So I gave ChatGPT some (not all) of the anomalies in my case and it had this to say (It’s a good read for anyone who doubts my innocence).
Category: Personal
bookmark_borderIndisputable Evidence of Parallel Construction
As explained almost two years ago, Parallel Construction was used to prosecute me. “My experts” made numerous false claims about the NIT, which I’ve discussed many times before, but here are some new lies I’ve recently discovered thanks to recent documents I’ve received from the public defender’s office.
Ashley’s 2016 report (while much more accurate than her perjurious 2015 report) contains new deliberate lies. The one I’d like to discuss now is in Section 2.6 of her 2016 report, where she lies: “… the cornhusker log indicates that [the] DNS request was made via the proxy server and that data was not logged in this case.” Also remember that they refused to answer the simple question about the huge time gaps. My experts were PH.d holders or candidates at the time these reports were written and are today considered to be experts in their field, so the idea that they didn’t know that statement was a lie is preposterous, Because:
Flash could not make any connections (DNS or TCP/IP) through the proxy server! (In this case TOR). Worse, the time gaps are too long. How they claim the NIT worked “in my case” was that gallery.php was loaded in a hidden iframe located on a TB2’s html pages (in my case index.html and 1481.html). As I explained previously, that scheme intentionally scrubs the actual referring page from the fabricated “Visitors” table. Anyway, while gallery.php is making those bogus entries into the visitors table, it is also sending the browser javascript to load gallery.swf (the Flash App). The browser then loads Flash Player to execute gallery.swf. Flash Player ignores the browsers proxy settings and instead uses the OS networking stack (in my case Ubuntu 12.04LTS). Default DNS timeout settings were 10 seconds for each server or 20 seconds total, so that means the 39 & 63 seconds delays were impossible!
Even worse, the FBI forensic report for my Ubuntu machines clearly states that Adama’s home was unencrypted and its account was locked in the shadows file, while the other two accounts had encrypted home and unlocked shadow file entries. What does that mean? My Ubuntu Machine was Hacked or Tampered with… as the only way to lock an account is to be root (or have sudo) and type in a command in a terminal to lock the account.
That’s why no defense expert actually examined the machine, it would have been obvious that someone (FBI?) had tampered with the machine.
bookmark_borderI need more…
So I got this in the mail yesterday from Jeff Ciccone AFPD:
I am in receipt of your most recent letter dated September 16, 2025, inquiring about records relating to your prior federal case. Specifically, you asked whether I redacted code from an e-mail or if that code was already redacted. You also asked me to confirm that other e-mails were deleted by your prior attorney. I can tel you that I did not redact code or delete any emails. My previous letter to you contained all of the documents in the Federal Public Defender’s Office’s file that were responsive to your original request.
There are missing e-mails, the most crucial ones are from July 30, 2015 to December 2015. I mean it’s clear several emails are missing from the chain I posted. I think the times are messed up because the two lawyers were in different time zones. Steven’s in EST, and Joe is an hour behind him in CST. So I think the first email on the pages was actually received at the time indicated EST, but Joe sent it at 2:53pm. That’s the only way it makes sense for him to meet with the Judge and be back at 4pm CST, 5pm EST…
So the first e-mail in this chain is actually the last e-mail on the two pages. Joe sent it to Steven @ 2:08pm CST (which was 3:08 EST). Steven then replied to that message @ 2:11pm CST and then the last message in this chain occurred at 2:53 CST.
So, the subject of the first message (confirmed by the absence of RE:) is “Petition to Plead Guilty”. As I pointed out yesterday, Joe didn’t have permission to negotiate any plea deal and he alludes to this fact in the contents of this first missive. Joe also attached a pdf of the petition, that Steven deleted (see bottom of missive). Note that Joe is replying to an unasked question by begining with: I have not yet received the Plea Agreement. I suppose any time now, but in our district we must also file a Petition to Enter a Plea of Guilty. This trend of answering unasked questions will continue in this chain…
At 2:11 CST (or after having the petition for 3 minutes) Steven replies “It looks good … I’ll conference you in when he gets here”. My recollection of the events of that day contradict this narrative as I remember Steven e-mailed me around 4pm EST asking if I’d come to his office to discuss the case at 5pm EST, so he couldn’t have anticipated my 5pm arrival at 3:11pm EST… The last e-mail in this chain occurs 42 minutes later and we are clearly missing some communications between Steven & Joe; because, Joe answers an unasked question from Steven, “I have heard nothing…” and then asks Steven a question and he deleted his reply or answered Joe by phone…
One thing I noticed – during this ordeal – is that when lawyers are doing something illegal or unethical, they always do it verbally, either in person or on the phone…
bookmark_borderCertified Mail
So I sent the following missive by Certified Mail to Joseph Howard Esq. (on September 19, 2025)
Dear Joe,
On August 21, 2025 I sent you the attached missive regarding e-mails in my case file and you ignored that missive. On September 4, 2025 I filed the attached complaint with your counsel for discipline.
Since you failed to comply with my previous limited request, I now formally request a complete copy of my file (a digital production is preferred – mailed to me on a Memory Stick if it is over 25MB, as that is the limit of e-mail attachments on my server) regarding Case No. 8:13CR108 including: all emails, electronic communications, correspondence, notes, drafts, memoranda, and any other documents or records relating to my case, whether exchanged with me, third parties, opposing counsels (especially Keith A. Becker) or internally with you team.
This request is made pursuant to Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion for Lawyers No. 01-3, which clearly states that I’m entitled to the requested files. Therefore, please provide the requested files in digital format within 15 business days of the certified receipt of this letter.
Thank you for your prompt response to this certified letter.
And now I await a reply…
Update: USPS States: Your item was delivered to the front desk, reception area, or mail room at 1:38 pm on September 23, 2025 in OMAHA, NE 68102. Therefore, Joe’s response is due October 14, 2025.
bookmark_borderGoogle AI Thinks Joe Howard is Guilty
Google’s AI says: An attorney who ignores a client’s demand to prepare for trial and instead negotiates a conditional plea agreement violates several American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct. The core violations stem from disregarding the client’s authority over the objectives of the representation, failing to communicate adequately, and failing to act with reasonable diligence.
Google’s AI also says: A defense attorney who allows a defense expert to lie in a report to the court violates several ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, primarily Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal. This rule prohibits knowingly offering false evidence and requires lawyers to take reasonable remedial measures, including disclosure to the court, upon discovering false evidence. The attorney also violates the general prohibition against dishonesty and misrepresentation, as well as the obligation to represent their client competently and diligently without engaging in fraudulent conduct.
Joe Howard is in possession of e-mails (or should be) from July 30, 2015 that tell him in no uncertain terms that he was not to negotiate a plea deal and instead prepare for trial (As the previous Post’s PDF alludes too).
I’m in possession of documents that prove Joe knew, or should have known the shill’s 2015 report was full of lies…
Got an e-mail into Megan E. Lutz-Priefert, hopefully she will respond so I can get her thoughts on this “new” information (she was my §2255 lawyer back in 2018).
bookmark_borderWhoop, There it is!
During the day on July 30, 2015 Joe Howard was e-mailing me trying to persuade me to allow him to enter into plea negotiations with POS Becker. I denied all his requests in writing (via e-mails) ordering him to prepare for trial. As my previous post today explained, his disobeying my order violates many ABA rules. Thus, that’s likely why he won’t produce them.
It’s in that context that you can understand this brief selection of e-mails provided by the NY Public Defender’s office. While reading the second page of the pdf, keep in mind Howard knows he did not have permission to negotiate and obtain the “Petition to Plead Guilty” under discussion. Damning, No?
bookmark_borderI Knew It
I knew it but couldn’t prove it then (2015). See PDF:
Shockingly, William Laubenheimer, died recently (RIP) so I can’t ask him to opine on the recent revelations. This is one instance where I think his demise was simple coincidence, thus the exception to my “rule” of not believing in coincidences. Regardless, with the limited information I had at the time (2015), I made a compelling argument that Ashely’s team was lying. As a consequence of Joe Howard’s refusal to comply with my e-mail demands, we can now conclude he was a part of Becker’s railroading conspiracy…
Let’s break it down. The NY Public defender’s office confirmed that I’m entitled to my case e-mails by complying with my request to turn them over (even though some e-mails appear to be missing, probably deleted on purpose — Whether that purpose was benevolent or nefarious will probably never be known).
Without knowing the exact mechanism of my railroading in 2015, the above pdf shows that I had a specific idea of what actually occurred when I declared that: “All these facts indicate that the visits never happened… or occurred inside a hidden iframe…”
When you google: “What ABA rules are violated when a defense attorney ignores his clients demand to prepare for trial and instead negotiates a conditional plea agreement?” Google will return a lengthly list of potential violations, thus explaining Joe Howard’s refusal to produce the requested e-mails. Especially since the chain of e-mails exchanged on July 30, 2015 prove he violated those ABA rules!
On September 4, 2025 I sent the Nebraska Counsel for Discipline a complaint about Howard’s failure to comply with my request for those incriminating e-mails. I await their reply…
bookmark_borderCode Explanation
I realize that most of my readers may not understand the code shown in the shills 2016 report. Here is a brief breakdown. Figure 3 shows that gallery.php loaded with a query string. As the link explains a query string is a part of a URL that contains data and parameters to be passed to a web server. So as you can see in Figure 3, gallery.php is loaded with a query string setting parameters “b” to “girls” “t” to “1481” and “u” to /girls/res/1481.html” (the percent sign and the number two represent the /).
Now look at Figure 4, you’ll see $request_uri = isset($_GET[‘u’]) that code falsified the request_uri displayed on Figure 12. Now look at columns “request_uri” and “request_headers” (that fills the rest of the figure”). You’ll see the Referers are the same page as the request_uri. That occurs because the request_uri is falsified by the query strings!
In other words they (the FBI) were also falsifying the actual referring page! (The referring page is the page your browser was on before the current page: request_uri). See how that’s a HUGE problem? Your previous page could have been anywhere. For example, say you’re on a legal website using TOR, that sight could send you to TB2 in a hidden iframe without your knowledge. Then the above code would scrub that information from the table and make it look like you reloaded the page from a link on that page, for Figure 3, 1481.html.
Bottom line, this code is proof of fraud and criminal fabrication of evidence. Also note that I’ve been pointing out that Tinyboard doesn’t have a visitors table since June 2015, so all the government’s NIT evidence was inadmissible from the boot. The Shills knew that and helped Becker conceal it. Thus, I WAS RAILROADED!
bookmark_borderAnother Analogy
So, my FOIA request has enabled me to draft another analogy about my prosecution. Here is what appears to have happened (succinctly):
In 2011, the Dutch National Police (DNP) illegally (in our country and theirs) hacked into websites and obtained identifying information about the users of those websites. The DNP and the DOJ didn’t know what to do with this illegally obtained information for a year until the DOJ/FBI devised a diabolical plan to “legally” re-obtain the DNP’s illegally obtained information in 2012. The illegally obtained information included IP Addresses and possible identities linked to those IP Addresses and what illegal information those IP Addresses accessed.
So, for the analogy, let’s substitute IP Addresses for physical street addresses and the names of the people associated with these addresses. And let’s substitute the information as boxes shipped via FEDEX to those physical addresses.
So, for example, let’s say that the DNP illegally determined that someone living at 123 Whatever Way in Wisconsin sent a package containing drugs to 456 Whatever Way in Nebraska in 2011. Let’s also say that the DNP notices that 123 sent a packages to 456 several times, thus establishing an illegal pattern of shipments.
The DOJ/FBI cannot use the DNP’s information to prosecute the actual people at 123 or 456 because none of the evidence will be admissible in Court, so they use “Parallel Construction” to prosecute the people at 123 & 456.
The problem with Parallel Construction is that it encourages government agents to fabricate evidence. For example, say 123 also ships legal products, like Pokemon cards. If the DOJ/FBI isn’t aware of that fact (or intentionally ignores it) many people 123 ships to will get swept up in their Parallel Construction dragnet.
Therefore, I now know that I was illegally swept up in their poorly executed dragnet; because, I have proven that they fabricated and falsified the evidence linking my IP address to TB2’s. So now I know why and how they did it. Now I just need the Eighth Circuit to agree…
bookmark_borderGore Vidal Said
Gore Vidal said: The four most beautiful words in the English language are I told you so; and on December 31, 2024, I TOLD YOU SO!
Therefore, I’m not surprised THAT things are going horribly; however, I am surprised at the speed. SO, Lets recap my new years eve predictions:
- Trump took office and chaos and ineptitude quickly followed.
- Pastor Johnson was given the gavel again.
- Bitcoin crashed on February 28th, but rebounded two days later. It continues to be highly volatile, but; the “greater fool” pool just got bigger, thanks to Trump.
- Looks like the AI bubble is getting ready to pop this year.
Looks like my pessimism was justified.