| This post is in reply to comments on: |
 Interview Of An Innocent Man (Sept. 2, 2012) |
Transcription
Reply ID: BKRP
#103
Charges filed against Sean Riker's ex-wife for downloading child porn.
On the second page of this post, you'll see the letter that the prosecutor in Sean's case sent to the judge (i.e. Allan B Torhorst) who reviewed my petition under Wis. Stats 968.26 (2) to have Sean's ex prosecuted for downloading child porn onto his computers while he was in jail. This made her clearly guilty of 948.12 Possession of child pornography (lm) and because she falsely claimed that Sean had done so, 942.01 Defamation, etc. I wrote the petition, filed it in my name (for various strategic reasons) + supported it with Sean's affidavit about what he knew and what his computer forensic expert found out.
It was more than enough to support the charges. All that was needed was my factually specific allegations (e.g. "on _ (date) _ (person) did..."). There's no requirement that I was a personal witness to the criminal activity, just as there's no such requirement for detectives who draft criminal complaints.
Conclusory allegations are factless (e.g. 'she broke the law'). My allegations were very precise. But, the DA threw some jargon out there, probably assuming I didn't know the meaning of 'conclusory' + the judge, like too many judges in WI, ran with it. Surely they both are competent lawyers, meaning they must be crooked rather than idiots.
As I filed a second petition in the same court, handled by the same judge, similarly blown off (it concerned Racine Co. Jail staff beating Sean), this case no. may be for that petition, not the one about Sean's wife.
In any case, I couldn't appeal. No postage. But I wanted readers to know what's up.
Crooked PA + his puppet judge.
Please go viral with this. Tell any media!
Love + Respect,
Nate.
Other posts by this author
|
2024 may 18
|
2024 may 15
|
2024 may 2
|
2024 apr 29
|
2024 feb 8
|
2023 sep 21
|
More... |
RSS
Replies