In all the news reporting I heard/watched today there was only one voice of reason, and it came from a 10 year old Canadian child – whose father died in the 9/11 attacks. The child asked his mother why there was no trial. Great question, but it was totally ignored. I was surprised it even made it on-air. In subtraction to this, there was no mention of what criminal charges were laid against Osama, or his accomplices. There was no mention that the FBI never even laid charges against Osama. There was no mention of all the mistakes and investigative inconclusiveness in the 9/11 reporting. Just a big parade of rhetoric.

The USA is the most proud nation I can think of. So proud that many Americans are offended when another country does not accept the USA’s interpretation of good politics. The USA has a fantastic Constitution, whereby the land is ruled by law and not men. Fair and just at it’s very core. Each state is sovereign in the union and they’re free to make laws that do not infringe upon the rights of others, as per the Constitution.

WAIT! That’s not at ALL what we know the USA to be like. They invade other countries after the dictators they push into power fail to follow the status quo, for obviously bull**** reasons that don’t matter in the long run because they never leave – regardless of mission success or fail. The US imposes its military might all over the world – all in the name of liberation, freedom, or defence of their borders – but they do not adhere to the rules by which they want the other countries to operate and they mass-murder hundreds of thousands of non-combatants in the process.

Why is this relevant? The rule of law puts the law in front of the emotions, power or influence of any man or group of men. – Man, in this context simply means human. – The rule of law levels the playing field so that no matter where a person originates; no matter a person’s finance; no matter that person’s influence; that person is granted the same rights and freedoms as any other man.  What is the point of laws if a specific group of men are exempt from them? And if there are exemptions – who has the power, right or authority to make such exemptions? How did they get that power? If one man can have his human rights taken away, then so can yours be taken away. If it is OK to murder Osama for crimes he is assumed to have committed, because he was hard to find, then it is ok to murder anyone else, including you.

Without the rule of law we have anarchy. This is where humans are supposed to be separate from the animals. Our ability to create complex social structures, instead of survival of the fittest, which is what the US is doing. The US the fittest and they’re imposing their will while we watch, while the middle-east is bombed into the stone-age. Who do you think the military machine will turn against when the middle-east is crushed?

Osama is dead – officially. That’s the news. Celebrating the death of a man, and the justification for his murder by soldiers, on another nation’s land, without permission/clearance/knowledge, is disgusting. I am ashamed to be part of a society that celebrates such barbaric ideals right in the face of law, democracy and human rights.

“I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.”

- Martin Luther King Jr.

In case I have not made my point clear: Had Osama been killed in a fire-fight as the soldiers attempted to arrest him, that’s an expected possibility of war. Had the media reported that, without celebration, then that’s news. However, the news reporters and the people interviewed, all celebrated that a man was intentionally killed, and only a 10 year old kid saw how that goes against everything we stand for and teach.

Claims on behalf of authorities that naked body scanner images are immediately destroyed after passengers pass through new x-ray backscatter devices have been proven fraudulent after it was revealed that naked images of Indian film star Shahrukh Khan were printed out and circulated by airport staff at Heathrow in London.

UK Transport Secretary Lord Adonis said last week that the images produced by the scanners were deleted “immediately” and airport staff carrying out the procedure are fully trained and supervised.

“It is very important to stress that the images which are captured by body scanners are immediately deleted after the passenger has gone through the body scanner,” Adonis told the London Evening Standard.

Adonis was forced to address privacy concerns following reports that the images produced by the scanners broke child pornography laws in the UK. When the scanners were first introduced, it was also speculated that images of famous people would be ripe for abuse as the pictures produced by the devices make genitals “eerily visible” according to journalists who have investigated trials of the technology.

However, the Transport Secretary’s assurances were demolished after it was revealed on the BBC’s Jonathan Ross show Friday that Indian actor Shahrukh Khan had passed through a body scan and later had the image of his naked body printed out and circulated by Heathrow security staff.

“I was in London recently going through the airport and these new machines have come up, the body scans. You’ve got to see them. It makes you embarrassed – if you’re not well endowed,” said Khan, referring to how the scans produce clear images of a person’s genitals.

“You walk into the machine and everything – the whole outline of your body – comes out,” he said.

“I was a little scared. Something happens [inside the scans], and I came out. Then I saw these girls – they had these printouts. I looked at them. I thought they were some forms you had to fill. I said ‘give them to me’ – and you could see everything inside. So I autographed them for them,” stated Khan.

The story was carried by Yahoo News under the headline “Shah Rukh signs off sexy body-scan printouts at Heathrow”.

Khan’s reference to “girls” with printouts of his naked body scan can only refer to female airport security staff responsible for processing the images produced by the scanners, “professionals” who are supposed to instantly delete the images, according to Lord Adonis.

The revelation that airport security staff are completely abusing any notion of the professionalism promised by authorities by printing out and circulating images of naked body scans should set alarm bells ringing, especially in light of the fact that such images of minors break child pornography laws. British authorities have made it mandatory for travelers to submit to the naked body scanners when asked and have overturned previous rules that prevented under 18’s from passing through the devices.

Within days of the devices being introduced at Heathrow, staff have abused their professionalism and printed out naked scans of a famous actor for their own titillation.

We were promised all along that the body scanners “increased privacy” because they were only accessible to a single staff member who had no personal contact with the passenger taking the scan, in addition to the assurance that the images could not be saved and were instantly deleted. It in fact turns out that airport staff have been saving, printing and circulating naked body scans in complete violation of these supposed guarantees.

Furthermore, we were told that the identity of the person undergoing the virtual strip search would also be kept private. The fact that Heathrow employees must have known that the actor was about to take the body scan in order to print out copies of the image also proves this claim to be a total fallacy.

The abuse of the naked body scan images in this instance is a total violation of every data protection law in the UK. Far from treating the story in a comical manner, Khan should be filing a very expensive lawsuit and preparing for a successful and lucrative outcome.

In the meantime, the revelation that the naked body scanner images are being freely printed out and circulated by airport security staff should prove to be the death knell for plans on behalf of governments worldwide to institute the scanners on a widespread basis.

The Mainstream, Corporately Owned Media is Anything but Honest: Television, also, Slyly Promotes War and False Paradigms.

	30,000 scientists signed onto a lawsuit, charging Al Gore with fraud, for his bogus video, “An Inconvenient Truth,” that so widely promoted the man-made (anthropogenic) global warming myth.

The Twentieth Century Fox Corporation is not unique in spreading propaganda, but they are rare in admitting it. Rupert Murdoch, himself in 2003, admitted that his Fox company helped to sell George W. Bush’s Iraqi-Afghani wars to the American public.

What a guy! Murdoch helped to sell wars that have made America a psychotic outlaw in the family of civilized nations, and destroyed her economy in the process.

Fox, also, promoted the man-made global warming scam with its popular TV shows the Simpsons, Family Guy, King of the Hill, and Prison Break. Dana Walden, Fox chairman said, “The most powerful way we could communicate the commitment on behalf of our company, was to change the practices within production, as well as work in a message about global warming, about environmental changes, about empowering people to take responsibilities.”

“Empowering people to take responsibilities” is Walden’s double-speak for weakening people with new carbon taxes, all going to the International Banking Cartel’s World Bank, supposedly in order to save and clean up our environment. The truth of the manner is an entirely different story: None of the taxes we will pay to the World Bank will be used to cleanup our environment; all such money – that is not pocketed – will be used to help eliminate national soveresignties, and capture us all in a one-world government.

Moreover, the good chairman’s desire for responsibility has never extended to his own responsibility of airing some hidden news: 30,000 scientists signed onto a lawsuit, charging Al Gore with fraud, for his bogus video, “An Inconvenient Truth,” that so widely promoted the man-made (anthropogenic) global warming myth.

You might, also, be interested in knowing that 9,000 of those scientists suing Mr. Gore hold PhDs, who might not know that the global warming scam is meant to wrench carbon-taxes from us and cut our domestic production of consumer goods and foodstuffs, the very things we need for an economic recovery, or even for bare survival.

Additionally, a British court case found that Gore’s propaganda film had nine significant errors; but rather than try to refute those findings, Gore and the American press have kept the silence of the guilty.

But in spite of the billions of dollars worth of media air and space spent pushing the man-made global warming myth, their propaganda is no longer working. A Rasmussen poll, of May 2009, showed that only 34% of those polled still bought the big lies of man-made global warming, now called “climate change,” as it is becoming increasingly obvious our world is no longer warming.

And there are honest scientific organizations that are not afraid to report the truth as they see it. The Journal of Geophysical Research has stated, “Little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity.”

The Journal additionally reported, “Our paper confirms what many scientists already know: which is that no scientific justifications exists for emissions regulations, and that, irrespective of the severity of the cuts proposed, the emissions trading scheme will exert no measurable effect on future climate.”

And yet, even today, our President Obama still talks of the dire need to curb global warming, by decreasing our standard of living, and increasing our taxes, all made to seem logical by the talking heads of television. And once Obama signs the Copenhagen Climate Treaty, he will have committed our once sovereign country to a world dictatorship, which will not only control, but own the economies of Earth.

But in a world of national-puppet leaders shines a noble man: Czech President Vaslav Klaus said, “They do not want to reveal their true [global warming] plans and ambitions to stop economic development and return mankind several centuries back.”

The Earth was warming for a period, due to sun cycles, not from Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs). The planet Mars, 1.5 times further away from the Sun than our Earth, had melting ice caps during the same period as our warming, but not from SUVs, I presume.

Even Congress must know how intellectually indefensible are Obama’s anthropogenic global warming proclamations, due to their own 2009 US Senate Report of more than 700 dissenting scientists on man-made global warming. And while perhaps not many of those scientists can pin-point what is driving the global warming scam, they know it’s not science.

All media driven eco-fads – over population, peak oil, resource depletion, and global warming – interestingly, all promote one solution: massive controls over national economies and the economic lives of us all. One could say that today’s environmental fear-mongering was unfocused from our real environmental problems on to fictitious ones, to gain more economic control over our lives, and be absolutely correct. The global warming/climate change/CO2 scare tactics are simply attacks on our prosperity and freedoms. Are there not already enough attacks on our prosperity and freedoms to allow any more?

When I heard that I naturally said “Bull sh¡t!” It is probably fresh in everyone’s mind that the United States medical workers are being forced to take the vaccinations, and if they refuse they’re told to sign a waiver which unknowingly doubles as their resignation, or they’re straight-up fired. This is not my opinion, this is documented fact – look it up. In fact, let that be a blanket statement throughout this article – look up whatever you want because everything I am putting in here has a source (whether it be internet, newspaper, television, radio or actual phone calls I personally made. Try that one sometime.)

The Public Health Agency of Canada states in their Canadian National Report on Immunization, 1996, the following:

“Immunization is not mandatory in Canada; it cannot be made mandatory because of the Canadian Constitution. Only three provinces have legislation or regulations under their health-protection acts to require proof of immunization for school entrance.”

and

“It must be emphasized that, in these three provinces, exceptions are permitted for medical or religious grounds and reasons of conscience; legislation and regulations must not be interpreted to imply compulsory immunization.”

So with that in mind I acquired a copy of the Constitution Act of 1982. It guarantees, in Part 1, the following:

“Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Fundamental Freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.”

You can clearly see that the constitution does indeed back up the preceding statement regarding the inability to force a vaccination/drug onto any person within the borders of Canada. And should anyone feel that the constitution is being ignored they can then refer to this item:

“24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been in- fringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.”

So as it stands right now I have contacted the school with this information and I await their response. I have used email because that is a legal communication, and that means I will likely not get a reply. When I have more to add, I will.

Keep in mind that a violation of ONE person’s rights if a violation of EVERYone’s rights.

I am writing about the Medical Program at School Name in Town. I have what I feel is an important question regarding my personal health and safety and as such I wish to remain anonymous for the time being. I hope that request does not interfere with the addressing of my concerns.

I have been informed that students are required to produce immunization records that are up to date as well as required to take the seasonal flu vaccine as well as the H1N1 vaccine, and students who do not comply with this will not be able to continue their studies. My concern is that I will not vaccinate myself and I will not exit the school willingly.

I have done some preliminary research into this and I am at a point where I feel it is time to contact the school directly with my concern. What I am looking for with this letter is:

i.) Guidance
a.) If I have reached the wrong person/department for this matter, please direct me to the correct person/department.

ii.) Solution(s)
a.) If I have reached the right person/department then I can, and will, provide my current immunization records, but if those records are not up to date I will not update them any further, and I respectfully request the legal document that dictates I must do so.
b.) If I have reached the right person/department and the above requested legal document is available then there is another document, which I do not know it’s official name, that I would also respectfully request be sent to me. For lack of a proper term I am referring to this document as the Statement of Conscious or Religious Belief Affidavit, as it compares to the Immunization of School Pupils Act, 1990.

Research and Documentation that stands behind my point of view include the following:
a.) The Public Health Agency of Canada
b.) The Canadian Constitution.
c.) The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
d.) The Health Care Consent Act.
e.) The Quarantine Act.

The Public Health Agency of Canada states in their Canadian National Report on Immunization, 1996, the following:

“Immunization is not mandatory in Canada; it cannot be made mandatory because of the Canadian Constitution. Only three provinces have legislation or regulations under their health-protection acts to require proof of immunization for school entrance.”

and,
“It must be emphasized that, in these three provinces, exceptions are permitted for medical or religious grounds and reasons of conscience; legislation and regulations must not be interpreted to imply compulsory immunization.”

So with that in mind I acquired a copy of the Constitution Act of 1982. It guarantees, in Part 1, the following:

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Fundamental Freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

It clearly states that every Canadian is guaranteed the freedom and right to peaceably think and do as they wish. The Constitution also states the following, with regard to the infringement or refusal of freedoms, and rights:

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been in- fringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

Recently certain media outlets have reported on the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, specifically making reference to the Emergency Treatment without Consent: capable and incapable persons. This act states:

Emergency treatment without consent: incapable person
(2) Despite section 10, a treatment may be administered without consent to a person who is incapable with respect to the
(a) there is an emergency; and
(b) the delay required to obtain a consent or refusal on the person’s behalf will prolong the suffering that the person is apparently experiencing or will put the person at risk of sustaining serious bodily harm. 1996, c. 2, Sched. A, s. 25 (2).

Emergency treatment without consent: capable person
(3) Despite section 10, a treatment may be administered without consent to a person who is apparently capable with respect to the treatment, if, in the opinion of the health practitioner proposing the treatment,
(a) there is an emergency;
(b) the communication required in order for the person to give or refuse consent to the treatment cannot take place because of a language barrier or because the person has a disability that prevents the communication from taking place;
(c) steps that are reasonable in the circumstances have been taken to find a practical means of enabling the communication to take place, but no such means has been found;
(d) the delay required to find a practical means of enabling the communication to take place will prolong the suffering that the person is apparently experiencing or will put the person at risk of sustaining serious bodily harm; and
(e) there is no reason to believe that the person does not want the treatment. 1996, c. 2, Sched. A, s. 25 (3).

This act does not provide a circumstance whereby School Name can, within the scope of the Canadian Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Health Care Consent Act, justify the forcible immunization of a Conscious, Capable person who is not suffering, is not at risk of sustaining bodily harm, does not want the treatment and can clearly communicate with the faculty and health care personnel.

The Quarantine Act of Canada, 2005, dictates that the Minister of Health must make several designations (medical practitioners, quarantine operators, quarantine locations etc) before a conveyance or traveller can be detained and/or treated. The interpretation of the terminology within the act clearly define conveyance and traveler to mean entry/exit across Canadian borders. The reason I mention this act is even this act does not give the unjust powers of forced inoculation.

I now come back to my original purpose: I am looking for direction to the correct person/department to properly handle my concerns OR a legal document that dictates that I must vaccinate myself or be barred access to the school, along with a secondary document that I can submit as my conscious and legal exemption from the vaccination(s) and maintain my good standing student status.

Thank you for reading and taking the time to address my concerns.
Sincerely,
Anonymous Student.

My birth date you have on my social insurance card, and it is on all the income tax forms I’ve filed for the past 30 years. It is on my health insurance card, my driver’s license, on the last eight goddamn passports I’ve had, on all those stupid customs declaration forms I’ve had to fill out before being allowed off the planes over the last 30 years, and all those insufferable census forms that are done at election times.

Would somebody please take note, once and for all, that my mother’ s name is Maryanne, my father’s name is Robert and I’d be absolutely astounded if that ever changed between now and when I die!!!!!!
SHIT!

I apologize, Mr. Minister. I’m really pissed off this morning.
Between you an’ me, I’ve had enough of this! You send the application to my house, then you ask me for my frickin’ address.
What is going on? You have a gang of Neanderthals assholes workin’ there!

Look at my damn picture. Do I look like Bin Laden? I don’t want to dig up Yasser Arafat, for cripes sakes. I just want to go and park my ass on a sandy beach.

And would someone please tell me, why would you give a care whether I plan on visiting a farm in the next 15 days? If I ever got the urge to do something weird to a chicken or a goat, believe you me, I’d sure as hell not want to tell anyone!

Well, I have to go now, ’cause I have to go to the other end of the city and get another frickin’ copy of my birth certificate, to the tune of $60 !!!
Would it be so complicated to have all the services in the same spot to assist in the issuance of a new passport the same day??

Nooooo, that’d be too easy and maybe make sense. You’d rather have us running all over the frickin’ place like chickens with our heads cut off, then find some asshole to confirm that it’s really me on the darn picture – you know, the one here we’re not allowed to smile?!

(What morons)

Hey, you know why we can’t smile? We’re totally pissed off!
Signed – An Irate Canadian Citizen.

P.S. Remember what I said above about the picture and getting someone to confirm that it’s me? Well, my family has been in this country since 1776 when one of my forefathers took up arms against the Americans. I have served in the military for something over 30 years and have had security clearances up the yingyang.
I was aide de camp to the lieutenant governor of our province for ten years and I have been doing volunteer work for the RCMP for about five years.

However, I have to get someone ‘important’ to verify who I am – you know, someone like my doctor WHO WAS BORN AND RAISED IN COMMUNIST CHINA!!!

I write this after hearing about the Tori Stafford case in Woodstock Ontario (Video Article here). Short version: An 8 year old girl willingly walked away from her school with a woman. Apparently that woman’s boyfriend killed Tori that same day, April 8th 2009. Absolutely disgusting and completely deserving of the death penalty.

This story leaves many parents obviously shaken, but more importantly worried about their own children and how they can help prevent this from happening again. Please comment on this article with what methods you employ to keep your kids safe. Here are some comments I’ve read from my friends own web-postings. It’s important to collect this information and distribute it to all parents because as we’ve just seen it is really that simple for major harm to happen to a child.

A.M.
“I tell my ___ not to yell help but fire! Because stupid f__ks wont look when someone yells help cause they don’t want to get involved but they’ll look at a fire.“

C.P.
“When my ___ were younger I told them to never go with ANYONE, even their aunts and uncles unless I told them to. If ANYONE (even friends and family) tell them to go with them, without me telling them to, they had to ask them what the secret password was.

We made up a password, that they would remember, and if I sent anyone for them I would tell it to them. That’s how they would know it’s ok to go with them. Once that password was used by someone, we thought up a new one.

And I told them that even if someone said I was hurt or in the hospital, don’t go with them. The only person exempt from the password was my mom. (just in case I was injured so bad I couldn’t speak).”

One tactic that I read about from a police officer was that if the child is on a bicycle DO NOT get off it. Hold onto that bike and bike away. If you’re grabbed, hang onto that bike because it is really hard to steal a child and the bike at the same time.

I like these ideas.  I taught my children to push their thumbs into their attacker’s eyeballs, to bite them repeatedly, anywhere and to fight for their lives; screaming “stranger,” “you’re not my daddy/mommy,” “fire” the whole time, kicking and generally making themselves difficult to steal or sneak away.  We go through it every time I think they’ll be out of my reach or go into crowded public areas. I even have them practice biting and thumb-poking (on me) so they can actually feel it and not be surprised if it ever happens.

An interesting note about the eye poking: The eyes are like balls of jelly and when you poke them they feel strange but they don’t burst. If an eye poke goes too far the eyeball will be forced out of it’s socket. Sounds gross and it is, and the reason I type this is because should this ever happen the surprise of the result can immobilize the child who should be running now that the attacker is blinded.

When I was little my mom would worry so much about me that I am surprised she didn’t have monthly heart attacks. I would try to reassure her by telling her that I would just kick the attacker in the ding-ding (my way of saying man’s privates). One day at around 13 I went out after midnight and stole a bike. I was riding the stolen bike around when a compact car full of undesirable people spotted me. I dodged them 3 times before they finally located me. One of them was on foot while the others drove. I pedaled that bike as fast as I could. I headed for an place I thought I could lose them, but having never been there at night I did not realize the gate would be closed. I was cornered. I knew it and so did they.

I tried to ride around them but 4 older teens or young men were too much for me on the bike. I had no idea what to do, no training, no prior instructions – nothing. They pretended to be off duty police who knew that I had stolen the bike. I didn’t buy the police bit but I remember wondering how they knew I stole the bike. They told me to put the bike into the hatchback and they would take me to the station. I played along, put the bike in the back and took off running. My hope was that had what they wanted and I would not be chased. Luckily for me they did not chase me.

I always told my mom I would kick them in the privates, but that never happened. I didn’t even think of it, and to be honest I am glad I didn’t because as a man I have been kicked there; I have seen others kicked there and I can say from experience that it will not stop an assailant. In every instance where a man has been kicked in the groin in a violent encounter it either didn’t do enough or it made the man angrier. Perhaps it is revenge or some other instinct.

A groin kick does not immobilize so it is a wasted effort.

Looking back at my experience I can’t help but realize a few things. Talking about what you’re going to do is not enough. Practicing it is very important and that’s why I practice the things I tell my children. They know that if they kick or punch me it will do nothing to stop me, and I am not a large person. They know that a bite will take my attention away and place it onto the bite. They know an eye poke will make me drop them. They know because they’ve done it already.

The FBI has recently adopted a novel investigative technique: posting hyperlinks that purport to be illegal videos of minors having sex, and then raiding the homes of anyone willing to click on them.

Undercover FBI agents used this hyperlink-enticement technique, which directed Internet users to a clandestine government server, to stage armed raids of homes in Pennsylvania, New York, and Nevada last year. The supposed video files actually were gibberish and contained no illegal images.

A CNET News.com review of legal documents shows that courts have approved of this technique, even though it raises questions about entrapment, the problems of identifying who’s using an open wireless connection–and whether anyone who clicks on a FBI link that contains no child pornography should be automatically subject to a dawn raid by federal police.

Roderick Vosburgh, a doctoral student at Temple University who also taught history at La Salle University, was raided at home in February 2007 after he allegedly clicked on the FBI’s hyperlink. Federal agents knocked on the door around 7 a.m., falsely claiming they wanted to talk to Vosburgh about his car. Once he opened the door, they threw him to the ground outside his house and handcuffed him.

Vosburgh was charged with violating federal law, which criminalizes “attempts” to download child pornography with up to 10 years in prison. Last November, a jury found Vosburgh guilty on that count, and a sentencing hearing is scheduled for April 22, at which point Vosburgh could face three to four years in prison.

The implications of the FBI’s hyperlink-enticement technique are sweeping. Using the same logic and legal arguments, federal agents could send unsolicited e-mail messages to millions of Americans advertising illegal narcotics or child pornography–and raid people who click on the links embedded in the spam messages. The bureau could register the “unlawfulimages.com” domain name and prosecute intentional visitors. And so on.

“The evidence was insufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Mr. Vosburgh specifically intended to download child pornography, a necessary element of any ‘attempt’ offense,” Vosburgh’s attorney, Anna Durbin of Ardmore, Penn., wrote in a court filing that is attempting to overturn the jury verdict before her client is sentenced.

In a telephone conversation on Wednesday, Durbin added: “I thought it was scary that they could do this. This whole idea that the FBI can put a honeypot out there to attract people is kind of sad. It seems to me that they’ve brought a lot of cases without having to stoop to this.”

Durbin did not want to be interviewed more extensively about the case because it is still pending; she’s waiting for U.S. District Judge Timothy Savage to rule on her motion. Unless he agrees with her and overturns the jury verdict, Vosburgh–who has no prior criminal record–will be required to register as a sex offender for 15 years and will be effectively barred from continuing his work as a college instructor after his prison sentence ends.

How the hyperlink sting operation worked The government’s hyperlink sting operation worked like this: FBI Special Agent Wade Luders disseminated links to the supposedly illicit porn on an online discussion forum called Ranchi, which Luders believed was frequented by people who traded underage images. One server allegedly associated with the Ranchi forum was rangate.da.ru, which is now offline with a message attributing the closure to “non-ethical” activity.

In October 2006, Luders posted a number of links purporting to point to videos of child pornography, and then followed up with a second, supposedly correct link 40 minutes later. All the links pointed to, according to a bureau affidavit, a “covert FBI computer in San Jose, California, and the file located therein was encrypted and non-pornographic.”

more at http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9899151-38.html?tag=nefd.lede