Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> California Appellate Report

Federal Judiciary

: California Appellate Report

U.S. v. Cannel (9th Cir. - March 3, 2008)

By Shaun Martin

Okay, I get it now. Obviously the problem is that I'm not being specific enough.

Sure, I told everyone back in December that anyone named "Horneygirl14" -- or any such name -- isn't really a 14-year old girl, but is instead an FBI agent. Then I again articulated a similar message in January, this time as the opinion related to an FBI agent whose nom-de-chat-room was "SusieBabyGirl" and who also pretended to be a 14-year old girl.

What I was trying to make clear -- and I thought this was pretty obvious -- was that you shouldn't go around lurking in chat rooms trying to pick up children for sex. Because, wholly apart from moral reasons (duh!!), it ain't gonna happen. Yes, it might well end up in sex. But in prison. And not with your intended participant.

So I think I was pretty clear on the whole 14-year old girl thing. But perhaps the particulars resulted in the larger message being unclear. Since, today, this opinion by the Ninth Circuit tells the story of James Cannel, who lurked around chat rooms with the (entirely appropriate) screen name "surching" until he stumbled upon an alleged 12-year old boy with the screen name "tim_12_seattle". To whom Cannel promptly sent pictures of his genatalia -- which I might add, is always the sexiest act in the world -- was well as an invitation to meet for an evening of child molestation. (Please tell me that you know that I'm kidding about how hot it is to send a complete stranger your c**k shot.)

Anyway, in the most surprising fact in the universe, the reality of which could hardly be imagined by even the most compelling intellect on the entire planet, it turns out that "tim_12_seattle" was actually a Seattle police officer. Who busts Cannel, finds (again, shockingly) lots of child pornography on his computer, and invites the feds to incarcerate Cannel for six years. An invitation which they accept, and which the Ninth Circuit affirms. End of story.

So let me make it crystal clear. 14-year old girl. 13-year old girl. 12-year old boy. It doesn't matter the precise age. Or gender. Or screen name: Horneygirl14, SusieBabyGirl, tim_12_seattle, pretending_I'm_underage_to_trap_pedophiles, whatever. They're not real. And you shouldn't be looking for that type of sex anyway. So get out of the chat rooms. Stop collecting child pornography. And try to obtain a more healthy sexual obsession.

Learn it. Live it. 'Nuff said.

Full post as published by California Appellate Report on March 03, 2008 (boomark / email).