Michigan – A Grand Rapids, Michigan, man has recently been tried and convicted in court regarding pornographic images of children on his computer, but what makes this case so unique is the defense he attempted to establish while on trial.

While legislators in various states have been working to circumvent the constitution, the man on trial recently attempted to brazenly contort its meaning and purpose. When the now-convicted sex offender was on trial, he claimed that possessing pornographic images containing children was protected under the first amendment of the Constitution.

And that’s not all that the child predator stated in court either to justify his deviant tendencies.

45-year-old Joseph Gobrick was arrested back in 2018 when authorities had discovered a runaway minor was living inside the man’s home.

Convicted sex offender: I identify as an 8-year-old. Child porn is my constitutional right.

Joseph Gobrick: I identify as an 8-year-old girl and child porn is my constitutional right. (Grand Rapids Police)

 

When police searched Gobrick’s home after the discovery of the missing 17-year-old girl, they discovered an array of disturbing images depicting children on his computer. Gobrick ignored his right to counsel and instead sought to defend himself during the bench trial proceedings at the Kent County Circuit Court.

The array of defenses proposed by the man during trial was mind boggling to say the least, citing everything from gender and age identity, bestiality, free speech, and even Nazi Germany.

The convicted sex offender’s first angle of the trial was that he identified as an 8-year-old girl, juxtaposed to the 45-year-old biological male that he actually is and thus absolving the material from being obscene for him to possess.

He solemnly expressed to the court:

“I’ve always been an 8-year-old girl and even in my drawings and fantasies, I am always an 8-year-old girl.”

While the initial defense was shot down relatively quickly by the judge, this probably isn’t going to be the last time it will be used as a defense in similar cases.

The notion may seem laughable, but identity politics have been at the center stage for years in the discourse of how someone feels versus what someone actually is.

 

While there’s been no case law yet to substantiate the defense brought by Gobrick, it could be validated at some point since we have psychologists like Brian Nosek at the University of Virginia.

“Subjective Age” may very well be a medical diagnosis recognized by the courts in coming years, as Nosek stated in a medical theory that:

“The extent to which older adults feel much younger than they are may determine important daily or life decisions for what they will do next.”

When Gobrick’s pretend age didn’t work while defending the possession of the child pornography, he then stated that the images were a form of free speech. However, prosecutors quickly responded to that defense explaining that video and photos of children being raped are not protected free speech.

Authorities were able to identify eight children that were abused in the porn contained on Gobrick’s devices as well.

While continuing to fling defensive maneuvers during trial, Gobrick tried to say that he wasn’t even attracted to children. After making that exclamation, he then posed a comparison at the judge comparing intimacy with a child to that of being intimate with a reptile:

“I would no sooner have sex with a child than you would with a rattlesnake. It’s just not safe.”

The prosecution was more than skeptical of the sex offender’s lack of attraction to children, pointing out that Gobrick constantly drew pornographic images of children while in jail. Of course, when that was brought up, Gobrick went right back to the first Amendment argument.

The most absurd argument presented by Gobrick was that he compared child porn laws used to charge and prosecute him as being one with laws that were in effect in Nazi Germany. Gobrick referenced the Nazi concentration camp in southern Poland, essentially comparing his plight to that of a WW2 era Jew in that region:

“Under the law, Auschwitz was legal.  What you’re doing here is wrong, just as Auschwitz was.’’

LET has a private home for those who support emergency responders and veterans called LET Unity.  We reinvest the proceeds into sharing untold stories of those patriotic Americans. Click to check it out.

Convicted sex offender: I identify as an 8-year-old. Child porn is my constitutional right.

 

The judge had essentially had enough and handed down his thoughts on the case.

“Based on everything he’s said and done, including bragging about what he was drawing in his cell, he obviously doesn’t think child sexually abusive material is wrong. This isn’t just virtual stuff; this is also real people being harmed.”

The judge then handed down a sentence of 10 to 20 years in prison to Gobrick, and we’re hoping for children’s sake that his stay leans more closer to two decades.

At least Michigan authorities are smart enough to keep Gobrick behind bars and away from the public. That’s more than can be said in a case out of New York.

New York strikes again, this time it has set free…you guessed it…a murderer.

The victim?  A 6-week-old baby.

Earlier on Tuesday morning, Anthony Ojeda, 38 years old, was released after making an appearance in court.  On the condition of “supervision,” Ojeda is a free man until his next court date.  Which he will definitely show up to.  (Hope you’re reading this as sarcastically as I’m typing it…)

He was ordered to surrender his passport and wear an electronic tracking device.

Convicted sex offender: I identify as an 8-year-old. Child porn is my constitutional right.

Anthony Ojeda was just given supervised release and no bail in the murder of a 6-week-old child. (Handout)

 

The newborn baby died December 3 of 2019 after ingesting methamphetamine that Ojeda left out.  Ojeda was charged with 2nddegree manslaughter and assault.

Detective Michael Greene interviewed Ojeda hours after the child died. The detective appeared in court and testified.  He said Ojeda admitted to 2 incidents of assault against the newborn where he “may have” injured the baby.

The first occurred November 2nd or 3rd, Ojeda told the detective, when Ojeda grabbed the child by the ribs the middle of the night.  He was angry and picked the baby up with one hand by the chest.  The second was about a week later on November 7th, when Ojeda, during a domestic dispute with his husband, roughly grabbed the baby in the parking lot of Albany Medical Center.

During the dispute, Detective Green testified, “He went to take [the] child out of the car seat. He did so hastily, grabbing the child while he wasn’t fully out of the harness. The child twisted and he believes when he grabbed him is when the injury began.”

In addition to these, the district attorney also stated another incident occurred October 29ththat was “not accidental.” Then, the infant went to the hospital for a CT scan for a possible head injury.   No evidence of a fracture was found at that time.

Prosecutors say medical records show the infant suffered several broken ribs.

In December, based on injuries as well as a video showing the interview with Ojeda, the judge ordered him to stay in jail until a grand jury heard his case and decided whether to indict.

The defense, however, argued that Ojeda should be released from jail.  The reasoning?  Ojeda’s native language is Spanish, and he “may not have understood police questioning.”

 

A language barrier?  Really?

Did that also prevent him from understanding that breaking a baby’s bones and treating him so roughly that a CT scan is required is probably not a good thing?

NY Spectrum reporter Spencer Conlin tweeted, “Anthony Ojeda will be released from Albany County Jail under the supervision of probation. Judge Carter still concerned he could flee given his husband is from Mexico. He must also partake in substance abuse treatment.”

A paternity test has been ordered for the murdered infant to see if Ojeda is the biological father.  It’s been reported that he and the child’s biological mother claimed that he was, and that Ojeda took custody of the baby when the mother couldn’t care for him. 

The baby was born prematurely to a drug-addicted mother.  And father, it would seem.

Ojeda was raising the baby with his male partner.  After the baby ingested the meth, Ojeda waited “several hours before calling for help.”  The baby initially responded to treatment once taken to the local hospital, but later died. 

Detective Greene said, “He believes that the child got into a substance that was left in the house and he ultimately didn’t seek treatment for that because he was concerned for his well-being legally and that led to, ultimately, the baby’s death.”

Police say the baby was being supervised by Rennselaer County Child Protective Services.

Apparently, toxicology reports have not yet been returned so it is not known at this time whether the meth ingestion is the actual cause of death.

 


Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  
 
Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!
 
Facebook Follow First