In hindsight, it’s easy to recognize that Dr. Ashley Podhradsky’s job was to gaslight me about the NIT on TB2 AND to provide cover for Howard and help POS Becker commit perjury regarding it.
As I explained in this post Ashley’s gaslighting began on January 20, 2015 (when she examined the wrong server to validate the NIT’s function). The collusion between her and POS Becker probably began at this time. As I’ve mentioned before, “my” NIT report is clearly labeled TB2 and Ashley’s report clearly notes that all three server images (contained on three separate laptops) were clearly labeled. So she chose to examine the wrong server, she also corruptly chose to accept Becker’s nonsense that the NIT was just a flash application, when her own report notes that it consisted of at least three parts and the flash app was just one part of that three part system. As I’ve explained, that is why I wanted to fire her team along with my CJA Attorney in February of 2015.
Now let’s fast forward to June of 2015, for reasons that Joe Howard refuses to explain, I’m forced to use Ashely’s obviously corrupt team to examine the right server (TB2). They do so on June 5, 2015. Unknown to me at that time, they collaborated with POS Becker while they were writing their second report that has a filename date of June 17, 2015. Now pay close attention to the following facts; 1) Ashley claims that she sent their second report to Joe Gross on accident; BUT, 2) that mistake isn’t credible, since their email chain (while they were colluding with POS Becker while writing their second report) didn’t include Joe Gross – AND – 3) the deadline for filing the Daubert motion was June 26, 2015, so dropping it on the 24th helped POS Becker.
In sum, Ashley dropped their second report just two days before the deadline, but completed it on the seventeenth! Joe Gross had always been very diligent, so there is no way he would have just sat on that report and there is no way that Joe Howard was just sitting around waiting for this crucial piece of evidence. In other words, what I’m asserting is that they (Howard and Podhradsky) gave that report to me just two days before the deadline in a last ditch effort to sabotage my Daubert challenge.
So, now you should review the cookie jar analogy. Once reviewed we can move on to July 2015. In the morning of July 30, 2015 I’m at work and Howard suddenly emails me requesting permission to negotiate a plea deal with POS Becker. I tell him NO, prepare for trial. He writes again – before I go to lunch – asking for permission again, and I again I respond, NO! After I return from lunch my phone starts ringing, caller I’d indicates it’s Howard, I let it go to voice mail, he doesn’t leave a message. Then I get a communication from Steven Slawinski (my WDNY lawyer) who I wrongly trusted at that time – because he was helping to railroad me (I thought it was an email – but it wasn’t included in the dump I got from them, so it may have been a phone call.) Steven asked me to come to his office after work and I agree. At that time I had two cases (one in NE and one in NY) so I didn’t think Howard’s communications had anything to do with Slawinski’s. BUT, when I arrive I’m ambushed by Howard & Gross on the phone. Somehow, they’ve obtained a conditional plea deal that none of them had permission to negotiate (which is a bar-card losing offense). At this ambush, I’m convinced that the only way to win the case is to win the Daubert motion or the Rule 41(f) issue on appeal, but the Daubert motion was just a ruse; because, they had constricted my Daubert challenge (and my ability to appeal an adverse decision) to the false premise that the NIT was just a flash application. So it was doomed; because, all “they” argued about at the hearing was the fact that the incompetent FBI morons didn’t preserve the source code (the FLA file) used to create the flash file (gallery.swf) which – in hindsight – was the core of the ruse.
After that pathetic excuse for a Daubert hearing (where the experts failed to inform the Court that TB2’s session ids and database table(s) were fake), I was coerced into taking that conditional plea – instead of beginning the trial. Since the Court was allowing (knowingly or ignorantly) everyone to lie about the NIT, there was literally nothing I could do, except keep asserting that the NIT was the only evidence. The Court went through the motions of this sham of a plea colloquy being legitimate, but the August 3, 2015 transcript proves that it was a total show. Here are the excerpts that I included in my 23-3131 habeas petition:
THE COURT: … With respect to Count II, which is accessing child pornography, they’d have to prove that you accessed with the intent to view one or more visual depictions of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; that you knew the depiction was of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and, finally, that the visual depiction or depictions were produced with materials that had been shipped, mailed or transported in interstate commerce or through the Internet. Do you understand that’s what the government would be required to prove for Count II of the access — which charges you with accessing child pornography?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I’ve been told that the NIT proves that.
THE COURT: Well, I understand, but do you understand that’s what the government would be required to prove before you could be found guilty?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: And you understand that’s what they’d have to prove to the jury?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, it’s my understanding that the NIT proves that.
—————
THE COURT: Okay. And then with respect to Count I of the charge in the New York court, that charges you with receipt of child pornography. So for that trial they’d have to prove that you knowingly received or attempted to receive a visual depiction in interstate commerce by any means, including a computer. They’d have to prove that the production of that visual depiction involved the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. They’d have to prove that the visual depiction was of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; that you knew the depiction was of a sexually explicit conduct of a minor; and that you knew at least one of the persons engaged in the conduct was, in fact, a minor. Do you understand that’s what they’d have to prove with respect to Count I of the New York indictment?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Have you talked to your lawyer about the evidence the government has against you for both of these charges?
THE DEFENDANT: Yeah.
THE COURT: Are you satisfied with the services your lawyer is giving you in this case?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you think you understand the charges brought in both of these counts?
THE DEFENDANT: I understand that the NIT is the basis of both of these counts.
THE COURT: Well, the NIT is really the basis of one of these counts, the count in Nebraska. The NIT got your computer seized in your home and your computer is the basis of the receipt charge. Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: No, I did not understand that.
THE COURT: Well, you can’t — you don’t really receive anything by just looking at it on the interstate — on the Internet. You receive it by downloading it and having it in your possession. And — and the allegation is, is that you have received child pornography. You understand that?
(Mr. Howard and the defendant conferred.) — HOWARD COERCED [ME] TO CONTINUE
THE DEFENDANT: I understand the allegation, yes.
————
THE COURT:… realistic understanding about how much jail time you’re facing before you enter your guilty plea. Have you had enough time to talk to him about those issues?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, he told me what my likely sentence would be.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you have any more questions of him about those issues?
(The defendant conferred with Mr. Howard) — HOWARD COERCED [ME] TO CONTINUE
MR. HOWARD: Your Honor, can we go off — thank you.
THE COURT: Sure. We’re off the record.
(Mr. Howard and the defendant conferred.) — HOWARD COERCED [ME] TO CONTINUE
MR. HOWARD: Your Honor, can we go back on?
THE COURT: Yes. Yes, we’re back on the record.
MR. HOWARD: Thank you. I’ve had a chance just to answer some of my client’s questions and he’s prepared to proceed at this point.
THE COURT: All right. So have you had enough time to talk to him about the law with respect to your sentencing, sir?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
————
MR. BECKER: There is a factual basis located on pages 3 and 4 of the plea agreement that describes the facts underlying the defendant’s — underlying those particular crimes.
The agreement also describes the particular penalties for each of the charges; that it is limited to the United States Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the
District of Nebraska, and does include the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of New York. The defendant does waive appeal and collateral attack except as reserved in the plea agreement, specific to the issues that we’ve — that we’ve described in terms of his
conditional plea. Those are the material terms of the agreement, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Cottom, is that your understanding of the basic terms of the plea agreement?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. So under the terms of this plea agreement, you’re making a conditional plea of guilty and it’s conditioned on your ability to appeal the rulings with respect to the motion in limine and the motion to suppress that’s outlined in the plea agreement. Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
———
THE COURT: And so you give up those motions — you give up that — your right to contest any evidence that the government has about your guilt except what’s provided for in your plea agreement.
THE DEFENDANT: Right. That’s why I have this.
THE COURT: Right. Do you understand that, sir?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you think you understand everything we’ve talked about here today?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes
THE COURT: Do you have any questions of me or your lawyer about anything we’ve discussed today?
THE DEFENDANT: I’m — I was told that I can’t appeal until sentencing?
THE COURT: Correct.
THE DEFENDANT: Okay.
THE COURT: There’s no final order effectively entered until there’s a sentencing.
THE DEFENDANT: Okay.
THE COURT: And then once you’re sentenced, you’ll have 14 days after that order is entered to file your appeal.
THE DEFENDANT: But I can file that day, right?
THE COURT: Correct.
————
THE COURT: All right. So, Mr. Cottom, is that the — is that your understanding of the evidence the government has against you?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: So in other words, that’s the evidence that you and your lawyer talked about when you were deciding whether or not you wanted to plead guilty, correct?
THE DEFENDANT: We mostly talked about the NIT.
THE COURT: But — but regardless of that, you talked about what evidence overall the government had against you, for both of these cases, correct?
THE DEFENDANT: Right. It was browser cache.
THE COURT: Okay. So the government alleges that, with respect to Count II, accessing child pornography, that during the period of the indictment, that you actually
attempted — or you did access child pornography with the intent to view child pornography. Do you admit that you did that?
THE DEFENDANT: That’s what the NIT says.
THE COURT: Well, I need to know whether you did that or not.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. And then with respect to Count I of the indictment that was originally filed in New York, were you actually in receipt of child pornography? Did you receive and possess it?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, that’s what the DARC report says.
THE COURT: And the question is whether you did or not. Did you or not?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
————
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Does the government have any objection in
having Mr. Cottom on the same terms and conditions of release as previously entered by the Court?
MR. BECKER: Not so long as there’s no indication of violations of his current terms of release, Your Honor. I don’t believe there are. Last report I saw was that he was in compliance.
THE COURT: Okay. So, Mr. Cottom, the magistrate judge set orders of your release on the Nebraska case and now we’ve got the new case from the Western District of New York.
I don’t have any idea what those conditions of release are.
THE DEFENDANT: Ditto. It was the same.
So, immediately after I was forced to go through that ordeal, I’m processing what just happened to me as Howard drives me back to my hotel room. I tell him that “I thought that ALL NYS charges were dropped”. That’s why I clearly stated “No, I did not understand that” at the hearing. Howard explained that it was the same charge as in Nebraska when we conferred in Court – saying that it didn’t matter; but, while I’m processing it in his car I state: “you just had me admit that browser cache is evidence for the NY charge, it’s clearly not sufficient without my admission! (Both the Second and Eighth Circuit it 2015 deemed browser cache insufficient evidence for receipt or possession on its own). I told Howard “I want to withdraw my plea” literally minutes after taking it. Howard said words to the effect of – let’s wait, and let me look over everything (a deliberate stalling tactic of a compromised attorney).
Next we’ll examine the shenanigans that occurred from September 2015 until my kidnapping on December 17, 2015 – including how POS Howard is withholding over 100 emails, that would get him disbarred.