Author Topic: Daniel Austin, ATL Scn arrested by FBI-led Safe Child Task Force Aug 31  (Read 36054 times)

Offline skydog

  • Fly in the Ointment
  • Posts: 68



CATOOSA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

CALENDAR CALL: JURY TRIAL
March 4, 2013 09:00AM

For Judge: PRESIDING JUDGE

Party Name                          Case#                       Count Offense         Associated Parties

AUSTIN DANIEL JAMES         2012-SU-CR-745-           
 

1 COMPUTER PORNOGRAPHY
2 COMPUTER PORNOGRAPHY
3 CRIMINAL ATTEMPT TO COMMIT A FELONY -16-4-1
4 CRIMINAL ATTEMPT TO COMMIT A FELONY -16-4-1
5 CRIMINAL ATTEMPT TO COMMIT A FELONY -16-4-1
6 CRIMINAL ATTEMPT TO COMMIT A FELONY -16-4-1

(BO) ACE BONDING COMPANY
(AP) BAKER KAY
(AD) HINES MATTHEW C[/B]
http://www.lmjc.net/Catoosa%20Criminal%20A-L.pdf

Just a reminder of the charges:
[/quote]

Mary, it appears that the charges may have changed. Dan posted pond so his name appears on the docket with all the other criminal matters. He is one of several "Austins" that appeared that day. The case was probably on some type of pre trial docket where the prosecutor and defendant discuss whether the case can be resolved by a plea or require a trial. Judging by the number of cases, this matter could go on for quite some time. If you look at the docket, it is twenty pages long and covers only half the alphabet. I don't know how the procedure works in GA but it appears to be a felony docket as most of the charges of other defendants appear to be fairly serious. Generally speaking, felony trials require more of the courts time.

The docket reflects that he is now charged with four counts of attempt to violate the pornography statute. The criminal law is very much like horseshoes and hand grenades where close really does count. The charge of attempt is only one of several theories of liability under which a person may be guilty of a crime. The acts committed must demonstrate an intent to commit a specific crime and constitute a substantial step towards the commission of that crime. Code of Georgia § 16-4-1.

That attempted crime is Code of Georgia § 16-12-100.2. The title of that statute (computer generated docket( is Child Pornography but the statute itself criminalizes a variety of conduct The applicable subsections appear to be:

(d)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person intentionally or willfully to utilize a computer on-line service or Internet service, including but not limited to a local bulletin board service, Internet chat room, e-mail, on-line messaging service, or other electronic device, to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice, or attempt to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice a child or another person believed by such person to be a child to commit any illegal act described in Code Section 16-6-2, relating to the offense of sodomy or aggravated sodomy; Code Section 16-6-4, relating to the offense of child molestation or aggravated child molestation; Code Section 16-6-5, relating to the offense of enticing a child for indecent purposes; or Code Section 16-6-8, relating to the offense of public indecency or to engage in any conduct that by its nature is an unlawful sexual offense against a child.
(2)Any person who violates paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be guilty of a felony and, upon
conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years and by a fine of not more than $25,000.00; provided, however, that, if at the time of the offense the victim was 14 or 15 years of age and the defendant was no more than three years older than the victim, then the defendant shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature; and

(e)(1)A person commits the offense of obscene Internet contact with a child if he or she has contact with someone he or she knows to be a child or with someone he or she believes to be a child via a computer on-line service or Internet service, including but not limited to a local bulletin board service, Internet chat room, e-mail, or on-line messaging service, and the contact involves any matter containing explicit verbal descriptions or narrative accounts of sexually explicit nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse that is intended to arouse or satisfy the sexual desire of either the child or the person, provided that no conviction shall be had for a violation of this subsection on the unsupported testimony of a child.
(2) Any person who violates paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years or by a fine of not more than $10,000.00; provided, however, that, if at the time of the offense the victim was 14 or 15 years of age and the defendant was no more than three years older than the victim, then the defendant shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

Because he is charge with attempt, the penalties reflected above are as follows (Code of Georgia § 15-4-6(b)):

A person convicted of the offense of criminal attempt to commit a felony, other than a felony punishable by death or life imprisonment, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than one-half the maximum period of time for which he or she could have been sentenced if he or she had been convicted of the crime attempted, by one-half the maximum fine to which he or she could have been subjected if he or she had been convicted of the crime attempted, or both

These charges may change as the case progresses. In any event, the charges lodged initially were far more serious than those he is facing now.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2013, 07:05 by skydog »

Offline Mary_McConnell

  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 2,861
    • Formerly Fooled Finally Free of The Deceptive Cult Called Scientology
Thanks, skydog. So you are saying that the original charges are more severe, but from what I can tell, it seems that they added counts and, despite taking away the attempted molestation charges  they added an additional Computer Pornography And Child Exploitation Act Of 1999 charge
Georgia Code - Crimes and Offenses - Title 16, Section 16-12-100.2
http://law.onecle.com/georgia/16/16-12-100.2.html

They added:

On the attempted felony charges, they added, these are felony RICO charges:
Georgia Code - Crimes and Offenses - Title 16, Section 16-14-1
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the 'Georgia RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act.'

http://law.onecle.com/georgia/16/16-14-1.html

Quote
Jail 24 Hour Report CATOOSA COUNTY S. O.
24 hour period for the day of GA0230000
October 21, 2012
Report run on: October 22, 2012 12:10 AM
Austin, Daniel James
Warrants for
Criminal Attempt Child Molestation
Criminal Attempt Child Molestation
Criminal Attempt Aggravated Child Molestation
Criminal Attempt Aggravated Child Molestation
Computer Pornography And Child Exploitation Act Of 1999


are more severe than these that were handed down in Feb 2013 for the March 4, 2013 scheduled hearing:

Quote
02/15/2013 9:33 am
Party Name Case# Count Offense Associated Parties
CATOOSA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CALENDAR CALL: JURY TRIAL
March 4, 2013 09:00AM

AUSTIN DANIEL JAMES
2012-SU-CR-745-
For Judge: PRESIDING JUDGE
CATOOSA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CALENDAR CALL: JURY TRIAL

1 COMPUTER PORNOGRAPHY
2 COMPUTER PORNOGRAPHY
3 CRIMINAL ATTEMPT TO COMMIT A FELONY -16-4-1
4 CRIMINAL ATTEMPT TO COMMIT A FELONY -16-4-1
5 CRIMINAL ATTEMPT TO COMMIT A FELONY -16-4-1
6 CRIMINAL ATTEMPT TO COMMIT A FELONY -16-4-1


(BO) ACE BONDING COMPANY
(AP) BAKER KAY
(AD) HINES MATTHEW


2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 4 - CRIMINAL ATTEMPT, CONSPIRACY, AND SOLICITATION
§ 16-4-6 - Penalties for criminal attempt

|
O.C.G.A. 16-4-6 (2010)

16-4-6. Penalties for criminal attempt

(a) A person convicted of the offense of criminal attempt to commit a crime punishable by death or by life imprisonment shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than 30 years.

(b) A person convicted of the offense of criminal attempt to commit a felony, other than a felony punishable by death or life imprisonment, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than one-half the maximum period of time for which he or she could have been sentenced if he or she had been convicted of the crime attempted, by one-half the maximum fine to which he or she could have been subjected if he or she had been convicted of the crime attempted, or both.
http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-4/16-4-6/
Quote

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 6 - SEXUAL OFFENSES
§ 16-6-4 - Child molestation; aggravated child molestation
O.C.G.A. 16-6-4 (2010)
16-6-4. Child molestation; aggravated child molestation

(a) A person commits the offense of child molestation when such person:

(1) Does any immoral or indecent act to or in the presence of or with any child under the age of 16 years with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the person; or

(2) By means of an electronic device, transmits images of a person engaging in, inducing, or otherwise participating in any immoral or indecent act to a child under the age of 16 years with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the person.

(b) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, a person convicted of a first offense of child molestation shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years and shall be subject to the sentencing and punishment provisions of Code Sections 17-10-6.2 and 17-10-7. Upon a defendant being incarcerated on a conviction for a first offense, the Department of Corrections shall provide counseling to such defendant. Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, upon a second or subsequent conviction of an offense of child molestation, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than ten years nor more than 30 years or by imprisonment for life and shall be subject to the sentencing and punishment provisions of Code Sections 17-10-6.2 and 17-10-7; provided, however, that prior to trial, a defendant shall be given notice, in writing, that the state intends to seek a punishment of life imprisonment.

(2) If the victim is at least 14 but less than 16 years of age and the person convicted of child molestation is 18 years of age or younger and is no more than four years older than the victim, such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall not be subject to the sentencing and punishment provisions of Code Section 17-10-6.2.

(c) A person commits the offense of aggravated child molestation when such person commits an offense of child molestation which act physically injures the child or involves an act of sodomy.

(d) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, a person convicted of the offense of aggravated child molestation shall be punished by imprisonment for life or by a split sentence that is a term of imprisonment for not less than 25 years and not exceeding life imprisonment, followed by probation for life, and shall be subject to the sentencing and punishment provisions of Code Sections 17-10-6.1 and 17-10-7.

(2) A person convicted of the offense of aggravated child molestation when:

(A) The victim is at least 13 but less than 16 years of age;

(B) The person convicted of aggravated child molestation is 18 years of age or younger and is no more than four years older than the victim; and

(C) The basis of the charge of aggravated child molestation involves an act of sodomy

shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall not be subject to the sentencing and punishment provisions of Code Section 17-10-6.1.

(e) A person shall be subject to prosecution in this state pursuant to Code Section 17-2-1 for any conduct made unlawful by paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of this Code section which the person engages in while:

(1) Either within or outside of this state if, by such conduct, the person commits a violation of paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of this Code section which involves a child who resides in this state; or

(2) Within this state if, by such conduct, the person commits a violation of paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of this Code section which involves a child who resides within or outside this state.
Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. Georgia may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Please check official sources.

http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-6/16-6-4/

 You wrote:

Quote

That attempted crime is Code of Georgia § 16-12-100.2. The title of that statute (computer generated docket( is Child Pornography but the statute itself criminalizes a variety of conduct The applicable subsections appear to be:
[..]
2)Any person who violates paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years and by a fine of not more than $25,000.00; provided, however, that, if at the time of the offense the victim was 14 or 15 years of age and the defendant was no more than three years older than the victim, then the defendant shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature; and

(e)(1)A person commits the offense of obscene Internet contact with a child if he or she has contact with someone he or she knows to be a child or with someone he or she believes to be a child via a computer on-line service or Internet service, including but not limited to a local bulletin board service, Internet chat room, e-mail, or on-line messaging service, and the contact involves any matter containing explicit verbal descriptions or narrative accounts of sexually explicit nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse that is intended to arouse or satisfy the sexual desire of either the child or the person, provided that no conviction shall be had for a violation of this subsection on the unsupported testimony of a child.

(2) Any person who violates paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years or by a fine of not more than $10,000.00; provided, however, that, if at the time of the offense the victim was 14 or 15 years of age and the defendant was no more than three years older than the victim, then the defendant shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.
http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/

16-12-100.2.
Quote
Georgia Code - Crimes and Offenses - Title 16, Section 16-12-100.2

(a) This Code section shall be known and may be cited as the 'Computer
Pornography and Child Exploitation Prevention Act of 1999.'

(b) As used in this Code section, the term:
(1) 'Child' means any person under the age of 16 years.
(2) 'Identifiable child' means a person:
(A) Who was a child at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified or whose image as a child was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the visual depiction; and
(B) Who is recognizable as an actual person by the person´s face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature or by electronic or scientific means as may be available.
The term shall not be construed to require proof of the actual identity of the child.
(3) 'Sadomasochistic abuse' has the same meaning as provided in Code Section 16-12-100.1.
(4) 'Sexual conduct' has the same meaning as provided in Code Section 16-12-100.1.
(5) 'Sexual excitement' has the same meaning as provided in Code Section 16-12-100.1.
(6) 'Sexually explicit nudity' has the same meaning as provided in Code Section 16-12-102.
(7) 'Visual depiction' means any image and includes undeveloped film and
video tape and data stored on computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image or which has been created, adapted, or modified to show an identifiable child engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

(c)(1) A person commits the offense of computer pornography if such person intentionally or willfully:
(A) Compiles, enters into, or transmits by means of computer;
(B) Makes, prints, publishes, or reproduces by other computerized means;
(C) Causes or allows to be entered into or transmitted by means of computer; or
(D) Buys, sells, receives, exchanges, or disseminates
any notice, statement, or advertisement, or any child´s name, telephone
number, place of residence, physical characteristics, or other descriptive or
identifying information for the purpose of offering or soliciting sexual conduct of or with an identifiable child or the visual depiction of such conduct.

(2) Any person convicted of violating paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000.00 and by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years.


(d)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person intentionally or willfully to utilize a
computer on-line service or Internet service, including but not limited to a local bulletin board service, Internet chat room, e-mail, or on-line messaging service to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice, or attempt to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice a child or another person believed by such person to be a child to commit any illegal act described in Code Section 16-6-2, relating to the offense of sodomy or aggravated sodomy; Code Section 16-6-4, relating to the offense of child molestation or aggravated child molestation; Code Section 16-6-5, relating to the offense of enticing a child for indecent purposes; or Code Section 16-6-8, relating to the offense of public indecency or to engage in any conduct that by
its nature is an unlawful sexual offense against a child.

(2) Any person who violates paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years and by a fine of not more than $25,000.00; provided, however, that, if at the time of the offense the victim was 14 or 15
http://law.onecle.com/georgia/16/16-12-100.2.html

I'm posting this for a visual look at before and after charges and what they mean and to try  and understand how the charges could now be less severe than before. Hope you have a moment to explain. Thank you.
I am a volunteer advocate for victims of the Narconon scam. I am a former scientologist. I post anonymously. Mary McConnell is my long time nom de plume. Feel free to contact me for assistance in righting the wrongs.

Offline skydog

  • Fly in the Ointment
  • Posts: 68
I haven't looked at GA procedure in particular so my analysis is of a general nature. An arrest is the procedural mechanism used to obtain jurisdiction over a defendant in a criminal matter. There are procedures that must be followed before an arrest is made as well after arrest which are designed to ensure that there is "probable cause" to believe the defendant has committed a crime.  The long and short of it is that the quantum of evidence necessary to arrest (and continue a prosecution) is not high. When a case is reached for trial, the state is going to look at the evidence and applicable statutes and decide what charges can be proved. Those charges may be different than the charges lodged at the time of arrest.

The pornography statute appears to be the correct charges as it specifically criminalizes the conduct as I understand it to be. From my reading of the statute, the prosecutor may not need to proceed under the separate "attempt" statute. (someone may be able to put a bug in his or her ear).

If the case goes to trial, the defendant should be entitled to a "bill of particulars" which sets out the manner the offense is alleged to have been committed and the specific statute alleged to have been violated. (EG "On Jan. 1, 2012, in the city of Atlanta, the defendant did use a computer to contact a person believed to be under the age of 16 with the intent to entice such person to engage in sexual intercourse in violation of Code of GA section a,b,c). The docket just indicates the statutes alleged to have been violated without specifying the manner in which it is alleged to have been violated.

My best guess as to what is going on is that there are two specific instances or dates when Austin conversed with the agent and that these acts violate two separate subsections of the pornography statute (Subsections (d) and (e)). The same conduct may violate more than one statute. For example, if a person breaks into a house, the charges of burglary, trespass, and larceny may be committed. Also, the statutes may set out different ways to commit the same crime as with the pornography statute. 

Because we are dealing with two separate ways of violating the same statute, there may be a double jeopardy issue if he is convicted under both subsections. While the jury may find him guilty of all four counts, the offenses would merge because they are just different ways of committing the same offense.  In the final analysis, it appears that Austin may only be convicted of two counts of attempt to violate the pornography statute.

I hope this doesn't confuse people too much. :-)





« Last Edit: March 09, 2013, 21:25 by skydog »

Offline Mary_McConnell

  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 2,861
    • Formerly Fooled Finally Free of The Deceptive Cult Called Scientology
Not confusing at all, skydog! Thanks for the summary. I guess we just have to wait to see what the final charges are when trial is set.

Surprise, surprise.... wonder if Matthew Hines is the fifth attorney not named?:

published Wednesday, March 6th, 2013
Defense attorneys demand more information from FBI

Multiple defense attorneys say they were given false or incomplete information about the FBI sex crime task force that arrested their clients during undercover stings.

At least five local attorneys have filed motions in Catoosa County Superior Court that question whether prosecutors or law enforcement have turned over all evidence that could show whether the FBI Northwest Georgia Crimes Against Children task force was hiding how its operation worked.

That information might lead to cases against their clients being dismissed, the attorneys say.

The task force has come under fire since FBI Agent in Charge Ken Hillman is alleged to have used his position for special treatment and allowed a woman he was spotted with late at night work on the task force without police training or certification.[..]

[..]
The 17 task force cases now in Catoosa County Superior Court primarily involve charges of computer pornography and attempted child molestation. Because defendants don't actually have sex, the molestation charge is "attempted," but it's still a felony. Indictments show the computer pornography charges stem from the suspects using the Internet to solicit who they think is an underage girl or boy. [..]

What defense attorneys are asking for:

• To examine all computers task force members used to communicate with defendants

• To examine the personnel files of task force members, whether state or federal officers

• For the Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit District Attorney's office to disqualify itself from hearing the task force arrest criminal cases

• For prosecutors to disclose any more evidence about their cases whether it would hurt or help the prosecution

Source: Catoosa County Superior Court documents

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/mar/06/defense-attorneys-demand-more-information/

I am a volunteer advocate for victims of the Narconon scam. I am a former scientologist. I post anonymously. Mary McConnell is my long time nom de plume. Feel free to contact me for assistance in righting the wrongs.

Offline skydog

  • Fly in the Ointment
  • Posts: 68
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/mar/06/defense-attorneys-demand-more-information/

Well that is interesting. There were a number of cases - seventeen in total - on the docket with similar charges that were part of an FBI task force sting. Hines was not one of the lawyers that filed this motion but I suspect he will do so if the rules of court permit it. My guess it that at some point the court will examine in camera any information claimed to be privileged (personnel files) and disclose it if it is somehow relevant. The motion alleges misconduct on the part of the investigating officers. The question is 1) whether any misconduct occurred; whether it is relevant to any particular defendant; and what remedy the court will adopt to correct it. If it is severe enough, it may result in a dismissal. The court could also order other sanctions such as the suppression of evidence.

Not knowing GA discovery rules, I am not sure what information a defendant is entitled to before trial. I would think there is a hard copy of any communications between the defendant and the undercover officer. I can't imagine that the undercover people involved in the operation would not have fully, unequivocally, and on multiple occasions informed the defendants that they were underage. If that is not the case, I doubt the state would have enough evidence to prosecute. That being said, the allegations of misconduct may not be relevant to the guilt of the accused. It does, however, create an appealable issue with the potential of generating billable hours for the lawyers involved and aggravation to the prosecutors that must respond and judges who must listen to the ensuing bloviation.

The defense attorneys, and prosecutor for that matter, might want to read the pornography statute. The statute makes criminal the "attempt" to commit the proscribed act. As such, the crime may be committed without reference to the separate "attempt" statutes (and attendant lesser penalties) applicable  to other crimes.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2013, 11:05 by skydog »

Offline Mary_McConnell

  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 2,861
    • Formerly Fooled Finally Free of The Deceptive Cult Called Scientology
I think they probably know about the 'attempted' statute... this seems politically motivated, all because someone got the hots for some woman and added her to the task force team without documenting it in the records of these cases.
I am a volunteer advocate for victims of the Narconon scam. I am a former scientologist. I post anonymously. Mary McConnell is my long time nom de plume. Feel free to contact me for assistance in righting the wrongs.

Offline ethercat

  • Global Moderator
  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 3,768
Oh, brother, this is worthy of the Jerry Springer show:
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/feb/22/fbi-millionaires-wife-linked-to-fired-cop/

Back on topic, thanks for the analysis, skydog.  Where is the docket?  Link?
   Narconon Reviews
   Independent Reviews of the Narconon Drug Rehab Programs
   Answers to Frequently Asked But Seldom Answered Questions

Offline Mary_McConnell

  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 2,861
    • Formerly Fooled Finally Free of The Deceptive Cult Called Scientology
Oh, brother, this is worthy of the Jerry Springer show:
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/feb/22/fbi-millionaires-wife-linked-to-fired-cop/

Back on topic, thanks for the analysis, skydog.  Where is the docket?  Link?

There is place online to see records from this court except the daily docket pdf. 
This is what skydog is referring to
02/15/2013
CATOOSA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CALENDAR CALL: JURY TRIAL
March 4, 2013 09:00AM
For Judge: PRESIDING JUDGE
http://www.lmjc.net/Catoosa%20Criminal%20A-L.pdf
I am a volunteer advocate for victims of the Narconon scam. I am a former scientologist. I post anonymously. Mary McConnell is my long time nom de plume. Feel free to contact me for assistance in righting the wrongs.

Offline CoolHand

  • Actual Trouble Source
  • Posts: 281
  • Truth Revealed
Any other developments on this?

Offline ethercat

  • Global Moderator
  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 3,768
I don't know of any, but that doesn't mean anything.  Their web site is not exactly forthcoming with information, either.
   Narconon Reviews
   Independent Reviews of the Narconon Drug Rehab Programs
   Answers to Frequently Asked But Seldom Answered Questions

Offline ethercat

  • Global Moderator
  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 3,768
Somebody took a little field trip today, to the:




and picked up a few dox for interested people:
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/2013-05-23-DanielJAustin.pdf

   Narconon Reviews
   Independent Reviews of the Narconon Drug Rehab Programs
   Answers to Frequently Asked But Seldom Answered Questions

Offline 10oriocookies

  • Hill 10 Situation
  • Posts: 551
  • "Sandy!!!!??????"
Somebody took a little field trip today, to the:




and picked up a few dox for interested people:
http://alley.ethercat.com/storage/2013-05-23-DanielJAustin.pdf

Its ridiculous that the motion to set bond says he poses no flight risk and that he poses no risk of intimidating witnesses.  What are these people thinking?
ET went home.

Offline ethercat

  • Global Moderator
  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 3,768
Its ridiculous that the motion to set bond says he poses no flight risk and that he poses no risk of intimidating witnesses.  What are these people thinking?

The one I had to wonder about was, "The Defendant poses no significant threat or danger to any person, to the community, or to any property in the community," considering the charges against him. 

I also thought it was interesting that he listed 1570 Maple St. Clearwater as his address.  That address belongs to scientologist David Greenbaum.  But that's not the address listed on the warrant.
   Narconon Reviews
   Independent Reviews of the Narconon Drug Rehab Programs
   Answers to Frequently Asked But Seldom Answered Questions

Offline skydog

  • Fly in the Ointment
  • Posts: 68
I'M BAAACK! Thanks to EC for sending me a password so I could log in and special thanks for going to the courthouse and copying and posting the documents. A couple of observations:

I also noticed that the address on the bond form was a Clearwater address. It might be preferable for Dan to to be sodomized in prison rather than deal with the bullshit that the church will put him through. I guess he has to ask himself whether he would rather be ass fucked or mind fucked-either way, he is getting a fucking (sorry for the profanity).

Another thing I noticed was that the bond was set at 40,000. This is not a particularly high bond for these offenses and the bondsman's fee would be less than $4,000. So how come it takes him a month to come up with four grand? Bond is designed to ensure two things: the defendant's appearance in court for all future court appearances; and to ensure the safety of the community. There are sex offender conditions attached to his bond and I don't think that either the bond or the conditions are unreasonable. Personally, I am content to respect the presumption of innocence until a judge or jury has concluded that Austin is guilty. The presumption of innocence means nothing to the person who must sit in a jail cell waiting for someone to decide his guilt. I have no issue at all with either the amount of the bond or the fact that it was posted and Dan is now out. That is his right and the process should be respected.

I do share some concerns about his flight risk. Dan is now under the Flag umbrella and can be transferred anywhere in the world. It is unlikely that the state would waste its time extraditing him for these charges (assuming there is an extradition treaty in the country he is sent). The plan may be to delay, delay, delay-hoping it will all go away; and then abscond if it doesn't. That is a problem in any criminal case. Hopefully, it will not happen in this case.

The most interesting thing are the indictments. It appears the one eyed snake in Dan's pants was salivating over not one, but two underage girls. The first was Tiff, a fourteen years old; and next Megan, an eleven year old. In these type of sting operations, there is no way that Austin would not have known the ages of the children he was going to meet. It is a sick man that does this.

The most disturbing revelation was his conversations with another adult male (undercover cop) asking him to procure the minors and discussing the vile and disgusting things he planned on doing to the children. In my mind this elevates the seriousness of the offenses (not legally) because it suggests that elements of restraint and coercion that is absent in most cases. The good news for Dan is that he cannot be charged with conspiracy because the other male involved had the intent to catch a criminal, not commit a crime.





Offline mefree

  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 4,351
Welcome back, skydog. I always appreciate your thoughts on legal matters.

Another item of interest is found on Exhibit A which appears to be a list of cases Attorney Hines is involved in.

Ace Property Holdings, Inc. v.
Matthew C. Hines
Cobb Superior
12-1-00988-40
Gary Bunch, Esq.
Gary Bunch, P.C.
309 Bankhead Avenue
Carrollton, Georgia 30117

More to come on this case in another thread...
The ultimate authority must always rest with the individual's own reason and critical analysis.
-Dalai Lama

Offline ethercat

  • Global Moderator
  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 3,768
The most interesting thing are the indictments. It appears the one eyed snake in Dan's pants was salivating over not one, but two underage girls. The first was Tiff, a fourteen years old; and next Megan, an eleven year old. In these type of sting operations, there is no way that Austin would not have known the ages of the children he was going to meet. It is a sick man that does this.

The most disturbing revelation was his conversations with another adult male (undercover cop) asking him to procure the minors and discussing the vile and disgusting things he planned on doing to the children. In my mind this elevates the seriousness of the offenses (not legally) because it suggests that elements of restraint and coercion that is absent in most cases. The good news for Dan is that he cannot be charged with conspiracy because the other male involved had the intent to catch a criminal, not commit a crime.

It is extremely disturbing that he was making plans to meet these two "girls" (or so he thought) with an adult male.  I mean, the thought of an adult who has two underage girls who he would offer for sexual liaisons is bad enough, but what it says about the person (Dan Austin) who knowingly would proceed with this didn't care that the girls might be in a "sex slave" type of situation.  Did he not ever think this might be a setup?  I mean, c'mon, how many news stories have we heard about these stings and the way they're done?  Is Dan Austin an idiot?  (rhetorical question)

Dan Austin sat in jail almost a month, from August 31, 2012 to September 26, 2012, with a public defender as his attorney.  Matthew Hines made his entry right before the order to set bond was issued. 

Case continued off the March 18, 2013 calendar until further order of the Court.

And then, 2 judges (Ralph Van Pelt, Jr. and Kristina Cook Graham) both recused themselves on March 20.  I wonder what prompted it.  I wonder if it had anything to do with this:
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/mar/06/defense-attorneys-demand-more-information/
Quote
Defense attorneys also are requesting the Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit recuse itself from hearing any of the cases. Franklin did not answer a question about whether he is considering disqualifying his office, saying only: "There's nothing I'm aware of to not go forward."

   Narconon Reviews
   Independent Reviews of the Narconon Drug Rehab Programs
   Answers to Frequently Asked But Seldom Answered Questions

Offline skydog

  • Fly in the Ointment
  • Posts: 68
Quote
It is extremely disturbing that he was making plans to meet these two "girls" (or so he thought) with an adult male.  I mean, the thought of an adult who has two underage girls who he would offer for sexual liaisons is bad enough, but what it says about the person (Dan Austin) who knowingly would proceed with this didn't care that the girls might be in a "sex slave" type of situation.  Did he not ever think this might be a setup?  I mean, c'mon, how many news stories have we heard about these stings and the way they're done?  Is Dan Austin an idiot?  (rhetorical question)

I completely agree. This is a criminal case based on a "sting operation". The pretend "victim" in this case was probably some sleep starved agent that hadn't shaved or bathed for several weeks who was drinking beer and having fun logging the perverted utterings of horny old men. Austin clearly has some serious issues, including stupidity. The fact that he was willing to have sex with an fourteen year old is bad; the fact that he woudl do so with an eleven year old is disgusting.

Who is the scientologist in CW that he is now living with?


edit: fixed the quotes --ec
« Last Edit: May 25, 2013, 12:29 by ethercat »

Offline ethercat

  • Global Moderator
  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 3,768
I completely agree. This is a criminal case based on a "sting operation". The pretend "victim" in this case was probably some sleep starved agent that hadn't shaved or bathed for several weeks who was drinking beer and having fun logging the perverted utterings of horny old men. Austin clearly has some serious issues, including stupidity. The fact that he was willing to have sex with an fourteen year old is bad; the fact that he woudl do so with an eleven year old is disgusting.

Who is the scientologist in CW that he is now living with?

David Greenbaum is the owner of the house at 1570 Maple St.
http://home.oursites.net/davidgreenbaum/
http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/d/david-greenbaum.html

https://whyweprotest.net/community/threads/jean-brasels-rug.107723/

Axiom Software in Clearwater, Florida: http://axiomint.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tCoGoZ0ZY6E



Here's a Routing Form to leave Axiom's employment: http://www.exposescientology.com/contracts/wise-axiom-int-leaving-employment-1999.pdf
Oh, sheesh!  Look at this part of the Routing Form:
Quote
5. Personnel Section
...
d) [ ] Assign staff member some sort of physical work to do when not working on this routing form. In the case of contract completion, person may remain on post to groove in replacement while continuing the remaining steps of the routing form.

That sounds like the RPF.  I wonder what they do if the person just walks out?  How do they complete the form?   :D


http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/news/106541-report-violence-common-among-scientology-managers.html#post1784410
Quote
Originally Posted by cupcake
This is all over our newspapers,Front page of St Pete Times.. lets see what happens with it. Probly not m,ych.
On another note my DIL is still working for Axiom and stiill being forced to study on her lunch breaks, take tests etc. Its taking a toll on her but she has not been able to find another job, so until then she has to endure her own form of abuse by these psychos

« Last Edit: May 25, 2013, 13:18 by ethercat »
   Narconon Reviews
   Independent Reviews of the Narconon Drug Rehab Programs
   Answers to Frequently Asked But Seldom Answered Questions

Offline Mary_McConnell

  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 2,861
    • Formerly Fooled Finally Free of The Deceptive Cult Called Scientology

Case continued off the March 18, 2013 calendar until further order of the Court.

And then, 2 judges (Ralph Van Pelt, Jr. and Kristina Cook Graham) both recused themselves on March 20.  I wonder what prompted it.  I wonder if it had anything to do with this:
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/mar/06/defense-attorneys-demand-more-information/
Quote
Defense attorneys also are requesting the Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit recuse itself from hearing any of the cases. Franklin did not answer a question about whether he is considering disqualifying his office, saying only: "There's nothing I'm aware of to not go forward."

FBI task force cases in jeopardy
published Tuesday, March 26th, 2013
Quote
An appeals court decision casts doubt on numerous North Georgia sexual predator convictions and raises further questions about the operations of an undercover FBI task force already under scrutiny for possible impropriety.

On March 14, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed a computer pornography conviction against Dennis Cosmo, who was charged in 2010 based on evidence obtained by the Northwest Georgia Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. The court found that police were planting the idea of a crime in Cosmo's head and that the court didn't have sufficient evidence to prosecute.

The role-playing scenario that was examined in Cosmo's case involves police posing as a parent or step-parent and propositioning people who respond to their ads to have sex with their son or daughter.

But if the suspect has never talked to a child and only an adult, the computer pornography charge has no merit, experts said.

Appeals Judge Michael Boggs ruled there wasn't sufficient evidence for Cosmo's computer pornography charge and that he is entitled to a new trial on his remaining charges of criminal solicitation.

Defense attorneys and criminal experts say the appellate court's decision could affect criminal charges in other sex cases -- at least 20 in Catoosa and Walker counties alone -- in which similar police tactics were used.

Furthermore, one law expert said, such findings against law enforcement can undermine what police are trying to do -- catch child predators.

"A sting is an important arm of law enforcement to making sure youngsters aren't victimized," said Ron Carlson, a University of Georgia law professor. But when the government appears to be planting the idea of a crime, it brings their work into question, he said.

Prosecutors plan to appeal the appellate court's decision to the Georgia Supreme Court.

However, if it stands, Lookout Mountain District Attorney Herbert "Buzz" Franklin said, his office will have to re-examine the cases brought in by the FBI task force and decide what to do with charges the court has found to be the result of entrapment.

Ken Hillman, the special agent in charge of the task force, is under federal investigation after being accused of allowing a civilian to work on the task force and even to arrest suspects.

In Catoosa County, special appointed Judge Grant Brantley, of Cobb County, is scheduled to hear motions before deciding whether prosecutors or law enforcement officers involved in the FBI task force are withholding evidence in 10 criminal cases. The outcome could lead to those cases being dismissed, defense attorneys say.

Defense attorneys who first challenged the task force cases last month say the appellate court's decision further shows how officers in the task force were out of control.

"It's terrible the law enforcement we trust are creating the crimes," said Atlanta defense attorney McNeill Stokes, who represents several clients arrested by the task force. "It's happening in Catoosa County with relish."

Experts say police should be luring people into their sting who are trying to commit crimes, but it's entrapment if police put the idea into a person's head.

If there are clear signs that police used entrapment, the judge is supposed to instruct the jury on entrapment charges, which wasn't done in Cosmo's case, said Bob Jarvis, a Shepard Broad Law Center professor in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Indictments from more than 20 cases in the Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit show that the parent or stepparent scenario has been popular within the FBI task force for at least two years.

Police use nicknames such as "Daddy Chris," or "Daddy K" and then try to set up meetings. If suspects go along with the idea and meet with police, they are arrested. The suspects typically are charged with attempted child molestation and computer pornography.

In Cosmo's case, he testified that he never thought he was talking to someone under age. Based on transcripts from the task force, the court found that the idea to have sex with an underage girl came from police and not Cosmo. When Cosmo objected, the officer on the other end of the computer pushed further.

"What you should be trying to do as a police officer is to find people going out and committing crimes and stopping them, not getting innocent people in the public," Jarvis said. "You should not be manufacturing crimes -- because there's plenty of real crimes."
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/mar/26/3-26-a1-fbi-task-force-cases-in-jeopardy/
I am a volunteer advocate for victims of the Narconon scam. I am a former scientologist. I post anonymously. Mary McConnell is my long time nom de plume. Feel free to contact me for assistance in righting the wrongs.

Offline Mary_McConnell

  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 2,861
    • Formerly Fooled Finally Free of The Deceptive Cult Called Scientology
I am so sickened by what Daniel Austin did. I don't want to even think of how many children he's harmed before.  >:(

I won't to bother commenting on that court document, except to say thank you to whoever went and got it.
I am a volunteer advocate for victims of the Narconon scam. I am a former scientologist. I post anonymously. Mary McConnell is my long time nom de plume. Feel free to contact me for assistance in righting the wrongs.