ROMANEK BUSTED!- Stan Caught Red Handed FAKING-HOAXING - New Development

It doesn't look good. The police found over 300 pictures.In 2009 he was also downloading and sharing child porn. I'm not sure why they didn't catch him then.

Here is more news hot off the press on this pedofile. It includes his mug shot and police report scan:

www.reporterherald.com...
www.huffingtonpost.com...

He is scheduled for a preliminary hearing at 1:30 p.m. on March 18.

Just wanted to add, because I hadn't seen this exact configuration of happenstance...

If you lie about the Feds breaking into your house for years; don't be surprised when a bored analyst starts looking in your direction. You've already made them guilty of it in the public's eye. The penalty is decreased.
[REDACTED]

Maybe they find something? Maybe they put something? But always be clear as to how they found out about you.

rupertg
It doesn't look good. The police found over 300 pictures.In 2009 he was also downloading and sharing child porn. I'm not sure why they didn't catch him then.

Here is more news hot off the press on this pedofile. It includes his mug shot and police report scan:

www.reporterherald.com...
www.huffingtonpost.com...

He is scheduled for a preliminary hearing at 1:30 p.m. on March 18.

You label this fellow a "pedofile " [ pedophile ] ! How dare you. I'd suggest you consider looking up the NUMEROUS definitions of what the word entails. From a psychiatric perspective, by definition he would not have a diagnoses of
Pedophilia. I love the medias constant utilization of " Child " pornography. Really ? Say child and the dullards ( Not you )
fall back on their definition of child. Each venue has a different definition. The population at large, the legal system and as a psychiatric disorder. None of which have a bloody thing to do with whether or not his alleged Alien encounters are truth or fiction. Being privy to ALL the Solid third party independently reviewed evidence. The Alien / UFO stuff is real. Stan's spirit ghost stuff is too weird for me .I tend to disregard that due to lack of evidence. Cheers

reply to post by dazbog


and in the state of Colorado the use of the term child means just that, a child. Any felony level charge in Colorado is uniform, regardless of county / city in Colorado. The only time terms can be compared is when you compare at the state to state level. Since we are using Colorado law, its standard throughout Colorado. The insinuation of different definitions / standards does not apply in this case.

Innocent until proven guilty - absolutely.

Trying to play the semantics game does not work. If Romanek is on the up and up, then it will come out at the next court hearing. However, the simple fact there was a preliminary hearing with a bond / ror tells me the court is satisfied that the state met its burden when it comes to the charge in question and the facts supporting the charge.

Next step is discovery, which should shed some more light on this mess.

reply to post by dazbog


Unfortunately in this case it's not being used as a Psychiatric condition but rather a label in regards to a criminal act, a felony. So Xcathra is correct, he is technically, IF CONVICTED, a Pedophile under the law. No-one has to "look up" all the other definitions to know that IF CONVICTED he's the lowest form of scum on the planet..

I say IF CONVICTED, because if he's innocent, let him be innocent, he is as far as the judicial system is concerned until Proven guilty, however, just looking at his actions in regards to this "They broke in, they did this" and seeing his other actions that HE TURNED HIMSELF IN, just kinda says in my book that there may be something to this, although we don't really know, my gut is telling me that there is.. but that's just my gut feeling and it's been wrong before.

jtma508
Coincidentally, Col. Wendelle Stevens, another prominent UFO researcher and owner of one of the largest private collections of UFO photographic evidence, was brought up on similar charges by the CIA. You have to wonder, despite what you may think about Stan's evidence and experiences, here's someone who has documented repeated home break-ins, gov't surveillance, wiretaps, and repeated hacks/intrusions of his computers going back to the early 2000's, yet he is stupid enough to keep child porn on those same computers? I know he was on the verge of releasing a professionally produced documentary. What a perfect way to frost that endeavor. I don't buy it. Clearly a setup by TPTB IMO.

This should make one think, eh! And I really no longer believe official stories, and really hope one isn't supporting the wrong person but the authorities are known felons. The world tree bears hideous murderous starvation, warring, poisonous, toxic, slaving fruit.

You know it is not a good thing to accuse people of being a child molester or pedophile if we don't know any facts about this person.We don't know if He is a UFO hoaxer for 100% factual sure.
If Mr. Romanek is telling the truth.People really need to understand how serious of major major major major major,I have said this all through out the Topic,corruption of the U.S.government this is.
Let alone the alien abduction topic is bizarre enough and crazy.If the government is going to these kind of lengths the whole country will collapse over this in the future.
Just gonna wait and see what happens with this some more.

reply to post by Jobeycool


So its not ok to speculate on Mr. Romanek but it is ok to speculate on motives of the Federal government and the Department of Justice?

uhm... ok.

So hypocrisy is ok in one direction only?

Lets review - The FEderal government is accusing, via the DOJ, Mr. Romanek of breaking federal law. They have submitted facts in order to obtain a federal arrest warrant and a judge has accepted the charges, meaning he has accepted the fact the DOJ met its burden.

What exactly has been submitted on behalf of Mr. Romanek supporting the charges that he is being set up?

reply to post by Jobeycool

You know it is not a good thing to accuse people of being a child molester or pedophile if we don't know any facts about this person.

Absolutely correct , innocent until proven otherwise although I don't see how speculating on this has got anything to do with this forum , I think Romanek himself has a tenuous link to this subject.

We don't know if He is a UFO hoaxer for 100% factual sure.

Yes we do , he is.

Correction to my last post -

I meant to state state and not federal.

My apologies for the confusion.

Xcathdra
reply to post by dazbog

 

and in the state of Colorado the use of the term child means just that, a child. Any felony level charge in Colorado is uniform, regardless of county / city in Colorado. The only time terms can be compared is when you compare at the state to state level. Since we are using Colorado law, its standard throughout Colorado. The insinuation of different definitions / standards does not apply in this case.

Innocent until proven guilty - absolutely.

Trying to play the semantics game does not work. If Romanek is on the up and up, then it will come out at the next court hearing. However, the simple fact there was a preliminary hearing with a bond / ror tells me the court is satisfied that the state met its burden when it comes to the charge in question and the facts supporting the charge.

Next step is discovery, which should shed some more light on this mess.

edit on 21-2-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Having photographs of " Children in sexually provocative poses, engaging in lewd or erotic behavior designed to arouse the viewer's sexual interest " Does NOT make one a pedophile ! In Colorado and on a Federal level the presence of one photo in and of itself is a crime. The Governments claim of child porn being distributed from Stan's IP address in 09 with a follow up in 2013 and a warrant being issued in 2014 raises a huge flag for me. I haven't seen these photos but the utilization of the word 'Child' conjures up many different images in the eye of the public. In Co. Child porn is defined as one who is under eighteen. Most people do not envision a seventeen eleven month old individual as a child.
Although they would legally be under the age of consent hence the preposterous labeling of one as a child.
" Innocent until proven guilty -absolutely " Really ? The stigma attached to this alleged crime is of little consequence
in the eye of the public. This charge will seriously impact his ability to earn a living. Guilty or innocent. For the record I am not engaging in a game of semantics. The point was the public perception of the word Child. I know what the law says. I reside in Co. Probable Cause ? The Gov had that in 09. After the warrant was issued for his computer they allegedly found 300 pictures of something. I see absolutely no reasonable explanation for a Gov agency to covertly introduce child porn into ole Stan's computer. That doesn't bode well for Mr R. However I have located things of this nature on my home computer that I did not put there. Considering the state of our government I place little faith in anything they have to say. I have less faith in our judicial system. But as you see the damage has been done.
Half of these posts address child porn not the original posters intent. I know Stan. I frankly don't like him but child porn ? I have serious reservations. We shall see. Ref Stan's UFO / Alien encounters - Fact not a flight of fantasy. Unfortunately he can not release the movie in it's entirety. Lawyers and honorable profession but a pain in the ass.

dazbog
Having photographs of " Children in sexually provocative poses, engaging in lewd or erotic behavior designed to arouse the viewer's sexual interest " Does NOT make one a pedophile ! In Colorado and on a Federal level the presence of one photo in and of itself is a crime.

and for good reason.

dazbog
The Governments claim of child porn being distributed from Stan's IP address in 09 with a follow up in 2013 and a warrant being issued in 2014 raises a huge flag for me. I haven't seen these photos but the utilization of the word 'Child' conjures up many different images in the eye of the public. In Co. Child porn is defined as one who is under eighteen. Most people do not envision a seventeen eleven month old individual as a child.

What people envision and what the law is, in reality, are 2 separate things.

dazbog
Although they would legally be under the age of consent hence the preposterous labeling of one as a child.

Age of consent is partially in play. The age of the children in order for images to be considered child pornography is the key. what is occurring in those images is key as well.

Also its not preposterous, its the law in Colorado.

dazbog
" Innocent until proven guilty -absolutely "

Really ?

Yup, really.

dazbog
The stigma attached to this alleged crime is of little consequence in the eye of the public.

Which is why law violations are dealt with in the court system and not the court of public opinion.

dazbog
This charge will seriously impact his ability to earn a living. Guilty or innocent.

His ability to earn a living was precarious from the start with the manner in which is videos come across.

dazbog
For the record I am not engaging in a game of semantics. The point was the public perception of the word Child. I know what the law says. I reside in Co. Probable Cause ? The Gov had that in 09. After the warrant was issued for his computer they allegedly found 300 pictures of something. I see absolutely no reasonable explanation for a Gov agency to covertly introduce child porn into ole Stan's computer. That doesn't bode well for Mr R. However I have located things of this nature on my home computer that I did not put there. Considering the state of our government I place little faith in anything they have to say. I have less faith in our judicial system. But as you see the damage has been done.
Half of these posts address child porn not the original posters intent. I know Stan. I frankly don't like him but child porn ? I have serious reservations. We shall see. Ref Stan's UFO / Alien encounters - Fact not a flight of fantasy. Unfortunately he can not release the movie in it's entirety. Lawyers and honorable profession but a pain in the ass.

Does anyone have direct evidence the government is the entity that placed child porn on his computer? Simply repeating it does not make it true.

As for the outcome and what people think - That is on them.

As for the faith in government - What has Colorado done to piss off so many people lately? Or was your reference directed at the federal government?

Finally, I am not sure what his UFO / ET encounters have to do with a charge of child exploitation / distribution? Unless you are trying to argue that this is occurring to him because of his position on ET. If that's the case, then why did they wait until now and not do anything back in 2009?

vkey08
reply to post by ZeroGhost

 

just type in Luke Rudkowski embezzlement a ton of pages come up, too many to list here in fact. Rational Wiki has the best little writeup on him though..

RationalWiki - Luke Rudkowski

Perfect. Thanks. I need to catch up on all this data. My "opinion" might change with more research.

ZG

jtma508
reply to post by zysin5

 

The quote is about another person (the late Col. Wendall Stevens) who copped a plea to prevent from having his family torn apart. Those were the allegations and, yes, he served time as a result of the plea deal. Other than the fact that he also was a UFO researcher it has nothing to do with Stan.

Thanks for clearing that up.
I was confused I guess, and ended up making matters worse with my misinformed post.
But I still stand by the fact I really do not spend to much effort on this stuff anymore.
Most of us know we are absolutely not alone in the universe. I do not need a bunch of UFO researchers telling me stuff I already know as a fact, no matter what they have done with their lives.
Now are we being directly visited and effect by aliens. That is up for debate.
However the whole we are alone question, is pretty much self evident when you understand Drake equation, and simple astrophysics. It is so highly unlikely we are the ONLY life in this universe, that I am amazed its even questioned at all.

Xcathdra

dazbog
Having photographs of " Children in sexually provocative poses, engaging in lewd or erotic behavior designed to arouse the viewer's sexual interest " Does NOT make one a pedophile ! In Colorado and on a Federal level the presence of one photo in and of itself is a crime.

and for good reason.

?

dazbog
The Governments claim of child porn being distributed from Stan's IP address in 09 with a follow up in 2013 and a warrant being issued in 2014 raises a huge flag for me. I haven't seen these photos but the utilization of the word 'Child' conjures up many different images in the eye of the public. In Co. Child porn is defined as one who is under eighteen. Most people do not envision a seventeen eleven month old individual as a child.

What people envision and what the law is, in reality, are 2 separate things.



As you may well know many laws are challenged and won. It's the LAW ! Jury Nullification comes to mind.

dazbog
Although they would legally be under the age of consent hence the preposterous labeling of one as a child.

Age of consent is partially in play. The age of the children in order for images to be considered child pornography is the key. what is occurring in those images is key as well.

Also its not preposterous, its the law in Colorado.


Ya really are having a love affair with >" IT'S THE LAW "

dazbog
" Innocent until proven guilty -absolutely "

Really ?

Yup, really.

If you are an attorney you know that statement is BS.

dazbog
The stigma attached to this alleged crime is of little consequence in the eye of the public.

Which is why law violations are dealt with in the court system and not the court of public opinion.

WHAT ? I think you missed the point or I'm not being clear.

dazbog
This charge will seriously impact his ability to earn a living. Guilty or innocent.

His ability to earn a living was precarious from the start with the manner in which is videos come across.


Pretty subjective but you would be shocked at the amount offered for the entire three hour movie

dazbog
For the record I am not engaging in a game of semantics. The point was the public perception of the word Child. I know what the law says. I reside in Co. Probable Cause ? The Gov had that in 09. After the warrant was issued for his computer they allegedly found 300 pictures of something. I see absolutely no reasonable explanation for a Gov agency to covertly introduce child porn into ole Stan's computer. That doesn't bode well for Mr R. However I have located things of this nature on my home computer that I did not put there. Considering the state of our government I place little faith in anything they have to say. I have less faith in our judicial system. But as you see the damage has been done.
Half of these posts address child porn not the original posters intent. I know Stan. I frankly don't like him but child porn ? I have serious reservations. We shall see. Ref Stan's UFO / Alien encounters - Fact not a flight of fantasy. Unfortunately he can not release the movie in it's entirety. Lawyers and honorable profession but a pain in the ass.

Does anyone have direct evidence the government is the entity that placed child porn on his computer? Simply repeating it does not make it true.

Of course not ! We don't know if whatever it is they have will even be allow in


As for the outcome and what people think - That is on them.


" What people think ' That is on them " WHAT ?! Guilty or innocent he is stuck with the stigma [ what people think ]
Ya think that might have a negative impact on your earning potential ?

As for the faith in government - What has Colorado done to piss off so many people lately? Or was your reference directed at the federal government?



State but mostly Federal < Have you been keeping up over the past twenty years. If you're not outraged you are not paying attention.



Finally, I am not sure what his UFO / ET encounters have to do with a charge of child exploitation / distribution? Unless you are trying to argue that this is occurring to him because of his position on ET. If that's the case, then why did they wait until now and not do anything back in 2009?

Man ! I tossed the UFO ET line to stay in touch with the OP .

Your last sentence seems appropriate for his current case .


Based on your replies I'm apparently not expressing myself very well. Or................?


Take Care

The truth and 100 % fact is everyone is speculating about Mr. Romanek .We don't know if this man is honest or trustworthy and we don't know if this is a giant hoax.
Now you pile on factual reports of child pornography charges and He might go to jail over it and the idea that people in our government can sit on a computer and plant child pornography on your computer for anything is frightening.It remains a BIG IF for me that Romanek is truthful anyways.This is unimagineable dangerous stuff if this kind of stuff is going on with aliens beings and a huge cover up of some sort.Maybe they are demonic beings that have something to do with the End Times and the Anti-Christ,because I think they are real even if Stan Romanek is a hoaxer and liar.

Jobeycool
The truth and 100 % fact is everyone is speculating about Mr. Romanek .We don't know if this man is honest or trustworthy and we don't know if this is a giant hoax.
Now you pile on factual reports of child pornography charges and He might go to jail over it and the idea that people in our government can sit on a computer and plant child pornography on your computer for anything is frightening.It remains a BIG IF for me that Romanek is truthful anyways.This is unimagineable dangerous stuff if this kind of stuff is going on with aliens beings and a huge cover up of some sort.Maybe they are demonic beings that have something to do with the End Times and the Anti-Christ,because I think they are real even if Stan Romanek is a hoaxer and liar.

edit on 22-2-2014 by Jobeycool because: (no reason given)

I think its a big IF, if your actually old enough to buy smokes or drive past midnight. I think you want to believe that bad it makes you a moron when on a subject defending a liar and a kook.

reply to post by Phage


This guy should give back all the money he made off his book!