Posted: 9/13/2005 8:35:01 PM EDT
[#21]
Isn't there already a federal law prohibitting the possession of child pornography? I guess having a second or third law prohibitting the crap whould make it even better if it weren't for that double jeapordy stuff. Son of Astronaut Pleads Guilty to Kid Porn
(AP) - SAN FRANCISCO-The son of an astronaut has pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography in a federal sex tourism case, according to court records.
Walter M. Schirra III, 55, pleaded guilty Aug. 31 to a federal charge of possession of child pornography.
Schirra, of San Francisco, was arrested Nov. 6 as he tried to board a Thailand-bound plane, authorities said. A luggage search netted photos of shirtless Asian boys, sexual performance enhancing drugs and candy, customs officials said.
Those items aren't illegal, but a later search of a computer at Schirra's home revealed child pornography, authorities said. He was arrested under a law passed last year to crack down on sex tourism.
Schirra's father, Walter Schirra, flew in America's first three space missions.
The younger Schirra will be sentenced Dec. 7.
|
Janet Reno and the Clinton administration struck down two important parts of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, 18 USC 2251. As we explain in our petition, certiorari is warranted in this case because the court of appeals invalidated two important provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA), 18 U.S.C. 2251 et seq. In particular, the court of appeals held unconstitutional the provisions of the CPPA that define child pornography to include (1) any visual depiction that “is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct,” 18 U.S.C. 2256(8)(B) (Supp. IV 1998), and (2) any visual depiction that “is advertised, pro- moted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.” 18 U.S.C. 2256(8)(D) (Supp. IV 1998). Certiorari is also warranted because the court’s holding is incorrect and conflicts with the decisions of three other circuits, United States v. Hilton, 167 F.3d 61 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 844 (1999); United States v. Acheson, 195 F.3d 645 (11th Cir. 1999); and United States v. Mento, 231 F.3d 912 (4th Cir. 2000).
|
Janet Reno is from FLORIDABill Clinton is from HELL
|
|