Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
beret

Paulie's

Rate this topic

148 posts in this topic

If you read the thread made by Paulie's daughter, I believe she indicated that the e-mail was made to her father's business account. I have not researched that, but If I remember correctly, that was the case.

 

Like you have already stated D-man, this constant back and forth about what has happened is pretty much unproductive....and I personally believe that we should let it run it's course and be done already.

 

The constant banter about what occurred is probably doing more harm than good. And, it may be making some innocent people who really do not deserve to be made to relive this horrible experience over and over again..very traumatized.

 

I am just hoping that the sharks will stop circling the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. I know I have said this over and over again, but it's just done and done at this point. I'm out. If I get caught posting anymore in these Paulie-related threads you have my permission to call THIS post up and berate the living **** outta me ;)

 

Done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Charloot how about yall keep the drama to the taverns.TIM should shut it down,is this site to help you fish better?Or b!@##h better?Every thread on this has been shut down,maybe you just want to beat a dead horse.or stir the pot more!:p

 

:laugh: Another post to a thread you want to die off. :th:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
legal system can cost you alot of $$ scratch to fight a case, however pleading guilty to something your innocent of would be a crush as well

pride, love, freedom is whats worth fighting for

 

I totally agree with you.But if you already spent all the funds you and your family had and your not even at trail yet what do you do.No money left your family is now broke your store did terrible last year there was no fish to say on long island. in the spring , summer or fall not enough to help the store and a decision has to be made who do you use to fight these charges you don't have a lawyer the money is gone a public defender probably will not take the case because you own a business which is not making any money. so what do you do my friend. now the D'A. offered 4 months and it's over what do you .do truly think about it what do you do. it is so easy to back seat drive and say i will fight it . I feel the same way as you.Paul is my friend.I want him to fight these charges, go one step further do to the type of charges most jurors might rubber stamp a guilty plea because it's an alleged crime against a young minor female. The jurors might not like the way he looks acts or speaks so when you say you would fight it to the end i truly think i understand what you are stating in theory . but think about what i am saying it's all of us back seat driving.i truly think this topic is so hard for all and a jury would convict just in case they would make a mistake and let a sex offender free so i understand why paul is taking a plea.

 

You're telling us to believe an assumption on your part or what the family and Paulie is saying - the odds of it being fact are slim to none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the public will not see it that way.

 

Most of the Public could care less about all this..:D Including myself.. Thares fish to be a gettin Areggggg.. ;)

 

I doubt that anyone with kids would not care about this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[spoiler=Warning: Spoiler!]

Why are you guys so obsessed with this????? Who gives a F---k????? Let it go already :dismay:

 

What I don't get is why you don't give a ****!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry TimS for posting inaccurate info on what he pled quilty to, but there are no references since many of the threads have been deleted or locked to sink into oblivion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry TimS for posting inaccurate info on what he pled quilty to, but there are no references since many of the threads have been deleted or locked to sink into oblivion.

 

 

 

Your getting all of your information about this situation from SOL? You do realize that most of the information posted here is incorrect, uninformed and 99% one sided right? Try Google and keep an open mind. I am not being negative toward you in this post please don't take it that way. I am just surprised that the only info your going on is from this website. Catching Bass and learning the surf ropes yes this is the place to come to......... Criminal cases not so much...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who trust this man, one last question.... Do you trust a man that will swear on the Bible to tell the the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, on May 17 and then lie about his guilt?

 

We're not talking about a misdemeanor here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow I cant believe how some adults act :shock: 8-9 days and all will have their answer. my quandry is how more than a few members that seem to pop up in all these contraversial threads have like "10-13" posts a day since the month they joined :confused: when do these guys ever fish? spend time with family? work?

they have made it there life mission to know all about "git land" everyone lets hang out in your corners till the facts play out soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it a personal email address or a business email address the email(s) were sent to?[/quote\

 

After all this time and all the posts in all the threads and you still don't know nothing you don't even know the answer to a question that was asked and was answered so many times . so you throw out all these comments and you truly know nothing wow!! it just shows me and other members that you just like to talk . and talk without any knowledge. shame on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're telling us to believe an assumption on your part or what the family and Paulie is saying - the odds of it being fact are slim to none.

 

how do you know that.where do you get your information from . tell us all where do you get the information that the odds of being fact are slim to none. show me how you know that. my proof is that the D.A. s office started with many felony charges and now are letting someone plea to less than b misdemeanor time that shows me they were fishing and it did not work.they had nothing . so tell us all how you know what you stated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimS View Post

Wayne, this has been beaten to death in the Tavern, but let me make clear that he did NOT plead guilty to the things you are saying he plead guilty to - and that is not something I can leave posted, even though I'm certain it was not intentionally incorrect.

He plead guilty to "possession" of a inappropriate videos the girl sent him - and he deleted, except he did not know that deleting it left it on his computer in his cache or temp files...so even though he thought he got rid of the videos, they were still in his "possession"...even though he did not know it and didn't know how to retrieve them from his cache or temp files. They were, technically, in his "possession" - because they were on his computer. "Promotion", as defined by NY law, also includes "receiving" or "acquiring" - not "promotion" as in he was spreading these videos around, they were deleted from his email as soon as they arrived - he only opened the first one, then he knew what the rest were, without opening them.

He did not plead guilty to distribution of anything, that's simply untrue. Leaving that posted on my website may leave me open to legal action as I know it to be factually untrue - otherwise I would not edit your post.

TimS



 



Paulie should have me as his lawyer. 



 



http://usnews.***************/_news/2012/05/08/11602955-viewing-child-porn-on-the-web-legal-in-new-york-state-appeals-court-finds?lite



 



 




Viewing child porn on the Web 'legal' in New York, state appeals court finds








By M. Alex Johnson, msnbc.com


Viewing child pornography online isn't a crime, the New York Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday in the case of a college professor whose work computer was found to have stored more than a hundred illegal images in its Web cache.






M. Alex Johnson


M. Alex Johnson is a reporter for msnbc.com. Follow him on Twitterand ********.






The court dismissed one of the two counts of promoting a sexual performance of a child and one of the dozens of counts of possession of child pornography on which James D. Kent was convicted. The court upheld the other counts against Kent, an assistant professor of public administration at Marist College in Poughkeepsie, N.Y.



Kent — who said at his sentencing that he "abhorred" child pornography and argued that someone else at Marist must have placed the images on his computer — was sentenced to one to three years in state prison in August 2009.



The decision rests on whether accessing and viewing something on the Internet is the same as possessing it, and whether possessing it means you had to procure it. In essence, the court said no to the first question and yes to the second.



"Merely viewing Web images of child pornography does not, absent other proof, constitute either possession or procurement within the meaning of our Penal Law," Senior Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick wrote for a majority of four of the six judges. 



"Rather, some affirmative act is required (printing, saving, downloading, etc.) to show that defendant in fact exercised dominion and control over the images that were on his screen," Ciparick wrote. "To hold otherwise, would extend the reach of (state law) to conduct — viewing — that our Legislature has not deemed criminal."



Read the full appeals court ruling (.pdf)



In other words, "the purposeful viewing of child pornography on the internet is now legal in New York," Judge Victoria A. Graffeo wrote in one of two concurring opinions that agreed with the result but not with the majority's reasoning.



Kent's attorney, Nathan Z. Dershowitz, told msnbc.com that he hadn't yet had a chance to talk to his client, so he couldn't discuss what they would do next. But he agreed with Graffeo that the ruling means that "in New York, there is no crime" in simply viewing child pornography. 



All of the judges agreed that child pornography is an abomination, but they disagreed whether it was necessary to "criminalize all use of child pornography to the maximum extent possible," as Ciparick wrote in the majority opinion. The majority said that was up to the Legislature, not the courts, to decide. 



Judge throws out child porn charge against Washington man



The technical details revolve around copies of deleted files that remained in the cache of Kent's Web browser, which were the basis of the two counts that were dismissed. They were discovered, along with other materials, during a virus scan that Kent had requested because his computer was running slowly.





 


To demonstrate possession of the images in the cache, "the defendant's conduct must exceed mere viewing," Ciparick wrote, adding that "the mere existence of an image automatically stored in a cache" isn't enough.



Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove that Kent even knew his Web browser had a cache in the first place, writing, "A defendant cannot knowingly acquire or possess that which he or she does not know exists."



Dershowitz said the "real problem here is that legislation is not keeping up with technology," arguing that federal courts also haven't fully addressed the legal standing of images stored only in a browser cache.



The federal statute outlawing possession of child pornography — 18 USC 2252A — doesn't mention browser caches. The few cases that have examined the issue at the federal level — notably a 2002 federal appeals case involving a Utah man and a 2006 federal appeals case involving a visitor to Las Vegas — generally conclude that cached images alone can establish possession if the defendant knows about the browser's caching function.



Both courts noted that it was hypothetically possible for the defendants to be innocent if they were ignorant of the cache function. 



"Those statutes are probably not quite as incomprehensible, but they are anything but clear," Dershowitz said.



Kent's convictions on the other counts rested on other evidence, including a folder on his machine that stored about 13,000 saved images of girls whom investigators estimated to be 8 or 9 years old and four messages to an unidentified third party discussing a research project into the regulation of child pornography.



"I don't even think I can mail the disk to you, or anyone else, without committing a separate crime. So I'll probably just go ahead and wipe them," one of the messages said.





Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.