Shocking news about UtterAccess owner

[Deleted Bruce 182381]

Jack Leach was an Access MVP who some years ago had taken ownership of the Utter Access site until its recent demise. This news might be the reason why UA abruptly went belly up without any advance warning:

https://hoodline.com/2025/06/st-augustine-business-owner-indicted-for-child-exploitation-crimes/

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Interesting. Google Gemini confirms that Jack D Leach was the most recent owner of the UA web site and was listed as its administrator. Your news certainly offers a plausible answer to the "why is UA shut down" question. Thanks for the "heads up" on that one.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

@BlueSpruce - you ask a valid question about the UA site shutdown, but one that probably cannot be answered in any practical sense. "Distracted" is "distracted" whatever the actual reason that led to neglect.

Over 20 years ago a friend of mine got fired for visiting web sites with extreme NSFW content, very adult-oriented stuff, and his wife divorced him for it. He was not involved with child porn, but he WAS using his employer's computer equipment in an unapproved manner for sex-related posts. This WAS grounds for firing, and even so, he was lucky that the employer didn't also press criminal charges for theft of computer services.

In subsequent discussion, my other friends and I speculated that he got what he needed from the web because he wasn't getting what he needed elsewhere. Read that as you like, but I didn't like his wife because of attitude. In the final analysis, we do what we do because we want it or need it and sometimes don't have a ready source to satisfy that need. Addictive behavior - whether drugs, alcohol, tobacco, sex, food, or high-speed driving - can provide such a pull on your life that you seem to be out of control trying to get to your vice.

 

[arnelgp]

I always got that thought that most, if not all (except George of course), are pedophiles..

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I'm a playing-computer-games-o-phile.

 

[moke123]

I'm somewhat surprised we didn't get a "This domain has been seized.." type message from UA. I'm sure someone was tasked with looking at every upload to UA.

 

[Isaac]

@BlueSpruce - you ask a valid question about the UA site shutdown, but one that probably cannot be answered in any practical sense. "Distracted" is "distracted" whatever the actual reason that led to neglect.

Over 20 years ago a friend of mine got fired for visiting web sites with extreme NSFW content, very adult-oriented stuff, and his wife divorced him for it. He was not involved with child porn, but he WAS using his employer's computer equipment in an unapproved manner for sex-related posts. This WAS grounds for firing, and even so, he was lucky that the employer didn't also press criminal charges for theft of computer services.

In subsequent discussion, my other friends and I speculated that he got what he needed from the web because he wasn't getting what he needed elsewhere. Read that as you like, but I didn't like his wife because of attitude. In the final analysis, we do what we do because we want it or need it and sometimes don't have a ready source to satisfy that need. Addictive behavior - whether drugs, alcohol, tobacco, sex, food, or high-speed driving - can provide such a pull on your life that you seem to be out of control trying to get to your vice.

Very truly said. I currently write letters to an incarcerated individual who did a couple bad things with a consenting 16 yr old boy - after living a lifetime (literally, his whole life was full-time this) of service and charity to help families in need. I tend to NOT write people off for the one bad thing they did if their life was chock-full of good stuff too. In Jack's case I'll make an exception, though, as my memory of him was being an a-hole to others, though I'm sure he did something good too.

 

[Isaac]

In this day and age, you fully know someone only when you have access to their computer. Most people anyway.

 

[moke123]

In this day and age, you fully know someone only when you have access to their computer. Most people anyway.

More likely their Cell Phone.

In Jack's case I'd be most concerned with the charge of "Attempted Production" That carries some harsh time.
Possession charges sometimes do have some solid defenses. "It was in a zip file I downloaded from a coding forum"
I've seen numerous cases of people being targeted when it was actually a neighbor who was stealing their Wi-Fi.

This should serve as a good reminder to make sure your wireless is well protected.

 

[Isaac]

More likely their Cell Phone.

In Jack's case I'd be most concerned with the charge of "Attempted Production" That carries some harsh time.
Possession charges sometimes do have some solid defenses. "It was in a zip file I downloaded from a coding forum"
I've seen numerous cases of people being targeted when it was actually a neighbor who was stealing their Wi-Fi.

This should serve as a good reminder to make sure your wireless is well protected.

I've sometimes wondered about that when I hear people being charged with something that's 100% digital evidence, it's concerning.
People are innocent until proven guilty. And unfortunately, I'm sure there is that 1% who are still innocent even after being convicted..

I also note that the term 'child' means vastly different things in different contexts and to different people.
Theoretically it would be possible to have the intention of downloading/watching pure porn, and not realize that underage's had gotten caught up in the mix of it. Thus the evidence would be very solid, except that little piece of evidence missing that you knew they were underage....
Especially relevant if/when the context is, i.e.,. 17 yr olds. I.E. some people call Epstein's saga a matter of "child porn", and still others call him (incorrectly) a pedophile, when that's not really what the word means. Personally I'd prefer the terms not be so malleable, because if someone really is into 5 year olds that's something I'd put in a whole different category than 16-17 yr olds, it's just an entirely different thing. They both may be wrong (the latter only in the last 1% of human history), but they are entirely different.
But I digress..

 

[Isaac]

More likely their Cell Phone.

In Jack's case I'd be most concerned with the charge of "Attempted Production" That carries some harsh time.
Possession charges sometimes do have some solid defenses. "It was in a zip file I downloaded from a coding forum"
I've seen numerous cases of people being targeted when it was actually a neighbor who was stealing their Wi-Fi.

This should serve as a good reminder to make sure your wireless is well protected.

You mean that popup from Chrome password manager about how I just used a compromised password is something I was supposed to be not just X'ing out of all this time?

 

[Isaac]

it was actually a neighbor who was stealing their Wi-Fi.

And that's actually a very believable defense IMO, because if someone is doing child porn AND they know what they are doing, they're going to absolutely be trying to set up a fall guy the whole time, so using someone else's wifi would be their first stop naturally

 

[Isaac]

They'd think I didn't have much of a life. Bridge and Access and Access and Bridge. But both are actually very engaging so I don't have much time for other stuff.

I'm concerned if someone followed my Pandora stations (like Spotify but better, for any youngster reading this!) :: They'd think I was frenetically changing moods like a crazy person. Alan Jackson one moment, Five Finger Death Punch the next.
But hey, sometimes you feel inspired, other times you need to wake up.

 

[AccessBlaster]

US DOJ doesn't indict people unless they have compelling evidence to win convictions.

You're kidding right?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

US DOJ doesn't indict people unless they have compelling evidence to win convictions.

Oh, if only that were true. However, there is some suspicion - held by both sides of the aisle - that politics can blur the optics.

 

[Isaac]

US DOJ doesn't indict people unless they have compelling evidence to win convictions.

Another way to say that is, people are scared and 95% of them plead out. Meaning nothing as to their culpability

 

[Isaac]

Their conviction rate is very high

in the 2 or 3 % that don't plea bargain, yes

 

[KitaYama]

Something's been bugging me for a while, so I have a quick question about justice system in US. (just asking. Not saying it's wrong)
I know different states have different law books and the same crime may have different consequences in different states.
I ASSUME that any crime has a min/max punishment and the judge gives the verdict between this min/max, based on a lot of factors.
At times, I've seen too much leniency in verdicts that brings the "Wow, is it what it should be?" doubt. But after all the judge has the last word.

My question is : In your justice system, are judges allowed to go below the min, or above the max allowed sentence?

At times, I've seen some unbelievable verdicts and wonder how it is possible at all.
Here's two of them for a comparison:

A teenager shots and kills his dad for taking his digital as a result of his low grades in school. At the court he said he's sorry, the mom told she forgives her son, the sister told that it's hard but she forgives her brother. The judge sent back him home on parole, with zero day prison time. And now they are living happily together. Link (chatgpt tells me the sentence for a juvenile on murder charge is 10 to 15 years)

A Taylor man was sentenced to 50 years in prison after being found guilty for possession of 10.89 grams of methamphetamine (while being on parole). They found two firearms and some stolen property during searching his home. Link

In both cases, don't you think the sentence is bellow and above what it should be?

 

[Isaac]

Something's been bugging me for a while, so I have a quick question about justice system in US. (just asking. Not saying it's wrong)
I know different states have different law books and the same crime may have different consequences in different states.
I ASSUME that any crime has a min/max punishment and the judge gives the verdict between this min/max, based on a lot of factors.
At times, I've seen too much leniency in verdicts that brings the "Wow, is it what it should be?" doubt. But after all the judge has the last word.

My question is : In your justice system, are judges allowed to go below the min, or above the max allowed sentence?

At times, I've seen some unbelievable verdicts and wonder how it is possible at all.
Here's two of them for a comparison:

A teenager shots and kills his dad for taking his digital as a result of his low grades in school. At the court he said he's sorry, her mom told she forgives her son, her sister told that it's hard but she forgives her brother. The judge sent back him home on parole, with zero day prison time. And now they are living happily together. Link (chatgpt tells me the sentence for a juvenile on murder charge is 10 to 15 years)

A Taylor man was sentenced to 50 years in prison after being found guilty for possession of 10.89 grams of methamphetamine (while being on parole). They found two firearms and some stolen property during searching his home. Link

In both cases, don't you think the sentence is bellow and above what it should be?

Unfortunately, the laws that govern judges discretion or lack of discretion are also a patchwork quilt, totally different in different situations. Some states will get all riled up or people will get all riled up about a certain issue and they will pass a law requiring minimum sentencing. The latest fad has to do with human trafficking everybody is all riled up about that currently, so they have minimum sentences for that in many states

 

[The_Doc_Man]

There are, indeed, sentencing guidelines for each crime. However, like in the movie Pirates of the Caribbean, the pirate's code and those sentencing ranges are merely GUIDELINES.

To my understanding, which is not based on first-hand knowledge, judges have the ability to consider extenuating or aggravating circumstances in any criminal case. In Louisiana, I believe that a judge applying either class of circumstance during sentencing is generally required to at least mention his/her reasons for straying outside the guidelines - but the guidelines are not firm. In fact, the mere presence of a range of years for each specific charge builds in room for the "intangibles" that judges hope to see - or hope to NOT see - in each convicted person.

This style of sentencing is actually common among the various states. The differences represent a poorly understood fact about the USA - that each state is actually a sovereign state that has agreed to participate in the federal processes of the USA. After the original 13 colonies, all other states had to apply for statehood including that the population had to vote on becoming a state.

Before Texas applied, they were the Republic of Texas. When Louisiana joined, it was after subdivision of the Louisiana Purchase lands. Several of the states in the USA southwest were originally territories of Mexico. Every one of them joined voluntarily to submit to federal jurisdiction but they also retained that individual sovereignty to manage their own internal affairs. And the federal requirements for courts shaped the similarities of each state's courts, but their individuality is still expressed in the unique parts of their court system.