If civil commitment is not prison, then why were the voting ballots of Littlefield TX "patients" thrown away?

Interestingly, same article, same author, different headline. Lets face it, most of us understand "civil commitment" is just a euphemism for indefinite detention Abu Ghraib style.

Houston Chronicle | Dec. 6, 2016
Officials leave sex offenders' election ballots uncounted
Sex offenders at treatment center sue for alleged rights violations

Now, the San Antonio Express News's headline:

Prisoners’ ballots tossed out
By Mike Ward, Austin Bureau December 8, 2016

http://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Prisoners-ballots-tossed-out-10784382.php

Prisoners’ ballots tossed out
By Mike Ward, Austin Bureau, December 8, 2016


AUSTIN - Like millions of Americans who wanted to have their say, more than 100 men inside a West Texas treatment center for sexually violent predators registered to vote in last month's presidential election.

Local election officials, however, refused to count their ballots, a decision that attorneys say likely violates federal and state laws.

The tossed-out votes now are the subject of a growing legal fight in the small town that once begged to get the treatment center for the jobs and the multimillion-dollar payroll that it brought, but now appears to be having second thoughts about the more than 200 convicted sex offenders that came with it.

"They didn't want us going out into their community, so they made us vote by mail, and now they're denying us the right to vote at all," said Clarence Brown, 54, one of the men in the Billy Clayton Center whose ballots were rejected. "This place isn't supposed to be a prison, but this run-down, bigoted little town is trying to make it one so we can't exercise our constitutional right to vote. Even if they don't like us, what they have done is not legal."

Brown said he and 65 other men at the center have filed a challenge to the decision to reject their ballots by Early Voting Ballot Board Judge Steve Busby. They said they plan to ask the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate the case as a violation of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which makes it a federal crime to prevent a qualified voter from casting a ballot.

Officials with the Texas Civil Commitment Office that operates the sex offender program and top elections officials at the Texas Secretary of State Office acknowledged the problem but said there is little they can do.

Lamb County elections officials contend it was not their decision and referred questions to Busby. He did not return repeated phone calls.

Documents obtained by the Chronicle show the state laws that Busby cited in rejecting the ballots were the same ones state officials used to allow the men to vote by mail: They were disabled, they were confined and could not get to a polling place to vote and that they had fully discharged their prison sentences.

"It sounds like a pretty clear violation," said Buck Wood, an Austin lawyer and expert on Texas elections law. "If they completed their sentences, they should have been allowed to vote."

'There was grumbling'

Under Texas law, felons who have completed their prison sentences are entitled to vote.

State files show the fight began earlier this year when Brown and as many as a dozen other men at the Clayton Center registered to vote in the March primaries. County officials advised them to vote by mail, records show, but none were counted.

"There was grumbling, and I asked the county how they could vote, to resolve this in the future," said Marsha McLane, executive director of the Texas Civil Commitment Office. "There were three options: They could either go a polling place on Election Day or they could bring a polling place to the center to let them vote there or they could do it by absentee ballot."

Officials confirmed that before all the men in the state's civil-commitment program were moved to Littlefield in September 2015, many had voted in Houston, Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth and other locations where they were housed in jails and halfway houses.

Because many of the men at the Littlefield facility did not have proper identification cards to cast ballots in person, the civil commitment agency transported the prospective voters - about 50 of them - to a Texas Department of Public Safety office in Lubbock to get state-approved ID cards. Each man paid the $21 cost for the cards, McLane said.

Internal state emails show Lamb County officials in May nixed in-person voting as an option and again urged absentee ballots to avoid problems with local residents, including the possibility of violence.

"I will assure you that if the ballot by mail does not work, I will not intentionally violate anyone's constitutional right to vote," County Judge Mike DeLoach wrote in a May 24 email to McLane. "I am gravely concerned if you bring your residents into town to vote, it is going to cause problems - in fact, it is not a 'maybe' or a possibility' - it is going to My concern is not only for the public and their safety, but also for your facility/staff and your residents' safety; neither the county nor the city maintain resources to provide security at polling places."

DeLoach also noted that while 30 men wanted to vote at the time, up to 300 eventually may want to vote in the future, a number that could impact local election races.

As of Monday, the center housed about 240 men.

DeLoach did not return calls requesting comment.

'Disabled' option OK'd
By late May, DeLoach said he had asked County Attorney Scott Say to request a legal ruling from Attorney General Ken Paxton on whether the men could vote absentee by claiming the "disabled" exemption. The Secretary of State's Office soon signed off on the mail ballots for the men.

"It can reasonably be argued that a person who has been clinically assessed ... to the point where the individual civilly committed and is unable to leave the commitment facility without being accompanied is disabled for purposes of voting by mail," Caroline Geppert, a staff attorney in the Elections Division, wrote in a May 31 email to the civil commitment agency. "Such an individual may credibly claim to have a sickness or condition that prevents the person from voting in person without the need for personal assistance."

Alicia Pierce, a spokesperson for Secretary of State Carlos Cascos, confirmed that election officials had approved mail ballots for the men. In a message to the agency, DeLoach said that was good enough to resolve the issue for county officials.

Then, Nov. 17, Brown and 65 other men received notice that the ballot each had mailed was rejected by the Early Voting Ballot Board and was not counted.

Three state laws were listed: Those covering disability, confinement in jail and the qualifications to be a voter.

Defining coercion
Privately, several local and state officials said they disagree with the decision, noting that Early Ballot Voting Boards in most counties only compare signatures on mail ballots to validate their authenticity, as well as other record-keeping details, and do not disqualify ballots for other reasons.

The state handbook for those boards confirms that.

Ten days after the election and a day after Busby officially rejected the ballots, Say, who serves as both the district and county attorney in the community of 6,300 residents, asked the attorney general to determine whether the men who voted can claim a "disability," a ruling that could block future voting if that option is nixed.

If that happens, McLane said she plans to transport eligible voters from the center to a local polling place despite the objection of local officials. "The law appears to be clear. I don't want to get sued," she said.

While advocates insist Texas law makes it a misdemeanor for anyone who "influences or attempts to influence a voter not to vote or to vote in a particular manner," state election officials said they do not believe that law covers the Littlefield situation.

"It seems to be applicable to bribery or coercing someone to vote or not to vote, not specifically relayed to counting the vote," Pierce said.

Wood disagreed.

"Taking a person's ballot and throwing it out is coercion," he said.

Bill Marshall, a Houston attorney who represents Brown and other men at the treatment center, said the case appears to be a clear denial of voting rights, especially since some of the men's ballots were counted and others were not.

"The feds should go after this," he said.

Gotta Scare Them All! Media and victim industry blowhards sound the Predator Panic alarm over Pokemon Go app

Unless you've been living under a rock for the past two decades, at some point you've heard of Pokemon. You may have heard of this new app called "Pokemon Go," which uses "augmented reality" to search for those little critters in the real world.

Yes, there was a random incident where folks were getting robbed at a spot where the Pokemon appears (you are an idiot if you are wandering around secluded locations late at night), so now Team Fearmonger warns to prepare for trouble and make it double.

What kind of Pokemon would you find at the Suffolk County Legislative/ PFML and Fox 10 Phoenix regions? How about Clefucktards, Machumps, Pidgidiots, and 'Tardmanders.

Seriously, I think whoever came up with this deserves a swift kick in the Pokeballs. We need to erRATICATE all this fearmongering. (Okay okay, I'll stop with the Pokemon puns.)

http://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/arizona-news/173079163-story

Pokemon Go has location at sex offender residence

Marc Martinez
POSTED:JUL 11 2016 09:02PM MST
UPDATED:JUL 12 2016 09:50AM MST

It's a game that has everyone talking, and everyone playing, even adults.

Pokemon Go has become an overnight phenomenon, and while it's meant to be all fun and games, it has put some players in danger. The game which mixes fantasy with reality gets people out and about, looking for and capturing Pokemon characters and other prizes using their phones.

But since the game's release, it's been linked to robberies and the discovery of a dead body. Now there is a new risk closer to home which could have unsuspecting players walking right into what could be a dangerous situation. One of the locations is a hotel turned halfway house for dozens of registered sex offenders.

One of the beacons used in the game is the New Windsor Hotel. It's on the list of historic places which is why it may be on the Pokemon Go app. But when you search Arizona's DPS Sex Offender Registry, you'll see 546 W Adams Street is home to 43 registered sex offenders.

That was news to one Pokemon Go player, Kyle Costello.

"It's a little bit concerning, but when you're walking around you don't have to be there, you only have to be like 100 feet to get the rewards from the location," said Costello.

It's a good reminder for parents with kids playing the game to find out where exactly they're going.

"Look at it as you would Halloween and trick or treating. Just make sure that if you have young children that you're the chaperon. That you accompany them," said Daphne Young.

Young is with Childhelp Children's Center of Arizona. She says it's a good idea to keep location tracking on your kids' phones when they're out searching for Pokemon.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/07/12/pokemon-go-crime-worries/

Pokémon Go Craze Sparks Worries About Sex Offenders, Cybercriminals
July 12, 2016 6:48 PM
Filed Under: Cybercriminals, Jennifer McLogan, Pokemon Go, Sex Offenders

4
BABYLON, N.Y. (CBSNewYork) — The Pokémon Go app has been all the rage in recent days, but new concerns have mounted about criminals abusing the game.

As CBS2’s Jennifer McLogan reported, there are worries that sex offenders might use the app to lure children, and cybercriminals might steal people’s information.

Sulma Rivas is part of a Pokémon Go scavenger hunt adventure craze. So are her three children.

Rivas keeps a watchful eye.

“I don’t want to do it when my mom’s not around, because I could get hurt,” said Mylie Rivas, 10.

Pokémon Go is exploding in popularity, and Babylon town officials have been monitoring hundreds of people of all ages circling the lake in Argyle Park – with their heads down and their smartphones in hand.

When asked if he was playing unsupervised, Ethan Fortaleza, 12, smiled and said, “Maybe.”

Ethan said his parents dropped him off in a safe area. But county officials are worried about the luring component of the game.

With 38,000 registered sex offenders in New York state, police fear that it might be easy for someone to fake a Pokémon Go ID and stalk a child player.

“The people who are the quickest to adapt to new trends in social media technology are criminals and predators,” said Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone.

Bellone wants Pokémon developer Niantic to install e-stop technology, making it tougher for predators to sign on and demanding more checks and balances.

After downloading the app, players are asked to sign up with their Google accounts, using existing credentials to ensure the process is fast and simple. But that can put at risk users’ emails, cameras, photos, and storage.

That pool of data could be a boon for cybercriminals.

“I haven’t heard anything about that. That would be unfortunate,” said Samara Katini, 21. “I probably wouldn’t play the game if that was a real problem.”

One computer crimes expert asked whether the possibility of privacy invasion was worth the tradeoff for the experience of Pokémon Go

Ninatic said it is working closely with authorities to keep all players safe. The company said it has no plans to share the data it collects with third parties.

http://longisland.news12.com/news/officials-pok%C3%A9mon-go-could-be-used-to-lure-crime-victims-1.12035312

Officials: 'Pokemon Go' could be used to lure crime victims
Updated July 12, 2016 5:24 PM

HAUPPAGUE - The "Pokemon Go" craze that is sweeping across America has some parents and officials in Suffolk County worried about potential predators.

Parents for Megan's Law and Suffolk County officials met Tuesday in an effort to warn parents about the dangers behind the virtual scavenger hunt app.

They say an option in the app allows users to "lure" people to a location to get points in the game.

Suffolk Police Commissioner Tim Sini says criminals will see the option as an opportunity.

"They could be lying in the wait to do a robbery, or it could be worse in terms of a sexual predator situation," says Sini.

Suffolk Executive Steve Bellone is calling on the Pokemon company to check its users against those on the E-Stop registry – the online registry of sex offender emails and social media accounts.

Another issue that has been raised is the app automatically granting full access to Google accounts. The app requires a Gmail account to sign in.

A spokesman for Pokemon Go issued a statement saying once they became aware of what they call an "error," they began working on a fix to only request basic google profile information.

The company had "no information to share" on the sex offender concerns.

Bipolar Kansas Supreme Court states the registry is punishment then states it is not punishment in four conflicting decisions published at the same time

So apparently, three cases ruled the registry is punitive (aka punishment), later in the day, there was an apparent shift change, and the majority of justices now become the minority and now the registry is NOT punishment. So ultimately the last case applies to everyone but the first three cases only apply to the people in those cases. Confused? Well, so am I. Hell, I'm not even sure I completely get it.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article73328242.html

Final case declares lifetime registration for sex offenders is not an additional punishment
 The Kansas Supreme Court
The Kansas Supreme Court
BY TONY RIZZO
trizzo@kcstar.com

In an apparently unprecedented series of events, the Kansas Supreme Court on Friday overruled three of its own opinions, also released Friday, regarding the state’s sex offender registration laws.

In three separate opinions issued Friday, the court found 2011 changes to the sex offender registry law cannot be applied retroactively to offenders convicted before the law took effect.

But then in a fourth opinion, also released Friday, the court found that those rulings were incorrect.

Attorneys across the state said they couldn’t recall a situation where the court reversed itself in rulings issued on the same day.

“We continue to study today’s peculiar group of Kansas Supreme Court decisions involving the offender registration act,” Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt said in a written statement. “In the coming days, we will endeavor to discern what the court actually has done and will assess all options for next steps.”

The highly unusual circumstance appear to be the result of a one-justice change in the makeup of the court.

The panel that decided the three cases concerning the 2011 changes included a senior district court judge, who sided with the majority in the 4-3 decisions. That interim judge was serving on the court while there was a vacancy.

But for the fourth case, the newest Supreme Court justice, Caleb Stegall, replaced the district court judge. That case also was decided 4-3, with Stegall casting the deciding vote.

The three justices who were part of the majority in the first three opinions became the minority in the fourth opinion.

The upshot was a finding that the Kansas law requiring lifetime registration for convicted sex offenders did not constitute additional punishment for a crime.

Therefore, the law does not violate federal or Kansas constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment, the court ruled in that fourth case.

In the three other cases, the court ruled that the law did constitute an additional punishment and said offenders convicted of crimes before 2011 could not have their 10-year registration periods extended to 25 years because the 25-year law took effect after they committed their crimes.

But those rulings apparently apply only to those three offenders.

Others will be governed by the fourth ruling Friday.

“While I’m happy that my client may get relief, it’s unfortunate that others similarly situated will not,” said attorney Meryl Carver-Allmond, who represented one of the men covered by the rulings on the 2011 law change.

She said it was “ludicrous” to say that the offender registry requirement is not punishment.

“The court had it right in the first instance,” said Carver-Allmond. “And it’s disappointing that the recent change in personnel steered them off course.”

Jeff Dazey, the attorney for one of the other men covered by the opinions in the 2011 law change, said he was “pleased, disappointed and somewhat perplexed” by the rulings.

“Virtually every year the Kansas legislature has modified the law to make registration more difficult and more expensive, while simultaneously increasing the penalties for failing to register and increasing the time that a person has to register,” Dazey said. “I firmly believe that applying these draconian terms and conditions on people whose initial registration duties expired is unconstitutional.”

Christopher Joseph, attorney for the third man covered by the 2011 change in the law, said it was an area of the law that is evolving.

Joseph said he “has little doubt” that courts across the country, including the U.S. Supreme Court, will ultimately agree that offender registration laws are “punitive.”

Today's Holy Shiitakes! nominee is brought to us by the letter C for Cookies, Cops, and Crap journalism

Also, C stands for a certain word that is an acronym for someone who Can't Understand Normal Thinking. Just how is someone "potentially" suspicious, anyways? Everyone has the potential to be suspicious-- the cops, the reporter, even the kid who made this claim.

http://www.cbs58.com/story/31552089/potentially-suspicious-man-asks-girls-about-buying-girl-scout-cookies

Potentially Suspicious Man Asks Girls about Buying Girl Scout Cookies
Posted: Mar 23, 2016 8:30 PM EDT
Updated: Mar 23, 2016 8:30 PM EDT
By Christie GreenCONNECT



Caledonia Police Department notified residents that a man suspiciously was asking two girls if they were selling Girl Scout cookies on Tuesday.

“As the intentions of the male are not known, and may in fact be nothing more than what it seems on face value, his actions were suspicious enough for him to contact his police department. Since we were not able to speak with the driver, we do not know if his intentions were as innocent as they appear to be or a ruse for something different,” said the Caledonia Police Department in a release.

The father of the two girls reported the incident occurred on Tuesday around 4:45 PM in the 4400 block of West Johnson Ave.

Two girls, ages 7-years-old and 11-years-old, were standing at the end of a driveway.

A red Ford Ranger, extended cab with stickers in the back window stopped in the street and the driver, a dark haired white man asked the girls if they were selling Girl Scout Cookies.

The girls said they were not and the subject left the scene.

This incident was witnesses by the father of the two girls who reported the incident to us.

“We are letting the public know what happened so this can be a teaching incident for the families of our community. Please remind your children how to handle contact with strangers when they are approached,” said Caledonia Police Department.

 If you have had an incident like this police are encouraging  you to contact 886-2300.

Washington's dope-smoking state Sup Ct rules in favor of vigilante troll Donna Zink of 109 N. Rowell Ave., Mesa WA 99343

It apparently does not matter that Donna Zink is violating state law by disclosing the public info, the state Sup Ct feels level ones have no rights. Looks to me like the Court has been hitting the legal weed a bit too much.

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Justices-Records-of-low-level-sex-offenders-are-7234710.php

Justices: Records of low-level sex offenders are public
Published 12:11 pm, Thursday, April 7, 2016

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — Washington's Supreme Court says information about low-level sex offenders can be released under the state Public Records Act.

The 7-1 decision Thursday overturns a King County Superior Court holding that found the records were not subject to disclosure. The ruling came in a case involving Donna Zink, a Franklin County woman who requested a copy of the Washington State Patrol's sex-offender database.

The state patrol planned to release the records, but some Level 1 sex-offenders sued, arguing that state law blocked the release of their records. Level 1 comprises those deemed least likely to reoffend. Some of the Level 1 sex offenders were convicted as juveniles and had molested family members, and they argued that releasing the information would make it easy to identify their victims.

But the court disagreed, saying there was no exemption under the Public Records Act that would block the release.

The court decision can be found here:

https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/904138.pdf

One thing I noticed is that Donna Zink is using a PO Box to file her complaints. (Apparently, she doesn't even like showing up to court in person.) I guess she doesn't want HER personal info out there, eh? But, in the interest of fairness, here is Donna Zink's personal info:
Donna Zink
PO Box 263
Mesa, WA 99343
509-265-4417
dzink@centurytel.net

Last Known Home Address:

109 N. Rowell Ave.
Mesa, WA 99343

Guess Donna forgot to redact one of those letters she was willing to share. Oopsies!

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0ByllKq5S8CniNHpuSDRGSTNiY2c&usp=sharing

It isn't kiddie porn distribution when the FBI does it, apparently

So apparently the FBI is short for the Feds Bestowing Illegal images. They also distribute malware, so not only does the FBI distribute child porn pictures, they peddle computer viruses as well.

http://thenextweb.com/insider/2016/01/28/how-the-fbi-became-the-worlds-largest-distributor-of-child-sex-abuse-imagery/

How the FBI became the world’s largest distributor of child sex abuse imagery

Bryan Clark by BRYAN CLARK   Tweet — 5d ago in INSIDER

For 12 days between February and March, 2014, the FBI was the world’s largest peddler of images and video depicting child sexual abuse on the internet.

In an attempt to catch criminals uploading, viewing, sharing and downloading these files, the US government authorized members of the FBI to run an operation — ‘Operation Pacifier’ — of dubious legality to catch pedophiles visiting Playpen, the world’s largest child sexual abuse site.

“There is something tawdry and sick about FBI agents peddling porn,” says famed civil rights trial attorney Norm Pattis.

In speaking with attorneys about Operation Pacifier, I heard words like: “shocking,” “disgusting,” and “vile”; they weren’t talking about the pedophiles. 

Playpen
Playpen launched in August of 2014 as a dark web site only accessible by ‘The Onion Router’, commonly known as TOR. Through use of TOR, users are able to access the Deep Web while routing web traffic around the world in an attempt to anonymize their browsing.

It’s not foolproof, but it’s the best weapon a Web user has to remain anonymous online. And anonymity, when peeking into the darkest corners of the web, is paramount.

Due to the nature of the site in question, I didn’t want to dig too far, but from FBI testimony on the topic, it contained files — mainly images and video — of some of the most extreme child abuse imagery one could imagine as well as advice on how sexual abusers could perpetrate their crimes without being caught.

For all intents and purposes, Playpen was amongst the darkest of the dark corners of the web.

Operation Pacifier
February 20, 2015 was an unremarkable day for Playpen’s users. At the surface, the site was operating as usual, but behind the scenes its server had been seized by FBI agents at a web host in North Carolina and moved to a secure government-controlled facility in Virgina.

No one noticed. And really, how could they?

For fear of raising suspicions amongst Playpen’s users, the FBI left the site fully operational while they sought a warrant to track users through what it refers to as “network investigative techniques” or NIT.

NIT, is a vague term for an exploit the FBI uses to gain access to a network or device. In this case, malware.

To be clear, ‘fully operational’ means just that. For two weeks, users had the ability to upload new files, view existing images or video and communicate with other pedophiles. Basically, it was business as usual, only the FBI was piloting the ship.

From February 20 until March 4, 2015, the FBI continued to operate Playpen while infecting users computers with malware in hopes that it would lead to identifying information, such as an internet protocol (IP) address.

During its 12 day reign as the king of all child sexual abuse sites, the FBI garnered some 1,300 of these IP addresses.

Sting operations featuring Deep Web honeypots aren’t new to the FBI.

In 2011, the bureau used NIT — albeit a different type of exploit — on three hidden services (Deep Web websites) hosting lewd images of minors. Users of these services were targeted through a Flash application that would ping a users real IP address back to an FBI-controlled server rather than routing the traffic through TOR, as intended.

But this operation, in comparison, was small potatoes in comparison to Pacifier. The FBI was only able to collect 25 IP addresses.

With Pacifier, the FBI went bigger. To catch a criminal, it seems, you have to become one. And that’s exactly what the FBI did, at least according to the legal professionals involved in the case.

Was the operation legal?
First, it’s important to understand that what the FBI did resides very much in the grey area of our legal system. As much as I tried, securing a conclusive and concrete answer to the legality of the FBI running this type of site proved elusive.

New York attorney Joseph Potashnik informed me that in federal cases this kind of conduct by law enforcment is legal. He wasn’t alone.

An attorney who preferred not to be named remarked that it was not only legal, but it was “abused by the government on a regular basis” in other cases he’s tried, citing an officer that committed a sex act with a prostitute and then charged her with prostitution.

Oddly enough, he wasn’t the only attorney to use that reference.

Others, like attorneys Mark McBride and Norm Pattis disagreed. According to McBride, who has defended these types of cases before, “It’s definitely not legal.”

Attorney Christopher Eskew noted that it wasn’t legal, but it wouldn’t be a case the US government would prosecute.

In short, there isn’t a clear answer as to the legality of what the FBI did. The agency did secure a warrant, but the warrant was strictly for the usage of the NIT, not running a lewd site disseminating explicit images and video of children.

It’s not even clear if the federal judge that signed the warrant understood the scope of what he was authorizing.

A Motherboard piece detailed this exchange between Judge Robert J. Bryan and defense attorney Colin Fieman, who is representing one of the accused, Jay Michaud:

“Do the FBI experts have any way to look at the NIT information other than going to the server?” Judge Bryan asked.

“Your Honor, they don’t go to the server,” Colin Fieman, replied.

“Where do they go? How do they get the information?”

“They get it from Mr. Michaud’s computer.”

“They don’t have his computer.”

“That’s what the NIT is for,” Fieman explained.

While Judge Bryan didn’t sign the warrant used to charge Michaud, it speaks to the complicated nature of understanding the scope of the malware under broad and vauge guidelines within its request.

There are several additional pages of transcripts that show Judge Bryan attempting to figure out just what this NIT is, and how it was going to be used.

All told, the court spent more than two hours on definitions and descriptions of NIT.

Lack of understanding aside, there are also issues with the warrant itself, most notably, jurisdiction.

Fieman, and Michaud’s other attorney, Linda Sullivan, argue that the warrant “is limited to persons and property in the Eastern District of Virginia.”

Keith Becker, an attorney for the Department of Justice (DOJ) said in a hearing, that the warrant, “clearly requested the authorities to deploy to computers wherever located.”

Michaud’s attorneys then proceeded to call into question the legality of the sting operation itself, stating:

There is no law enforcement exemption, or statutory exemption for the distribution of child pornography.

In this case, it’s easy to see that the need to catch a criminal overshadowed the FBI’s desire to stop the flow of information, which arguably, is more important.  Sullivan and Fieman argued that the harm caused by the dissemination of child sexual abuse images is summed up on the DOJs own website:

Once an image is on the Internet, it is irretrievable and can continue to circulate forever

The defense used these arguments in a motion to dismiss and a motion to suppress the government’s evidence that they feel was illegally gathered.

Update: Both motions were denied. 

At this point, the only thing we can be clear about in terms of legality was that we’re really not sure, but it doesn’t seem as if it matters whether the FBI broke any laws.

As Eskew put it, it’s highly unlikely the government would prosecute FBI agents.

Do the ends justify the means?
Leaving the attorneys and judges to decide legality, it’s much easier to debate whether the methods the FBI used to catch pedophiles justified the means.

No one would argue the benefit of apprehending those that are creating and distributing child sexual abuse images and video, but is it ever appropriate to display these images to pedophiles in an attempt to catch them?

Pattis eloquently states:

They claim they do so to draw out defendants, and defeat the market for prohibited images, yet the demand for the images remains the same. Lawmen can’t stamp out desire; they can only join the fray, becoming as twisted as the folks they prosecute.

I spoke with both the FBI and DOJ regarding this matter. According to DOJ spokesperson, Peter Carr:

While [shutting Playpen down] would end the trafficking of child pornography taking place on that one website, it would do nothing to prevent those same users from disseminating child pornography through other means … At no time in an operation like this does the FBI post any images, videos, or links to images of child pornography. Any posting of child pornography images and links are done by users of the website, not by the FBI.

While it wasn’t actively contributing to the cache of images, videos or links, the FBI was facilitating the practice for others who were doing just that. No matter where you stand on legality, this has to bring questions of morality to the table. Is “not actively contributing” enough to negate government responsibility in Operation Pacifier?

McBride doesn’t think so, “taking down 10 perverts does not outweigh the damages of even one image being disseminated.”

It’s hard to argue his logic. If capturing and releasing a sexually explicit image of a child is a crime against the victim, every time it’s viewed and passed on is akin to recommitting the crime, only this time with a new offender. McBride was unwavering in this belief.

In other sting operations, investigations have revolved around enticing users into registration through use of suggestive, but not explicit, images of minors.

Let’s attempt to quantify the success of this operation.

Playpen had a total of 215,000 members. Operation Pacifier collected 1,300 unique IP addresses and led to 137 users charged, meaning, nearly 90 percent of those tracked were never charged with a crime nearly a year after the investigation concluded.

What’s not quantifiable is the reach of these images and just how much the government’s operation, or the facilitation of pedophilia, did to benefit — or damage — child sexual abuse rings.

At the end of the day, you have to weigh the ends, 137 men charged, against the means, being complicit in the dissemination of sexually explicit imagery, and attempt to make a judgement call as to whether becoming a criminal is worth catching one.

You've already gotten an 825 year sentence. Why not tack on five more years, just in case?

It's FloriDUH. Need I say more?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/27/judge-tacks-5-more-years-on-florida-sex-offenders-/

Judge tacks 5 more years on Florida sex offender’s sentence

By - Associated Press - Wednesday, January 27, 2016
DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. (AP) - A judge sentenced a central Florida man to five years in prison for failure to register as a sex offender.

But the Daytona Beach News-Journal (http://bit.ly/1lRwYRL ) reports 41-year-old David Allan Hall has bigger problems. He was already sentenced last summer to 825 years after being found guilty of 55 counts of possession of child pornography.

Prosecutors sought to have the additional five years tacked onto the 825 years because there’s always the chance that a sentence could be overturned on appeal. Hall has already appealed the longer sentence.

It took jurors just 10 minutes to find Hall guilty after a three-hour trial.

State Attorney R.J. Larizza called Hall a “dangerous sexual predator with a history of targeting children.”