Christmas In America

by Brian Rothery - Inquisition 21^st Century

Steven Knox used to return home for two week visits to the US once or twice a year. On this visit, however, he has been imprisoned and when he is released he is unlikely to ever return home again.

Steven Knox was the defendant in the infamous US v. Knox case. On June 9, 1994, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in United States v. Knox that non-nude depictions of minors can be prosecuted as child pornography. Knox had ordered video tapes of girls between the ages of ten and seventeen who, in the Court's words, 'were dancing or gyrating in a fashion not natural for their age'. The girls wore bikini bathing suits, leotards, or underwear and none wore transparent, see-through clothing. Legal counsel for Knox argued that 'lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area' meant that the girls had to be nude and that wearing clothing meant that the genitals and pubic area were clearly not exhibited. The Court disagreed and held that there was no nudity requirement in the statute and that the statutory term 'lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area', as used in 18 U.S.C. 2256(2) (E), does not contain any requirement that the child subject's genitals or pubic area be fully or partially exposed or discernible through his or her opaque clothing.

Since 2003, after serving his sentence, Steven Knox has been living and working in Europe, trying to also comply with the increasingly confusing US residency reporting laws for released sex offenders. Just before Christmas 2009, his seasonal return to his homeland resulted in the Pennsylvania police pouncing on him for failure to comply with Megan's law through lack of annual verification of address. Apparently they send the verification form to his brother's address at a time he is not in the country.

He was locked up on Christmas Eve and spent two weeks sleeping on the floor in what he described as the 'outrageously lousy conditions' of the privately owned and run Delaware County jail. As one friend put it, "Christmas in America."

He was then released on bail of $50,000 and forced to stay mainly homebound with an electronic monitoring device wrapped around his ankle. As he can not find an attorney he can afford, he needs permission to get out to try to research his case through the nearest local law library.

The main legal issue appears to involve the annual verification of address. Because he briefly resided with his brother in 2003, the Pennsylvania police assume that he still lives there. In August 2003 he wrote to the State's 'Megan's law centre' informing them of his permanent relocation out of the country. He re-registered in August 2007 giving them an address in Paris as his residence and assumed this to be okay as he was not arrested for failure to verify address in subsequent visits home, before this time. According to legal advice, the statute says nothing about the issue of a sex offender who resides out of the country and visits the US for short periods. There may also be a 'knowing' or 'intent' element in the law. This is why he must get out to research the issue.

There is a lot of vagueness in this statute, which may partially explain why the police do not offer explanations to sex offenders. The charge is a felony, the category in state law just up from a misdemeanour and it can carry an up to two year's sentence.

Knox is anxious not to go for trial, as, having lived abroad, he now recognizes the atmosphere of extreme paranoia that reigns in the US.

Meanwhile a life and job in Europe are being seriously damaged.

Wanted. A courageous US attorney. Thomas Reedy, known in prison as the '1,000 year man' because of the ridiculous 1300 year sentence he received after the notorious Landslide trial, has managed to get permission to take an important step in his struggle to have the truth about Landslide revealed, but he now desperately needs what he never had before - a competant attorney.

Reedy had applied to the same judge that gave him his 1300 year sentence for what is known as a 2255 motion, based on an inadequete original defence in his trial. The judge refused this appeal. Now he has managed to obtain a COA (certificate of appeal), which is required to appeal the denial of his 2255 motion.

In a letter from prison he says, "Yesterday, I received my Christmas present in the mail! Please make a copy of the enclosed and send it to (a named person). I need a response ASAP as to his assistance. Can he help or not? I would, of course, much prefer an attorney to take it from here."

The named person is unlikely to help. He continues: "As I write this I have already filed a motion for a 30 day extension of time. I do not know how much of an extension they will grant. At this point I need to procure the pertinent trial transcripts (certified) of (a case connected with Operation Ore) when (an expert) testified and presented his computer forensic testimony concerning the 'manufactured evidence'. I have 30 - 60 days (depending on the answer to the request for an extension) to get all this in order, written and submitted…10 days are already shot counting the mail delay and holidays. I will start work on an itemized list of needed/desired evidence-exhibits for the appeal."

Thomas Reedy

Pertinent parts of the order below: Reedy's claim that the Government knowingly presented at his trial a manufactured exhibit purporting to show a banner advertisement promoting child pornography on Reedy's company's homepage is 'adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further'.

Consequently a COA is granted on the following questions:

1. Whether Reedy has established cause for his failure to raise this issue on direct appeal.
2. Whether Reedy is able to establish that the presentation at trial of the purportedly manufactured exhibit resulted in prejudice to Reedy.

Reedy also challenges the district court's failure to hold an evidentiary hearing on his constitutional claims. With respect to most of his allegations, Reedy's conclusional assertions are insufficient to warrant a hearing . However Reedy's challenge to the manufactured exhibit used at his trial is supported with independent evidence and thus could warrant an evidentiary hearing. Consequently, a COA is granted as to the propriety of the district court's denial of an evidentiary hearing as to only this ground for relief.

COA GRANTED IN PART.
No. 09-10009
LESLIE H.SOUTHWICK
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

If you are an interested attorney, please contact the editor here.

Created on 12/29/2009 04:01 PM by Editor
Updated on 01/12/2010 09:23 PM by Editor

This article is available at Inquisition 21^st Century