TalkShoe - Call - "Romanism & the Reformation Book Study"
TalkShoe - Call - "Romanism & the Reformation Book Study"
7PM Eastern TalkShoe - Call - "Romanism & the Reformation Book Study" http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=131199&cmd=tc
7PM Eastern TalkShoe - Call - "Romanism & the Reformation Book Study" http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=131199&cmd=tc
Dozens charged in child porn case in NYC area
NEW YORK (AP) — Seemingly
respectable members of the mainstream — a police officer, a paramedic, a
rabbi, an airline pilot, an architect, a Boy Scout leader — were caught
using the Internet to collect and trade child pornography, federal
officials said Wednesday.
The six were
among 70 New York City-area men and one woman charged as the result of a
five-week investigation by the Homeland Security Investigations arm of
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Some
of the defendants, using search terms like "real child rape" and
"family sex," had downloaded thousands of disturbing images on their
computers inside suburban homes they shared with their families. The
lone woman was accused of allowing another suspect to videotape her son.
Federal
and state officials who announced the arrests on Wednesday called it
one of the largest local roundups ever of people who seek to anonymously
share the porn online — and a stark reminder that they come from all
walks of life.
"This operation
puts the lie to the classic, stereotypical profile that child predators
are nothing more than unemployed drifters," said James Hayes, head of
ICE's New York office.
Authorities
say an alarming number of the defendants held positions of trust that
gave them access to young children. The Boy Scout leader also coached a
youth baseball team. The rabbi home-schooled his children and others.
Another person used hidden cameras to secretly film his children's
friends.
 |
| In this Jan. 23, 2014 photo, Mount Pleasant, N.Y. police Chief Brian Fanelli and his wife Sonja exit Federal Court in White Plains, N.Y. A five-week investigation has resulted in charges against at least 70 men and one woman in the New York City area in what officials called one of the largest-ever roundups locally of people who anonymously trade child porn over the Internet. Authorities decided to launch the operation after the arrest of Fanelli, who pleaded not guilty this week to federal charges of knowingly receiving and distributing child pornography. (AP Photo/The Journal News, Tania Savayan) NYC OUT, NO SALES |
Authorities say advances in technology and computer capacity have allowed child-porn collectors to easily amass vast troves of images and to exchange files with each other directly. The New York effort resulted in the seizure of nearly 600 desktop and laptop computers, tablets, smartphones and other devices containing massive amounts of storage.
Agents
were still examining the devices to locate and catalog evidence, an
arduous task that could result in more arrests. The National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children also will have analysts review the images
to see whether it can identify children using databases of known
victims.
"We refer to each of
these images as a crime scene photo because that's exactly what they
are," said John Ryan, the organization's chief executive officer.
Authorities
decided to launch the operation after the arrest in January of the
Mount Pleasant, New York, police chief, who pleaded not guilty this week
to federal charges of knowingly receiving and distributing child
pornography. Court papers allege that Brian Fanelli told investigators
he began looking at child porn as research before it grew into a
"personal interest."
In May,
agents on computers created a digital dragnet with the same tactics used
in the Fanelli case: Agents posed as collectors of child porn who
wanted to anonymously trade it through file-sharing programs others use
to share pirated hit music and movies. Once given access to personal
libraries of child porn photos and videos, the agents identified the
numeric IP addresses of the sources of the material.
The
next step as was to subpoena Internet service providers to obtain names
associated with the IP addresses. The investigators narrowed the list
down to 100 people who were the most active and recent traders, and
obtained search and arrest warrants.
Follow Hays on Twitter: https://twitter.com/APtomhays
http://news.yahoo.com/dozens-charged-child-porn-case-nyc-area-122955761.html
Do a little research and visit the 3 major search engines Google, Bing and Yahoo with safe search turned off and type in the search query> Nude Children: And you will see Bing and Google produce hundreds of nude photos of children, while Yahoo does not produce any! In my view Google and Bing are 2 of the biggest offenders of disseminating child pornography in the world!!! Congrats to Yahoo!!!
Video example that even the police can not be trusted:
Shoebat wants to revive Crusades against Muslims and other heretics? a.k.a. Protestants!!! "Its going to take a miracle to revive the old Crusading spirit".
By Theodore Shoebat
Pope Francis will be being accompanied by a Muslim heretic and
follower of the Antichrist religion, Islam. The Muslim’s name is Omar
Abboud, and he will be accompanied with a rabbi named Abraham Skorka as
he is with the Pope during his trip in the Middle East.
This is absolute heresy what Francis doing, being associated with a Muslim.
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: forAccording to
what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what
communion hath light with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14)
one report:
By taking them along with him, Francis is sending “aLast year Pope Francis wrote a happy Ramadan letter to the Muslim world in which he wrote:
formidable message,” namely that “good interreligious dialogue is a
normal part of the holy father’s way of life and of presenting himself,”
said Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi.
I also think with affection of those Muslim immigrantsInterestingly, Muslims make 35% of Italy’s prison population,
who this evening begin the fast of Ramadan, which I trust will bear
abundant spiritual fruit. The Church is at your side as you seek a more
dignified life for yourselves and your families.
and yet the Pope, is suppose to be the spiritual defender of the
Catholic Church, is saying nothing about the Islamic threat. Sickening!
Whatever happened to the days when the popes of the Middle Ages
commenced and organized Crusades against Muslims and other heretics? Its
going to take a miracle to revive the old Crusading spirit.
The Catholic Church has become a club and a hub for homosexual
activist. Germán Robledo, former head of the Church Tribunal of the
Archdiocese of Cali in Colombia, said:
To be a priest is attractive for homosexuals because theyWhat Christianity needs is another Josiah, who “slew all the priests
can lead a double life. It is the refuge of those who do not dare to
face their families. The Catholic Church is the closet of gays.
of the high places that were there upon the altars, and burned men’s
bones upon them, and returned to Jerusalem.” (2 Kings 23:20)
But we don’t have a Josiah. Instead, we have a bunch of sodomites and
sodomite sympathizers, and those who wish to “build bridges” and play
the harlot with Islam. Francis is harloting himself to the Islamic
heresy, which is a heretical and false theology contrary to all
Orthodoxy.
Also, when Francis is in the Middle East his appeasement toward Islam
will not automatically prevent Muslims from attacking him. The Muslim
world wants the Pope dead, and it is always likely that a Muslim will
try to assassinate him. Maybe the assassination of the Pope by a Muslim
will be the only thing that will force the Catholic Church to finally
confront Islam and return to its former days when it actually fought
back.
Christus Vincit!
http://shoebat.com/2014/05/15/pope-francis-will-accompanied-muslim-heretic-follower-antichrist-2/
The Crusading Christian < Also Known As Catholic
http://tedshoebat.com/
http://tedshoebat.com/
Pa. police powers increased, Supreme Court: Pennsylvania cops no longer need a warrant to search citizens’ vehicles
Supreme Court Justice Seamus McCaffery
By BRETT HAMBRIGHT | Staff Writer
Pennsylvania police officers no longer need a warrant to search a
citizen’s vehicle, according to a recent state Supreme Court opinion.
The high court’s opinion, released Tuesday, is being called a drastic change in citizens’ rights and police powers.
RELATED: Local cops discuss warrantless searches, probable cause
Previously, citizens could refuse an officer’s request to search a vehicle. In most cases, the officer would then need a warrant — signed by a judge — to conduct the search.
That’s no longer the case, according to the opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Seamus McCaffery.
The ruling, passed on a 4-2 vote, was made in regard to an appeal from a 2010 vehicle stop in Philadelphia.
Local police and legal professionals are calling the opinion “big news.”
“This is a significant change in long-standing Pennsylvania criminal law, and it is a good one,” Lancaster County District Attorney Craig Stedman said Wednesday afternoon.
Under prior law, an officer who smells marijuana inside a car, for example, could only search the car with the driver’s consent — or if illegal substances were in plain view.
(Federal officers, like FBI or ATF agents, can search, regardless.)
RELATED: What exactly is probable cause? What qualifies as means for an officer to search a vehicle?
Now, based on the opinion, it only takes reasonable probable cause for an officer to go ahead with a search without a warrant.
“The prerequisite for a warrantless search of a motor vehicle is probable cause to search,” McCaffery writes in the opinion. “We adopt the federal automobile exception... which allows police officers to search a motor vehicle when there is probable cause to do so...”
Previously, a warrantless search was only allowed if “exigent circumstances” existed, the opinion states.
“This case gives the police simpler guidelines to follow and (it) finally and clearly renders our law consistent with established federal law,” Stedman said.
“It is a ruling that helps law enforcement as they continue to find people in possession of illegal drugs,” New Holland police Lt. Jonathan Heisse said Wednesday.
While police rejoice over what’s been a lasting issue, citizens might not be as thrilled.
“It’s an expanding encroachment of government power,” defense attorney Jeffrey Conrad said Wednesday morning, while reviewing the 62-page opinion. “It’s a protection we had two days ago, that we don’t have today. It’s disappointing from a citizens’ rights perspective.”
Christopher Patterson, another veteran defense lawyer, said: “I am concerned that we are on a slippery slope that will eliminate personal privacy and freedom in the name of expediency for law enforcement.”
Shiem Gary filed the Philadelphia appeal, arguing that police didn’t have probable cause to search his vehicle on Jan. 15, 2010. Officers found two pounds of marijuana stashed under the vehicle’s hood.
Lancaster defense attorney Michael Winters noted that police still need good reasons to pull over a vehicle and conduct a search.
“This does not mean that they may search every vehicle they stop,” Winters said. “They must still develop probable cause before they are permitted to search your vehicle without a warrant.”
In the Gary case, probable cause for the vehicle stop was window tint the officers believed to be illegal. Officers smelled marijuana and asked about it; Shiem then told an officer there was “weed” in the vehicle. A search ensued.
“This case does not eliminate the need for the police to have probable cause to search,” Stedman said.
The district attorney said the ruling puts Pennsylvania in line with federal law and many other states.
Locals stressed that probable cause to stop a vehicle does not equate with probable cause to search it.
A driver can still refuse if an officer asks for consent to search a car. The officer can then only search if he/she has probable cause to do so, or a warrant. A driver refusing consent, alone, does not give a police officer probable cause to search.
Christopher Lyden, another local defense lawyer, believes if an officer wants to search a vehicle without consent, they should have to get approval from a judge — as they do in searches of homes.
“Judicial oversight of vehicle searches, just like residential searches,” he said, “helps maintain a free society.”
Chief Supreme Court Justice Ronald D. Castille and Justices J. Michael Eakin and Thomas G. Saylor joined McCaffery in the majority.
Justices Debra McCloskey Todd and Max Baer opposed it.
http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/supreme-court-pennsylvania-cops-no-longer-need-a-warrant-to/article_6a407fc6-d077-11e3-8025-0017a43b2370.html
The high court’s opinion, released Tuesday, is being called a drastic change in citizens’ rights and police powers.
RELATED: Local cops discuss warrantless searches, probable cause
Previously, citizens could refuse an officer’s request to search a vehicle. In most cases, the officer would then need a warrant — signed by a judge — to conduct the search.
That’s no longer the case, according to the opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Seamus McCaffery.
The ruling, passed on a 4-2 vote, was made in regard to an appeal from a 2010 vehicle stop in Philadelphia.
Local police and legal professionals are calling the opinion “big news.”
“This is a significant change in long-standing Pennsylvania criminal law, and it is a good one,” Lancaster County District Attorney Craig Stedman said Wednesday afternoon.
Under prior law, an officer who smells marijuana inside a car, for example, could only search the car with the driver’s consent — or if illegal substances were in plain view.
(Federal officers, like FBI or ATF agents, can search, regardless.)
RELATED: What exactly is probable cause? What qualifies as means for an officer to search a vehicle?
Now, based on the opinion, it only takes reasonable probable cause for an officer to go ahead with a search without a warrant.
“The prerequisite for a warrantless search of a motor vehicle is probable cause to search,” McCaffery writes in the opinion. “We adopt the federal automobile exception... which allows police officers to search a motor vehicle when there is probable cause to do so...”
Previously, a warrantless search was only allowed if “exigent circumstances” existed, the opinion states.
“This case gives the police simpler guidelines to follow and (it) finally and clearly renders our law consistent with established federal law,” Stedman said.
“It is a ruling that helps law enforcement as they continue to find people in possession of illegal drugs,” New Holland police Lt. Jonathan Heisse said Wednesday.
While police rejoice over what’s been a lasting issue, citizens might not be as thrilled.
“It’s an expanding encroachment of government power,” defense attorney Jeffrey Conrad said Wednesday morning, while reviewing the 62-page opinion. “It’s a protection we had two days ago, that we don’t have today. It’s disappointing from a citizens’ rights perspective.”
Christopher Patterson, another veteran defense lawyer, said: “I am concerned that we are on a slippery slope that will eliminate personal privacy and freedom in the name of expediency for law enforcement.”
Shiem Gary filed the Philadelphia appeal, arguing that police didn’t have probable cause to search his vehicle on Jan. 15, 2010. Officers found two pounds of marijuana stashed under the vehicle’s hood.
Lancaster defense attorney Michael Winters noted that police still need good reasons to pull over a vehicle and conduct a search.
“This does not mean that they may search every vehicle they stop,” Winters said. “They must still develop probable cause before they are permitted to search your vehicle without a warrant.”
In the Gary case, probable cause for the vehicle stop was window tint the officers believed to be illegal. Officers smelled marijuana and asked about it; Shiem then told an officer there was “weed” in the vehicle. A search ensued.
“This case does not eliminate the need for the police to have probable cause to search,” Stedman said.
The district attorney said the ruling puts Pennsylvania in line with federal law and many other states.
Locals stressed that probable cause to stop a vehicle does not equate with probable cause to search it.
A driver can still refuse if an officer asks for consent to search a car. The officer can then only search if he/she has probable cause to do so, or a warrant. A driver refusing consent, alone, does not give a police officer probable cause to search.
Christopher Lyden, another local defense lawyer, believes if an officer wants to search a vehicle without consent, they should have to get approval from a judge — as they do in searches of homes.
“Judicial oversight of vehicle searches, just like residential searches,” he said, “helps maintain a free society.”
Chief Supreme Court Justice Ronald D. Castille and Justices J. Michael Eakin and Thomas G. Saylor joined McCaffery in the majority.
Justices Debra McCloskey Todd and Max Baer opposed it.
http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/supreme-court-pennsylvania-cops-no-longer-need-a-warrant-to/article_6a407fc6-d077-11e3-8025-0017a43b2370.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)