Travis County Judge Has Issued a Warrant for Cody Wilson’s Arrest

Cody Wilson Wanted Poster Sexual Assault Taiwan

courtesy arstechnica.com and US Marshals Service

News broke yesterday that Defense Distributed’s Cody Wilson had been charged with sexual assault as a result of an encounter with an under-aged girl. It was then also revealed by police that he didn’t board a scheduled return flight from Taiwan. As a result, as Ars Techica reports . . .

A Travis County judge has signed an arrest warrant for him and the US Mashals Service has issued a wanted poster.

Cody Wilson Wanted Poster Sexual Assault

courtesy arstechnica.com and US Marshals Service

“We know Mr. Wilson frequently travels for business,” Commander Troy Officer, of APD’s Organized Crime Division, told assembled press shortly after 2pm Central Time. “We don’t know why he went to Taiwan, but we do know that he was informed that he was being investigated.”

Much discussion of possible entrapment took place in the comments yesterday and Commander Officer, who held a brief press conference yesterday, was asked about that:

Cmdr. Officer fielded a few other questions, like if the APD knew whether Wilson had a history of this alleged action (right now, they’re only aware of this particular incident) or whether anything indicates this might be entrapment. “That’s why we have the courtroom and attorneys,” Cmdr. Officer said. “Our job is to enforce the law and make an arrest on the front end. We felt we had enough to charge him with and we had the District Attorney and Judge signing off on the affidavit.”

Some also speculated about whether Wilson knew the girl was a minor.

When asked if Wilson said anything indicating he knew the reality of the situation, Cmdr. Officer didn’t share any details from the messages between Wilson and the girl referenced in court documents. “Any time you solicit—whether as a child or as an adult—it’s illegal,” Cmdr. Officer said. “This happens to be a child, but I don’t think my detectives have ever sat down with an [alleged perpetrator] that said, ‘I knew the victim was underage.’”

The United States does not have an extradition treaty with Taiwan.

comments

  1. avatar barnbwt says:

    *Liberals laughing in Polansky

    1. avatar Bearpaw says:

      What? Does Cody work for Bloomberg now?

      Nothing like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

      1. avatar Anonymous says:

        I know. All he had to do was stay the course and he was our hero and we all won. But, he thought to himself, you know what? I’ll go to “Sugardaddy dot com!” Then he blew it.

        Sugardaddy Wison is what I am referring to him from this day forward. If he is innocent of the charges I won’t. But if he plea bargains, or is guilty, or otherwise met a girl on a sugardaddy website, then he is sugardaddy wilson!

        1. avatar Not a hero says:

          Best case, he wanted to be the Sugardaddy of an 18 year old.

          Wilson is not a hero, so don’t try to turn him into one. He fought for the 2nd which is admirable, but that’s all.

        2. avatar Mmmtacos says:

          Yes, let’s condemn the guy before he has even so much as rebuked the claims himself much less been to court over it.

          Innocent until proven guilty? What’s that!?

          I won’t say he is or isn’t actually guilty, we have to wait and see until he gets to court, but isn’t it funny how sexual allegations always pop-up against people the left hate as soon as those people get into the limelight?

        3. avatar American Patriot says:

          Well I’d have to actually she that she’s the one that probably “Blew it” , some might say he just got caught in the cross fire!

        4. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

          Slow clap…well done sir.

        5. avatar Steve P says:

          How about we call you chickenshite Anonymous hiding his/her identity behind a keyboard. They were having a hard time squelching Cody within the law. So, as is so often the case today, Travis County has decided to go with the rapist card. Seems these liberal as_hats have dropped the Racist card in favor ot the Rapist card now whenever they want to silence the opposition.

      2. avatar Anonymous says:

        Conspiracy Theory #1

        Democrat party operatives in the government were watching Cody Wilson for obvious reasons.

        Cody wilson sent some d*** pics to some girl whom he met at a sugardaddy website that requires account holders to be over 18. They met at a hotel and shared some “O” faces.

        Democratic operatives contact the Center for Child Protection who had been working with the girl’s counselor. Counselor obtains the information they were looking for.

        Boom! Felony wrap for Cody Wilson – no more playing with guns for him.

        1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

          The most believable is –

          Messed up 16 year-old girl liked the finer things in life, but not the income to afford them. So she signs up for SugarDaddy, where wealthy men want to bang her. She justifies it to herself by saying “He’s 30. Not bad looking. He’s the kind of guy I’d date anyways, so why not get paid for it?”

          Still being a messed-up 16 year-old kid, her parents have her in therapy. One day in a therapy session, she brags to the therapist about the easy way she makes good money.

          Therapist does his job and calls the cops. *Boom* U.S. Marshall’s ‘Most Wanted’ poster.

          And that will be the story of Cody Wilson…

        2. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

          Geoff,

          The question I’d like answered is if the girl has a history – and I don’t think for a minute that Cody was her first paying customer – what other guys are being charged?

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Site requires her to be 18? Statutory in TX is apparently “under 17”, as reported. Have we arrested the site? Situation stinks, and like others, I’m not thinking this sounds like a first time excursion for the young lady, who else is being arrested?

        4. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

          “I don’t think for a minute that Cody was her first paying customer – what other guys are being charged?”

          Damn good question, Rag…

        5. avatar Steve P says:

          Since the girl is NOT a victim here, where his her arrest warrant. She knowingly falsified documents in the commission of a crime. And since it is the internet, it would fall under the FBI because it is a national (at the least) communications medium.
          This is bu_ _shite. SHE is the predator here.

      3. avatar huntmaster says:

        So a guy that had to know he was on a microscope slide is cavorting with someone he met on a site called sugerdaddysmeet.com? I just find it hard to believe somebody could be this tech savvy and that stupid at the same time.

        1. avatar Sabrina M Gray says:

          Cody is playing something. What I don’t know. I personally think that he is in the free and clear because the TOS for the website clearly states that you have to be 18 to create an account there. I wouldn’t vote to convict based on that.

      4. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

        UPDATE –

        “Cody Wilson reportedly trying to rent an apartment in Taiwan, per local media”

        https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/09/cody-wilson-reportedly-trying-to-rent-an-apartment-in-taiwan-per-local-media/?comments=1&vs=b

  2. avatar Free Texas says:

    I imagine Taiwan has a friendly extradition agreement with the US. I also wonder however if he has left Taiwan already. Wondering further if he had a preexisting plan in place if he ever needed to bug out for any reason.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      As per the article we don’t have an extradition treaty with Taiwan.

      Sticky situation since mainland China claims control over Taiwan but we don’t recognize that.

      1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

        I suppose the real question now is, how much will the GoFundMe for his defense raise?

        If he wants to raise the most money possible, he needs to push the (utter bullshit) ‘entrapment’ story…

        1. avatar jwm says:

          How much of his GoFundMe will be spent on hookers?

        2. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

          goFUNdme…amiright

      2. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

        “As per the article we don’t have an extradition treaty with Taiwan.”

        Ahhhh.

        Taiwan may have no *formal* extradition treaty with Taiwan, but if it is in Taiwan’s interest, they will extradite him.

        And since Taiwan is scared of China and buys quite a bit of expensive defense hardware (like AEGIS on-shore) from the US, Taiwan may very well extradite Wilson.

        Geo Politics 101.

        Wilson isn’t ‘safe’ and un-touchable in Taiwan by any means…

      3. avatar anonymoose says:

        Actually we do sorta recognize Communist China’s claim over Taiwan. I believe it was Bush Sr. who told the Reds if they wanted to invade Taiwan we wouldn’t interfere. We still sell them a lot of monkey-model military equipment though.

        However, since there’s no extradition treaty, he’s free to stay there as long as he has the financial means, and he is no longer beholden to any circus judge or AGs’ restrictions. Just pop all the DefDist stuff on Pirate Bay (if it isn’t already there) and tell them to fuck off with their hokey lawsuits and their made-up pedo-rape entrapment scheme.

  3. avatar Bloving says:

    Welp.
    Lots of other crummy plastic things get made in Taiwan… I’m sure he’ll be fine.
    🤠

    1. avatar arc says:

      Taiwan and Japan usually produce higher end products, optics, solid state capacitors, shop tools, etc.

      1. avatar Gralnok says:

        In that case, his Liberators should soon rival Bond Arms derringers! 😋

  4. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    So he is Officer Officer? Wow… I’m sure THAT joke never gets old.
    As for Cody…always ask for ID I guess.
    Sure sounds suspicious to me. The timing…hmmmm.

    1. avatar Bearpaw says:

      Gawd! Enough with the timing already. We’re due for another school shooting (statistically). When that happens are you going say it’s a set up for the midterms? And the office shooting that will happen in the week before the midterms will also be a wet opp funded by the Moms? Oh, and the UFO sighting in Florida over Parkland. And Bigfoot caught on ATM camera outside the neo-nazi rally. And the Elvis sighting at the Defense Distributed booth at NRA show. Mental stability is by example, not by screaming it in the face of those wondering.

      1. avatar Gralnok says:

        Elvis was at Defense Distributed?!

        “You do know Elvis is dead, right?”
        “Nah, he’s not dead, he just went home.” 😎

        1. avatar No one of consequence says:

          I SO want to do a MiB-themed AR build. I can find a polished Al upper and furniture set, just need the lower…

      2. avatar Red in CO says:

        Uhh… have you even seen the absurd, reprehensible, and laughably transparent games the dems are playing with Kavanaugh at the moment? Of course the timing is significant! Maybe this is just a coincidence, but then I’m such a trusting soul….

    2. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      I knew an Officer Friendly before. You’re right, the jokes just kept on coming.

      1. avatar bryan1980 says:

        Lol, in the Walking Dead, that was Merle Dixon’s nickname for Rick!

      2. avatar LKB says:

        I was involved in some litigation years ago where the federal prosecutor was “Phil Police” and the federal agent on the case was “Joe Judge.”

        Had the case been in the Eastern District of Texas rather than the Western, we might have had “William Wayne Justice” as the Judge.

      3. avatar Oldsarge says:

        In the Air Force one addresses an E-9, Chief Master Sergeant, as Chief.
        My first assignment our E-9 was an American Indian whose last name was Warrior. Chief Warrior. We also had a Sgt Slaughter.
        Loved the 308th AMU!

        1. avatar Pelvicpunch says:

          Unless we dont respect them, which is why we all call former CMSAF Cody, E-9 Cody. Because hes a huge piece of shit.

    3. avatar anonymoose says:

      I have a second cousin whose first name is “Major,” but he only made it to regular Sergeant.

      1. avatar MyName says:

        There has got to be a Major out there with the last name Sergeant.

  5. avatar bob says:

    Guess we’ll wait and see how this plays out or if it will be a Snowden Jr. episode.

    Until then we can all enjoy looking at the extreme closeup of the Kel-Tec guy and his severe need to cleanse his pores! Good gosh!

    1. avatar Francis says:

      That’s the Kel-Tec guy? I thought he was the “most interesting man in the world”. I guess he doesn’t always drink beer, but when he does he drinks Dos Equis and shoots a Kel-Tec.

  6. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

    “We don’t know why he went to Taiwan, but we do know that he was informed that he was being investigated.”

    I’ll take a wild-ass-guess –

    He manufactures and sells CNC mills, and Taiwan is where the whole world goes to buy electronics and parts?

    Ya think?

  7. avatar anarchyst says:

    Is it possible he was set up?
    What would stop the FBI or any other “deep state” agency from “entrapping” Cody by furnishing him a “friendly” underage girl?
    Betcha it happens more often than one would imagine…

    1. avatar jwm says:

      We’re supposed to trust the ‘judgement’ of a guy that denies the holocaust and says that hitler will be vindicated by history? Except amongst the loonies you have no credibility.

    2. avatar JK in Texas says:

      If they are not going after any of her other “Johns” or he was her first that will be more believable. But , OMG man really? A Sugardaddy website? Have more respect for yourself Cody.

    3. avatar Robert Powell says:

      you will notice that NO ARREST WARRENT HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR BILL CLINTON FOR HIS MANY TRIPS TO LOLITA ISLAND FOR SEX WITH UNDER-AGE GIRLS AND BOYS…..CAN WE SAY DOUBLE STANDARDS??????????..

      1. avatar Ted Unlis says:

        So Bill Clinton is a rich & poweful former U.S. President and shameless creep who has literally and figuratively gotten away with murder; that doesn’t, shouldn’t, and never will mitigate or provide a defense to a wormy little creep who thought he could get away with banging a 16 yr old prostitute who didn’t look a day over 13. If it were possible the police should add a charge of felony [email protected]$$ for good measure.

        1. avatar J.T. says:

          Do we know the 16 year old prostitute doesn’t look a day over 13? Have pictures of her been released? They usually don’t when people are underage.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I think you’ll discover US courts only issue warrants for offenses which occur in the US. Duh.

      3. avatar VerendusAudeo says:

        If you believe that Bill Clinton took a trip on the ‘Lolita Express’, then you have to believe that Donald Trump did so as well, because they both have extensive ties to Jeffrey Epstein. Trump even called him a ‘terrific guy’ and said that, “He’s a lot of fun to be with”.

  8. avatar Anonymous says:

    has issued a wanted poster.

    LOL WTF is this? The 1800s?

    1. avatar jwm says:

      They still put them up in post offices. Can’t say when was the last time someone got arrested thru a wanted poster.

      But we still have bounty hunters.

      1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

        I still smile at the story of the little girl (perhaps apocryphal) who upon seeing posters of the FBI”s ten most wanted at the post office, asked why the FBI hadn’t just held on to these guys when they were taking their pictures.

        1. avatar Gralnok says:

          How come I haven’t heard that one? 😆

  9. avatar Louis Winthrop says:

    “Mess with the [federal] bull, you get the [honeypot] horns.”

  10. avatar RogueVal says:

    So I keep seeing folks here, and on the original thread, talking about how the girl is 17. It doesn’t say that, anywhere. It says UNDER 17, so 16 Maximum, so that rules out 17, it rules in 16-15-14-13…

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      I read at some other site the girl was 16.

      And the legal age is 17 in Texas, and nobody is exactly 16, maybe they are 16 and 8 months years of age, which would make this person, just barely not legal.

      But, when I met my future wife, she was 26 and she could have passed for 16.9 years of age. So the question is – did she lie to Wilson or not? Did he know she was 16?

      1. avatar RogueVal says:

        No, the question is, was she 17 or not, that’s it. That’s the law, that’s how it works, and yes it was up to him to ensure it because he was the adult, over 30 years old. Even if she lied about it, it is up to the adult to ensure it, as a minor child cannot consent. 16 years 8 months is…not 17, and he’s 30. If she dolled herself up and looked 20, so what, she has an age. I know, age is just a number, and the magic number is 17, so as long as she is less than that, she cannot consent. And numbers aren’t magic, it’s a line, one side is fine, except he’s soliciting prostitution, the other his he’s a child sexual predator, and soliciting prostitution. Her being a hooker is irrelevant, it just means all of her johns are guilty of sexual assault if they’re over 17.

        And it’s patently obvious that he was going after young girls, he was hoping for a high school senior or college freshman, but if you’re that close to the line, then it behooves you to card them, you know, at least as dedicated as at the 7/11 for a beer.

        1. avatar arc says:

          Context absolutely matter. If some bunny whore produces a fake ID saying shes 18, drives up in her own car, and has multiple sources also saying shes 18, her real age takes the back seat when it comes to a jury. “The law” in such a case will be found nullified and whoever the accused is, will be acquitted.

          Very interesting only conservatives and ‘enemies of the USA’ get the rape / kiddie porn treatment.

        2. avatar RogueVal says:

          So Weinstein is a Republican, Bill Cosby, The SNL senator from MN? I know that’s a nice meme, it just happens to be not true.

          And if your whore shows you a fake ID, the first clue about it being illegal is that it’s your whore, prostitution is illegal unless you’re in a brothel in Nevada.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yeah… because fuck mens rea and 800 years of legal tradition. The guy should have psychic powers and know that the whore was lying.

          Sorry kiddo… anybody who supports a law that requires someone to be psychic to avoid breaking it needs to be stood up against a wall and shot.

        4. avatar RogueVal says:

          You don’t need intent for it to be a crime, are you retarded? Ever hear of involuntary manslaughter, or about a million other laws. It’s pretty obvious that you went to the “Lawz and Stuff Coluj of Merka Lawz, and Stuff”

          The vast majority of criminal prosecutions in the United States are carried out by the component states in accordance with the laws of the state in question. Historically, the states (with the partial exception of civil-law Louisiana) applied common law rules of mens rea similar to those extant in England, but over time American understandings of common law mens rea terms diverged from those of English law and from each other. By the late 1950s to early 1960s, the common law of mens rea was widely acknowledged to be a slippery, vague, and confused mess. This was one of several factors that led to the development of the Model Penal Code.

          Model Penal Code

          Since its publication in 1957, the formulation of mens rea set forth in the Model Penal Code has been highly influential throughout the US in clarifying the discussion of the different modes of culpability. The following levels of mens rea are found in the MPC:

          Strict liability: the actor engaged in conduct and his mental state is irrelevant. Under Model Penal Code Section 2.05, this mens rea may only be applied where the forbidden conduct is a mere violation, i.e. a civil infraction.

          Negligently: a “reasonable person” would be aware of a “substantial and unjustifiable risk” that his conduct is of a prohibited nature, will lead to a prohibited result, and/or is under prohibited attendant circumstances, and the actor was not so aware but should have been.

          Recklessly: the actor consciously disregards a “substantial and unjustifiable risk” that his conduct will lead to a prohibited result and/or is of a prohibited nature.

          Knowingly: the actor is practically certain that his conduct will lead to the result, or is aware to a high probability that his conduct is of a prohibited nature, or is aware to a high probability that the attendant circumstances exist.

          Purposefully: the actor has the “conscious object” of engaging in conduct and believes or hopes that the attendant circumstances exist.

          Except for strict liability, these classes of mens rea are defined in Section 2.02(2) of the MPC.

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          RogueVal

          Nice job covering the key fact that involuntary manslaughter requires reckless or negligent acts. What part of setting up on a website SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO EXCLUDE PEOPLE UNDER 18 is “reckless or negligent”.

        6. avatar RogueVal says:

          For the MPC, you need only one. You said mens rea, which isn’t a thing so that legal argument is pure BS. Mens rea means “guilty mind”, notice neither negligence nor recklessly doesn’t say that you need intent, i.e. “guilty mind”

          All you need is strict liability, which Texas state law says diddling a minor is. If it happened, and you’re an adult, you’re guilty.

        7. avatar pwrserge says:

          But let’s go over your standards…

          Strict liability… Does not apply unless you’re claiming that the charge is a mere infraction.
          Negligence… Does not apply because he used a service that gave him a 1 year safety margin.

          So… Unless you can magic up something to prove at least negligence, you’d have to try to shoehorn in strict liability for a major felony. Good luck with that.

        8. avatar RogueVal says:

          I don’t have to do anything, the local PD, Travis County DA, and a Judge signed off on the arrest warrant or did you forget? You can go look up the charging document if you want, sweety pie.

        9. avatar pwrserge says:

          I don’t care which particular jackbooted thugs signed off on what. Malus lex est null lex.

        10. avatar RogueVal says:

          I shall repost, as maybe twice is the charm…

          Well, I suggest you move to Texas, run for office, pass a law that nullifies the Texas statute. Then find a way to recall the DA, and the Judge that signed off on the warrant.

          This is a thing that is actually happening, now, today in Texas. So it’s not theoretical, it’s actually happening.

          Statutory rape (Sexual Assault under Texas Penal Code Section 22.011(a)(2)) is a strict liability offense in Texas. What does this mean? It means that a person is guilty if:

          The person is older than 18 years of age; and
          The person intentionally or knowingly has sex with someone younger than 17 years of age.

          There is an exception to the law is the actors are less than 3 years apart in age, meaning that if the minor is 16 and the partner is 19 (but not more than 3 years older) then he will not be charged.

          Other than the 3-year age gap exception, there are no other exceptions to statutory rape in Texas, hence strict liability. There is no Consent defense; consent is irrelevant for this offense. There is not Mistake of Fact defense when the minor lies about her age and no Mistake of Law defense for when the actors don’t know what the age of consent is in Texas.

          And it’s common enough that lots of Texas lawyers have a FAQ specifically about it. See https://www.hassibicriminaldefense.com/criminal-defense-blog/2015/april/is-it-still-statutory-rape-if-the-victim-lied-ab/

          https://www.nedbarnett.com/practice-areas/child-sex-crimes/houston-tx-sex-with-a-minor/

          https://www.bhwlawfirm.com/statutory-rape-texas/

        11. avatar pwrserge says:

          … and I’m going to repost my reply…

          Pretty sure that there is a world of difference between mistake of fact and deliberate FRAUD. In any case, as I said, I don’t care what the law says on the matter. Any law that allows somebody to be defrauded into a major felony is a bad law. It spits in the face of hundreds of years of legal tradition and anybody who supports applying such a law in such a case is a case in point as to why the 2nd amendment exists.

          In short… I DON’T CARE. A bad law is no law at all.

        12. avatar RogueVal says:

          Well, in protest, you can go to Texas, rent an underage hooker, tell the police about it, and show your solidarity with Wilson, and fight it all the way to the Texas Supreme Court, you’ll show them and their stinking laws. That’s what will probably happen right, it’s your moral duty

        13. avatar pwrserge says:

          Holy fucking shit Val… Do you even know what a strawman is?

          I’m talking about the fact that HE HAD NO WAY TO KNOW THAT HE WAS BREAKING THE LAW and on top of everything else, he took reasonable precautions to AVOID breaking the law.

          This kind of bullshit is why I despise feminazis.

        14. avatar RogueVal says:

          Ignorantia juris non excusat. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, not for speeding, not for sexual assault. It is in some limited cases for Tax law.

          The purpose of this maxim is that if ignorance is considered an excuse, a person charged with criminal offenses or a subject of a civil lawsuit would merely claim that s/he is unaware of the law in question to avoid liability. That is a fundamental pillar of the US civil and criminal code.

          You were quoting mens rea previously as a part of common law, guess where this originates? and you know what didn’t happen in 1957, guess? I bet you can guess.

        15. avatar pwrserge says:

          Holy shit Val, you just don’t stop. Nobody is claiming ignorance of the law. What is being claimed is that he is a VICTIM of CRIMINAL FRAUD.

        16. avatar RogueVal says:

          Well, let’s see…

          “I’m talking about the fact that HE HAD NO WAY TO KNOW THAT HE WAS BREAKING THE LAW and on top of everything else, he took reasonable precautions to AVOID breaking the law.”

          Hmm, that seems to specifically say that he had no way to know that he was breaking the law. I mean it’s in all caps and everything. It was like an hour before, but did you forget? I mean it’s only two posts up, so maybe.

        17. avatar pwrserge says:

          Ignorance of the law is not knowing that the law existed.

          Knowing the law existed and being DECEIVED into believing it did not apply IS NOT ignorance of the law.

          This is no different than busting somebody for speeding because somebody replaced the 35 mph signs with 45 mph signs. The intervening criminal act is a valid defense.

        18. avatar RogueVal says:

          No one changed the statutory requirement in Texas, and no one hid the statutory requirements in Texas.

          “HE HAD NO WAY TO KNOW THAT HE WAS BREAKING THE LAW”

          How is that not ignorance of the law, that’s literally the exact definition. So what, he’s a drooling moron, having sex with minors is illegal if you are an adult, that is something that any reasonable person knows. Did she hold a gun to his head, either, and force him into sticking his wiener in her? Did he trip and accidentally stick his wiener in her?

        19. avatar pwrserge says:

          In essence, yes. He had no reasonable cause to believe that she was a minor. Worse, he was defrauded into believing that she was not.

        20. avatar Anonymous says:

          No, the question is, was she 17 or not, that’s it. That’s the law, that’s how it works, and yes it was up to him to ensure it because he was the adult, over 30 years old.

          How can anyone ensure it – if they are lied to? You ask for the impossible.

      2. avatar Sabrina M Gray says:

        Did she lie to Cody, yes she did, as they met on a website that you have to be 18 to create an account on. The defense is already gearing up with the US v Kantor defense.

        1. avatar RogueVal says:

          You mean the one in which the SCOTUS ruled exactly the opposite of your point? Plus, it was for a federal law, not state law, namely The Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977, which has since been supplanted by other federal laws and would be irrelevant anyway, as this is a statutory violation of Texas state law.

          The decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court. With a majority of 7-2, they ruled to reverse the decision of the Ninth Circuit and uphold the criminal conviction.

          The Court relied on an awkward grammatical construction as it held that the term “knowingly” applied to the entire passage of the law. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice William Rehnquist stated that other interpretations failed to make sense since Congress obviously did not envision people accidentally mailing underage pornographic materials. All the law required was a showing that alleged violators intentionally distributed illegal pornography, regardless of whether they knew it depicted underage performances.

          .

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          So what you’re saying Val, is that you see no problems with a law where somebody could be defrauded into committing a felony? Really? That’s just to you?

          The key element in this incident is the numerous cases of FRAUD by the alleged “victim”.

        3. avatar RogueVal says:

          I’m not saying anything, that is the law. It just is, as much as you may feel it shouldn’t be, in reality world, it is the law.

        4. avatar Sabrina M Gray says:

          RougeVal, your thinking about US v X-citement video, not US v Kantor

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._X-Citement_Video,_Inc.

          US v Kantor (https://openjurist.org/858/f2d/534/united-v-united) was where Kantor hired Traci Lords and she submitted false documentation that showed that she was over the age of 18. Kanto argued successfully that he followed the law however she deceived him by showing him false documentation. It goes back to Serges point, if your puttering along in your car and you see a sign that says 45MPH, cop pulls you over and says you were going 10 over. You saw the sign that said 45MPH, how were you supposed to know that the actual speed limit is 35.

          Now when she signed up for said site, she had to agree that she was over the age of 18, the only way that Cody is screwed is if he asked her before the date, “Are you over the age of 18, if she says nope, I am over 18, how was he to know. If the messages show that she said she wasn’t 18, then yes he should be put in tried.

    2. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      Upon learning of this age detail of the law, I bet a lot of the creepy old guy ephebophiles out there are kicking themselves for having paid for sex with eighteen year olds, when they could have been doing seventeen year olds all this time.

  11. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    Everyone spouting off definitively about this having been an “obvious case” of entrapment just needs to shut the hell up. You don’t know the facts; you look like asses.

    Speculation and hypothesizing for the sake of conversation is fine, but if you’re taking a conclusive stand bassd on just what has been reported this far, just give it a rest. Geez, you come off looking like those dolts over at The Truth About Jello defending Cosby in the early part of that investigation.

    1. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

      Funny, that’s what THEY said about the Vegas Mass Shooting…Maybe it’s the Kavanaugh effect…

    2. avatar Gralnok says:

      Actually, what Cosby did at the time was perfectly acceptable. However, standards changed, a whole lot of whores decided that they wanted more money, they pretty much formed the MeToo movement, and presto, people’s lives get destroyed for something they did years ago, for something perfectly acceptable at the time, if legally questionable, and the life work of otherwise good men get destroyed and erased from history.

      Anyway, off topic rant over. We now return to our regularly scheduled programming.

  12. avatar New Continental Army says:

    Well, the fact that he’s fled to another country pretty much does him in. Not that I’m saying this couldn’t be a conspiracy, but going fugitive means you’ve lost, and you know it. I’m going to say that means he probably did what’s been charged against him. The question really is if it was a honey trap or not. I certainly agree the Democratic Party/Deep state is capable and willing to pull something like that. Either way, he still should’ve had the self control not to persue a young girl sexually. I’m a firm believer in personal responsibility. And I’m also a firm believer in not trusting strangers. Don’t meet up with mysterious young women you met online, in strange places, and Shit like this, or having your kidney stolen, won’t happen. I have little sympathy for people who lack the self control to keep themselves out of trouble then want to blame everyone else for their mistakes.

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      Well, the fact that he’s fled to another country pretty much does him in.

      He didn’t flee to another country. That is what the news is implicitly suggesting. He found out about the allegations while he was in Taiwan. So he was already there.

      I have little sympathy for people who lack the self control to keep themselves out of trouble then want to blame everyone else for their mistakes.

      Has Wilson blamed anyone for his mistakes?

      1. avatar New Continental Army says:

        Ok, I didn’t know he was already there. The article on here yesterday made it seem like he fled too. Still, it really doesn’t look good. As to your second point, I get he hasn’t personally made a statement here, but I was trying to direct that at those that seem to be making excuses for the alleged behavior.

        1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

          If there was an active warrant for Wilson, it would have been flagged at the airline at check-in…

        2. avatar B-Rad says:

          No, the airlines do not check the NCIC when you board, and neither does the TSA, the check at the screening is just to see if you’re ticket is valid, if you’re not on the no-fly list, which isn’t generated directly from NCIC, you’re flying. If you’re flying internationally, customs on the other side might flag you if they subscribe to the NCIC, Canada does for instance, and he’d get flagged on the inbound at US Customs. If he tried to renew his passport, State runs you through NCIC.

          Plus, even if they did, Austin would have had to process the warrant and post before he left, which it didn’t, they filed their arrest warrant after he left, while the PD was still investigating it, although he was aware of the investigation.

          Taiwan doesn’t have an extradition treaty with the US, but they have always extradited, even Taiwanese nationals. Lacking a signatory on a treaty is more political with China, than Taiwan.

      2. avatar Gralnok says:

        Actually, the prior article did make it look like he fled the country, as opposed to leaving on a business trip. A key detail that makes a big difference.

      3. avatar B-Rad says:

        He wasn’t already there, he was informed before he went to Texas by one of the accusers/victims friends.

        1. avatar B-Rad says:

          Went to Taiwan from Texas, obviously.

    2. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

      Rather like the Clintons whining about the vast right wing conspiracy. If you know that there’s a vast conspiracy out to get you, keep it in your pants.

    3. avatar Rocketman says:

      Not necessarily. Cody is smart enough to know that Defense Distributed has been in the cross hairs of some very powerful anti-gun people for some time who would like the company and Cody to both go “belly up”. Assuming that he didn’t do what he’s accused of, he knows that the chances of him getting a fair trail are just about zero because the “evidence” is already fabricated and when this happened, he decided his best bet was to run. If he truly is innocent that’s what I would do as well.

  13. avatar former water walker says:

    MEH…not surprised. This boy comes across as a “rules are for the little people”. My life won’t change.

  14. avatar GS650G says:

    If he didn’t boink a girl half his age he’d have no problem.
    There is little doubt he scewed her, we are just discussing the circumstances with a fine point.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      The circumstances matter. Banging a chick a decade younger than you is an accomplishment, not a character flaw. It looks to me like Wilson relied on the website TOS. That’s a reasonable position and the lying whore lying doesn’t make him a felon.

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        A decade younger than me wouldn’t be an issue.
        Someone in High School would be a problem. I don’t seek out partners not old enough to vote.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Prove that he was. The fact that he was using a website whose TOS specifically prohibit this would indicate he was doing the exact opposite.

        2. avatar B-Rad says:

          What are you talking about? His only defense is to prove it wasn’t him, he wasn’t there, that was not his account, not his pictures, not his phone that she sent pictures too, not his text messages, wasn’t him in the video from the coffee shop, not him in the video at the hotel, not him in the video at the Whataburger.

          If he slept with her, he’s screwed, twice.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Actually, being set up is a logical defense. If the law says otherwise it is a bad law and it is the duty to of the jury to nullify and the courts to throw out the charge on numerous constitutional grounds.

        4. avatar B-Rad says:

          Hah, you think his argument is going to be that it was all a setup? The jury will deliberate about 10 minutes, if they’re serving lunch, and it’s BBQ from Stiles, maybe 45.

      2. avatar Sabrina M Gray says:

        Bingo. Cody did this for a reason, why I don’t know.

        BTW, long time from HuffPo…

        1. avatar Cody's Great International Adventure says:

          It’s all part of my eleventy-seven step plan to…what was I doing? Ambien, it’s Ambien’s fault, Ambien made me do it, her, whatever.

      3. avatar Anonymous says:

        That’s a reasonable position and the lying whore lying doesn’t make him a felon.

        Technically Wilson is a whore too. They are both whoredogs, whoring it up.

        A lying whore “shouldn’t” make him a felon. Agree.

  15. avatar Libs & Cody bros says:

    Some of you are just as bad as the Libs. You’ll support anyone for ‘your side’, principles be damned. You have no shame.

    1. avatar Gralnok says:

      Actually, I prefer to support people until there is more than hearsay and gossip to go on, especially when that gossip is highly likely to be a result of the FBI or some equally shady agency trying to smear someone’s life work. Come back to me with proof of wrong doing, and then we can talk.

      1. avatar RogueVal says:

        You mean like the testimony to the police, the video, records from the website, photos from her phone, an arrest warrant signed by a judge, international extradition order. You mean like that.

        1. avatar Sabrina M Gray says:

          You mean the TOS that says by agreeing to use this site that you certify that you are over the age of 18. Cody has a gold plated case to get this thrown out and then turn around and say the Government is persecuting me.

        2. avatar RogueVal says:

          Yeah, like that. You must be talking about the thing that doesn’t affect his legal liability in the slightest, that TOS.

    2. avatar David Pigg says:

      Jefferson owned slaves but it doesn’t make the 2A void. I have no shame.

      1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

        According to the commonly held belief among historians, Sally Heming was definitely under 17 when Jefferson first hooked up with her.

        1. avatar Danny L Griffin says:

          Any historians who believe that are wrong. DNA tests were performed on Hemmings family. Her oldest kid’s family does not have any Jefferson DNA. One of her youngest does, and he was born when Jefferson was in his sixties, and it’s believed that Jefferson’s nephew is the father as he was younger and used to spend lots of time with the slaves recreating in the evening.

          The entire “Jefferson fathered kids by his slave” story was started by a newspaper owner who originally supported Jefferson, but got angry at him when Jefferson wouldn’t make him Postmaster General so he printed a bunch of stories to discredit Jefferson to get back at him.

        2. avatar B-Rad says:

          Almost all believe that it was Thomas Jefferson, there is a small group that thinks it could be a different Jefferson relative. Without a time machine, the DNA says they’re related, but after that much drift, they can’t tell absolutely. They’d need direct DNA from Jefferson, Hemmings, and all the supposed children, which they don’t have. So it’s probable, not definitive.

    3. avatar Anonymous says:

      Well – I just don’t think he should have his gun rights permanently taken from him because some sugardaddy ho was 16.5 years of age instead of 17.

      I certainly don’t condone what he did, if he did it.

      But I’m telling you, they are going to throw every book in existence at him. They want him out and silenced. And I can already foresee, the punishment not fitting the crime.

  16. avatar Dog of War says:

    Well sh*t….

    So, what do we do next? What will do with the case against those 21 totalitarian AGs that are trying to reverse the DOJ’s settlement with Cody Wilson and his group?

  17. avatar John B Thayer says:

    Umm? There’s a reason they’re called, “T.H.O.T.s”.

  18. avatar Danny L Griffin says:

    “Our job is to enforce the law and make an arrest on the front end.”

    I assume they’ve arrested the prostitute, then, as well.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Underage. She can do nothing illegal so far as sex is concerned.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        My understanding, and I’m not a lawyer, is that in the eyes of the law she’s a victim.

        Now if you could prove that she was used in a conspiracy(and since 99.99% of the popular conspiracies are purest bullshit you’re not likely to get any solid evidence) then her adult handlers in the conspiracy would be subject to all sorts of charges.

        Which if cody did his part still makes him guilty of at least one crime.

        1. avatar B-Rad says:

          Yeah, his best response is “sure, I like hooker’s, I thought she was 18” Of course, having watched his interviews, his actual response will probably be “come at me bro”, he just seems that kind of douche.

          Don’t know him, he definitely did a thing, once, that the 2A community thought was kind of cool. Then we got the opportunity to actually hear from him, yeah, I don’t want to claim him.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          How about fraud? Pretty sure that’s a felony regardless of your age.

        3. avatar RogueVal says:

          Sure, that wouldn’t change the charges for him in the slightest, but sure, he can sue her civilly for damages.

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          Actually, it does… It’s called an “intervening criminal act”… Try to keep up honey.

        5. avatar RogueVal says:

          It’s called proximate, or intervening, cause, and it is not applicable in a statutory criminal offense. You use the but for test.

          But for her being underage, there wouldn’t be a crime. But for, her lying, or fraud by omission, doesn’t matter.having intercourse with someone underage is always a crime.

        6. avatar pwrserge says:

          But for her fraud, she would have never been in contact with him in the first place. Try again.

      2. avatar Danny L Griffin says:

        Underage. She can do nothing illegal so far as sex is concerned.

        Really? Because I remember underage high school kids getting arrested for child porn for sending nude pictures of themselves to each other.

        1. avatar RogueVal says:

          Those would be additional crimes, and they would only further confirm his, so sure charge her for prostitution, has zero effect on him.

    2. avatar Moltar says:

      Technically she isn’t a prostitute either. She basically is doing what Anna Nicole Smith did only she ain’t got the good sense to marry the poor shmuck. Sugar babies are usually younger (18+) women who “accompany” or date older more affluent men in exchange for gifts now those gifts can be anything from cash to a new Ferrari and sex isn’t always required. This is actually becoming an accepted form of relationship among a certain subset of the population.

      1. avatar Danny L Griffin says:

        Technically she isn’t a prostitute either.

        She went to his hotel with him, had sex and charged him $500, then he drove her back to Whataburger. Seems like prostitution to me.

        If she’s underage, then she’s also guilty of sending child porn pictures.

        1. avatar Moltar says:

          She may not have charged for the sexual act. $500.00 may have been her charge for the date itself or Cody may have just paid the $500.00 to prove his sugar daddy cred. See thing is sugar daddies/mommies pay their sugar baby and support their lifestyle to be seen with that hot partner. Go google Anna Nicole Smith’s husband (the ancient oil tycoon) and Hugh Heffner. Both are a pretty decent example of this relationship dynamic.

  19. avatar Gralnok says:

    Until there is actual proof of intended wrongdoing, I’m still going to support him.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      I don’t even care if there was wrongdoing, intended or not.

      The only way this garbage fire matters to any of us is if it manages to derail a high-profile test of constitutional rights. Anybody who supported Wilson’s work before should still support it now.

      Whether Wilson is innocent or guilty, the constitutional issue we all claim to care about — that he’s been fighting for — is the same.

    2. avatar B-Rad says:

      Is buying whores wrongdoing, I mean it’s illegal. What level of illegal equals wrongdoing?

  20. avatar CLarson says:

    Was Cody Wilson this prostitute’s only “John” or are there others being charged? If she signed up for the site, specifically targeted his profile, arranged the tryst, and then immediately contacted the police… that’s very strange. It also might be worth it to see if someone put her up to it. Pimping out an underage prostitute is also a crime.

  21. avatar sound awake says:

    in april 2010 julian assange through wikileaks starts releasing stuff that starts pissing off a lot of people in high places

    like the the us state department

    by august of the same year hes being accused of sexual assault

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange

    in may 2015 cody wilson files a lawsuit against the us state department in federal court on first amendment grounds

    in july 2018 he wins

    by september of the same year hes being accused of sexual assault

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cody_Wilson

    is this absolute proof of a setup

    probably not

    is it enough to be skeptical

    definitely

    knowing what we know now about the deep state how hard would it be to believe that the government had known for a while about his online activities and waited for just the perfect opportunity to send this guy up the river

    not very

    1. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

      Hey look, a creepy guy raped some chicks in Sweden.

      In other news, a guy in Texas had sex with an underage girl.

      See, see, its all part of a plan to keep…guns out of the hands of, uh, by big gun, uh, government ?!, something, definitely something, because two things couldn’t possibly happen in the world to two assholes, definitely not, assholes never do anything.

      Shhh! It’s a conspiracy, be vwery qwiet.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Yeah… because unprovable bulshit allegations are totally 100% legit and we should “listen and believe” to the two bit whores who claim that nobody asked them to make a statement or entrap two conveniently high profile targets… Right…

        1. avatar RogueVal says:

          What crimes are crimes to you then? On other threads you’re talking about sending other people to jail for alleged crimes that have not even been charged, what’s the difference with this guy, because you like his politics maybe? So you’re an anarcho-fascist? That doesn’t make him innocent, or guilty, that just makes him…an accused sexual predator, nothing more nothing less.

          And looking at your posts, you seem to think its fine to pay a 16-year-old or younger to have sex with a 30-year-old, do you have kids, do you have daughters?

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Are you done with your strawmen Val or are you going to explain why you think a law that it is DESIGNED to let whores entrap men is perfectly ok and constitutional?

        3. avatar RogueVal says:

          Strawman?

          The law’s intention is to trick men into having sex with minors? That’s your thesis, you just stated it?

          I, on the other hand, think the law is intended to ensure adults don’t have sex with minors, and you’re arguing the contrary.

        4. avatar Pg2 says:

          I’ve been reading these posts and sadly I agree with you serge. Remember your position on bad or unconstitutional laws not being followed when they try to force the 200+ vaccines in the pipeline on adults and children in the cominG years.

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          If it really was 200+, I would agree with you. We didn’t get that many vaccines when we had to run the gauntlet before deployments. Where we disagree is on a handful of vaccines to devastating illnesses that have, in my opinion, a proven track record.

          As in this case, context matters. If he had deliberately sought out an underage prostitute or made no effort to make sure that the woman he was sleeping with was legal, I’d have zero pitty for him. In this case, however, it would fall under rape by deception. Wilson is the victim here.

  22. avatar el Possum Guapo Herr Standartenfuher" they think we're making pizza's" Oberst von Burn says:

    Ah man, if “They” want me to narc this guy out I outta git sum kinda reeward. That’s the trouble with LEO now days, all take and no give.

  23. avatar Mick says:

    Jillian Assange 2.0!

    If you can’t shut them up, file bogus rape charges and prevent them from coming home.

    Corrupt as hell…

    1. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

      First off, who is Jillian Assange?

      Second, If you’re talking about Julian, he’s Australian
      Third, he’s in the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK, seeking relief from a red order from Sweden.

      Fourth, the US has filed no charges against him.

      Fifth, Assange has been an asshole douchebag for a long time, you might remember from when he was leaking info from Gitmo all the way back to 2006, he’s not been a friend of America, ever.

      1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

        As I understand it, Sweden dropped the rape charges awhile back.

        But if he steps outside the Ecuadorian embassy, the Brits would love to bag him or ship him to the US…

  24. avatar TexTed says:

    The comments here have me despairing for the future of the republic. Is this what you people really think?

    Here’s what makes perfect sense:
    1) Cody willingly filed an application on SugarDaddyMeet.com. He WANTED to be some young thing’s sugar daddy. This is not faked, this is not a conspiracy. This is who he is.

    2) SugarDaddyMeet is designed to hook up young girls who want someone rich to pay their bills, and who are willing to screw to get it. It is legal whoredom. Many young girls have used it to pay college tuition, etc.

    3) Cody bragged. “I’m a big deal.” This is who he is. This is what he wanted.

    4) Apparently the terms of service specify that you must be 18 to use the service. Prior to the meetup, Cody should have had every reason to believe the girl was of legal age (unless evidence shows she confessed to being underage before they met up).

    5) They met. They screwed. Cody fulfilled his end of the bargain.

    6) The girl is apparently 16 or less, and told a therapist that this happened.

    7) The therapist reported it, and the govt issued an arrest warrant.

    None of this makes Cody a “pedophile” — unless the girl was clearly and obviously under 17 (say, 14 or so) or she told him directly that she was under age.

    None of this needs to be government “entrapment”. Cody ran into it willingly. He wanted to be a sugar daddy. This isn’t Tinder, this isn’t some random dating app. He knew what it was, he signed up with his real name, he bragged, and he fulfilled his end of it.

    The ONLY hitch in Cody’s plan here is that the girl is apparently under the legal age of consent. Did he know? Did she tell him? Should he have known? That’s all for the evidence to lay out.

    Cody’s a scumbag who wanted arm candy and was willing to pay for it. The girl probably leaped at it because, hey, at least he wasn’t 60 (like you’d presume most users of something like “SugarDaddyMeet.com” would be.

    This story makes perfect sense without having to involve Alex Jones, entrapment, cover-ups, or any other theories. Seriously — sometimes, a man doesn’t keep it in his pants, when he should. This was EPICALLY stupid on Cody’s part. No need to bring any other conspiracy theories into play.

    If he’s innocent or if it’s entrapment, don’t worry, he knows how to sue and how to use the legal system and he has plenty of lawyers on hand.

    1. avatar Mick says:

      We already watched them run this exact play with Assange, yet you’re making excuses for it. Let’s say he actually did do it, do you really think he’d use all of his real info? Really?

      You’re letting your hatred of premarital sex cloud your judgment, son.

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      The point is that the entire charge is bullshit. Prove that he knew that she wasn’t 17 or get the fuck out.

      Oh, and FYI, all men pay for sex. The only difference is whether it’s cash up front or payment in kind. Quite frankly, hiring a $500 hooker every couple of weeks is far cheaper than having the skank walk out with half your assets, your house, and getting a bullshit domestic charge slapped on your record for good measure.

      1. avatar RogueVal says:

        Well, you don’t have to prove that, all you have to prove is she wasn’t 17. It’s immaterial as a matter of law what he “thought” she was, and she wasn’t 17, she was UNDER 17, so that means she was at most 16, she may have been 9, guess what, doesn’t matter, under 17 is not an adult, and a 30-year-old man having sex with at most, a 16-year-old, is a crime. Black and white, open and shut.

        If the feds want to get involved, they could charge him with possession, and if he forwarded it, distribution of child pornography, as they exchanged nekkid photos.

        Why would you be defending this guy?

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Because I have moral standards. One of those moral standards is opposition to unjust laws that can make you a felon because some whore lied to you.

          Mens rea is a critical portion of our legal system. You cannot convict somebody of a crime without either evidence that they knew or should have reasonably known that their act is illegal.

          This sort of “exception” because some misandrist feminazi THOT wants to cry for the cameras is complete and utter bullshit. It is the bane of a rational society and why I’m not all that depressed that the feminazis in the EU will soon find out just how Islam treats them and their ilk.

        2. avatar RogueVal says:

          Except it’s not, because that isn’t actually how laws work in America, it was formally tossed in 1957, that would be 61 years ago.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Actually, it wasn’t. In order to ignore mens rea you have to prove either recklessness or negligence. Neither of those exceptions applies. While I’m not up on Texas statutes, if they say anything to the contrary, they are utter unjust bullshit. No law should require you to be psychic in order to avoid breaking it.

        4. avatar RogueVal says:

          No, you don’t, you need one of, not all of the levels, and only Knowingly and Purposefully require intent of the 5 levels, and if the law doesn’t require intent, guess what, you don’t need intent and this law in Texas only requires strict liability. I’ll post them again:

          Model Penal Code

          Since its publication in 1957, the formulation of mens rea set forth in the Model Penal Code has been highly influential throughout the US in clarifying the discussion of the different modes of culpability. The following levels of mens rea are found in the MPC:

          Strict liability: the actor engaged in conduct and his mental state is irrelevant. Under Model Penal Code Section 2.05, this mens rea may only be applied where the forbidden conduct is a mere violation, i.e. a civil infraction.

          Negligently: a “reasonable person” would be aware of a “substantial and unjustifiable risk” that his conduct is of a prohibited nature, will lead to a prohibited result, and/or is under prohibited attendant circumstances, and the actor was not so aware but should have been.

          Recklessly: the actor consciously disregards a “substantial and unjustifiable risk” that his conduct will lead to a prohibited result and/or is of a prohibited nature.

          Knowingly: the actor is practically certain that his conduct will lead to the result, or is aware to a high probability that his conduct is of a prohibited nature, or is aware to a high probability that the attendant circumstances exist.

          Purposefully: the actor has the “conscious object” of engaging in conduct and believes or hopes that the attendant circumstances exist.

          Except for strict liability, these classes of mens rea are defined in Section 2.02(2) of the MPC.

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          Actually, it proves exactly that. Strict liability not negated by an intervening criminal act is absurd. It’s a Kafka trap of the worst sort.

        6. avatar RogueVal says:

          Well, I suggest you move to Texas, run for office, pass a law that nullifies the Texas statute. Then find a way to recall the DA, and the Judge that signed off on the warrant.

          This is a thing that is actually happening, now, today in Texas. So it’s not theoretical, it’s actually happening.

          Statutory rape (Sexual Assault under Texas Penal Code Section 22.011(a)(2)) is a strict liability offense in Texas. What does this mean? It means that a person is guilty if:

          The person is older than 18 years of age; and
          The person intentionally or knowingly has sex with someone younger than 17 years of age.

          There is an exception to the law is the actors are less than 3 years apart in age, meaning that if the minor is 16 and the partner is 19 (but not more than 3 years older) then he will not be charged.

          Other than the 3-year age gap exception, there are no other exceptions to statutory rape in Texas, hence strict liability. There is no Consent defense; consent is irrelevant for this offense. There is not Mistake of Fact defense when the minor lies about her age and no Mistake of Law defense for when the actors don’t know what the age of consent is in Texas.

          And it’s common enough that lots of Texas lawyers have a FAQ specifically about it. See https://www.hassibicriminaldefense.com/criminal-defense-blog/2015/april/is-it-still-statutory-rape-if-the-victim-lied-ab/

          https://www.nedbarnett.com/practice-areas/child-sex-crimes/houston-tx-sex-with-a-minor/

          https://www.bhwlawfirm.com/statutory-rape-texas/

        7. avatar pwrserge says:

          Pretty sure that there is a world of difference between mistake of fact and deliberate FRAUD. In any case, as I said, I don’t care what the law says on the matter. Any law that allows somebody to be defrauded into a major felony is a bad law. It spits in the face of hundreds of years of legal tradition and anybody who supports applying such a law in such a case is a case in point as to why the 2nd amendment exists.

        8. avatar RogueVal says:

          Nope, if she’s 16 or younger and you diddled her, you’re guilty.

          No qualifiers, no excuses, you may be able to plead it out, but on the facts and the law, she could have shown him an ID, birth certificate, her mom could have come by and assured him it was fine, doesn’t matter.

          Unless he married her, there is a marriage exception.

        9. avatar pwrserge says:

          … and you don’t see the utter insanity of such a statute? Really?

        10. avatar RogueVal says:

          There are lots of laws that I don’t agree with, that I will also avoid breaking. This wouldn’t even make my top 100.

          This one is avoided, simply, don’t do stupid things, in stupid places, with stupid people.

        11. avatar pwrserge says:

          How do you avoid breaking a law you when you have no reason to believe your act is illegal and every reason to believe it’s perfectly legal?

          This is a case of WIRE FRAUD, that is the only actual crime committed here.

        12. avatar B-Rad says:

          PWR

          Got a couple questions for you.

          Is buying whores illegal?

          Is buying whores moral?

          This is regardless of age for said whores.

        13. avatar pwrserge says:

          To answer your questions in order…

          1. In many places it isn’t, nor should it be.
          2. Not in the slightest.

        14. avatar pwrserge says:

          To expand on that, since the edit function apparently doesn’t want to work today.

          Prostitution is only illegal because feminazis don’t like free market competition. Just take a look at how many of the want to outlaw “sex robots”. As for morality, it is not the job of the law to police morality. The purpose of the law is to punish harm done.

      2. avatar RogueVal says:

        You understand this charge isn’t about prostitution, it’s about sex with a minor. Prostitution would be additional charges potentially but is unimportant to the facts of having sex with a minor. These are your words, there’s no out of context.

        “Because I have moral standards. One of those moral standards is opposition to unjust laws that can make you a felon because some whore lied to you.

        Is buying whores illegal? In many places it isn’t, nor should it be

        Is buying whores moral? Not in the slightest.

        Prostitution is only illegal because feminazis don’t like free market competition. Just take a look at how many of the want to outlaw “sex robots”. As for morality, it is not the job of the law to police morality. The purpose of the law is to punish harm done.”

        I shall ask an additional question to Brads, is having sex with a minor, if you are 30, legal, is it moral? And how is this law designed to trick adults?

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          It’s designed such that an adult who has been defrauded has no legal defense. That encourages said fraud.

          The key question is one of intent, recklessness, or negligence. Without one of those three, you can’t convince me that what he did was immoral or should be illegal.

        2. avatar RogueVal says:

          So is it moral for a 30-year-old to have sex with a minor, is it legal for a 30-year-old to have sex with a minor?

          You’re arguing that the act is fine, as long he knows it? Or is the act wrong, whether he knows it or not?

          Do you think that in the thousands of cases of sexual assault of a minor by an adult that the primary goal of the law is to persecute the man, not prosecute, but persecuted?

        3. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

          Dude, why the [email protected] do you keep arguing with this fool? He sounds like the kind of guy that has 3 girls chained up in his basement, would his mom’s basement have a basement? because they wore those catholic school girl outfits, it’s his right as a POWERMAN.

          He should change his name to PWRPEDO

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          Leroy. Shut the fuck up. Nobody is taking to your soyboy ass.

          As for you Val… what part of “intent is important” do you not understand?

          Is is morally wrong for a 30yo to have sex with a 16yo? Depends? Was he aware of her age or was he lied to? The only just way to judge a man’s actions is by what he knew or should have known at the time.

          Any law that requires men to have magical age telling powers to stay out of jail flies in the face of the equal protection clause. I’d bet you that if the genders were reversed, he wouldn’t even have been charged. Everybody would be piling on the 16yo boy and treating him like a rapist because he used fraud to get an older woman to sleep with him.

          You want evidence that the sexual assault laws are unconstitutionally misandrist? If two college students get blackout drunk and have sex, legally, who got raped?

          And no, that’s not a hypothetical question. I’ve seen exactly that happen to an aquiantence of mine and he had to plead out even though the chick was all over him all night.

        5. avatar RogueVal says:

          “If two college students get blackout drunk and have sex, legally, who got raped?” Well if one is 30 and one is 16, guess.

          “And no, that’s not a hypothetical question. I’ve seen exactly that happen to an aquiantence of mine and he had to plead out even though the chick was all over him all night.” get better friends.

          I’m done with you. You believe, and have been defending, not just this incident, but that it can be OK if a 30-year-old has sex with a 16 or younger minor. There is no conversation possible with someone with such disregard for basic morals and decency.

        6. avatar pwrserge says:

          And you defend an unjust law that persecutes a man for being criminally defrauded. You are the exact sort of feminazi apologist vermin that disgusts me in every way imaginable.

          My example was two 21+yo college students. You just stuffed another strawman and kept up with your little misandrist jihad. Have fun with your cats. I feel truly sorry for any man stupid enough to get involved with you.

        7. avatar pwrserge says:

          Fun fact, in many states, the 16yo whore in question would be charged with rape by deception. Hopefully, this case will be public enough for the Texas state legislature to bring their law into the 21st century and avoid having their present statute struck down by the SCotUS.

        8. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

          PWRPEDO wants Merka to get with the program, you should be able to bone the kiddies all you want. NAMBLA, NAMGLA, whatever, Merka stands for FREEDOM and stuff. Those backward Texans and their morals, how dare they.

        9. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yes… how dare I demand that we only prosecute people for crimes they committed deliberately and not as a result of fraud. But good job attacking a rape victim Leroy. Congratulations Leroy, you are now a rape apologist. Wilson only consented to sex with that whore because she lied to him about her age and then backed up that lie with wire fraud. Pretty sure that rape by deception is still rape.

        10. avatar B-Rad says:

          Except in Texas, Rape by Deception is not a thing, it doesn’t exist. Sexual assault by any penetration or oral sex of a minor is at least a class 2 felony.

          So it could be really bad for her, if any of the crimes you’ve made up actually were a thing, but since they’re not, having sex with a minor is a very big no-no.

        11. avatar pwrserge says:

          Equal protection clause Leroy. Go look it up. It doesn’t matter if the law is on the books or not. The fact that she committed a felony to manufacture consent negates any act on his part. It’s no different than if she had held a gun to his head. But you go defending that rapist. I’m sure the whamenses will be quite proud of their little soyboy. Too bad your logic would also apply to women raped at knifepoint by 16yo ganbangers… they wouldn’t be quite as happy about that.

  25. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    Thanks to the Libertarians Liberals and the Left, who are sexually liberated. All who have encouraged children to explore sexual activity at as young an age as possible. And this includes lying about their age. Unfortunately Cody Wilson was caught up in this sexually liberated prostitution world.

    I don’t understand why more Libertarians aren’t celebrating prostitution by a famous person??? Or are Libertarians just liars???

    I would think Libertarians would be setting up a go fund me site so they can put their money where their mouth is, for his defense. A link please Libertarians???

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      I personally love the fact that people here are, with a straight face, defending a law that allows someone to defraud somebody into a major felony.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        The desire for perverted sex, deviant sex, makes Libertarians and others lose their ability to REASON. It is a fantasy of the Libertarians and the sexually liberated that they can “play” without consequences. And that will be there down fall every single time.

        Cody Wilson gave up guns for paid sex, period. He is a horny fool.

        And Libertarians Liberals and the Left will also give up guns for sex. Because to them sex and guns are of equal value.

        To be blunt with anyone reading my words. I as a black gun owner knowing the history of racist gun control in the United States I will never give up my ARMS. I will not trade them for sex, drugs or rock and roll. Guns are not of equal value to any of them. They are of superior of value.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Prostitution is not a felony. Rape by deception, however, is. Wilson is a rape victim. Unfortunately, the feminazis will turn reality inside out before they admit that he was the one who was actually raped in that hotel room.

        2. avatar B-Rad says:

          TRS Section 22.011 of the Penal Code defines statutory rape and rape as sexual assault, which is a second-degree felony. The punishment range for second-degree felonies is 2-20 years in prison with an optional fine up to $10,000.

          Under the law, having sex with someone under 17 is essentially rape. It’s not a slap on the wrist or a technicality. It’s 2-20 years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. And it’s not just sex that counts as sexual assault. It also includes any kind of penetration of the child and any kind of oral sex. In addition, if the child is under 14, it’s aggravated sexual assault, which is a first degree felony. Not only is there a higher range of punishment (5-99 years), but those serving time on aggravated charges are not eligible for parole until they’ve served at least half of their sentences.

          Let’s just suppose though that you’re lucky enough to get probation instead of a prison sentence. Sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault are sex crimes. This means that you’ll be a registered sex offender, most likely for the rest of your life. And it means that your probation will come with a whole lot of restrictions that don’t apply to other types of cases. In addition to not being able to live anywhere near a school or park, you won’t be able to have a phone that’s capable of sending pictures or accessing the internet. No PlayStation of XBox either, since they can access the internet. Your only internet access will be on a computer with software that restricts access to inappropriate websites. And don’t think about cheating, since you’ll have to pass polygraph exams where you’ll be asked whether you’ve broken any of the probation conditions.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Sure kiddo… you keep on defending that little rapist whore. This case is a perfect example of why strict liability laws like this violate the equal protection clause.

        4. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

          PEDO is really upset by that dirty child. Those dirty children just WANT it so much. They want to feel your SERGE. Every time you see them down at Madulka’s or Cool Licks, they know what that means, they’re just raping you with their eyes. Be strong or they’ll trick you into doing naughty things, mommy won’t like that.

        5. avatar Pwrserge says:

          If you’re old enough to commit wire fraud, you’re old enough to be charged with the rape you used said wire fraud to commit.

          Pst… you mixed up your trolling handles again.

    2. avatar B-Rad says:

      Just an FYI, Cody Wilson is libertarian liberal, far left anarchist.

    3. avatar Stuart L Mitchell says:

      “Thanks to the Libertarians Liberals and the Left, who are sexually liberated. All who have encouraged children to explore sexual activity at as young an age as possible. ”

      15 and 16 year olds are not children and teenagers of all ages have been trying to have sex ever since humans started walking on this earth.

      But I guess you would have put Mooney Lynn, Elvis, and Jerry Lee Lewis in prison.

      1. avatar Chris T from KY says:

        You forgot Bill Wyman of The Rolling Stones who in the 1980s was running around with a 13 year old girl in public.

      2. avatar Chris T from KY says:

        BTW
        According to reports published a few years ago about the sex scandal, over 80% of Catholic priests were having sex with boys between the ages of 15 and 17 years old. That is not by definition pedophilia. That is adults having sex with children but it’s not pedophilia.

        So now I know that you do in fact support men having sex with teenage boys at least 15 years old correct???

        And you think it’s wrong and immoral to send those adult men to jail just because they had sex with a 15 year old boys or older correct???

  26. avatar Stateisevil says:

    Well since we got rid of one of the purposes of the jury (nullification of unjust laws or questionable application of any law) and “ignorance of the law is no excuse” ( now applied by the evil state to include mala prohibita), Wilson best stay in Taiwan. Since the US regime hates him they’ll throw the book at him

  27. avatar Ross says:

    Only one person to blame for this and that’s Mr. Wilson himself.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Oh really? Because wire fraud is ok now and we should just “listen and believe” the whamen?

    2. avatar RogueVal says:

      No, but it’s also completely beside the point that he had sex with a minor, and he’s 30. If someone wants to charge a child with wire fraud, you have said earlier that it’s prostitution, charge her with prostitution.

      None of that affects him in any way, there are also other crimes he could be charged with, both state and federal. But none of that makes a 30-year-old having sex with someone 16 or under, when the age of consent is 17, not a sexual assault felony.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Morally, it does. You can’t blame someone for being the victim of a criminal fraud.

        There was no intent, negligence, or recklessness and thus no crime. Strict liability is unconstitutional. I don’t care what any commie vermin in a black robe says to the contrary.

        1. avatar RogueVal says:

          Well, the constitution, state law, federal law, and the supreme court disagree with you.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          I though I was clear on the fact that I don’t give a shit.

          Right is right and wrong is wrong.

          Once upon a time the law, state legislatures, and the SCOTUS disagreed with my position that chattel slavery is an abomination.

          Persecuting a man because he was lied to after he made reasonable efforts to stay within the law is wrong.

          The 2nd amendment exists precisely to prevent such gross miscarriages of justice. If he had known or had deliberately avoided the issue, it would be a different discussion, but he did not.

        3. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

          Right is right, PWRPEDO wants to do him some kiddies, why are all of you big mean people sex shaming him. He wants to live his best self, and that is purving on some youngster’s. His mom is getting upset with all the screaming from the basement, why doesn’t she just love him for his truth.

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          Oh fuck off Leroy. Rape by fraud is a thing. When that little whore masqueraded as a 18yo, she committed numerous crimes. I’m surprised your soyboy ass hasn’t been banned yet. Nothing you post even approaches a moral or legal argument. Why don’t you run allong and clean your feminazi owner’s chin folds? Maybe she’ll let you have your balls back for a few minutes.

        5. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

          He’s so mad that he’s spent a day being continuously pwned, and to make matters worse mommy won’t make his peanut buttery samiches that make him feel all warm and cuddly, and she took away his binky too. All of that mewling coming from the basement is just really bothering her tonight. Poor PWRPEDO, just so misunderstood.

        6. avatar pwrserge says:

          Ok… Leroy… so according to you, rape is ok so long as it’s the whamenses committing the criminal act? I take it back… your balls aren’t in some feminazi’s purse… they’ve been ground to dust and fed to you through your asshole years ago.

        7. avatar B-Rad says:

          Oh PWRPEDO, that child raped that poor man, aren’t you so jealous, but PEDO, I can use your nickname right? PEDO, not many people are this out in their defense of NAMBLA and NAMGLA, I applaud you on your bravery to take such a, dare I say it, PWRFUL stand. Good on you, be strong in your PEDO life.

        8. avatar pwrserge says:

          Um… Leroy… you’re getting your trolling handles mixed up again.

          According to the wise words of Leroy here, any woman raped by an underage migrant should be thrown in jail. How… “enlightened” of you.

        9. avatar Anonymous says:

          Pwrserge is right guys. I don’t condone what he did. I feel there is a gradient between right and wrong the younger they get. When you are 30 or 45, an 18 yr old isn’t much better than 16 or 15. Have some dignity and date someone a little closer to your age. However the law says that 18 is Ding, Ding, Ding ok! and 16 is way… way way wayyyyyyyyy off limits. There is this magical boundary on the day of her bday that makes everything alright. Right?

          Now having said that, the difference between a felony shouldn’t be a birthday, but it is. It’s not a logical law, not rational or even reasonable. But the law makes boundaries, even when we can see that there is not really a boundary here, but a gradient. It may be the law, and Cody may have broken it, and cody will have to face the music. But if the boundary is 17, and she is 16.5, and she lied to him to make him think she was 18, then it’s a injustice to me to give him 20 years in prison with a felony conviction. Maybe he deserves shame and some form of punishment. But certainly not 20 years in a prison and a felony conviction. And I guarantee you! the “Austin” liberals are looking for that felony! I’d make bets on it!

    3. avatar Ross says:

      He chose to register on the site and as such he was the instrument of his own downfall.

  28. avatar Hannibal says:

    “Hey, that prostitute I hired illegally SAID she was 18! brb going to Taiwan.”

    -something said by someone whose goose is cooked.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Fun fact. In many states, the 16yo would be charged with rape by deception. Given the obvious equal protection issues, I hope the SCotUS finally gets around to striking down these sorts of unconstitutional laws.

      1. avatar Cody's Great International Adventure says:

        Stop helping me.

  29. avatar mister bickles says:

    my advice, FWIW, to Mr Wilson would be to run and keep on running;
    there is no effective defence to “sexual offences” in most Western nations;
    even the rules-of-evidence are different from most other offences;
    if you’ve been unjustly charged with such an “offence”, then you know it is politically based and TPTB are ‘out’ to get you no matter what…

    run

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      He should not run. Running only pisses everyone off.

      He will be caught one way or another. He sticks out like a sore thumb in Taiwan, i’ll tell you that right now. And also, running looks cowardly, and when people act cowardly, our primordial psychology is to tear them apart.

      So he should just man up. It will look better than running. And he will be caught soon anyways.

      Man up, come back here, face the music, and he can make his case – if he has one.

  30. avatar Lowell says:

    Seriously, the timing of this doesn’t strike any of you as perhaps a bit off? He won. Then they attacked again, and he’s probably gonna win that, too. You don’t beat the government and expect not to be punished for it.

    Assuming this even happened, it was a setup.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      The incident itself? Unlikely. The fact that a DA is perusing a case that will get the strict liability standard thrown out on appeal? Yeah. That’s a politically motivated dog and pony show if I’ve ever seen one. This is almost exactly the perfect case for challenging the constitutionality of strict liability in such cases on equal protection grounds.

      This is a bad case. No physical evidence of intercourse. Wire fraud and deception on the part of the “victim”. Overt good faith acts on the part of Wilson to avoid exactly this situation… yeah… all they need on that jury is one man who still has his balls and Wilson walks.

      1. avatar Sabrina M Gray says:

        Depends on whether or not he asked if she was over the age of 18, if he didn’t o he asked and she offered that she was over the age of 18 thenhe has a good shot of getting this thrown out, if he did ask and she said nope i am under 18, he’s boned…

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          The fact that they met through a website that would require her to attest that she was over 18 to even access? I think it’s fair to say he didn’t bother asking. It’s not exactly a question that comes up in normal conversation. He relied on information she submitted to the service. Said information was fraudulent, but he had no conceivable way of knowing that.

          BTW… Thanks for citing Kantor… I knew there was SCotUS case law on point, just couldn’t remember it off of the top of my head.

          Though I still like my equal protection and rape by deception angle. Let’s be honest. If it was a 16yo MAN trolling for MILFs, he’d be facing rape charges, not the other way around.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          The fact that they met through a website that would require her to attest that she was over 18 to even access? I think it’s fair to say he didn’t bother asking. It’s not exactly a question that comes up in normal conversation. He relied on information she submitted to the service. Said information was fraudulent, but he had no conceivable way of knowing that.

          BTW… Thanks for citing Kantor… I knew there was SCotUS case law on point, just couldn’t remember it off of the top of my head.

          Though I still like my equal protection and rape by deception angle. Let’s be honest. If it was a 16yo MAN trolling for middle aged soccer moms, he’d be facing rape charges, not the other way around.

  31. avatar nobody says:

    What I see here is a bunch of OFWG judging someone of the younger generation for using online dating sites despite the fact that Wilson has done more for our rights, and not just the 2nd, than all of us combined; ignoring the fact that she would have had to illegally represent herself on that site, despite statutory “rape” laws being feel-good laws with no legitimacy, which you would think the gun community would be against, despite the fact that this is so obviously a prejudicial pursuit by the state at best and entrapment at worst.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email