z5H/XFqZUm1W+8/q1gmQToHRYeKCAF4
DKkvM9u/WvzuaBdxz7VrJkMuLSTWDMvVjYS1V0kGVZpiScP4cjOTb+Cz7Rq7BRC1
euvIWZlR3wMVV+0nqfJO+NRGF7E9j4qq5PqtfdcfUJDVlsUXsXOful0S/KoFgjrz
5UhDgzqghNWf5tGYfWyxQXFiGv/8QL9nV4RCmDhz8KOYPTOlF4EAt2gy7WiIZ92h
YEXk+R6XCcD+2kYmf2/+xKk7hO2yV7XjYnDxqznTrlUbMJBUl6kvvMAw69baPTQ=
=6cYG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Fred B. Brown
Hmmm, makes you wonder what he has on his hard drive.
Fred B. Brown
> On 18 Jun 2010 20:39:02 -0500, "Fred B. Brown"
> with child pornography on them.
18 USC Ch 110 says if you downlod something that turns out to be illegal
you can (a) notify the authorities or, (b) remove it from you computer.
Actually my HD cleaned itself. I store everything on an external HD and the
little rascal went belly up without warning, in reallity it was warning me
but
I thought it was my computer.
> It's perhaps what you have posted online that you have to worry about
> rather than anything on your hd.
Oh, it's illegal to criticize and make fun of the authorities now?
What ever happened to Free Speech?
I forgot, you're an Obama supporter.
Fred B. Brown
> On 19 Jun 2010 10:41:02 -0500, "Fred B. Brown"
> *good faith * , neither of which are true in your case are they?
But there is no limit on how many times one can do it, is there?
Yawn.
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002252---A000-.html
>
>
> Affirmative Defense.- It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge
> of violating subsection (a)(5) that the defendant-
>
> (1) possessed less than three images of child pornography; and
>
> (2) promptly and in good faith, and without retaining or allowing any
> person, other than a law enforcement agency, to access any image or
> copy thereof-
>
> (A) took reasonable steps to destroy each such image; or
> (B) reported the matter to a law enforcement agency and afforded that
> agency access to each such image.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>Actually my HD cleaned itself. I store everything on an external HD and
>>the
>>little rascal went belly up without warning, in reallity it was warning me
>>but
>>I thought it was my computer.
>>
>>> It's perhaps what you have posted online that you have to worry about
>>> rather than anything on your hd.
>>
>>Oh, it's illegal to criticize and make fun of the authorities now?
>
> If that were all you had been doing you would have nothing to fear.
> Is that all you have been doing?
>
>>What ever happened to Free Speech?
>
> I think George Bush happened to it.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
>
> Free speech zones (also known as First Amendment Zones, Free speech
> cages, and Protest zones) are areas set aside in public places for
> political activists to exercise their right of free speech in the
> United States. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution
> states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of
> the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
> redress of grievances."
>
> The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions
> stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and
> manner-but not content-of expression.
>
> The most prominent examples were those created by the United States
> Secret Service for President George W. Bush and other members of his
> administration.[3]
>
>
> Free speech zones existed in limited forms prior to the Presidency of
> George W. Bush; it was during Bush's presidency that their scope has
> been greatly expanded.
>
>>I forgot, you're an Obama supporter.
>
> I am?
>
> I didn't know that- Interesting.
Fred B. Brown
> On 19 Jun 2010 23:33:01 -0500, "Fred B. Brown"
> you perhaps.
>
>>Yawn.
>
> Perhaps you should get more sleep.
>
> On a totally different topic-how long had you had your external hared
> drive-was it still under warranty?
I've used external hard drives since the mid-90's. The first one was a Shark
1/4 Gig connected to a parallel port. Next was a Syquest 1 Gig, connected to
a parallel port. Had several of those, they all crapped out. I had a tower
computer
back then and could have installed the Syquest in a tower bay but chose the
external to make it easier to disconnect if I had to bring the computer in
for repair.
Next I purchased a Maxtor 250 Gig which connected via a USB port. By then
I had a Win98 computer and had to upgrade to second edition and install a
USB
card. My next computer was a Systamax, the 250 Gig work fine until 2003 when
it crapped out. The Systamax got tickled by a voltage surge and toasted the
main board. Now I have an Acer Aspire with a 500 Gig Maxtor via USB port.
> It's a bit much to transfer all your data to an external drive then
> have it fail and lose it all.
I don't have to transfer anything, I simply save to the external drive
letter
and folder selected. If I saved to the internal drive and it failed I'd lose
that too.
I collect amatuer adult porn using an auto downloader which is on the
external
drive along with the 'save to' folders. Nothing passes thru the C drive so
nothing
is logged in the temp file.
I could load and run Outlook Express or another news reader on the external
but I don't bother as I don't download anything illegal. The downloadeer
will
handle text but I have to open it in a text file. Too much of a pain.
I haven't checked lately but the Maxtors were then at 1 Terabyte of storage.
Probably higher now.
Laurence Taylor
>
> Whatever criminally insane sexual predators on children, such as
> yourself, may tell themselves and other pedophiles, every time you
> sexually assault a child you are committing rape.
Rubbish. Look up "rape" in the dictionary.
--
rgds
LAurence
<><
...Yeah, that leftover tagline... You gonna eat that?
---*TagZilla 0.059* http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
David
<see-h...@nospam.plus.com> typed furiously:
>Ultima Thule wrote:
>>
>> Whatever criminally insane sexual predators on children, such as
>> yourself, may tell themselves and other pedophiles, every time you
>> sexually assault a child you are committing rape.
>
>Rubbish. Look up "rape" in the dictionary.
He wouldn't know how so I did it for him.
Verb: rape
1. Force (someone) to have sex against their will
2. Destroy and strip of its possession
Noun: rape
1. Eurasian plant cultivated for its seed and as a forage crop
2. The act of despoiling a country in warfare
3. The crime of forcing a woman to submit to sexual intercourse against
her will
[WordWeb.info]
--
Regards
David
fundamentalism (n.): fund = give cash to; amentalism = brainlessness