U.S. Assistant District Attorney Terri Moore Terri Moore in her capacity as Assistant U.S. Attorney knew I was not guilty of the crime I was charged.. later used to promote herself as she ran for elected political office. Among her self serving lying quotes in her political campaign ads is: I put that s**t peddler away for life. Dallas Texas

What I dont get is that so many people here are against this guy but look how many supporters this other guy got who actually took photos himself (thomas reedy did no ground work even like this all he did was have a banner which he may simply not have caught or been too lazy to take down):

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/02/tuscaloosa_county_photographer.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15977010/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts#.WqwDQRrTmhB

https://www.cnet.com/news/federal-case-may-redefine-child-porn/

why all the hate to this man because ur jelous he made some money?

DISCLAIMER & CAVEAT: I am not a lawyer and nothing I write here is intended to be practicing law. If you want a lawyer, you must contact a lawyer licensed to practice law in your jurisdiction.

It is probably too late to pursue legal remedies against any of the defense lawyers who represented Thomas Reedy, due to the statute of limitations and tolling rules on the various Texas causes of action for legal malpractice. The following Wikipedia article states that he was convicted in January 2000, more than 12 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Avalanche_%28child_pornography_investigation%29

In January 2000 Thomas Reedy was convicted of trafficking in child pornography through testimony from witnesses including Sharon Girling, a UK police officer at SOCA/NCS). Based on a prior police investigation in the UK, Sharon Girling identified victims in the pictures from a website which used the Landslide payment system. Thomas Reedy was sentenced to 1,335 years in prison, a sentence which was reduced to 180 years on appeal.

Nevertheless, it may always be possible to overturn a conviction on various grounds, especially if there is newly discovered evidence. According to the ROR report, there is newly discovered evidence regarding flawed forensics and tampered evidence of computer disks.

Has anyone contacted the Innocence Project of Texas to see if they could assist in this matter to seek exoneration?

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Dallas_County_Cases_Where_DNA_Has_Proven_Innocence.php

Best of luck to you.

DISCLAIMER & CAVEAT: I am not a lawyer and anything I write here is not intended to be legal advice. If you want a lawyer, you must contact a lawyer licensed to practice law in your jurisdiction.

In one posting, someone asked why Thomas Reedy did not file a ROR report against the criminal defense lawyers who represented him at his trial and allegedly failed to object to errors by the prosecutor. The answer given in a subsequent posting was that the ROR report was filed in the Category: Civil Rights Violators.

Yet based on the information in the ROR report for Civil Rights Violators, Mr. Reedy's criminal defense attorneys evidently violated his U.S. and State of Texas Constitutional right to counsel: U. S. Constitution Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel ( "Counsel Clause") and denied him "effective assistance of counsel," pursuant to the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Rule 1.01(a): competent to accept clients case and diligent (effective assistance of counsel).



• Rule 1.06 Comments 1 & 4: loyalty to client and no conflict of interests between lawyer and client.

Mr. Reedy's criminal defense lawyers thereby evidently committed a Breach of Fiduciary Duty including breach of duty of undivided loyalty to their client. See Whiteside v. Scurr, 744 F.2d 1323 (8th Cir. 1984) (constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel and breach of duty of loyalty);  Burrow v. Arce, 997 S.W.2d 229 (Tex. 1999) (breach of duty of loyalty and breach of fiduciary duty).

Best of luck to you.

Using Google search, I could not find any lawyer in Dallas named "Reid Prospere," but there is a listing for a "Reed W. Prospere, solo practitioner:

Reed W. Prospere
8111 Preston Road, Suite 500
Dallas, Texas, 75225
214-750-8555

After asking around, a lawyer in Dallas told me that Reed Prospere has the reputation of being "the lawyer who never goes to trial (and thus never prepares the case for trial)."

Another lawyer said that it is known at the Dallas criminal district courts that Mr. Prospere uses First Assistant DA Terri Moore as a pretext to "persuade" some of his clients to take a polygraph test that he asserts Ms. Moore would consider in her decision to dismiss a case, and that Ms. Moore is the only ADA in the State of Texas who considers polygraph tests to make such decisions. The one reported hitch is that the client has to use a particular polygraph examiner, Eric Holden. Another Google search returned the following contact information:

Behavioral Measures & Forensic Services SW, Inc.
Eric J. Holden, Principal
1720 Regal Row, Suite 120
Dallas, TX 75235

Other polygraph examiners in Dallas suggest that there may be some improper contract steering to Mr. Holden by Terri Moore, if indeed she does allow Mr. Prospere to provide polygraph reports to get his clients' cases dismissed. If Mr. Holden is the only person who gets such referrals from Ms. Moore and Mr. Prospere, then that suggests they do not have confidence in already dubious polygraph testing but rather have confidence in Mr. Holden's personal opinions. The alleged triangular relationship among Ms. Moore, Mr. Holden and Mr. Prospere seems too cozy.

In light of this unsubstantiated information, it might be useful for Thomas Reedy to consider getting a polygraph test from Mr. Holden and then use it against Ms. Moore. Independently of that use, it would also gain Mr. Reedy credibility with others, including the skeptics at the ROR website.

Best of luck to you.

1. The next day after my first meeting with Reid Prospere we had a meeting with the US Attorneys office.

    We were still in discussions as to his retainer fee at that time and I recall we discussed payment for his  services while we were waiting to go into the meeting with the US Attorney.  No fee was payed as that  meeting concluded my use of Reid Prospere.


2. He never offered or asked about my taking of a polygraph test.  As of today, I still would be happy to take a polygraph regarding my contact and turning in of the illegal sites in question to FBI Agent Frank

    B. Super.

3. Terri Moore was hungry for the political and media attention my case was and would generate.  I don't believe Moore would have dropped the charges under any circumstances.  In fact, it is my belief that she intentionally pressured FBI Agent Frank B. Super to deny I contacted him regarding the sites in question.  Judge Means had to order Moore to give me a plea deal the day before trial...as she did not even want to do this.

Hope this helps.



T

Thank you for your questions.  It's been so long since I transcribed Thomas' original complaint against

Terri Moore, I'll have to get back to you with the answers.

In the meantime, I am interested in knowing the motive behind your questions?

The report states: "Alex McGeoch ... referred me to Reid Prospere, a criminal attorney in Dallas. ... Reid Prospere wanted to work a plea deal. I couldn't believe this! He didn't even attempt to review any evidence. I fired him and once again called Alex McGeoch who referred me to Jay Ethington & Tom Mills of Dallas."

COMMENT: It is strange that Reid Prospere reportedly wanted you to plead guilty when you claimed that you were innocent of the charges. It seems that you may have a legal issue with Reid Prospere, with or without a written attorney employment agreement between you and him.

QUESTION 1: Did you pay Reid Prospere a flat fee in advance? If so, how much did you pay him, and did he refund the fee when you fired him?

QUESTION 2: Did Reid Prospere want you to take a polygraph test? If so, who was the polygrapher he used?

QUESTION 3: If you had passed a polygraph test administered by the polygrapher used by Reid Prospere, would Terri Moore have considered this information and dropped the charges against you?

Thanks for any clarification that you can provide.

In the OJ Simpson case, certainly he was able to afford the best defence, and they proved the evidence had been contaminated and the lead detective was corrupt. I agreed with the verdict, not because I believed the accused was innocent, because justice requires a fair trial and conviction on the evidence. The OJ Simpson trial was an exceptional case, indeed it is my view that show trials and exceptions only serve to missinform.

In the Landslide case, assets were confiscated pre-trial denying the opportunity of mounting a professional defence, false information was fed to the media denying the right to a fair trial. Further, this trial was tainted with political agendas.

The flaws came to light, because this was not just one trial, there were hundreds of trials based on the same law enforcement officers, agencies and evidence. Evidence was found to have been fabricated, false statements were made and as a consequence innocent people were being destroyed, convicted, some losing their lives.

In the OJ trial, there seemed to be problems with the competence of the prosecution, in the Landslide trial, additionally there was evidential criminality committed by the prosecution in order to secure a conviction. Unless the prosecution is accountable to the law, which has not happened to date, I fail to see how you can have equality of arms, without which, there can be no fair trial. The constitution of the United States was torn up in that court room, as if the law didn't matter.

killer on golf courses. Maybe it was a deranged caddy?

Anyway, if OJ could win a not-guilty verdict, considering all of the substantial physical evidence against him, why can't somebody accused of enabling the distribution of child porn by providing web services win a not-guilty verdict?

Web services are an endeavor not understood by most people, and also they would present only "soft" virtual evidence. One would expect the prosecution to have a very hard time convincing a jury to convict with "soft" virtual evidence.

If it doesn't fit, you must acquit!!

not a dime

The issue of the real home page at Landslide was resolved long ago, it was the innocuous mountain scene, widely used in presentations by US law enforcement in their worldwide media campaign to promote the operation. The 'click here child porn' banner story, embedded in the public psyche, became a myth after UK defence expert Duncan Campbell published his findings in PC Pro. Despite the results of evidential research being available in high street, SOCA, a UK Home Office run secret police force, continue to use this as evidence in court. The 'click here child porn' banner, described by Sharon Girling (SOCA) as the front page of Landslide, wasn't a Landslide webpage.

In addition to the mountain scene and the 'click here child porn' construction that had even been specially staged by the BBC, there was a third image widely shown across media screens throughout the world, and again this is used in Operation Ore trials as evidence.

More than a few anomalies have come to light in relation to this web page. Nelson (Dallas PD) and Mead (USPIS) provided testimony in relation to these blatant banners, asserting that they never changed. Due to restrictions on what can be posted, the banner cannot be shown here, but it was not the 'click here' banner, nor did it intimate anything unseemly.

Documentation supplied by R C Adams of USPIS indicates how long each site was in operation for. In this case, the time duration is missing as if the site was never there. A search was made through the Landslide accounts to see the revenue attributed to this website. The revenue figures in dollars or pounds is the same value; not a dime.

not a dime

The issue of the real home page at Landslide was resolved long ago, it was the innocuous mountain scene, widely used in presentations by US law enforcement in their worldwide media campaign to promote the operation. The 'click here child porn' banner story, embedded in the public psyche, became a myth after UK defence expert Duncan Campbell published his findings in PC Pro. Despite the results of evidential research being available in high street, SOCA, a UK Home Office run secret police force, continue to use this as evidence in court. The 'click here child porn' banner, described by Sharon Girling (SOCA) as the front page of Landslide, wasn't a Landslide webpage.

In addition to the mountain scene and the 'click here child porn' construction that had even been specially staged by the BBC, there was a third image widely shown across media screens throughout the world, and again this is used in Operation Ore trials as evidence.

More than a few anomalies have come to light in relation to this web page. Nelson (Dallas PD) and Mead (USPIS) provided testimony in relation to these blatant banners, asserting that they never changed. Due to restrictions on what can be posted, the banner cannot be shown here, but it was not the 'click here' banner, nor did it intimate anything unseemly.

Documentation supplied by R C Adams of USPIS indicates how long each site was in operation for. In this case, the time duration is missing as if the site was never there. A search was made through the Landslide accounts to see the revenue attributed to this website. The revenue figures in dollars or pounds is the same value; not a dime.

A story based on evidence has rendered the assertions of Terri Moore and FBI agent Frank Super a work of complete fiction, in the case of the latter, perjury.

Whilst Frank Super provided key testimony, a former Dallas Detective Steven Nelson provided key evidence. Both his evidence and testimony have been called into question, and when required for cross-examination in a trial in Ireland, it seems, not for the first time, Nelson has gone missing.

The following is a report from the Irish Sunday Times:

No trace of vital child porn witness
Richard Oakley

A KEY American witness sought by the Oireachtas committee investigating Judge Brian Curtin over alleged paedophile activities cannot be traced.

Steve Nelson, a Dallas-based policeman who discovered Curtin's credit-card number on a child-pornography website, had promised to provide assistance to any Irish inquiry.

However, the Oireachtas committee on the constitution has been trying to contact him since March without success.

Denis O'Donovan, the chairman of the Oireachtas committee, said it appeared Nelson no longer wanted to provide evidence.

The American detective has always been considered to be a crucial link in the case against Curtin, although O'Donovan disputed this.

?We have the judge's computer and that has been examined,? O'Donovan said.

?We are now awaiting a report on that. We have his financial records as well and we are planning to speak to other policemen involved in the case. So we should be able to provide detailed information without speaking to Nelson.?

The committee hopes to put its assessment of the evidence against the Circuit Court judge before the houses of the Oireachtas by early October.

However Curtin's legal team has contacted Duncan Campbell, a British-based investigative journalist and a scientific expert witness on computers and telecommunications who has raised questions about the evidence used in similar British cases. It is not clear whether Campbell has been retained to help Curtin.

Campbell has said that case details supplied by Nelson to police in Britain and Ireland cannot be relied upon.

In 2004, Nelson said that he would do ?whatever is required? to assist impeachment procedures against the judge.

He countered claims that Curtin's credit card was used to access adult porn only, and said that his personal details were found on a database maintained by Landslide Productions, a company operating child porn sites.

Nelson was the first police officer to discover the website. He collected other users' details and his investigation led to the launch of Operation Ore in Britain and Operation Amethyst in Ireland, which targeted thousands of people suspected of downloading child porn.

He is considered the person best placed to establish a chain of events to determine that Curtin's credit card was used to pay for, and access, child pornography on the internet.

A number of questions have arisen, however, in relation to claims made by Nelson and it is understood he has recently declined to appear at cases in Britain where it was hoped his evidence would be used.

Campbell said he had spoken to Curtin recently by phone about his investigations into Operation Ore in Britain.

The computer expert maintains that evidence used in some British cases against alleged child-porn suspects has been unacceptable and highly exaggerated.

He says Nelson and Michael Mead, a United States postal inspector, claimed everyone who went to Landslide's website always saw a front-page screen button saying ?Click Here (for) Child Porn?, but this was not the case.

Campbell has been able to establish that the button was never on the website's front page, but on an advertisement for another website buried deep in the Landslide website.

The discovery in effect removed a key plank of several prosecutions taken after Operation Ore, in cases where suspects were found not to have images purposefully saved on their computers and where police relied on records of their credit-card transactions and addresses as evidence.

In Britain a number of Operation Ore cases have not led to convictions. One against Robert del Naja, a frontman for the group Massive Attack, was dropped less than a month after being launched.

Curtin's trial on child pornography charges collapsed on a technicality in 2004. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and refuses to resign as a judge.

A story based on evidence has rendered the assertions of Terri Moore and FBI agent Frank Super a work of complete fiction, in the case of the latter, perjury.

Whilst Frank Super provided key testimony, a former Dallas Detective Steven Nelson provided key evidence. Both his evidence and testimony have been called into question, and when required for cross-examination in a trial in Ireland, it seems, not for the first time, Nelson has gone missing.

The following is a report from the Irish Sunday Times:

No trace of vital child porn witness
Richard Oakley

A KEY American witness sought by the Oireachtas committee investigating Judge Brian Curtin over alleged paedophile activities cannot be traced.

Steve Nelson, a Dallas-based policeman who discovered Curtin's credit-card number on a child-pornography website, had promised to provide assistance to any Irish inquiry.

However, the Oireachtas committee on the constitution has been trying to contact him since March without success.

Denis O'Donovan, the chairman of the Oireachtas committee, said it appeared Nelson no longer wanted to provide evidence.

The American detective has always been considered to be a crucial link in the case against Curtin, although O'Donovan disputed this.

?We have the judge's computer and that has been examined,? O'Donovan said.

?We are now awaiting a report on that. We have his financial records as well and we are planning to speak to other policemen involved in the case. So we should be able to provide detailed information without speaking to Nelson.?

The committee hopes to put its assessment of the evidence against the Circuit Court judge before the houses of the Oireachtas by early October.

However Curtin's legal team has contacted Duncan Campbell, a British-based investigative journalist and a scientific expert witness on computers and telecommunications who has raised questions about the evidence used in similar British cases. It is not clear whether Campbell has been retained to help Curtin.

Campbell has said that case details supplied by Nelson to police in Britain and Ireland cannot be relied upon.

In 2004, Nelson said that he would do ?whatever is required? to assist impeachment procedures against the judge.

He countered claims that Curtin's credit card was used to access adult porn only, and said that his personal details were found on a database maintained by Landslide Productions, a company operating child porn sites.

Nelson was the first police officer to discover the website. He collected other users' details and his investigation led to the launch of Operation Ore in Britain and Operation Amethyst in Ireland, which targeted thousands of people suspected of downloading child porn.

He is considered the person best placed to establish a chain of events to determine that Curtin's credit card was used to pay for, and access, child pornography on the internet.

A number of questions have arisen, however, in relation to claims made by Nelson and it is understood he has recently declined to appear at cases in Britain where it was hoped his evidence would be used.

Campbell said he had spoken to Curtin recently by phone about his investigations into Operation Ore in Britain.

The computer expert maintains that evidence used in some British cases against alleged child-porn suspects has been unacceptable and highly exaggerated.

He says Nelson and Michael Mead, a United States postal inspector, claimed everyone who went to Landslide's website always saw a front-page screen button saying ?Click Here (for) Child Porn?, but this was not the case.

Campbell has been able to establish that the button was never on the website's front page, but on an advertisement for another website buried deep in the Landslide website.

The discovery in effect removed a key plank of several prosecutions taken after Operation Ore, in cases where suspects were found not to have images purposefully saved on their computers and where police relied on records of their credit-card transactions and addresses as evidence.

In Britain a number of Operation Ore cases have not led to convictions. One against Robert del Naja, a frontman for the group Massive Attack, was dropped less than a month after being launched.

Curtin's trial on child pornography charges collapsed on a technicality in 2004. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and refuses to resign as a judge.

A story based on evidence has rendered the assertions of Terri Moore and FBI agent Frank Super a work of complete fiction, in the case of the latter, perjury.

Whilst Frank Super provided key testimony, a former Dallas Detective Steven Nelson provided key evidence. Both his evidence and testimony have been called into question, and when required for cross-examination in a trial in Ireland, it seems, not for the first time, Nelson has gone missing.

The following is a report from the Irish Sunday Times:

No trace of vital child porn witness
Richard Oakley

A KEY American witness sought by the Oireachtas committee investigating Judge Brian Curtin over alleged paedophile activities cannot be traced.

Steve Nelson, a Dallas-based policeman who discovered Curtin's credit-card number on a child-pornography website, had promised to provide assistance to any Irish inquiry.

However, the Oireachtas committee on the constitution has been trying to contact him since March without success.

Denis O'Donovan, the chairman of the Oireachtas committee, said it appeared Nelson no longer wanted to provide evidence.

The American detective has always been considered to be a crucial link in the case against Curtin, although O'Donovan disputed this.

?We have the judge's computer and that has been examined,? O'Donovan said.

?We are now awaiting a report on that. We have his financial records as well and we are planning to speak to other policemen involved in the case. So we should be able to provide detailed information without speaking to Nelson.?

The committee hopes to put its assessment of the evidence against the Circuit Court judge before the houses of the Oireachtas by early October.

However Curtin's legal team has contacted Duncan Campbell, a British-based investigative journalist and a scientific expert witness on computers and telecommunications who has raised questions about the evidence used in similar British cases. It is not clear whether Campbell has been retained to help Curtin.

Campbell has said that case details supplied by Nelson to police in Britain and Ireland cannot be relied upon.

In 2004, Nelson said that he would do ?whatever is required? to assist impeachment procedures against the judge.

He countered claims that Curtin's credit card was used to access adult porn only, and said that his personal details were found on a database maintained by Landslide Productions, a company operating child porn sites.

Nelson was the first police officer to discover the website. He collected other users' details and his investigation led to the launch of Operation Ore in Britain and Operation Amethyst in Ireland, which targeted thousands of people suspected of downloading child porn.

He is considered the person best placed to establish a chain of events to determine that Curtin's credit card was used to pay for, and access, child pornography on the internet.

A number of questions have arisen, however, in relation to claims made by Nelson and it is understood he has recently declined to appear at cases in Britain where it was hoped his evidence would be used.

Campbell said he had spoken to Curtin recently by phone about his investigations into Operation Ore in Britain.

The computer expert maintains that evidence used in some British cases against alleged child-porn suspects has been unacceptable and highly exaggerated.

He says Nelson and Michael Mead, a United States postal inspector, claimed everyone who went to Landslide's website always saw a front-page screen button saying ?Click Here (for) Child Porn?, but this was not the case.

Campbell has been able to establish that the button was never on the website's front page, but on an advertisement for another website buried deep in the Landslide website.

The discovery in effect removed a key plank of several prosecutions taken after Operation Ore, in cases where suspects were found not to have images purposefully saved on their computers and where police relied on records of their credit-card transactions and addresses as evidence.

In Britain a number of Operation Ore cases have not led to convictions. One against Robert del Naja, a frontman for the group Massive Attack, was dropped less than a month after being launched.

Curtin's trial on child pornography charges collapsed on a technicality in 2004. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and refuses to resign as a judge.

A story based on evidence has rendered the assertions of Terri Moore and FBI agent Frank Super a work of complete fiction, in the case of the latter, perjury.

Whilst Frank Super provided key testimony, a former Dallas Detective Steven Nelson provided key evidence. Both his evidence and testimony have been called into question, and when required for cross-examination in a trial in Ireland, it seems, not for the first time, Nelson has gone missing.

The following is a report from the Irish Sunday Times:

No trace of vital child porn witness
Richard Oakley

A KEY American witness sought by the Oireachtas committee investigating Judge Brian Curtin over alleged paedophile activities cannot be traced.

Steve Nelson, a Dallas-based policeman who discovered Curtin's credit-card number on a child-pornography website, had promised to provide assistance to any Irish inquiry.

However, the Oireachtas committee on the constitution has been trying to contact him since March without success.

Denis O'Donovan, the chairman of the Oireachtas committee, said it appeared Nelson no longer wanted to provide evidence.

The American detective has always been considered to be a crucial link in the case against Curtin, although O'Donovan disputed this.

?We have the judge's computer and that has been examined,? O'Donovan said.

?We are now awaiting a report on that. We have his financial records as well and we are planning to speak to other policemen involved in the case. So we should be able to provide detailed information without speaking to Nelson.?

The committee hopes to put its assessment of the evidence against the Circuit Court judge before the houses of the Oireachtas by early October.

However Curtin's legal team has contacted Duncan Campbell, a British-based investigative journalist and a scientific expert witness on computers and telecommunications who has raised questions about the evidence used in similar British cases. It is not clear whether Campbell has been retained to help Curtin.

Campbell has said that case details supplied by Nelson to police in Britain and Ireland cannot be relied upon.

In 2004, Nelson said that he would do ?whatever is required? to assist impeachment procedures against the judge.

He countered claims that Curtin's credit card was used to access adult porn only, and said that his personal details were found on a database maintained by Landslide Productions, a company operating child porn sites.

Nelson was the first police officer to discover the website. He collected other users' details and his investigation led to the launch of Operation Ore in Britain and Operation Amethyst in Ireland, which targeted thousands of people suspected of downloading child porn.

He is considered the person best placed to establish a chain of events to determine that Curtin's credit card was used to pay for, and access, child pornography on the internet.

A number of questions have arisen, however, in relation to claims made by Nelson and it is understood he has recently declined to appear at cases in Britain where it was hoped his evidence would be used.

Campbell said he had spoken to Curtin recently by phone about his investigations into Operation Ore in Britain.

The computer expert maintains that evidence used in some British cases against alleged child-porn suspects has been unacceptable and highly exaggerated.

He says Nelson and Michael Mead, a United States postal inspector, claimed everyone who went to Landslide's website always saw a front-page screen button saying ?Click Here (for) Child Porn?, but this was not the case.

Campbell has been able to establish that the button was never on the website's front page, but on an advertisement for another website buried deep in the Landslide website.

The discovery in effect removed a key plank of several prosecutions taken after Operation Ore, in cases where suspects were found not to have images purposefully saved on their computers and where police relied on records of their credit-card transactions and addresses as evidence.

In Britain a number of Operation Ore cases have not led to convictions. One against Robert del Naja, a frontman for the group Massive Attack, was dropped less than a month after being launched.

Curtin's trial on child pornography charges collapsed on a technicality in 2004. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and refuses to resign as a judge.

Landslide - the sex crime of the century

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act - George Orwell. Writers and correspondents in New Zealand, Australia, Cambodia, Thailand, France, Holland, Belgium, Great Britain, Ireland, Canada, and the US.

In the story which follows there is information that has not been published before and information that has been suppressed and distorted, apparently for prosecution and political reasons by persons in positions of power in the US and UK. The information has been obtained by individuals who have worked hard, on a voluntary basis, on both sides of the Atlantic, and who have suffered attacks from the police and others who wanted this story suppressed.

Brian Rothery writes from Ireland.

In August 2001, former US Attorney General John Ashcroft announced the successful conclusion of Operation Avalanche in America with 100 arrests out of 144 suspects across 35 states allegedly from some 35,000 US credit card identities recovered from the Landslide database.

Landslide did not end so smoothly elsewhere, but caused many problems around the world: Amethyst in Ireland, Auxin in Australia, s****.> A small informal group, who live in more than one jurisdiction, began to cooperate in examining the evidence, beginning with Operation Ore in the UK, which has had the most devastating affects. Some of these had been wrongly and severely affected by Ore operations, some were concerned observers, and some had expert knowledge and information. An early question setting off alarm bells was why over 7,000 men and their families were raided in the UK under Operation Ore with such devastating affects including many suicides, with Ore a mere spin-off of Landslide, when there were only 100 arrests in the US? Bigger questions were to emerge, and shocking answers to some of them.

As thousands of words are needed to do justice to the story and they are now on hand and available as evidence in what will be many future court actions against police and prosecutors and hopefully in public enquiries and class actions, a summary account in language as simple as possible is given here, and this will shortly be cross-referenced to the main body of evidence.

The main discoveries are that false evidence was given by Dallas detectives and other officials and that the Landslide archives were altered to maintain prosecutions in both the US and the UK. False evidence was used knowingly in the UK to obtain convictions, to mislead Parliament and to feed a media frenzy. The team which originally set out to dismantle Operation Ore in the UK has recently examined the Landslide evidence, the very evidence that was being withheld from defence teams the world over. This includes evidence formerly unavailable, and referred by them in the past in code form as HG' the Holy Grail. The Holy Grail evidence has now been secured from the single US source from which it was available and it is stored at more than one location for security. There have been attacks on key members of the UK team, which included the sending of emails containing child pornography to some of them, traced back to police sources, and police instigated character attacks in the Sun newspaper.

The evidence acquired now shows that former Dallas Detective Steven Nelson, made numerous false statements, as did Postal Inspectors from USPIS. As a result the Fort Worth division of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, commenced proceedings on the 27th of November 2000 at 2:05 pm, with Judge Terry R Means presiding in a trial which resulted in Thomas Reedy, after refusing a plea bargain, sentenced to 1,335 years in jail.

Later the same false statements were passed to visiting UK police and Operation Ore was launched.

Briefly, Landslide was an adult payment gateway, providing legal compliance by supplying a service to prevent minors accessing adult sites and verification of age was deemed to be satisfied by the use of credit cards as a method for payment or access. The system was fully automated so that webmasters could sign up their sites and have them active on the Landslide system in a matter of seconds, and the same went for subscribers who accessed these sites. Unfortunately both for the Landslide management and for the many to suffer later, the use of credit cards for adult verification left users open to credit card fraud, and the resulting credit card fraud at Landslide was massive. Another aspect of credit card fraud is that the fraudsters tempt users into accessing extreme' though legal web sites - for example those depicting spanking or urinating, so that if a certain level of fraud is not exceeded the user is too ashamed to report it. A number of them even tried to compromise those they were defrauding into presenting them with unwanted illegal child porn images. Landslide was being used as a money laundry, taking a few dollars here and there from numerous adult subscribers.

According to Thomas Reedy, the owner of Landslide, he contacted Frank Super of the FBI so that the illegal sites could be investigated. In the trial Frank Super told a different story; however, so pivotal is the new evidence, that the testimony of Frank Super is now discredited as it is shown here that it could not have been true. All traces of many of the web sites themselves were destroyed by US law enforcement personnel, so the whole truth will never be known and so can never be told.

So a key question is whether Thomas Reedy or Frank Super are telling the truth when the former claims that he made a report directly to US law enforcement and the latter claims that he caught him at it' as it were.

To help answer that question here is an extract from the Landslide trial.

Frank Super is being questioned.

Q. What is your best recollection of the first inquiry or contact you might have had with the business or people at Landslide?

A. Okay. In the summer of 1997, I'm estimating around the August time period, the exact date being a bit unclear, but I know it was during the summer of 1997, my supervisor at the time, he told me that he had received some information from our Dallas office that a business located in Fort Worth by the name of Landslide, that someone had been on the internet and had seen some child pornography.

The complaint came through the Dallas office. Apparently the complainant was someone over in the Dallas side of the metroplex. And my supervisor gave me a routing slip or some type of a piece of paper with an address on Belknap Street in Fort Worth, the name Landslide, and I believe there was a - there might have been a name of a web site possibly on there by the name of Child God or something like that. He asked me if I would go to the address on Belknap Street, look up the owners or those who are responsible for Landslide, and find out what was going on.

I did so. I went down to Belknap Street at the address. The address on Belknap Street was a red brick building on the south side of the street. I went in there and inquired about Landslide. The people there at that office told me that Landslide was actually across the street in a white building on the north side of Belknap.

So I went across the street and went upstairs to the offices of Landslide, and when I got to the offices no one was there. So I went to the bathroom and when I came out of the bathroom a lady and a young man were just coming into the office area from outside. She identified herself as Carol Clark. She told me she was the office manager for Landslide.

I asked her -- Of course, I identified myself as Frank Super, FBI. I showed her my credentials and I asked her if I could speak with the owner of the company. There was a complaint regarding some child pornography.

She said she didn't know anything about that, but she told me that if I would give her my card that she would have the owner call me. I went ahead and gave her my card, and then I left Landslide.

Q. All right. And was that contact, the individuals that you had contact with at Landslide, generally cooperative with you?

A. Yes.

Q. Providing whatever information you asked for that they could at that time?

A. Yes, very cooperative.

Comment

So here we see that, instead of corroborating what Thomas Reedy had alleged, FBI Agent Frank Super, without offering any official records, testified to the fact that he investigated Landslide back in 1997 in relation to child pornography. This was damning testimony, and with what has subsequently been discovered perhaps the only viable testimony in the prosecution case.

The prosecutor who made her name on the Landslide case was Terri Moore and she actually said that Frank Super was green', a description also given to him by his boss and even himself, so that the idea that Frank Super was green has been since echoed throughout the media. Frank Super was a good agent but he was green'. In fact his statements are now looking green.

Did FBI Agent Frank Super tell the truth?

The upstairs office in The Johnson Law office, on Belknap Street in downtown Fort Worth, owned by a group of lawyers, was described in vivid detail when FBI agent Frank Super recalled his visit as part of his enquiries into child pornography back in 1997. But not only did the USPIS state that the illegal imagery did not appear on the scene until late 1998, Landslide was not in the office that Frank Super claims to have visited until the second quarter of 1998.

FBI agent Frank Super did not check the website he was claiming to be visiting about. He did not enter the office, but claims that he spoke to Carol Clark'. Unfortunately green' simply does not cut it here, as Carol Clarke was not even employed at the time.

Her employment record was extracted from the Landslide evidence.

Here it is.

Landslide Payroll record for Carol Clark
Carol F Clark
SS number 303-54-7141
Hire Date 16/06/1998
Release Date 15/07/1998
DOB 01/07/1950
email carol@landslide.com
hourly wage $14
address 1237 Airline Drive, Grapevine, TX 76051

So this evidence confirms that this employee was not employed at the time Frank Super was claiming to be discussing child pornography at Landslide with her and the anomalies do not stop here.

The website linked to Landslide that FBI agent Frank Super claimed to have been investigating in 1997 was called Child God', or so he claimed. According to the UK's Serious Crime Squad (SOCA) records number mm/9 (mm refers to who supplied this evidence - Michael Mead of USPIS), this website was running for four months. The critical issue in relation to it is which four months.

Here is the Landslide record of dealings with Child God.

Landslide Billings for Child God
30/04/1999 $24,654.40
31/05/1999 $29,295.65
30/06/1999 $22,402.31
31/07/1999 $35,061.02

This is one of the accounts implicated in massive fraud credit card fraud, so these payments should not be interpreted as related to actual signups, and it has been evidentially established they don't.

So, from the above it would appear that the green' FBI Agent Frank Super went to a Landslide office in 1997 that Landslide did not occupy until 1998, and met an employee who was not employed until 1998 to investigate a website that was not using the Landslide system until 1999.

If Frank Super had got on the stand and corroborated what Thomas Reedy had said, this alone would have cleared Thomas Reedy, his wife Janice Reedy and Landslide and the trial would have collapsed. As he did not do this for whatever reason, it is difficult not to conclude that he made up a story to secure the convictions, a story that everyone else, including lead prosecutor (now politician) Terri Moore corroborated at the time and again recently. Terri Moore has since gone on to use her conviction of Thomas Reedy for life as part of her electioneering campaigns. We now believe that because of the evidence we have acquired that his story cannot be true.

FBI Agent Frank Super's testimony was the cornerstone of the trial. Thomas Reedy claims that he contacted him to tell him about child pornography, not the other way around. It would be a key defence to such a charge where the defendant reported the crime. The defendant in this case was a victim, because money was being stolen through these websites, to such an extent that the company lost its merchant account weeks before USPIS made their raid, claiming to have shut them down.

By Agent Super saying he discovered the crime, Landslide changes from victim to perpetrator, and it is now clear that the final outcome of the trial hinged on a lie, without which there was no case. The contact Thomas Reedy made with the FBI would have been recorded, but Frank Super said that he could not find this record either.

Interview with Forrest Reedy, Thomas Reedy's father

(A colleague in the US interviewed Forrest.)

Forrest told me that Thomas didn't tell him anything about what was going on and the first he heard of it was when Thomas asked him to take the stand in front of the Grand Jury. They asked him if he had been inside of Thomas's house. He said yes. They asked him if Thomas had a lot of pictures in his house. Forrest said not a lot but some. They asked him if he had seen pictures of naked people in Thomas's house. Forrest said: "No, he didn't even have a picture of him hanging in the house." That question was the first clue Forrest had that pornography was involved.

I asked Forrest if he had sat through all of the court proceedings and he said yes.

"When did you first realise that something was not right about the trial," I asked.

"The first day of the trial." he replied. "Because they didn't talk about anything they had talked about at the Grand Jury hearing".

Both Forrest and Thomas are deeply religious. Forrest says his faith is what got him through his battle with cancer. Forrest told me: "You know if Thomas was the person they said he was at that trial, he would have never grown up. I'd of killed him".

In order to fund the Landslide defence, shortly before the trial, the parents of Thomas and Janice Reedy mortgaged their houses.

As recently as 25/05/2006, Terri Moore (politician) and Ray Smith (USPIS) appeared on an Irish documentary into Landslide.

Terri Moore, former assistant district attorney and lead prosecutor in the trial, appeared on that broadcast saying one million dollars a month, way further than our last poster, though neither sought to respresent the truth.

Terri Moore is in the propaganda game, however, these are not trivial points. Terri Moore was not in court protected by any immunity, but on a national television broadcast, attempting to deceive the public.

She didn't just make statements that were untrue, she was privy to facts that meant she knew she was not telling the truth, indeed it was clear, for profit in one form or another, she set out to deceive the public, and did so in a similar fashion as she had done at the original Landslide trial.

Some here clearly would support the prosecution no matter what they did, but Ray Smith and Terri Moore knew what they were doing, that it is unlawful, and that they have wilfully attempted to pervert the course of justice.

If the last poster is interested in justice, then I hope the same voracity is deployed in ensuring that Terri Moore and Ray Smith are held accountable to the law. I hope they receive a fair trial, exactly what they helped deny for Landslide and so many others.

Early on in this thread, someone quoted Ray Smith, perhaps not realising it, perhaps not realising it was untrue, but it was.

If the protagonists here are not frightened of justice, then I can see no reasonable objection to a re-trial. It is a simple matter of fact that the last trial was not fair.

Evidence had been tampered with, that is an issue which recently became public after it was proven. False statements were made in that courtroom in order to secure a conviction, and as some posters have re-posted here that which has already been proven to be untrue, it appears that justice itself has been damaged in a manner which extends far beyond the original sham of a trial.

one can see the damage to justice itself as people have re-posted here lies told so long ago.

Can someone tell me (and I'm sure you can!) how the Reedy's "accidentally" made $3 MILLION dollars with a link they knew nothing about?

Did they just wake up one day, receive a check in the mail and think, "Wow, we're doing 200,000% better than we should be - we must be awesome" - assuming, of course, that business was legit.

If my employer pays me $10.00 over my salary, I know it. Why didn't the Reedy's all of a sudden realize that they were being overpaid if they TRULY didn't know?

Steph - keep up the good work. You go, girl.

Robert - what an apology! (cheering)

One could place ones faith in 13 people, the judge and the jury, and beyond that the verdict of the supreme court, though it is more reknown of late for protecting corporate interests rather than justice.

Last summer, some states of America had incarcerated more than 1% of their population, and Texas was there in the top five. I find such statistics extraordinary, and I do not interpret them as meaning justice is working.

What I look for is the turning points in history, the pivotal moments where things turn for the better or the worse, and a unique point in history, was the Landslide trial. It stood out if not alone, for what stemmed from it.

The propaganda is still flowing today in relation to this case, often from the Attorney General, organisations funded by Microsoft and other vested interests. Terri Moore herself is still at it.

The Landslide trial received considerable attention, and the issue that most people looked for in examining this, was not the opinion of the jury, or anyone's opinion, but the facts of the matter in so far as they could be determined. If one is to have an opinion, there can be no stronger foundation for it than the truth. Finding it is no small undertaking, and evidencing it harder still.

When I first saw the story ripping through the media, I assumed gross exageration of some truth, the media carried away, nothing unusual in that, but I didn't know then who was feeding what to the media in the first place and why. With what was clearly a media circus, I didn't have any facts on which to base any opinion on at all. It wasn't on a topic I had considered or considered interesting, some may find that alarming, but I am just being frank, normally one sees a murder or some similar huge crime, a dead body or victim, and consider whether one is of the view the suspect is likely to have committed the crime or not.

This was quite a different case, so I only gave it a fleeting thought, I had no opinion, just questions as to what it was really about.

On close examination, it resembled more like a lie based on another lie, and that is what the process has been like in trying to get to the facts of the matter.

There is a turning point that was reached as the evidence and testimony was examined compared with the facts that had been determined. The evidence had been contaminated, in such a manner this disproved statements given by the prosecution withnesses, so we have evidence which is unreliable, and witnesses that are unreliable. In that criminal trial, it was the responsibility of the jury to try the case on the evidence placed before it in court.

What has since emerged, was not available at the time of the trial, and not only has the evidence been undermined, but with it testimony of prosecution witnesses.

In a case of such pivotal significance, to find the trial itself was fundamentally flawed is something I believe is worthy of comment. That position may be unwelcome by some, particularly by those who would feel they would be compromised were the case to be overturned, but I don't see that as a reason not to comment or not to discuss the issues.

There are however technical issues and perhaps this is not the forum for that. I view the contamination of the evidence fundamental, I believe independent forensic experts in the US and UK would share that view.

I have tried to answer what I have viewed as genuine questions, at times even questions that I thought were not genuine. If I have failed in that regard, I apologise, but I believe it is more important to try than not to.

Assert what you wish Dave. Simple facts, and the only ones that matter:

Found guilty by a jury of their peers. The presiding judge saw no reason to dispute the jury findings. 12 citizens were in total agreement - if only one were dissenting the verdict could not have been reached.

Conviction not overturned by the Court of Appeals. Rest assured, the court reviews the case in its entirety and has no problem with overturning a conviction if they believe evidence is tainted or has been supressed.

Findings in a UK courtroom will have little if any effect on the Reedys conviction. They can continue to appeal to the Supreme Court. When a Federal Appeals court or the Supreme Court overturns the conviction, then your arguments will perhaps have some credibility.

OUT.

There have been a number of carefully placed screamers in an attempt to create trial by accusation.

In the New York Times, only yesterday, the Attorney General was raising threats against the media in America, but those who want to distract from the facts, perhaps have something to hide.

In the case of Landslide, it was known for some time, that the evidence had been tampered with in order to generate incriminating evidence. That is of course an assertion, and not the only assertion to hit this thread.

Due to the behaviour of people in this emotive territory, and we have seen what borders on criminal libel just on this board for discussing the issues, people have not wanted their cases discussed, or have simply pleaded guilty to escape the storm that has been manufactured in the media and elsewhere.

However, piece by piece, not just truth, but evidence to support it has emerged, prejudicial evidence in relation to the trial and appeal. It has now been conceded, in a UK court room, that the Landslide forensics were contaminated in the US. This contradicts testimony given by USPIS, and as this is an evidential matter, based on scientifically verifyable fact, I not only assert that this was not a fair trial as required by US law, but that the prosecution evidence cannot be relied upon.

It doesn't matter how loud people scream, what is true does not change, and when a defence expert published their findings recently, evidence of what the truth was, was served.

I had mistakenly assumed you actually found religion and discovered God hates Pedophiles. Apparently I was wrong.

You and Dave have fun. Swap all the pics of children being raped you want. I just hope I can be on a jury when you two are caught.

To continue on issues evidential, one of the issues that was known about before the transcripts were examined, were how emails had been spun in court.

By way of example, there was an email from Landslide to a webmaster requiring content or the site would be shut down.

The domain name was something that those who don't know the Internet and read the newspapers, would assume was illegal, and the email was presented as evidence that Landslide were asking for illegal material.

The media loved it, and of course embellished the spin some themselves. The webmaster was a have a go trickster, had a one page site saying people had been reported and he was taking the money for the privilege.

In response to Thomas Reedy's email, the webmaster put a website in place. One of the investigation units looking into this, was able to check the site back through time on the archive, and it was always perfectly legal.

As usual you have drawn the wrong conclusion when you say: "Even the 'Good Pastor' has given up on this." I assume your conclusion is drawn because I have not posted for awhile, and not from your ludicrous reason that my God had direct communications with me to the effect that you were right and I was wrong.

I have not posted because English Dave has show that he knows more about why and how Thomas and Janice Reedy were wrongfully imprisoned than I do. I included the Reedys in my ministerial mission to help the wrongfully convicted and posted on this site because I had been convinced from the actual court documents Thomas Reedy showed me, that the Reedys had been wrongfully convicted.

Now, with the evidential facts English Dave has posted I see how and why it all came about. So, for your information, I am very interested in this sight because it is providing evidential facts which will ultimately help Thomas and Janice Reedy recover from their wrongful convictions.

Traci Lords got her passport the same as everyone does. She presented a SS card, and a Driver's License. She used a FAKE ID. That is why very little was done in her case.

Go away you pervert. I hope one day you get caught molesting kids. For now, I hope your neighbors know who you are and keep their children away from you.

I am done with idiots like you.

As for the Traci Lords story, the FBI attempted to destroy people and businesses on the basis of child pornography, and child pornography was also involved in that case.

People here, think people accused of such a crime should not be defended, so perhaps a story to learn from, as it was the federal authorities who provided Traci Lords with a passport verifying she was an adult.

Had that passport not surfaced, the effects were likely to have been catastrophic, people were likely to have been put into jail. Intent is the issue again. If the adult industry had wilfully employed a minor to produce pornography, then they would have been guilty of a range of serious crimes, but such was not the case.

The Traci Lords story was about producers, not a payment broker, but there is much to learn from this story. Had the passport not surfaced, to the last poster, that is all the evidence needed, and any facts to the contrary, irrelevant. Personally, I still wonder how the FBI came to overlook these rather important facts in the first place.

You're beating a dead horse. At this point, HE is the only one trying to claim the Reedy's are innocent. Now he even denies they made $MILLIONS$ from THEIR Child Pornography link.

The Reedy's themselves have made no such claims. The mere fact they lived a very lavish lifestyle from their site, proves the oppsite of what Dave has to say. Another FACT... the 12 jurors saw the evidence, and convicted them. Nobody gets a sentence of 1335 years without PROOF they deserved it. Just because an Appeals Court threw out some makes no difference. HE is still in prison forever, 180 years. Again, NOBODY gets sentenced to prison for 180 years without UNDENIABLE PROOF of GUILT!

You and I both agree the only people who could possibly think otherwise, are the same ones who paid the Reedy's for their "fix".

Even the "Good Pastor" has given up on this. Maybe he finally found God, and was informed his God doesn't like adults who rape children.

This wasn't a case of someone like Traci Lords making porno. She was 16 at the time, and used a fake ID to do the work she did. This was about two people who KNOWINGLY applied a "Click Here For Child Porn" button on thier website. NOBODY else did it. THEY did it. When caught, they claimed they were trying to catch people. That dog don't hunt, and they were found GUILTY!

Please, stop wasting anymore time with Dave. He's obviously having to find his Child Rape sites, with more effort. I guess that would make someone of his ilk angry.

I am out today, so I cannot give a considered response to your post. I am however again at odds with your conclusions.

You said
> He made millions off of child porn

your statement is evidentially false

You said
> and now claims he didn't know of the link.

your statement is evidentially false

You said
> Right and I'm the Queen of England.

I think it is reasonable to presume you are not the Queen of England.

This thread was about a case, not about child pornography. If this was a case about murder, say for example I was interested in the O J Simpson trial someone mentioned earlier, I would be here discussing the merits of the case, not discussing the morallity of murder.

If in such circumstances, people took the opportunity to try to distort the facts, I would not feel it necessary to condemn murder, or answer to the accusation of being a murderer.

You have no problem with child porn and I do Dave. That's the difference.

Anyone thinking ANY PART OF IT IS OKAY I have a problem with.

And again you are going with prejudiced details posted for the porn profiteer and his wife's behalf.

And if men involved with child porn were taken away from their kids GOOD! Their kids hopefully are still young enough where the damage caused by the pornographer parents will be minimal.

Although I have yet to see proof of this.

You seem awfully worried about people who support child porn being caught Dave. That's what makes me suspicious.

But Nambla and its members have far reaches.

He made millions off of child porn and now claims he didn't know of the link. Right and I'm the Queen of England.

I mentioned the example of sitekey, so if people are interested in the truth, a few markers gives people the opportunity to look into these issues.

In sitekey, researchers watched it unfolding real time. The company the FBI were claiming to have shut down had gone bust over a year before.

The FBI were claiming to have taken out some large cp ring, as usual, using total subscriber counts to the system, I think from memory something like 32,000 was the figure banded round some media reports.

At the same time as the media was being flooded, people behind the company were looking to start it up again, an AVS system, not to market cp at all, indeed I am sure they would want to avoid it as far as practically possible. If someone wants it shut down at all costs, the only way is to switch off the Internet, far better to have an open society, where the public are involved, much more effective as there are so many more of them.

In many of these cases, as screamers here want, people accused were not defended, or not defended properly. However, some were, and US forensic experts soon uncovered sitekey was another bank robbery, being used by remote fraudsters as a money laundry just like Landslide.

It is clearly important to make the point, especially in view of some of the posts here, that in emotive territories, it is all the more reason to defend justice, not less.

Some of the cases investigated found trojans on people's computers, it was clear their identities had been stolen and illegal material place on their computers. Fortunately, the malicious code doing this, left an audit trail, proving the person who had such material on their computers was a victim of crime, not a perpertrator of it.

People, completely innocent of anything to do with cp are dead, following malicious allegations of the nature that steph made, children deprived of a father for such reasons.

It is very easy to play the child card, and use it for all manner of agendas, indeed it was a substantial component of Hitler's agenda. Real child care is something else.

The facts are important, because law enforcement destroyed prejudicial evidence in the Landslide case, that has hampered research. One needs facts to reach a logical conclusion.

I mentioned the example of sitekey, so if people are interested in the truth, a few markers gives people the opportunity to look into these issues.

In sitekey, researchers watched it unfolding real time. The company the FBI were claiming to have shut down had gone bust over a year before.

The FBI were claiming to have taken out some large cp ring, as usual, using total subscriber counts to the system, I think from memory something like 32,000 was the figure banded round some media reports.

At the same time as the media was being flooded, people behind the company were looking to start it up again, an AVS system, not to market cp at all, indeed I am sure they would want to avoid it as far as practically possible. If someone wants it shut down at all costs, the only way is to switch off the Internet, far better to have an open society, where the public are involved, much more effective as there are so many more of them.

In many of these cases, as screamers here want, people accused were not defended, or not defended properly. However, some were, and US forensic experts soon uncovered sitekey was another bank robbery, being used by remote fraudsters as a money laundry just like Landslide.

It is clearly important to make the point, especially in view of some of the posts here, that in emotive territories, it is all the more reason to defend justice, not less.

Some of the cases investigated found trojans on people's computers, it was clear their identities had been stolen and illegal material place on their computers. Fortunately, the malicious code doing this, left an audit trail, proving the person who had such material on their computers was a victim of crime, not a perpertrator of it.

People, completely innocent of anything to do with cp are dead, following malicious allegations of the nature that steph made, children deprived of a father for such reasons.

It is very easy to play the child card, and use it for all manner of agendas, indeed it was a substantial component of Hitler's agenda. Real child care is something else.

The facts are important, because law enforcement destroyed prejudicial evidence in the Landslide case, that has hampered research. One needs facts to reach a logical conclusion.

I mentioned the example of sitekey, so if people are interested in the truth, a few markers gives people the opportunity to look into these issues.

In sitekey, researchers watched it unfolding real time. The company the FBI were claiming to have shut down had gone bust over a year before.

The FBI were claiming to have taken out some large cp ring, as usual, using total subscriber counts to the system, I think from memory something like 32,000 was the figure banded round some media reports.

At the same time as the media was being flooded, people behind the company were looking to start it up again, an AVS system, not to market cp at all, indeed I am sure they would want to avoid it as far as practically possible. If someone wants it shut down at all costs, the only way is to switch off the Internet, far better to have an open society, where the public are involved, much more effective as there are so many more of them.

In many of these cases, as screamers here want, people accused were not defended, or not defended properly. However, some were, and US forensic experts soon uncovered sitekey was another bank robbery, being used by remote fraudsters as a money laundry just like Landslide.

It is clearly important to make the point, especially in view of some of the posts here, that in emotive territories, it is all the more reason to defend justice, not less.

Some of the cases investigated found trojans on people's computers, it was clear their identities had been stolen and illegal material place on their computers. Fortunately, the malicious code doing this, left an audit trail, proving the person who had such material on their computers was a victim of crime, not a perpertrator of it.

People, completely innocent of anything to do with cp are dead, following malicious allegations of the nature that steph made, children deprived of a father for such reasons.

It is very easy to play the child card, and use it for all manner of agendas, indeed it was a substantial component of Hitler's agenda. Real child care is something else.

The facts are important, because law enforcement destroyed prejudicial evidence in the Landslide case, that has hampered research. One needs facts to reach a logical conclusion.

No offence taken, however appropriate to state for the record your posting was wrong, though I suspect not by accident.

A whole range of issues were investigated, mainly by people of conscience around the world, and politics did play a significant part of what was happening, politics and money to be more accurate, and such agendas are running counter to the interests of children.

The Landslide trial is but a very small part of the acedemic research and investigation that was undertaken. Just because I do not scream against child porn, does not mean I am in favour of it. I have mainly raised my voice here, when people have intentionally attempted to silence discussion, and no such position is in the public interest on any subject unless there were specific requirements for secrecy.

Indeed, the whole political trail that led up to Landslide and beyond was researched, including how the restrictions were placed on hosts, giving rise to AVS and the like, which brought in so much fraud, and as a consequence, brought under age imagery into the public domain as part of that fraud.

Historically the screamers that created a frenzy were not people who cared about children. The issue of people who look at such imagery intentionally was researched, as were the screamers and movers in 'the cp war'. Research often found protagonists in the politics of this involved in serious sex crimes, including child abuse, embezzlement etc. That is to say, from an acedemic standpoint and research undertaken, the justification for suspicion consistantly pointed to the screamers.

The concept that there is some big commercial market out there for cp, is simply a myth. In silencing debate, you are helping of course to protect a myth. Politics and money.

The market on the public Internet for underage imagery is in fraud, that is simply a fact, and evidenced by Landslide as it happens. That partly materiallises because of the environment that screamers have created. People said on this board 'if you have it your are guilty', and similar statements have been made by the FBI and Terri Moore, which makes people less inclined to report it because they might well be prosecuted if they occasion on it accidentally.

Last time this happened in US history, a law enforcement agency claimed to have destroyed the market by flooding the Internet with cp, and those that have explored this territory in detail, will perhaps be aware of what is happening now.

Without the fraud, and it was credit card fraudsters that were using AVS systems as money laundries, there was no reason to bring in such imagery to the public Internet. There are always exceptions to the rule, but I speak of the norm.

In the case of Landslide, they made one fraud report to US customs, (the fraudsters themselves were mainly overseas), but because of the value of the transactions, customs were not interested. The scale of the fraud is substantial, but of course in small transaction values from a large number of victims, it may not present that way.

The cp was a symptom of another problem, but creating a frenzy of fear over such imagery, increases the fraud value, which might even result in children being abused to generate material. I am against that, combat terms like 'war against cp' are not in the interests of adults or children, and any serious exploration of the issues, I assert, would reach that conclusion. There are people involved directly in child care issues who are involved in the research.

Is did this worthless piece of crap subhuman make even one penny on the child porn?

The answer is YES.

Case closed.

He and his wife got rich off abusing children. They deserve to rot in jail for the rest of their lives.

As does anyone who supports them because they all think that child porn is okay.

The only logical conclusion is Dave from United Kingdom LOVES CHILD PORN and is upset that one of the places he viewed it at shut down.

Because so many lies were told in relation to this case, finding facts in the matter is not a small undertaking. That raises issues, and discussion provides a collective means to explore them.

It is a case where the vested interests are significant, that and the emotive nature of related topics has clearly drawn some flak here.

I have tried to discuss the case on the details in earnest, where I fail, some of that may well be due to personal failings. Where the allegation is more important than facts of the matter, where even discussing them is to have an agenda or to be complicit, that is the unmistakable hallmark of McCarthyism.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

I once again read through this entire book of posts.

I have determined that your posts, Dave, are simply trolling for responses and reactions to what you post here. You repeat the same "facts" ad nauseum, despite other posters dissecting your facts and rendering them null.

I don't know your true interest in this case, and at this point have decided it is of no importance. As I previously posted, no number of websites, posts or written articles are going to exonerate the Reedys. Your time and effort are for naught.

It is of no difference what you believe, I believe, or any other peson believes, about the trial. The jury believed the prosecution, the appeals court believed the prosecution and the verdict remains, absent any further appeal.

You have repeatedly demonstrated your knowledge of our justice system, and our belief in its workings, is sketchy at best. I don't condemn you for this, as you are from a different society.

I will, however, abstain from responding any further to your posts. Responding simply feeds your ego, in my opinion.

Have a pleasant day. Good luck in tilting at the windmill.

I am really holding for Aafes or anyone that wanted to discuss the banner, until it is exhausted and we all reach conclusions either way on the issue.

There is quite a lot more detail to this issue, but for those who do not have the trial transcripts, I will put a specific answer that officer Nelson said here on the issue. Nelson is the officer that supplied all the evidence on the websites and gave the opening testimony. Effectively he was the hands on investigator that produced the Internet evidence.

Q. So let me see, if I could type in seeking to look at a specific page that might contain a banner advertisement, and I might go there now and it might say "For Child Porn Click Here," and I might go there tomorrow and it might be some other advertisement, is that right, the same page by rotation?

Nelson:. If you're talking about this particular banner, that banner was always there and then it just disappeared one day. I never saw it again.

This was a rotating banner service, and Officer Nelson (Dallas PD) asserts it was always there, and then it disappeared. It is theoretically possible, but I personally do not believe that Officer Nelson told the truth.

Michael Mead (USPIS) said they would only keep the site up for a matter of minutes and keep going back there, and originally he backed up Nelson's testimony.

I include this bit as it relates directly to a question Aafes asked concerning the possibility profit could have been derived, albeit inadvertantly from the few days that it was alleged the banner didn't change.

I listen for comment, question, discussion, whatever ...

I am really holding for Aafes or anyone that wanted to discuss the banner, until it is exhausted and we all reach conclusions either way on the issue.

There is quite a lot more detail to this issue, but for those who do not have the trial transcripts, I will put a specific answer that officer Nelson said here on the issue. Nelson is the officer that supplied all the evidence on the websites and gave the opening testimony. Effectively he was the hands on investigator that produced the Internet evidence.

Q. So let me see, if I could type in seeking to look at a specific page that might contain a banner advertisement, and I might go there now and it might say "For Child Porn Click Here," and I might go there tomorrow and it might be some other advertisement, is that right, the same page by rotation?

Nelson:. If you're talking about this particular banner, that banner was always there and then it just disappeared one day. I never saw it again.

This was a rotating banner service, and Officer Nelson (Dallas PD) asserts it was always there, and then it disappeared. It is theoretically possible, but I personally do not believe that Officer Nelson told the truth.

Michael Mead (USPIS) said they would only keep the site up for a matter of minutes and keep going back there, and originally he backed up Nelson's testimony.

I include this bit as it relates directly to a question Aafes asked concerning the possibility profit could have been derived, albeit inadvertantly from the few days that it was alleged the banner didn't change.

I listen for comment, question, discussion, whatever ...

I am really holding for Aafes or anyone that wanted to discuss the banner, until it is exhausted and we all reach conclusions either way on the issue.

There is quite a lot more detail to this issue, but for those who do not have the trial transcripts, I will put a specific answer that officer Nelson said here on the issue. Nelson is the officer that supplied all the evidence on the websites and gave the opening testimony. Effectively he was the hands on investigator that produced the Internet evidence.

Q. So let me see, if I could type in seeking to look at a specific page that might contain a banner advertisement, and I might go there now and it might say "For Child Porn Click Here," and I might go there tomorrow and it might be some other advertisement, is that right, the same page by rotation?

Nelson:. If you're talking about this particular banner, that banner was always there and then it just disappeared one day. I never saw it again.

This was a rotating banner service, and Officer Nelson (Dallas PD) asserts it was always there, and then it disappeared. It is theoretically possible, but I personally do not believe that Officer Nelson told the truth.

Michael Mead (USPIS) said they would only keep the site up for a matter of minutes and keep going back there, and originally he backed up Nelson's testimony.

I include this bit as it relates directly to a question Aafes asked concerning the possibility profit could have been derived, albeit inadvertantly from the few days that it was alleged the banner didn't change.

I listen for comment, question, discussion, whatever ...

I am really holding for Aafes or anyone that wanted to discuss the banner, until it is exhausted and we all reach conclusions either way on the issue.

There is quite a lot more detail to this issue, but for those who do not have the trial transcripts, I will put a specific answer that officer Nelson said here on the issue. Nelson is the officer that supplied all the evidence on the websites and gave the opening testimony. Effectively he was the hands on investigator that produced the Internet evidence.

Q. So let me see, if I could type in seeking to look at a specific page that might contain a banner advertisement, and I might go there now and it might say "For Child Porn Click Here," and I might go there tomorrow and it might be some other advertisement, is that right, the same page by rotation?

Nelson:. If you're talking about this particular banner, that banner was always there and then it just disappeared one day. I never saw it again.

This was a rotating banner service, and Officer Nelson (Dallas PD) asserts it was always there, and then it disappeared. It is theoretically possible, but I personally do not believe that Officer Nelson told the truth.

Michael Mead (USPIS) said they would only keep the site up for a matter of minutes and keep going back there, and originally he backed up Nelson's testimony.

I include this bit as it relates directly to a question Aafes asked concerning the possibility profit could have been derived, albeit inadvertantly from the few days that it was alleged the banner didn't change.

I listen for comment, question, discussion, whatever ...

There is a sensitivity I have developed over time on looking into all this, a kind of reverse cp rage. I think perhaps an example will make the point.

If I published a website that used such illegal imagery, I have committed an offence and the evidence is likely to be compelling.

Downstream of the production and in the example I gave, publishing of the illegal images, things get much more complex. If everyone here did a forensic check on their computers, and someone found illegal imagery, I would not for a moment presume the person was guilty of anything. Law enforcement recently admitted they are having adult webmasters put traps on their sites, something that has been known for some time, as innocent surfers are worried because they have seen an image they did not intend to.

However disgusting the image may be, or not, is not the issue, how it got onto the computer is. I have heard the comments on this thread and even from Terri Moore herself, but they are not true and they imperil justice. If you are not responsible for putting the image on your computer, you are innocent by law, in the US and UK.

I am therefore sensitive when people come along discussing imagery and related topics, because in the instance I gave, the issue would be how the image got there, and those are technical issues, and it may not even be possible to be determine.

What I have seen so often is, people talk about the imagery as a means to silence analysis, and such tactics have been wilfully deployed to subvert justice in both the US and UK. The poster who read the trial transcripts will have seen this in the trial, not just atmosphere, but normal justice moved aside using emotives.

When I had those sensitivities, it damaged my thinking. Injustice has become almost routine in this territory for exactly those reasons. To challenge injustice is not a crusade for cp.

I didn't check back to what I said before, I presume I was referring to my site references here, where I have different accounts of the site content. Notes from a defence expert describe the site as level 1, 500 pics, nudist camp. The investigations on the UK side relate to UK law, if someone is found guilty in relation to such imagery, the imagery is graded which can affect sentencing.

Different law enforcement agencies, and laws have different terminology for describing the imagery overall, I actually find it uncomfortable using many of the 'offical' terms, so I have my own private notation for such things for my own use though I have adopted some of them into the language I use.

Some of the terms may appear to minimallise issues, my intention is probably for my own benefit, I try to use neutral terms. I started out that way because I actually had such sensitivity when I first approached the issues, I had difficulty saying some of the terms to myself let alone on a public board. In some instances I still do.

Exploring the evidence point-by-point is perhaps the best way to try to do what you are. But you'll have to be honest about the points already covered.

"The infamous click here banner married to a site which contained naturallist images, some of which were likely to be illegal due to the age of the people."

I've never read such a description for child porn.
Even if you meant 'naturist', that hardly describes what caused this whole episode.

Thomas Reedy's letter -- the original post -- complains that "the prosecution failed to prove or even suggest that even the web masters had knowledge that the images were of real children."

There can be no minimizing the root issue here. The images were what they were: sexual exploitation of children.

The laws changed in many jurisdictions to include something along the lines of "depictions of children in sexual activities". Real or imaginary. Even if the "model" in the pictures is of legal age, it is not legal to sell the picture with the advertisement that they are underage.

I'm prepared to listen to a dissection of the evidence of a trial. But if you are going to describe child porn in the same categories as holiday snaps from camp, or special effects from George Lucas, I start to suspect that you have a different agenda.

There is a slight twist to the figures which I had forgot to mention, and I have put some detail on it here.

This is one of the sites that officer Nelson subscribed to. In the evidence that Detective Nelson presented in sworn testimony to the UK authorities for use in court, he had clicked this banner, had arrived at a site which didn't host this banner, and this is one of the accounts he purchased. By inference we would then have a charge going through Landslide, and Landslide would have made about $12 profit.

However, this is where we hit problems. You will notice in the above, that a different site was claimed to have been accessed than the one the banner related to.

I think Aafes, you said you read the testimony of the trial. If you have and studied the detail, Nelson told a different story in the US court, and did not access the site that way.

This is where we go into some of the intricate details, as there is another scam even more prevalent on the Internet. Popups were attached to a third party website that Nelson was investigating, and it is my view this is how he originally accessed the site, and I further believe this aspect of the US trial is a more accurate portrayel of events on this issue, in which case, our world wide subscription count comes down by one, as my view is, this can be excluded from the banner evidence.

I can't as I previously mentioned, answer the question you asked on the profit and loss.

I did though compute some figures, purely based on the revenue on the site the banner relates to, to at least put some scale on the issue you are trying to examine.

I averaging the revenue over the months around Detective Nelson's work. This was an adult site that had switched to the illegal material around the time Detective Nelson started his investigation, so I took that month and the month after.

Michael Mead's (USPIS) statement was imprecise, but assuming that the whole time frame that he alleges the banner could have been there, there were 16 signups worldwide computed from average income figures in that time, which would have proved an income to Landslide of something like $197 gross.

The fact these accounts were running fraud, indeed from memory this company set the record for fraud through Landslide, we cannot presume they are real, and in some instances, users might have reclaimed their money, possibly removing this gross profit entirely.

However, let us take the case that 16 people out there, did actually sign up to the account. This was a keyz account, a straight payment screen, no menu of sites or anything for search engines to lock into, so for real people to make payment, the likelihood of them getting their from an outside site must be close to 100%, if not 100%, ie the banner isn't in my view of significance in view of revenue had the story been true.

Also, the revenue of the company running this site cluster spiked at Landslide, a typical fraud indicator, so by including the following month's revenue, I have inflated the figures.

Whilst it is theoritally possible the banner was clicked, it is clearly a remote possibility.

I am happy to continue dealing with your last post Aafes, you have raised additional points and questions.

First I would like to give you the opportunity to respond, to see where we arrive at on the banner issue.

In relation to whether any money was lost or gained by virtue of the banners being present, is one of those questions that cannot be answered and I will attempt to provide some explanation why.

Detective Nelson produced evidence to assert this banner appeared on the AVS index page at Landslide. The illegal imagery has a value to fraudsters and credit card fraud was the game being played in relation to such imagery and AVS systems in general. To give an example scam, and there are many, a webmaster runs a legal website. A subsriber pays for what they believe is regular adult pornography subscription (ie legal), but they get shunted to illegal imagery and their credit card gets hit a few times in succession.

The anti fraud systems at Landslide were not sophisticated enough to prevent this so it happened, indeed it appears the subscriber list itself was exposed so whatever they did, they were facing serious problems. The scam works to a degree and for a time, because of human nature, people are embarrassed, frightened, etc, so they tend not to complain.

You mentioned profit, so I will try to comment on some of the related issues.

If a user hit this page, the banner system would have been off screen and required scrolling down. To know the probability of an offending banner appearing, one would at least have to know how many banners were present at that point in time, and the exact algorithm deployed.

Landslide was primarily an payment gateway clearing payments for third party webmasters, it was not a site you would arrive at by a search engine if you were looking for underage imagery. What would have been normal where transactions were real, was for users to visit Landslide when making a credit card payment when taken there by a third party website for that purpose.

If someone saw that banner, they would have to be someone that a) was interested in such material and b) were willing to put their name to an illegal act by using their credit card.

One can go into all manner of issues on this, in so far as one can determine, it is theoretically possible that someone could have clicked the banner if they had seen it, and gone on to view the site. The infamous click here banner married to a site which contained naturallist images, some of which were likely to be illegal due to the age of the people.

I can only conclude, it is possible that one or more real transactions went through. This is one of the accounts where fraud was running through the system, indeed as the credit system was not fit for purpose, the runaway fraud would have brought the company down. This is why Landslide had lost their merchant account weeks prior to the raid.

The illegal sites were a net loss, a similar thing happened at sitekey as I mentioned earlier. You specifically asked only in relation to the banner, and impossible to answer. I think it highly likely, that if someone had made a legitimate sign up, that their credit card would then have been re-used, and these fraudsters that greedy, chargebacks kick in and the attendent costs downstream for everyone.

I have tried to provide some detail, but the actual truth of the matter, I could not even make an educated guess as to whether it happened or didn't. As the forensic evidence in relation to this issue was destroyed by law enforcement, it is one truth that can never be determined.

Many thanks for your post, to do justice by way of answering it in full would be no small undertaking.

I will start with the first point, as it relates to the banner system. I believe you asked for in effect for what period of time were offending banners available to the random rotating banner system. I don't have the answer to that question.

The prosecution asserted that they appeared some time between 28th of April 1999 and the 1st of May 1999 and then did not reappear.

Prosecution statements asserted a banner had been put on the Landslide website, that is the 'click banner ...' was fixed to the page and it didn't change. As a rotating banner system, they didn't tell the truth, indeed subsequent to that trial, in sworn testimony, the prosecution have already changed their story.

This was an automated banner system, that is to say it did not require webmaster intervention. However, Landslide staff did intervene, firstly they set up a system so users can report offending banners and then they took down the banner system altogether.

What I was looking for in this issue was intent. I conclude that Landslide were unwilling to carry these advertisements, and even shut the system down so it could not happen.

From the standpoint of the defence, the evidence is relatively clear cut on this issue, on the side of the prosecution not so, and if you understand how this banner system worked and review the transcripts, the truth on this was quite close to the surface at several points.

I will continue in the next post as you questioned profit.

Please clarify some points for me:

"Landslide fought the abuse of the banner system, and close the whole system down. I cannot know what was going through people's minds, but the evidence indicates Landslide were not willing to tolerate those banners on the site, and the prosecution ran a deception on this issue. The fact is, on that issue, it is clearly evidenced in favour of Landslide."

For what period of time did Landslide fight this abuse, prior to closing it down? What was the nature of Thomas Reedys belief the banner system was being abused? Did he believe there was abuse based on illegal imagery? If this was his motivation and he fought the abuse for any period of time before closing it down, then for that time period he continued to profit from its presence.

"...what if someone arrested you now on the basis that they believe you will shoot someone tomorrow...." This could indeed happen, legally. If I, as an example, made comments that I was going to shoot the President, was overheard, and reported, I would likely find myself in custody. Even without owning a firearm, or having any real intention to carry out the act.

"A court is based on evidence and they fiddled it and that is evidenced." In reading the transcripts, I don't come to this conclusion. Again, if evidence is tainted it is #1 The duty of the Defense to make a motion to have it excluded or object at the very least, and #2 The responsibility of the Judge to determine if the claim of tainting occurred. If it were discovered post trial, and was factual, it is a simple process to have the conviction overturned on appeal.

"Again a snag, there is principle in law, that you are innocent until proven guilty.." By a jury of his peers, upheld by an appeals court, he has been proven and found "Guilty on all counts". There is no principle in law to prove him guilty to the media, the general public or anyone who was not a part of the process.

Presumption of innocence is an essential right that the accused enjoys in criminal trials in all countries respecting human rights. It states that the accused is presumed to be innocent until it has been declared guilty by a court. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to convince the court of the guilt of the accused. The court, and the appeals court were convinced.

In regard to the emails you received, their origin and my comments on the subject. In the vein of playing "Devils Advocate" I posted that your strong opinions in the case make your cause suspect. That is my opinion, and one many reasonable persons reading your post might see. If they were indeed part of a "fishing expedition" I personally don't believe you received them as part of a ploy to target the innocent. There was some underlying reason the FBI, if the originator, believed they may have been of interest to you. I make no accusations of your interest in this type of material, simply that your opinions make one take pause on your motivation.

I am well aware of multiple investigations. Sharing information or merging investigations that overlap jurisdictions or share common suspects has long been common practice.

The prosecution is human, they make mistakes, they may lie, they are not perfect. The trial transcripts may well not reflect discussions at sidebar or in chambers in regard to specific matters the court believed were procedural and may prejudice the jury. If these discussions were held there is no requirement, and indeed they would never appear in the transcripts. One of the functions of the jury is to decide who is being truthful - prosecution or defense.

"The money was taken from the Reedies, before a trial, which does impact the quality of your defence in the US." You have often posted you do not have a full understanding of the justice system in the U.S. I contend your statement regarding the quality of his defense is not valid. He is entitled to an attorney, regardless of his ability to pay. The pool of "public defenders" are not a group of inept attorneys that have no other clients. In reality, public defenders are regular practicing attorneys. Every attorney that practices criminal law is required to be a part of the pool in almost every state. The court selects from the pool on a rotating basis. The attorney collects all of his fees and expenses from the government. Additionally there are hundreds of high powered attorneys for civil rights organizations such as the ACLU that likely would have represented him if he requested.

As to your final post:

"1] Terri Moore in her capacity as Assistant U.S. Attorney knew I was not guilty of the crime I was charged with but suppressed evidence"

2] threatened five witnesses and knowingly used and solicited perjured testimony in order to win her case which resulted in me getting a 1335 year sentence."

- If Thomas Reedy has evidence of this it is grounds for the conviction to be overturned on appeal. Were the evidence destroyed, then he cannot purport there is evidence. Were it simply suppressed, it is still available. Were there perjured testimony, again grounds for appeal. He had full opportunity to bring these matters up in the appeal - if he did, apparently the appeals court saw no basis for overturning the conviction.

"3]and she later used to promote herself as she ran for elected political office" - this is not germaine to his conviction in any way. This was post conviction and has no bearing on the trial itself. We view politics very skeptically in our country and almost all politicians are or were attorneys - we take most of what they say with a grain of salt and focus on issues that are in the forefront and our belief in how they will deal with these issues - most of what they claim to have done, to show themselves worthy of election, has little effect on our decisions at the ballot box.

For a final comment. In a trial, we are aware, either the defense or prosecution is lying. Both cannot be telling the truth. It is the duty of the jury to choose who to believe. Not the duty of the media, not the duty of public opinion, not the duty of the politicians - the responsibility and authority lies solely with the jury. The appeals system offers a redundant system in which prosecutorial misconduct, misinterpetation of law or sentencing guidelines, or simply poor decisions by a jury can summarily be overturned. The Reedys benefited from the appeals process in the sentencing area only.

Our system is not perfect. We know this. We simply feel it is the best we have and we are vigilant to its shortcomings, constantly improving it as we can. There are many, high profile trials in which there is strong public opinion the jury has made an error and an offender walks free (witness O.J. Simpson as an example). Common public opinion is that these offenders are guilty without a doubt; it is a flaw in our system that these perpetrators are free and may offend again. However, in the interest of the same standards of justice being applied to all, we tolerate it. The outcome being that the offender may never offend again, as a lesson was learned; or he may offend again and not have such a successful outcome.

Public opinion, in the media or on the internet, notwithstanding the Reedys have been afforded an opportunity of justice. Barring the conviction being overturned by the appeals process they remain guilty as convicted by a jury of their peers. It will not matter if millions of websites appear in support of them, absent a court overturning the conviction it is all for nothing.

Every man is entitled to his opinion. You to yours, and I to mine. It is my belief they are guilty, I have read the transcripts and saw nothing to convince me differently. While you may wish to continue to believe otherwise as you are simply morally outraged by a miscarriage of justice it will not change the conviction.

Please clarify some points for me:

"Landslide fought the abuse of the banner system, and close the whole system down. I cannot know what was going through people's minds, but the evidence indicates Landslide were not willing to tolerate those banners on the site, and the prosecution ran a deception on this issue. The fact is, on that issue, it is clearly evidenced in favour of Landslide."

For what period of time did Landslide fight this abuse, prior to closing it down? What was the nature of Thomas Reedys belief the banner system was being abused? Did he believe there was abuse based on illegal imagery? If this was his motivation and he fought the abuse for any period of time before closing it down, then for that time period he continued to profit from its presence.

"...what if someone arrested you now on the basis that they believe you will shoot someone tomorrow...." This could indeed happen, legally. If I, as an example, made comments that I was going to shoot the President, was overheard, and reported, I would likely find myself in custody. Even without owning a firearm, or having any real intention to carry out the act.

"A court is based on evidence and they fiddled it and that is evidenced." In reading the transcripts, I don't come to this conclusion. Again, if evidence is tainted it is #1 The duty of the Defense to make a motion to have it excluded or object at the very least, and #2 The responsibility of the Judge to determine if the claim of tainting occurred. If it were discovered post trial, and was factual, it is a simple process to have the conviction overturned on appeal.

"Again a snag, there is principle in law, that you are innocent until proven guilty.." By a jury of his peers, upheld by an appeals court, he has been proven and found "Guilty on all counts". There is no principle in law to prove him guilty to the media, the general public or anyone who was not a part of the process.

Presumption of innocence is an essential right that the accused enjoys in criminal trials in all countries respecting human rights. It states that the accused is presumed to be innocent until it has been declared guilty by a court. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to convince the court of the guilt of the accused. The court, and the appeals court were convinced.

In regard to the emails you received, their origin and my comments on the subject. In the vein of playing "Devils Advocate" I posted that your strong opinions in the case make your cause suspect. That is my opinion, and one many reasonable persons reading your post might see. If they were indeed part of a "fishing expedition" I personally don't believe you received them as part of a ploy to target the innocent. There was some underlying reason the FBI, if the originator, believed they may have been of interest to you. I make no accusations of your interest in this type of material, simply that your opinions make one take pause on your motivation.

I am well aware of multiple investigations. Sharing information or merging investigations that overlap jurisdictions or share common suspects has long been common practice.

The prosecution is human, they make mistakes, they may lie, they are not perfect. The trial transcripts may well not reflect discussions at sidebar or in chambers in regard to specific matters the court believed were procedural and may prejudice the jury. If these discussions were held there is no requirement, and indeed they would never appear in the transcripts. One of the functions of the jury is to decide who is being truthful - prosecution or defense.

"The money was taken from the Reedies, before a trial, which does impact the quality of your defence in the US." You have often posted you do not have a full understanding of the justice system in the U.S. I contend your statement regarding the quality of his defense is not valid. He is entitled to an attorney, regardless of his ability to pay. The pool of "public defenders" are not a group of inept attorneys that have no other clients. In reality, public defenders are regular practicing attorneys. Every attorney that practices criminal law is required to be a part of the pool in almost every state. The court selects from the pool on a rotating basis. The attorney collects all of his fees and expenses from the government. Additionally there are hundreds of high powered attorneys for civil rights organizations such as the ACLU that likely would have represented him if he requested.

As to your final post:

"1] Terri Moore in her capacity as Assistant U.S. Attorney knew I was not guilty of the crime I was charged with but suppressed evidence"

2] threatened five witnesses and knowingly used and solicited perjured testimony in order to win her case which resulted in me getting a 1335 year sentence."

- If Thomas Reedy has evidence of this it is grounds for the conviction to be overturned on appeal. Were the evidence destroyed, then he cannot purport there is evidence. Were it simply suppressed, it is still available. Were there perjured testimony, again grounds for appeal. He had full opportunity to bring these matters up in the appeal - if he did, apparently the appeals court saw no basis for overturning the conviction.

"3]and she later used to promote herself as she ran for elected political office" - this is not germaine to his conviction in any way. This was post conviction and has no bearing on the trial itself. We view politics very skeptically in our country and almost all politicians are or were attorneys - we take most of what they say with a grain of salt and focus on issues that are in the forefront and our belief in how they will deal with these issues - most of what they claim to have done, to show themselves worthy of election, has little effect on our decisions at the ballot box.

For a final comment. In a trial, we are aware, either the defense or prosecution is lying. Both cannot be telling the truth. It is the duty of the jury to choose who to believe. Not the duty of the media, not the duty of public opinion, not the duty of the politicians - the responsibility and authority lies solely with the jury. The appeals system offers a redundant system in which prosecutorial misconduct, misinterpetation of law or sentencing guidelines, or simply poor decisions by a jury can summarily be overturned. The Reedys benefited from the appeals process in the sentencing area only.

Our system is not perfect. We know this. We simply feel it is the best we have and we are vigilant to its shortcomings, constantly improving it as we can. There are many, high profile trials in which there is strong public opinion the jury has made an error and an offender walks free (witness O.J. Simpson as an example). Common public opinion is that these offenders are guilty without a doubt; it is a flaw in our system that these perpetrators are free and may offend again. However, in the interest of the same standards of justice being applied to all, we tolerate it. The outcome being that the offender may never offend again, as a lesson was learned; or he may offend again and not have such a successful outcome.

Public opinion, in the media or on the internet, notwithstanding the Reedys have been afforded an opportunity of justice. Barring the conviction being overturned by the appeals process they remain guilty as convicted by a jury of their peers. It will not matter if millions of websites appear in support of them, absent a court overturning the conviction it is all for nothing.

Every man is entitled to his opinion. You to yours, and I to mine. It is my belief they are guilty, I have read the transcripts and saw nothing to convince me differently. While you may wish to continue to believe otherwise as you are simply morally outraged by a miscarriage of justice it will not change the conviction.

A criminal trial should be based on the evidence, on this board it seems as if people either want truth or to bury it.

I examined what the prosecution said, and it fell apart. I came here because the letter by Reedy was here and was one of those illusive things I couldn't find.

How does it start:
[1] Terri Moore in her capacity as Assistant U.S. Attorney knew I was not guilty of the crime I was charged with but suppressed evidence

She certainly lied in the trial, and certainly suppressed evidence, but I cannot be sure what she believed.

[2] threatened five witnesses and knowingly used and solicited perjured testimony in order to win her case which resulted in me getting a 1335 year sentence

To give an example on this, one of the employees of Landslide was selected to give evidence at the trial. He made a sworn statement which was evidentially prejudicial and false.

[3]and she later used to promote herself as she ran for elected political office

I don't think anyone will refute the truth of that matter, but again I checked, and what Thomas Reedy said was true.

You have in your post, included propaganda, and altered my words and tried to distract from a focused issue under discussion. That is for example, an evidential fact.

Your verdict appears to me to be guilty regardless, I believed I have explained that within my posts. I said I wanted to deal with one issue at a time, because people here are gaming, so that is the only way I see to have meaningful discussion and to resolve issues, you chose to disrupt that.

Injustice always sends out ripples, though in this instance, it is because of those ripples, it has attracted quite a wide interest, for many different reasons, in some instances in people who wanted to know what really happened.

I noticed you said I might be being nurtured. I seriously doubt you believe that, but it would be hard to fathom a reasoning to support it.

You mention I might be under investigation. Again, you focus on the messenger, indeed quite a few comments have. If anyone in the world came to me with something that seemed important, I hope I would evaluate it on its merits. There are some people in American history responsible for some very profound quotes. I don't know much about the people that made them, good or bad, but I like what they said because it was wise and true, perhaps above all because it made me think and question.

These days, anyone can be the subject of an investigation, again a point I opened the door for you on, and if you do know the truth that lays beyond, you have chosen to ignore it.

Maybe I am being investigated for what I have raised here, from the testimony of the FBI in court, they didn't know what USPIS were doing, so who really knows? Quite regardless, it is of no relevance to what I am discussing.

You said:
>Whether some inside the USPIS, the FBI, or other agencies are "emabarrassed" has no bearing on the trial at this point. If they knew at the time of the trial, or became aware of perjury that occurred, they have a sworn duty to pursue the matter - if they have not, or are not doing so, then consider that your "contacts" are simply "blowing smoke" at you, to coin a phrase.

Firstly, would you blow the whistle and lose your job? Some people do, but if you have a family, if you don't have the courage, there are so many reasons not to, and few actually cross that line, especially perhaps in law enforcement.

I don't have to consider the smoke issue. If for example someone provides information, that is just a lead, a possibility. It saves time as it often presents an issue to focus on. If roles were reversed, and you said 'Nelson lied', I would have asked you, what did he say, when, why do you say that and have gone away and looked into it to refute or validate your statement. If something is presented as evidence, again, this is a criminal trial, it has to be investigated.

It is the same with the trial. Because prosecution or defence assert something, I don't presume it is true, if it is significant, I tried to determine the truth so it is proven or refuted.

You said
>If such issues raise questions, they should be or have been raised by the defense by objection or on appeal. If they have not, it seems perhaps the Defense does not see this issue in the same light that you do.

I was not discussing the performance of the participants, but judging the trial on the evidence. It would be very easy for me to cricise the defence, we can all be armchair critics. I am not lawyer, this was not an ordinary trial, the judge kept rejecting legitimate petitions by the defence, and I don't know what the defence lawyer was thinking or the parameters he was operating to. There is potentially a conflict of interest, as the prosecution technical expert had been in some legal scrapes himself, and the defence attorney for Thomas Reedy had acted for him.

There are several factors I think are of relevence. Many of the issues were highly technical, critical issues that determine guilt or innocence, and I notice no one attacking my position, and me, has any interest in such issues. Some of the issues that have been evidenced since, would have been unknown to Landslide and his defence. The money was taken from the Reedies, before a trial, which does impact the quality of your defence in the US.

In order to try to raise money for a defense, he set up a website, and the prosecution through this into the propaganda machine that he was doing it again. Clearly they wanted him broke and defenseless. I don't know what the laws are, but punishment without trial is something I consider unfair, and they took money that legally belonged to other people as part of legitimate business.

Rather like your comment Aafes, he removed the banners because you have decided he was tipped off or similar, the prosecution alleged Reedy was a risk and took him into custody.

This case was so heavily pushed from so many angles, false information into the media, false information presented as evidence in the trial, and the defence not given unfettered access to the evidence, evidence destroyed, evidence lost. Unless law enforcement are accountable to the law, I don't know if he stood a chance, unless there was an exceptional judge that enforced a level playing field.

I can only speak from where the evidence is now, and it is from that viewpoint, this was evidentially a miscarriage of justice.

You seriously doubt the imagery was from the FBI, I don't have a problem with that, doubt suggest your mind is not closed to the issue.

You say sting operations relate to people under suspicion. You obviously didn't explore the FBI operations I mentioned. They were fishing expeditions, they even call it that, intentionally targeting innocent people. If you were interested in the truth, it would not take you long to substantiate what I have just said. It works for several reasons. Firstly posters here said 'if you have it you are guilty' and the public have in part been led to believe that. Secondly, your first point, who would believe law enforcement are doing it. You doubt but you have not researched issues that are on this board.

You have suggested I may be involved in trafficking under age imagery. Actually, it is one of the of the standard allegations that has been used as an excuse to destroy justice, you claim you are protecting children by doing this, and by inference someone who raises a challenge, tries to discuss evidence, must be against protecting children. Both sides of the argument are false. You have though raised a question, and in answer, no I am not involved in trafficking underage imagery, nor have I been at any time, but you can suggest I might tomorrow from your previous reasoning.

On the email issue, you would be wrong in the instances I refer to, I can only say here it is evidenced and not in a way that I could have been a participant.

Keep in mind also, I made official reports, and complained that they were not being investigated. Had they investigated, they could have evidenced a number of issues that were completely outside of my control, that would have verified my assertions here.

On the issue you did not understand, there was more than one investigation. The FBI were working overtly with Landslide in relation to illegal sites using the payment system. During that time, USPIS, in partnership with Dallas PD, ran a covert operation targeting Landslide. USPIS found illegal sites were using the Landslide payment system and hooked up with Terri Moore and the prosecution swung into gear. Landslide called in the two FBI agents as defence witnesses. Frank Super of the FBI was a problem, because Landslide had contacted him, so I was curious to hear what he said at the trial, and I have on record what both allege. I can disprove what Frank Super said, I have anecdotal evidence that supports what Landslide said, but I cannot prove it either way. This issue was also covered in the media. The FBI effectively turned on Landslide, and the excuse for Frank Super working with Landslide was put down to him being 'green', ie innexperience. This is in the trial transcripts. Long ago I simply found this suspicious, but I went looking with an open mind.

As for what I am infering, digging in to these issues, in order to recover what evidence was available, I kept finding that the faults in what the prosecution has said, some of it doesn't even need much digging with a background knowledge on the issues.

When I first thought about the Landslide trial, all I had were questions, some of them things that didn't add up, but I didn't know whether guilt or innocence was the case at all, so I wasn't on a side as some allege here. I knew something strange had happened from issues uncovered elsewhere, and I actually just wanted to know what the truth was.

We can never have all of the truth, and we can always err, but it is only because I and others wanted to find out what the truth was, that we were able to find what we did, and probably most of the work went into evidencing the truth, hidden behind so many lies that was the harder task.

I have read or covered all your post so will reply again.

You said
> No, I did not claim this as fact. I stated he was out of the office spending his money - his lifestyle, as reported supports this. Expensive cars, expensive home etc.

Making money is not a crime in the USA. As it happens he partly worked from home, but if you want to include the house and the car in the case and say that is how he was spending his time, to me irrelevant but no problem either way.

You said
> Yes, my point exactly was he removed the banner, my belief is he had prior knowledge it was present, was profitable and only removed it when he was either warned or discovered he was being investigated.

Again a snag, there is principle in law, that you are innocent until proven guilty. I have placed here issues based on evidential research, but out of the blue, you have decided, he knew he was being investigated.

First you say he is guilty because he didn't remove them, now you say he is guilty because he did, in other words, for some reason, you don't want a trial, as that is catch 22.

That is remarkably similar to the conduct of law enforcement officers involved in the case who are evidenced as having lied repeatedly. Nelson said Thomas hosted cp, a lie, nothing but a lie because he was doing the site recording in that instance, and the truth came out in the trial.

USPIS said he was going to host cp. Very very similar to your assertion. If he was hosting cp he was guilty (true), if he wasn't, he was going to (guilty). Not a shred of evidence and I can only account for USPIS having such wreckless disreguard for the truth if they believed he was above the law.

Law is quite different, you have to make a case and convict people on evidence. If your argument had a basis in law, what if someone arrested you now on the basis that they believe you will shoot someone tomorrow. That is effectively what you are saying, evidence doesn't matter it might be true and you can't disprove it as tomorrow hasn't come.

I have tried to convict Landslide on the evidence and I can't, but you can convict them on propaganda alone, which is not so far off how it happened.

USPIS said Landslide was going to host cp without a shred of evidence, that he was in a conspiracy with webmasters in indonesia or russia who were blood relatives or close associates with evidence that refutes this. A court is based on evidence and they fiddled it and that is evidenced.

Landslide fought the abuse of the banner system, and close the whole system down. I cannot know what was going through people's minds, but the evidence indicates Landslide were not willing to tolerate those banners on the site, and the prosecution ran a deception on this issue. The fact is, on that issue, it is clearly evidenced in favour of Landslide.

I will continue in a subsequent post, but you made what I allege was a flaw in your reasoning. It is perhaps beyond the scope of this thread, though I have touched on it before, but the idea that there is substantial commercial market of underage imagery, is a myth, and if you undertake acedemic research on this subject, it is not the first time this fiction was created.

Let me put it simply, there are a few posters on this board, I would find it very unlikely anyone here would pay for such imagery. People who do have an interest, have tended to be small groups, who trade imagery without charge, use stealth and encryption, and it has been so since before the Internet.

Due to the fears of a taboo, it is useful on commercial websites as part of credit card fraud, and that is where Landslide was out of control. If you look into the details, the illegal imagery was actually the end of the business, as that is where most of the fraud was occuring. That was not uniqe to the Landslide, that is what fraudsters were up to in poor nations and emerging economies and it is still happening now.

If you want to continue with your allegation it was profitable, please explain your reasoning behind it, I am happy to go through that issue too, but banner first.

One issue at at time is fine. Lets review your last post:

"...yet you have gone back to propaganda, claiming to have personal knowledge of what Thomas Reedy did when he was out of the office..."

No, I did not claim this as fact. I stated he was out of the office spending his money - his lifestyle, as reported supports this. Expensive cars, expensive home etc.

"You seem to suggest he removed the banner but that doesn't matter. First he was guilty because he didn't remove it, then he was guilty because he did."

I believe my reference was to one of your earlier posts ("He found the issue, tried to prevent the problem but could not so took down the whole system.") - Yes, my point exactly was he removed the banner, my belief is he had prior knowledge it was present, was profitable and only removed it when he was either warned or discovered he was being investigated.

"What I was interested in was not just what people said, or were quoted as saying, but what the truth was as far as it could be determined. As far as it can be determined, that trial simply doesn't stand up."

Perhaps not in the U.K. However, in our country the trial has had the opportunity to "stand up" when the entire conviction was not overturned or remanded by the Court of Appeals. We realize, people are going to tell their own version of the truth during a trial - it is the duty of the Jury to determine what is fact, what is truth, and what is to be disregarded during their deliberation. It is the duty of the Defense to push for charges of perjury and have a conviction overturned on those grounds if indeed perjury was committed. Why hasn't this happened?

"I think I mentioned earlier, I received emails, from the FBI, containing illicit imagery. I deleted them, your argument perhaps suggests I did so to cover my tracks." -

First, I seriously doubt you received these images from the FBI. I can only imagine this occurring if you personally are under suspicion and being probed as part of a sting operation on child pornography. This statement, in itself, greatly places your credibility in question and provides support to those who have questions whether your interest in this case is because you are a participant in this type of trafficking. It is relatively simple for a person with the proper knowledge to make it appear that an email came from a different source than it actually originated from.

As for you deleting the images, unless you removed your hard drive and took a sledgehammer to it until it was only dust you may be in for a very big suprise. It is virtually impossible to completely remove all data and traces of data from a hard drive. Even commercial programs that claim to us DOD standards to accomplish this do not truly remove all of this information. A skilled computer forensic technician can recover myriads of data from computers in which the owners utilized these wiping techniques.

"Landslide had similarly reported the issue to the FBI. USPIS independently ran a hostile investigation, and what was happening with the FBI, from their statements, virtually nothing, it was suggested the agent was simply green so it didn't matter. So to them, Landslide was even responsible for the quality of staff at the FBI. This despite the fact that the FBI served a court order requiring non disclosure."

Forgive me if I misunderstand what you are trying to infer in this paragraph, it simply makes no sense.

"From where I stand, such issues raise questions. The FBI made public statements, even from their own website, and were called by the defense in the trial. Now if I was to prove that they lied, perhaps 20 posts from now, you or another will be going back to banners again, which is why I proposed one issue at a time."

If such issues raise questions, they should be or have been raised by the defense by objection or on appeal. If they have not, it seems perhaps the Defense does not see this issue in the same light that you do.

Whether some inside the USPIS, the FBI, or other agencies are "emabarrassed" has no bearing on the trial at this point. If they knew at the time of the trial, or became aware of perjury that occurred, they have a sworn duty to pursue the matter - if they have not, or are not doing so, then consider that your "contacts" are simply "blowing smoke" at you, to coin a phrase.

You should also consider the possibility, that these "contacts" are simply nurturing you on this subject because they consider you suspect and you may be under investigation. Your passion for this trial, and the ripples it has made across the pond, along with your strong statements the Reedys did nothing wrong makes you appear suspect in the least.

Finally, if your most recent post was meant to be the "evidence" of your first issue were I a juror, I would have to say, I still see no evidence. The verdict remains.

Aafes said > you indicate no evidence just hearsay
I had offered you as an individual evidence, I presume from your post you are declining that offer.

I had offered to deal with one issue at a time, yet you have gone back to propaganda, claiming to have personal knowledge of what Thomas Reedy did when he was out of the office. You would know a lot more about this person than any of us if that was true.

You seem to suggest he removed the banner but that doesn't matter. First he was guilty because he didn't remove it, then he was guilty because he did.

What I was interested in was not just what people said, or were quoted as saying, but what the truth was as far as it could be determined. As far as it can be determined, that trial simply doesn't stand up.

I think I mentioned earlier, I received emails, from the FBI, containing illicit imagery. I deleted them, your argument perhaps suggests I did so to cover my tracks. The fact I should mention it openly here, rather disputes that. I reported it at the time, indeed I complained at the fact the local agency refused to investigate the FBI.

Landslide had similarly reported the issue to the FBI. USPIS independently ran a hostile investigation, and what was happening with the FBI, from their statements, virtually nothing, it was suggested the agent was simply green so it didn't matter. So to them, Landslide was even responsible for the quality of staff at the FBI. This despite the fact that the FBI served a court order requiring non disclosure.

From where I stand, such issues raise questions. The FBI made public statements, even from their own website, and were called by the defense in the trial. Now if I was to prove that they lied, perhaps 20 posts from now, you or another will be going back to banners again, which is why I proposed one issue at a time.

USPIS seemed rather miffed by the publicity the FBI received from this trial, so they put up a web page correcting the position, this was a USPIS led investigation. When what they had really done started to come to light, they removed that web page. One moment proud, one moment embarrassed and there are people working inside USPIS who are more than embarrassed at what was done.

In your post in which you state you are beginning to address the evidence, you indicate no evidence, rather hearsay.

Thomas Reedy claimed, prior to the case to be a self taught programmer and computer consultant. This is posted all over the internet.

He owned the website, and the business. He is liable for any criminal activity from which his business profits. If, for example, he instead owned a barber shop and cocaine was being distributed from the business, in America the business could, and most likely would be seized under RICO statutes. Whether he had knowledge or not - in America he is EXPECTED to be vigilant and have knowledge of what occurs in his business. If he chooses to turn a blind eye it doesn't absolve him of responsibility. You said he was not in the office much, of course, he was spending the money he made for allowing a child pornography link.

You said he noticed the banner and shut the banner exchange down. I don't think he shut it down out of a sense of moral responsibility, I think he was likely warned by someone that it had been discovered and he was likely to be investigate. Removing the banner was his way to try and hide.

No evidence to the contrary - guilty as charged.

He claimed he took it off after finding the banner.

He made millions off of child porn. It's simple as that.

Thomas Reedy employed people for different tasks, I understand he was mainly out of the office. Your statement could be interpreted to mean that he should have been watching the banner system all the time.

He found the issue, tried to prevent the problem but could not so took down the whole system. That was unusual. After the Landslide trial the issue of banners did come up, and some webmasters use vetting systems. If something is automated, and most things are nowadays, to hold someone to account for it real time is unusual unless they did it.

If I went to a cash point and drew money out of someone else's account, if that person complained the bank is likely to take responsibility for it and put the problem right. Probably a bad example, as there were many complaints about cashpoints making phantom withdrawals in the UK years ago, and the banks refused to admit liability, they said it never happened, until their own cctv cameras produced the evidence and then they had to.

Thomas Reedy removed the banners. For the following months of the USPIS investigation, the banners were gone. You say the owners of the website were SOLELY responsible. That defies reason. What is very common on the Internet, and was tried at Landslide, is hotlinking, that is the image comes from a remote website and one site was found where a well known credit card company had put its name to illegal by age imagery. I wouldn't contest they were intentionally marketing illegal imagery either.

You said
>Again, it is my contention he KNEW the banner was present, realized it was one of the more profitable banners on his website and allowed it to remain.

He found the banners and removed them. Quite a public deception on this issue, but the facts are not that difficult to establish evidentially.

I haven't covered all the relevant details on this matter, law enforcement crossed the line further than I have mentioned here so far on this issue, and if you wish to challenge the statements I have made, then I am prepared to get verifyable evidence outside of this board, and that will refute the contentions you have just made.

At the time, website owners were not considered responsible for third party banners. That changed and there was quite a panic by adult webmasters when it did. Landslide was unusual I would think, in that they addressed the problem. Others might have implemented other solutions, Landslide conceded defeat to the problem and took the system down.

I have explained the reason I came here, however, if one issue can be dealt with at a time and in earnest, I can continue to seek to ensure that the intricacies are discussed in appropriate detail.

Thomas Reedy employed people for different tasks, I understand he was mainly out of the office. Your statement could be interpreted to mean that he should have been watching the banner system all the time.

He found the issue, tried to prevent the problem but could not so took down the whole system. That was unusual. After the Landslide trial the issue of banners did come up, and some webmasters use vetting systems. If something is automated, and most things are nowadays, to hold someone to account for it real time is unusual unless they did it.

If I went to a cash point and drew money out of someone else's account, if that person complained the bank is likely to take responsibility for it and put the problem right. Probably a bad example, as there were many complaints about cashpoints making phantom withdrawals in the UK years ago, and the banks refused to admit liability, they said it never happened, until their own cctv cameras produced the evidence and then they had to.

Thomas Reedy removed the banners. For the following months of the USPIS investigation, the banners were gone. You say the owners of the website were SOLELY responsible. That defies reason. What is very common on the Internet, and was tried at Landslide, is hotlinking, that is the image comes from a remote website and one site was found where a well known credit card company had put its name to illegal by age imagery. I wouldn't contest they were intentionally marketing illegal imagery either.

You said
>Again, it is my contention he KNEW the banner was present, realized it was one of the more profitable banners on his website and allowed it to remain.

He found the banners and removed them. Quite a public deception on this issue, but the facts are not that difficult to establish evidentially.

I haven't covered all the relevant details on this matter, law enforcement crossed the line further than I have mentioned here so far on this issue, and if you wish to challenge the statements I have made, then I am prepared to get verifyable evidence outside of this board, and that will refute the contentions you have just made.

At the time, website owners were not considered responsible for third party banners. That changed and there was quite a panic by adult webmasters when it did. Landslide was unusual I would think, in that they addressed the problem. Others might have implemented other solutions, Landslide conceded defeat to the problem and took the system down.

I have explained the reason I came here, however, if one issue can be dealt with at a time and in earnest, I can continue to seek to ensure that the intricacies are discussed in appropriate detail.

Thomas Reedy employed people for different tasks, I understand he was mainly out of the office. Your statement could be interpreted to mean that he should have been watching the banner system all the time.

He found the issue, tried to prevent the problem but could not so took down the whole system. That was unusual. After the Landslide trial the issue of banners did come up, and some webmasters use vetting systems. If something is automated, and most things are nowadays, to hold someone to account for it real time is unusual unless they did it.

If I went to a cash point and drew money out of someone else's account, if that person complained the bank is likely to take responsibility for it and put the problem right. Probably a bad example, as there were many complaints about cashpoints making phantom withdrawals in the UK years ago, and the banks refused to admit liability, they said it never happened, until their own cctv cameras produced the evidence and then they had to.

Thomas Reedy removed the banners. For the following months of the USPIS investigation, the banners were gone. You say the owners of the website were SOLELY responsible. That defies reason. What is very common on the Internet, and was tried at Landslide, is hotlinking, that is the image comes from a remote website and one site was found where a well known credit card company had put its name to illegal by age imagery. I wouldn't contest they were intentionally marketing illegal imagery either.

You said
>Again, it is my contention he KNEW the banner was present, realized it was one of the more profitable banners on his website and allowed it to remain.

He found the banners and removed them. Quite a public deception on this issue, but the facts are not that difficult to establish evidentially.

I haven't covered all the relevant details on this matter, law enforcement crossed the line further than I have mentioned here so far on this issue, and if you wish to challenge the statements I have made, then I am prepared to get verifyable evidence outside of this board, and that will refute the contentions you have just made.

At the time, website owners were not considered responsible for third party banners. That changed and there was quite a panic by adult webmasters when it did. Landslide was unusual I would think, in that they addressed the problem. Others might have implemented other solutions, Landslide conceded defeat to the problem and took the system down.

I have explained the reason I came here, however, if one issue can be dealt with at a time and in earnest, I can continue to seek to ensure that the intricacies are discussed in appropriate detail.

Thomas Reedy employed people for different tasks, I understand he was mainly out of the office. Your statement could be interpreted to mean that he should have been watching the banner system all the time.

He found the issue, tried to prevent the problem but could not so took down the whole system. That was unusual. After the Landslide trial the issue of banners did come up, and some webmasters use vetting systems. If something is automated, and most things are nowadays, to hold someone to account for it real time is unusual unless they did it.

If I went to a cash point and drew money out of someone else's account, if that person complained the bank is likely to take responsibility for it and put the problem right. Probably a bad example, as there were many complaints about cashpoints making phantom withdrawals in the UK years ago, and the banks refused to admit liability, they said it never happened, until their own cctv cameras produced the evidence and then they had to.

Thomas Reedy removed the banners. For the following months of the USPIS investigation, the banners were gone. You say the owners of the website were SOLELY responsible. That defies reason. What is very common on the Internet, and was tried at Landslide, is hotlinking, that is the image comes from a remote website and one site was found where a well known credit card company had put its name to illegal by age imagery. I wouldn't contest they were intentionally marketing illegal imagery either.

You said
>Again, it is my contention he KNEW the banner was present, realized it was one of the more profitable banners on his website and allowed it to remain.

He found the banners and removed them. Quite a public deception on this issue, but the facts are not that difficult to establish evidentially.

I haven't covered all the relevant details on this matter, law enforcement crossed the line further than I have mentioned here so far on this issue, and if you wish to challenge the statements I have made, then I am prepared to get verifyable evidence outside of this board, and that will refute the contentions you have just made.

At the time, website owners were not considered responsible for third party banners. That changed and there was quite a panic by adult webmasters when it did. Landslide was unusual I would think, in that they addressed the problem. Others might have implemented other solutions, Landslide conceded defeat to the problem and took the system down.

I have explained the reason I came here, however, if one issue can be dealt with at a time and in earnest, I can continue to seek to ensure that the intricacies are discussed in appropriate detail.

You have said Thomas Reedy was a computer programmer. This is an issue that has been looked into, and I would not agree with that description.

He hired someone who was a programmer, but the programming at Landslide was fundamentally flawed throughout the life of the company.

Thomas Reedy did notice the banner system was under attack and responded quickly. He put up a system whereby the public could see all the banners and complain about them, so he would be notified by visitors to the site if anything went up.

Without looking up the sworn testimony, I believe Michael Mead of USPIS claimed to have seen the infamous offending banner on the site several times between 28/04/1999 and 01/05/1999 and that it didn't change.

This was a rotating banner system, if they reloaded the page it was very unlikely to show the same banner again, but Michael Mead said they went to the site many times and it was always there, that same banner. That testimony defies reason, and I believe most programmers would conclude a rather wreckless deception. He was backing up the statements of Detective Nelson, and the lies that Nelson told were so frequent and clumbsy, that is an issue that will surface in due course, to some extent it already has. I have been told one law enforcement agency has conceded his evidence in writing but I haven't yet received a copy.

It is clear that Thomas Reedy did respond quickly and it was shut down. This banner incidentally related to a site under US law enforcement control.

I will follow with more in my next post.

In general, US citizens have rights and there are legal protections if someone can obtain legal representation. In the UK, people have no such protections.

1. The jury simply turn up to court, they cannot be interviewed. An interesting case cropped up recently in a sex crime trial, where the jury wrote a note to the judge claiming he was biased which brought to the trial to a halt. Some unique in legal history by press acounts, but the jury cannot be interviewed and selected.

2. Special arrangements can be made to shield jurors. In respect of Operation Ore, it doesn't apply. False information was fed to the media in a media frenzy, that has now been going on for years. In terms of the accused, the police tended to leak the names of the accused to the media pre-trial. By the time people reached court, they had already been tried in the media.

3. On the question you raise in saying 'please post all this evidence', with respect, that is not a reasonable request, as I have previously stated. However, you will have noticed in my last two posted, I had started to deal with one issue. If this is challenged, I can go into further detail, indeed issues of supporting evidence, if it is accepted I can move on to another issue.

You have raised an issue in relation to the rotating banners, so clearly we must continue to examine this point and you have raised several points which I will comment on in the next post.

Dave - you posted:

"Instead, that is not what happened. In the UK this story was used as propaganda which served to corrupt much of the jury pool..."

Forgive my ignorance of your justice system. Are you saying that #1 The defense attorneys are so inept they cannot question a potential juror to determine if he/she has been tainted by media attention to a case. Our attorneys commonly do this and it is a routine reason for disqualifying a potential juror.

#2 Does your justice system not allow jurors to be sequestered during a trial to prevent media attention to the trial from prejudicing them?

Lastly, I will ask again, as you have been asked repeatedly yet have failed to respond. Please post all this "evidence" you have which you insist would exonerate these felons. You seem to ignore this repeated request. Note, hearsay is not considered evidence, you need to provide factual or at the least circumstancial evidence if you want anyone here to take your claims seriously.

As for your "rotating banner exchange" contention, I will say that as the owners of the website the Reedys were SOLELY responsible for any and all content and banners that were present or appeared. As a "computer programmer" Thomas Reedy most certainly would not only have the capacity and knowledge to determine how to remove these banners but also how to protect his own website from having banners added without his knowledge.

Simply put, he and his wife were too busy enjoying the profits of their business to take the time and attention to be responsible in running the website.

Again, it is my contention he KNEW the banner was present, realized it was one of the more profitable banners on his website and allowed it to remain.

Please, post your evidence to the contrary, which you keep insisting you possess.

My last posting reflected what was evidentially the circumstances.

If Landslide had fixed their own advert on their website, blatantly purporting to offer illegal material, certainly in the UK, that alone would constitute a serious offence and in my view, the evidence compelling. If that was what had evidentially happened, I wouldn't be posting here in the first place, because the prosecution would have in my view a compelling case.

Instead, that is not what happened. In the UK this story was used as propaganda which served to corrupt much of the jury pool, indeed they went further, the government spokesman John Carr alleged that most people prosecuted had clicked this banner, that is to say, most people had gone to one website.

Clearly some posters here rely on the media, entirely reasonable as that is the only input they have easily available. The media of course have made a great deal from these extreme stories, but they haven't reported the truth, indeed, false information was presented via the media during the Landslide trial, bearing the name even of the law enforcement officer in charge of the case. Trial by media is dangerous, I hope that is something most would agree on here.

These issues are emotive, and what was presented to the media in the US and the UK did create a witch-hunt. Evidentially however, these were stories, refuted by the facts of the matter.

If anyone wishes to discuss this particular detail further please post, otherwise I can continue with some of the other points just raised, again materially at odds with the facts.

The allegations in this case are serious. However, that is not a reason not to look into the details of the case, and there are errors in what has just been stated, significant errors.

Mike Marshall, the technical expert for the prosecution, claimed not to understand adult banners. In order to obtain revenue on adult sites, people have to know about the sites, and a free system of advertising is banner exchanges. We carry your ads, you carry ours.

The click here banner is simply a red herring. For a time, Landslide operated its own banner exchange. Contrary to the testimony of US law enforcement, no banner was stuck on the page, this was a normal banner rotator and the public have been wilfully lead up the garden path on this issue.

Of course, there is a downside to these systems, because third party webmasters can abuse a system like this, and they did, that is simply a fact. Due to the abuse, and supported by forensic evidence, Landslide tried measures to protect the system, clearly unsuccessful so they took the banner system down altogether. These facts are evidentially supported.

Rather than carrying adverts which were clearly intimating illegal content on third party websites, Landslide terminated the system completely.

Whilst the propaganda value of banners has been immense, examining the facts, if this was considered as evidence, it is prejudicial in favour of Landslide. Whilst posters have attempted to personalise this, please note, it is the evidence that is prejudicial.

He did it to make a lot of money and get rich off child porn. Maybe part of it was to help police which I highly doubt it was most likely a cover but his main reason was to get rich.

Dave

HE HAD A LINK CLICK HERE FOR CHILD PORN. There is no mistaking that. I see your point about something happening that you don't know about it but the link WAS CLEAR.

If you provide a link on your site you should check everything out and recheck it often.

He profited off of child porn, Children were being abused and raped and he made money bought a fancy house and lived the easy life while children were being abused so he could make money.

Maybe he did it to help the authorities but I highly doubt it. He made a lot of money realized he could get caught and then contacted the authorities.

I didn't see anywhere correct me if I'm wrong he turned back the money he made. If he was in it for anything but the money he would have.

Is now threatening to go to his lawyer. Threatening people.

I have a problem with people making any money on child porn. The Reedys were clearly in this for the money.

I know you think they are innocent because you think people should be allowed to profit off of child pornography.

If they had not made millions off the link I'd feel differently. But they made millions.

I always question people that stand up for people doing bad things. It usually means they do it themselves or think it's right.

You have no problem with what Reedy the child porn profiteer did and I do that's the difference.

He should be in jail for the rest of his life for making money on this. It's as bad as doing it himself.

I do think the authorities need to be contacted where you defenders live. It's worth looking into why people want to let a child porn profiteer get off scot free.

I noticed that Mark brought up the issue of possession, which illustrates some of the complexity in the relevant issues, and the difficulty of discussing them in a forum of this nature.

Some here have inferred that operators of payment gateways are responsible for the content provided at all times by third party websites using the system. If that view was held at the time, the websites would have to be reviewed all the time, and if they are viewed and found to be illegal, then the computer used to check the sites is contaminated, and posters here allege they have committed an offence because their computer is contaminated, they are guilty, off to jail. Catch 22, guilty or guilty.

It becomes more complex in this case again, because Thomas Reedy checked some imagery, then deleted it. Microsoft Windows doesn't actually do what you tell it to, it unlinks the file, so he couldn't access it, but the forensic software used by law enforcement could.

These are difficult issues by law and by investigation. If person A walks up and shoots person B dead, that is likely to be classed as a homicide, if person A is hunting and accidentally shoots person B, it might only be an accident. Intent is important.

The law enforcement officers had said keyz was set up to supply illegal imagery, new equipment was purchased specially for the purpose, there were hundreds of illegal sites there, and this was a criminal conspiracy with webmasters who were blood relatives or close associates of the accused.

I didn't just wake up one day and say this was a fit up, I examined the evidence and testimony unsure what I would find or where it would lead, but allegations were not only not supported by the evidence, they were refuted.

Some people here say if profit was made from this material, end of story, that is a crime. As it happens, law enforcement made rather a lot, but most of the fraud came through these illegal sites, that is what shut Landslide before the arrests even took place, that is exactly why rogue webmasters use this material, not because people want to view it, but because people are frightened of it.

Leticia,

There are two Daves in this conversation. You're making us out to be a composite.

We are not.

Some have intimated here, that there are crimes where the accused should not be defended, even to the extent that those that do are somehow complicit in the crime.

That is not a position of merit, a person can be the subject of a false allegation, especially in this territory and especially due to such fanfare as has appeared on this thread. The judicial system is adversarial, so if people are not defended, they would be convicted automatically by accusation and instead of a trial you have an inquisition.

In France, where effectively the 'judge' investigates the case, an investigation in this territory recently but relating to actual abuse put the whole judicial system in question, because a large number of people had been falsely accused, and one of them is dead. In France, it is to their credit, because they turned round after this disaster and did question what they had done wrong.

In the case presented in court in the trial of Landslide, former Dallas detective Steven Nelson presented incriminating evidence. This opened the case and was damning testimony. It has since been evidenced, that this detective was not just someone who didn't tell the truth, he was willing to and did lie, in sworn testimony, indeed he made a habit of making false statements.

A video of what Detective Nelson had done was taken to verify what he said in that court, yet, this video had gone missing, and Terri Moore was unable to show it to the court.

In addition, a web capture program was used to provide evidence and one would perhaps have expected this to verify the work Detective Nelson had undertaken, it didn't verify the work of Detective Nelson, indeed it told a different story.

Some people here want to drown out these issues, to them it doesn't matter. I take the view, it isn't just the slippery slope if law enforcement are above the law, for then the concept of justice has been abandoned.

Terri Moore swept aside the US constitution, suggesting it wasn't designed for circumstances such as these. The US constitution was carefully constructed for circumstances exactly like these. To Terri Moore and some people here, it doesn't matter because the accusation relates to child pornography, the law doesn't apply, the constitution doesn't apply, principle doesn't matter, and as we have seen, it reaches the point that truth doesn't matter. When truth doesn't matter, we are all imperilled.

To quote you "I hope the towns these pornography supporters here (AND EVERY PERSON WHO DEFENDS REEDY SUPPORTS CHILD RAPE AND PORNO) are notified so the police arrest all these pedophiles immediately."

That is defamation of character and you have nothing to support such a statement. Considering i have already stated i have no interest in such material and I'm with others are seeking the truth.

To Quote "If you support Reedy you are a child molester and/or pornographer. or at the least you THINK ITS OKAY."

Again nobody has claimed or suggested it was okay.

I would suggest a retraction asap. If you wish to challenge me, please make contact and I will would happily forward you to my attourney as part of future legal proceedings.

The truth is hard to believe at times, but the truth is this. The Reedy's are innocent of counts 1 - 88, count 89 well that evidence was on his HOME PC. But the images were NOT on any of the his servers.

To Quote "THEY NEVER INTENDED TO HELP THE POLICE. THEY ONLY WANTED TO HELP THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS. IF THEY HAD WANTED TO HELP POLICE THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD THEM BEFORE THEY GOT CAUGHT.
"

Have you actually read anything on RipOff?

Thomas Reedy did report the sites to the FBI nearly a year prior to the bust, and he called the FBI agents as defence witnesses.

I also would suggest you read everything and not just what you want to read and ignore anything that actually proves their innocence.

I'm not saying the Reedy's are squeaky clean, but neither are the FBI/Dallas Police and USPIS.

He has said that another poster had mentioned that ROR was not a place to debate this. He said that himself, in a reply to me when I asked why are the defenders talking conspiracy theories instead of why they had incompentant attourneys since they were innocent.

He even mentioned that he "Believes" that Thomas Reedy should be in jail. (Not his wife though.)

And things about spy movies, etc.

I believe that he is just a troll, trying to get a rise out of people. So ignore Dave, people and keep posting the facts about things until we drown him out.

I noticed your post stating a man was convicted for life on charges in this territory, where the evidence contradicts the verdict. If the material facts confirm what you have presented, that would constitute a miscarriage of justice.

There is an 'easy bust' mentallity pervading both the US and UK, that is, 'if you have it, you are guilty', not to mention the attendant propaganda that has tried to rule out discussion and evaluation of the truth. The Landslide case no doubt helped facilitate this.

If this case was covered in the media, I would be grateful if you could provide details how articles could be recovered. If you have more intimate details of the case, rather than put any specific here, there are a number of investigations ongoing at this time, and a contact point can be provided so these matters can be looked into.

EVERYONE WHO IS TAKING REEDY THE CHILD PORN PURVEYOR IS TELLING US WILLINGLY AND OPENLY ONLINE THEY SUPPORT CHILD PORN!

HE HAD A BUTTON SAYING CLICK HERE FOR CHILD PORN ON HIS SITE. HE WAS PROFITING FROM CHILD PORN! HE AND HIS WIFE WERE RAKING IN A LOT OF MONEY HELPING MOLESTERS GET AWAY WITH IT.

THANK GOD HIS CHILDREN HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY. HE AND HIS WIFE WOULD RAPE THEM IF THEY COULD MAKE MONEY OFF OF IT.

Please everyone who supports him GET HELP for your sick depravity and love of child porn.

If you support Reedy you are a child molester and/or pornographer. or at the least you THINK ITS OKAY.

If you support Terri you support stopping child rape and porn.

The useless piece of garbage and his s**t prostitute wife need to rot in jail. THEY MADE MONEY BY HELPING MEN RAPE CHILDREN.

THEY NEVER INTENDED TO HELP THE POLICE. THEY ONLY WANTED TO HELP THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS. IF THEY HAD WANTED TO HELP POLICE THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD THEM BEFORE THEY GOT CAUGHT.

I hope the towns these pornography supporters here (AND EVERY PERSON WHO DEFENDS REEDY SUPPORTS CHILD RAPE AND PORNO) are notified so the police arrest all these pedophiles immediately.

IF you support Reedy you are a child pornographer.

Dave, you continue to dodge questions regarding your "Evidence". You repeatedly state you have hard evidence which would exonerate the defendants in this case, and have repeatedly been asked to post the same evidence, yet this has never happened.

You quote "random" cases to decry the failings of our justice system but miss the point that most of the posters here who are in contention with you consider these cases as different as apples and oranges.

We know there are flaws in our system of justice. Any system based on human reasoning is going to have flaws. This is why the basis of our jury system requires a jury of peers be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. The entire jury, not lacking one, not only half, but the ENTIRE jury must be convinced and must be in agreement as to a verdict. The judge is responsible for the attorneys involved following the letter of the law. Should a defense attorney believe a judge has erred during the trial and the error has resulted in a conviction that would have otherwise not been made the right to appeal exists.

The Reedys initial appeal only resulted in the case being remanded for a change in the amount of time sentenced. You can be assured the appeals court reviewed the ENTIRE case on all its merits. An appeals court can remand or overturn a case on any grounds they consider the defendant was wronged or the judge in the original case erred - not only on the matters appealed. If the appeals court felt the verdict was legal and proper, in our society we consider this a further confirmation of guilt. In addition, the Reedys can continue to appeal, however, it seems they have not done so to this point. Should their appeals continue, I have little doubt as to the verdict being upheld.

WHile not perfect, this is the system of justice we believe in, we fight for and we are constantly vigilant to its shortcomings. We demand change when these shortcomings are apparent. Not being an American, perhaps you cannot fathom our beliefs or way of life.

Simply put, the Reedys have been convicted. Whether they unknowingly profited from what occurred or they were deeply involved from the start and lied, it is not of any consequence. If their apathy as to what was occurring through a website they controlled contributed to the transmission of child pornography through selling access or links to other websites they remain just as guilty. We consider a business owner fully responsible for what occurs in the course of the business. Pleading "ignorance" is no defense in our country.

Any reasonable person, if as you have maintained, that was directed by law enforcement authorities to download child pornography or otherwise participate would seek legal advice or require this direction in writing for their own protection. It remains that an illegal image was found on Thomas Reedys hard drive, as I have said before, in my eyes that alone was enough.

Please don't continue to rant about how "confused" the jury must have been by technical expert testimony - it simply doesn't hold water.

The following, to me is all that is necessary:

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, have
you reached a verdict?

JUROR RIPPEE: Yes, Your Honor, we have.

THE COURT: Mr. Rippee, would you please hand the verdict form to Mr. Bowen.

The verdict of the jury is as follows: As to Landslide,Incorporated, guilty on all counts. As to Thomas Reedy, guilty on all counts.

And to Janice Reedy, not guilty on Count 88 of the indictment -- 89 of the indictment. Guilty on all other counts.

Is this the verdict of the jury?

JUROR RIPPEE: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: So say you all?

THE JURY: Yes.

It does not bring out respect for the law and justice (or courts, judges and lawyers!) to convict a man on faulty, slipshod, easy-to-fake evidence that would not be enough to convict an ugly stray dog found hanging around the hen-house.

It is beyond reason to believe that one is in "possession" of whatever images may turn up on his hard-drive. Anyone at all could have such pictures in his or her computer without even knowing it. Such nasty pictures are often sent to everyone connected to the net. A computer expert with specialized software can find it on the hard-drive (YOUR hard-drive!) because whatever comes into the computer (YOUR computer!) leaves indelible tracks that are not deleted when you hit Delete.

What is the agenda of those who call for Reedy to rot in prison? Do they think they will make the world safe for children? Or does the world somehow seem safer for themselves if Reedy rots?

Now, supposing that Thomas Reedy was indeed a wholesaler and purveyor of filth: Would justice demand that he get the same life in prison as a murderer? If "life" seems right for a killer, would twenty years be about right for a porn-king-pin? Twenty-five?

But supposing that Thomas Reedy told the truth. Suppose he took the initiative and tipped-off the feds what what going on, and did as they told him and kept his mouth shut so they could mine his web-connections for information on big-time porn-kings: Would it not be more in line to give him "a hearty handshake and the Good Citizenship Medal"?

There was a man here in Apache County, Arizona, who was convicted on the basis of images on his hard-drive. The court sentenced him to life, without ever considering that every single image had been installed in his computer at the very same day and hour, at a time when his computer was in the custody of the prosecution.

Glenn

From what you conclude was a conspiracy, hundreds, probably thousands, of children lost thier innocence. Again, you did not answer my questions.

Oh and the Candyman case, it was two seperate sets of judges. The first saw the evidence and arrest as good and able to stand up on its own. It was a SECOND set of judges that overrode that decision. It was a higher court, which means it was not the same judges.

I did not say the man deserved to lose his life if he was truly innocent, however, again, this case is not relevant. We are talking, or trying to talk, about Reedy, and no one else. So again, please, ANSWER MY QUESTIONS. I wont repost them, go back and read them. they have to deal with the appeal process.

You're right, this isn't a court and you most certainly are not a defense attorney. If you were, you would be fired and would probably lose your right to practice law. you are just that poor at arguing.

As for the "other person," I don't care if anyone else agrees or not. That is not relevant. Again, please stick to relevant facts.

I have just had a quick read of the thread. I have sometimes checked for a response, and lost track of what has already been and gone. I didn't realise the extent to which the poster with OBU site links had provided details, details which were not only of critical relevance, but were completely ignored, though considerable technical and other knowledge would be required in some instances to understand them and their significance.

As someone posted earlier, it is clear RoR is not the forum in which to conduct a trial, however, serious questions have been raised here, and it also serves to show how the emotive nature of allegations can affect justice itself.

I was interested to see Thomas Reedy's newspaper article, that brought me here in the first place, as I had been searching for this for some time, to no avail, though prosecution statements, inside and outside of court have been readily available. The distortions in the media do influence public opinion and technical evidence does create unique problems.

A poster here believed everyone in prison protests innocence. That is a popular misconception, I suspect it is more common for people who are innocent to keep quiet about it.

I have the view, Thomas Reedy, who cannot have been thinking 'fair cop', will be in utter despair wondering how the hell this happened in the first place. That is why I believe he wrote the article, he was agrieved to see a politician profiting from his conviction when he has righteous indignation for what happened in court. It is not normal at all, for someone accused of a serious offence to complain just because someone else uses it as propaganda.

If someone protests innocence, clearly history teaches us, we would be fools not to ask questions and prejudicial evidence concealed by the prosecution has since come to light.

Thomas Reedy asked for a retrial, yet some of the posters here suggest it doesn't matter. It is not about being liberal, it is about justice. I wouldn't argue against a retrial even if I had thought they were guilty as charged, but what actually happened isn't some black box the contents of which are unknown, considerable truth is even in the public domain.

Someone tried to raise nationalities as a contention. If someone questioned a serious injustice here in the UK, I suspect I would be interested to look into it, I don't think for a moment I would be defending my nation by standing up for what might be an injustice. I would not take it as an insult, and if criticisms were made of the judicial system here, my interest would be whether they are true or not. Denying questions, is denying truth.

Your response came in quickly, and these are issues which can take quite some research.

In the Candyman case, the judges were not in a conspiracy, it is the judges who brought a halt to proceedings, as both court evidence and the basis of arrest were false, known to be false prior to the cases arriving in court and evidenced as false in court. The judges upheld the very principles of justice.

Similarly in the arson case, I only provided one link. You have stated that such cases are very hard to prove. It is a principle of justice and a requirement of law, that the case is proven beyond reasonable doubt. You said in relation to this case 'it was a mistake, it it was anything at all'. From what you conclude was a mistake, a man lost his liberty and ultimately his life.

You asked to see these other cases, I presumed you were having some difficulty tracking them down, so I brought a sample of relevant links here as a starting point for you.

You have asked a range of questions on the Landslide case. This is not a courtroom and I am not a defence lawyer, however, one of the issues you question has been researched and accepted as true by another on this board.

So a man who died in 1994 was sued because someone believed he had "fabricated evidence" and you call that justification of your point? So what a judgement was won? It was in civil court. Jury's hand out judgements in civil courts left and right. Look at the woman who sued her company for sexual harrassment after she WILLINGLY participated in a team building event that had her "lightly tapped on the buttocks" (her words not mine) with a yard sign. She won over 1.5million dollars. Judgements mean nothing, we are sue happy in this country.

As for the Candyman case, you are saying the judge was guilty of conspiracy and yet other judges weren't? How do you decide which are the ones in the wrong? The one's that disagree with you? Is that fair?

As for the Texas arson case, your article gives no facts on the case, and neither does any other article I can find. Arson is, by definition, very hard to prove. However, what I did find was a statement made by the defense, not saying the prosecution or expert witness lied, but that they were mistaken. It was a mistake, it it was anything at all. This does not help your case. Mistakes happen, and yes it sucks, but that does not mean we should not punish anyone for their crimes.


Again, please provide hard evidence that the expert witness lied in this case. Other cases mean nothing. This case is the relevant case. Show how and where the witness lied. Show the appeal that states purjury as the reason for appeal. Show the request for charges to be filed against the witness for purjury. Show the appeal that even shows where Reedy questions the conviction rather than the sentence. Every appeal I have seen takes to question the sentence, NOT the conviction. Thereby stating that he agrees he is guilty, but thinks he was punished too much for tearing a child's innocence from them.

Apologies to the hosts, I did not realise links were not allowed.

If I am permitted another means to provide the same source of data as the specific links given, a google search of the following should yield the same results.

1. "Operation Candyman gets sticky"
2. "Investigator must pay ex-death row inmate"
3. "Faulty arson evidence indicates Texas needs more legal safeguards"

One of the previous articles highlights the issue, that the media have not been sufficiently 'liberal' to provide truthful reporting when it comes to Internet imagery, and the Internet is itself often a far more useful resource in finding the truth.

I made reference to a capital case in Texas and links were requested. Murder is not such an emotive issue, and consequently this case is widely reported throughout the media. As an entrypoint, I have just grabbed one of many links from Google.

One conclusion from these cases might be, that justice failed because the prosecuction provided false information in those specific cases. Similar issues can be proven in relation to the Landslide trial.

Miscarriages of justice are not a new concept, however, if one comes to light, what is done about it and what is learned from it is in my view important.

There are many perspectives, but where the prosecution has crossed the line, and made false statements directly or indirectly to the court to secure conviction, I personally take the view, that justice has not been done.

Also, there is the issue of deterrence. In examination of the Candyman case, which traces back primarily to one FBI operative, the false evidence he used, was known to him. No one was held to account for the fact, that innocent people had been falsely incriminated on quite some scale. I actually have the view, that even if they had been guilty, it must be legitimately proven in court beyond reasonable doubt.

To ignore such issues potentially has dangerous consequences for all. Operation Candyman was based on discussion groups. Those that had opted to receive email, received anything that was fed through the group. Anyone could have fed in illegal material, just once, and according to many posters here, that is it, because their computers were contaminated, these are child abusers, no one should care for them, or even defend them. Again, technical issues are also relevent.

CLICK here to see why Rip-off Report, as a matter of policy, deleted either a phone number, link or e-mail address from this Report.

I had not posted references, I have the view that those that are genuinely interested in truth will present an open mind and search for answers when questions are raised.

I think I mentioned Candyman, the FBI follow up to the Landslide case led by USPIS. Here is a relevant link but more are available if required.

The FBI had presented evidence in court, and allegations on search warrants, which incriminated the accused, and the assertions were evidentially false, a situation that did not from what I have seen materiallise by accident. Issues such as these tend to be covered on the Internet, rather than in the general media.

To give a reference for a man I mentioned on death row, with 9 days to live I follow with a reference from the US media. Serious offences in the form of rape and murder, however the apparently concocted nature of the evidence makes the case for a miscarriage of justice compelling, when beyond reasonable doubt is required by law for conviction.

CLICK here to see why Rip-off Report, as a matter of policy, deleted either a phone number, link or e-mail address from this Report.

Exactly what cases were those? I will willingly admit that we don't get the best news coverage in my parts (a small secluded island in SE Alaska, you can understand why I'm sure...)but I did not hear of the case involving a murder by fire being reinvestigated. Which case was that? Details please so that I can look at it myself? And what about the murder rape investigation? Which one was that again?

Your statements are inflammatory, meant to illicit a certain response. You must remember however, that Americans know our justice system is fragile, although much more stable than almost any other (England is milleniums behind us so don't even try to say you aren't), and we take it seriously when a man is executed for a crime he did not commit. Especially with a highly liberal media, that would have been EVERYWHERE. Another reason to get rid of the death penalty, they would have said. Same with the man "9 days from execution." All the bleeding heart liberals would have been screaming foul. Now, I will say again, I could have simply missed the massive outcry of anger over these two events, but I doubt it. Post facts or don't post these things at all.

As for Thomas Reedy, the man is guilty as sin. Unless you can show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the expert witness lied (show us how he lied, prove it to me), than I can only believe you are a liar. And yes, I believe he should be publically hung along with all other people who steal a child's innocence.

As for the woman who posted the "movie plot" I hope you never have a child who is abused by an adult. Whether or not Thomas Reedy did the physical abuse is irrelevant, he assisted in it by providing services that allowed it to continue. He is a sick man, and you are sick to support him.

For anyone thinking this whole case was corrupt, I ask you, why? Why would the FBI go after Reedy instead of the "head guys" if Reedy wasn't guilty. It can't be for publicity. I never heard of him before this forum, neither had many other posters. Mind you I watch probably about a total of 2 hours of news a day (not just American news either, I am fortunate to get outside views), and never once heard the name Thomas Reedy, neither has anyone I know. He wasn't big news even with that long of a sentence. So if it was political, I imagine they would have done it bigger, bust everyone or bust some huge international child porn ring. But now, they busted one man and his wife for breaking the law. And you are against this? You must either a)know him personally, b)be a NAMBLA member, c) be part of some other sick child porn group, or d) have a special interest, if you get what I mean, in seeing him freed. Any way, you need help. I suggest you seek it from a qualified professional.

A jury in effect does watch a film, they are given a story in court, and have to decide whether a case is proven, what they believe is the truth beyond reasonable doubt.

In this type of case, there are a number of problematic issues, one of these is that technical issues are significant, and that is where experts come in to explain certain intricacies to the jury.

The prosecution put on a display for this purpose, but in that presentation critical evidence on which the case rested, was not explained and the truth was not told.

In the justice system, there are two sides to the story, and what defence could be afforded, had a technical presentation of their own, but the judge, having already been given a presentation, blocked the defence from making theirs.

Expert evidence is a relatively new concept, and a cause of a great many miscarriages of justice, because considerable reliance is placed on expert testimony, rather than the jury examining the evidence in court.

Over recent years, large scale miscarriages of justice are emerging in the UK, experts who work for law enforcement have their incomes related to what they say in court, and the outcomes rather obvious.

A case in the US recently illustrates this to some degree. A fire was deliberately started, and a man burned down his house killing his whole family, there was no other explanation for it, so said the expert for the fire service and the man was executed. Subsequently, the case has been challenged, and independent examination of the expert testimony has found it to be false. Without a deliberate fire, there had not even been a crime, but the man is now dead. That is quite some miscarriage of justice.

A case reported in May does not have quite so disastrous an outcome, a man was awarded substantial compensation after being 9 days from execution, on the basis that the police investigator had fabricated a rape and murder confession.

The jury judge on what is presented to them. No system is perfect, justice is fragile, and the fact that things went wrong in that courtroom is not a matter of hearsay, it is a matter of evidence.

As for the poster that mentioned a film, there is one I think worth watching, as it covers another aspect of direct relevance to this case, the emotive nature of the charges, confirmed by some of the posters here.
Under suspicion - Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman

It might suit the intentions of some posters here to say that I have alleged every prosecution is a fraud, I have not done so nor do I believe so. I do not however share the view of the last poster that if it is was good enough for the jury it was good enough for justice. Mistakes are made, for a number of reasons. We are all human and fallible. To deny examination of a case is not I would allege, in the interests of justice.

A jury in effect does watch a film, they are given a story in court, and have to decide whether a case is proven, what they believe is the truth beyond reasonable doubt.

In this type of case, there are a number of problematic issues, one of these is that technical issues are significant, and that is where experts come in to explain certain intricacies to the jury.

The prosecution put on a display for this purpose, but in that presentation critical evidence on which the case rested, was not explained and the truth was not told.

In the justice system, there are two sides to the story, and what defence could be afforded, had a technical presentation of their own, but the judge, having already been given a presentation, blocked the defence from making theirs.

Expert evidence is a relatively new concept, and a cause of a great many miscarriages of justice, because considerable reliance is placed on expert testimony, rather than the jury examining the evidence in court.

Over recent years, large scale miscarriages of justice are emerging in the UK, experts who work for law enforcement have their incomes related to what they say in court, and the outcomes rather obvious.

A case in the US recently illustrates this to some degree. A fire was deliberately started, and a man burned down his house killing his whole family, there was no other explanation for it, so said the expert for the fire service and the man was executed. Subsequently, the case has been challenged, and independent examination of the expert testimony has found it to be false. Without a deliberate fire, there had not even been a crime, but the man is now dead. That is quite some miscarriage of justice.

A case reported in May does not have quite so disastrous an outcome, a man was awarded substantial compensation after being 9 days from execution, on the basis that the police investigator had fabricated a rape and murder confession.

The jury judge on what is presented to them. No system is perfect, justice is fragile, and the fact that things went wrong in that courtroom is not a matter of hearsay, it is a matter of evidence.

As for the poster that mentioned a film, there is one I think worth watching, as it covers another aspect of direct relevance to this case, the emotive nature of the charges, confirmed by some of the posters here.
Under suspicion - Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman

It might suit the intentions of some posters here to say that I have alleged every prosecution is a fraud, I have not done so nor do I believe so. I do not however share the view of the last poster that if it is was good enough for the jury it was good enough for justice. Mistakes are made, for a number of reasons. We are all human and fallible. To deny examination of a case is not I would allege, in the interests of justice.

A jury in effect does watch a film, they are given a story in court, and have to decide whether a case is proven, what they believe is the truth beyond reasonable doubt.

In this type of case, there are a number of problematic issues, one of these is that technical issues are significant, and that is where experts come in to explain certain intricacies to the jury.

The prosecution put on a display for this purpose, but in that presentation critical evidence on which the case rested, was not explained and the truth was not told.

In the justice system, there are two sides to the story, and what defence could be afforded, had a technical presentation of their own, but the judge, having already been given a presentation, blocked the defence from making theirs.

Expert evidence is a relatively new concept, and a cause of a great many miscarriages of justice, because considerable reliance is placed on expert testimony, rather than the jury examining the evidence in court.

Over recent years, large scale miscarriages of justice are emerging in the UK, experts who work for law enforcement have their incomes related to what they say in court, and the outcomes rather obvious.

A case in the US recently illustrates this to some degree. A fire was deliberately started, and a man burned down his house killing his whole family, there was no other explanation for it, so said the expert for the fire service and the man was executed. Subsequently, the case has been challenged, and independent examination of the expert testimony has found it to be false. Without a deliberate fire, there had not even been a crime, but the man is now dead. That is quite some miscarriage of justice.

A case reported in May does not have quite so disastrous an outcome, a man was awarded substantial compensation after being 9 days from execution, on the basis that the police investigator had fabricated a rape and murder confession.

The jury judge on what is presented to them. No system is perfect, justice is fragile, and the fact that things went wrong in that courtroom is not a matter of hearsay, it is a matter of evidence.

As for the poster that mentioned a film, there is one I think worth watching, as it covers another aspect of direct relevance to this case, the emotive nature of the charges, confirmed by some of the posters here.
Under suspicion - Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman

It might suit the intentions of some posters here to say that I have alleged every prosecution is a fraud, I have not done so nor do I believe so. I do not however share the view of the last poster that if it is was good enough for the jury it was good enough for justice. Mistakes are made, for a number of reasons. We are all human and fallible. To deny examination of a case is not I would allege, in the interests of justice.

Dave said:
The FBI directed a person to view child porn. Then lied about it.
The US DA was corrupt.
The prosecutors lied.
The police were incompetent.
The judge was under orders to get a conviction.
The jury were morons.

Wow. All those corrupt people, and the defense was so crappy that this OBVIOUSLY innocent man couldn't get off the charges.

The judge can't get a conviction unless the jury is convinced. If the prosecution was able to paint a picture to convince 12 people beyond a reasonable doubt, then what the judge wants is irrelevant. The fact that the jury agreed with NO dissention shows that we must all be idiots, and the select few supporters of this porn-peddler are the only smart people in the world.

From reading at this site, this is how I see the Thomas Reedy Story movie of the week.
It would start off six years after the Reedy's have been sentenced. Thomas Reedy is agonizing in solitary confinement just after receiving word that his direct appeal had been denied a month ago. He's got only one chance left to escape a life sentence through the appeal process.

But he's out of money, and everything he's done so far to prove his innocence has come to naught. The viewing audience would be shown degrading pictures of Thomas in prison, bearded and bedraggled, being harassed by prison staff and confined to and 8' x 12' cell 23 hours a day for his own protection. Interspersed with the prison scenes (Thomas getting his food through a hole in the door, Thomas being asked if he wanted to go to take his hour outside recreation at 6:00 a. m , Thomas getting his once a month phone call, and the person he's calling not answering the phone), would be court room scenes where a beautiful actress playing Terry Moore is presenting the actual evidence that convicted Thomas. The movie audience would be convinced just as the jury was that Thomas is as guilty as sin. They would enjoy seeing Thomas being beaten up and almost killed when he was forced into a USP general population. The Prison staff would be shown arranging the beating, and then rewarding the attackers with transfers to another prison, and they'd look like righteous avenging angels. Everything is as it should be.

The bad guy Thomas is being punished and the beautiful Terri, is being rewarded. Well, it's a two hour movie of the week, so in the second hour the plot thickens. Thomas is half mad with failure and desperation but still hasn't given up. He writes a letter to a minister of the church he belongs, with a long shot. Thomas sends him a story to post on the internet challenging Terry Moore to explain her criminal act of sending him to prison for life. Terry Moore does not answer the challenge but there are immediate responses, and they all are against Thomas Reedy. We cut back and forth from the minister played by Robert Redford, and Thomas Reedy played by Dustin Hoffman. The minister is sending the responses to Thomas and Thomas is getting more and more discouraged after reading each one.

After about a month the minister is also losing hope that anything useful will come from the site, and he writes a letter to Thomas saying copying the postings and sending them to him was just not worth the time and effort involved, he's withdrawing from the site. Before he posts the letter however, he gets a notice that there's been another response to the site. Indecision, should he put himself through the trouble and turmoil of reading another hostile response or just cancel the site and mail the letter. He clicks on the site and low and behold, it's from a fellow in England saying he knows that the Reedy's were set up. This part is like a scene from the movie where the desert prospector gives up from ever finding gold and throws his pick axe down right on the mother load. Eureka! In the rest of the movie, the English guy, played by Sean Connery, shows how and why Thomas was convicted. Those people who posted messages continue to attack the messenger and Thomas Reedy, but cannot defend against the hard evidence that Thomas has been falsely accused and convicted. The audience is shown how the whole scam went down, through imagery. They were scammed by the same imagery in the beginning of the movie so they can identify with the reality of how a person could be wrongfully convicted. Well, the movie ends with Thomas and his wife being released from prison. When he and his wife finally reunite and go off to live in some relative's house (remember this is a story based on reality, and Thomas is still broke, and physically disabled from the beating he suffered in prison), their hosts call them to the television, where the news is that the internal investigation division of the FBI was still asking for anyone knowing the whereabouts of Terry Moore to contact them. The End.

Keep believing that. The DA on the Michael Jackson case wanted him to be found guilty, but his lawyers found the way to bring reasonable doubt into the case and get the jury to say that he was not guilty, and they are still practicing.

Try another excuse. Because I know of more, (even non celebrities) who have gotten off due to good Defense Attourneys.

Getting someone off on a major charge is a defense attourney's biggest draw in for other potential clients.

Ronald, I disagree with your last post. Unless the defense counsel is corrupt the following statement from the ABA applies:

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDARDS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE, THE DEFENSE FUNCTION

(2d ed. 1980)

4-1.1. The defense counsel, in protecting the rights of the defendant, may resist the wishes of the judge on some matters, and though such resistance should never lead to disrespectful behavior, defense counsel may appear unyielding and uncooperative at times. In so doing, defense counsel is not contradicting his or her duty to the administration of justice but is fulfilling a function within the adversary system. The adversary system requires defense counsel's presence and zealous professional advocacy just as it requires the presence and zealous advocacy of the prosecutor and the constant neutrality of the judge. Defense counsel should not be viewed as impeding the administration of justice simply because he or she challenges the prosecution, but as an indispensable part of its fulfillment.

Ronald, I disagree with your last post. Unless the defense counsel is corrupt the following statement from the ABA applies:

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDARDS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE, THE DEFENSE FUNCTION

(2d ed. 1980)

4-1.1. The defense counsel, in protecting the rights of the defendant, may resist the wishes of the judge on some matters, and though such resistance should never lead to disrespectful behavior, defense counsel may appear unyielding and uncooperative at times. In so doing, defense counsel is not contradicting his or her duty to the administration of justice but is fulfilling a function within the adversary system. The adversary system requires defense counsel's presence and zealous professional advocacy just as it requires the presence and zealous advocacy of the prosecutor and the constant neutrality of the judge. Defense counsel should not be viewed as impeding the administration of justice simply because he or she challenges the prosecution, but as an indispensable part of its fulfillment.

Ronald, I disagree with your last post. Unless the defense counsel is corrupt the following statement from the ABA applies:

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDARDS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE, THE DEFENSE FUNCTION

(2d ed. 1980)

4-1.1. The defense counsel, in protecting the rights of the defendant, may resist the wishes of the judge on some matters, and though such resistance should never lead to disrespectful behavior, defense counsel may appear unyielding and uncooperative at times. In so doing, defense counsel is not contradicting his or her duty to the administration of justice but is fulfilling a function within the adversary system. The adversary system requires defense counsel's presence and zealous professional advocacy just as it requires the presence and zealous advocacy of the prosecutor and the constant neutrality of the judge. Defense counsel should not be viewed as impeding the administration of justice simply because he or she challenges the prosecution, but as an indispensable part of its fulfillment.

Ronald, I disagree with your last post. Unless the defense counsel is corrupt the following statement from the ABA applies:

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDARDS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE, THE DEFENSE FUNCTION

(2d ed. 1980)

4-1.1. The defense counsel, in protecting the rights of the defendant, may resist the wishes of the judge on some matters, and though such resistance should never lead to disrespectful behavior, defense counsel may appear unyielding and uncooperative at times. In so doing, defense counsel is not contradicting his or her duty to the administration of justice but is fulfilling a function within the adversary system. The adversary system requires defense counsel's presence and zealous professional advocacy just as it requires the presence and zealous advocacy of the prosecutor and the constant neutrality of the judge. Defense counsel should not be viewed as impeding the administration of justice simply because he or she challenges the prosecution, but as an indispensable part of its fulfillment.

Dear Leticia:

To answer your question as to why this ROR is about Terry Moore and not lawyers. The category this complaint was filed under is Civil Rights Violations. The first sentence in the report explains how the violation occurred and whodonit: U.S. Assistant District Attorney Terri Moore Terri Moore in her capacity as Assistant U.S. Attorney knew I was not guilty of the crime I was charged.

Now your question as to why the defense attorneys didn't bring up the points that are now being brought up can only be answered by the defense attorney who failed to bring up the points. Was it human error, or was it a collaboration with the prosecution?

At this stage of getting the conviction overturned it doesn't matter. As to what any good attorney would have done, based on what you see on TV, let me remind you that real life is very different from what you see on TV. In real life an attorney is an officer of the court. His first obligation is not to his client but to the court.

If the court wants someone convicted (as is so evident in this case if you google: Operation Ore the Real Truth), a good lawyer is going to go along with what the court wants and take his turn in line for a win later on.

In real life, a practicing attorney gets paid whether he wins or loses in court, but a lawyer who doesn't go along with the court doesn't practice

Then why is there no ROR about them?

Why was there no mention about it on this thread until I brought it up?

It's all been about how the DA lied and corrupted witnesses. No mention about what the attourney did to try and help things.

I really think that if you REALLY believed that the it was bad representation, this ROR would be about the attourney, instead of attacking the DA. (Because any good attourney, would have brought up the witness tampering as soon as it was found out. Look at the Al-ZeQwari (Sp?) case.)

Then why is there no ROR about them?

Why was there no mention about it on this thread until I brought it up?

It's all been about how the DA lied and corrupted witnesses. No mention about what the attourney did to try and help things.

I really think that if you REALLY believed that the it was bad representation, this ROR would be about the attourney, instead of attacking the DA. (Because any good attourney, would have brought up the witness tampering as soon as it was found out. Look at the Al-ZeQwari (Sp?) case.)

Then why is there no ROR about them?

Why was there no mention about it on this thread until I brought it up?

It's all been about how the DA lied and corrupted witnesses. No mention about what the attourney did to try and help things.

I really think that if you REALLY believed that the it was bad representation, this ROR would be about the attourney, instead of attacking the DA. (Because any good attourney, would have brought up the witness tampering as soon as it was found out. Look at the Al-ZeQwari (Sp?) case.)

In your statement: Since they (or whomever has been defending them) didn't go after their attourney, due to incompetence. I really believe that they are in prison for a reason and deserve to be, you are referring to the ineffective assistance of council issue. This issue is very much alive and was neither overlooked or forgotten by whomever has, or will defend the Reedys. You are right that the Reedys are in prison for a reason, however you are mistaken to believe they should be there because ineffective assistance of council was/is a non-issue.

(I started to say "we" but then decided not to put words in other's mouths).

I WANT to believe that people are not perverts. I'm willing to give the Reedy's the benefit of the doubt, until shown otherwise. I've read the sentencing reports, and the appeal decisions. I've read the pro-Reedy comments here, and the few other websites that were suggested.

I'm still convinced that Thomas Reedy belongs in jail. (Not really convinced either way about Janice, for that matter.) For how long? That's up to sentencing guidelines and the US is different from ... well, just about everywhere, so I can't really comment from any experience. I will say that after the two appeals that were successful in reducing the total sentence, it appears to me to be a more reasonable, or perhaps, less unreasonable sentence.

And really, I WANTED to see corruption and scandal uncovered in the US Government. Entertainment industries would not put so much money into the "spy" genre if it wasn't an interesting subject for so many people.

I guess I'm disappointed that it hasn't been shown here.
Incompetence, overzealousness? sure.

Corruption, framing of innocents,? I'm not convinced it would make a decent movie-of-the-week.

But if you wanted a technical dissection of the case, showing what was wrong, RoR obviously showed itself not to be the place. Maybe someone will put something together that discusses the evidence without emotion. A thread that starts off with a convict calling the DA a "self serving lying" politician can't do it, even if it were true.

But if what was said in the OP, was true, then I wouldn't blame the conviction on the ADA, I would blame it on the DEFENSE ATTOURNEY.

As mentioned in the OP, Kiddy had the boxes in her notes, but my attourney didn't question her on her notes, because she would answer that she was just doodleling.

If the attourney was any good wouldn't they have mentioned that if she was just doodleling why did she doodle the same thing that the defendant says that they both were witnessed the site?

Since they (or whomever has been defending them) didn't go after their attourney, due to incompetence. I really believe that they are in prison for a reason and deserve to be there.

You said:
>if you post irrefutable evidence, I will join your side

That is what I call a loaded statement.

When earlier on, I mentioned that law enforcement had lied, an attempt was made to ridicule that assertion. It was not merely an assertion, then posters suggested it was irrelevant. I take the view it is relevant, different points of view are in play, and without serious discussion, I do not think there is merit in exploring the issues in further detail.

Without being able to agree on principles, it is hardly worth going through details, a lot of them are technical and I have to say, to fully qualify your questions is no small task to put it mildly.

Let us consider the credit card companies. UK law enforcement estimated they made about ?6,000 out of the illicit material. The real issues are quite different, as these accounts were used for credit card fraud and chargebacks create a substantial overhead, Landslide lost their merchant account through it, but you may say, that is criminal, they should be prosecuted too, then there is the telephone companies, and it might even come back to you profiting to some degree. And you want everyone hung in public. I chose not to enter dead ends or circular discussions if I can avoid them.

The emotive position is one put by Terri Moore and I quote from her summation (volume 5 page 896).

'You know what? You know what their real role is? You've heard a lot of bad stuff in here. I'm just going to go ahead and say this. It's from my own mouth, bad enough, don't have to quote anybody. They're not like the ticket taker at a movie. They're like the madam in a whorehouse. That's what they are. You can't get in and see the girls unless you go to the madam. You pay the madam and then you go on and do your ugly business, okay, whatever. They're the madam in the whorehouse, and now what they're trying to claim is, oh, I didn't know what was going on behind those closed doors.'

That statement was not one of the ones I was referring to previously, that is trial summary not testimony, however a false statement was made.

The preceeding sentence from Terri Moore was:

'The banners, the banners, you know, that's not some banner swap thing. That banner would not be residing, the "Child Porn Click Here" banner would not be residing on the server at Landslide's business unless it was his banner. Okay?'

I think Terri Moore meant 'click here child porn', and I think she was referring to the clicz banner swap system, in relation to a banner that was on the blackcat site, which contained some 500 naturalist images, and such imagery was illegal by age. To some here, that is case closed, to me that is just the start.

Someone mentioned to me the letter that Thomas Reedy wrote to the press was published here. I wanted to hear what Thomas Reedy had said, having already read what Detective Nelson said to the press in response. Nelson made a false statement, that was an evidential issue, I wanted to examine the other side of the coin and I posted while I was here. Responses came, and we are at this point.

You attacked the messenger, you want people publicly hung, and now you want the full trial on this board and for you to be the judge. I am not familiar with US law, though I will be researching some of this, I am however certain that what you want is unlawful.

At the original trial, in my view not all of that trial occurred in the courtroom. Included in the pre-trial publicity, indeed a media frenzy, were statements which were false, made by law enforcement officers who were involved in the prosecution. Statements of that nature also entered the courtroom, and so you have an answer to your question on perjury.

Outside of the courtroom, as the statements were prejudicial, in the UK the legal infringement would perhaps be contempt of court, and can result in a trial being cancelled to protect the principle of a fair trial. In view of the nature of some of these statements, there are other possible charges; perverting the course of justice for example.

I have not named names, I have not quoted the references, and I have not provided the evidence that proves which statements were false, though my position is not fixed, I do try to determine the motives of those that post here, and there are circumstances in which I would bring evidence to the board.

If people are simply attempting to flame the board, I think these issues are a matter best left for lawyers and the courts to resolve. We have already had one trial involving the media, I actually watched some of it here in the UK at the time. Back then, some of it simply struck me as rather odd.

I have to admit, I was caught up in the emotives of these issues myself for a time, I was called in to look at a case where someone had been accused of offences in this territory. I really wished at the time I had not been asked, I literally thought yuck, and quite frankly I didn't have the maturity to consider the issues in a neutral and professional fashion. For me the whole topic was simply a taboo.

I had been asked, and I ended up on the defence team in court. The prosecution thought they had a rock solid case, for the same reasons as I have seen on this board, the imagery was there.

The evidence told quite a different story to the fanfare. A crime had been committed, but it is clear also that law enforcement was not interested in the real issue. They wanted the person they put in court convicted and were willing to and did commit perjury in an attempt to achieve just that.

I understand the corrosive nature of the propaganda and emotives that surround these issues, as I was a victim of them myself and someone could have gone to jail as a consequence of my prejudices and ignorance. I tend to ignore comments on child pornography, it can distract from what the real issues are when it comes to justice and a criminal trial. If as you mention, someone is found with drugs in the car, I am similarly not going to discuss drugs as a topic.

In the United States, right or wrong, if you have it in your possesstion, its yours. Unless someone can prove it is theirs, and not yours, it is yours. That is how our law is written. If a cop pulls you over and you have 10 pounds of pot in your back seat, guess what? its yours. In that case it doesn't even matter if you can prove someone else put it there, you did not remove it and turn it over to the police.

If you have child pornography on your computer, it is yours and you are responsible. Even if you can prove it was put there my some heinous act on someone else's part, you are responsible for removing it and reporting it. No if's and's or but's. I find it hard to believe the FBI would investigate someone who was not responsible when he could have told them who was responsible, or they could have easily found out by searching his computer's logs. Easily.

Our FBI is far more interested in the "big" busts than in getting some pathetic pervert off the streets. Is that ok? Hell no. Everyone of them should be tried, and if convicted, should be publically hung. They are a menace to our society and a violation of a child's innocence. There is no greater crime against humanity than taking someone innocent and pure and destroying that forever.

I believe the reason you are so upset is that either 1. You were directly affected by this (was Reedy you Child Porn supplier?) or 2. You are in the business yourself and are trying to discredit the FBI to save yourself.

If you have this evidence that they all lied, please post it. If not, you are not convincing anyone. I assure you, if you post irrefutable evidence, I will join your side and fight for them to be freed. But you cannot simply say "I read it so I know" post the parts (the full parts) that show exactly where they lied, and then post the evidence that proves it was a lie. Oh then post the appeal where Reedy states that there was perjury. You do know what perjury is, right?

Hypothetical Yahoo cases?

Someone seemed to infer that it was not appropriate to suggest that law enforcement lied, we even had it suggested that it didn't matter if they did. I believe it does matter, and so does the law in the US, and some very fine laws they have. I believe that truth matters.

I mentioned Yahoo, a follow up case of a similar kind by the FBI. That is not hypothetical, it is a matter of public record, the FBI claimed to be taking down a child porn ring with some 7,000 members. The operation was halted because the FBI had made false statements to incriminate primarily innocent people, that was proven in court by the yahoo server logs, so that was the end of operation candyman. I believe what the courts did was right, to fit people up with false statements then take them to court is not justice or lawful in the US. Are you now going to suggest I am now pro-american for sticking up for the US courts?

I was dealing with an issue that was raised in relation to law enforcement. I gave a real example where evidence is public, that is not hypothetical.

After Candyman, the FBI appeared in the media on a similar operation again, in relation to another AVS system, claiming to have taken down another child porn ring, again with allegations against thousands of people. The owners were not prosecuted as happened at landslide, the setup very similar to landslide, but what the FBI claimed to have shut down had gone bust over a year before, for the same reasons as Landslide, the massive fraud being cleared through the payment system. Again, the US courts put an end to the operation, this was not a child porn ring, it was an avs system, some illegal sites had been hooked in for expediting credit card fraud, some the same sites as hooked into landslide.

I believe that makes the point in relation to an earlier posting, and I assert that you cannot simply presume something is true based on who their employer is. Both these cases are a matter of public record and serve to illustrate the value of evidence.

Your last posting suggests you agree with what the FBI view is in relation to the law on possession, if you possess something illegal, you have committed an offence. That isn't actually true, and in relation to computers, unlikely to be true. There is something called intent, mens rea we call it. As I mentioned, I had been a recipient of illegal material as a consequence of emails sent by the FBI on their fishing expiditions. I have not in my life sought for material of such a nature, I have no such inclination, but you assert I have committed a serious criminal violation of law for something I have not done and am not responsible for.

I have looked at some of the Landslide forensics, the pool of evidence is quite diverse, and I am therefore able to analyse many statements made in the trial, both by prosecution and defense, from the standpoint of what the facts actually were. Where false assertions were made and these are used to convict, I believe that is a serious matter.

Illegal material, is a very profitable device for rogue webmasters engaged in credit card fraud, expecially due to assertions of the type that have appeared on this board, that if you have it you are guilty. Such is the hype and demonisation, it stops victims complaining, thereby reduces chargebacks allowing greater sums to be illegally obtained. The fraud was so rife that it shut down Landslide weeks before they were raided. For those that run payment systems, the net effect is typically bust, many of the AVS systems survived it, similarly many did not.

It is clear, that some posters do not share my views on justice, or desire to discuss the case based on what happened and what the facts were. Regardless, that is why I posted, though I think it is a very healthy thing that we are all able to express our views, and where we differ, how such issues are tolerated or resolved is a measure of us all.

The FBI directed a person to view child porn. Then lied about it.
The US DA was corrupt.
The prosecutors lied.
The police were incompetent.
The judge was under orders to get a conviction.
The jury were morons.

I think you've got a hard-on for having a forum to display your anti-americanism.

>> "US prosecutors have alleged if you have it, you are guilty, that point carries no merit whatsoever ..."

Um, that is exactly the definition of "possession" and since their business was as a distributor, the allegation does have merit. Profiting from the distribution makes one a distributor, even if only providing billing services. But the website did more than just providing billing services.

>> "If prosecutors could be presumed honest, you would not need a trial."

Sorry. That's absurd. If defendants could be presumed dishonest, you would not need a trial. Just as absurd.

>> "Objections were made to submissions by the prosecution, but the Judge overruled consistently, even when there was a clear point of law supporting the defense objection."

I'm sure the transcripts you say you purchased do not have any sidebar discussions, nor any pretrial hearings in judge's chambers. That is where the points of law are argued. The trial is where the evidence is displayed.

>> "I understand this is normal in the US and UK, that the judge takes their queue from the prosecution, but I have the view, there were consequences in this case."

I'm beginning to understand that you want to find a conspiracy and are willing to bend quite far to try to convince others. While reading through with what I tried to keep as an open mind, you've convinced me that likely justice was served.

What really clinched it for me was your use of innuendo to try to show, I suppose, that if other cases appeared improper, that somehow it proves that so was this one.
Hypothetical Yahoo cases, an actress who apparently took the time to tell a foreign court "hey, those naked pictures of me are legit." and a few others which at this point I'm too lazy to quote from your comments don't sell me on any points unless perhaps you'd maybe named names or given links so I could decide on the evidence, rather than just your say-so.

Speaking of which:
>> "I am only interested in the evidence. He had illegal material, so I asked a few questions."

He had illegal material. He profited from the distribution of the illegal material. You know what? I believe that even if no child porn had been found on his computer systems at his place of business, he's still have been convicted of the charges.

So I will agree with you that the case was bungled. Too much tax payer money was wasted on inconsequential details about this case.

>> "From what you are saying, Reedy was guilty either way. If he co-operated with the FBI he was guilty, if he didn't he was guilty."

That is a correct statement. Notwithstanding his level of cooperation with FBI, if he profited from the abuse of children he was guilty.

I understand the point over public opinion, but that should not be relevant to a criminal trial and whether justice was done. If outcome was determined by public opinion, you infact have what appears to have played a part in what happened here. The jury were exposed to emotive issues, but not important truths.

I cannot disguard any of the points, because the reliablity of witnesses and information presented as evidence is important in on occasions forming an opinion as to who is telling the truth.

I would have to look back over the full detail of this, Thomas Reedy knew there were illegal sites there, and had possession within his computer forensics of illegal material, and it appears to be that is all the prosecution had.

To the general public, who do not know the intricate and sometimes technical details, that may seem like an open and shut case, but it is not and US forensics experts would have an easy job if that was true. US prosecutors have alleged if you have it, you are guilty, that point carries no merit whatsoever regardless of whether it has popular support, it is a false assertion, and you will not an example above to that effect.

Thomas Reedy was contacted by an FBI agent, over complaints in relation to a website, and I think from memory he phoned the FBI agent and investigated the site while they were both on the phone, that they both went to the site. This particular FBI agent said they didn't remember this, when questioned in court. I don't see that Thomas Reedy would have called the agent as a defence witness unless they had evidence of relevance to the defense. For the FBI agent to remember the call but not the detail of what transpired, surprises me in the circumstances.

Thomas Reedy investigated the site, I think it was under a court order, he was required not to tip off the webmasters, and according to Thomas Reedy he had made a note of the contact, the prosecution said they could not find this note. Other evidence did disappear, that was vital to the defence and one issue to this effect was admitted by the prosecution during the trial.

The FBI are investigating a rogue webmaster, I should think if Thomas Reedy had alerted the webmasters the FBI would have been very upset, indeed they were very angry at Yahoo when a similar situation occurred there and Yahoo shut the site down against the wishes of the FBI. You could say Yahoo did the right thing, but a prosecution against them followed soon afterwards. (There were additional issues as Yahoo provided evidence to the US courts which proved the FBI were arresting innocent people using false statements).

From what you are saying, Reedy was guilty either way. If he co-operated with the FBI he was guilty, if he didn't he was guilty. As they themselves testified, he coroperated fully, no complaints whatsoever. He investigated what he was asked to.

I look at this from several viewpoints. If Thomas Reedy was part of a conspiracy to transport underage imagery, then end of story, he was guilty. However, there was no evidence to that effect, just smoke and mirrors and an attempt to influence public opinion.

I am only interested in the evidence. He had illegal material, so I asked a few questions. Is he interested in this material was one thing I looked for, and the US investigators confirmed he had no personal interest whatsoever. Sites were reviewed by request of the FBI, and that would have contaminated his forensics. The images, the testimony corroborated rather than refuted what Thomas Reedy said.

Terri Moore had two hard disk manufacturers testify at the trial to say the hard disks were made in another country to say this was part of international commerce. I personally find that extraordinary. I should think most hard disks are made in the far east, it may fool the jury but I would suspect most people would think would see something very strange in that.

Objections were made to submissions by the prosecution, but the Judge overruled consistently, even when there was a clear point of law supporting the defense objection. I understand this is normal in the US and UK, that the judge takes their queue from the prosecution, but I have the view, there were consequences in this case.

While I did overlook the point you quoted, read the document in its entirety and you will find:

" Thomas Reedy argues that ? 2252A(d), which creates
an affirmative defense to a charge of violating
? 2252A(a)(5), requires finding that he pos-
sessed at least three images of child pornogra-
phy. According to Thomas Reedy, he pos-
sessed only one items on a computer disc drive"

Throw out all the other points you are making and the above remains. It seems Thomas Reedy KNOWINGLY possessed child pornography, was aware of it and willingly confessed to it in this statement made in his appeal."

I don't know what U.K. citizens believe, but I can assure you this statement is enough in the minds of most Americans to imprison Thomas Reedy.

in response to:

>Dave, I note that the Reedy's did file an appeal. What I find odd is that they did not challenge the conviction itself, but only the multiplicity of the sentencing.

I just checked through the appeal and draw your attention to note 4 which states:

The government mistakenly asserts that in their brief on appeal, the Reedys challenge the validity only of the indictment, not the sentence. The Reedys plainly challenge both.

>Dave, I note that the Reedy's did file an appeal. What I find odd is that they did not challenge the conviction itself, but only the multiplicity of the sentencing.

I just looked up the appeal, and as I say, law is beyond me, but they appealed for a new trial. As is common in the US, some aspect of law is used as an entryway.

It was the court that rejected appeal of prosecution, in essence it simply upheld the fact that they were charged twice for each offence.

Reedy challenged the testimony of Mike Marshall, the technical expert for the prosecution. I have to reject the notion of expert, because the critical issue which he was questioned on, one of the issues the prosecution had presented false testimony over, he claimed ignorance over. He was either incompetent or not telling the truth, because the evidence of that issue, unknown to Reedy has been uncovered and exposed in the UK.

Mike Marshall, formerly a traffic cop of Dallas PD has now left his role as technical prosecutor, after his past was exposed. I understand he had forced himself on a prostitute and had been a suspect in a murder, so his position become untenable when it surfaced.

You mentioned about closing the websites. This is an important issue, and it is a complex one. If I was a host, and I found a site was carrying illegal material of this nature, I would shut it down, that would be my personal moral position, though that is not normal practice, I would think at the time almost unheard of.

What is normal in these cases, once reported to the authorities, the FBI normally ask for the site to be left open. Thomas Reedy did make an official report to the FBI, and he called the FBI officer as a defence witness. I looked very carefully at what that FBI said, and it can be evidenced that he did not tell the truth, indeed he made a false statement.

If, as alleged, Thomas Reedy had 'decided' to branch into child pornography and had entered into a conspiracy with webmasters so to do, I would not be posting here. I have not seen any evidence to support that.

As I understood it, the FBI agent told Reedy they were setting up ICAC units so would return to the issue. When it came to trial, they said that agent was 'green', ie not experienced.

These are complex issues, but the emotives are not a reason not to discuss them. I was receiving illegal imagery by email, and I complained to the police who refused to investigate so I kicked up a stink. Postings have said here, if you have it, you are guilty, indeed Terri Moore the lead prosecutor said that. I was not guilty.

I had the emails investigated by independent experts and emails were traced to the FBI. In my contacts with the local police, in the end they came round and gave me a letter. Because I needed to send these emails on to them, and I insisted against their indifference to reporting them, I would be committing an offense of distribution, so the police letter protected me in my forwarding these emails to the local technical crime unit.

I have therefore distributed illegal material, been in possession of illegal material, but at no time have I ever requested such material.

There does come a point where a sting operation has gone to far, and in this instance, that is what the evidence says.

I don't have the view that Landslide was a well run company, it was being used as a clearing house for credit card fraud in common with many AVS systems at the time, and it looks to me that Reedy lost control of it. That is a question of competence, but to call him a child pornographer is a serious criminal charge, and requires evidence and a fair trial and by what I can evidence, this didn't happen.

Dateline on NBC is running their pedophile roundups each week. The one thing these pervs have in common are the excuses. So far, only ONE had the sense to plead "No Contest" at his arraignment. He KNEW he was guilty of the charges. Next week, they'll show the one they did here in Florida, where one idiot brought his 5 year old son. There is no use for these derelicts, and no hope of helping them.

As I said previously, even NAMBLA members think they are doing nothing improper.

Dave, I note that the Reedy's did file an appeal. What I find odd is that they did not challenge the conviction itself, but only the multiplicity of the sentencing.

If they are indeed "innocent" as they themselves and you along with others proudly proclaim why did they not appeal the conviction, rather than the sentence itself??

When caught in a lie, the liar eventually surrenders to the truth." That is the case here. The Reedys were well aware they were profiting from their AVS and that two of the websites were trafficking in child pornography. This is not even addressing the free bulletin board that was also available in which the trafficking was also present.

They chose not to control a website they ran, should have immediately shut down the bulletin board and the links upon discovering or suspecting their content - the elected instead to profit.

They profited and now they pay. I can't speak for the UK but in our society ignorance of the law is no excuse.

You said:
>I can agree to that. But the way you treat Reedy, you might as well tell the cops, "Hey, you better catch him IN the act, WITH the website open, WITH his pants down, WITH the proof, with, with, with, with, with.... OR else he can't be guilty. You know, if a cop picks up a murder weapon wrong and messes up the fingerprints, the criminal can go free.

If you want justice, and that is the point I came with by highlighting a miscarriage, then you will have guilty people walking away free from court, to me real justice requires that, as the safest way to convict people is by a fair trial not by an inquisition or by presuming that the prosecutors are honest. If prosecutors could be presumed honest, you would not need a trial.

'It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer' is a quote I think contains much wisdom.

From examination of the facts, one can evidence that the FBI, USPIS and a detective from Dallas PD sought wilfully to pervert the course of justice. Clearly people have been offended that I make that point, and one that I will publically evidence here if required. To me that matters, to me it matters to justice.

Some here have an interest in what the charges were, rather than what the case was, but I didn't come here to discuss such issues. From my perspective, when someone goes to court on serious charges, justice itself goes on trial. Where the prosecution lie and fabricate evidence, I don't view that as justice at work.

I think a criminal prosecution should rely on a case which eliminates all reasonable doubt. That case should be open to examination and challenge, in the Landslide case they concealed prejudicial evidence.

I don't see how these principles can be safely compromised. The fact this case had the sanction of the highest office in your nation, or so many agencies involved, and there were a number of others, is a reason to examine the case any differently, as a trial surely has to be based on the evidence.

You asked why is there not an appeal. I am not a spokesperson for Landslide, and I am not an expert on UK law let alone US law. On this issue I can only take a guess. The American system of justice often requires money to mount an effective defence, and in the Landslide case, money was confiscated pre-trial. I know there were some angry webmasters at the time, because legal adult providers had money that was due to them confiscated by the US authorities.

There are similar problems in the UK when it comes to challenging injustice. When it comes to appeal, if you have no money, then sometimes but not always legal aid is available, and if you are very wealthy you can hire a good lawyer by your own choice. Of course the majority of people are between those extremes.

In the case of Landslide, they would not only need legal representation as technical evidence was used. It would therefore be necessary to have a computer expert to prove and explain what the prosecution had done with the evidence. I presume that is very expensive.

Dave said:
That statement (>The fallacy is that, AT THE TIME decisions were made in Saddam's case, the "lies" were believed by everybody, including your own government, and our past President.) is false and it should not take you long to find that out. As it happens I did not believe them at the time, yet you suggest I did.

Nice try. Your government allied with the US. Get over it.

You must also have believed that there were no mass graves, no raping of women, no murdering of anyone who spoke out against their government, no beheadings or lopping off body parts either. For a guy who is bent on civil rights of a child pornographer, you sure seem to turn a blind eye when it helps your political side. Oh, I know, all in the name of "justice"...

Dave said:
You say your system of justice is the best in the world, but from your statements it appears you favour a popularity contest based on YOUR opinion rather than a trial.

Did you even read my post? MY preferred form of justice allowed someone who burgularized my car to get away with a crime. So much for MY opinion, wise guy.

Reedy is NOT the first to get a bad judgement, there have been many before him. But since you have proof, I echo the sentiment - why are you not in the streets, and calling your government representatives "liars"? Get out there if you have proof.

Dave said:
at Landslide for illegal material which have now been evidentially disproven, and in such a manner, that this was not an accident, many lies were told and yes that does involve a number of agencies.

So you ARE admitting that you have more faith in one child pornographer than the evidence presented by 4 agencies from 2 countries?

I hope if I'm ever busted, that someone like you would stick up for me. But then, I don't deal in child pornography. I did get a speeding ticket - care to help THAT gross injustice?

Dave said:
You concluded your statement with what I presume infers that if someone has something illegal on their computers, that is a case in itself, and what law enforcement fabricates henceforth doesn't matter.

Actually, to be in mere possession of child pornography, yes, that in ITSELF would add an additional charge. But facilitating (hosting) it to other people would add an even BIGGER charge, called "distribution".

But we can add that to Reedy's already high number, and give him another 70% discount on his sentence.

What is this supposed fabrication crap, Dave?

Are you saying that the cops PLANTED the porn on his computer? Can you really believe that out of 4 agencies, SOMEONE wouldn't notice the "file modified" date and blown the whistle? Or the last uploaded page of the website? "The cops put the weed in my pocket" story is just as believable. Why not just start a precident of calling cops "dirty", and those who collect the evidence "unreliable"? Then we can have EVERY criminal get an OJ style trial. Fuhrman was racist. The cops in Reedy's trial were... I don't know, Anti-NAMBLA. Let's just DISARM our entire justice system on the faint possibility that one MIGHT be innocent while the evidence points in the other direction - and reading both sides, I do not believe he is innocent.

Dave said:

I think here, it is best if we agree on the fact that we both have different ideas about justice.

I can agree to that. But the way you treat Reedy, you might as well tell the cops, "Hey, you better catch him IN the act, WITH the website open, WITH his pants down, WITH the proof, with, with, with, with, with.... OR else he can't be guilty. You know, if a cop picks up a murder weapon wrong and messes up the fingerprints, the criminal can go free.

Your ideal is noble, Dave, but the reality is that more criminals go free on these EXACT types of technicalities. I'm not willing to change the rules for a child pornographer.

And you don't have to. Take your proof, organize a march, make it happen. If he is innocent, he will get off - that is what the APPEAL process is for. Why is he not appealing?

Dave said:
That statement (>The fallacy is that, AT THE TIME decisions were made in Saddam's case, the "lies" were believed by everybody, including your own government, and our past President.) is false and it should not take you long to find that out. As it happens I did not believe them at the time, yet you suggest I did.

Nice try. Your government allied with the US. Get over it.

You must also have believed that there were no mass graves, no raping of women, no murdering of anyone who spoke out against their government, no beheadings or lopping off body parts either. For a guy who is bent on civil rights of a child pornographer, you sure seem to turn a blind eye when it helps your political side. Oh, I know, all in the name of "justice"...

Dave said:
You say your system of justice is the best in the world, but from your statements it appears you favour a popularity contest based on YOUR opinion rather than a trial.

Did you even read my post? MY preferred form of justice allowed someone who burgularized my car to get away with a crime. So much for MY opinion, wise guy.

Reedy is NOT the first to get a bad judgement, there have been many before him. But since you have proof, I echo the sentiment - why are you not in the streets, and calling your government representatives "liars"? Get out there if you have proof.

Dave said:
at Landslide for illegal material which have now been evidentially disproven, and in such a manner, that this was not an accident, many lies were told and yes that does involve a number of agencies.

So you ARE admitting that you have more faith in one child pornographer than the evidence presented by 4 agencies from 2 countries?

I hope if I'm ever busted, that someone like you would stick up for me. But then, I don't deal in child pornography. I did get a speeding ticket - care to help THAT gross injustice?

Dave said:
You concluded your statement with what I presume infers that if someone has something illegal on their computers, that is a case in itself, and what law enforcement fabricates henceforth doesn't matter.

Actually, to be in mere possession of child pornography, yes, that in ITSELF would add an additional charge. But facilitating (hosting) it to other people would add an even BIGGER charge, called "distribution".

But we can add that to Reedy's already high number, and give him another 70% discount on his sentence.

What is this supposed fabrication crap, Dave?

Are you saying that the cops PLANTED the porn on his computer? Can you really believe that out of 4 agencies, SOMEONE wouldn't notice the "file modified" date and blown the whistle? Or the last uploaded page of the website? "The cops put the weed in my pocket" story is just as believable. Why not just start a precident of calling cops "dirty", and those who collect the evidence "unreliable"? Then we can have EVERY criminal get an OJ style trial. Fuhrman was racist. The cops in Reedy's trial were... I don't know, Anti-NAMBLA. Let's just DISARM our entire justice system on the faint possibility that one MIGHT be innocent while the evidence points in the other direction - and reading both sides, I do not believe he is innocent.

Dave said:

I think here, it is best if we agree on the fact that we both have different ideas about justice.

I can agree to that. But the way you treat Reedy, you might as well tell the cops, "Hey, you better catch him IN the act, WITH the website open, WITH his pants down, WITH the proof, with, with, with, with, with.... OR else he can't be guilty. You know, if a cop picks up a murder weapon wrong and messes up the fingerprints, the criminal can go free.

Your ideal is noble, Dave, but the reality is that more criminals go free on these EXACT types of technicalities. I'm not willing to change the rules for a child pornographer.

And you don't have to. Take your proof, organize a march, make it happen. If he is innocent, he will get off - that is what the APPEAL process is for. Why is he not appealing?

Dave said:
That statement (>The fallacy is that, AT THE TIME decisions were made in Saddam's case, the "lies" were believed by everybody, including your own government, and our past President.) is false and it should not take you long to find that out. As it happens I did not believe them at the time, yet you suggest I did.

Nice try. Your government allied with the US. Get over it.

You must also have believed that there were no mass graves, no raping of women, no murdering of anyone who spoke out against their government, no beheadings or lopping off body parts either. For a guy who is bent on civil rights of a child pornographer, you sure seem to turn a blind eye when it helps your political side. Oh, I know, all in the name of "justice"...

Dave said:
You say your system of justice is the best in the world, but from your statements it appears you favour a popularity contest based on YOUR opinion rather than a trial.

Did you even read my post? MY preferred form of justice allowed someone who burgularized my car to get away with a crime. So much for MY opinion, wise guy.

Reedy is NOT the first to get a bad judgement, there have been many before him. But since you have proof, I echo the sentiment - why are you not in the streets, and calling your government representatives "liars"? Get out there if you have proof.

Dave said:
at Landslide for illegal material which have now been evidentially disproven, and in such a manner, that this was not an accident, many lies were told and yes that does involve a number of agencies.

So you ARE admitting that you have more faith in one child pornographer than the evidence presented by 4 agencies from 2 countries?

I hope if I'm ever busted, that someone like you would stick up for me. But then, I don't deal in child pornography. I did get a speeding ticket - care to help THAT gross injustice?

Dave said:
You concluded your statement with what I presume infers that if someone has something illegal on their computers, that is a case in itself, and what law enforcement fabricates henceforth doesn't matter.

Actually, to be in mere possession of child pornography, yes, that in ITSELF would add an additional charge. But facilitating (hosting) it to other people would add an even BIGGER charge, called "distribution".

But we can add that to Reedy's already high number, and give him another 70% discount on his sentence.

What is this supposed fabrication crap, Dave?

Are you saying that the cops PLANTED the porn on his computer? Can you really believe that out of 4 agencies, SOMEONE wouldn't notice the "file modified" date and blown the whistle? Or the last uploaded page of the website? "The cops put the weed in my pocket" story is just as believable. Why not just start a precident of calling cops "dirty", and those who collect the evidence "unreliable"? Then we can have EVERY criminal get an OJ style trial. Fuhrman was racist. The cops in Reedy's trial were... I don't know, Anti-NAMBLA. Let's just DISARM our entire justice system on the faint possibility that one MIGHT be innocent while the evidence points in the other direction - and reading both sides, I do not believe he is innocent.

Dave said:

I think here, it is best if we agree on the fact that we both have different ideas about justice.

I can agree to that. But the way you treat Reedy, you might as well tell the cops, "Hey, you better catch him IN the act, WITH the website open, WITH his pants down, WITH the proof, with, with, with, with, with.... OR else he can't be guilty. You know, if a cop picks up a murder weapon wrong and messes up the fingerprints, the criminal can go free.

Your ideal is noble, Dave, but the reality is that more criminals go free on these EXACT types of technicalities. I'm not willing to change the rules for a child pornographer.

And you don't have to. Take your proof, organize a march, make it happen. If he is innocent, he will get off - that is what the APPEAL process is for. Why is he not appealing?

Dave said:
That statement (>The fallacy is that, AT THE TIME decisions were made in Saddam's case, the "lies" were believed by everybody, including your own government, and our past President.) is false and it should not take you long to find that out. As it happens I did not believe them at the time, yet you suggest I did.

Nice try. Your government allied with the US. Get over it.

You must also have believed that there were no mass graves, no raping of women, no murdering of anyone who spoke out against their government, no beheadings or lopping off body parts either. For a guy who is bent on civil rights of a child pornographer, you sure seem to turn a blind eye when it helps your political side. Oh, I know, all in the name of "justice"...

Dave said:
You say your system of justice is the best in the world, but from your statements it appears you favour a popularity contest based on YOUR opinion rather than a trial.

Did you even read my post? MY preferred form of justice allowed someone who burgularized my car to get away with a crime. So much for MY opinion, wise guy.

Reedy is NOT the first to get a bad judgement, there have been many before him. But since you have proof, I echo the sentiment - why are you not in the streets, and calling your government representatives "liars"? Get out there if you have proof.

Dave said:
at Landslide for illegal material which have now been evidentially disproven, and in such a manner, that this was not an accident, many lies were told and yes that does involve a number of agencies.

So you ARE admitting that you have more faith in one child pornographer than the evidence presented by 4 agencies from 2 countries?

I hope if I'm ever busted, that someone like you would stick up for me. But then, I don't deal in child pornography. I did get a speeding ticket - care to help THAT gross injustice?

Dave said:
You concluded your statement with what I presume infers that if someone has something illegal on their computers, that is a case in itself, and what law enforcement fabricates henceforth doesn't matter.

Actually, to be in mere possession of child pornography, yes, that in ITSELF would add an additional charge. But facilitating (hosting) it to other people would add an even BIGGER charge, called "distribution".

But we can add that to Reedy's already high number, and give him another 70% discount on his sentence.

What is this supposed fabrication crap, Dave?

Are you saying that the cops PLANTED the porn on his computer? Can you really believe that out of 4 agencies, SOMEONE wouldn't notice the "file modified" date and blown the whistle? Or the last uploaded page of the website? "The cops put the weed in my pocket" story is just as believable. Why not just start a precident of calling cops "dirty", and those who collect the evidence "unreliable"? Then we can have EVERY criminal get an OJ style trial. Fuhrman was racist. The cops in Reedy's trial were... I don't know, Anti-NAMBLA. Let's just DISARM our entire justice system on the faint possibility that one MIGHT be innocent while the evidence points in the other direction - and reading both sides, I do not believe he is innocent.

Dave said:

I think here, it is best if we agree on the fact that we both have different ideas about justice.

I can agree to that. But the way you treat Reedy, you might as well tell the cops, "Hey, you better catch him IN the act, WITH the website open, WITH his pants down, WITH the proof, with, with, with, with, with.... OR else he can't be guilty. You know, if a cop picks up a murder weapon wrong and messes up the fingerprints, the criminal can go free.

Your ideal is noble, Dave, but the reality is that more criminals go free on these EXACT types of technicalities. I'm not willing to change the rules for a child pornographer.

And you don't have to. Take your proof, organize a march, make it happen. If he is innocent, he will get off - that is what the APPEAL process is for. Why is he not appealing?

You said:

>You have researched information posted on the internet, have become engrossed in a false conspiracy theory propogated by posters who are either family of the Reedy's

That statement is not only false, it bears remarkable similarity with what US law enforcement said, that foreign webmasters were blood relatives or close associates of Thomas Reedy. I checked out that 'hearsay' and found it to be false, that is a process you can replicate.

Aafes, you have said that you find it difficult to believe anyone chooses to defend someone based on the offenses that were either alleged or convicted on. Clearly what you are having trouble believing is true as I came here.

We are not talking about the US judicial system as a whole, I am not privy to how justice works or doesn't throughout the world. In America and the UK there are certainly deep flaws in the judicial processes, especially as they have been subject to political interference. The UK home secretary mounted several assaults on the courts because they have upheld the law which has ruled against the government time and again, ruled that torture is illegal, detention without trial is illegal.

I have not posted with any intent to offend, it is purely by dint of circumstance that I come from a different country.

The multi-billion dollar 'trade' in illegal by age imagery, that has been alleged, is substantially a myth. It is because in the main people would find such material abhorrent, frightening even, that it is used as a fraud device, that was what webmasters were doing through the landslide payment system, and other AVS systems on the adult internet.

The fraud going through these accounts was very substantial, it cost Landslide their merchant account, other AVS systems were bust for exactly the same reasons, though many are also still running.

In emerging economies, fraud is rampant, that tends to be how societies start. Societies tend to 'civilise' only after they tackle the problems that blight everyone's lives, and the US consitution is probably the finest instrument of justice I have seen, and the UK is lacking for not having an equivalent. We have the human rights act here, which legally has supremacy over domestic law, but when last I checked the government had been found guilty of violating 11 of the acts, and continues to ignore the law, we don't have organisations like the ACLU, so the public is lacking for something you have in the US.

In any system of justice, mistakes are made, sometimes as a product of the system itself, sometimes as a consequence of the people who work within that system. I think it is very important how it deals with it's mistakes.

I brought in the analogy of terrorism, because there are so many parallels. The US and UK exectives, have suggested the law does not apply because 'these people' are terrorists. Trial by allegation I would call that. One estimate I saw was that 80% of the terrorists were acquired by bounty hunters, so there is quite a danger in creating a crime exceptum and the mere abhorrence of the crime to subvert law.

You raise the point about morallity, those are human issues, emotions become raised, but the role of a judge is surely to ensure that the case is tried on the evidence, not on what you or I, or the media think about it.

I understand your point about the use of illegal material to obtain money, however that is a seperate issue than that which I raise. Some of it is complex territory, the age of an adult in relation to this territory is 18 in the UK which creates contradictions for justice, and there are attempts to raise it to 21 and the Internet spans international boundaries. People were prosecuted in these cases, for images of an American actress who was in in her twenties. That actress was more than happy to see that justice prevailed, so many cases were rescued, but had she not done so, the accused would have been convicted, and perhaps you would be saying tough, it is a terrible crime. That is not heresay on the Internet, justice was very badly damaged by the emotives floating round.

I did not just look at the hearsay on the Internet, as an example, I purchased the trial transcripts, they are signed as authentic by the official recorder, I have good reason to believe they are a very accurate account of what was said in the trial. Where what was said was evidentially at odds with the facts, to the extent, in my view, that imperils justice itself. This is not from my view about nation states and patriotism, hearsay on the Internet, it is about justice, law and evidence. I tend to view people as people, no matter where they live, I don't view people as being more or less important for where they are born or live. I came here to post over a trial where justice was wilfully subverted.

What myself, and I am certain others here have trouble believing Dave is that you consistently maintain you have evidence that would exonerate the Reedy's. You have repeatedly stated you can prove consipiracy and malfeasance on one point or the other. Although you believe you have this evidence, have "contacts" in the USPIS (which is difficult to believe), and are so angered by the injustice you believe was done in this case you do nothing but post tirades on the internet.

If you have all this proof, and you are truly disturbed by the miscarriage of justice you say has occurred why aren't you doing something about it. Why aren't you in the courts or at the steps of the politicians demanding justice? Why do you just sit by idly and let this gross miscarriage of justice and this international conspiracy against "innocent" persons continue???

WHY? Because you are ill-informed and naive. You have researched information posted on the internet, have become engrossed in a false conspiracy theory propogated by posters who are either family of the Reedy's, individuals who somehow profited from their enterprise as well, or they are themselves offenders hoping to have this conviction overturned to aid in their own defense in the future. Perhaps you fall somewhere into one of these categories?

I can't comment on the justice system in England, not having experience of knowledge of the workings of your system. In America, however, most citizens believe in our justice system. While not the speediest we believe it to be the most thorough. When we see an accused convicted by a jury of his peers we hold some confidence in these verdicts. While there may be corrupt prosecution and corrupt judges at points in the system the jury on the other hand is difficult to control or corrupt.

You see so much anger in these posts because you offend our sensibilities, our moralities and our belief in our system of justice. We find it difficult to believe anyone chooses to defend someone convicted of contributing or profiting to child pornography. We believe in our justice system and despite any malfeasance that may have occurred the Reedy's have an appeals process available that inevitably would find an honest court in the process.

You said
>The fallacy is that, AT THE TIME decisions were made in Saddam's case, the "lies" were believed by everybody, including your own government, and our past President.

That statement is false and it should not take you long to find that out. As it happens I did not believe them at the time, yet you suggest I did.

You say your system of justice is the best in the world, but from your statements it appears you favour a popularity contest based on YOUR opinion rather than a trial.

Justice is on trial here. What you are suggesting is, if I was a law enforcement officer, and I fitted you up, that is fine if you are unpopular. That is something I have difficulty finding credible.

No system of justice is perfect, but that word justice does mean something. You have to have a fair trial, with an equality of arms, where the case is judged on the evidence, and where it is proven beyond all reasonable doubt that someone is guilty before they are found guilty, unless you want a system that by design convicts innocent people.

Law enforcement officials told a number of stories about advertisements at Landslide for illegal material which have now been evidentially disproven, and in such a manner, that this was not an accident, many lies were told and yes that does involve a number of agencies.

You concluded your statement with what I presume infers that if someone has something illegal on their computers, that is a case in itself, and what law enforcement fabricates henceforth doesn't matter.

Firstly, the presence of illegal material on a computer is not a case, if it was you could put rather a lot of innocent people in jail. The issue is how illegal material got on the computer, something you have chosen to ignore.

Secondly, if the prosecution lies, and these lies are evidenced, then it was not a fair trial. To you that may be exceptable, you have expressed your opinion to that effect, and my views are at odds with yours.

Thirdly, presenting lies under sworn oath in court, in the US and the UK, is a criminal offence. I presume you think that law enforcement should be above the law from your comments, I am at odds with view.

I think here, it is best if we agree on the fact that we both have different ideas about justice.

The assertion was made, that Landslide had entered into a conspiracy with foreign webmasters. The charges are serious, and what I would look for in justice, is evidence to support those charges. If the evidence isn't there, or the evidence is false, then in my view there can only be one verdict, not guilty. On that basis, there was a miscarriage of justice in this instance.

Finally, you have the view, that the number of people who assert something, means that assertions to the contrary are unbelievable to you. That is of course your choice, but I would suggest if you looked at all the evidence, you would find that view unsustainable, in this case and in life.

I end with a quote by a former director of the FBI:
The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous, he cannot believe it exists. - J Edgar Hoover

Dave said:
If this topic is too emotive for you to consider rationally, consider Iraq, where tens of thousands of children lost their lives and their families, because of lies that were told, and of course, because there are people that don't care about what is true and what isn't.

The fallacy is that, AT THE TIME decisions were made in Saddam's case, the "lies" were believed by everybody, including your own government, and our past President. Then you get the crazies saying that Saddam was not only NOT killing people, he was a helluva nice guy. Pffft.

Likewise, Reedy was convicted by the evidence that was offered AT THE TIME of the decision. It's not anyone's fault that evidence is suppressed, it happens in accordance to law. A judge gets to decide because that is what a judge DOES. A judge once supressed evidence that proved some punk broke into my car because I filmed it on private property - his dad owned the apartment complex. Guess who challenged my proof? His dad. I "didn't have permission". Had I been on public property, it would have been allowed. Tough crap for me, huh?

You may dislike our justice system. Fine by me. It doesn't always work, but it works better than ANY other system in the WORLD. Forgive me if I find it so hard that 4 government agencies in 2 countries, with all the resources at their disposal would throw away hundreds of perfectly good leads in favor of ALL agreeing to LIE to convict one guy who did internet billing JUST BECAUSE. Do you understand how absolutely unbelievable that sounds? If our country was run the way you suggest it is, we'd have Hugh Hefner and Bob Guccione begging for lethal injection.

The bottom line: You couldn't have arrested him if he didn't have anything illegal on his computer. If he WAS arrested, they'd have to either A) find something or B) release him. THEN he could have sued for false arrest. How did he even get to court if he was squeaky clean?

Psychological torture is the worst. People did not just suddenly die, the tactics used against was designed to destroy them. Find out what was really done, and I think you might understand it a little more.

>You just keep believing what you want.
Not at all, I want the truth. One cannot always have it, but in this case, quite a lot of it is out and evidenced now.

> We had 12 people in a jury who saw the evidence, and decided the Reedy's were GUILTY.

I have told you the jury were not told the truth, I am will to the evidence this to a court, and you mention the jury? That is not logical. If we have rogue law enforcement telling lies and you find that exceptable for a trial, I wonder who you work for?

> YOU did not see it, I did not see it.

No, I read the transcripts, have seen forensic evidence, have read other testimony and statements by these officers, and I can prove that Nelson and Mead were serial liars, and lied in such a manner as to constitute serious criminal offences.

> The Reedys themselves admitted their part in the case.

I think you are quoting what US law enforcement said.

> You blow a nice smokescreen about credit card transactions and such, but that had little to do with anything.

Credit card transactions had little to do with anything? The prime function of Landslide as a company was a payment gateway providing automated credit card clearance for adult webmasters. That has little to do with anything?

> They were found GUILTY because they INSTALLED the button at issue on their own website.

If that is the basis of your assertions, because this, the most critical evidence was a fabrication. I can evidence the same. If that is the basis of the trial for you, there was a misstrial. Not only did Nelson and Mead lie about that button, I can evidence the truth. They can too, which incriminates law enforcement.
For the record, they did not install that button.

> THEY admitted doing it. When caught, they said it was so they could catch the pervs.
That is not what they said, you are altering the words that were said. You can say anything you like in your own name, you have already done so, but if quoting other people, you should be aware of the consequences of falsifying statements, that is the very issue I am raising.

>Sure. We round up pedophiles here all the time. They all have alibis, and none of them are worth listening to.

This aspect of Thomas Reedy was of course fully investigated. It was the conclusion of US law enforcement that Thomas Reedy was not a pedophile.

>My opinion of pedophiles and those who defend them stands.
Your opinion, even if that is really your considered opinion, is without merit. US law enforcement concluded Thomas Reedy was not a pedophile. They used propaganda in the trial.

We have a contact inside USPIS, hard evidence is available, yet you persist in defending injustice. May I ask why you are really here?

Again you have altered the words I used, but if you do not understand how lies can cost people's lives, I would suggest that you a) read the news and b) investigate and find the truth.

Let me give one example from Operation Ore. Senior operatives of what is now SOCA, told lies to the press, one such lie related to the list of names. They also used false evidence in the courts, supplied by US law enforcement.

SOCA wanted as much business as possible, they weren't even satisfied with the list of names they were given by USPIS, they went back for them all, the entire list of subscribers at Landslide, and said to the national media that they were all guilty, that 1 in 5 of them were child abusers, creating a witch hunt out of what was simply a huge lie.

One person was a senior commander in the Navy, who had dedicated his life to the service of the his nation. He was arrested, thrown out of his job, and due to the false information that was leaked to the media, denied the prospect of a fair trial, in circumstances where he faced horrendous accusations. In short, his career and life had been stolen from him, simply by lies.

He is dead now, he drunk and drugged himself out of his life, and clearly you don't respect that. His case was investigated and he was cleared. That is how dangerous your views are.

Early on, I looked at the kill rate of these operations, once UK police force over 5%, the MET one in 90.

Firstly your assertion that certain offences do not warrant a defence do you no credit whatsoever, we are discussing justice, and your comments act to pervert it. That is exactly the kind of tactic that was used to cover up the truth in the first place.

As I had mentioned the entire list, where people who were cleared by the landslide data, were arrested and sometimes prosecuted here in the UK, you clearly are not concerned about the death and destruction of innocent people.

People didn't just die. Terrible lies were told by operatives of SOCA in the UK, and Dallas Police, USPIS, the FBI, and attempts were made to utterly destroy the accused pre-trial, to deny them the right to a free trial. You have the audacity to say tough, justice is not important, only what they were accused of?

The deaths went over 100 some time ago in the UK, SOCA are not even counting the dead, are exempt from the FOIA but they refused to comply with the FOIA when they were previously subject to it.

If this topic is too emotive for you to consider rationally, consider Iraq, where tens of thousands of children lost their lives and their families, because of lies that were told, and of course, because there are people that don't care about what is true and what isn't.

Again you have altered the words I used, but if you do not understand how lies can cost people's lives, I would suggest that you a) read the news and b) investigate and find the truth.

Let me give one example from Operation Ore. Senior operatives of what is now SOCA, told lies to the press, one such lie related to the list of names. They also used false evidence in the courts, supplied by US law enforcement.

SOCA wanted as much business as possible, they weren't even satisfied with the list of names they were given by USPIS, they went back for them all, the entire list of subscribers at Landslide, and said to the national media that they were all guilty, that 1 in 5 of them were child abusers, creating a witch hunt out of what was simply a huge lie.

One person was a senior commander in the Navy, who had dedicated his life to the service of the his nation. He was arrested, thrown out of his job, and due to the false information that was leaked to the media, denied the prospect of a fair trial, in circumstances where he faced horrendous accusations. In short, his career and life had been stolen from him, simply by lies.

He is dead now, he drunk and drugged himself out of his life, and clearly you don't respect that. His case was investigated and he was cleared. That is how dangerous your views are.

Early on, I looked at the kill rate of these operations, once UK police force over 5%, the MET one in 90.

Firstly your assertion that certain offences do not warrant a defence do you no credit whatsoever, we are discussing justice, and your comments act to pervert it. That is exactly the kind of tactic that was used to cover up the truth in the first place.

As I had mentioned the entire list, where people who were cleared by the landslide data, were arrested and sometimes prosecuted here in the UK, you clearly are not concerned about the death and destruction of innocent people.

People didn't just die. Terrible lies were told by operatives of SOCA in the UK, and Dallas Police, USPIS, the FBI, and attempts were made to utterly destroy the accused pre-trial, to deny them the right to a free trial. You have the audacity to say tough, justice is not important, only what they were accused of?

The deaths went over 100 some time ago in the UK, SOCA are not even counting the dead, are exempt from the FOIA but they refused to comply with the FOIA when they were previously subject to it.

If this topic is too emotive for you to consider rationally, consider Iraq, where tens of thousands of children lost their lives and their families, because of lies that were told, and of course, because there are people that don't care about what is true and what isn't.

Again you have altered the words I used, but if you do not understand how lies can cost people's lives, I would suggest that you a) read the news and b) investigate and find the truth.

Let me give one example from Operation Ore. Senior operatives of what is now SOCA, told lies to the press, one such lie related to the list of names. They also used false evidence in the courts, supplied by US law enforcement.

SOCA wanted as much business as possible, they weren't even satisfied with the list of names they were given by USPIS, they went back for them all, the entire list of subscribers at Landslide, and said to the national media that they were all guilty, that 1 in 5 of them were child abusers, creating a witch hunt out of what was simply a huge lie.

One person was a senior commander in the Navy, who had dedicated his life to the service of the his nation. He was arrested, thrown out of his job, and due to the false information that was leaked to the media, denied the prospect of a fair trial, in circumstances where he faced horrendous accusations. In short, his career and life had been stolen from him, simply by lies.

He is dead now, he drunk and drugged himself out of his life, and clearly you don't respect that. His case was investigated and he was cleared. That is how dangerous your views are.

Early on, I looked at the kill rate of these operations, once UK police force over 5%, the MET one in 90.

Firstly your assertion that certain offences do not warrant a defence do you no credit whatsoever, we are discussing justice, and your comments act to pervert it. That is exactly the kind of tactic that was used to cover up the truth in the first place.

As I had mentioned the entire list, where people who were cleared by the landslide data, were arrested and sometimes prosecuted here in the UK, you clearly are not concerned about the death and destruction of innocent people.

People didn't just die. Terrible lies were told by operatives of SOCA in the UK, and Dallas Police, USPIS, the FBI, and attempts were made to utterly destroy the accused pre-trial, to deny them the right to a free trial. You have the audacity to say tough, justice is not important, only what they were accused of?

The deaths went over 100 some time ago in the UK, SOCA are not even counting the dead, are exempt from the FOIA but they refused to comply with the FOIA when they were previously subject to it.

If this topic is too emotive for you to consider rationally, consider Iraq, where tens of thousands of children lost their lives and their families, because of lies that were told, and of course, because there are people that don't care about what is true and what isn't.

Again you have altered the words I used, but if you do not understand how lies can cost people's lives, I would suggest that you a) read the news and b) investigate and find the truth.

Let me give one example from Operation Ore. Senior operatives of what is now SOCA, told lies to the press, one such lie related to the list of names. They also used false evidence in the courts, supplied by US law enforcement.

SOCA wanted as much business as possible, they weren't even satisfied with the list of names they were given by USPIS, they went back for them all, the entire list of subscribers at Landslide, and said to the national media that they were all guilty, that 1 in 5 of them were child abusers, creating a witch hunt out of what was simply a huge lie.

One person was a senior commander in the Navy, who had dedicated his life to the service of the his nation. He was arrested, thrown out of his job, and due to the false information that was leaked to the media, denied the prospect of a fair trial, in circumstances where he faced horrendous accusations. In short, his career and life had been stolen from him, simply by lies.

He is dead now, he drunk and drugged himself out of his life, and clearly you don't respect that. His case was investigated and he was cleared. That is how dangerous your views are.

Early on, I looked at the kill rate of these operations, once UK police force over 5%, the MET one in 90.

Firstly your assertion that certain offences do not warrant a defence do you no credit whatsoever, we are discussing justice, and your comments act to pervert it. That is exactly the kind of tactic that was used to cover up the truth in the first place.

As I had mentioned the entire list, where people who were cleared by the landslide data, were arrested and sometimes prosecuted here in the UK, you clearly are not concerned about the death and destruction of innocent people.

People didn't just die. Terrible lies were told by operatives of SOCA in the UK, and Dallas Police, USPIS, the FBI, and attempts were made to utterly destroy the accused pre-trial, to deny them the right to a free trial. You have the audacity to say tough, justice is not important, only what they were accused of?

The deaths went over 100 some time ago in the UK, SOCA are not even counting the dead, are exempt from the FOIA but they refused to comply with the FOIA when they were previously subject to it.

If this topic is too emotive for you to consider rationally, consider Iraq, where tens of thousands of children lost their lives and their families, because of lies that were told, and of course, because there are people that don't care about what is true and what isn't.

You still haven't explained how you come to the most ludicrous accusation I have ever heard. How exactly does Thomas Reedy going to prison cause 100 people in England to suddenly die?

I've heard the expression "I'll just die if...", but never actually saw it happen. I wish there was video to witness this amazing event.

You just keep believing what you want. We had 12 people in a jury who saw the evidence, and decided the Reedy's were GUILTY. YOU did not see it, I did not see it. The Reedys themselves admitted their part in the case. You blow a nice smokescreen about credit card transactions and such, but that had little to do with anything.

They were found GUILTY because they INSTALLED the button at issue on their own website. THEY admitted doing it. When caught, they said it was so they could catch the pervs. Sure. We round up pedophiles here all the time. They all have alibis, and none of them are worth listening to.

My opinion of pedophiles and those who defend them stands.

Detective Nelson said the following in relation to a trial in Ireland that was ongoing at the time, where Landslide evidence was the basis for arrest, but images were found as was a suspect trojan.

[Detective Steve Nelson, the officer at the centre of the US investigation, rejected the suggestion. ''It just does not hang,'' he told The Sunday Business Post. He added that there was no history of child porn being sent maliciously to personal computers.

''If you get a 'pop-up' computer spam, it's because you've gained access to that type of website already,'' he said.]

Firstly, exteme material is used in all manner of scams, trojans included, and there is a very substantial history of this evidenced in the US and the UK. Just as such illegal material was used as a fraud device on credit cards, it is used exactly the same way in adult dialler scams, it is also often used just as sheer malice. Since this trial it has even been used in a major extortion attempt.

In one case we looked at, the dialler installed itself due to a Microsoft fault, without any user intervention, and downloaded underage imagery. The chap deleted the imagery, had his computer rebuilt to stop it happening, but he was charged for what his computer had done.

People don't tend to complain if they have been incriminated by the evidence, and Terri Moore says, if you have it, you are guilty, there is no excuse. The Internet does not work like that as she would know as she handled evidence that proved it was not so.

During Operation Sitekey, a US forensic expert noticed that the AVS system was being used to clear credit card fraud, and he was able to prove innocent people were innocent because forensically he could prove what the malicious code on the computers had done. The images were there.

Secondly, Nelson himself investigated an adult site that contained illegal images in the pop ups. In the prosecution evidence, Terri Moore used popup captures which included illegal imagery.

To release information during a trial is contempt of court, to wilfully release false prejudicial information, is a serious offence.

Once again, I am evidencing that lies were told, bringing into question any testimony these people gave, it highlights a point I made earlier, that these injustices, and they were, as you swear on oath to tell the truth in court, led to injustices around the world. Effectively there were hundreds and hundreds of similar trials where the facts were hidden, and lies were told, in order to convict innocent people. I agree with an earlier posting, for justice, the issue has to be that guilt is proven, and it is not proven if people are being fitted up.

Injustice is a very hard thing to cope with. If you are guilty you can rationalise it, but many people lost their lives around the world because these lies denied them justice. Dallas police said, Terri Moore Said, USPIS said, the FBI said, so it must be true mustn't it? No, I have supplied an example that experts can verify, and Internet savvy people too, will confirm that false information was released to wilfully incriminate innocent people, and it did just that. Read the transcripts, Mike Marshall, the Internet expert for Texas, clearly didn't even know understand banner exchanges, yet this was a critical issue in the trial.

These law enforcement officials poisoned justice on an internation scale, not by accident, because statements were not just made out of ignorance, but at odds with the very facts they were in possession of.

What Detective Nelson did was captured on video. This is prejudicial evidence, but in the trial transcripts, Terri Moore said they could not see the video, it wasn't available. In the UK, what is now SOCA, tried to conceal the fact a video existed, and have to this day refused to release what they have. In the UK, withholding prejudicial evidence is unlawful. Regardless, the American evidence has been conceded in the UK.

Detective Nelson told one story to the US courts, another story to the UK courts. Evidence is hidden or gets up and walks. That is not a normal trial.

When it comes to justice, there are rules that have to be followed by everyone, otherwise you have trial by accusation which isn't a trial, that is an inquisition. Criminal trials have to be based on the evidence and the defence have to be allowed to examine that evidence.

The trial transcripts, all 905 pages are just a small part of the evidence trail, but buried in the detail, issues that undermine the prosecution case are evidenced.

The Landslide investigation was run by USPIS. This is an extract of testimony from Michael Mead of USPIS to a UK court:

Q. Because the "clickz" is a link button to other web pages, is that right?

A. From our investigation and discussions with the employees of Landslide they were working on a banner exchange type program that never really worked, but that's what that button was associated with.

If the clicz system didn't work, then no banner could have appeared. These are issues of vital importance for the prosecution case. They lied and tried to cover their tracks. They have been caught because evidence has been obtained by researchers and experts in the UK, evidence which is verifiable, evidence that doesn't walk or disappear.

Some of the same evidence was used in UK trials, and defence experts diligently got to the bottom of it. It wasn't about defending guilty people, it was about examining the evidence and determining the truth. One of the experts involved has worked for prosecution and defence, things had been hidden, and the more they were looked into the more it uncovered.

The case against Reedy was of significance to trials in the UK, similarly the exposure of lies and false evidence in the UK effects the trial that was conducted in Texas.

If I believed Landslide had a fair trial, I would not be here. It is that simple, I would rather not be here, but I can evidence that Landslide did not have a fair trial.

Nelson was not sufficiently competent to lie and get away with it. False evidence has caused rather a lot of damage, so is it not in the public interest to raise these issues, issues that have been hidden from public view?

You have quoted my words, words which I stand by. If you had an interest in justice, I would discuss evidence to support them. They are logical statements, based on facts. You can argue with them as much as you like, but we return to evidence and the facts, this is about a trial.

If a gun was involved in a murder, and the gun was planted on the accused, and I was aware of that, it would sit on my concscience. I am here for similar reasons.

If I was discussing the trial, I would not want to have a discussion about whether guns should be banned or not, or they are so dangerous, if the gun was found the chap belongs in jail. That is the point you have made, and of course you are entitled to make it, but it is not the issue I am concerned with so it is not one I feel any motivation to answer, you are raising a whole different topic.

Justice can only be served cold.

"Because of what Terri Moore did, over one hundred people are now dead in the UK."

Your words, not mine.

"It is a bit like the US president saying he can torture people because he is the president, he can break the law because he is the president. It doesn't wash."

Your words, not mine.

"Of course Thomas Reedy knew illegal sites were using his payment system..."

Your words, not mine.

Try and make a point, will you? So far, you're making mine quite well.

You attack the messengers, you put words in their mouths. If you have a political agenda, then there are plenty of places on the Internet where you can air your views, that is not what is being discussed here. You do a great disservice to everyone, children included, by your comments here.

You have made assertions, which are not only untrue, were you to put them in person, you would be committing an act of criminal libel here in the UK and the opportunity to do so is there for you if you want to do that. Clearly you do not respect either reason or the law.

You do not respect justice, the law, the concept of a fair trial. I did not cast wild aspersions at Terri Moore, unfortunately in her case, she made comments to the UK media, which are evidential were she to be indicted. Like yourself, her interest seems to be politics, that is if an image on the internet is a crime, you can use it for your own purposes and point the finger at someone, clearly anyone.

If anyone wishes to discuss the evidence and issues in the trial as that pertains to law and justice, not imagery used by credit card fraudsters, then I am here to discuss such issues.

First, naked pyramid is NOT torture. Chopping off heads IS. Having women guard the men is NOT torture. Raping girls and women in front of their husbands and fathers IS. Try and figure out which side does which?

Now, Dave is trying to claim Terri Moore went to England and murdred 100 people. Huh? What does death in England have to do with two scumbags promoting Kiddie Porn over here.

I thought you were delusional at first, now you've confirmed it.

Then again, people who think it's okay to rape children usually are. People who try and defend the indefensible always are.

First, naked pyramid is NOT torture. Chopping off heads IS. Having women guard the men is NOT torture. Raping girls and women in front of their husbands and fathers IS. Try and figure out which side does which?

Now, Dave is trying to claim Terri Moore went to England and murdred 100 people. Huh? What does death in England have to do with two scumbags promoting Kiddie Porn over here.

I thought you were delusional at first, now you've confirmed it.

Then again, people who think it's okay to rape children usually are. People who try and defend the indefensible always are.

You are still using emotives in an attempt to stifle examination of the facts, that is why your position is not credible.

It is a bit like the US president saying he can torture people because he is the president, he can break the law because he is the president. It doesn't wash.

What is being defended here, is justice, that is not an issue that one can compromise with integrity, it is a principle.

'admitted' is an emotive word. Of course Thomas Reedy knew illegal sites were using his payment system, he reported it to the authorities, in the case of another FBI agent, he investigated it for them. So your example is not of material relevance to the case in the specific circumstances.

The FBI who investigated a site with Reedy while on the phone, 'denied' in court remembering it.

If you believe in justice and the rule of law, it is for law to decide what sites are shut down, as it is a very slippery slope if business decides. AOL have already been caught censuring emails which are critical of them. Microsoft is pooring vast sums of money into these operations around the world. Businesses are not ethical, they want a return on the investments they make.

The premise US law enforcement used, was to say that the keyz payment system was dedicated to illegal material, and it was useful for them to say that for the purposes of prosecution, but it was again untrue, the prosecutors lied. Unlike AVS where you get a pass to visit a range of adult sites, Keyz was one payment for one site.

What US law enforcement did in this case, was way outside the law, and if you are interested in justice, that is something you would be questioning, because if you don't, you don't believe in fair trials.

If however you want to play with emotives, I have one too. Because of what Terri Moore did, over one hundred people are now dead in the UK. You might turn round and say these people were all guilty so what, so I will add something more emotive; innocent people were killed by the very lies you are acting to protect. That is a consequence of not protecting justice.

Let the s**t defenders say what they will. If they are truly interested in justice, there are many other ways they could better serve their cause other than defending someone who profited from child pornography.

Taken from the US V Reedy Appeals Decision 8/26/02

Thomas Reedy admitted that he and his wife knew some of the websites contained child pornography and that child pornography represented thirty to forty percent of his business. The Reedys had authored and received emails indicating that they were aware that some of the websites on the KeyZ system offered child pornography and that the Reedys knew the transmission of child pornography was illegal.

That is enough evidence for me.

A little bit more on the click here issue. The banner was adapted from a banner on an illegal site, which contained some 500 naturallist images. We are able to verify a number of facts about this site:

1. The webmaster had been hit by law enforcement
2. The host was under US LEA control at the time Detective Nelson logged onto the site.
3. Fraudulent transactions were put through this account.
4. If all the transactions had been real, the average world wide sign up figures averaged at just under 68 per month.

The allegation was that this banner appeared on the home page. Detective Nelson from Dallas PD lied, no it did not.

When Michael Mead, who was at the Landslide trial, was shown the real home page in a UK trial, he testified he had never seen the page before, despite the fact its provenance was beyond question and he gave that evidence to the UK authorities that he had never seen.

The click here issue of course became a famous news story, but it was just a smokescreen. For a time, a banner exchange was hosted by Landslide on the clicz.com domain, listen to Nelson in the trial and he will say he didn't know anything about clicz.

Detective Steve Nelson of Dallas PD started an investigation on 28/04/1999 that went on for many months. Michael Mead testified that he never saw the banner after the 1st of May 1999 but that the banners never changed. Impossible.

The host that the banner related to was under US LEA control, and Thomas Reedy took down the banner exchange system because it was being abused.

It gets far worse, because the real evidence was captured by law enforcement, evidentially, and by more than one method, yet this evidence was hidden from the defence and the court at the landslide trial. Just read the transcripts, and see what happens whenever questions are asked about the the provenance of this evidence, and you will see quite clearly the prosecution had something to hide. They did have something to hide, and it has been evidenced outside of the trial.

Thomas Reedy called two FBI agents as defence witnesses, but they did not honour their oath, one said he was naive and both had amnesia. The FBI went on to lie again in Operation Candyman, Sitekey and others.

Incidentally, at a similar time, Dallas PD were involved in fitting people up on drugs charges, an issue involving the Chief of Dallas Police. These fit ups sent people to prison, but defence teams were able to evidence what was going on and the issues hit the local media. The ensuing investigation was taken over by the FBI, and years later, not a single Dallas police officer was charged.

I think an earlier poster had sided with the prosecution. The prosecution were involved in a fit up, and neither Dallas Police, USPIS, or the FBI told the whole truth to the court, if they had the case would have collapsed.

The fact is, child pornography, is not something that appeals at to many people at all, it is illegal, so how many people are likely to say we wish to sign up with our credit cards and look anyway?

The answer is very few indeed, and those that were trading in such images, were small numbers of people, in closed groups, exchanging images without charge.

This isn't the first time attempts were made to poison the Internet. Not so many years ago, LAPD claimed proudly to be the largest distributors of child pornography. Verifyable fact.

Now, in order to support this myth, that there is some substantive market in child pornography, the FBI and other agencies, are back in the high volume distribution game, sending such material in places on the public Internet where it would not otherwise appear. I am will to attend court to back the assertion, it is evidenced.

Returning to Landslide, fraud was reported to US law enforcement, and had they investigated properly, and the fraud was on a huge scale, then we wouldn't be either having these problems, or these nonsense claims.

Was Landslide being used for fraud. Yes, I am willing to testify in a US court that that was so, and furnish evidence that was so, and furnish evidence of what the prosecution did to manufacture evidence and mislead the court.

That is not something to debate. Errant posters have suggested that the evidence the case was valid was because it still stands. I can evidence by example. A rogue clique of police officers in the UK joined this game, lied to the media on the courts, resulting in the death and destruction on the public on an unpresidented scale. Crime reports were submitted to the authorities in a process that was started in May 2005, yet hundreds and hundreds of people had their lives destroyed, unlawfully, through comments as wild as some posters here, but evidencially done so knowing they were false. In the UK that is a crime without limit on sentence, yet no police officer has been arrested at this time, and hundreds of false convictions, even involving no forensic evidence at all, still stand. Verifiable facts.

If you support injustice, you have the freedom to express your views, but not to claim reason. Criminal justice is not about emotives and how loud you scream, at least it shouldn't be. Prejudicial evidence was concealed at the Landslide trial, and some of the evidence manufactured by US law enforcement. I am will to evidence as such in a US court.

The fact is, child pornography, is not something that appeals at to many people at all, it is illegal, so how many people are likely to say we wish to sign up with our credit cards and look anyway?

The answer is very few indeed, and those that were trading in such images, were small numbers of people, in closed groups, exchanging images without charge.

This isn't the first time attempts were made to poison the Internet. Not so many years ago, LAPD claimed proudly to be the largest distributors of child pornography. Verifyable fact.

Now, in order to support this myth, that there is some substantive market in child pornography, the FBI and other agencies, are back in the high volume distribution game, sending such material in places on the public Internet where it would not otherwise appear. I am will to attend court to back the assertion, it is evidenced.

Returning to Landslide, fraud was reported to US law enforcement, and had they investigated properly, and the fraud was on a huge scale, then we wouldn't be either having these problems, or these nonsense claims.

Was Landslide being used for fraud. Yes, I am willing to testify in a US court that that was so, and furnish evidence that was so, and furnish evidence of what the prosecution did to manufacture evidence and mislead the court.

That is not something to debate. Errant posters have suggested that the evidence the case was valid was because it still stands. I can evidence by example. A rogue clique of police officers in the UK joined this game, lied to the media on the courts, resulting in the death and destruction on the public on an unpresidented scale. Crime reports were submitted to the authorities in a process that was started in May 2005, yet hundreds and hundreds of people had their lives destroyed, unlawfully, through comments as wild as some posters here, but evidencially done so knowing they were false. In the UK that is a crime without limit on sentence, yet no police officer has been arrested at this time, and hundreds of false convictions, even involving no forensic evidence at all, still stand. Verifiable facts.

If you support injustice, you have the freedom to express your views, but not to claim reason. Criminal justice is not about emotives and how loud you scream, at least it shouldn't be. Prejudicial evidence was concealed at the Landslide trial, and some of the evidence manufactured by US law enforcement. I am will to evidence as such in a US court.

The fact is, child pornography, is not something that appeals at to many people at all, it is illegal, so how many people are likely to say we wish to sign up with our credit cards and look anyway?

The answer is very few indeed, and those that were trading in such images, were small numbers of people, in closed groups, exchanging images without charge.

This isn't the first time attempts were made to poison the Internet. Not so many years ago, LAPD claimed proudly to be the largest distributors of child pornography. Verifyable fact.

Now, in order to support this myth, that there is some substantive market in child pornography, the FBI and other agencies, are back in the high volume distribution game, sending such material in places on the public Internet where it would not otherwise appear. I am will to attend court to back the assertion, it is evidenced.

Returning to Landslide, fraud was reported to US law enforcement, and had they investigated properly, and the fraud was on a huge scale, then we wouldn't be either having these problems, or these nonsense claims.

Was Landslide being used for fraud. Yes, I am willing to testify in a US court that that was so, and furnish evidence that was so, and furnish evidence of what the prosecution did to manufacture evidence and mislead the court.

That is not something to debate. Errant posters have suggested that the evidence the case was valid was because it still stands. I can evidence by example. A rogue clique of police officers in the UK joined this game, lied to the media on the courts, resulting in the death and destruction on the public on an unpresidented scale. Crime reports were submitted to the authorities in a process that was started in May 2005, yet hundreds and hundreds of people had their lives destroyed, unlawfully, through comments as wild as some posters here, but evidencially done so knowing they were false. In the UK that is a crime without limit on sentence, yet no police officer has been arrested at this time, and hundreds of false convictions, even involving no forensic evidence at all, still stand. Verifiable facts.

If you support injustice, you have the freedom to express your views, but not to claim reason. Criminal justice is not about emotives and how loud you scream, at least it shouldn't be. Prejudicial evidence was concealed at the Landslide trial, and some of the evidence manufactured by US law enforcement. I am will to evidence as such in a US court.

2. Rogue commercial and political agendas

The second and only other substantive commercial market for extreme underage material is rogue law enforcement, and you will find a number of names behind these operations, officially backed by GW Bush himself.

Someone expressed such confidence in the US judicial process that it was not open to challenge, so let us cast our minds back to when George Bush came to power. At the time, every state in the US had file charges against Microsoft, and the key thrust of the charges were fully upheld. George Bush asked for all states to leave Microsoft alone. Microsoft is a major funder of these operations and the US government.

I am not going to bother to respond to posters who clearly think how loud they shout is of more value than what they say.

There are always exceptions to the rule, but child pornography has only two substantial commercial markets.

1. Credit card fraud

Illegal material is a very useful fraud device, as hitting the victim with such material silences complaint and limits chargebacks. This is the reason that rogue webmasters in emerging economies were connecting illegal material to AVS systems accross the board. That is the case at Landslide, the chargebacks rocketed and the merchant account was shut down weeks before Landslide was raided.

This was normal, Landslide was far from a unique case. The same happened with sitekey, the merchant account was withdrawn due to massive fraud using illegal websites. The FBI claimed they had taken out another cp host, but the company had gone bust over a year before, which proved the FBI were liars, and operating outside of the law. These facts can be verified.

The FBI ran Operation Candyman, saying they had found some 7,000 people in another paedophile ring. Yahoo testified in court, proving that the FBI lied on every search warrant in the US, lied on evidence supplied to the courts, and two US courts put an end to the operation on the same day because a). the FBI lied and b). they were falsely accusing innocent people.

I think we can safely say, as these facts can be verified, that any evidence supplied by the FBI is at the very least subject to question. The fact that no FBI officer was charged for attempting to or perverting the course of justice makes it quite clear, the corruption in US law enforcement is systemic.

You will notice in the trial transcripts, the FBI agent could not remember going to the websites under investigation at the same time Thomas Reedy looked into it whilst complying with a court order, images he was charged with possessing.

If certain posters find the issues too emotive to discuss rationally, so be it, but these are verifiable facts.

I am not going to bother to respond to posters who clearly think how loud they shout is of more value than what they say.

There are always exceptions to the rule, but child pornography has only two substantial commercial markets.

1. Credit card fraud

Illegal material is a very useful fraud device, as hitting the victim with such material silences complaint and limits chargebacks. This is the reason that rogue webmasters in emerging economies were connecting illegal material to AVS systems accross the board. That is the case at Landslide, the chargebacks rocketed and the merchant account was shut down weeks before Landslide was raided.

This was normal, Landslide was far from a unique case. The same happened with sitekey, the merchant account was withdrawn due to massive fraud using illegal websites. The FBI claimed they had taken out another cp host, but the company had gone bust over a year before, which proved the FBI were liars, and operating outside of the law. These facts can be verified.

The FBI ran Operation Candyman, saying they had found some 7,000 people in another paedophile ring. Yahoo testified in court, proving that the FBI lied on every search warrant in the US, lied on evidence supplied to the courts, and two US courts put an end to the operation on the same day because a). the FBI lied and b). they were falsely accusing innocent people.

I think we can safely say, as these facts can be verified, that any evidence supplied by the FBI is at the very least subject to question. The fact that no FBI officer was charged for attempting to or perverting the course of justice makes it quite clear, the corruption in US law enforcement is systemic.

You will notice in the trial transcripts, the FBI agent could not remember going to the websites under investigation at the same time Thomas Reedy looked into it whilst complying with a court order, images he was charged with possessing.

If certain posters find the issues too emotive to discuss rationally, so be it, but these are verifiable facts.

Now you're Aafes from Viernhiem?

So, you've decided to blather on as a recognized person who's best interest is served obstructing justice. You've made it abundantly clear in all of your personas that you want the Reedy's to, rot in prison. You claim justice has been done and a passionate hatred of child pornographers. However, by posting outright lies and twisting the facts in the Reedy case on this site you've revealed a personal interest that goes beyond a misunderstanding caused by blind hatred. It has become reasonable to believe that your freedom is threatened if the Reedys don't rot in prison. Because it follows that those who put the Reedys in prison will take their place, rotting in prison.

Now as always you tried to use the guilt by association card, those who are trying to discredit someone from finding the truth uses. In this posting you wonder why I am so passionate about this particular matter, and then imply with a question that my reason is because I am also guilty of the charges you claim the Reedys are guilty of.
My passionate interest in this case is the threat it poses to my loss of personal freedom when innocent people can be put in prison to rot.

You ask how I know that evidence to exonerate the Reedys existed if it has been destroyed? In the beginning, when I first met Thomas Reedy, I only saw the court documents he was using to do his appeal to see it was a lie that he was guilty. And now, by going to the website Mark and David mentioned in their postings at this site, I've learned that the lies used to convict the Reedy's were the basis for a similar scheme to bilk the taxpayers and further personal fortunes in England too. Evidence of a lie can never be destroyed, because more lies have to be told to cover them, so the evidence instead of disappearing just keeps growing. The Reedy's conviction was based on lies. So, the idea that the evidence to free the Reedys may have never existed or has been destroyed is simply another of your misleading statements.

Your newsflash that, everyone in prison is innocent - if you take their word for it, is cunningly misleading. The statement implies that everyone in prison convicted of a crime lies. However, simply considering the number of prisoners freed after conviction and long years in prison, makes it obvious that at least some were telling the truth about their innocence.

You ask, why hasn't the appeals process confirmed your suspicions and overturned the conviction. The answer to that question of course is not as you stated that, all of the appeals courts are corrupt. Unhappily for you that is not the case because then you would have nothing to worry about. The truth is that justice once perverted takes a long time to mend no matter how or where it happens. Your notion that an existing injustice is proof that justice was done is characteristically the absurd blathering from one who has much to hide. Or so say those with more experience dealing with people who make posting such as yours.

Now you speak of the Reedy's taking responsibility for what they did. That's exactly what they want to do. They, like any other sane person object to being held responsible for something they didn't do.

In your closing you identify me as an idiot, and restate your hope that the Reedy Rot in Prison. Considering that what is being brought to light in these postings could very well lead to you rotting in prison, if the Reedys don't, your denigrating judgment of me is understandable. You've already identified yourself through your postings. Do you wish to add anything to the Asfes persona, or would you just like to slither off into another to continue your blathering?

Wow..so I'm Robert from Jacksonville? Wow. You need to read more reports on here, because ol' Robert and I almost NEVER agree on anything. So, Robert, does that mean we have multiple personalities? Or maybe we are just confused. But hey, if I'm you you wouldn't mind if I moved to Florida, right? Cause its d**n cold up here in Alaska. Whatever.

The point is..the Reedy's are NOT innocent, they ARE guilty. They were CONVICTED. But of course, I am sure Terri Moore corrupted the jury, right? And faked ALL of that evidence. Oh and that is why Reedy's were released, right? Oh...they weren't? I see. Well that's probably just becuase they are SICK. Prison is too good for them. Lets let those poor children who were hurt by them decide what happens to those bastards.

You cannot say someone is innocent when everything says they are guilty. I mean hell you gave the transcript that said the banner was on the homepage. Don't you think if he was lying the defense would have objected, or questioned him. I notice you didn't post the transcript of the defense questioning him. Interesting...

I think maybe the FBI should be investigating you and your exact ties to these people. And that sick s**t that they allowed to be readily available.

It looks to me like they were offering a direct link to child pornography. You can talk about rescripting all you want, but it still says "Click Here for Child Porn". The Reedy's themselves admiited it in court. You even gave the transcript. GUILTY!!!!!!!!!

I hope Thomas Reedy and his wife both get brutally raped on a daily basis while they serve their sentences. Maybe then, they will understand what that does to people, especially children. While I never had it happen to me, I know several people very close to me who did...and they were permanently messed up by it. I have yet to meet one who wasn't.

Trying to defend these degenerates is just abhorrent.

Thomas Reedy said:
Dear Rev. Ron: After reading the hate rebuttals/comments from the Ripoff.com site, up until 3/27/06, I agree with your observations that the posters might be Terry Moore defending herself in disguise. Or, it could be over funded internet task force agents sensitive to criticism that would jeopardize their jobs.

Right. That's why I spent a lot of time posting about Wal-mart, Cricket, Sears and other actual RIPOFFS. It's a cover up for Mr. Reedy and the dimestore Ordination of Rev. Ron! Mr. Reedy, your reference of "spin" has been noted and returned right back to you.

Thomas Reedy said:
I'm telling them what happened to my wife and I, and it's up to the them to understand that justice denied to anyone is justice denied everyone.

Well, your wife got 14 years. That's justice. And when your 129 years is up and you are eligible for parole, I say then, and only then, Thomas Reedy is free to go.

Society has NO place for people who host child porn. I hope you are the poster child for your ilk everywhere. I don't suppose Reedy has kids? (or HAD kids?)

Mark said:
The facts are also clear in the UK, only 1 person has been convicted out of 5000 suspects in relation to the Landslide data of a contact sexual offence against a minor.

Bull! Rise of 15% in Sex Offenders Register last year, mainly due to 6k suspects investigated under Operation Ore 29.07.04 Times. Unless you can just be added to the Sex Offenders Registery without any kind of "conviction". That's a RISE of 15%.

Ron said:
Your ridiculous and impertinent remarks on this site leads me to wonder who you are, and your interest in this matter.

Rev Ron! You forgot me! MY interest in the matter is a guy who purchases his "Reverend" status online with a credit card and uses that to garner sympathy for convicted felons involving child porn. YOUR interest in the matter is more pertinent to answer. Put your justice belt away and get down to why you're REALLY defending this guy. He's one of your own!

Ron said:
Identify yourself, or keep on with your ridiculous blather and accept that you've been identified as person[ s] whose interest is best served obstructing justice.

Are you really that stupid? You accused me of being Nicole and Robert, and then accused me of being a judge, and you accuse US (people that disagree with you) of "blather"?

Tomorrow you can accuse me of being OJ Simpson, Paris Hilton, Simon Caldwell or d**k Cheney.

Well, you got some jerkoff in England to agree with you - call your other moles.. err.. "champions of justice" buddies and get them to agree with you. That justifies your purpose here, since regular-minded citizens see past a smear on a government official and have identified you as the spin doctor you really are.

I'll take a corrupt government official over a child molester in my city any day.

And let's not forget Reedy got a 70% REDUCTION in his sentence. That's GENEROUS, and he should be thankful he remains upright.

If I got that kind of deal on a speeding ticket, I'd send the judge a Christmas card.

Ronald, I have never seen such a passionate, ongoing defense of someone who has been convicted, by a jury of his peers for contributing to child pornography. It gives any reasonable person cause to wonder why you are so passionate about this. I have to ask, are you in support of child pornography for some reason???

I read of all the allegations of suppression/destruction of evidence that would supposedly exonerate these criminals. If this alleged evidence was "destroyed" how do you know it even existed - by taking the word of the accused??? Newsflash - EVERYONE in prison is innocent - if you take their word for it.

If their is indeed so much merit to your allegations why hasn't the appeals process confirmed your suspicions and overturned the conviction? Oh, wait, I know, the prosecutor, and all the courts and judges in the appeals process are involved in this coverup. They all are just so corrupt and unfair, and have personal vendettas against these people that they refuse to see the truth. Bullcrap! At some point in the appeals process you would HAVE to come across an honest court who could see the truth.

Why hasn't this happened??? Because these sick perverts are guilty. Whether or not they viewed any child pornography they KNOWINGLY and willingly profited from the traffic via their website.

And in case you come back with the "they didn't know" defense - that is no defense in the law. They had a responsibility to the public to make sure they KNEW what these links led to, to investigate the websites and accept or not accept the links.

You, Ronald, are an idiot sir. And I will say it once again - I HOPE THESE PEOPLE ROT in prison.

I have heard of NAMBLA, and I personally do not agree with them. But Robert and Nicole you are quoting incorrect facts.

The click here banner was hosted via Blackcat, Lolita World and kintamani.com. In the early days of the banner exchange system, Thomas Reedy server did host all the banners the webmasters uploaded. Because of illegal activities, Thomas deleted and changed the way the banners were hosted. With a small change in the cgi scripting, the webmaster placed a link to the banner, in which the cgi script on Clicz.com would retrieve it and place it on a web page (hotlinking) that had the HTML code snipet. 1000's of websites used Clicz. The clicz cgi scripts were fully automated, it would display random banners, so it was possible for the click here banner to be displayed on Landslide, it also possible for that banner to be displayed on any of the sites that were part of the exchange system.

Are all thoses webmasters that had only adult material guilty too?

So the banner you are talking about is this:

http://obu-investigators.com/images/cpbanner.jpg

Its not very clear I know, but it have been copied so many times before I got it, but this would indicate as you say, Landslide advertised child porn.
OK to start, this was a screenshot Nelson claims to been taken 28th April 1999. It has been enlarged and I will prove that in a second. If you look carefully, you can see the scroll bar on the right is at the bottom, then look near the address bar, and the mouse pointer is over it. If you could watch the video you will of noticed that the page was loaded up, if I remember correctly from blackcat and the address was re-enter as avs.landslide.com/avs/index.htm.

The true Landslide home page was this.

http://obu-investigators.com/images/landslidehome.jpg

Please note, there is no ClicZ banner system present on either.

On the left, was the homepage on 28th April 1999 and on the right was the home page 28th Feb 1999.

For the homepage of the AVS service, I'll direct you to the WAYBACK MACHINE. This is an internet archive library based in San Francisco.

Exhibit SN-A-2.1 Landslide Home Page

http://web.archive.org/web/19990423171545/avs.landslide.com/avs/index.html

If you scroll down the page, you will notice a banner doesn't load. This is were the 'Click Here Child Porn' banner was ment to be. If you place your mouse over the banner, http://clicz.com/clicz.cgi?19581 would appear, this is the automated banner exchange system. At the time of the archive (28th April 1999) 19581 is the requested banner, which is hosted by the webmaster and not ClicZ. 19581 is nothing more than a account number and the requested number changes everytime you refresh the page.

SN-A-2.3 Customer Guarantee

http://web.archive.org/web/19990508224619/http://avs.landslide.com/avs/guarantee.html

SN-A-2.4 Site Owner Benefits

http://web.archive.org/web/19990428152444/admin.landslide.com/webmasters/index.html

SN-A-2.9 Sample Member Signup

There is 100's of examples of a KeyZ signup page, the only difference between them is the name of the site and the membership cost.

$9.95 for 30 days
$14.95 for 2 weeks
$19.95 for 7 days
$24.95 for 60 days
$29.95 for 90 days

Amounts and durations are interchangeable

http://web.archive.org/web/19990825084530/keyz.com/signup?adorable

The only page that had the ClicZ banner system was the AVS homepage, the others did not.

The transcript:

MS. MOORE: I would offer SN-A-2.11, Your Honor.

MR. BALL: No objection.

THE COURT: Admitted.

BY MS. MOORE:

Q. Now, what is this document, Detective Nelson?

A. This is a screen capture of the banner, "Click Here Child Porn" that's on the home page of Landslide.

Q. Okay. And it's on Landslide's home page?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Is it on AVS or KeyZ, or just the home page?

A. It's on their home page. In fact, that banner showed up quite frequently in a bunch of places.

Well actually it didn't, it couldn't, so Nelson lied.

Exhibit SN-A-2.11 Banner on Landslide Home Page is the first link I gave.

Some of the sites listed in the indictment:

BlackCat was hosted at Bell Atlantic, which was in Reston, Virginia, USA.

Lolita Hardcore and f**king Little Kids was also hosted at Bell Atlantic in Reston, Virginia, USA.

Lolita World yet again hosted at Bell Atlantic.

Children of God was hosted at InterWorld Communications located in El Segundo, California, USA.

Just Grow up hosted at Net Access Corporation, which is in Whippany, New Jersey, USA.

Children Forced to Porn was hosted again at InterWorld Communications.

Lolita's Land was hosted at Wizard Technologies in Griffin, Georgia, USA.

The Police, USPIS, and the FBI knew the location of the material back in April 1999. Nov 2000 the above sites were still operating, using the exact same servers, so why would they do that?

Something else to think about, why was Thomas and Janice Reedy the only ones charged?

What about the rest of the management team for Landslide, Jon Reedy, Tom Hughes (Technical expert) and Bill Breitbarth (CPA Certified Public Accountants), these people ran the show on a daily basis. Were they charged with anything? NO! did Nelson actually speak to them? NO!

They had mens rea as defence, the Reedy's did not. Why not, simple really. Thomas was already assisting the FBI with reported CP sites using the KeyZ system, so he and Janice couldn't deny any knowledge of the above sites and its contents. The easy bust.

Also USPIS and the FBI would of known that the above sites used over AVS systems:

AdultAge.com (US)account 1005515
AdultCheck.com (UK) account 120392
AdultPass.com (US)account 9646
AdultSights.com (US) account st72068
Certifier.com (FR) account 3872

AdultPass (Early 2002, closed down), AdultAge (Aug 2002, closed down) and Certifier (Dec 2003 they were selling the domain. Serious offer over USD 10,000 considered), the rest are fully operational, so why were these AVS systems not been prosecuted for the exact charges the Reedy's faced?

This was a very selective prosecution and wasn't that the Reedy's were the biggest players, they weren't. Trust-Bill.com later renamed to RegPay (Operation Falcon) was the biggest player at the time and remained that way til it was shut down.

The whole case against the Reedy's isn't that clear cut and if you want the FULL transcript, that can be arranged. Its a very highly emotive subject and the jury can be blinded from seeing the truth after seeing images of abused children, I'm sure those images will stay in their minds for many years to come.

What I have learnt from the transcripts is this, the Reedy's are innocent on counts 1 - 88, count 89 Possession, well his home pc did have them.

Robert/Nicole

Your ridiculous and impertinent remarks on this site leads me to wonder who you are, and your interest in this matter. It doesn't fit that the Robert and Nicole characters who have demonstrated such a low level of comprehension would firstly have mastered the computer skills necessary to access this site, and secondly that this topic would attract and hold their attention. Identify yourself, or keep on with your ridiculous blather and accept that you've been identified as person[ s] whose interest is best served obstructing justice.

Therefore there was evidence, and a jury of his peers decided he was guilty AS SIN! Personally I am a big fan of the "punishment to fit the crime" school of thought, and Reedy's punishment doesn't fit his crime. It should be much, much worse. He is a sick mother. You're right, NAMBLA doesn't believe they did (do) anything wrong. While I more than respect our right to free speech...sometimes I wish we could go after sickos like them. But alas, with everything good (free speech) comes something bad (NAMBLA).

Have a great day. Oh and the Reedy's own website, that they OWNED, DID have a kiddie porn button on it. Which means they knew about it and let those poor innocent children be abused. These people make me sick ...

The case against Landlide had NOTHING to do with the credit card transactions. It ONLY dealt with the FACT that the Reedy's own website had a "click here for Kiddie Porn" button on it. It was upfront and in your face. THEY owned and operated that site. THEY installed the button. They made fat cash off that button. They were allowing unfethered access to ILLEGAL websites.

The Landslide Inc claim you guys make is a smokescreen. Nonbody cared about their credit card transaction service. It was just like CCBill, or PayPAl. The ONLY issue was the site they ran offering Child Pornography.

THEY ARE GUILTY!!!!

Operation Ore was the Brits version of going after pedophiles. It ended in disaster, but only because the Brits didn't have enough of a case to make against everyone. They went overkill and went after anyone who may have come across something they shouldn't be looking at. It didn't matter if you closed the screen immediately or not. They went after people who got stuck with pop-ups. We didn't here in the US. We went after the vermin who love that trash.

One thing is certain though. The people who think this is case of injustice, are the same ones the authorities are going after.

NAMBLA doesn't think their members are doing anything wrong either.

To quote you "As for Operation Ore...who cares? I've read all of their drivel. It's another group of molesters trying to convince the rest of us that what they do to children is normal, and therefore okay. We have NAMBLA in the US, Op-Ore is in the UK. They all use the same tactics. They claim 3 year olds want to be raped by grown men."

You might not personal care because it involves UK citizens only, or because you personally or maybe somebody you know hasn't been effected by Police corruption.

Its clear to me you haven't read the truth of the matter and your judgement is still clouded by media propaganda.

I also question exactly where does it state we are child molesters? The fact of the matter is we are not! We haven't been convicted of any such event. The facts are also clear in the UK, only 1 person has been convicted out of 5000 suspects in relation to the Landslide data of a contact sexual offence against a minor.

We also have NEVER stated its OK to abuse children, any person who does commit such an act, wouldn't recieve our help and rightly deserves a very long time in prison.

In relation to the Reedy's, they were prosecuted for the contents of somebody elses websites.
Thomas Reedy himself reported the sites to the FBI, he assisted 2 FBI officers in their enquiries, which neither denied. An court order clearly disallowed Thomas from informing the webmasters involved nor to stop providing his services to the webmasters, that is pure fact!

To quote you again "Her crime of what...putting two child pornographers away for a long time? Wow! I wish we had more of her type of criminal."

The Reedy's were not pornographers, Nelson confirmed this in the case. The reedy's had nothing to do the sites mentioned in the indictment.

And if you still feel the Reedy's are guilty, then ask yourself this question..

7 of the 11 sites mentioned in the indictment were hosted in the States, they could of closed down the sites within minutes, they did not. The sites were still in operation using US servers even when the Reedy's case was been heard in court and still the FBI nor UPSIS felt it was not required to shut these sites down.
Nelson was questioned about this matter, and he said they (the hosting companies) could be prosecuted, but they (as the Police and FBI) chose not to. Are the hosting companies equally guilty of profiting from the abuse of children, considering these people were the ones supplying the actual material over the net via their servers?

So what exactly is their defence?

Maybe with 1000's of websites would make it impossible to monitor all of them all the time, so mens rea comes into play?

Maybe you would like to answer that?

"If you think Terry Moore has gotten away with her crime..."

Her crime of what...putting two child pornographers away for a long time? Wow! I wish we had more of her type of criminal.

As for Operation Ore...who cares? I've read all of their drivel. It's another group of molesters trying to convince the rest of us that what they do to children is normal, and therefore okay. We have NAMBLA in the US, Op-Ore is in the UK. They all use the same tactics. They claim 3 year olds want to be raped by grown men.

Good luck. With 12 people like me(NORMAL) on a jury, you'll need it.

If you think Terry Moore has gotten away with her crime, and Thomas Reedy and his wife are going to "rot in prison, think again. search Operation Ore.

If you think Terry Moore has gotten away with her crime, and Thomas Reedy and his wife are going to "rot in prison, think again. search Operation Ore.

If you think Terry Moore has gotten away with her crime, and Thomas Reedy and his wife are going to "rot in prison, think again. search Operation Ore.

It is evident that Thomas Reedy knew in some detail how he had been fitted up. A lot of research was done from the UK, and there would be no problem with supplying evidence or a court witnesses who can testify to the fact that Terri Moore wilfully attempted to pervert the course of justice and that is exactly what happened.

I am posting from the UK, so I am not familiar with US laws and procedures, but I noticed a victim of Terri Moore is looking for help.

Terri Moore should be indicted, and if you to find a victim of her conduct is no surprise at all.

An injustice against one is an injustice against all. Please get in touch if I can help.

Letter from Thomas Reedy mailed 4/10/06 .

Dear Rev. Ron: After reading the hate rebuttals/comments from the Ripoff.com site, up until 3/27/06, I agree with your observations that the posters might be Terry Moore defending herself in disguise. Or, it could be over funded internet task force agents sensitive to criticism that would jeopardize their jobs. The comments are individually identical: Ignore the facts and spin false information into self serving facts. They make their beliefs based on biased media reports sound more important than someone saying from firsthand experience that they are in prison for life because they've been denied justice. They ignore that we charge prosecution misconduct as the cause of our conviction to crimes we did not commit.

In our case we know for a fact that the prosecution suppressed and destroyed evidence that could have been used to prove our innocence of the charges. I asked you to post this complaint in hope that anyone with a similar complaint against Terry Moore would speak up. Or, for Terry Moore to try and defend herself of the charges I brought against her. I'm not asking anyone to take it on faith that this prosecution misconduct did not occur. I'm telling them what happened to my wife and I, and it's up to the them to understand that justice denied to anyone is justice denied everyone. It would be interesting to hear from more people who understood that.

Thomas Reedy is scum. It makes NO difference if he produced child porn or profited from it, he was still providing the access to it. He keeps contending only 0.5% of our links had child porn. It doesn't matter if it was 0.0000001% child porn was still being trafficked.

As for his contention he was trying to help the investigation by offering information on these websites, he was more likely trying to erase the competition.

I hope he ROTS in jail. He should have received a sentence to be drawn and quartered. Child molesting jerkoff.

Reading the letter from Thomas Reedy, it looks like the original letter sent to the The Sun (Canada) in full.

The facts are quite clear in this case from reading the transcripts, the Reedy's are innocent.

I'm the founder of an independent investigation team working on a police operation in the United Kingdom (Operation Ore). Much of the evidence used against the Reedy's was also used against suspects in the UK, when no images were found. The charges relates to incitement.

Over the years, we at OBU Investigators UK have collected key evidence that actually proves that NELSON, MEAD and MOORE lied or suppressed evidence to secure a conviction. Much of this proof is available on the net at our site.

http://obu-investigators.com

I have noticed many people are still blinded by the smoke screens and unable to see the truth.

To start with, the so called 'Click Here Child Porn' banner never existed on Landslide Inc nor did it on KeyZ either. The site that did have it was kintamani.com which linked to Lolita World a company called Miranda.

We have also the transaction statements for the above company which clear show the credit card fraud which Thomas Reedy stated in his letter.
Thomas Reedy use to use a company called Superior Credit Card Processing to accept credit cards on the behalf of the webmasters, a fax was sent back in August 1999 stating they were withdrawing their processing services due to excessive chargeback activity. Again another indication of CC fraud.

The claim that the Reedy's were making $1.4 million per month is also an lie, Landslide audit records clearly show the Reedy's made a profit (09/1996 - 08/1999) of $2,968.422 from all the websites involved in the AVS and KeyZ systems.

We have also got evidence that shows NELSON changing site description to make them more incriminating by name, at no point did the FBI or USPIS check to see how many sites actually contained CP, all the sites they listed in the indictment they found was via kintamani.com and NOT Landslide Inc nor via KeyZ.com.

In one video in which NELSON originally made, clearly showed him logging onto BlackCat one the sites owned by Miranda which did display the 'Click Here Child Porn' banner and then changed the URL in the address bar to landslide.com, this evidence was allowed to be submitted and it would seem nobody noticed what NELSON actually did!

For more info please visit OBU Investigators and get the truth and not the media propaganda.

Except for one very importants FACT.

The Reedys were not prosecuted for running an age verification site. They were prosecuted for their Landslide site. On that site, there was a "click here for Kiddie Porn" button. THAT was the entire problem. It was THEIR website, and THEY put the button on it.

After the Feds moved in, the Reedys claimed they did it to find the pedophiles. Right. And I race down the road to catch speeders.

Are you mad because it's now harder to find what you seem to be looking for? That's my guess.

I have been reading this thread for the past few days. Here is my input.

I, too, Googled Thomas Reedy. I read the court documents, and I pulled up parts of the transcripts (because of his crime its covered under free information). The man had a company which provided people with access to child pornography. Now, true, the majority of the websites did not have child porn. That does not make what he did any less wrong. Instead of "investigating for the FBI" on his own, he should have stopped serving those sites and turned them in. (I get that they are not ran out of the US, but they could have and SHOULD HAVE been blocked and those who accessed them should have been, and I hope they will be, prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law).

Just because he did not personally access the child porn, does not make it any less wrong. Child porn is wrong on every level and there is no justifying it. Using the argument that it was only two websites so it isn't that bad is the same as using the argument that it is only one kid being exploited out of billions in the world, so it isn't that bad. Guess what? IT IS THAT BAD.

Now, I personally have no problem with consenting adults looking at other consenting adults doing all kinds of freaky crap online. That is fine and all in good fun. My problem comes in where there are children being exploited.

It is illegal in the US to view it or provide access to it. It doesn't matter if it is legal in the country it originated from.

That website above (posted by the supporter) sounds like it is actually supporting child pornography. "lies about child porn.." ect. That is NOT a credible source. I do not know many people (except those that are into that sick crap) that would say child porn is ok. And I know of NO ONE who would claim it is legal.

Those who exploit children, assist in exploiting children, or support the exploitation of children, or support those who do any of the above do not deserve their freedoms that this country provides them. They have performed a heinous act and deserve the worst we can give them. Frankly, I am sad that my tax dollars are paying to keep this man alive.

I also googled Thomas Reedy to get more information. The site that is most in line with what I know about the injustice Thomas Reedy and his wife Janice are now suffering is entitle: The Lies of Ashcroft. It should also provide an insight to those who are wondering why I would try to help the Reedys. Simply put, they are not guilty, and as part of my stated ministerial mission I try to help the wrongly imprisoned, regardless of the circumstance of that wrongful imprisonment. What follows is the content of the aforementioned site, which can be checked by googling Thomas Reedy and clicking on to The Lies of Ashcroft. Specifically:

"The Lies of Ashcroft"

Someone's funding must be up for review, because the by now extremely old Reedy case has magically appeared on all newspaper front pages this morning with headlines like "Feds Bust Gigantic Child Porn Ring." Odd, since we've been discussing the case since April 15th, 2000, around the time the Feebs raided and shut down the Reedys' servers.

To recap, Thomas and Janice Reedy ran a popular age verification service, which offered the AVS and KeyZ codes to 250,000 subscribers who could then access over 5,000 adult sites. Typically, an age verification service will keep some of this money, and give another part of it to the sites that you visit. Anyone could sign up to be a webmaster under the program, and the Reedys were assured by their lawyers that they were not responsible for content.

The service prospered, and the Reedys lived very comfortably.

Well, apparently an enormous TWO of the adult sites in question, located in the non-internet-porn regulating jurisdictions of Russia and Indonesia, offered material featuring people under the age of 18, which was illegal in the United States, and the bowels of the governmental child-protectors were soon in a gigantic uproar.

Now the Feebs are very careful never to prosecute a child porn case they are not absolutely sure of winning, because they want to push the envelope in their desired direction, and not end up with precedents and case law where their doctrine is reversed.

Holding an age verification service accountable for two of over 5,000 sites located in a foreign jurisdiction had never been done before. Still, this is America where all the papers will print whatever outrageous bullshit the government says about child porn, without questioning it.
So lead prosecutor Terri Moore, a woman in love with the Sex Abuse Agenda, who can rattle off adjectives like "chilling", "frightening", and "feeding the hunger of pedophiles," at breathtaking speed, decided to prosecute the case. Armed with a 87 count indictment from a secret grand jury (the favorite rubber stamp of prosecutors), and comments from other Sex Abuse Agenda proponents like Parry Aftab, who compared the age verification service to the World Trade Center bombing, Ms. Moore put her assault vagina in gear, and headed to the courtroom.
Lost in the shuffle were the 250,000 holders of the AVS and KeyZ codes, who found them worthless after the Reedys' servers were seized, and were d**n pissed they had been collectively cheated out of millions of dollars.

The over 5,000 Adult Webmasters offering perfectly legal porn were also less than amused.
The trial was a circus of metaphors, with the Reedys being compared to the madam of a whorehouse prostituting helpless little children. In the end, the jury bought the performance, and returned a guilty verdict. The Feebs had pushed the envelope even further, and age verification services were now responsible for the content of all Web sites that used their codes.

Thomas Reedy got life, even though he had never produced a single piece of child porn. His wife got a lesser sentence.

But the Feebs were not done yet. They had conducted a sting operation, over a period of two years, trying to induce people to purchase child porn videos, CD-ROMs, and magazines, and had incorporated the Reedys' list of 250,000 age verification service subscribers into the hunt. In the end, when they went public, they had gotten an astounding 144 search warrants, and made an absolutely unbelievable 100 arrests.
Bear in mind the Feebs had never brought charges against anyone for having visited one of the two alleged child porn sites. All the arrests were people the Feebs had independently trolled to buy material offered by the government, completely apart from the Reedys' operation.
But that was only the beginning of the lying. The government propaganda machine spun into full gear, and newspapers began to write stories which by the usual mixture of juxtiposition, innuendo, omission, and just plan untruths, told the public the following.

That the age verification service was "the largest commercial child porn operation in the history of the United States."

That the age verification service was itself the "child porn operation" and that the Reedys were "child pornographers."

That the 250,000 subscribers to the age verification service were child porn purchasers.
That the 100 people entrapped by the Feebs had purchased child porn from the Reedys' operation.
That all the revenues of the age verification service were from child porn.

That the government had just "shut down a gigantic child porn ring and arrested its users." In reality, the Reedy case was by then old news, and the arrests of people the Feebs had entrapped had happened slowly over the prior two years.

The press, which had originally told some the truth about the case, now simply began reprinting Ashcroft's press releases...
Here's one such story... I will correct the more blatant lies in [...].

Texas Couple Convicted in Porn Case
[suggestion that all of this is breaking news]
By DAVID KOENIG Associated Press Writer August 9, 2001
DALLAS -- Thomas and Janice Reedy lived in an upscale Fort Worth neighborhood where neighbors say they threw all-night pool parties and where luxury cars would pull into their half-moon driveway at all hours of the night.
They told neighbors they were in the computer business, which was partly true: They sold access to child pornography on Internet sites with names like "Cyber Lolita" and "Child Rape."
[They sold age verification codes, anyone could sign up as a webmaster, and they did not police content. Only two of over 5,000 adult sites that used their service contained material illegal in the United States.]

Authorities say it was an international operation with 250,000 subscribers that grossed as much as $1.4 million a month.

[All the age verification subscribers, and the total revenues of the business, now magically become the numbers for the "child porn ring.]
This week, the Reedys were sentenced to prison for conspiracy to distribute and possess child pornography
[Conspiracy is the usual way the Feebs proceed when they don't have an actual case based on evidence you committed the crime in question.]
On Wednesday, authorities announced the arrests of 100 of the couple's subscribers in what they called the largest child-pornography business discovered in the United States.

[The 100 people were independently trolled by the Feebs to buy Feeb-produced child porn. This had nothing to do with the Reedys' operation, or the two foreign websites, apart from the Feebs stealing the Reedys' customer list.]

"This is the worst kind of exploitation," said Ruben Rodriguez, a director at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "To think of the image of child pornography _ a child is being molested, raped, abused. You're allowing people to pay to look at this victimization of a child."
[And now a word from NCMEC, a pseudo-governmental organization, founded by the Department of Justice, and run by Ernie Allen, a close ideological associate of both Ed Meese and convicted criminal and child abuser Mike Echols.]
The Reedys' attorneys call them victims of an overzealous government.

[The attorney better watch out. The Feebs will get him next.]

Susie Boese, who lives next door to the Reedys' former Fort Worth home, said Mrs. Reedy's young daughter spent a lot of time with her children.
[A not-so-subtle attempt to suggest that the children of neighbors were in some sort of danger by being in the same community with the evil Satanic age verification server.]

When the investigation heated up, the Reedys left Fort Worth for a small home in nearby Lake Worth. They were arrested in April 2000. In court, Mrs. Reedy, 32, testified that she met Thomas Reedy, 37, in South Texas and moved to Fort Worth in 1997 with her daughter, who was then 6.

[Oh look, a paragraph of truth tossed in to confuse us.]

He was already working on a start-up Internet company, Landslide Inc. Mrs. Reedy was trained to keep the company's books. She testified that she saw offensive-sounding names of Web sites, but a woman training her in 1997 told her to ignore them.

"She said, 'Don't worry. They're just names. They don't mean anything,"' she testified.
[Since Mrs. Reedy is a woman, she of course is a "victim" too]

For more than two years, Mrs. Reedy charged users a fee to view sexually explicit sites, kept 40 percent of the money and sent 60 percent to Webmasters in Indonesia and Russia. She said she learned the sites contained child pornography when a former employee tipped her off in 1999.

[By now, the reader will believe that "sexually explicit sites" refers only to the "child porn operation." And that the two webmasters in Russia and Indonesia, out of over 5,000, constituted the Reedys' only business associates.]

"I went to my husband, and he said he had contacted the FBI and it was all being handled," Mrs. Reedy said. Less than a month later, police raided the business.

[Some people are actually dumb enough to think that if they contact the FBI about child porn, they won't make themselves targets.]

Thomas Reedy didn't testify during the five-day trial in federal court in Fort Worth. His wife was the last defense witness. The couple argues they were merely collecting money for other businesses.

[A fact, namely that they only ran an age verification service, is impuned in the mind of the reader by not being simply stated, but labeled as something "argued" by the now-convicted "criminals."]

Attorney Steven Rozan, who is preparing their appeal, said the Reedys are victims -- Reedy was sentenced to life in prison and his wife received 14 years.

"To lose 10 years of a person's life in prison is a helluva lot for a crime that doesn't involve death, doesn't involve maiming, but is basically a cybercrime," Rozan said. "These people were basically ticket takers."
Investigators didn't believe Mrs. Reedy's claim to be ignorant of the child pornography.
[It doesn't matter if the Reedys knew there was child porn on a few websites, if they were not responsible for content. Most ISPs know there is child porn on their news servers. That doesn't make them a child porn ring. Charging for access doesn't make them the madams of a child porn bordello.]

Ron Eddins, who helped prosecute the case, said Mrs. Reedy exchanged e-mail messages with foreign Webmasters about irate customers who complained they weren't getting all they paid for.

"The Reedys marketed adult-porn sites and kiddie-porn sites. They charged more for the kiddie porn," Paul Coggins, who was U.S. attorney at the time, said Wednesday.

[The Feebs are allowed to spin the Reedys' customer service email. Who knows what the actual messages said, or how many of them there were.]

After raiding the Reedys' business, undercover agents took over the Landslide Web site and contacted its users. When subscribers ordered child pornography delivered to their homes, agents moved in. Investigators focused on the most egregious U.S. offenders, authorities said.
[Again, the suggestion that all 250,000 customers of the age verification service were child porn purchasers, and that the Feebs, rather than simply stealing a customer list for an independent entrapment effort, somehow "took over" an existing child porn operation.]
Among those arrested: a computer consultant from North Carolina accused of producing videos depicting abuse of young girls, including a 4-year-old; and a West Virginia man who worked at a psychiatric hospital for sexually abused children.

[Lying by juxtiposition. None of this individual's cited activities had anything to do with the Reedys' business. The Feebs are simply looking for subscribers with outrageous unrelated criminal records, to make the story sound more sleezy.]

Most of the Reedys' Lake Worth neighbors said they didn't learn of the couple's activities until they saw Attorney General John Ashcroft talking about the case on television Wednesday. "It kind of puts an eerie feeling in you when you know it's that close to you," said neighbor Kenneth Franklin, whose young granddaughters are often at his home. "We were totally unaware."

[And what smear would be complete without the finishing touch of interviewing the smearee's neighbors so they can be quoted saying how "shocked" they are.]
-- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

Okay, thanks to Robert I went and searched online Thomas Reedy and came across a lot of information. I read the government press release, the appeal for a new sentencing by the appelate court and numerous press releases from both the US and Britain papers. From what I read, the couple are guilty as sin. BUT, I still have not seen or read the trial transcript. I will still reserve judgement until that is read - although I sure know which way I'm leaning at this point.

Okay, thanks to Robert I went and searched online Thomas Reedy and came across a lot of information. I read the government press release, the appeal for a new sentencing by the appelate court and numerous press releases from both the US and Britain papers. From what I read, the couple are guilty as sin. BUT, I still have not seen or read the trial transcript. I will still reserve judgement until that is read - although I sure know which way I'm leaning at this point.

You know i could spend all day reading these postings on this site, on this particular one though, i admit like elizabeth iam going togoole too and see for myself what really went on, should be interesting.

This is why I asked for a link to the actual court transcript - I'm not defending the convict or accusing them - I'd just like to see the trial transcripts before making any kind of opinion. I'll go check out Google (ty Robert).

The heated, unreasoning urgency of the rebuttals says more about the writer (or writers) than about the man who was sentenced to a thousand years.

Guilt or innocence in a criminal case is supposed to be decided by considering the evidence and testimony.

These rebutters seem to consider that if a person is accused of a vile enough crime, the court does not need to consider the validity of the evidence. The accusation itself somehow is supposedly enough to produce a conviction.

There was a man in Apache County,Arizona, accused of child molesting. He may very well have been guilty, but the alleged victim was completely unbelievable, telling stories that are physically impossible. The prosecution would have been laughed out of court if she were put on the stand

But, they got the defendant's computer and found a very large number of vile pictures in it. It did him no good to point out that all of those pictures had been put in at the same date and time, and that the prosecution had possession of the machine at that time.

As I recall, he will be eligible for parole in 129 years.

My cousin, the Apache County Attorney, assures me that this man is guilty and has his long sentence coming. This could be true, but it still does not build respect for law and justice to put even bad guys away with bad evidence and bad procedure.

Type in Thomas Reedy, and go to the link for the US Government. It's an eye opener. It's mostly legalese, but you'll get the picture of just how disgusting these people are.

Again Ronald, so there are no misunderstandings. I don't care what consenting adults do with each other and a video camera. Most people don't mind that. Putting a child into the mix is disgusting on any level, but you don't seem to think it's a bad thing.

I asked before WHY you defend the Reedy's. As Nick has alluded to, I think we ALL know the answer.

Okay, you want us to believe this then post the entire trial transcript on some site (preferably not a kiddie porn one). Give us the link and we will go to it and read it (assuming there's no pictures involved). Then we will let you know what our opinion is. I'd be the last one to defend a child pornographer but without reading the transcript I can't convict him beyond a reasonable doubt.

Let us know..........

And considering some of my responses in other threads, they would probably be a little angry that you lumped me with them. But if you think debating my identity is more important than addressing the issues, then just man-up and admit defeat.

So the guy got a 70% sentence reduction for exploiting children for others' sexual gratification and his profit. And you think he deserves more time shaved off. WHY?

And as a "concerned citizen", you're willing to fight for it. I'm sure NAMBLA would be on his side. And your side. But I suppose it's all about "civil rights" and "corrupt law enforcement".

That's what *I* don't buy.

I say it again: Viewing is different than purchasing? Pffft.

And considering some of my responses in other threads, they would probably be a little angry that you lumped me with them. But if you think debating my identity is more important than addressing the issues, then just man-up and admit defeat.

So the guy got a 70% sentence reduction for exploiting children for others' sexual gratification and his profit. And you think he deserves more time shaved off. WHY?

And as a "concerned citizen", you're willing to fight for it. I'm sure NAMBLA would be on his side. And your side. But I suppose it's all about "civil rights" and "corrupt law enforcement".

That's what *I* don't buy.

I say it again: Viewing is different than purchasing? Pffft.

And considering some of my responses in other threads, they would probably be a little angry that you lumped me with them. But if you think debating my identity is more important than addressing the issues, then just man-up and admit defeat.

So the guy got a 70% sentence reduction for exploiting children for others' sexual gratification and his profit. And you think he deserves more time shaved off. WHY?

And as a "concerned citizen", you're willing to fight for it. I'm sure NAMBLA would be on his side. And your side. But I suppose it's all about "civil rights" and "corrupt law enforcement".

That's what *I* don't buy.

I say it again: Viewing is different than purchasing? Pffft.

And considering some of my responses in other threads, they would probably be a little angry that you lumped me with them. But if you think debating my identity is more important than addressing the issues, then just man-up and admit defeat.

So the guy got a 70% sentence reduction for exploiting children for others' sexual gratification and his profit. And you think he deserves more time shaved off. WHY?

And as a "concerned citizen", you're willing to fight for it. I'm sure NAMBLA would be on his side. And your side. But I suppose it's all about "civil rights" and "corrupt law enforcement".

That's what *I* don't buy.

I say it again: Viewing is different than purchasing? Pffft.

And considering some of my responses in other threads, they would probably be a little angry that you lumped me with them. But if you think debating my identity is more important than addressing the issues, then just man-up and admit defeat.

So the guy got a 70% sentence reduction for exploiting children for others' sexual gratification. And you think he deserves more time shaved off. WHY?

And as a "concerned citizen", you're willing to fight for it. I'm sure NAMBLA would be on his side. And your side. But I suppose it's all about "civil rights" and "corrupt law enforcement".

That's what *I* don't buy. What you stand up for and believe says a lot about your character. You're not a lawyer defending him - so why the fascination on the heavy sentencing of someone involved in child porn?

I think I know why. Care to embellish?

All that is required is for ED to verify that our ISP addresses are different. ED can verify where the computers being used are from.

Why do you find it hard to believe that 3 men would find a Child Pornographer to be abhorrent? Let me educate you Ronald. The ONLY people who don't find it abhorrent, are the scumbags making and/or using that filth.

I have no problems at all with pornography involving ADULTS. When you throw some kid into it, then I have a problem with it.

I'll ask you one last time...Why do you feel the need to help the Reedy's, convicted Child Pornographers, instead of ANYONE more deserving?

You know what I'm not buying into? I'm not buying that; Nick of California, Robert of Florida, and Marc of Hawaii, are three different people. I'll tell you what I would buy into. Considering the common thread which runs through the three author's replies of; appealing to prejudice instead of reason, using information gleened from newspaper articles instead of substantiative facts to support self serving conclusions, shifting the blame in the primary issue to the victims, and not having the fortitude to identify themselves when asked, I'd buy into the idea that Terri Moore is the single author behind these three stooges. Prove me wrong by identifying yourself.

Ronald said:
As for choosing a more deserving candidate for my help. Tell me who you are and who do you think is more deserving of help in finding justice than someone who is suffering injustice at the moment.

It would be my opinion that he found justice. He had 89 counts knocked down to 12. That's pretty generous for a guy who claims that FBI agents manipulated images (that supposedly didn't exist) on his computer and denies any wrongdoing.

If he originally had to serve 83 years, and only had to serve 12, that's a 70%+ reduction. Most people would consider that a breach of justice in favor of the criminal. The fact that his crimes still landed him a life without parole regardless is besides the point.

This isn't Law and Order when a shoplifter gets to go free because he exchanged testimony for witnessing a murderer as he ran down the street. What good is it to give up peddlers in countries where they are beyond borders?

Besides, any "upstanding citizen" such as Thomas would be glad to give any information he had on child pornographers for a reduced sentence (AFTER THE FACT, naturally!) Of course, that would further the point that he knew all along.

Thanks for convicting him AGAIN, Ronald.

Viewing is different than purchasing? Pffft.

There is NO difference between those who view it, and those who purchase it. In order to view it, one has to purchase the ability to log into the website. The website in question was the Reddy's own site...Landslide.

As for choosing a better candidate, try someone who was convicted on the testimony of unreliable witnesses. The Reedy's admitted everything, except the responsiblity for their crimes.

Robert, your stat. from Pedwatch.com is about people who purchase child porn, not about people who view child porn for one reason or another. In the Reedy case there was no evidence presented by the prosecution to show that the Reedys purchased child porn. Don't you think if that damning evidence existed the prosecution would have included it in her prosecution case? The Reedys were not subscribers in their individual or dual capacity, to child porn sites, nor did they possessed any child porn pictures or magazines at their home or business. From the stat. you cite, and your own logic, it follows that your original unarguable fact was in fact a misstatement.

As for changing your mind about the Reedys, I can see now that your predisposition to anyone accused of this particular crime, will not allow it.

As for choosing a more deserving candidate for my help. Tell me who you are and who do you think is more deserving of help in finding justice than someone who is suffering injustice at the moment.

Robert, this guy is pulling your string.



The "Universal Life Church" will make you a "minister" this evening if you pay $75.00 online to print out your Credential of Ordanation.



You can't tell me that when companies pay this Thomas guy money to "secure" their site that they have NO IDEA who they are doing business with. Wouldn't it seem to you that they would check the site to make sure they weren't in business with snuff films, animal stuff, child rape and the like?



Even the beginner computer user knows that the child stuff is hosted oversees, and this guy is in the business. Claiming ignorance is an assault on common sense.



Your reaction, Ron is funny. It's like you'd be shocked to find out that a stripper at a night club turned tricks for an extra couple of bucks after hours, and "no-one had ANY idea..."



Ron, you're saying he didn't know. Robert is saying he did. I'm saying he should have. For 1.4 million of income per month, he should have darn well known why oversees porn distributors would be concerned about "kids seeing porn", especially since there is no age limits in many countries to view such material, Asia for example. They wouldn't care!



So then, why would an asian company be worried about a law that doesn't even exist in Asia? They wouldn't. They're paying for the access of their "property" to get some income from Americans. And the guy who "brokered the deal" had "no idea"?



Very interesting point, but I'm not buying it. No-one else gets to claim ignorance of the law - so why does this guy, in your mind?