Judge accussed of viewing childporn holds out
Wallas | 16.09.2005 12:00
He is not the only judge in the world facing allegations of accessing child pornography, but it is now looking like Judge Brian Curtin in Ireland is at the centre of one of the highest profile child pornography cases in the world.
The brief background story is that he was a 2003 victim of the spin-off from the FBI Landslide case, called Operation Amethyst in Ireland and Operation Ore in the UK, when, given evidence of his credit card transactions, the Irish police raided his home and seized his computer and files. They were triumphant at what they found and information about the contents was swiftly leaked to the media.
Legal delays began immediately and the Irish government, already faced with a multitude of scandals, became jittery. As his case finally came to court, his top legal team delivered a bombshell. The search warrant used to enter his home and seize his computer and files was a day late. The presiding judge threw out the case, clearing Curtin in a situation where he could now not be retried for that alleged offence. The government appeared astonished, while some wondered if it had all been staged. The police were seriously embarrassed.
Here now was the extraordinary situation. A judge against whom were made allegations of paying for and possessing child pornography had been cleared because of a legal technicality, which in turn was caused by the police and prosecution service. A government already under intense pressure for not being willing or able to deal with white collar crime had made public statements to the effect that Judge Curtin would not be staying in office. But he was innocent unless proven guilty under the law, and, no matter what evidence the police had found regarding his credit card transactions and the images on his computer, he could not be retried for any offence relating to them. The government began to talk impeachment. They dearly hoped that he would resign. There was speculation in the media about his shame, physical attacks on him, his drinking, and even that he was in a mental institution and that his legal team were no longer able to take instructions from him. Appearing to support all this, he was stopped by the police and charged with drunk driving in his home town. People began to assume that he would quietly slip into the shadows, a broken man.
On June 1 2004, Judge Curtin struck back by lodging a plenary summons in the High Court seeking a declaration that evidence collected unlawfully cannot be used in any proceedings, naming the police, the director of public prosecutions, the government and the attorney general. Some readers may remember that shortly after we and others pointed out that the UK police were breaking the law by viewing seized child pornography last year, a special amendment was created to the UK legislation allowing named persons to view child pornography.
Perhaps the Emperor has no clothes
Special legislation was created authorizing the setting up of a select committee of members of the Irish Parliament to view and consider whatever child pornography images had been discovered in Judge Curtin’s possession, but it was not immediately clear whether or not in so doing they also would be breaking the law.
Curtin is seeking a declaration from the High Court that no further use can be made of the evidence collected by the police, and that it cannot be given to third parties, such as the politicians cleared to look at the images. It has also emerged that Curtin has begun proceedings against the country’s prime minister ‘the Taoiseach’. Amongst his possible proceedings is one for trespass.
On June 30 2004, the committee wrote to Judge Curtin asking for his cooperation and for any documents or disks in his possession. Apart from the police, only another judge, the one that first decided that Curtin should go for trial, has inspected the images, and he did so privately.
Even if Judge Curtin decides to cooperate with the committee, it is difficult to see how he could, as he does not have possession of the documents or disks in question, which are still in the hands of the police. Counsel for the police has advised them that it would be a criminal offence for them to pass the evidence to third parties as it contains ‘child pornography’. Muddying the waters further is that fact that because of the flawed search warrant, the police obtained the images illegally. This alone could contaminate the evidence. For this reason the committee wants to obtain the material directly from the judge, and not from the police.
This then is the conundrum. The judge will point out that he cannot pass over the material because the police have it. The police have already stated that they cannot give the material to anyone because it contains child pornography, not even back to Judge Curtin. In the end, the committee may have to order the police to hand it to them directly. If they already have doubts about the legality of this, they may have to add to them the question of the morality of their attempting to decide the criminality of the images, which if, like other images of that nature, are likely to contain depictions of child nudity and child eroticism. This exposes them to the risk of corruption, both through their own and society’s perceived affects of images of child nudity and eroticism, and through their having to make moral decisions about what is and is not pornographic and what others should and should not see. Should this be like previous historical cases, where unusual forms of sexuality were judged to be immoral, and in particular if any of the images, or their genre, should in the future be deemed by society to have become acceptable, this could lead to the committee members being viewed as prejudiced or dishonourable.
No-one has yet suggested that underlying the conundrum are flawed child pornography laws.
taken from:
http://www.inquisition21.com
Legal delays began immediately and the Irish government, already faced with a multitude of scandals, became jittery. As his case finally came to court, his top legal team delivered a bombshell. The search warrant used to enter his home and seize his computer and files was a day late. The presiding judge threw out the case, clearing Curtin in a situation where he could now not be retried for that alleged offence. The government appeared astonished, while some wondered if it had all been staged. The police were seriously embarrassed.
Here now was the extraordinary situation. A judge against whom were made allegations of paying for and possessing child pornography had been cleared because of a legal technicality, which in turn was caused by the police and prosecution service. A government already under intense pressure for not being willing or able to deal with white collar crime had made public statements to the effect that Judge Curtin would not be staying in office. But he was innocent unless proven guilty under the law, and, no matter what evidence the police had found regarding his credit card transactions and the images on his computer, he could not be retried for any offence relating to them. The government began to talk impeachment. They dearly hoped that he would resign. There was speculation in the media about his shame, physical attacks on him, his drinking, and even that he was in a mental institution and that his legal team were no longer able to take instructions from him. Appearing to support all this, he was stopped by the police and charged with drunk driving in his home town. People began to assume that he would quietly slip into the shadows, a broken man.
On June 1 2004, Judge Curtin struck back by lodging a plenary summons in the High Court seeking a declaration that evidence collected unlawfully cannot be used in any proceedings, naming the police, the director of public prosecutions, the government and the attorney general. Some readers may remember that shortly after we and others pointed out that the UK police were breaking the law by viewing seized child pornography last year, a special amendment was created to the UK legislation allowing named persons to view child pornography.
Perhaps the Emperor has no clothes
Special legislation was created authorizing the setting up of a select committee of members of the Irish Parliament to view and consider whatever child pornography images had been discovered in Judge Curtin’s possession, but it was not immediately clear whether or not in so doing they also would be breaking the law.
Curtin is seeking a declaration from the High Court that no further use can be made of the evidence collected by the police, and that it cannot be given to third parties, such as the politicians cleared to look at the images. It has also emerged that Curtin has begun proceedings against the country’s prime minister ‘the Taoiseach’. Amongst his possible proceedings is one for trespass.
On June 30 2004, the committee wrote to Judge Curtin asking for his cooperation and for any documents or disks in his possession. Apart from the police, only another judge, the one that first decided that Curtin should go for trial, has inspected the images, and he did so privately.
Even if Judge Curtin decides to cooperate with the committee, it is difficult to see how he could, as he does not have possession of the documents or disks in question, which are still in the hands of the police. Counsel for the police has advised them that it would be a criminal offence for them to pass the evidence to third parties as it contains ‘child pornography’. Muddying the waters further is that fact that because of the flawed search warrant, the police obtained the images illegally. This alone could contaminate the evidence. For this reason the committee wants to obtain the material directly from the judge, and not from the police.
This then is the conundrum. The judge will point out that he cannot pass over the material because the police have it. The police have already stated that they cannot give the material to anyone because it contains child pornography, not even back to Judge Curtin. In the end, the committee may have to order the police to hand it to them directly. If they already have doubts about the legality of this, they may have to add to them the question of the morality of their attempting to decide the criminality of the images, which if, like other images of that nature, are likely to contain depictions of child nudity and child eroticism. This exposes them to the risk of corruption, both through their own and society’s perceived affects of images of child nudity and eroticism, and through their having to make moral decisions about what is and is not pornographic and what others should and should not see. Should this be like previous historical cases, where unusual forms of sexuality were judged to be immoral, and in particular if any of the images, or their genre, should in the future be deemed by society to have become acceptable, this could lead to the committee members being viewed as prejudiced or dishonourable.
No-one has yet suggested that underlying the conundrum are flawed child pornography laws.
taken from:
http://www.inquisition21.com
Wallas
Comments
Hide the following 7 comments
analysis
16.09.2005 13:23
1) in the US, where the database of potential child porn viewers originated, the US authorities sifted the names of US citizens to identify likely offenders, and then ran sting operations against these individuals to gain ACTUAL proof (they were offered child porn videos by post, and the like). The US authorities NEVER did what the British, Irish, and Australians police did, which was to simple assume the guilt of the database names (regardless of potential credit card identity theft etc.,) and raid the individuals, confiscating computers.
2) The reason for the actions in Britain and Australia was to set up a BLACKMAIL network against key males in positions in authority in order to further the political aims of Tony Blair, and Howard (of Australia). For this blackmail to work, many offenders had to be thrown to the wolves, where the greatest example of this was the sheer numbers of suicides amongst the accused. One of Blair's blackmail victims was a key player in Blair's election victory. Even without guilt, Blair was able to use this tactic to take down the musician who was about to launch an ANTI-WAR record (like band-aid) just before the invasion of Iraq. This musician had his computers raided JUST BEFORE the record was to be made, in a TOTALLY UNFOUNDED accusation of having child porn on them (and NO he was not on the 'operation ore' database, or any other).
3) The Irish actions occured simply because Ireland mindless copies the UK. Thus, when important people in Ireland were caught out, as with this judge, they simply used the endemic corruption that exists there to protect themselves. I mean, who EVER suggested that the Irish have ever been interested in child welfare. In their VERY recent past, they have, of all the countries of the Earth, abused their child population in the most horrifying of ways.
4) The internet has proven very clearly that when a clear sexual fetish exists, the demand for material depicting that fetish causes an increase of NEW material to be made, for commercial or non-commercial reasons. Thus, the value of child pornography laws, pretty uniformly adopted around the world, has been clearly shown. For these laws to work, actual abusers have to be punished MORE severly than those that view the images, and unacceptable pornography has to be clearly defined as SEXUAL IMAGERY THAT DOES NOT USE CONSENTING ADULTS.
5) Blair has used child pornography laws in the ways listed above, but also to create a smokescreen that protects ACTUAL child abusers. This works by massively increasing the number of potential suspects,and then ensuring that police resources are targeted at internet users, and not people abusing children in the community. This also applies to powerful members of Blair's hierarchy who abuse/groom under-age children in South America, before bringing these people into London when they reach the recently adjusted age of sexual consent to serve as high-class prostitute partners to London's elite.
6) The success of Blair's blackmail schemes means that Blair is now about to extend prosecutions to UK citizens that view images of CONSENTING ADULTS ENGAGED IN SEX PLAY. Basically, anything that Blair's state controlled pornographers are not allow to show or sell you becomes illegal to own in the UK- a situation previously ONLY found in Taliban controlled Afghanistan (and the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of the legal system throughout most of the West). The purpose of this is clear- ALL users of the internet become potential abusers of this law, and ALL adult citizens of the UK become potential Blackmail victims.
TO MAKE THIS CLEAR- the most common fetish play of VANILLA couples is mild bondage and rape-play (and anyone who objects to these words can sod off and read Nancy Friday, or any one of a thousand other sources explaining healthy adult sexuality). If this couple were to video themselves, they would be sent to prison FOR THREE YEARS, and their children placed in a home run by one of the sponsers of this proposed law, the NCH (see how many times the head of this organisation is quoted by Blair).
Blair is merely extended the tactic used by Hitler in the 30's and 40's, when many homosexuals were sent to concentration camps, or to their deaths, even though many of Hitler's elite were homosexual themselves. Sex crime was another tool to control the male power hierarchy to Hitler's benefit.
Blair is about to run a MAJOR publicity campaign equating child sex abuse with adults engaging in, or viewing consential adult sex-play. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO IMAGINE A MORE EVIL ACT. Children can ONLY be protected by a clear recognition of the difference between adults that CAN CONSENT to sex acts, and children that CANNOT. By bluring this distinction to the point of uselessness, Blair, and his NCH supporters and others, are about to do MORE to damage the lives of children than ANY force in human history.
FROM SOME TIME NEXT YEAR CHILD SEX ABUSERS WILL BE ABLE TO SAY THAT UNDER THE LAW, RAPING A CHILD IS ***NO DIFFERENT*** FROM WHAT LOVING COUPLES DO WITH EACH OTHER IN THE BEDROOM ALL ACROSS THE UK!!! IT IS A KNOWN FACT THAT ACTUAL CHILD ABUSE INCREASES WHEN THE ABUSER FEELS ABLE TO JUSTIFY HIS ABUSE. THIS WILL BE THE GREATEST JUSTIFICATION CHILD ABUSERS HAVE EVER BEEN GIVEN.
You want to know what sick, twisted, perverted monster you elected (or more accurately DIDN'T elect) at the last election???
twilight
Not clear
16.09.2005 15:22
"FROM SOME TIME NEXT YEAR CHILD SEX ABUSERS WILL BE ABLE TO SAY THAT UNDER THE LAW, RAPING A CHILD IS ***NO DIFFERENT*** FROM WHAT LOVING COUPLES DO WITH EACH OTHER IN THE BEDROOM ALL ACROSS THE UK!!! IT IS A KNOWN FACT THAT ACTUAL CHILD ABUSE INCREASES WHEN THE ABUSER FEELS ABLE TO JUSTIFY HIS ABUSE"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT LAW ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT AND WHAT DOES IT SAY EXACTLY?
ARE YOU SUGGESTING THE UK IS GOING TO LEGALIZE RAPING A CHILD?
I DONT THINK SO, PLEASE PUT THE SOURCE OF YOUR CLAIMS OR CHANGE YOUR POSTING CLAIMS.
NOT ONLY CHILD ABUSE INCREASES WHEN THE ABUSER FEELS ABLE TO JUSTIFY IT, ANY ABUSE, LET'S IT BE POLICE ABUSE,EMPLOYERS ABUSE,PARTNERS ABUSE, OR TEACHER'S ABUSE INCREASES WHEN THE ABUSER FEELS ABLE TO JUSTIFY IT.
THE UK (AND OTHER COUNTRIES) CRIMINALIZES CHILD NUDITY AND CALLS IT "PORNOGRAPHY" EVEN WHEN NO SEXUAL POSE OR ACT TAKES PLACE, AND THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THE INCREASE IN CASES OF SO-CALLED CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.
Melissa
"Some 50 police officers have also been arrested"
16.09.2005 18:51
HAHAHAHAH! You really suggesting that Blair fitted up Pete Townsend who freely admits to having paid to surf childporn???
You are truly nutty mate! The rest isn't even worth commenting after that gem.
Lolita
Some answers
16.09.2005 19:25
Firstly, if I refer to anything without reference, I do so because I am NOT writing a student essay, and readers can go 'google up' the information if they so wish.
Secondly, I write in upper case for emphasis- I certainly did not do it for the whole of my post, as you did.
Thirdly, with a little bit of reading comprehension skill, you would have noticed that I informed you that Blair is going to make many forms of CONSENTING ADULT SEX IMAGERY illegal, allowing the child abuser to argue that THEIR crimes are no more henious than the crimes of consenting adults looking at images of consenting adults (possibly themselves if they self-video). In other words a child abuser will argue "I may be a sex criminal, but in Blair's eyes, I am no more a sex criminal than the adult couple next door who tie each other up, and make home videos". That clear enough???
Fourthly, I have NO sympathy with those that attempt to blur the boundary between children and adults. Adults are NOT prosecuted for simple possession of non-sexual pictures of children (and those that claim this are lying). They ARE prosecuted for possession of these images WHEN combined with other behaviour that clearly indicates at best an UNHEALTHY interest in child sexuality, and at worst, out and out abuse. Real child abusers would like nothing better than to have the issue of child abuse muddied by allowing the prosecution of adults for having an interest in different forms of ADULT sexuality. If police were spending their time persuing adults looking at adults, well disciplined child abusers would see a massively reduced likelyhood of detection and prosecution for their crimes.
twilight
Whit?
16.09.2005 21:03
Or alternatively, because you can't? Because its a lot of unsubstantiated tosh?
Observer
twilight
17.09.2005 04:09
However, it is no more than a plausible idea until you can provide some corroborating evidence. Refernces are not simply the preserve of 'student essays', they are an essential way of helping to separate fact and fiction in what is an increasingly fictitious world. If you write without them your credibility takes a big nose-dive. Stop being lazy; if there is evidence refer to it, if there isn't evidence then make it very clear why you have come to the conclusions that you have without it.
P
twilight
17.09.2005 07:21
The reasons for doing so may be numerous, but I suspect you are suffering from some sort of mental illness and should seek professional help.
Otherwise, it is just a rather pathetic attempt to invent a smear campaign. We usually attract a better class of loon here that are efficient enough to be able to copy and paste someone else who can annotate a conspiracy theory and are good at spotting ambiguity enough to reverse engineer their nonsense.
So please provide the following info that proves these points:
1.) The [...] British, Irish, and Australians police [...] assume[d] the guilt of the database names (regardless of potential credit card identity theft etc.,) and raid the individuals, confiscating computers.
2.) " BLACKMAIL"; Just who is this mystery musician that has escaped media attention than?
In fact, please repost your comments fully annotated especially this bit:
"FROM SOME TIME NEXT YEAR CHILD SEX ABUSERS WILL BE ABLE TO SAY THAT UNDER THE LAW, RAPING A CHILD IS ***NO DIFFERENT*** FROM WHAT LOVING COUPLES DO WITH EACH OTHER IN THE BEDROOM ALL ACROSS THE UK!!! IT IS A KNOWN FACT THAT ACTUAL CHILD ABUSE INCREASES WHEN THE ABUSER FEELS ABLE TO JUSTIFY HIS ABUSE. THIS WILL BE THE GREATEST JUSTIFICATION CHILD ABUSERS HAVE EVER BEEN GIVEN."
Lolita