17
   

Man's life Over, Cops Decide He Watched Child Porn in First Class

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Thu 20 Sep, 2012 11:58 am
@firefly,
LOL................
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Thu 20 Sep, 2012 12:16 pm
Interesting article about what is going on in Japan.
Quote:
Pressure on Japan for stronger laws on child pornography
Sep 19, 2012 1:11am EDT

TOKYO (Reuters) - When police in Japan's old historic capital of Kyoto nabbed three men this summer for buying child pornography DVDs online, they made history: for the first time, someone in the country faces the possibility of jail time for possessing such material.

Japan is the only OECD nation that has not universally outlawed possession of child pornography and activists say the new, tougher local laws in Kyoto will not change that overnight.

With various manifestations of a fascination with the young and innocent as sex objects, from graphic versions of manga, or Japanese comics, to the "junior idol" industry featuring child models in bikinis, Japan has a considerable way to go to shed an image of pornographers' safe haven.

Out of Japan's 47 provinces, only Kyoto bans possession of child pornography and prescribes a jail sentence. Neighbouring Nara is the only other province to deem it a crime, but it has only financial penalties. It has arrested several people for possession of child pornography, but authorities could not give a number since several were charged with other crimes.

In 1999, Japan outlawed production and distribution of child pornography as well as possession with the intention to pass it on, and offenders could face fines and prison terms of up to five years. However, simple possession, without an intention to distribute, remains legal, except in Kyoto and Nara.

Kyoto's new ordinance that came into force in January imposes fines for possession of child pornography and introduces a penalty of up to one year in jail for buying or downloading such material.

"It will be a big wake-up call for the parliament," says UNICEF Japan spokesman Hiromasa Nakai.

But there may not be any quick action.

There is no national debate on the subject at the moment as major parties brace for general elections expected later this year. The ruling Democratic Party of Japan has reservations about extending the Kyoto law nationally, while the opposition is for it, lawmakers told Reuters.

TOO FAR

Sanae Takaichi, from the opposition Liberal Democratic Party, says the initiatives taken in Nara province, and later in Kyoto, inspired her to campaign for a possession ban at the national level.

"I've been trying to bring such local initiatives to state politics since Nara, my hometown, put the ordinance into effect following a tragedy in the prefecture where a little girl was killed by a child porn lover."

The Democrats, however, have argued that local initiatives were going too far and making owning child pornography a crime could lead to abuse of police powers and that investigators should focus on those who make and distribute the material.

They have also voiced concern that a blanket ban could be extended to comics and animation, which in turn could infringe on the freedom of expression.

A rare endorsement for tougher laws from Japan's National Police Agency (NPA), which usually avoids positions on legislation and policy, could however help revive the debate.

The NPA says child pornography is spreading on the internet at an "unprecedented pace" so those who buy and possess it should be severely punished to curb its supply.

"Child pornography producers are making DVDs because there is demand, yet we are not able to arrest buyers," the agency said. "Furthermore, some makers are encouraged by paedophiles to make increasingly brutal products that involve rape of children, and thus such buyers should be prosecuted as heavily as possible," it said in a written response to queries from Reuters.

Police data show a steady rise in cases of child pornography production and distribution -- there were a record 1,455 cases in 2011, up 8.4 percent from 2010. This year is likely to be another record with 1,016 cases by the end of July, nearly a 10 percent rise.

There is no comparable international data, but the latest U.S. State Department human rights report describes Japan as an "international hub for production and trafficking of child pornography."

The report also says the lack of a ban on possession of child pornography in Japan "continued to hamper police efforts to enforce the law effectively and participate fully in international law enforcement."

A 2002 cabinet office survey showed that 15 percent of Japanese men polled have seen child pornography and 10 percent admitted to owning it.

In Kyoto's landmark case, police checking for illicit content online found a site selling DVDs featuring girls under 13, a local police spokesman said. Through transaction records they found the buyers: two 20-year old students and a 19-year-old office worker, who were brought in for questioning and now await charges. Their names have not been released.

LEGISLATIVE LIMBO

Advocates say only by bringing national laws into line with other major nations can Japan join the global crackdown against child pornography's rapid spread over the Internet.

Russia is another exception, where production and distribution is a crime, but possession remains legal.

Japan signed a UN protocol in 2005 that bans all forms of involvement in child pornography, including its possession, and a 2007 government survey showed 90 percent of the Japanese public favoured tougher laws.

Yet a 2008 draft law and its later versions got stuck in a legislative limbo amid frequent government changes and political trench warfare in a divided parliament.

The resistance came from lawmakers, many in the Democratic party that won power in 2009, who feared the laws could be abused to frame political opponents and only proposed punishing those who buy the material "repeatedly". Japan's bar associations also opposed the possession ban, concerned it would give police too much leeway.

"There is the possibility that the police will use this law to investigate further into different cases that are completely unrelated to the possession of child pornography," said Yuri Kawamura, a lawyer representing the Japan Federation of Bar Associations, an umbrella group.

Keiji Goto, a police officer-turned lawyer who campaigns for tougher laws, dismisses such concerns.

"It's for the sake of the children, not the police's investigative powers," says Goto, who until 2005 investigated child pornography while in charge of a cyber crime unit.

"If simple possession is illegal there will be less people buying and selling it, and as a consequence, there would be fewer victims of such abuse."

Yet, the bar association's arguments come amid criticism of Japan's detention laws by rights groups. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have opposed the system under which judges routinely allow investigators to hold suspects for up to 23 days before they are charged.

Others who wield considerable power in the debate are manga publishers and fans, who fear that anti-porn laws could hit their genre, exposing it to censorship, and so oppose changes to current laws.

In 2010, when Tokyo authorities banned sales of sexually extreme manga and anime films to minors, publishers hit back at the ban as an infringement on free speech and 10 major publishers threatened to boycott an annual anime fair.

Some children's rights advocates also say the portrayal of minors as sex objects has become so commonplace that the public has grown to accept it as normal. One instance is the so-called junior idol genre that features child models in DVDs and photo books striking provocative poses.

Annual sales of this industry concentrated in Tokyo's Akihabara electronics district are estimated at 60 billion yen ($758 million).

"Child pornography cases appear to be perceived as "crimes of images or movie scenes" not crimes with real-life victims," says UNICEF's Nakai. "Therefore the public opinion has yet to turn into political pressure on the national parliament."

($1=79.10 yen)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/19/us-japan-pornography-idUSBRE88I07H20120919
BillRM
 
  1  
Thu 20 Sep, 2012 12:40 pm
@firefly,
My my that is an interesting article on many levels thank for uploading it Firefly.

Let see the below quote hit me as being slightly amusing in a sad way.

Quote:
Some children's rights advocates also say the portrayal of minors as sex objects has become so commonplace that the public has grown to accept it as normal. One instance is the so-called junior idol genre that features child models in DVDs and photo books striking provocative poses.


The reason is that we have to me a very distasteful to me child beauty pageants industry where very young girls are dress up in a manner to appear as being far older sexual beings and one mother even recently placed fake boobs on such a child trying to win such a competition.

Hell there was even such contests being shown on cable TV not that long ago!!!!

To sum up at least in regard to the US we have no right to throw rocks at the Japanese over having young young girls being make to appear as growth sexual beings.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Thu 20 Sep, 2012 01:01 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
With various manifestations of a fascination with the young and innocent as sex objects, from graphic versions of manga, or Japanese comics, to the "junior idol" industry featuring child models in bikinis, Japan has a considerable way to go to shed an image of pornographers' safe haven.


As far as I am aware painting and comics showing images of children in sexual manner is not illegal in the US at least as CP but they can be attacked under the obscene laws but no sending the owners off to prison for years.
BillRM
 
  1  
Thu 20 Sep, 2012 01:17 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
The resistance came from lawmakers, many in the Democratic party that won power in 2009, who feared the laws could be abused to frame political opponents and only proposed punishing those who buy the material "repeatedly". Japan's bar associations also opposed the possession ban, concerned it would give police too much leeway.

"There is the possibility that the police will use this law to investigate further into different cases that are completely unrelated to the possession of child pornography," said Yuri Kawamura, a lawyer representing the Japan Federation of Bar Associations, an umbrella group.


Well they are right every time you grant the police and prosecutors extra powers to deal with a problem under the criminal laws that power will from time to time be misused.

See the example of applying the CP laws against the very children and young people it was design to protected.

You do need to balance that risk to the benefits of granting such powers that for sure.

In any case I hope they will abopt the European model and not go near the US model of dealing with this problem.
BillRM
 
  1  
Thu 20 Sep, 2012 01:42 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
As far as I am aware painting and comics showing images of children in sexual manner is not illegal in the US at least as CP but they can be attacked under the obscene laws but no sending the owners off to prison for years.


Correction...........to a point as the materials in question still need to be declare obscene for the owner to be punish for having it unlike real CP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_the_United_States#Simulated_pornography

Main article: Simulated pornography
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996

Simulated child pornography was made illegal with the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996. The CPPA was short-lived. In 2002, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, holding that the relevant portions of the CPPA were unconstitutional because they prevented lawful speech. Referring to Ferber, the court stated that "the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Virtual child pornography is not 'intrinsically related' to the sexual abuse of children."[edit] 1466A - Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of childrenSee also: Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors
In response to the demise of the CPPA, on April 30, 2003 President George W. Bush signed into law the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law).[4]

The law enacted 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, which criminalizes material that has "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting" that "depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene" or "depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in ... sexual intercourse ... and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". By its own terms, the law does not make all simulated child pornography illegal, only that found to be obscene or lacking in serious value.[citation needed]In Richmond, Virginia, on November 2005, Dwight Whorley was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 1466A for using a Virginia Employment Commission computer to receive "...obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males."[5][6][7] He was also convicted of possessing child pornography involving real children. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison.[8]

On December 18, 2008 the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.[9] The court stated that "it is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exists." Attorneys for Mr. Whorley have said that they will appeal to the Supreme Court.[10][11]

The request for en banc rehearing of United States v. Whorley from the Court of Appeals was denied on June 15, 2009. A petition for writ of certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court on September 14, 2009 and denied on January 11, 2010 without comment.[12]

[edit] Section 2252A
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Thu 20 Sep, 2012 03:11 pm
Here is an interest nut and bolt US Jusitce department PDF concerning investigating and prosecutiing child sexual predators that I just ran across.

In spite of Firefly charming habit of acussing anyone who disagree with any aspect of current laws as a drunk, a drunk driver, a rapist, CP trader and pedophilte and so on I have no problem with going after child sexual predators just the insane punishment levels for having CP materials or using such laws to harm the very children they are suppose to defend.

The link that follow will give you an idea of how the US justice department go about this task of prosecuting sexual pedators.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usab5407.pdf
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Thu 20 Sep, 2012 05:13 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:

In any case I hope they will abopt the European model and not go near the US model of dealing with this problem.

They already have possible jail sentences just for possession of child pornography in Kyoto.
Quote:
When police in Japan's old historic capital of Kyoto nabbed three men this summer for buying child pornography DVDs online, they made history: for the first time, someone in the country faces the possibility of jail time for possessing such material.


And it is clear from that article that they are pushing for harsh penalties for possession in all of Japan.

And you continue to romanticize the child pornography laws and penalties in the U.K,, which have also grown increasingly harsher thanks to new sentence enhancements, apparently without your awareness.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/indecent_photographs_of_children/#a02
BillRM
 
  1  
Thu 20 Sep, 2012 05:25 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
They already have possible jail sentences just for possession of child pornography in Kyoto.


Yes, if they do get any prison time if will be interesting to see the length of the sentences.

Second are they dividing CP into levels for the purpose of setting punishment levels like in the UK or just consider all CP as the same as we do.
firefly
 
  1  
Thu 20 Sep, 2012 05:33 pm
Quote:
Ex-substitute teacher arrested on child porn charges
Thursday, September 20, 2012
N.J. Burkett

BELLMORE (WABC) -- A 63-year-old Long Island man was arrested on suspicion of child porn possession charges Wednesday morning.

The suspect's wife rushed from the courthouse, but said nothing after Alfonso Marino was arraigned.

Marino was arrested after a raid on his home Wednesday morning in Bellmore

Investigators say he admitted to downloading a variety of pornographic images of children, some as young as 7 and no older than 10.

According to court papers, the images showed "preteen female children involved in various sexual activities." The papers also "indicated that he had been collecting child pornography for about 10 years and that he had not touched anyone."

His neighbors watched the raid in disbelief.

Marino, they said, has lived there for more than 30 years.

The arrest was made by child exploitation agents for the Department of Homeland Security, who routinely monitor publicly-accessible internet file-sharing sites.

New York City School officials say he worked at Flushing High School as a substitute teacher for four days in May of 2011, but his precise employment history could not immediately be confirmed.

Agents seized his computer as well as two loaded and unlicensed handguns.

"Marino indicated he didn't need to lie about anything, because he knew why the agents were there," prosecutors said. "He told his wife that he was going to be arrested for child pornography, and he explained to her why he had done it."
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/long_island&id=8816590

This man's "confession" seems to be not at all unusual. In many, if not most, of the news stories regarding people arrested for possession and sharing, the person seems to make direct admissions to law enforcement. And that's one reason so many of these cases end in plea bargains--the defendant has been caught red-handed with the illegal material, and they acknowledge it belongs to them. They know the jig is up.
firefly
 
  1  
Thu 20 Sep, 2012 05:48 pm
Here's another one from today's news, where the man acknowledged possession of child pornography, and even told the Feds where he had hidden more. This isn't at all unusual. Once the government shows up, they'll find it if you've got it, and the suspects know that.
Quote:
Feds: Fly-In gun dealer shows no remorse for having child porn
By Lyda Longa
STAFF WRITER
September 20, 2012

A 63-year-old Volusia man accused by the federal government of possessing and distributing child pornography told agents that he did not feel guilty about downloading and looking at such images, a federal complaint released by the U.S. Attorney's Office shows.

Bruce Lee Jennings, who lives in the Spruce Creek Fly-In even had a computer hidden in his Chrysler Sebring loaded with hundreds of images and movies of children engaged in sexual acts, said the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent who authored the complaint.

In the current criminal case, Jennings told ICE agent Joseph Grey that he had been looking at child pornography for at least five years and that he was aware that the children he was viewing were "real children who had been sexually abused," the complaint says. When Grey asked Jennings how much child pornography he possessed, the suspect answered, "A lot," the complaint says.

Jennings then told Agent Grey that he had a laptop computer hidden in his Chrysler. When ICE investigators searched the car, they found the laptop which contained hundreds of images and movies, the complaint shows.

Jennings was arrested Sept. 14 at his Spruce Creek Fly-In house on Spruce Creek Boulevard. He is being held without bail at the John E. Polk Correctional Facility in Sanford because he is considered a flight risk, federal officials said.
http://www.news-journalonline.com/article/20120920/NEWS/309209975/1040?template=printart

BillRM
 
  1  
Thu 20 Sep, 2012 05:56 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
This man's "confession" seems to be not at all unusual. In many, if not most, of the news stories regarding people arrested for possession and sharing, the person seems to make direct admissions to law enforcement. And that's one reason so many of these cases end in plea bargains--the defendant has been caught red-handed with the illegal material, and they acknowledge it belongs to them. They know the jig is up.


That is the case in a great many law enforcement actions not just in CP cases that people will talked to the police/investigators and seal thier own faith before a defense lawyer get involved.

If people who are subject to being a target or possible target of a criminal investigations would just exercise their constituation rights to remain completely silent the prisons would be far less crowded.



firefly
 
  1  
Thu 20 Sep, 2012 05:58 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Second are they dividing CP into levels for the purpose of setting punishment levels like in the UK or just consider all CP as the same as we do.

You think all child pornography in the U.S. is regarded the same way, and that we don't have sentence enhancements for things like the age of the child, the nature of the image, etc.--just as they do in the U.K.?

After 123 pages of this thread, you're still ignorant of the actual U.S. child pornography laws? Good grief!

And the U.K, laws are not as simplistic as you are making them out to be. I have twice posted a link to those laws. Try reading them.

Your ignorance is staggering, and it's matched by your gall in trying to discuss and criticize actual laws you don't really understand.

firefly
 
  1  
Thu 20 Sep, 2012 06:05 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
That is the case in a great many law enforcement actions not just in CP cases that people will talked to the police/investigators and seal thier own faith before a defense lawyer get involved.

When the police or federal agents are in your house, with a valid search warrant, because they have tracked you down through your computer use, and they are finding all your child porn photos, and DVDs, and the images on your computers, it doesn't make much difference if you remain silent, your defense attorney is going to have a very hard time defending you.

Most of these people do acknowledge they have been collecting child pornography. They are really just admitting the obvious.

BillRM
 
  1  
Thu 20 Sep, 2012 06:28 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Here's another one from today's news, where the man acknowledged possession of child pornography, and even told the Feds where he had hidden more. This isn't at all unusual. Once the government shows up, they'll find it if you've got it, and the suspects know that.


There is a military concept that you never give an enemy a free ride no matter what and you do not for the same reasons say one word even if they find you setting on a pile of CP DVDs and the bag of money from the bank robbery you just done beside a bail of pot.

Now in the first case you just posted about there was at least two people in that home with likely access to that computer the man and his wife and in order to bring charges aganst anyone they would need to show who of those that have access to that computer did the downloading of the CP in that home.

Not an impossible task but why do their work for them?

Their desire is to wrap this case up as fast as possible not spend manhours proving that it was not his wife or a visiting family member that download the material instead of him.

Even if guilty as hell this kind of problems for the state give his lawyer bargaining power for a far better plea deal.



0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Thu 20 Sep, 2012 06:35 pm
@firefly,
Sorry levels are not build into the federal law and the Federal sentencing guideline do not take then into account either and I read the links you gave concerning the UK and no it is not simple and they take in a lot to others things such as the age of the 'children' and such into account that we do not or at least in any formal manner anyway.

All in all it is a far better and saner system then ours.
BillRM
 
  1  
Thu 20 Sep, 2012 07:09 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
When the police or federal agents are in your house, with a valid search warrant, because they have tracked you down through your computer use, and they are finding all your child porn photos, and DVDs, and the images on your computers, it doesn't make much difference if you remain silent, your defense attorney is going to have a very hard time defending you.


It nice that you had so must faith in our law-enforcement people but if the person remain silent it not that simple for them.

They are not suppose to do anything with the computers but shut them down if they are on by unpluging them after taking a screen shot and taking them to an expert that not normally along with them.

So unless you do confess to them right there they will be leaving with your computers but not having you under arrest and you will have plenty of time to line up bail and a lawyer before they get arround to your hard drives as they normally had a large backup of harddrives to look at similar to the backlog of rape kits.

If they do have an experts along to do an ensite search and had run into a computer security nut like your truly they are still out of luck and will need to leave with the computers and the external drives and the DVDs and then they will have fun fun fun back in the lab dealing with one layer of security after another.

By known methods to get around AES for example they would be back to arrest the person assuming they do find anything illegal in three hundred billions years or so.

The FBI hammer on one computer hardrive with AES protection for over a year trying to brute force the password before giving up.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Thu 20 Sep, 2012 07:31 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Sorry levels are not build into the federal law and the Federal sentencing guideline do not take then into account either and I read the links you gave concerning the UK and no it is not simple and they take in a lot to others things such as the age of the 'children' and such into account that we do not or at least in any formal manner anyway.

You are wrong!
Federal sentencing guidelines definitely take things like age of the child, and the type of activity depicted into account.

Here's an example
Quote:
Judge says some child porn sentencing guidelines are too harsh
August 13, 2012

HAMMOND — A federal judge expressed concern Wednesday afternoon that the sentencing guidelines overseeing certain child pornography crimes are too harsh.

“(The guidelines) go from a sentence of two to three years to a sentence of seven to 10 years very, very quickly,” U.S. District Judge Philip Simon said during a sentencing hearing for Hammond resident Hugh Payne, 64. “I’m very troubled by that.”

Payne pleaded guilty earlier this year to one count of possession of child pornography, and federal sentencing guidelines say that the base range of imprisonment should have been about two to three years.

However, Payne’s range was increased to six to eight years because he used a computer for the crime, the pictures included children younger than 12 years old and some children were shown being constrained. A U.S. Supreme Court ruling, often referred to as Booker, made the guidelines advisory instead of mandatory for federal judges.

Payne’s attorney, Paul Stracci, argued Wednesday that all of those enhancements show up in the vast majority of other child pornography possession crimes and that defendants are essentially punished twice.

“I think it’s unfair; I think it’s unfortunate,” Stracci said.
http://posttrib.suntimes.com/news/lake/13720352-418/judge-says-some-child-porn-sentencing-guidelines-are-too-harsh.html

Quote:
B. Evolution of United States Sentencing Guideline Section 2G2.2

The guideline governing possession and distribution of child
pornography, United States Sentencing Guidelines section 2G2.2, was
first promulgated by the Sentencing Commission in 1987. In the past
several years, the section has been amended several times, resulting in
increasingly lengthy sentences. These strict penalties result from
amendments that have increased the number and severity of various
sentencing enhancements. The current guideline includes enhancements
if any of the following circumstances are established: the material
includes prepubescent children or minors under twelve; the material
depicts sadistic or masochistic conduct; the defendant has exhibited a
“pattern of activity” involving sexual abuse of a minor; or the offense
involved the use of a computer.
Additional enhancements apply if the defendant distributed the material rather than merely possessing it.
Finally, section 2G2.2 allows for escalating enhancements depending on
the number of images possessed. Without any enhancement, the
mandatory minimum for receipt of child pornography is five years.

http://uchastings.edu/hlj/archive/vol61/Basbaum_61-HLJ-1281.pdf


You've been carrying on about the sentencing guidelines throughout this thread, and chirping about how federal judges agree with you, but now it turns out that you're ignorant of those guidelines and not familiar with what the judges are complaining about.

You've been claiming that the U.K takes factors, like the age of the child, and the nature of the image depicted into account, and the U.S. treats all child pornography the same--when that is absolutely incorrect. In addition, the sentencing enhancements in the U.K., including the number of images possessed, can also send the person to prison for years. Even a simulated indecent photo in the U.K. can carry a sentence of three years.

Your ignorance is only matched by your gall in trying to discuss and criticize actual laws you lack knowledge of.

BillRM
 
  1  
Thu 20 Sep, 2012 07:41 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Finally, section 2G2.2 allows for escalating enhancements depending on
the number of images possessed. Without any enhancement, the
mandatory minimum for receipt of child pornography is five years
.


Or to put it another way without any enchancements the guidelines are insanely harsh and what might get a warning and some community control in merry old england is by the guidelines calling for five years.

Nor does it have the five levels that the UK law contain.
firefly
 
  1  
Thu 20 Sep, 2012 07:59 pm
@BillRM,
And that 5 year mandatory minimum sentence is often gotten around here,
Quote:
In one recent case, James L. Graham, a United States District Court judge in Ohio, sentenced a 67-year-old man who had suffered a stroke to a single day in prison, along with restrictions on computer use and registration as a sex offender. As part of a deal with prosecutors, the man had pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography, which carries no mandatory sentence.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2010/5/22/13917/6616


and judges in the U.K, also toss people in jail for years.

All you spout is BS.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4grQi_e5neg/TvAgKFFbthI/AAAAAAAAAF4/zJjbB1QOecg/s1600/head-up-ass.jpg
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 01/23/2025 at 08:41:10