$9250 for Illegally Downloading a Song – $0 for Child Pornography?
In July, a Nebraska judge awarded a child pornography victim just $2500 in restitution. Despite un-refuted losses of over a million dollars, the district court concluded it would be “gilding the lily” to give the victim the "full restitution" which Congress made mandatory in Joe Biden's Mandatory Restitution for Sexual Exploitation of Children Act.
The victim in this case, United States v. Robert M. Fast, was ten years old when her father directed and produced child pornography videos using a script which he created with his daughter in the staring role. The ...
American Bar Association Journal—Pricing Amy: Should Those Who Download Child Pornography Pay the Victims?
This feature article about the Marsh Law Firm's efforts to secure restitution for victims of child pornography appears in this month's American Bar Association Journal which is read by over one million attorneys and corporate counsel worldwide. Here are several excerpts from Pricing Amy: Should Those Who Download Child Pornography Pay the Victims?
It’s not exactly clear when Amy’s pictures began circulating online, but court records indicate the digital images date back to as early as 1998.
Amy and her lawyer are, however, fighting back. Her battle is part of ...
Landmark Children’s Rights Case Now Before the Fifth Circuit
During the past two years, victims of child pornography (represented by the Marsh Law Firm and pioneering attorneys Paul G. Cassell and Carol L. Hepburn) have been seeking restitution in federal courts throughout the country.
Almost twenty years ago Congress, led by then-Senator Joe Biden, passed a law as part of the Violence Against Women Act which requires federal district courts to award mandatory restitution to child pornography victims for the "full amount of the victim's losses." 18 U.S.C. § 2259(B)(3). Among the losses covered by the statute are psychiatric care, ...
DOJ Interpretation Guts VAWA Protections
Okay, so maybe sexually exploited children don't get you activated. I'll admit it's an unpleasant niche most people would rather not think about. And the child pornography restitution statute which is being considered by federal district courts across the country and in several courts of appeal will arguably affect a relatively small number of victims.
A closer look, however, reveals that the child pornography restitution statute, 18 U.S.C. 2259, is exactly the same as two other restitution statutes which were enacted at the same time. The first is the sex abuse restitu...
Fifth Circuit Decides to Reconsider Restitution Victory
If you're awake and you've been following this blog for any length of time, your probably know that during the past two years, victims of child pornography (represented by the Marsh Law Firm and pioneering attorneys Paul G. Cassell and Carol L. Hepburn ) have been seeking restitution in federal courts throughout the country.
Using a long forgotten passage in the Violence Against Women Act championed by then-Senator Joe Biden in 1994, child sex abuse victims are asking federal judges to award the mandatory restitution guaranteed by this law.
Change.org|Sign our Online ...
Supreme Court Grants Justice Dep’t Request to Reject Child Victims
Last week the United States Supreme Court ignored the extraordinary pleas of three nationally recognized child advocacy groups and granted the Justice Department's request to dismiss a child sex abuse victim's appeal for criminal restitution.
The case now returns to the district court which must follow the DC Circuit's holding that the victim in this case, Amy, does not have a clear and indisputable right to full restitution, but must instead trace precisely how her losses were “proximately” caused by each of the thousands of child molesters and pedophiles who ...
Justice Department Sides with Child Molesters and Pedophiles AGAIN
When Justice Department attorneys refused to even sit with the child sex abuse victim at last year's oral argument before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, Chief Judge Edith Jones proclaimed:
"What I don't understand is why the government has switched sides. They were on Amy's side in the trial court, were they not? I'm not sure how they can switch sides now and say that the statute doesn't entitle her to relief. That seems very—if not duplicitous—very strange to me. And it's also in derogation of the obvious intent of that provision of the ...