Top NASA Official Jailed Under Suspicious Circumstances

originally posted by: Arrestme

originally posted by: smurfy
The video news report makes it seem like the initial investigation was about child pornography viewing. However, Unless I am mistaken, this wasn't just about one guy, there were over a dozen employees involved, see here,

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are plenty of links at the youtube video site, however the Florida Times story has been trashed.

Sadly, somebody's gotta buy the child porn to plant on the smear target computers.
Might not have been for this guy, but it might as well have been NASA.

I never noticed the post which you quoted, which is strange considering the large clearly present video. In any case, I find the contents of the video compelling. There was an entire "child pornography ring" at NASA, where sixteen individuals were presumably coordinating efforts to make illegal purchases from the same source? That seems questionable in itself. Yet, I notice that the names of these individuals weren't released, nor did the FBI have anything to say in the matter. Why then have they released Lawson's information? Why is the FBI so chatty about this specific case? Why can't we even tell who it is that's done all this talking?

A related article revealed some interesting statistics:

Investigators identified more than 5,200 citizens across the country who had paid for a subscription to illicit websites in order to access the content. In 2010 it was revealed that 264 of these worked for the Pentagon as either employees or contractors. Some of them worked for the NSA and had top security clearance.
Before It's News

Per Wikipedia approximately 26,000 people work at the Pentagon. As of the 2014 Census, approximately 318.9 million people live within the United States. In that case, one in 61,326 Americans have been identified as having purchased this "illicit content," and one in 98 Pentagon employees have done the same. You could argue those statistics several ways. One might say that the implication is that Pentagon employees are about 62,475% more likely to be criminal perverts than the general populace. That however seems unlikely, and so one might argue that Pentagon employees are more heavily scrutinized on average than the public, which sounds very reasonable. However, it seems more reasonable that any such scrutiny would concentrate on matters of national security rather than standard criminal misconduct.

One's then left to question the potential motives for such scrutiny involving the online sexual interest of Pentagon as well as NASA employees. One possibility which arises prominently is that the government may not actually be monitoring the sexual interests of their employees for the sake of justice, but instead this endeavor functions as a component within the means for unjust slander and prosecution of those the government comes to deem an enemy. Justice for the sake of anything but justice is certainly not justice at all, and what we observe doesn't seem like justice. It seems like the results of an apparatus meant to stomp out opposition. Was Lawson a victim of this apparatus?

originally posted by: DarthFazer
Why not just dispose of him the old fashioned way , like cut his break lines or throw him out the window like they did to James Forrestal ?

I think I brought that up at one point. The short answer is "I don't know," which happens to be the most accurate answer I could give for most questions on this subject. I did however note that the articles state that Lawson admitted his guilt, and I speculated that he may have done so because he made a deal with the government. Destroy your credibility, and we'll let you live. Maybe we'll retire you on a secluded ranch somewhere under a different identity, and so long as you don't become a problem for us again you'll never hear from us again. The US State Department is known to offer asylum to anyone who works with them on intelligence, and so Lawson's adversaries may be known to be trustworthy when it comes to such things. I'm sure that at some time in the past, murder as a means for cover-up was more frowned upon than it is today.

Maybe those days taught them that silence doesn't always necessitate death, and so other options are sometimes used. A NASA COMSEC boss would appear very similar to colleagues of any operative who's been tasked with dealing with him. He might appear similar to friends at his agency of origin. The matter could have been even handled internally, in which case Lawson is a colleague himself, if not a friend directly. Whatever the case, he was either their colleague directly or indirectly, vaguely or strongly, or he was their pet of thirty years.

Throughout history and until very recently, military officers weren't considered legitimate targets of attack in a battle. This is why you've heard stories and seen depictions of such things as the field commander riding a horse out front of his men as he leads the charge into battle, and only engaging in battle himself if he encountered the commander of the opposing side. They weren't doing this because they were brave, though sometimes they thought it would inspire their men's confidence and other times they thought it would build upon their fame and legacy. They did it because protocol at the time protected them in particular. There was a philosophy that without a leader, the armies would run amuck. They're suddenly an uncontrolled army of heavily armed barbarians. They could do anything, and they're more dangerous than ever. More importantly to this point: it was a matter of respect. Both sides aim to slaughter the forces of their adversary, but the officers leading the campaign are "civilized gentlemen," often of "prestigious blood" and an "honorable family name." We're talking about men who at the the worst of times were notorious for removing a glove and slapping another with it before a "civilized" duel.

That culture of nobility is obviously not present today in that same form. However, the idea of mutual superiority and the resulting respect continues not only among the elite, but throughout society. Before the Iraq War, Saddam Hussein announced that while he was unwilling to simply concede to America's demands, he didn't want war. He proposed that George W Bush and he meet at a neutral location, where the two of them would fight it out. The victor would then dictate whether or not such concessions must be made, thus avoiding warfare. Bush never responded, despite that Hussein spoke loudly and firmly on this. Still, some semblance of old-world chivalry prevails even among the elite. So it's no shock to me that they might have decided not to kill one of their own, if other reasonable means for securing their objectives remained a possibility. To sum up this point: they didn't want to, and maybe they didn't have to.

Just the same, Lawson seems very much disappeared. His whereabouts are unknown, and his status is unknown. That could be because the above explanation is correct, or it could be due to this alternate possibility: It's still possible that they killed him. The reason for the charades leading up to his death would be for the simple reason that they found it the best means for tying up this particular loose end. Maybe they thought that a mysterious heart attack or conveniently timed yet seemingly unrelated murder may lead to problems for them. Could be that they expected that his simple disappearance would be suspect. Might be that he knew something, and somebody else knew that he knew it. Maybe he was someone else's credible source, and defaming that source before disappearing him is killing two birds with one stone. There's many specific possibilities within this alternative, but they all hinge on the idea that Lawson's death or quiet disappearance could have been just as dangerous as Lawson's mouth.

I'd guess the answer is the first and simplest explanation: they didn't just kill him because they didn't want to nor did they have to. Otherwise, I find it difficult to believe that a heart attack would've been inadequate, particularly given his age. Also, even had they literally killed that second bird with that single stone, I'd guess there must've been a third, forth, and possibly innumerable amount of other birds. One of them should've tweeted by now. Even if there weren't more birds, the bad guys couldn't have known that with any certainty. Defaming him would remain important, and his death unnecessary. Whether or not Lawson lived was a matter of preference, not necessity. If the first scenario is correct, then they simply preferred that he live.

a reply to: Navarro

I think I brought that up at one point. The short answer is "I don't know," which happens to be the most accurate answer I could give for most questions on this subject.

You admit you don't know, but that hasn't stopped you from making things up. Lawson was not what you claim he was, NASA is not the evil conspiracy you are implying it is, and law enforcement isn't treating the case any differently than it usually does. You have taken a personal scandal and turned it into a hoax. Well done.

a reply to: Navarro

Before It's News

If you believe anything that is on that site then I understand why you made such a thread.

You have been shown multiple times that this man was nothing at NASA, but you disregard it, is your wanting a conspiracy so bad blocking you from seeing the actual truth?

I guess denying ignorance got thrown out the window with this thread...it's truly amazing.

a reply to: Navarro

do you see what you did there ???

IMHO

you create an ad-hoc explaination to hand wave away WHATEVER happens

this is NOT an attack on you but the claims being made

it is true that there is more than one way to skin a cat -

but these claims do not even provide any evidence that the cat was even skinned

they just assume it was - and create a alternate cat skining protocol to explain how the cat is now nekkid

that is simply irrational , illogical batcrap

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Navarro

I think I brought that up at one point. The short answer is "I don't know," which happens to be the most accurate answer I could give for most questions on this subject.

You admit you don't know, but that hasn't stopped you from making things up. Lawson was not what you claim he was, NASA is not the evil conspiracy you are implying it is, and law enforcement isn't treating the case any differently than it usually does. You have taken a personal scandal and turned it into a hoax. Well done.

Ad hominem and a waste of my time.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Navarro

Before It's News

If you believe anything that is on that site then I understand why you made such a thread.

You have been shown multiple times that this man was nothing at NASA, but you disregard it, is your wanting a conspiracy so bad blocking you from seeing the actual truth?

I guess denying ignorance got thrown out the window with this thread...it's truly amazing.

Ad hominem but I'll briefly engage you.

I've already refuted your position on several occasions at this point. I'm not going to echo those posts other than to say that whether or not the man was a "top official" is a triviality.

There's three clear red flags appear in the articles which are suggestive of classical COINTEL slander. He's been committed to a mental institution; you can't trust the words of a crazy man. He's suicidal; don't be surprised if he happens to kill himself. He's been arrested for possession of child pornography; who cares about a child molester anyhow. He was inarguably in a position to know something which may have been inconvenient for the government. Circumstances may have required that Lawson be discredited and silenced through the above method. These are facts and I'm searching for the truth, if there is a truth beyond the official story.

I feel that I've made a great many points of significance throughout this thread, including a variety of new discoveries, as have other posters. If you wish to spam this thread with discussion of the trivial while entirely ignoring the more important aspects, then so be it. I however find it difficult to respect a person who deletes an argument, then goes on to solely attack a link within the argument followed by personally attacking the person making the argument, while never addressing the argument itself. You keep spamming, and I'll keep researching.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Navarro

do you see what you did there ???

IMHO

you create an ad-hoc explaination to hand wave away WHATEVER happens

this is NOT an attack on you but the claims being made

it is true that there is more than one way to skin a cat -

but these claims do not even provide any evidence that the cat was even skinned

they just assume it was - and create a alternate cat skining protocol to explain how the cat is now nekkid

that is simply irrational , illogical batcrap

You propose that we accept what we're told as truth, when we live in a world of lies. On the contrary, I assume nothing, or at least I endeavor to. I find there to be sufficient reason to suspect that something more may have happened beyond the content of the news reports. The fact of his apparent disappearance since that time is alone intriguing. I'm not arguing what is, but what may be. If we always assumed a thing to be true, on the simple authority that it's been said, then we'll certainly never arrive at any hidden truths. I don't know whether or not such a thing exists in this situation, nor do I suspect I'll ever manage to find it conclusively if it does. However, I'm interested, and I'll continue to pursue that interest until I either arrive at the truth or observe no additional avenues for which to continue that pursuit.

Some say "trust but verify," where you seem to say "trust." Personally, I agree with Benjamin Franklin when he said "believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see." If there's something to this, then I want to know. If there's not, then I want to know that to. I may be in the process of attempting to prove a negative, but if that's my path then I'll deal with that once I arrive. Until then, I suppose I'll be continuing to engage in "simply irrational, illogical batcrap" from your perspective.

a reply to: Navarro

It does smell of a frame up, i agree.

Although, i have to admit, i don't have a lot of sympathy for the guy.

He was in a job where he routinely kept secrets from his paymasters...the Public. He probably thought of himself as being 'inside' and privileged, in an enviable position amongst the big boys and girls, which commanded the respect of his peers.

Bad mistake, as whistleblowers will tell you. You are only truly safe in the cold, hard light of day.

But the reason for my lack of sympathy is quite simple...You live by the sword, you invariably die by the sword and to imagine anything else, is delusion.

originally posted by: Deny777
Now on to his role: COMSEC Accounting, Reporting and Distribution (CARDS) has nothing to do with accounting. I'm no expert either, but from what I've read it's a highly specialized secure asset management system for both physical and digital assets that seems to be found mainly in military organizations. Interesting, huh? Here's a manufacturer page for further reading:
www.ultra-prologic.com...

That is more interesting. As I noted previously, "accounting" has more than one meaning. In this instance it's essentially invenory/resource tracking (ie accounting for resources, availability & usage etc) rather than straight finances.

I don't think it significantly changes anything, however. He's still just counting paperclips for a living.

A 2006 (ICE) investigation into the purchase of child pornography online turned up more than 250 civilian and military employees of the Defense Department .. But the Pentagon investigated only a handful of the cases... ...DCIS investigations were closed due to lack of cooperation from ICE
Yahoo News

The article goes on to say that the Pentagon's DCIS investigated the list ICE provided them, and found among the names several Secretary of Defense staffers, NSA and a DARPA project manager. It also provides links to the actual reports referenced.

The Defense Department will reopen its investigation into employees who are alleged to have downloaded child pornography, a spokesman said Wednesday. The Pentagon's Defense Criminal Investigative Service will review 264 cases, according to spokesman Gary Comerford.
CNN

In 2010 it was revealed that 264 of these worked for the Pentagon as either employees or contractors. Some of them worked for the NSA and had top security clearance. ...NASA employees were also identified in the sickening scheme in the same year. ...However their names have been redacted in documents..
Daily Mail

Out of these 264 people, only ten were ever charged. Why might those ten have been cut out've the herd? The explanation given by the Pentagon was that these individuals were prioritized on account of possessing security clearances, given that these facts could be used to blackmail them. I think we can all agree that more than ten out of 264 Pentagon employees have security clearances, so that statement is an obvious fabrication. So again I ask, why these ten?

I'll remind you of the discussion shortly ago of the sixteen individuals at NASA who were also found in possession of child pornography, facts referenced from this Before It's News article. We again find a large group of people who were caught, let off the hook, and their names concealed. I'll ask it again, why Lawson? Why were those ten singled out? Why was Lawson singled out?

The notion of "justice" is clearly nowhere to be found in this situation. When we see ten charged and 254 not only let off the hook but protected, and when we see Lawson charged and sixteen not only let off the hook but protected, then you witness at very least, favoritism. In this instance I'd argue least-favoritism. If the motivation for burning Lawson wasn't justice, then what was it? What about the Pentagon's ten?

originally posted by: NavarroFor that reason I didn't revisit the issue further, because I was more interested in continuing my investigation based on the relevant facts in order to hopefully learn something of significant value. I couldn't be bothered to be caught up in the details of practical irrelevance. There was an investigation to be conducted, and other details took priority.

Sorry, sunshine, but credibility is the name of the game here.

In a discussion where we will never have access to the data necessary to have a truly informed opinion, all we can rely on is the credibility of the people putting forward their opinions.

A noticeable portion of the arguments on ATS revolve, not around whether a piece of information is true, but whether we believe the person saying it.

You started this thread by making stuff up. You can't walk away from that and dismiss it as "details of practical irrelevance". It goes completely and 100% towards credibility. It's the difference between the great ATS threads where we tread new and exciting ground, opening up new possibilities to discuss and explore... or the ATS threads that make people double-check the address bar to make sure they've not accidentally gone to GLP.

Why not just own it, go back and do some more research, and present a better-informed analysis? A good example would be a comment made about Lawson refusing bail and being held on remand. This seems like an intriguing fact. What could this suggest? Is there ever a reason why lawyers might recommend to their clients that they choose remand over bail?

a reply to: Navarro

Ad hominem and a waste of my time.

No, inventing a conspiracy around someone at NASA who used company equipment for his own entertainment is a waste of time. You interpret your inability to track him from the comfort of your computer desk as him being "disappeared." You invent duties and responsibilities for him that are outside his job description. You rely on previous unproven conspiracies to support your own allegations. He is accused of a crime, therefore he is being deliberately discredited to prevent him from whistle blowing.

It is obvious that you are seizing on this personal moral failure to defame NASA while aggrandizing yourself. How, exactly, are you planning on profiting from this travesty? Are you using it as clickbait? Are you taking on the lecture circuit? This guy's life has been ruined, how are you planning on exploiting it?

a reply to: Navarro

I'll remind you of the discussion shortly ago of the sixteen individuals at NASA who were also found in possession of child pornography, facts referenced from this Before It's News article. We again find a large group of people who were caught, let off the hook, and their names concealed. I'll ask it again, why Lawson? Why were those ten singled out? Why was Lawson singled out?

Maybe he was the only one who was guilty. Pornography is a very subjective thing. One person's vacation photos can become another's porn, you know.

I reviewed what I could find on one of the Pentagon Ten. Army Captain Gary Douglas Grant was a JAG officer. Grant explained, “that was just simple knowing possession of images, there was not intent to acquire.” This article clarifies:

Authorities found more than 300,000 images of adult pornography on his computers. During that time, Grant received two unsolicited emails containing sexual depictions of minors, court records show. He said he “instantly” deleted them.
OC Register

If you have 300,000 apples, and among those 300,000 apples were two oranges, I would guess they were there by mistake. When a man downloads 300,000 pornographic images and of them two were depictions of minors, it's not reasonable to conclude he meant to acquire them. The man's an obvious addict to pornography. An addict doesn't acquire just two of a thing when he previously acquired 300,000 of a similar thing he was addicted to.

The quote even directly states that "court documents show" those two images were unsolicited. If so, and if he then "immediately deleted them" as he testified, then what you're looking at is small minded people who operate solely on the principal of absolute rules. That is, they're completely incapable of original thought in any form, and are absolutely inclined to destroy a man over something which couldn't have been avoided. If people were able to prevent illegal emails from being sent to them, then there would be no computer viruses. But there are, and Grant couldn't. If there was no intent, then there was no crime.

Meanwhile, the article primarily discusses Grant being disbarred. It even states the actual reason for his disbarment is that "the bar wants a decision to assert that the crime is unacceptable for any attorneys in this state and to ensure consistency in similar cases." So it's a show-trial. It's not about Gary Grant or the children in the photographs, it's about making an example. Grant just happens to be the pawn which they've decided to sacrifice for that goal. That's why they're not interested in the clear-cut case that there was no intent.

Again, we see no justice. This isn't prosecution, it's persecution. What're the odds Grant should be destroyed by the Federal Government without just cause, and then be immediately destroyed by State Government? Might this man have been a scapegoat, or could he have been beaten into submission by a system that declared him its enemy?

***SNIP***

It's 04:51 in the morning in California right now. Later today I'll call that phone number once the time is more reasonable. Maybe I'll get lucky. Maybe he'll answer. Maybe he'll have an interesting story to tell us.

a reply to: Navarro

If you have 300,000 apples, and among those 300,000 apples were two oranges, I would guess they were there by mistake. When a man downloads 300,000 pornographic images and of them two were depictions of minors, it's not reasonable to conclude he meant to acquire them. The man's an obvious addict to pornography. An addict doesn't acquire just two of a thing when he previously acquired 300,000 of a similar thing he was addicted to.

You do realize you just contradicted yourself, don't you? Out of the 300,000 images he "collected," he did not realize that two of them fell outside his usual preference, probably because the girls (?) did not look their age. Please stop beating a dead horse, your credibility is low enough already after the whoppers you told in the OP.

a reply to: DJW001

You seem to be wanting to close this thread quickly for some reason . His above post made complete sense and it was your reply which didn't . He said Gary downloaded 300000 images of 'adult' pornography and there were 2 images of 'child' pornography in them . So if he was addicted to child pornography why would he download just 2 when he has 300000 of rest . Seems like an unintended download easily . Also according to court documented records, he apparently recieved two unsolicited mails containing/referencing child pornography which he promptly deleted . You apparently can't read through or maybe u just want people to look at your name and see your disregard for the OP and move on . I don't normaly post at ats , but i do when i have to make a point .

a reply to: Navarro
Fascinating that we have established that NASA certainly could have had potential frame/blackmail material at least as far back as 2007, as per the earlier investigation.

Even more fascinating is how "When the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) investigated the Pentagon employees identified in the scheme, they only investigated 52 of the suspects and 212 people on ICE's list were never questioned at all."

As if they knew what the classified purpose was for...

a reply to: Navarro

“Loose lips might sink ships”

Good job on the thread! Very interesting read and it seems like you attracted derailers/flodders on page 3, filling whole pages after this with recurrent rambling (a sign of substance from your side) I'm not talking about members who are reasoning against his ”official” rank at NASA. I’m talking about the ones who systematically ignore all the logic statements, aspects and (mandatory) coincidences surrounding cases like these. The same people who blindly pulls out the occam's razor argument simply because the controlled media and involved corporations scream child porn charges, and "these things happen".

If i’m not mistaken big corp. and government usually hire contractors for jobs like these. Why? because they are easier to manage this way and if anything would surface or happen the company can easily fall back on the ”he was only a contractor” aspect, in which the individual's connection to the company drastically minimizes and as a result their public image doesn’t get affected in the same damaging way.

Sure, he may not have ”deprived the world of knowledge” in the sense that it was his job to exclusively do so. But regarding his lengthy role at NASA and other high profiled corporations like SAIC, he more than surely has been subjected to highly classified material that none of us can even start to fathom.

Lawson was seventy years old. It could be that like so many before him, as retirement and rapidly approaching mortality reared it's head, he was thinking about disclosure. He was thinking about telling the world what he knew, and the information on his electronic storage devices was the evidence he needed to back up his claims. So don't trust him he's crazy and don't be surprised if he's already killed himself, but don't worry if he did because he's just a child molester anyway.

I share your thought based on; available information, the official story with its almost mandatory composition, and the numerous alphabet agencies he's been involved in. He had sensitive material stored on his devices, got red-flagged and to get to him/it they fabricated the other accusation.

Lawson has been the man in charge of controlling information coming out've NASA. Whatever the government deemed too sensitive for public dissemination, Lawson was tasked with overseeing the effort to keep those NASA secrets a secret.

I’m with you on this as well. But unlike some other members who focuses on misinterpretation and word twisting, I interpret it as;

COMSEC (Communications security) Preventing unauthorized interceptors from accessing telecommunications in an intelligible form, while still delivering content to the intended recipients. The field includes cryptosecurity, transmission security, and physical security of COMSEC equipment. COMSEC is used to protect both classified and unclassified traffic on military communications networks, including voice, video, and data. It is used for both analog and digital applications, and both wired and wireless links.

...He worked with securing highly classified information, and his mission was like you stated, to prevent this info from getting in the wrong hands, including public dissemination. While doing so he was subjected to its content

Do you believe this is the same person? (sydex: scroll down a little bit)

sydex.net...
www.beyond.com...
www.linkedin.com...

"Donald Lawson" + COMSEC is also mentioned in wikileaks icwatch
transparencytoolkit.org...

___________________________________________________________________

The Brevard County man was fired last month from his job at Kennedy Space Center, as well as from a federal information technology contractor, Science Applications International Corp, after allegations of "multiple security violations," court records state.

www.orlandosentinel.com...

So what kind of corporation was SAIC?

It provided government services and information technology support, and it had a annual revenue of 4,5 billion. They had a deep relation with DoD, I.C. and NSA, and due to their longtime relationship with NSA they jokingly called themselves NSA-West based on their geographical location in comparison to NSA headquarters. SAIC got the NSA ”Trailblazer” contract after the 9/11 attacks, after that they continued with ”ExecuteLocus”. In 2005 they got the FBI contract for the ”Trilogy” program, or more directly a data software flop called "Virtual Case File”. They also participated in DIA’s "Stargate Project” between 1992-1994, which was involved remote viewing, the purported ability to psychically "see" events, sites, or information from a great distance. In 2002, the company was involved in the creation of the IAO, which focused on applying electronic surveillance and information technology to track and monitor individuals. In 2013, SAIC changed its name to Leidos.
www.corpwatch.org...
www.theguardian.com...

Remind me again who also worked for NSA as a contractor, pretty famous guy.. A guy who saw, administered and eventually released highly classified documents. That's right - the contracted system administrator Edward Snowden. So can we please leave the debate regarding if Donald Lawson had access to highly classified documents or not.

(To whom it may concern. If you feel like responding to my comment, do so in a logic, coherent, fact based manner. Twisting words, taking words/sentences out of context to establish deliberate misleading, recurrent and/or non fact based responses will be met with silence.)

originally posted by: Navarro
I reviewed what I could find on one of the Pentagon Ten. Army Captain Gary Douglas Grant was a JAG officer. Grant explained, “that was just simple knowing possession of images, there was not intent to acquire.”
...
The quote even directly states that "court documents show" those two images were unsolicited. If so, and if he then "immediately deleted them" as he testified, then what you're looking at is small minded people who operate solely on the principal of absolute rules. That is, they're completely incapable of original thought in any form, and are absolutely inclined to destroy a man over something which couldn't have been avoided. If people were able to prevent illegal emails from being sent to them, then there would be no computer viruses. But there are, and Grant couldn't. If there was no intent, then there was no crime.

Meanwhile, the article primarily discusses Grant being disbarred. It even states the actual reason for his disbarment is that "the bar wants a decision to assert that the crime is unacceptable for any attorneys in this state and to ensure consistency in similar cases." So it's a show-trial. It's not about Gary Grant or the children in the photographs, it's about making an example. Grant just happens to be the pawn which they've decided to sacrifice for that goal. That's why they're not interested in the clear-cut case that there was no intent.

Again, we see no justice. This isn't prosecution, it's persecution. What're the odds Grant should be destroyed by the Federal Government without just cause, and then be immediately destroyed by State Government? Might this man have been a scapegoat, or could he have been beaten into submission by a system that declared him its enemy?

***SNIP***

It's 04:51 in the morning in California right now. Later today I'll call that phone number once the time is more reasonable. Maybe I'll get lucky. Maybe he'll answer. Maybe he'll have an interesting story to tell us.

And here we go again.

Grant wasn't convicted because of some show-trial run by evil vindictive Illuminati-controlled prosecutors and their Masonic judicial brethren.

Grant was convicted because he entered a guilty plea.

He didn't attempt to contest it. He said, in his own words, to the court, that he "willfully, unlawfully and knowingly possessed images of minors under the age of 18 exhibiting their genitals for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer."

You know this. In fact, you know this the exact same way that I know it. It was written in the article. The article that you posted.

He never argued "knowing possession". He never argued anything, in fact. He, an experienced lawyer with more than 20 years of practice under his belt ( link to State Bar of CA profile ) stood up in court and said "Yep, I'm guilty".

The issue in the article is that, while he put in a guilty plea, he doesn't want to be disbarred. The only way to avoid being disbarred is to essentially prove to the court that he isn't guilty of a crime when he has already entered a guilty plea.

I don't know how you can say there is a "clear cut case that there was no intent" when he's already told a court that he's guilty of an offence that requires intent. Is the court entitled to essentially overrule the finding of a previous court but without actually overturning the conviction? Grant isn't appealing the conviction, after all.

What you're probably looking at, however, is a case of plea-bargaining gone bad. He was probably expecting to swap an early plea for a slap on the wrist - which is what he essentially got; 90 days in jail, temporary suspension from the Bar, and probation, which he's violated multiple times already. Now, the Bar want to push for full disbarment. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say he might have entered a defence if he thought they would disbar him. Now that might make for an interesting discussion.

I see that the pattern of inconvenient facts being left out isn't confined to the Lawson case.

originally posted by: Navarro
It's 04:51 in the morning in California right now. Later today I'll call that phone number once the time is more reasonable. Maybe I'll get lucky. Maybe he'll answer. Maybe he'll have an interesting story to tell us.

Just to confirm, is your masterplan genuinely going to involve calling up a 70-year-old man and saying,

"Hi! You know how your recent arrest for child porn has shamed and humiliated you to the point where you feel suicidal and have to be hospitalised? Well, I'm calling from The Internet, where hundreds of thousands of people are currently talking about you, investigating every aspect of your life, and making sure that as many people as possible are made aware of the accusations against you. I was wondering if I could ask you a few questions... hello? Hello? What's that gurgling sound?"

I'll keep an eye out for to the news reports tomorrow: "Ex-NASA employee hangs himself using phone cord after call from mysterious Internet person drives him over the edge."