CP court orders and...
 
Notifications
Clear all

CP court orders and custody of HD

83 Posts
19 Users
0 Reactions
3,615 Views
(@joshsevo)
Trusted Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 89
 

To answer your question Nope, didn't go this week.

Directly off my email from him sent yesterday after noon.

"Josh, remember, nothing we do is really secret. We have to protect the images from distribution and our client's confidentiality. So, I will be more than happy to give a copy of the court order to this guy. Tell him to contact me if he really wants it. The court order is for me, not you, and I only can give it to him. If he really wants it, and isnt interested in simply bashing you, he will contact me. But I dont think he will".


   
ReplyQuote
(@miket065)
Estimable Member
Joined: 21 years ago
Posts: 187
 

The court order is for me, not you, and I only can give it to him.

So he can give it "to some guy on the internet" but not to his own intern?

Once again, something shady this way comes. Just be careful and protect yourself Joshevo, that's our only point…


   
ReplyQuote
(@joshsevo)
Trusted Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 89
 

I will for sure.


   
ReplyQuote
Beetle
(@beetle)
Reputable Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 318
 

To answer your question Nope, didn't go this week.

Directly off my email from him sent yesterday after noon.

"Josh, remember, nothing we do is really secret. We have to protect the images from distribution and our client's confidentiality. So, I will be more than happy to give a copy of the court order to this guy. Tell him to contact me if he really wants it. The court order is for me, not you, and I only can give it to him. If he really wants it, and isnt interested in simply bashing you, he will contact me. But I dont think he will".

Strange, unless there was a sealing order on this as well it would be a matter of public record. Unless there is something done differently in the US.


   
ReplyQuote
(@paul206)
Trusted Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 70
 

Here in North Carolina it is very clear. 1. Only LE can transport CP in a vehicle or otherwise possess it. Even an Assistant District Attorney who is an Officer of the Court would be arrested if pulled over while transporting CP as evidence in a case. 2. The LE involved will make the evidence available for viewing at their lab under their supervision. Defense has a right to see it but not possess it.

To quote Bithead's quote which was very much to the point.
"property or material shall be deemed to be reasonably available to the
defendant if the Government provides ample opportunity for
inspection, viewing, and examination at a Government facility"

I don't see where there is any state law in the US that can override a Federal statute and allow a defense team to take CP home for analysis. This whole thing is so weird I keep wondering if it is just a troll looking to create a tempest in a teapot.


   
ReplyQuote
(@joshsevo)
Trusted Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 89
 

Nobody took it home. It was at the office. Just to be clear. I definitely didn't take it home.


   
ReplyQuote
(@kovar)
Prominent Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 805
 

Greetings,

People are trying to help you and you continue to misunderstand, redirect, or evade.

"Home" means back to their office, away from the government facility. If you're taking "home" literally you're ignoring the the larger picture.

We don't understand how your boss could legally have CP at the office where you were working. Your various responses to this question have been evasive, misleading, and inconsistent.

-David


   
ReplyQuote
Beetle
(@beetle)
Reputable Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 318
 

In the OP response above he quotes his boss as saying the order is to him (the boss) and not the OP. My only experience is with orders that are worded in such a way that "such other officers as deemed necessary by the custodian" to effect the goal of the order (analysis etc.) may be allowed access to seized items, CP or otherwise. Is there a possible issue here? The OP and his boss aren't LEOs or officers of the court (lawyers or otherwise).


   
ReplyQuote
Jamie
(@jamie)
Moderator
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 1288
 

For my part I don't see it quite the same way as kovar, my sense is that Joshsevo is simply inexperienced and caught in the middle of a difficult situation, rather than deliberately trying to redirect or evade. Personally, I'm happy to give him the benefit of the doubt at this stage.

It seems to me that the only ways this predicament can be resolved are if someone wants to take it offline and communicate directly with the parties involved or the employer decides to disclose the information being requested. @Joshsevo - do you have any reason to believe that the latter is likely (either through yourself, or perhaps through another representative of the company)? I'd like to see some resolution to this if possible.

Without one of those things taking place, I think we're at something of an impasse.

Jamie


   
ReplyQuote
(@joshsevo)
Trusted Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 89
 

Go for it.

David J. Penrod
President
PenrodEllis Forensic Data Discovery
1805 South Bellaire Street, Suite 401
Denver, Colorado 80222
Work 303.691.0047
Fax 303.479.9834
Mobile 303.945.6006


   
ReplyQuote
Page 4 / 9
Share: