Archives

bookmark_borderExoneration Frustrations

Posted on

What’s frustrating is how many lies were told and how hard it is to address them as a convict. When you accuse the government of fabricating, falsifying and planting evidence, in this case planting hidden files in an encrypted directory that is now somehow unencrypted, everyone rolls their eyes… even though it’s the only explanation.

Fraudulent Indictment

On March 20, 2013, the government obtained a John Doe indictment against Kirk Cottom for visiting a site named TB2 on the TOR network. My petition soon to be before the Eighth Circuit, proves – beyond a reasonable doubt – that the indictment was procured with perjury about fabricated and falsified computer logs.

Planting Evidence

On April 9, 2013, when the FBI showed up at my house, they violated the knock and announce rule. That rule states that they must knock on your door and wait for an answer. When the “target” opens the door they must announce why they’re at your house. In this case, the FBI was required to announce they were at my house to execute a search warrant. Instead, in clear violation of this rule, they knocked and talked. This is the constitutional rule that when the FBI doesn’t have a search warrant they can knock on your door and try to talk you into allowing them to search. So I assumed they were on a knock and talk fishing expedition and talked to them; BUT, when they asked for permission to search, I asked them to leave.

That’s when they revealed that they had a search warrant. I told them they were required to tell me that at my door. They shrugged and told me to take it up with the judge. They then searched my linux computer’s 500GB Operating system drive. After about an hour of finding nothing, they opened my Windows Laptop and found my picture associated with an account named Adama on the Lock Screen. I thought “if these clowns come back in a few minutes claiming to have found something in the Adama account on the linux box I’ll know the fix is in…”

Sure enough, a few minutes later they claim to have found images in Adama’s home directory. I exclaim “bullshit!” For two reasons: 1) The Adama account on the linux box was NEVER used. AND 2) The home directories for all three accounts Kirk, Simon and Adama were encrypted, so it would be impossible to find any files in any of the home directories.

About a year later, I get the forensic report from the FBI and it states that Kirk & Simon are encrypted BUT Adama isn’t. The FBI tech notes that the Adama account is locked by the operating system. I tell my lawyer this is because the FBI over-wrote Adama’s encrypted home directory, when the FBI tech booted the image of the tampered with linux system, it noticed the now unencrypted Adama account and locked it. My lawyer ignored me and no-one besides the FBI tech ever examined the drive.

bookmark_borderStandard Online Legal Declarations

Posted on

The information provided from and through this site is provided “AS-IS”, “AS AVAILABLE”, and all warranties, express or implied, are disclaimed (including but not limited to the disclaimer of any implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.) The information may contain errors, problems or other limitations. Our sole and entire maximum liability for any inaccurate information, for any reason, and users sole and exclusive remedy for any cause whatsoever, shall be limited to the amount paid by the customer for the information received (if any). We are not liable for any indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages (including damages for loss of business, loss of profits, litigation, or the like), whether based on breach of contract, breach of warranty, tort (including negligence), product damage.

The limitations of damages set forth above are fundamental elements of the basis of the bargain between US and YOU. We would not provide this site and information without such limitations. No representations, warranties, or guarantees whatsoever, are made as to the accuracy, adequacy, reliability, currentness, completeness, suitability or applicability of the information for a particular situation.

All responsibility and liability for any damages caused by viruses or malware contained within the electronic files of this site are disclaimed.

bookmark_borderThat’s Suspicious

Posted on

So on March 27, 2022 I sent a message to the lead shill in my case, Dr. Podhradsky. I asked her these six questions:

  1. When and how did attorney Joseph Gross Jr. involve you with my case?
  2. Why did you examine the wrong server for your first report in January of 2015?
  3. Why did you parrot the government’s lie that the NIT was just a flash application?
  4. When and how did attorney Joseph Howard involve you with my case?
  5. Why did you lie about Tinyboard software in your June [2015] report?
  6. Did you communicate about this case with Keith A Becker?

Last week I received her reply. It said words to the effect of “It’s not my fault, contact Dr. Miller” and she gave me his possible contact info. I e-mailed the info@company.com address to see if they could put me in contact with Dr. Miller. Much to my surprise, I got a reply that same day from his company e-mail account. I sent him a pdf of the letter I sent Dr. Podhradsky with some elaboration in the e-mail. He responded:

If you have time, you could give me a phone call and maybe I can clear up some of the points in here that may be confusing.

Dr. Matt Miller

I responded that I didn’t think a phone conversation would be productive and would he please answer my 6 questions. (and perhaps two more). He responded:

Dear Kirk Cottom,
Post conviction appellate concerns are typically handled by counsel and I will refer you to counsel who saw you this far in the process. I have included Joe Howard on this email so he is aware of your attempt to contact me, and I appreciate that you will not contact me again, unless through counsel. Any further and continued efforts will be met by legal action. Thank you.

Dr. Matt Miller

Maybe it’s just me, but I find this response suspicious…

bookmark_borderNY Law About Employment and Convictions

Posted on

An employer in NY state who employs 10 or more employees may not refuse to hire an applicant based on a prior conviction unless hiring the applicant would pose an unreasonable risk to property, or to public safety, or the conviction bears a direct relationship to the job. The law defines a direct relationship strictly to mean that the nature of the criminal conduct underlying the conviction has a direct bearing on the applicant’s fitness or ability to perform one or more of the duties and responsibilities that are directly related to the job.

An employer that considers an applicant’s prior conviction must look at these eight factors:

  1. NY State’s public policy to encourage the hiring of those who have been
    convicted of crimes.
  2. The duties and responsibilities that are necessarily related to the job.
  3. Whether the conviction has a bearing on the applicant’s ability to perform
    those duties and responsibilities.
  4. How much time has passed since the conviction.
  5. How old the applicant was at the time of the offense.
  6. The seriousness of the offense.
  7. Any information the applicant provides about his or her rehabilitation, and
  8. The employer’s legitimate interest in protecting property and the safety and
    welfare of individuals and the public.

An employer, who decides not to hire someone based on a criminal conviction must, upon applicant’s request, provide a written statement of the reasons for the decision. That statement must be provided within 30 days of the request.

bookmark_borderDOJ Corruption

Posted on

So I’m an avid reader of Techdirt.com and they are no fan of the DOJ, like me. And I found these gems to bolster my corruption theory.

Justin Shafer, was persecuted by the DOJ from 2016 to 2018. As you can read in the article, the coerced him to plead guilty to a misdemeanor so they could save face for persecuting him.

Techdirt has also extensively documented the shenanigans of the FBI, in their pursuit of incompetence.

If you have any doubts about there incompetence, just read these pages and remove them.

bookmark_borderFalse Narrative

Posted on

This Table:

Figure I

Does Not Support the Government’s Narrative:

On November 18, 2012, a user with IP address 69.207.147.71 accessed “Website A” and was presented with different sections to choose from and access further, including, but not limited to the following: “pre-teen boys”, “teen-aged boys”, “teen-aged girls”, “babies/toddlers”, and “fetishes”. The user with IP address 69.207.147.71 selected the section “PT girls”. After selecting the “PT girls” section, the user with IP address 69.207.147.71 was presented with the webpage with the title “/girls/pt girls” at the top of the page. Several board image threads were displayed on that page including thumbnail images from various threads. One of the threads, thread “1481”, had the subject title “finger bum girl” and displayed three thumbnail images from that particular thread. The images displayed included images with the file names dsc03248, dsc03286 and dsc03287. The images ending in 286 and 287 are close up pictures of a prepubescent vagina being digitally penetrated. The thread could be accessed by either clicking on the link to the thread with the subject “finger bum girl” or by clicking on one of the three images displayed. The user with IP address 69.207.147.71 then selected the 1481 thread with the identified subject, “finger bum girl”, and accessed a webpage that contained all the images available on that thread, consisting of over thirty pictures of a young girl, with many of them containing images depicting sexually explicit conduct. All the pictures would have appeared once the user clicked the 1481 thread with the identified subject, “finger bum girl”, or clicked on one of the three displayed thumbnail images.

Therefore, the conviction is invalid and is why I’m still litigating the matter today.

bookmark_borderI was railroaded

Posted on

I (Kirk Cottom) was Railroaded

The meaning of being railroaded according to my computer’s dictionary is to “press (someone) into doing something by rushing or coercing them.”

The timeline of the railroading is such:

July 28, 2015: I fly out to Nebraska to see Mr. Becker’s “evidence book”.

July 29, 2015: I view the evidence book with my Attorney, Mr. Howard and his “expert”, Mr. Kasel. I’m not impressed and order Mr. Howard to prepare for the Daubert hearing and trial. (If I won the Daubert hearing the case was over, if I lost the hearing we would proceed to trial, both scheduled for August 3, 2015.) I fly back to Rochester that evening and return to work the next day.

July 30, 2015 (8am to 4pm): Mr. Howard e-mails me all day, trying to get me to agree to allow him to negotiate a plea I’d enter into if we lost the Daubert hearing on August 3, 2015. I repeatedly order Mr. Howard to prepare for trial and that he did not have permission to negotiate any plea deal. He then tries to call me on the phone, I refuse to answer.

July 30, 2015 (4pm to 6pm): A little after 4pm, Mr. Slawinski e-mails me and asks if I would come to his office, I agree. Once there I’m ambushed by him, Mr. Howard and Mr. Gross to accept a “conditional plea” deal, that none of them had permission to negotiate. They coerce me into agreeing to the conditional plea by convincing me that it was like a “Nolo contendere” plea, when they knew that it wasn’t.

August 1, 2015: I fly back to Nebraska and inform Mr. Howard I don’t like the plea deal. He says lets focus on winning the Daubert motion.

August 3, 2015: I lose the flawed Daubert hearing. It was flawed because both the government and the defense experts perjured themselves on multiple issues. Their lies included:

1) Stating that the FBI’s Network Investigative Technique (NIT) was just the “exploit code”. (In my case a flash application.) This lie was debunked in subsequent litigation. (The FBI tried this false narrative again while prosecuting “Operation Pacifier” cases, based on the infamous “playpen” website. All those cases rejected this false narrative and adjudicated that the NIT consisted of 4 parts. That was “prejudicial” because my Daubert hearing was based on a knowingly false narrative.)

2) That perjury, exposed many others. Like lying about the code on TB2’s server. Those lies included: claiming that Tinyboard (the software that ran TB2) had a visitors table, claiming that Tinyboard issued sessionID’s to clients and claiming both the fraudulent items were admissible at trial when they knew they were both inadmissible per FED. R. EVID 803(6) & 803(8). That cause Mr. Becker’s team to present that data as “Expert Summary Evidence” to circumvent its exclusion from trial.
3) All Those perjuries helped hide the biggest perjury of this case, the fact that the NIT report (and it’s underlying documents, Dr. Edman’s computer logs, populated by his scripts) do not provide any evidence for a crime, because none of it has any information about images. This means that the Nebraska indictment was fraudulently obtained and thus invalid.

Since all the above is irrefutable, it is absolute proof that I was railroaded.