It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Brian D. Hill of USWGO Alternative News has declared his innocence and has filed his Writ of Habeas Corpus under Title 28 U.S.C. §2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence. Brian is pushing for relief of having his criminal conviction vacated, release a certificate of actual innocence giving Brian the right to expunge his DNA off of the FBI criminal database once Brian is found actually innocent or Brian will push for Congress to remove Brian's DNA from the FBI database since Brian will be found actually innocent of the crime. It all depends on if Judge Thomas D. Shroeder finds him actually innocent.
originally posted by: StanleyBolten
They never verified that actual child porn was found on Brian's computer as the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children did not confirm the so-called victims so no victims were listed.
originally posted by: ArMaP
Also, there's no need for real victims to exist, computer generated or altered images can be considered child pornography, they just have to depict children or what look like children in pornographic scenes.
(8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: StanleyBolten
You have provided an awful lot of information, but not any narrative explanation of what happened, who this person is, what he stood accused of in specific terms, or indeed why you believe him to be innocent of the crime of which he stands accused.
originally posted by: StanleyBolten
How about all of you read the entire filing before coming to conclusions that have absolutely NOTHING to do with his claims.
What you are all arguing is NOT a goddamn excuse. He was stating that Detective Bridge stated the child porn was known to him and had downloaded to Brian's Laptop. Those files were never confirmed to being on Brian's computer.
Two THREATENING EMAILS from tormail.org, again look at Luke Rudkowski and Stewart Rhodes, said child porn was planted on his computer and hard drives, that he will be framed and they know some people in the SBI.
You all need to read the entire case files before coming the to your own conclusions. Read all of the Exhibits before making such comment responses that sound ignorant.
DO I need to write hundreds of pages of text on here before any of your own conclusions sound valid?
The Prosecutor has to prove that child porn did download to the suspect's computer, and that such images were of actual child pornography.
None of you have ever been victims of somebody sending child porn to your email so none of your opinions count.
I'm sorry for being mean but Brian doesn't need further attacks on his credibility.
He has a right to prove his innocence and people need to stop treating him like he is guilty until he commits suicide like he has threatened to do for years. People need to stop making him feel suicidal by calling him a pedophile or just treat him like he is guilty. When it comes to murder charges, people are more reasonable but the stigmatization of people accused of such crimes is way different standards of treatment, whether they are guilty or not.
Yeah Brian's claim that no victims were identified IS VALID, because he has caught the Government lying multiple times, they had a weak case all along, they never intended to prove him guilty of anything.
originally posted by: loveguy
If he was advising take a plea agreement- dude wasn't paying the right kind of defense team.