🔥 Zoosadist Million Pity / Baby Monkey Hate / 0chan.life / Million Tears / EvilUnveiled / VidLii - YouTube Monkey Torture horrorshow, a horrible rabbit-hole of international zoosadism. Now featuring fresh milk from monkeyfuckers themselves!

AnOminous said:
I don't know anything about the current law or whether the legislature cured its deficiencies, but I'm pretty sure the defense is leaning into a constitutional defense.
Click to expand...
DrNow said:
They’ll pitch that they are entirely in agreement that she’s a weird, degenerate scumbag of the lowest order, but her right to be a loathsome scumbag is protected by the constitution.
Click to expand...
A filing yesterday cleared that up, Lynn Seymour & legal defense is literally arguing that distributing monkey torture videos should be constitutionally protected speech.
Screenshot_20260310_165903_Office Reader.jpg
This case involves shocking and repulsive videos
Click to expand...
Even her lawyer couldn't defend the shit itself.
 

Attachments

Azdy said:
A filing yesterday cleared that up, Lynn Seymour & legal defense is literally arguing that distributing monkey torture videos should be constitutionally protected speech.
View attachment 8682429

Even her lawyer couldn't defend the shit itself.
Click to expand...
"The First Amendment protects much hurtful speech, facilitates the spreading of dangerous falsehoods, and sometimes results in the distribution of depictions that are harmful to those who appear them, as well as those who view them, such as videos containing 'child erotica' and virtual child pornography. See Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002) (declining to add 'virtual child pornography' as a new category of less protected speech)."

Their lawyer themselves has spelled out what this is.
 
Azdy said:
A filing yesterday cleared that up, Lynn Seymour & legal defense is literally arguing that distributing monkey torture videos should be constitutionally protected speech.
View attachment 8682429

Even her lawyer couldn't defend the shit itself.
Click to expand...
Tl;dr
The indictment should be thrown out because it’s based on an underlying statute which is unconstitutional as it’s too vague and too broad because it does not specifically define the word “obscenity” and there’s not enough caselaw based on this statute to determine an interpretation of that word in this context based on case law precedent. If for some reason the court disagrees with my argument and applies the definition used in prior free speech cases, they should note that my perverted client’s crimes do not meet that standard because they are not overtly “sexual.” I know that these disgusting videos are a manifestation of a deplorable paraphilia, but I’m going deliberately misconstrue the statute because uhh… *checks notes* a baby monkey getting sodomized by a hot nail is no different than Bonnie Blue stroking a zucchini.

IMG_4960.jpeg
Oh yeah, and don’t forget about the “ordinary person” who deals in monkey torture

IMG_4961.jpeg

Thank god this law protects my right to commission and distribute videos of hardcore pornography tastefully edited with sporadic clips from Perdue Farm.

IMG_4962.jpeg
 
Last edited:
pistolwhipped said:
The indictment should be thrown out because it’s based on an underlying statute which is unconstitutional as it’s too vague and too broad because it does not specifically define the word “obscenity” and there’s not enough case law based on this statute to determine an interpretation of that word in this context based on case law precedent.
Click to expand...
Greer-tier. The fact they even have cases to cite to fill a brief with shows that yes, there is extensive case law on the meaning of "obscenity" for First Amendment purposes, and this vile shit clearly isn't protected by even by the most generous interpretation of current law.
 
AnOminous said:
Greer-tier. The fact they even have cases to cite to fill a brief with shows that yes, there is extensive case law on the meaning of "obscenity" for First Amendment purposes, and this vile shit clearly isn't protected by even by the most generous interpretation of current law.
Click to expand...
I really don’t know what other hypothetical purpose could be ascribed to videos like these. Part of his argument rests on the assumption that there could be some other vague, non-sexual motive for creating and sharing this content. Of course he does not specify what that motive might be. Even if I entertain his point of view for a second, I cannot think of any other reasonable or legitimate purpose for intentionally torturing an animal for a prolonged period of time.

Just because the baby monkey torture at issue in these animal crush cases does not contain footage of overt beastiality, does not mean that it does not appeal to the “prurient interest.” According to the National Institute of Health, zoosadism is defined as “a paraphilia in which sexual arousal and satisfaction are obtained from torturing a nonhuman animal.” I am curious whether this defense attorney would make the same argument for a hurtcore CSAM video that does not involve overt sexual activity.

But I guess if you really wanted to be nitpicky, Congress could have included an intent or mental state requirement or something but I’m sure that’s what they intended when they amended the law to add the word “obscene.” That being said, there is obviously a difference between a video of factory farming practices (however grotesque) and a prolonged video of an infant animal being mutilated.

IMG_4966.jpeg

Also, what? The consent of the animal cannot be determined. That’s why beastiality is illegal… in most places.
 
Lynn's defense has a history of creative interpretations of the first amendment. They successfully defended a man who edited kids into porn images for his enjoyment on free speech grounds.
"NH Supreme Court- Landmark First Amendment Victory"
The State prosecuted Zidel for possesion of child pornography, based on pornographic images of adult bodies engaged in sexual activity, that he collaged together with photographs of the heads/faces of minors he pasted unto the shoulders of the adult bodies.
Click to expand...
For this victory, Ted thanks trial counsel Behzad Mirhashem and Don Topham of the Nashua, NH Public Defender's Office, who did an incredible job researching and presenting this difficult issue to the trial court, and preserving the issue for appellate review. Here's a link to more information about my friend Behzad, currently a federal defender in Boston... and a trial attorney extraordinaire - and physicist!
Click to expand...
https://www.nhdefender.com/appeals/2012/09/18/nh-supreme-court-landmark-first-amendment-victory/ / https://archive.ph/wip/KjHrB
 
When are the rest of the perverts that were indicted in Ohio going to be tried? It’s been almost a year. That’s just unacceptable and so sad.
 
Trees and Bees said:
When are the rest of the perverts that were indicted in Ohio going to be tried? It’s been almost a year. That’s just unacceptable and so sad.
Click to expand...
They're most likely waiting for Nick Dryden to accept a plea deal that would give him 7+ years. He doesn't seem to want to do that but the judge refused otherwise. He's still in jail.
 
Azdy said:
Lynn's defense has a history of creative interpretations of the first amendment. They successfully defended a man who edited kids into porn images for his enjoyment on free speech grounds.
"NH Supreme Court- Landmark First Amendment Victory"
Click to expand...
Nice defense, but it probably doesn't apply here as that case involved images that were never intentionally distributed. These monkeyfuckers quite deliberately distribute their content as broadly as they possibly can.

There is also the element of sexual sadism to the level of psychopathy. That defendant was a sick weirdo, but at least marginally less bad than the monkeyfuckers.

Anyway, the actual opinion, since I'm not going to elaborate on possibly helpful First Amendment arguments for these scum:
State v. Zidel, 940 A.2d. 255 (Jan. 18, 2008).

I'll also note the specific issue is very narrow, and is to whether the images created by the disgusting freak in this case are specifically "child pornography" as opposed to something else, and whether he was guilty of possessing "child pornography."

The issue in this case involves deliberate distribution and procurement, specifically that the distributors actually paid for this material to be created, and the issue is not whether it fits some narrow definition of "child pornography" or whether the statute prohibits First Amendment protected behavior. Obscenity is, under case law, not protected, and I believe this is definitely obscenity that does not deserve protection.

While I hate to echo Potter Stewart saying "I know it when I see it," this is obscenity undeserving of protection. The only issue before the court should be whether the behavior being prosecuted matches the language the statute prohibits.

Sorry about elaborating when I said I wouldn't but this shit just pisses me off so much. I hate these goddamn "people." I can't even believe I share a species with these scum.

ETA (and subtract) to emphasize the repulsiveness of that dude, he took those pictures of minors in his job as a photographer for a camp.
 
Last edited:
It definitely feels like a false equivalency. If he belonged to a community that was paying for high quality images of children edited into pornography, operating groups within that community, attacking people who challenged that community, whilst sharing content across platforms and social media, whilst consistently escalating to new extremes…then maybe.

In Lynn’s case, she had acted as the demand part in a situation where pointless, sadistic and deviant cruelty an absolute necessity. It also requires constant boundary pushing and has proven it will become more extreme left unchecked. It’s not a question of impeding on her freedoms, it’s recognising that without proper intervention she will continue to engage in this behavior and her presence will embolden and encourage others. Especially if the court determines active involvement in zoosadism is a constitutional right.

I don’t think she should be able to invoke this first amendment case, which worked in the context of private images. And her own situation where she basically headed up an animal torture porn ring. But I’ve no doubt they’ll exploit any technicality they can.

I think it all rests on whether or not the judge is oblivious to the message letting her walk will send to thousands of her co conspirators.
 
Last edited:
Even if the statute could be fine tuned more, I do believe that as it currently stands today, Lynn’s crimes fit squarely within its purview.

DrNow said:
I think it all rests on whether or not the judge is oblivious to the message letting her walk will send to thousands of her co conspirators.
Click to expand...
I’m curious to see whether any animal advocacy groups will submit amicus briefs like in the Richards and Stevens cases referenced several times in this motion. Unfortunately these cases get virtually no media attention, so someone may need to bring it to the attention of the Animal Legal Defense Fund or something.

ETA that Lynn’s behavior has not been fully on display in this court yet because the parties are currently litigating the applicable statute, but the depravity and cruelty within this community cannot be overstated. Any animal advocacy groups, should they get involved, need to be fully aware of how bad it is. I have told people before that whatever they imagine when they hear “baby monkey torture,” imagine it 10x worse.
 
Last edited:
They’re saying this one is Tony Fucking Montana, real name Francisco Javier Ravelo.
IMG_2886.jpeg
IMG_2887.jpegIMG_2888.jpeg
IMG_2889.jpegIMG_2890.jpeg
EVERY accusation from these retards is an admission :story: he’s literally the fattest fuck in the photo :tomlinson:
Attached is Katrina Favret’s sob story for why she should get a lesser sentence, because she (SHOCKING spoiler ahead) is a mentally ill junkie addicted to opioids and benzodiazepines. Perhaps this is what led to her taking that picture of her sucking dick.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
IMG_7194.jpeg

So yeah, if you’re gonna pay someone to sodomise and torture an animal to death, try and smoke some heroin first. That’s gonna work in your favour. Major bonus points if this is gonna be your first time in court. I see Favrets defence is basically outlining the best approach to producing animal torture porn. Developing a drug habit is gonna go down real well. Cultivating a harmless victim vibe in advance might save some work when it comes to mitigating sentencing.

Because apparently a side effect of painkillers is wanting to watch someone take a box cutter to a baby monkeys genitals. I mean, everyone knows that right?

I haven’t studied law, so I just have to trust what I’m seeing, I’m sure this makes absolute sense and I have no basis on which to be absolutely disgusted.

“Look, Favret doesn’t seem like the kind of person who’d encourage someone to torture animals over the Internet. So that’s what really matters here. Shes actually pretty chill. She stole a few things back in the day sure, but as far as animal snuff funding goes, I’m sure she meant nothing by it. How about we keep the whole consequences of her actions thing to the absolute minimum?”

Could you imagine this shit in any other context?

“I mean yeah, he molested that kid…but come on, he only ever shoplifted a few times before that.”

“Right, yeah, I get that she plowed a vehicle into some guy on a bike. Nobodies saying that’s right. But she was real fucking drunk. Have you ever tried to check your phone on a blind turn after six margaritas? It’s not like she meant anything by it, and I assure you shes real sad about it.”

Is it really that easy to be a lawyer?
 
Azdy said:
They’re saying this one is Tony Fucking Montana, real name Francisco Javier Ravelo.
View attachment 8702170
View attachment 8702171View attachment 8702172
View attachment 8702173View attachment 8702174
EVERY accusation from these retards is an admission :story: he’s literally the fattest fuck in the photo :tomlinson:
Attached is Katrina Favret’s sob story for why she should get a lesser sentence, because she (SHOCKING spoiler ahead) is a mentally ill junkie addicted to opioids and benzodiazepines. Perhaps this is what led to her taking that picture of her sucking dick.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20260310-151835~2.jpg
    Screenshot_20260310-151835~2.jpg
    16.9 KB · Views: 105
Dr now. I tried to send you this a few days ago but couldnt figure it out. Probably because my account is new. The screenshot I just posted took looks like him. It was a Google link, but the page it sent me to didn't show a mugshot.
 
Nebula_Nomad said:
Dr now. I tried to send you this a few days ago but couldnt figure it out. Probably because my account is new. The screenshot I just posted took looks like him. It was a Google link, but the page it sent me to didn't show a mugshot.
Click to expand...
That's Lucas VanWoert, sometimes google pulls an image off a related article for some reason. You can try contacting Francisco's police department for a mugshot but IDK if they'll release it.
Not sure which one arrested him, the same home address is linked to all 3.
 
IMG_7209.jpeg

Ahahahhahahaha.

“Homeland Security Investigations pieced together the case that led to Ravelo’s guilty plea,” said ICE Director Todd M. Lyons. “He personally distributed more than 40 animal crushing videos to other people, but he didn’t count on HSI being able to track him down, pull together evidence and present it to the judge. Now he knows better. I hope this serves as a warning to others who acquire or distribute this kind of content: HSI will find you, and you’ll end up in federal court just like Ravelo did.”
Click to expand...

How delicieux is that culinary traversy now, you flabby retard?

And i’m gonna say it. You have one munt to lose turdy pound.

IMG_7213.jpeg

We’ll likely never see the erotic roleplay that took place between Joe Buckland and Francisco Ravelo. But this was how he presented himself. By all accounts it was a sort of Crow/Jessica Rabbit LARP.

The reality is closer to Chum Lee than Brandon Lee.
 
Last edited:
DrNow said:
I haven’t studied law, so I just have to trust what I’m seeing, I’m sure this makes absolute sense and I have no basis on which to be absolutely disgusted.
Click to expand...
It's a dirty job but someone's gotta do it. The defense must interpret the facts in the best possible dindu nuffin light at all times because doing otherwise would basically lynch people on the spot, which is kind of extremely shitty if you're caught up in some shitstorm that wrongly places the blame on you.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
I don't really know what thread this belongs in, it has nothing at all to do with monkey abuse, yet somehow, I feel like the people involved would definitely get off on monkey abuse

There is an Instagram account called @dobbytoks, ran by a guy called Brian Burkhardt. He's been making weird Dobby AI content for a few years now, it started relatively innocent but has been slowly encroaching in fetishism/sadism for awhile now

Every other video has Dobby either shitting himself (run of the mill degeneracy) or being tortured in some way, usually by having his babies killed or being neutered

Regardless of whether or not the owner of the account is just doing it for a meme (though, his DeviantArt suggests otherwise). The people in the comments are VERY found of his videos

1774213413572.png
1774213418170.png
1774213424030.png
There was also a guy asking for more diaper content but i didn't screenshot it

Come watch this freaks Instagram reels HERE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom