Inactive Riolu947 / RiolutheBlueCat / BlueCatRiolu / Nicolas Salerno (Internet Banishment) - Child Grooming Pedophile, Inflation Fag, future cat fucker.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Autistic Braixen said:
Anyway...

Oh yeah, this other idiot named Lamont still worships the blue cunt like Jesus. It's another echo chamber from hell.

Might as well add that he's most likely the one who made the Wikia, as Riolu Media and other related shit was mostly don't by him.

Okay, where do I begin? Ever since the drama with BlueCatRiolu and the pedophilia shit, Kashi has somehow been able to cause misery.

The first file is his response to me being concerned about his well being after the Riolu shit.

As you can tell, not a very good start. He tends to throw these tantrums when you say the wrong thing.

He even has a Kiwi Farms account on here. Wow.

More info soon.

More bullshit.

He sure does love to throw his N words around... despite being as white as a goddamn sled dog.
Click to expand...
CHARGE YOUR FUCKING PHONE GOD
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Calooby
Autistic Braixen said:
Yeah thanks for pointing that out. I guess artists in the community that want Riolu dead get fucked as well. So thanks for posting my shit.
Click to expand...
You've posted trolling plans many times before and wanted praise for exposing Riolu. That slapfight you and @Kashi-Kukku had was on this thread so of course people will pay attention to you. When you take away the pedo aspect of Riolu, you're just as much of a lolcow.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Colmerry, DJ Funnybone, nanny911 and 6 others
GrainKiller said:
You've posted trolling plans many times before and wanted praise for exposing Riolu. That slapfight you and @Kashi-Kukku had was on this thread so of course people will pay attention to you. When you take away the pedo aspect of Riolu, you're just as much of a lolcow.
Click to expand...
It's only a matter of time before a thread on this guy pops up
 
  • Agree
Reactions: dead76, Bluey, Coelacanth and 2 others
To be honest someone needs to make a thread on Lamont more than anybody else...He basically makes badly edited logos for people he worships and they aLeah’s reference kids’ tv networks, or something related to anime. It’s mega cancer. At least @Autistic Braixen wants pedophiles out of the furry community like how no one wants pedos in any community. Lamont just plagiarizes 24/7 or *le gasp* makes them “original” by slapping sagwa onto it.
 
  • Autistic
Reactions: NoFeline, Colmerry, Cool kitties club and 4 others
Apparently, there's not enough evidence to put Riolu in prison. That's according to Amanda Fields, a detective in the field of Crimes Against Children in Wylie, Texas. Here's her reason for why he can't be prosecuted:
"According to Texas law, the solicitation of a minor requires the discussion of meeting for the purposes of sex. Sexual Performance of a child would require the child to engage in a sexual act and the child’s genitals, anus, or the female breasts below the top of the areola be visible in the photo or video. None of the things provided to me have met those elements. From what has been reported to me, the topless photo of the 16-year-old was a male, which also does not meet the elements for possession of child pornography, as it is required to be a female breast."
Unfortunately, the Dost test cannot be used as evidence either. Here's her reason for that:
"No, you have to meet several factors using Dost and just a photo of a stomach does not meet what is required. A child must be engaged in sexual conduct in an image or video to meet the elements for child pornography which are located in Texas PC 43.26. The definition of sexual conduct can be found in Texas PC 43.25. Any admission Nick made outside of speaking with law enforcement under Miranda cannot be used as evidence."
If there was evidence of minors with their privates shown, then that can count towards prosecution. But apparently, there's no evidence of that, or not shown. What's you guys' opinions on this?
 
  • Informative
Reactions: NoFeline, Nebula Slasher, nanny911 and 2 others
SabDidNothingWrong said:
Apparently, there's not enough evidence to put Riolu in prison. That's according to Amanda Fields, a detective in the field of Crimes Against Children in Wylie, Texas. Here's her reason for why he can't be prosecuted:
"According to Texas law, the solicitation of a minor requires the discussion of meeting for the purposes of sex. Sexual Performance of a child would require the child to engage in a sexual act and the child’s genitals, anus, or the female breasts below the top of the areola be visible in the photo or video. None of the things provided to me have met those elements. From what has been reported to me, the topless photo of the 16-year-old was a male, which also does not meet the elements for possession of child pornography, as it is required to be a female breast."
Unfortunately, the Dost test cannot be used as evidence either. Here's her reason for that:
"No, you have to meet several factors using Dost and just a photo of a stomach does not meet what is required. A child must be engaged in sexual conduct in an image or video to meet the elements for child pornography which are located in Texas PC 43.26. The definition of sexual conduct can be found in Texas PC 43.25. Any admission Nick made outside of speaking with law enforcement under Miranda cannot be used as evidence."
If there was evidence of minors with their privates shown, then that can count towards prosecution. But apparently, there's no evidence of that, or not shown. What's you guys' opinions on this?
Click to expand...
I don't understand why the police aren't taking this into account. He literally said that he wanted to meet up with a 13-14 year old.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: NoFeline and GrainKiller
What about emailing the email provided in one of the replies and showing that riolu is lying via the Tard Card?
 
SabDidNothingWrong said:
Apparently, there's not enough evidence to put Riolu in prison. That's according to Amanda Fields, a detective in the field of Crimes Against Children in Wylie, Texas. Here's her reason for why he can't be prosecuted:
"According to Texas law, the solicitation of a minor requires the discussion of meeting for the purposes of sex. Sexual Performance of a child would require the child to engage in a sexual act and the child’s genitals, anus, or the female breasts below the top of the areola be visible in the photo or video. None of the things provided to me have met those elements. From what has been reported to me, the topless photo of the 16-year-old was a male, which also does not meet the elements for possession of child pornography, as it is required to be a female breast."
Unfortunately, the Dost test cannot be used as evidence either. Here's her reason for that:
"No, you have to meet several factors using Dost and just a photo of a stomach does not meet what is required. A child must be engaged in sexual conduct in an image or video to meet the elements for child pornography which are located in Texas PC 43.26. The definition of sexual conduct can be found in Texas PC 43.25. Any admission Nick made outside of speaking with law enforcement under Miranda cannot be used as evidence."
If there was evidence of minors with their privates shown, then that can count towards prosecution. But apparently, there's no evidence of that, or not shown. What's you guys' opinions on this?
Click to expand...
Nick manipulated kids to send belly pics which he faps to, even if genitals don't show the sexual natures implied much like foot fetishes. Who wouldn't find it suspicious for a 22 yr old being sent topless pics of random 16 yr old or younger boys? even if they aren't bloating. Why is it only sexual if the minors a girl? In the long term, Nicks actions will haunt him forever and everyone knows the sick shit he's done. Especially his parents. So I think justice is done either way.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Mr. Dvairochovich, NoFeline, Colmerry and 3 others
GrainKiller said:
Nick manipulated kids to send belly pics which he faps to, even if genitals don't show the sexual natures implied much like foot fetishes. Who wouldn't find it suspicious for a 22 yr old being sent topless pics of random 16 yr old or younger boys? even if they aren't bloating. Why is it only sexual if the minors a girl? In the long term, Nicks actions will haunt him forever and everyone knows the sick shit he's done. Especially his parents. So I think justice is done either way.
Click to expand...
I hate to admit it, but this is probably the last thing we can do.
 
SabDidNothingWrong said:
Apparently, there's not enough evidence to put Riolu in prison. That's according to Amanda Fields, a detective in the field of Crimes Against Children in Wylie, Texas. Here's her reason for why he can't be prosecuted:
"According to Texas law, the solicitation of a minor requires the discussion of meeting for the purposes of sex. Sexual Performance of a child would require the child to engage in a sexual act and the child’s genitals, anus, or the female breasts below the top of the areola be visible in the photo or video. None of the things provided to me have met those elements. From what has been reported to me, the topless photo of the 16-year-old was a male, which also does not meet the elements for possession of child pornography, as it is required to be a female breast."
Unfortunately, the Dost test cannot be used as evidence either. Here's her reason for that:
"No, you have to meet several factors using Dost and just a photo of a stomach does not meet what is required. A child must be engaged in sexual conduct in an image or video to meet the elements for child pornography which are located in Texas PC 43.26. The definition of sexual conduct can be found in Texas PC 43.25. Any admission Nick made outside of speaking with law enforcement under Miranda cannot be used as evidence."
If there was evidence of minors with their privates shown, then that can count towards prosecution. But apparently, there's no evidence of that, or not shown. What's you guys' opinions on this?
Click to expand...
The thing is. Nick isn't a child. He's 19, which is an adult and he will be 20 next year. The Texas law sounds so ass backwards and feels like anyone can do something twisted in their own ways.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Cool kitties club, dead76, DJ Funnybone and 3 others
Puar said:
The thing is. Nick isn't a child. He's 19, which is an adult and he will be 20 next year. The Texas law sounds so ass backwards and feels like anyone can do something twisted in their own ways.
Click to expand...
Who knows, maybe CP is its fucked up meme thing like Alabama and incest.

youtu.be

Response to my BlueCatRiolu Video

Everyone Hates Riolu Here are my other accounts Kuroneko YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLfPN_7bgfVY9x_uKfpHPwQ Kuroneko Instagram: https://www.in...
youtu.be youtu.be

A former white knight of Riolu posted this. I really didn't want to put a face to this guy. Looks a bit too young for this shit, let alone be involved in a fetish community.
 
  • Autistic
Reactions: NoFeline, GrainKiller and nanny911
Puar said:
www.youtube.com

BlueCatRiolu (DA RANT!)

Looks who's laughing now. Follow me on Twitter! https://twitter.com/NicklausM98 All songs used in the video! https://youtu.be/xPqs1Ogzhy0 https://youtu.be/Uv...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com

Menace does a rant on our Blue Pedo Cat.
Click to expand...
Don't police tell the neighborhood if a sex offender lives or is moving in? IIRC that's mandatory in some states. But if they don't find out from police, it'll be word of mouth. Imagine how fucked his parents rep is and the consequences we don't hear about. Repeating myself here, but it's something I've pondered since the police called to Nick.
 
SabDidNothingWrong said:
Apparently, there's not enough evidence to put Riolu in prison. That's according to Amanda Fields, a detective in the field of Crimes Against Children in Wylie, Texas. Here's her reason for why he can't be prosecuted:
"According to Texas law, the solicitation of a minor requires the discussion of meeting for the purposes of sex. Sexual Performance of a child would require the child to engage in a sexual act and the child’s genitals, anus, or the female breasts below the top of the areola be visible in the photo or video. None of the things provided to me have met those elements. From what has been reported to me, the topless photo of the 16-year-old was a male, which also does not meet the elements for possession of child pornography, as it is required to be a female breast."
Unfortunately, the Dost test cannot be used as evidence either. Here's her reason for that:
"No, you have to meet several factors using Dost and just a photo of a stomach does not meet what is required. A child must be engaged in sexual conduct in an image or video to meet the elements for child pornography which are located in Texas PC 43.26. The definition of sexual conduct can be found in Texas PC 43.25. Any admission Nick made outside of speaking with law enforcement under Miranda cannot be used as evidence."
If there was evidence of minors with their privates shown, then that can count towards prosecution. But apparently, there's no evidence of that, or not shown. What's you guys' opinions on this?
Click to expand...
But the DOST test also asks for the 'prurient interest' as in 'is this sexual in nature?'
 
GrainKiller said:
Nick manipulated kids to send belly pics which he faps to, even if genitals don't show the sexual natures implied much like foot fetishes. Who wouldn't find it suspicious for a 22 yr old being sent topless pics of random 16 yr old or younger boys? even if they aren't bloating. Why is it only sexual if the minors a girl? In the long term, Nicks actions will haunt him forever and everyone knows the sick shit he's done. Especially his parents. So I think justice is done either way.
Click to expand...
The law hasn't caught up with paraphilias yet.
Weirdos in the cybersphere wanking to teen tummies, a woman's period, or a PONAAAY is just as sexual as you looking at a woman's breasts, so it is. How would the police know that? Paraphilia can be a difficult thing to prove.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Raise 'Em High, GrainKiller and Bluey
Coelacanth said:
Looks like Darla and Dusk came to defend their pedo cat inflation husbando from Fandom Menace.

Click to expand...

Dusk either is for or against Nick, which he only used Nick for his personal gain and popularity. The guy has his own thread. Plus he is a hypocrite as well. He admits he is into diapers.

Darla has a thread as well.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: GrainKiller
Puar said:
Dusk either is for or against Nick, which he only used Nick for his personal gain and popularity. The guy has his own thread. Plus he is a hypocrite as well. He admits he is into diapers.

Darla has a thread as well.
Click to expand...
I like how Menace described Darla as having Stockholm syndrome when Darla contributed to some of the drama.
 
"I leave out the female private parts and male private parts."
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...........
no female or male private parts.png
Riolu sent this to RedCatDan when he was 11 years old btw

And also, since everyone is making their depiction of Riolu, here's mine:
im the fucking realist.png
 
Last edited:
  • Horrifying
  • Informative
Reactions: Cat Phuckers, GrainKiller and Monolith
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back