tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post2025932840376662889..comments2023-12-12T03:19:42.467-05:00Comments on CYB3RCRIM3: Child Pornography, Restitution and MandamusSusan Brennerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17575138839291052258noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-45881966439586262792011-05-20T01:40:01.749-04:002011-05-20T01:40:01.749-04:00personaly i think amy AND her lawyer have been blo...personaly i think amy AND her lawyer have been blowing the victim horn just a little too long and it might be time someone plugged them both!rodsmithnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-23440013863214605742011-05-18T00:15:04.038-04:002011-05-18T00:15:04.038-04:00Also, if I stab you, that’s an injury. If you late...Also, if I stab you, that’s an injury. If you later die from stabbing, that’s also an injury. I’m sure everyone understands this difference.<br /><br />Common law held J&S liability in the former meaning for “single injury”. It did not do so for the latter sense, at least not in any case that I can find. This is precisely why courts refuse to find J&S liability when two defamations cause a single ultimate injury such as loss of a job.<br /><br />Each defamation is a distinct injury (in the first sense). The job loss is an injury (in the second sense) that is indivisible. This distinction is fundamental and crucial because it prevents potentially unlimited liability for effectively negligible injuries.<br /><br />These so-called porn victims claim that it's the pervert's enjoyment of it that constitutes continued harm to the original victim above and beyond the original act of the pornographer. However, why couldn't a defendant testify and say “No, I didn’t enjoy it — you looked awful! I’ve seen plenty of good child porn models, and you’re not in their class.” lulz<br /><br />Here's a question: After this case is finally resolved, and all the money sucked out whoever can be suckered, Joe Public comes along and downloads a picture of the victim. He does not possess it until after the prior issues have resolved, so no crime occurred until the prior restitution issue has been finally resolved.<br /><br />He is discovered and convicted, just like the defendant in this case. Victim pursues a new claim for restitution for Joe’s subsequent viewing. What result?<br /><br />If the trial court finds damages due to Joe’s viewing, then there is no logically consistent argument that there was an “inability to quantitfy division of liability among the previous tortfeasors.” If you can determine damages for one viewing in one circumstance, then you should be able to so in others, at least theoretically, using the same analysis.<br /><br />If the court does not find any damages, how could it conclude that damages occurred by the prior viewings? I will admit that a consistent distinction may be made by factual findings, e.g., the existence expert evidence of damages in the prior case, but no persuasive evidence of additional damage in Joe’s case. But that still admits of the possibility of damages, which would be quantifiable if proven, which undermines the notion that they are not quantifiable, which undermines the justification for J&S liability.<br /><br />Finally, I note that the statute does not require J&S liability:<br /><br />“If the court finds that more than 1 defendant has contributed to the loss of a victim, the court may make each defendant liable for payment of the full amount of restitution or may apportion liability among the defendants to reflect the level of contribution to the victim’s loss and economic circumstances of each defendant.”<br /><br />18 USC sec 3664(h).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-2748760138403313692011-05-17T23:36:41.732-04:002011-05-17T23:36:41.732-04:00"Monzel's possession of a single image of..."Monzel's possession of a single image of Amy..."<br /><br />So the guy has ONE picture of her and the bitch demands $3 million? Heck, I'll give him a naked picture of me and only charge him $50. FYI - the girl isn't even pretty. Certainly not worth $3 million. More like 2 or 3 bucks.<br /><br />FYI - the attorney who filed the case on behalf of "Amy" is that same loser who once said that blacks deserve to be in prison. He used to be a federal judge but quit cuz he felt he wasdn't getting paid enough.<br /><br />http://blog.simplejustice.us/2008/05/05/paul-cassell-blacks-deserve-to-be-in-prison.aspx<br /><br />Additionally, what this idiot (and others) have failed to consider is that if you allow these so-called victims to receive $3 million from each defendant, then each defendant will be entitled to sue everyone else who had the pictures for pro rata contribution. So now you'll have one pervert suing other perverts, who then in turn sue still more perverts. I guess that won't clog up the federal courts much, right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com