Chris Wilson is in deep shit with these backwards ass florida judges... - GoFuckYourself.com

OldSchoolJim · 12-17-2005, 07:00 AM

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.d...NEWS/512170398

Bail revoked...and just reading the article i feel like i am back in time.....
This is bad times folks.....

adultchica · 12-17-2005, 07:07 AM

OK, now that is fucked up

just like the name of his site..and i'm not trying to be funny. That is really just about the saddest thing ever. I wonder what is on the videos they think are so "obscene"

Fucksakes · 12-17-2005, 07:09 AM

I feel like I read this before, wonder where?

Manowar · 12-17-2005, 07:15 AM

www.freechris.org
www.freechris.org
www.freechris.org
www.freechris.org
www.freechris.org
www.freechris.org

Harmon · 12-17-2005, 07:17 AM

The judge told him to stop running the site until the case was heard. He did not comply. Now he is in jail... I don't quite understand what people do not get? It was a simple request, and not that outlandish in my honest opinion

chadglni · 12-17-2005, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harmon

The judge told him to stop running the site until the case was heard. He did not comply. Now he is in jail... I don't quite understand what people do not get? It was a simple request, and not that outlandish in my honest opinion

The judge didn't tell him shit unless you have some info nobody else has. You must have been in the courtroom?

dissipate · 12-17-2005, 07:19 AM

That whole case is a crock of bullshit.

MikeVega · 12-17-2005, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harmon

The judge told him to stop running the site until the case was heard. He did not comply. Now he is in jail... I don't quite understand what people do not get? It was a simple request, and not that outlandish in my honest opinion

In the article it say he was NOT told to stop running the site and moved it out of the county.?? plus the servers are over seas

Paul Waters · 12-17-2005, 07:40 AM

Did I miss the news story about Bush suspending the constitution?

Harmon · 12-17-2005, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadglni

The judge didn't tell him shit unless you have some info nobody else has. You must have been in the courtroom?

The case is semi-local to where I live. It's been all over the news, so yes... in a way I have seen muchofr the court proceedings.

From what they have reported, Chris took down the xxx pictures, but that is not where the obscenity charges originated from. The judge doesn't seem to be siding one way or the other... just wants the case to be heard fairly.

At least that is my take from watching it here on our local news...

rafe43119 · 12-17-2005, 07:49 AM

wow, that poor guy. This judge has lost his cookies but then again we have had several years of the religious right quietly getting its people on the bench, local school boards, state houses, federal goverment and anywhere else they can weasel their way in. More and more of this is going to happen so long as one powerful group can force its morality on the population and the forces to oppose their extremism are outmanned and out financed and to many people continue to vote for folks who cowtown to the religious right. Sigh, its a new century but we have moved backwards instead of forwards.

Harmon · 12-17-2005, 07:50 AM

And again... I AM NOT siding with the bible thumpers that had him arrested in the first place. I am on Chris' side all the way. I think that fact that the charges were brought against him in the first place was ridiculous

Fred Quimby · 12-17-2005, 07:51 AM

So the judge has a vision impairment and he won't remove himself from the case?

chadglni · 12-17-2005, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harmon

And again... I AM NOT siding with the bible thumpers that had him arrested in the first place. I am on Chris' side all the way. I think that fact that the charges were brought against him in the first place was ridiculous

If you think the charges are ridiculous then this shit should be even more so.

Quagmire · 12-17-2005, 08:32 AM

Quote:

From what they have reported, Chris took down the xxx pictures, but that is not where the obscenity charges originated from. The judge doesn't seem to be siding one way or the other... just wants the case to be heard fairly.

I had heard (possibly false) that it is really related to the vids sent back from Iraq by soldiers rather than the porn and they're using the porn material as a sort of cover?

The Ledger article seems to state that at no poin was he asked to take the site down. Looks like a witchhunt to me. Glad I live up here in the Canadian Nanny State where I can spend my tax refunds on beer and popcorn.

Biggy2 · 12-17-2005, 08:45 AM

"First, they filed a motion to disqualify Judge J. Dale Durrance from presiding over the case, claiming that Durrance suffers from extreme visual impairment.

"Defendant Wilson believes that he cannot obtain a fair hearing and/or trial before Judge Durrance as a result of the Judge's visual impairment, which Defendant Wilson fears will prevent Judge Durrance from fully and fairly evaluating the allegedly obscene materials in according with the appropriate legal standards," the motion said.

Judge Durrance denied that motion."

--------------------------------------
I am not a lawyer, but I don't know if that was the smartest way to start it off by questioning whether the judge could see. Unless his vision was truly that impaired, I think its a poor move in trying to win the judge over. Later in the article, it didn't mention he had difficulty watching the clips on a laptop in front of him.. did they really expect the judge to go "you're right, i can't see."

I would've brought up some of the other points first, like the fact they didn't have a warrant on the pictures acquired. To me it would make sense to hit the strongest argument first, then chip away with some not so strong points (like the vision argument) to shake the confidence of the case... To me it seems like they just pissed off the judge from the start.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think its right to revoke the bail without the alleged obscene material being reviewed. Ultimately, I do think they will win an appeal, but I wouldn't be happy if those were my lawyers.

Harmon · 12-17-2005, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadglni

If you think the charges are ridiculous then this shit should be even more so.

I'm with you... but the law is the law... what are you supposed to do? Fight a brick wall? You take your lumps and fight it out...

NickPapageorgio · 12-17-2005, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Waters

Did I miss the news story about Bush suspending the constitution?

Here it is incase you missed it. Bush suspends constitution.

Redrob · 12-17-2005, 08:56 AM

The Bushie pollsters wanted the pict of dead soldiers down because of Bush's falling ratings and increasing unpopularity of the war.

I'd bet the Sheriff or somebody in the Polk County was tipped off by the administration to the existance of the website and told to go get them.

The news article states he was never told to stop displaying the content on his servers and the content has not been found to be obscene.

If you can, donate $10 to Chris through Paypal at the Free Chris Website

Harmon · 12-17-2005, 08:58 AM

Here is a better and more trusted local source (The Ledger is a holy rolling Polk County publication...)

http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2...16/134268.html

However, on Friday at a bail revocation hearing, Polk County Judge J. Dale Durrance revoked that bond and had Wilson placed behind bars for violating the terms of his release. He is accused of continuing to operate the web site after moving out of Polk County.

NickPapageorgio · 12-17-2005, 08:58 AM

"A story in The New York Times on Friday claimed that Bush secretly signed an order authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans who were communicating with individuals overseas to determine if they had terrorist ties."

Pffft...what fucking constitution?

NickPapageorgio · 12-17-2005, 08:59 AM

Any of you posting in this thread been communicating oversees?

devilspost · 12-17-2005, 09:04 AM

You cant buy that kind of publicity, he will get name recognition from this. He dont need no fucking dontations.

Manga1 · 12-17-2005, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by devilspost

You cant buy that kind of publicity, he will get name recognition from this. He dont need no fucking dontations.

Kevin Mitnick got name recognition too and he still did 5 years.

devilspost · 12-17-2005, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manga1

Kevin Mitnick got name recognition too and he still did 5 years.

Didnt he commit a real crime?

directfiesta · 12-17-2005, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggy2

"First, they filed a motion to disqualify Judge J. Dale Durrance from presiding over the case, claiming that Durrance suffers from extreme visual impairment.

"Defendant Wilson believes that he cannot obtain a fair hearing and/or trial before Judge Durrance as a result of the Judge's visual impairment, which Defendant Wilson fears will prevent Judge Durrance from fully and fairly evaluating the allegedly obscene materials in according with the appropriate legal standards," the motion said.

Judge Durrance denied that motion."

--------------------------------------
I am not a lawyer, but I don't know if that was the smartest way to start it off by questioning whether the judge could see. Unless his vision was truly that impaired, I think its a poor move in trying to win the judge over. Later in the article, it didn't mention he had difficulty watching the clips on a laptop in front of him.. did they really expect the judge to go "you're right, i can't see."

I would've brought up some of the other points first, like the fact they didn't have a warrant on the pictures acquired. To me it would make sense to hit the strongest argument first, then chip away with some not so strong points (like the vision argument) to shake the confidence of the case... To me it seems like they just pissed off the judge from the start.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think its right to revoke the bail without the alleged obscene material being reviewed. Ultimately, I do think they will win an appeal, but I wouldn't be happy if those were my lawyers.

It shows you never were charged ...

The lawyer is not trying to win the case at this level ... He knows, that with the lower court, he is going to loose .

What he is doing is setting up grounds for the appeal ... The lawyer will also try to get the judge to emit " personnal " opinion , loosing the impartiality of the trial. Another good appeal item ...

In one case I had many years ago, judge Primeau ( municipal court that hear criminal cases ...) said that he " wouldn't want his daughter to be exposed to such filth " ...
I lost and went on appeal. My lawyer said it was risky to appeal on the actual " meat " of the case but a sure win on the comment of the judge.
I won the appeal.

CDSmith · 12-17-2005, 10:10 AM

With respect to the warrant, or lack thereof, I know of no community where police are required to obtain one prior to entering a website.... which is a shame, not to mention a gross unfair hole in the process. Since for the webmaster, our place of business actually IS our websites, I see it as not unreasonable that cops should have to obtain a warrant prior to entering said business just as they would with any other type of business. If this fellow Chris ran an adult movie rental/sales shop they would need a warrant to enter and conduct search and siezure.

And, for that judge to not allow the expert for the defence to testify speaks volumes.

Looks like they have a pretty strong case for winning on appeal, in a hgher coart.

JFK · 12-17-2005, 10:16 AM

Best of luck to him

Marshal · 12-17-2005, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by devilspost

Didnt he commit a real crime?

as far as i know he did...

Paul Waters · 12-17-2005, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

If this fellow Chris ran an adult movie rental/sales shop they would need a warrant to enter and conduct search and siezure.

Hmmm... the police could walk in without a warrent since the public are invited in to the store.

They could simply rent a movie, and then lay charges.

I don't think that this is a strong argument.

Same with the pay web site. The public are invited to join. The cop did, and paid for the membership.

heywood · 12-18-2005, 04:04 AM

There is a lot to this case so far that will win an appeal. This was unconstitutional, just like this whole case. First the prosecutor asked that the porn be removed, or he faced a revoked bail hearing. Chris complied, and they revoked the bail anyway. It's very clear they are trying to run Chris out of money, so he'll stop fighting this.

completely ridiculous. If you think this was wrong, vote on that applet on the page. This may influence local opinion about the case.

12-17-2005, 07:00 AM	#1
OldSchoolJim Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 3,117	Chris Wilson is in deep shit with these backwards ass florida judges... http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.d...NEWS/512170398 Bail revoked...and just reading the article i feel like i am back in time..... This is bad times folks.....

12-17-2005, 07:07 AM	#2
adultchica Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: usa Posts: 5,141	OK, now that is fucked up just like the name of his site..and i'm not trying to be funny. That is really just about the saddest thing ever. I wonder what is on the videos they think are so "obscene" __________________

12-17-2005, 07:17 AM	#5
Harmon ( ͡ʘ╭͜ʖ╮͡ʘ) Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 20,010	The judge told him to stop running the site until the case was heard. He did not comply. Now he is in jail... I don't quite understand what people do not get? It was a simple request, and not that outlandish in my honest opinion __________________ [email protected]

12-17-2005, 07:40 AM	#9
Paul Waters Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Toronto, Ontario Posts: 4,402	Did I miss the news story about Bush suspending the constitution? __________________ Paul

12-17-2005, 07:50 AM	#12
Harmon ( ͡ʘ╭͜ʖ╮͡ʘ) Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 20,010	And again... I AM NOT siding with the bible thumpers that had him arrested in the first place. I am on Chris' side all the way. I think that fact that the charges were brought against him in the first place was ridiculous __________________ [email protected]

12-17-2005, 07:09 AM	#3
Fucksakes Shit... Fuck! What the Hell? Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 7,567	I feel like I read this before, wonder where?

12-17-2005, 07:15 AM	#4
Manowar jellyfish Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 71,528	www.freechris.org www.freechris.org www.freechris.org www.freechris.org www.freechris.org www.freechris.org

12-17-2005, 07:19 AM	#7
dissipate The Dirty Frenchman Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Lost Angeles Posts: 8,904	That whole case is a crock of bullshit.

12-17-2005, 07:49 AM	#11
rafe43119 Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Columbus Posts: 281	wow, that poor guy. This judge has lost his cookies but then again we have had several years of the religious right quietly getting its people on the bench, local school boards, state houses, federal goverment and anywhere else they can weasel their way in. More and more of this is going to happen so long as one powerful group can force its morality on the population and the forces to oppose their extremism are outmanned and out financed and to many people continue to vote for folks who cowtown to the religious right. Sigh, its a new century but we have moved backwards instead of forwards.

12-17-2005, 07:51 AM	#13
Fred Quimby Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 5,430	So the judge has a vision impairment and he won't remove himself from the case? __________________

12-17-2005, 08:45 AM	#16
Biggy2 Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 1,821	"First, they filed a motion to disqualify Judge J. Dale Durrance from presiding over the case, claiming that Durrance suffers from extreme visual impairment. "Defendant Wilson believes that he cannot obtain a fair hearing and/or trial before Judge Durrance as a result of the Judge's visual impairment, which Defendant Wilson fears will prevent Judge Durrance from fully and fairly evaluating the allegedly obscene materials in according with the appropriate legal standards," the motion said. Judge Durrance denied that motion." -------------------------------------- I am not a lawyer, but I don't know if that was the smartest way to start it off by questioning whether the judge could see. Unless his vision was truly that impaired, I think its a poor move in trying to win the judge over. Later in the article, it didn't mention he had difficulty watching the clips on a laptop in front of him.. did they really expect the judge to go "you're right, i can't see." I would've brought up some of the other points first, like the fact they didn't have a warrant on the pictures acquired. To me it would make sense to hit the strongest argument first, then chip away with some not so strong points (like the vision argument) to shake the confidence of the case... To me it seems like they just pissed off the judge from the start. Don't get me wrong, I don't think its right to revoke the bail without the alleged obscene material being reviewed. Ultimately, I do think they will win an appeal, but I wouldn't be happy if those were my lawyers.

12-17-2005, 08:56 AM	#19
Redrob Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks. Posts: 4,791	The Bushie pollsters wanted the pict of dead soldiers down because of Bush's falling ratings and increasing unpopularity of the war. I'd bet the Sheriff or somebody in the Polk County was tipped off by the administration to the existance of the website and told to go get them. The news article states he was never told to stop displaying the content on his servers and the content has not been found to be obscene. If you can, donate $10 to Chris through Paypal at the Free Chris Website

12-17-2005, 08:58 AM	#20
Harmon ( ͡ʘ╭͜ʖ╮͡ʘ) Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 20,010	Here is a better and more trusted local source (The Ledger is a holy rolling Polk County publication...) http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2...16/134268.html However, on Friday at a bail revocation hearing, Polk County Judge J. Dale Durrance revoked that bond and had Wilson placed behind bars for violating the terms of his release. He is accused of continuing to operate the web site after moving out of Polk County. __________________ [email protected]

12-17-2005, 08:58 AM	#21
NickPapageorgio Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NC Posts: 8,323	"A story in The New York Times on Friday claimed that Bush secretly signed an order authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans who were communicating with individuals overseas to determine if they had terrorist ties." Pffft...what fucking constitution? __________________

12-17-2005, 08:59 AM	#22
NickPapageorgio Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NC Posts: 8,323	Any of you posting in this thread been communicating oversees? __________________

12-17-2005, 09:04 AM	#23
devilspost Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Tampa yomebe -at- hotmail Posts: 3,980	You cant buy that kind of publicity, he will get name recognition from this. He dont need no fucking dontations. __________________ Brothels and Escorts Worldwide.

12-17-2005, 10:10 AM	#27
CDSmith Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: My network is hosted at TECHIEMEDIA.net ...Wait, you meant where am I located at? Oh... okay, I'm in Winnipeg, Canada. Oops. :) Posts: 51,460	With respect to the warrant, or lack thereof, I know of no community where police are required to obtain one prior to entering a website.... which is a shame, not to mention a gross unfair hole in the process. Since for the webmaster, our place of business actually IS our websites, I see it as not unreasonable that cops should have to obtain a warrant prior to entering said business just as they would with any other type of business. If this fellow Chris ran an adult movie rental/sales shop they would need a warrant to enter and conduct search and siezure. And, for that judge to not allow the expert for the defence to testify speaks volumes. Looks like they have a pretty strong case for winning on appeal, in a hgher coart. __________________ *Promote Wildmatch, ImLive, Sexier.com, and more!!* ALWAYS THE HIGHEST PAYOUTS: Big Bux/ImLive SIGNUP ON NOW!!! Put some PUSSYCA$H in your pocket. ICQ me at: 31024634

12-17-2005, 10:16 AM	#28
JFK FUBAR the ORIGINATOR Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: FUBARLAND Posts: 67,374	Best of luck to him __________________ FUBAR Webmasters - The FUBAR Times - FUBAR Webmasters Mobile - FUBARTV.XXX For promo opps contact jfk at fubarwebmasters dot com

12-18-2005, 04:04 AM	#31
heywood So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Wilsonville, Oregon Posts: 468	There is a lot to this case so far that will win an appeal. This was unconstitutional, just like this whole case. First the prosecutor asked that the porn be removed, or he faced a revoked bail hearing. Chris complied, and they revoked the bail anyway. It's very clear they are trying to run Chris out of money, so he'll stop fighting this. completely ridiculous. If you think this was wrong, vote on that applet on the page. This may influence local opinion about the case.