Frank DiTomasso v. United States
Arbitration
Whether there was a conviction of production of child pornography when nothing was ever asked for, such as pictures or video, and there was not even an attempt to get any pictures or videos
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED i. How con TACre be @ convicteon of produc fioh when noth ng )J ever askeol for,.€.9pictures or video, and there ws not eLen qn attempt to get any pictures or Videos Q.ThiS iF an Actual Tanocence Clarm, can wot please conser this? 4.There isa bold be Tald to the grand jury th ftw t rn dc tment how Cah that phd ;ctment stand? 4. Marcus clear hed the means and oppertunty fo engag? th such conduct Y was the on ly ohe whe could bien “eter dmittilg fo such conduct, how car ths not exonerate Dp; Tom qosoP S.With all pre errors done be defense counse|, hequween having “ defense (whith there was a defense) pot calling the pre report do the sdand, hiy opening statement etens how This Av Completely jneflectivés asvisdance of counsel? valet! bHow (Te o pe held res, oarrble fer hid attorneys ms a Kes Ly i Taman made no eftort if develop a record jh "Lypoicd court that WONEC violated his Fourt Amendment Rights and that ne de CVidenle was challenged by D Tomaso, There m5 tates were tb oe by PiTomassos trral and appeal lawyers, This wp then a ade ) ardoled his own case and op eal, ny) doesnt have hit etter We al ne instead 2 (PiJomasr fe) challenge evidence in letter T° Judge) | | TZ flow can file sharing petworles that are know fo have almost all illegal things being traded oh them be allowed fo operate! Haw can DiTomagsse pe held accountable for testimony when he clearly had no prep what 5° ever? 4. How 5. 25 years and lifetime supervised release net uh) ust and crue] panishment?( Sentencing jad 2 said about a5 yeas maha: i Ae Wnuydlers Frequently 9¢7 Tess than 25 years: (En goo! MYC cop fe sok dyunk, speeding, and went through a red light kr Jing Y people g° as years). : 10. How con phe trial be F aikwhen.the prosecation hepah — saying things th opening Sdatement that were c&mpletely _untyuee iL How kwh the trie) be Larrwhen the defense tell; he_ UA ih open ne QGTewmebLn Oo po he 2 detlhddn ote " ? athe judge retusred to call a mistrial because She was judge re close to fe Tipeine How cs _thrs acteptable?