From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Looking at the image of Tuqiri and Tora yiffing on his FA then seeing Tuqiri is under the age of 18 on his wikifur page anyone think Tora is still doing what got him locked up?

I don't think so. Tuqiri has been going around getting pictures, from what I can tell, done of him with other people that the fandom doesn't approve of. For example, he had a picture done with him and Lupine Assassin not long before the Tora picture. I do not believe that Tora and Tuqiri have any sort of real life connection. SilverserenC 00:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


User Almightytora is attempting to cover up verified, cited information about himself by continuously undoing a section involving his apparent conviction for pedophilia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isopodic (talkcontribs) .

OK. There's no need for a revert war over this. TORA, you have stated that the information is defamatory. In the U.S., this can only be the case if it is not true. Would you like to say anything about that? It seems like quite a good match. --GreenReaper(talk) 01:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps my addition could have been stated in a more NPV, but that isn't the case for deletion. That said, the three links presented are evidence of an argument, and it must be decided how that argument is stated. In my opinion, the evidence is very strong: the person in the Meganslaw website lives in the same small town as Tora, has nearly identical facial features, and the same moles. The probability of two such individuals so similar as to be mistaken for twins is very low. Of course, a citation that references Tora stating his real name would clear up any ambiguity whatever.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isopodic (talkcontribs) . Additional evidence: From the logs posted on Tora states he is 33. This article on the incident ( posted in 2001 states that Daniel Mizuho Llamas is 25 years old, which would make Daniel 33 at present. Exact age match.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isopodic (talkcontribs) .

OK. I'm talking with TORA and he is writing a statement to share with everyone. --GreenReaper(talk) 03:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
He's posted his statement now. I plan on trying to write a summary of this all and placing it in the article. Lulz is not a good source. The LA Times paper is. Not sure about the Megan's Law site since it dissuades people from linking to it unless there is a specific need to. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
As a result of the edits made to the 'Criminal History' section it now reads as being absurdly biased in Tora's favor. It suggests to readers that the events that he plead no contest to and was thusly found guilty of in a court of law somehow 'doesn't count' just because he plead 'no contest' rather than 'guilty'. He was found guilty in court, thus it has been determine by the legal system of what is accepted as the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AshleyAshes (talkcontribs) .
If you don't like it, you have the power to edit it. But bear in mind that this is a result of a plea bargain, not a jury trial - he did not contest a charge for a crime that he says he did not actually commit, in order to avoid the risk of a heavy penalty if actually tried for and found guilty of the full set of charges - or even one of them (you get fewer "sentence points" if you accept a bargain). "Lewd contact" is a relatively light penalty - you get more time for possession of child pornography - and that suggests to me the DA's case was less than airtight. But we don't know for sure. The one thing we do know he was guilty of is sending nude images to minors, which is why I put it first. --GreenReaper(talk) 08:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
However he was still found guilty. If pleading 'no contest' and being found guilty seemingly reduces the validity of the guilty verdict, then what of those that plead 'Not guilty' but are found guilty, is there invalidity to the guilty verdict then? He was still found guilty. In a system where one is innocent untill proven guilty there was considdered sufficent evidence to find him guilty. There was enough evidence that he felt he could not plead 'not guilty' and defend himself infact. AshleyAshes 08:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but pleading no contest is not the same as being found guilty. Those who plead not guilty and are convicted are guilty. Those that plead guilty are guilty. Those that plead nolo are not. This distinction may seem nitpicky, but when there's a criminal case with potential civil ramifications it makes a very BIG difference. Namely, that a nolo plea cannot be used as evidence of liability in a civil case, whereas a guilty plea/verdict can. Shentino 01:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Added information pertaining to This is important, relevant information because it describes how TORA was originally discovered.--Isopodic 18:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You'll need to include a citation for that. Specifically the part about the chatlogs. --Douglas Muth 18:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm looking at the screencap and trying to find a clue to positively ID the party identified as "Seph8" as being TORA, rather than the whole thing being fabricated. Unless we can confirm that they are the same person and the screencap is genuine, the image and the related text should be removed. --mwalimu 21:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
TORA's statement refers to this conversation, and I see no reason to believe it is untrue. That said, if we use it, we must be careful that things aren't taken out of context. The IM conversation was not an innocent conversation, but deliberately laden with his interests for the purpose of getting a reaction, and that should be mentioned. It didn't get quite the reaction they were hoping for, either, as he refused the idea of having illegal sex with an underage teen - consistent with his statement. --GreenReaper(talk) 22:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, taking your word for it that the conversation is genuine, my next question would have to be, did Seph8/TORA consent to having the conversation publicized? I'm getting the impression here that someone contacted him and made an unsuccessful attempt to bait him into revealing an interest in the sort of activity he was accused of in the past, possibly with no inkling that it was about to hit the fan. I don't know about you, but when I engage in an IM chat or RP session with someone online, there is an expectation that the exchange is private, and to publicize it without my consent is a breach of netiquette. There may be reasons why it is appropriate to do so in some cases, and if he had tried to follow up on the encounter with a minor, that may well be one of them, but he didn't. We can't control how they do things over on, but we don't have to be party to their actions either. I might be all wrong here if I'm misunderstanding the pretext of this conversation or the circumstances around it. Or maybe not. I'm just sayin'... --mwalimu 23:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I doubt that he particularly wanted or wants it publicised. Personally I suspect the conversation could be summarized and the image removed, if the existing summary is not sufficient. --GreenReaper(talk) 23:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. That the incident occurred at all may be notable and deserve mention, if only for the role it played in resurfacing his past. IMHO, what coverage we provide should stop short of propagating the breach of netiquette. --mwalimu 13:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

All of this is absurd and not needed for anyone. Someone took it upon themselves to bring "justice" to someone for something they did many years ago, and has already served his sentence. It is none of our business, and is not needed to be pushed all in our faces on the internet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs)

Everything on this page is no one's buisness. It's a vanity page, it's nothing but a presentation of personal information for vanity's sake. AshleyAshes 21:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Vanity pertains to boosting ones ego, not inciting a riot and linking to a page that tells people to go and harass a user in person, call his phone and verbally abuse others, or confronting an individual at a con because of his past. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs)

There is a reasonable concern about having a registered sex offender participating in fandom activities, which often involve minors, without those responsible for these activities having knowledge of that fact. That is why this information is here. Nobody has posted his phone number here, and I hope nobody here intends to harrass him at a convention. If you have complaints about the content of, talk to its moderators. --GreenReaper(talk) 21:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the newly posted Dragoneer/Preyfur and Tora log: Confirmation of the factual accuracy can be seen by the reply by Dragoneer to a tweet posting the log. The original tweet is ( his reply is ( This is important information because it shows 1) Possible evidence of a serious crime by Tora, 2) Deception on Tora's part, making him a higher risk for further criminal violations, 3) Possible abuse of admin powers by Dragoneer. Such information is in the best interests of the fandom to know because 1) It is critical to have as much information on high-risk sex offenders in a fandom with so many minors as its part, 2) To strengthen the case that sexual abuse of minors is NOT acceptable in furry, and won't be tolerated, and 3) Possible problems with the administration of the largest furry fandom that run counter to community interests. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isopodic (talkcontribs) .

Unfortunately it also shows personal information from innocent minors. Again, I feel a summary without a link might be the best approach here. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Allow me to toss out one more question here. From what I know of pedophiles, it is the ones who seek out/initiate contact with minors on their own who are the greatest cause for concern. The ones who respond to incoming contacts from minors or those posing as minors, while certainly not without guilt, are considerably less of a concern. So based on the recent incidents, where does Tora fall on this spectrum? --mwalimu 05:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
GreenReaper: This concern is very justified, and is not one I had considered. In this case, if possible, a good middle option would be to link to the log where the account name of the minor has been redacted, or if this is not viable, a summary would be suitable. Exposing the personal information of a minor is a strict no. Mwalimu: pedophiles (in the legal sense) are much more likely to repeat offenses. The fact that he is a registered offender is by far the largest factor in risk; it shows that he is not just attracted to adolescent boys, but has acted upon it. That, combined with his shown deception and recent sexual conversations with minors (both real and baited) only adds to the risk of another, in-person incident of abuse. --Isopodic 07:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know about first contact, but the evidence suggests TORA solicited explicit material from a minor despite their misgivings and having been reminded by them of its illegality. --GreenReaper(talk) 06:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think this is a good example of how sleazy the government can be once you've been fingered for a "ZOMGPERV" type charge. Nobody should be forced to plead anything but not guilty out of fear.

That said, what he has admitted to (not plead no contest to) would IMHO have warranted the same sentence. Dateline's special series "To Catch A Predator" nailed quite a few folks for exactly what TORA himself admitted to doing.

However, the only reason he's a lifetime registered sex offender is because the DA bullied him into pleading no contest to a charge he didn't actually commit. Anyone can be pressured into a deal like that if their balls are squeezed hard enough, if you have enough leverage against them, or if you simply wear them out. It's part of being a defendant in almost any country, sadly including the USA. The DA played hardball and TORA caved. I'm actually curious how a jury would have decided had it gone to trial.

Since he wasn't actually convicted of an offense that requires sex offender registration, I find that any conclusions based upon that status are somewhat dubious if based on said status alone.

Based on what I have read and his admissions, I conclude that he is a pervert. However, as far as a dangerous pedophile, I have my doubts.

Regarding Dragoneer's abuse of admin powers: Assuming the evidence is correct, that TORA was using FA notes as a means of sexual chats with minors, then Dragoneer was entirely within his rights to ban TORA, and in fact would probably have been aiding and abetting a crime had he knowingly allowed it to continue. I would have done the same, and additionally would have archived the notes in question and turned them over to the police as evidence. So as far as I'm concerned, Dragoneer's response was entirely justified and he may as a practical matter not actually have had any choice about it.

In conclusion, I suggest that fact and opinion continue to be well separated, and also in this particular case that the politics involved in criminal prosecutions be also remembered.

You assume that Tora's statement is truthful. Tora clearly felt that there was not enough evidence to prove his innocence, this could very well because he had no innocence. It would seem that his 35yo boyfriend who was also convicted wasn't helping in bail out Tora by saying he had no involvement either, maybe because Tora did have involvement? The fact remains however that Tora choose not to plead not guilty and to defend himself in court. Even his version of the events posted on Wikifur has signifigant gaps. He claims no responsibility by saying he was asleep at the time, and glosses over all details and thusly any responsibility to how he found himself in a hotel room with his boyfriend and a fourteen year old boy in the first place. Tora's version of the events is unbelievably convenient and even childish. Then after being charged, convicted, serving in prison and probation from the internet untill 2007, Tora still finds himself chatting about sex with people he knows to be minors in the state he resides in?
I wholeheartedly agree that he was a sick pervert, and should at a minimum have been charged with reckless endangerment, child neglect/abandonment, or some other suitable charge for allowing the unlawful sex to take place and failing to supervise his friend. I would even be happy if he were charged as an accessory. Now, call me an optimist, but I'm a firm believer in innocent until proven guilty, and I also prefer to keep the facts straight.
However, as explained below, failure to plead not guilty doesn't automatically imply that you are guilty in a factual sense. That's jumping to conclusions. Tora's claims amount to him accusing the DA of sandbagging him with trumped up charges in order to get him to capitulate and swallow the sex offender bullet.
And lately, with all the shenanigans the government has been pulling as of late (warrantless wiretaps, gitmo detentions, telecom immunity) I don't think it's automatically unreasonable to so much as propose prosecutorial error, innocent or otherwise. Yes, he's an all around pervert. No, we don't know for certain what happened. Had the case actually gone to trial and evidence released, we would indeed know more.
Also, by your own admission, "could very well because he had no innocence" is speculation itself, which implies that even you have doubts and/or uncertainties regarding what really happened.
The fact that Tora chose not to fight the charge in court implies nothing else. There are a bazillion reasons why you might not choose to fight a charge. Remember the old saying that when you take a jury trial you are putting your fate into the hands of "12 people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty", and that uncertainty makes "having your day in court" a bit of a gamble even when the facts are a slam dunk in your favor, particularly if your reputation is tarnished. I dare say that the public outrage over his arrest could very well have made a jury trial folly, and if that was the case, there is also the possibility the prosecutor may even have decided to use that to pressure Tora into a nolo plea in the first place. On the opposite side of the coin, Wikipedia:Jury Nullification is proof that a jury doesn't always stick to the facts going the other way either. Shentino 01:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Staring down a honking huge list of uber serious charges might well induce you to "save your ass" by pleading out to a minor charge and think you got off lucky in the process, when in reality sometimes a prosecutor will deliberately trump up charges just to generate leverage against the accused. If that's the case here, then Tora played right into the state's hands. Shentino 01:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There are two undenyable facts here: 1) Tora got himself into a scenario that any responsible adult of a civilized society wouldn't have gotten close to. 2) After that scenario and punishment for it, he has been undenyably proven to be using the internet to solicit underaged boys, even using FurAffinity as a means to do so and being imprisoned once for the very same thing.

Being irresponsible isn't a crime. However, that doesn't make it ok to take shortcuts when dealing with fact. I would prefer to get the details correct. And the situation in question was indeed enough for him to have been charged with child endangerment, aiding and abetting. Even if he didn't actually have sex with the kid, he broke the law simply by allowing it to happen, and also for failing to report it. But the actual statutory rape charge *as a principal* is likely utterly bogus. Shentino 01:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

On a personal note, I would like to say that the furry fandom has an abundance of young but perfectly legal boys who are desperate for attention and affection and would love to have some internet stranger asking them if they can suck their own penis. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. It's Tora's own fault for not capitalizing on them instead of the underaged ones. Why rob the bank when the store next door is giving money away for free? AshleyAshes 04:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you eased up on your tone a bit. Though I do agree that he should have confined his chats as you have suggested. Seeing as there were no moral issues involved in obeying the law, he had no excuse to be breaking it.
My major issue at this moment is with a "no contest" plea automatically implying factual guilt. In principle, one should always plead "not guilty". In reality, that's not always practical.
Just as a practical example, corporations often plead "no contest". They do so not because they wish to admit guilt, but in fact the opposite. The crucial difference, as I learned recently in Business Law, is that a guilty plea can be used against you in a civil case, whereas a nolo plea cannot. If the kid's parents were threatening a major lawsuit, then that would be another motivation to plead nolo instead of risking a conviction. Shentino 01:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, it would appear that his ex's 15 charges were almost all dropped, suggesting that they were not legitimate enough to take to trial.

At any rate, my summarized position is this: He was a moron for chatting unlawfully with a minor. He was also a moron for allowing his ex to be near a minor unsupervised and subjecting said minor to sexual abuse though said lack of supervision, as well as for failing to report it, which would have properly been. There is a distinct possibility that the DA trumped up a bunch of charges in an attempt to pressure Tora into copping a plea. Since he pleaded no contest instead of either pleading guilty or being convicted at trial, no assumptions can be made as to his factual guilt.

Shentino 05:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


An edit war has been engaged by an unregistered user. ( ) He is blanking out all information relevent to recent controversy. I suggest protection for this article is necessary.

If an individual user continues to remove information against consensus, that individual will be temporarily blocked. Protection against everyone is not required. --GreenReaper(talk) 21:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Linking to Megan's Law[edit]

Please do not link directly to the relevant entry on the Megan's Law website. Doing so bypasses an important disclaimer and notice warning readers of the legal issues involved with certain uses of the data contained on the site. The process of finding it from the front page given the subject's name is trivial. --GreenReaper(talk) 06:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Not so much related to this case, but in general, I have issues with trying to place restrictions on deep linking to content on another website. If we try to place restrictions for the Megan's Law website, does that obligate us to start "policing" links to other websites? It's a slippery slope that I'd rather not get into.
I think a better way to solve this problem would be to put a blurb in the the article that has a link to the disclaimer. --Douglas Muth 14:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Most websites do not result in an automatic $10,000-$50,000 penalty for misdemeanor misuse of information on it, or an automatic 5-year imprisonment for felony misuse, or a $1,000 fine or imprisonment for six months just for visiting them if you are a member of a certain group of people. This one does [sections (j) and (k), about 3/4 down]. I don't feel that is a just law (at least with regards to the misuses we're talking about), but I don't want to be responsible for enabling people to get into that much trouble. --GreenReaper(talk) 16:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Holy crap. That, I did not know. This changes things substantially. --Douglas Muth 16:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(user question)[edit]

Does TORA/Growly actually serve staff on RMFC? He at least has considerable control in the dealers den. I'm not sure if he's a volunteer or staff member but it should be contained on this wiki page. He's not listed on though. Sangie (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2015 (EDT)