ChildLaw Blog

DOJ Interpretation Guts VAWA Protections

2012-02-09T22:15:29Z

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 restitution act, 18 U.S.C. 2248, which applies to sex crimes committed on federal land, Indian reservations and the interstate trafficking of minors.

The second, however, involves provisions which are at the heart of the federal Violence Against Women's Act (VAWA) and includes stalking, interstate domestic violence, and interstate violation of a protection order.

The VAWA restitution statute, 18 U.S.C. 2264, allows any victim who was harmed from stalking, interestste domestic violence or interstate violation of a protection order to receive restitution for the “full amount” their losses including any costs incurred by the victim for—

(A) medical services relating to physical, psychiatric, or psychological care;
(B) physical and occupational therapy or rehabilitation;
(C) necessary transportation, temporary housing, and child care expenses;
(D) lost income;
(E) attorneys' fees, plus any costs incurred in obtaining a civil protection order; and
(F) any other losses suffered by the victim as a proximate result of the offense.

Congress passed this remedial landmark legislation to fully compensate victims of stalking, domestic violence and interstate violation of a protection order for the losses they suffer. To address these serious harms, Section 2264 makes restitution “mandatory.” To underscore the mandatory nature of restitution, Congress repeated later in the statute that issuance of a restitution order is mandatory.

Section 2264’s provisions are also broader than other federal restitution statutes. The VAWA restitution statute extends its protections to any “victim” who is simply “harmed” by stalking, interstate domestic violence, or the interstate violation of a protection order, requiring neither “proximate harm” nor “direct harm.”

By purposely omitting the narrowing qualifiers “directly” and “proximately” found in other general restitution statutes, Congress decided not to burden victims with any obligation to demonstrate a “direct” or “proximate” harm as prerequisite to receiving restitution.

Unfortunately, the Department of Justice doesn't agree with this plain statutory language.

Although Congress placed the “proximate result” language only in subsection (F) of the restitution statute, the Department of Justice continues to argue in courts of appeal throughout the country that Congress implicitly intended that phrase be read backwards through the other five preceding sections.

Simply put, DOJ's position contradicts not only the plain language of the child pornography restitution statute, but the plain language of exact same VAWA restitution statute as well.

Bottom Line: what the courts decide in the coming months about restitution for victims of child pornography will also effect restitution for victims of domestic violence all over the country.

Unfortunately, the Justice Department has abandoned these victims on appeal by advancing a legal standard which the courts consider unworkable.

In October, the Justice Department filed a Supreme Court brief opposing child victims. Last month, the Justice Department asked the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to nullify a court-ordered million dollar award to a child sex abuse victim, arguing that the legal standard which resulted in the award is too easy.

Why is the Justice Department arguing for something which the courts of appeal say is unworkable and un-provable, while victims of child exploitation, stalking, interstate domestic violence, and interstate violation of a protection order are left with nothing?

Now, just last week, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals—at the Justice Department's urging—decided to reconsider a landmark decision in favor of these victims. The Justice Department has one more chance to do the right thing by supporting victims.

Please tell President Obama's political appointee to the Department of Justice Criminal Division, Lanny A. Breuer, to side with the victim in In re: Amy Unknown in the Fifth Circuit.

When Justice Department attorneys refused to even sit with Amy 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 statute."

Amy and victims like her need your help. Right now these victims are effectively shut-out of the federal courts by the Justice Department's wrongheaded policy.

Almost 20 years ago, then-Senator Joe Biden promised victims that they would receive full restitution from criminals convicted of child exploitation, stalking, interstate domestic violence, and interstate violation of a protection order. Ironically, Vice President Biden's own Justice Department is failing to live up to his vision in the Violence Against Women's Act.

You can help awaken the Justice Department lawyers in Washington with just a few clicks. Amy thanks everyone for their continued support. You can make a difference in her fight for justice!

Change.org|Sign our Online Petition »

For more information on this issue, visit http://www.childlaw.us/restitution/

Fallen Angel in Adoption

2012-02-07T15:39:38Z

As many of you know, The Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute’s (CCAI) Angels in Adoption™ Program provides Members of Congress the opportunity to honor an individual, couple, or organization from their district that have made an extraordinary contribution on behalf of children in need of homes. I have long supported this effort and any effort to raise awareness about the needs of foster and adopted children.

Back in November, I discovered that none other then Penn State child molester Jerry Sandusky was honored as an Angel in Adoption back in 2002. And quite appropriately, on November 10, 2011, the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute rescinded the award with the following statement:

For 13 years, the Angels in Adoption™ award has honored more than 1,800 selfless individuals, couples and organizations who have made extraordinary contributions on behalf of children in need of loving families. In light of the serious allegations against him, and to preserve the integrity of the Angels in Adoption™ program, the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute today announced it has rescinded the award given in 2002 to Jerry and Dottie Sandusky, who were among 142 awardees that year. As an organization that fights to stop child abuse, our thoughts and prayers are with the children harmed and the families affected by his alleged actions. This tragedy underscores how important it is to have a foster care system that ensures our most vulnerable children have a safe and stable environment in which to grow.

No reason a few bad apples should spoil the bin, and Sandusky was one rotten apple operating, as most pedophiles do, in plain sight but under the radar, ensconced in a false veneer of respectability and trust.

Imagine my surprise then, when I popped over to the Angels in Adoption website and found Masha Allen's adoptive parent, Faith Allen, proudly listed as an "Angel Alumni."

Back in 2006, Faith got her angel wings when Senator Johnny Isakson and Congressman Phil Gingrey, nominated her (at the same time Georgia child welfare officials were investigating Faith for abuse and the Cobb & Douglas Public Health Tuberculosis Clinic was searching for Masha in order to treat a nasty case of tuberculosis).

According to Isakson, “[a]fter a lifetime of unimaginable hardships, Masha now has a safe home filled with compassion and love thanks to her Angel in Adoption, Faith Allen.”

Gingrey crowed, “Faith Allen is a shining example of the selfless love adoptive parents give their children. Faith is more than just Masha’s adoptive mother; she is her pillar of support, providing encouragement as Masha bravely shares her story. Everyone who spends time with Faith and Masha feels the warmth and kindness that make Faith an Angel in Adoption.”

Both these tributes remain on Mssrs. Isakson and Gingrey's Congressional websites today.

Over two years ago, Maureen Flatley revealed on PoundPupLegacy.org the extent of the cover-up in this case. An excerpt:

As the point of contact between Masha's team and Mr. Gingery's office I want to further clarify Michael's comments, which are on point.

Mr. Gingery, who is was a licensed physician in Georgia when Masha's case began to play out, was held as a professional to an extremely high ethical standard on the issue of mandatory reporting of alleged child abuse or neglect.

…When I contacted Mr. Gingery's office to bring them into the loop on the developments of the previous 24 hours during which the allegations of abuse and neglect by Faith Allen were surfaced, I was angrily confronted by his staffer who had already been in touch with Faith and her erstwhile attorney who provided rather alarming safe harbor for Faith (despite her position as a nurse/attorney who should have recognized a child in danger rather than simple a parent whose rights were under siege.)

Rather than objectively sort out the issues, putting the best interests of the child in the forefront as the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act dictates, Gingery's staff immediately defaulted to the defense of Faith's parental rights and most especially the acceptability of her discretion to engage "faith based" interventions rather than conventional mental health treatments. …

…there had been on going discussion between Mr. Gingery's office and the outside experts for MONTHS that Faith had not been able, for whatever reasons most obviously financial, to meet Masha's needs and that the family was in crisis. Gingery's staffer, furthermore, knew a.) that Masha had been hospitalized at least once for a suicide attempt and that the clinicians involved had questioned Faith's parenting and b.) Faith had "paraded" Masha on the Oprah Winfrey show against advice of all outside counsel, again creating psychological stress for a vulnerable child.

…If anyone had been able to put this case into a "fair and balanced" position in which all the issues on both sides of the case could be sorted out in an objective and responsible fashion, it was Mr. Gingery. As doctor, Mr. Gingery was in fact uniquely positioned to both understand and sort out the desperate needs of this family and most especially a vulnerable child whose interests he had purported to defend. …

…to allow a vulnerable child whose needs were well know not just to the Member but to the entire world to go unmet in what was by then an obviously life threatening situation is not just curious, it's an outrage.

Like Sandusky, everyone knew something was wrong with Faith's care of Masha. Many, many people suspected something was just not right with the whole scenario. Some very powerful people knew much more, and yet, the situation persisted year after year after year just like Penn State's cover-up of Sandusky.

Former United States Attorney (and recent Congressional candidate) Mary Beth Buchanan started the spin early on when she declared on national television in 2005: “Masha has been adopted by a very loving family who has changed her name and moved her to another part of the country, where she can make a new start and have a very, very wonderful life ahead of her.”

The press had it's own unique role in perpetrating the fraud. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reporter Barbara White Stack, who later admitted that "everyone in Pittsburgh knew Faith was mentally ill," wrote in 2004 that "Faith believes God placed Mea with her because she could understand her pain and her needs. It is so awesome for her to be matched with a little girl of similar background who she is able to parent and minister to. I think it was by divine orchestration that it happened that way."

Post-Gazette reporter Torsten Ove intoned, "[Masha's] family is her other rock. All it took was love from someone who cared, Faith Allen."

Even United States District Judge Terrence McVerry declared that “I'm so happy, Masha, for you and I hope and pray for you to have a happy life with Faith, and I'm sure that that will come to pass.”

Masha's pastor, Winnie Pollard, was probably the most prescient when she declared, “Faith is a blessing. There is, without any question, that the two of them are going to be a story worth watching to see how their lives are going to effect so many others. They are a sign of hope in the City for everyone that has struggled liken unto Faith and every child that is in need of help liken unto Masha.”

Perhaps the biggest spin, however, was perpetrated by Masha's own legal team, the very lawyers who were charged with ensuring her best interest. According to Masha's First Lawyer, Linell Lee, “I only see a bright future for [Masha] with Faith. Kid's Voice is happy to see this day!”

Masha's Third Lawyer, Diane Sternlieb, declared “I have spent many, many months with Faith and Masha and have witnessed a bond of love between these two. Masha is lucky to have Faith in her life!”

Masha's most recent lawyer, David S. Bills, defending Faith's questionable care of Masha, trumpeted: "Faith received a major award as an Angel in Adoption™ for her outstanding contributions toward the welfare of children in the United States foster care system and orphans around the globe. U.S. Senator Isakson proclaimed: “Faith Allen, who adopted her daughter, Masha, last year, is a truly amazing woman who embodies the spirit of the Angels in Adoptions program. Masha now has a safe home filled with compassion and love thanks to Faith Allen.” Representative Gingrey added: “Faith is her pillar of support, providing encouragement as Masha bravely shares her story. Everyone who spends time with Faith and Masha feels the warmth and kindness that make Faith an Angel in Adoption."

Which naturally brings us back to the Angel in Adoption program. When I read about Sandusky's fall from grace, and saw that Faith was still an Angel in Good Standing with CCAI, I decided to perform a public service and let everyone know that Faith's parental rights to Masha were involuntarily terminated years ago.

I sent the following email to Senator Isakson (on December 13, 2011):

I read with interest this article from last month.

I noticed that Faith Allen is still listed as a 2006 Angel in Adoption sponsored by the Senator and this press release remains on your website:

http://isakson.senate.gov/press/2006/092006allen.htm

In 2008, just two years after she was named an Angel in Adoption, Faith Allen…parental rights were involuntarily terminated by the State of Pennsylvania. …

I worked closely with Sen. Isakson on Masha’s Law. The situation with Faith Allen was almost as bad as Sandusky. You might want to consider taking appropriate action.

Saturday, November 12, 2011
Adoption group rescinds award given to Sandusky

and Congressman Gingrey (on December 13, 2011):

I read with interest this article from last month.

I noticed that Faith Allen is still listed as a 2006 Angel in Adoption and her picture remains on your website:

http://gingrey.house.gov/Photos/?PhotoID=50407

In 2008, just two years after she was named an Angel in Adoption, Faith Allen…parental rights were involuntarily terminated by the State of Pennsylvania. …

I worked closely with Rep. Gingrey on Masha’s Law. The situation with Faith Allen was almost as bad as Sandusky. You might want to consider taking appropriate action.

Saturday, November 12, 2011
Adoption group rescinds award given to Sandusky

and CCAI (on November 15, 2011):

I read with interest this article from Saturday.

I noticed that Faith Allen is still listed as a 2006 Angel in Adoption. In 2008, just two years after she was named an Angel in Adoption, Faith Allen…parental rights were involuntarily terminated by the State of Pennsylvania.

Saturday, November 12, 2011
Adoption group rescinds award given to Sandusky

Not surprisingly, no one has responded, although CCAI did remove the list of Alumni Angels from its website.

Fifth Circuit Decides to Reconsider Restitution Victory

2012-01-31T00:43:16Z

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 Petition »

Unfortunately, the Justice Department has abandoned victims of child pornography on appeal by advancing a legal standard which the courts consider unworkable. The Justice Department's position is effectively preventing hundreds of child victims from receiving any money from the tens of thousands of child molesters and pedophiles who collect and trade child sex abuse images.

In October, the Justice Department filed a Supreme Court brief opposing child exploitation victims. Last month, the Justice Department asked the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to nullify a court-ordered million dollar award to a child sex abuse victim, arguing that the legal standard which resulted in the award is too easy.

Why is the Justice Department arguing for something which the courts of appeal say is unworkable and un-provable, while victims of child exploitation are left with nothing?

Now, just last week, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals—at the Justice Department's urging—decided to reconsider a landmark decision in favor of victims of child pornography. The Justice Department has one more chance to do the right thing and support victims of child exploitation.

Please tell President Obama's political appointee to the Department of Justice Criminal Division, Lanny A. Breuer, to side with the victim in In re: Amy Unknown in the Fifth Circuit.

When Justice Department attorneys refused to even sit with Amy 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 statute."

Amy and child victims like her need your help. Hundreds of victims are effectively shut-out of the federal courts by the Justice Department's wrongheaded policy.

Almost 20 years ago, then-Senator Joe Biden promised child victims that they would receive full restitution from criminals convicted of child exploitation. Ironically, Vice President Biden's own Justice Department is failing to live up to his vision in the Violence Against Women's Act.

You can help awaken the Justice Department lawyers in Washington with just a few clicks. Amy thanks everyone for their continued support. You can make a difference in her fight for justice!

For more information on this issue, visit http://www.childlaw.us/restitution/

Sexting Norms Uncovered in Two Studies

2012-01-18T19:29:21Z

In the January edition of Pediatrics researchers explored two issues: The Prevalence and Characteristics of Youth Sexting and How Often Are Teens Arrested for Sexting?

Prior to the research estimates of the prevalence of sexting varied considerably depending on the nature of the images or videos and the role of the youth involved.

A cross-sectional national telephone survey of 1560 youth Internet users, ages 10 through 17, discovered that only 2.5% of youth appeared in or created nude or nearly nude pictures or videos.

However, this percentage was reduced to 1.0% when the definition was restricted to only include images that were sexually explicit (ie, showed naked breasts, genitals, or bottoms). Of the youth who participated in the survey, 7.1% said they had received nude or nearly nude images of others; 5.9% of youth reported receiving sexually explicit images. Few youth distributed these images.

The researchers concluded that since policy debates on youth sexting behavior focus on concerns about the production and possession of illegal child pornography, it is important to have research that collects details about the nature of the sexual images rather than using ambiguous screening questions without follow-ups.

The rate of youth exposure to sexting highlights a need to provide them with information about legal consequences of sexting and advice about what to do if they receive a sexting image. However, the data suggest that appearing in, creating, or receiving sexual images is far from being a normative behavior for youth.

The second study examined the characteristics of youth sexting cases handled by police and their outcomes in response to clinical and other concerns about the risks of sexting behavior.

Mail surveys were sent to a stratified national sample of 2712 law enforcement agencies followed by detailed telephone interviews with investigators about a nationally representative sample of sexting cases handled by police during 2008 and 2009 (n = 675). The cases involved “youth-produced sexual images” that constituted child pornography under relevant statutes according to respondents.

The researchers discovered that US law enforcement agencies handled an estimated 3477 cases of youth-produced sexual images during 2008 and 2009 (95% confidence interval: 3282-3672). Two-thirds of the cases involved an “aggravating” circumstance beyond the creation and/or dissemination of a sexual image.

In these aggravated cases, either an adult was involved (36% of cases) or a minor engaged in malicious, non-consensual, or abusive behavior (31% of cases). An arrest occurred in 62% of cases with an adult involved, in 36% of the aggravated youth-only cases, and in 18% of the “experimental” cases (youth-only and no aggravating elements).

Most of the images (63%) were distributed by cell phone only and did not reach the Internet. Sex offender registration applied in only a few unusual cases.

The conclusion of this study is that many of the youth sexting cases that come to the attention of police include aggravating circumstances that raise concerns about health and risky sexual behavior, although some cases were relatively benign. Overall, arrest is not typical in cases with no adults involved.

Prevalence and Characteristics of Youth Sexting: A National Study

How Often Are Teens Arrested for Sexting? Data From a National Sample of Police Cases

New Year's Resolutions 2012

2012-01-06T19:48:29Z

Like everyone else on the planet, I've been publishing more and more content on the much-maligned Facebook. If you really want to absorb each and everything I publish, flag, highlight, champion, condemn, etc., then please join the Marsh Law Firm Facebook page. There's lots of good stuff there which I routinely post throughout the day when a full-blown blog entry, commentary and analysis isn't warranted or, more likely, when I don't have enough time to delve into the issue.

If you don't have Facebook or completely despise and eschew the site (perhaps based on my oft-repeated warnings and criticisms), then you can follow my Facebook postings by subscribing to my Twitter feed. Everything which I post on Facebook gets reduced to a tweet where you can just click on the link and view the content NFBR. (no Facebook required).

If you hate Facebook and don't know a Tweet from a Quack (no comments please), then you can join my LinkedIn page and receive a great deal of the content which I Tweet and Facebook. LinkedIn also has feeds which you can follow and both my Blog and Facebook page are accessible from my LinkedIn profile.

If you are so incredibly old-school that neither Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn has captured your time and attention (and you can identify and use a 2400 baud dial-up modem), then you can follow this blog's post via RSS. You can also follow the blog's comments via RSS.

Finally, if none of the above appeal to you, then you can always subscribe or stay subscribed to this blog via email. Whether via AOL or Gmail, good old email is probably here to stay at least for another year.

The best way to tie all this together is via TweetDeck (which will aggregate all your Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn feeds in one customizable page, but not RSS) and this great little program called Desktop Google Reader which will aggregate all your RSS feeds. TweetDeck is also available on the iPhone. An app called Reeder does a great job handling RSS feeds on the iPhone.

So, although you may want to run from our numerous mutli-faceted never-ceasing blogs, Tweets and FBs, you can never really hide. Maybe by next year we'll be GooglePlus-ing. Then we'll really have you.

Wishing everyone health, peace and contentment in the coming year. Now Tweet that for a change!

ChildLaw Blog Linking Resource Guide

Marsh Law Firm Facebook Page

ChildLaw Twitter Feed

James Marsh LinkedIn Profile

ChildLaw Blog Posts RSS Feed

ChildLaw Blog Comments RSS Feed

ChildLaw Blog Email Subscribe Form

TweetDeck

Desktop Google Reader

iPhone Reeder

Marsh Law Firm on Google+

Child Abusers Are Not Invisible

2011-12-19T21:34:55Z

Pedophilia occurs with disturbing frequency in athletic programs, churches, Boy Scout troops, and youth organizations—places that children congregate, including the homes of trusted family members.

Professor Daniel Pollack, a frequent contributor to ChildLaw, has co-authored a social work textbook called How to Screen Adoptive and Foster Parents: A Workbook for Professionals and Students. If you read this blog regularly, you'll know all about this book which we profiled earlier this year.

A recent op-ed written by the book's co-author, James Dickerson, highlights this important work:

It is accepted in professional circles that you can help child sex abuse victims with appropriate therapy, but there is little that you can do to help pedophiles. They will offend again and again if they are not incarcerated. Someday there may emerge an effective treatment for them.

Today it does not exist.

The best way to protect children, boys and girls, from abuse is to properly screen individuals who apply for jobs that will require them to work with children, just as you would individuals who apply for foster and adoptive children.

It will not come as a surprise to mental health professionals that Sandusky was married and had adopted six children, along with opening his home to an unknown number of foster children. It is a recognizable pattern.

Although the science does not exist to treat pedophiles, the science does exist to screen them for abusive tendencies. I deal with this in a social work textbook that I co-authored with Professor Daniel Pollack of Yeshiva University, and Dr. Mardi Allen of the Mississippi Department of Mental Health, on the subject of screening for abusive tendencies in adoptive and foster parent applicants.

In the book, we point out in a chapter devoted to the subject that pedophiles are naturally attracted to positions that require them to be around children. Of course, most Boy Scout leaders, church youth group leaders, and teachers are not pedophiles, but those categories are a natural draw to pedophiles and that is where you are most likely to find them.

What are some of the clues that should be recognized by social workers, parents, and employment screeners?

For the answer, buy the book at Amazon, Barnes and Noble, or directly from the NASW Press.

400,666 US Girls Under Ten Are Forcibly Raped

2011-12-15T20:28:20Z

A recently released report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reveals some sobering numbers: nearly 1 in 5 women have been raped in their lifetime. This statistic is widely known and almost universally accepted. But what do these numbers say about children?

According to the study, approximately 80% of female victims experienced their first rape before the age of 25 and almost half experienced the first rape before age 18 (30% between 11-17 years old and 12% at or before the age of 10).

When you crunch the numbers even more, you discover that approximately 400,666 girls under ten have experienced "completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, or alcohol/drug facilitated completed penetration."

This translates into six girls in each and every elementary school in the United States.

In my town, with four elementary schools, that's 24 girls.

Exactly who are these girls in your community? Who is responsible for these crimes? And who is serving these victims?

Here's how I calculated these numbers. According to the CDC, "18.3% of women in the United States have been raped at some time in their lives, including completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, or alcohol/drug facilitated completed penetration." Of this 18.3%, 12% were raped "at or before the age of 10." Doing the math, 12% of 18.3% is 2%. According to the United States Census, there are approximately 152,925,887 women in the United States. Of these, 6.7% are under 5 years old and 6.4% are 5 to 9 years old. Add 6.7% and 6.4% and you get 13.1% of the population are girls ages 0 to 9 - the target population. This translates to 20,033,291 girls ages 0 to 9 in the United States. If 2% of those 20 million girls experience rape, that's 400,666 girls.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, there are 67,148 elementary schools in the United States. 400,666 girls divided by 67,148 elementary schools equals 6 girls per elementary school who experience "forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, or alcohol/drug facilitated completed penetration" before their tenth birthday.

Supreme Court Grants Justice Dep't Request to Reject Child Victims

2011-12-06T17:13:31Z

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 collect and trade her child sex abuse images.

The Supreme Court's rejection means that a child pornography victim's right to criminal restitution in the federal courts will continue to be limited and denied in sixteen states and territories, including California, New York and Washington, DC. Only in the Fifth Circuit—encompassing the states of Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi—is restitution still mandatory.

The Court's denial—and the Justice Department's stubborn refusal to abandon a legal standard which the influential Ninth Circuit concluded "present[s] serious obstacles for victims seeking restitution in these sorts of cases"—leaves child sex abuse victims like Amy with scant chance for justice in the federal courts.

Pedophiles, child molesters and the Justice Department are likely to seize on the high court's rejection as a sign that criminal restitution for child sex abuse victims is all but impossible in the federal courts except under the most egregious circumstances.

We continue to urge everyone to Make a Difference and ask the Justice Department to stop siding with convicted child molesters and pedophiles instead of child sex abuse victims!

Just go to http://bit.ly/ChangeJustice for full details on how you can help.

For the complete background on this issue, visit http://www.childlaw.us/restitution/.

Justice Department Sides with Child Molesters and Pedophiles AGAIN

2011-11-30T21:35:06Z

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 statute."

Now, over a year later, the Justice Department has done the exact same thing again in the Sixth Circuit. Only this time they are asking the Court of Appeals to nullify a court-ordered million dollar award to a child sex abuse victim.

Why is the Obama Justice Department siding with convicted child molesters and pedophiles instead of child sex abuse victims?

In response to this shameful position, the Marsh Law Firm has joined forces with lawyers for the victim in this case and requested immediate intervention in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to defend the million dollar judgment which was abandoned by the government on appeal.

The child sex abuse victim in this case, Vicky, is represented by Seattle attorney Carol L. Hepburn, who declared:

"It's bad enough that we so often have to fight child molesters and pedophiles all over the country just to get some measure of restitution for the victim. Now we have to fight the government too. Unfortunately the government has turned on us in one of the few cases where we won something significant which would really make a difference in my client's life. I just don't understand why the government is deciding to flip-flop and now go against the victim in these cases."

According to crime victims’ rights advocate Paul Cassell, a former federal judge who is currently a law professor at the S.J. Quinney College of Law at University of Utah (and who also represents Vicky on appeal on a pro bono basis):

"It is unconscionable that the government would abandon a child victim on appeal without any notice or a chance to respond. We only found out about this appeal by accident. If we hadn't intervened, no one would have protected this substantial award before the Court of Appeals. Who could have imagined that the government—which worked so hard at the trial court to obtain this award—would suddenly and without warning switch sides before the Sixth Circuit? The Justice Department simply forgot about the child victim when it filed its appeal pleadings."

Marsh Law Firm partner, James R. Marsh, emphasized that the legal fight for child sex abuse victims will continue whenever and wherever necessary:

"The Department of Justice has fought against us in the Fifth Circuit, the District of Columbia Circuit, the Supreme Court and now the Sixth Circuit. Apparently the decision to abandon child sex abuse victims is being made by lifelong apparatchiks who haven't left Washington in a long, long time. This kind of stupidity is one reason why the American people have such distrust and cynicism in our government right now. It defies any sense of common decency that some government lawyer in Washington, DC would think it's a good idea to expend taxpayer dollars to fight against the interests of child sex abuse victims everywhere in the country."

Marsh exclaimed:

"At a time when Penn State has incited international indignity, it's outrageous that the federal government is marshaling every effort to deny child sex abuse victims criminal restitution which was a central part of the law championed by the Administration's own Vice President Biden as part of his landmark 1994 Violence Against Women's Act. Now that the Senate is holding hearings on how well the nation is protecting children from abuse and neglect, they should start by asking why their own Justice Department is siding with convicted child molesters and pedophiles against the interests of child sex abuse victims."

Click here to Make a Difference on this issue!

How Much Restitution Will be Permitted for Child Pornography Victims The Second Circuit Speaks; Will The Supreme Court Step In?

2011-11-25T16:25:00Z

Guest Legal Analysis by Jennifer Freeman of Freeman Lewis LLP

On September 8, 2011, the Second Circuit dealt a blow to victims of child pornography who had been seeking broad relief under a federal criminal statute authorizing restitution. In United States v. Aumais, Docket No. 10-3160 (Sept. 8, 2011), the New York federal appeals court reversed a restitution order of nearly $50,000 assessed in favor of a victim of child porn against a possessor of the images, holding that proximate cause was lacking, without which such damages could not be imposed.

In issuing this decision, the Second Circuit agreed with the result reached by a number of other Circuit Courts and disagreed with the Fifth Circuit. A petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court is currently pending in a similar case. This is an issue that cries out for Supreme Court resolution, and we very much hope that the Supreme Court will step in to provide clarity to the victims, perpetrators and others in this highly charged and important arena.

Recent Expansion of Restitution Claims

The United States Supreme Court has held that distribution of child pornography is “intrinsically related to the sexual abuse of children” because, among other things, “the materials produced are a permanent record of the children’s participation and the harm to the child is exacerbated by their circulation.” New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 759 (1982). Once the acts are recorded, “the pornography may haunt [the child] in future years, long after the original misdeed took place.” 458 U.S. at 759 n.10.

Commencing in about 2009, victims of child pornography started filing claims of restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2259, the federal “child pornography restitution statute”, as part of criminal cases against transporters, distributors or possessors of the images. Since that time, abuse victims have sought millions of dollars in restitution damages from the sellers or users of the child pornography.

One of the victims, known under the pseudonym “Amy”, has submitted almost 700 federal criminal restitution requests in pornography cases, seeking more than $3 million. According to the New York Times, Amy has already recovered nearly $350,000.

Under the child pornography restitution statute, Section 2259(a) directs courts to order restitution for any offense under the chapter which, among other things, makes it a criminal offense to possess child pornography images. Section 2259(b)(1) provides that the order of restitution shall direct the defendant to pay the victim the “full amount of the victim’s losses” as determined by the court. Section 2259(b)(3) provides that the “full amount of the victim’s losses” includes any costs incurred by the victim for:

(A) medical services relating to the physical, psychiatric, or psychological care;
(B) physical and occupational therapy or rehabilitation;
(C) necessary transportation, temporary housing, and child care expenses;
(D) lost income;
(E) attorney’s fees, as well as other costs incurred; and
(F) any other losses suffered by the victims as a proximate result of the offense.

§ 2259(b)(3)(A)-(F). The issuance of a restitution order is “mandatory”, and a court may not decline to issue a restitution order because of the defendant’s economic circumstances or the fact that the victim has received or is entitled to receive compensation for his or her injuries from the proceeds of insurance or any other source. § 2259(b)(4).

Victims have sought to use the restitution statute to hold each defendant responsible for the “full amount of the victim’s losses”, alleging that the statutory requirement that the losses be proximately caused by the defendant applies only to Section 2259(b)(3)(F) and not to other specified losses.

The Fifth Circuit has agreed with the victims, noting that the structure and language of Section 2259(b) imposes a proximate cause requirement only on miscellaneous “other losses” for which restitution may be sought. In re Amy Unknown, 636 F.3d 190, 198 (5th Cir. 2011). Other courts have disagreed, looking to traditional principles of tort and criminal law or providing different interpretations of the statutory language. E.g., United States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528 (D.C. Cir.), petition for certiorari filed, 80 USLW 3059 (July 15, 2011); United States v. McDaniel, 631 F.3d 1204 (11th Cir. 20110).

There are also state statutes which require mandatory restitution to child pornography victims. Under a recently enacted statute in Virginia, a man convicted of child pornography distribution was ordered to pay $1000 to each of the victims.

The Aumais Decision

In Aumais, defendant Gerald Aumais pled guilty to transporting and possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1) and (a)(5)(b). The district court sentenced him to 121 months in prison and ordered him, pursuant to § 2259, to pay $48,483 in restitution for future counseling costs to Amy, who was one of the victims in the images and videos. Aumais appealed the restitution order, alleging that his possession did not proximately cause Amy’s loss.

In her Victim Impact Statement, Amy said she was unable to forget the abuse by her uncle (who took the pictures) because the “disgusting images of what he did to [her] are still out there on the internet.” She said she lives in fear that she will be recognized and be “humiliated all over again.” The district court referred the issue of restitution to a magistrate judge who conducted an evidentiary hearing.

An expert witness for the Government testified at trial that Amy experienced emotional and psychological problems from learning that her images were still being viewed, biting her nails to the point of bleeding, drinking alcohol, and becoming unable to complete college. The expert further testified that Aumais represented “one component” of damages, recommended that Amy receive therapy once a week, and stated that Amy might need three courses of inpatient treatment during her life to address her alcoholism.

Based on the Victim Impact Statement and the expert testimony, the magistrate judge found that, even though Amy had no contact with or knowledge of Aumais, his possession of her images exacerbated the harm to Amy by creating a market for distribution and by inflicting humiliation on her by a group of consumers, of which Aumais was one. The magistrate judge found that Aumais had caused the need for weekly counseling sessions in the next five years and monthly counseling sessions for five years thereafter, the cost of which was discounted to present value. The magistrate judge also held that Aumais was responsible for the full amount and that it was a question of administration by the government to prevent excess recovery. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and Aumais appealed.

On appeal, the Second Circuit reviewed the language of Section 2259, determined that Amy was a victim under the statute, and noted that a Circuit split had developed on the issue of whether the Government must show that a victim’s losses under Section 2259 were proximately caused by the defendant’s actions, or whether it was enough to show causation more generally.

The Second Circuit noted that Amy had no contact with or knowledge of Aumais, that the expert witness evaluation of Amy occurred before Aumais’ arrest, and the absence of evidence linking Aumais’ possession to any loss suffered by Amy. And, the court expressed concern as to the “baffling” and “intractable” issue presented by this case regarding damages and joint and several liability since, among other things, there was no showing that Aumais was responsible for all of the losses which counseling would address.

Request for the Supreme Court to Resolve the Issue

Meanwhile, on July 15, 2011, a petition for a writ of certiorari was filed in the Monzel case. According to the petition, the Circuits are “plainly split on the frequently recurring and ‘difficult’ question of how to interpret the child pornography statute”, and the “lower courts are unlikely to coalesce around any common approach without guidance” from the Supreme Court.

According to Paul G. Cassell, a former federal judge and Utah law professor who co-authored the certiorari petition and authored “Victims in Criminal Procedure”, “We are hoping the Supreme Court will step in to resolve the issue and enforce the law as we think it was written — and not impose this impossible burden on crime victims to trace out to each and every defendant what exact percentage of the law was attributable to them.”

There are conflicting Circuit decisions, and the rationales are not consistent, rendering Supreme Court resolution particularly appropriate. Whether the Supreme Court is willing to address this important issue and provide the clarity and consistency that is needed, remains to be seen.

By Jennifer Freeman of Freeman Lewis LLP. For some three decades, Ms. Freeman has stood for women in the area of employment law and other issues relating to women's rights.

About Freeman Lewis LLP

Freeman Lewis LLP is a boutique business dispute resolution firm, whose founders Jennifer Freeman and Robert Y. Lewis together have more than 50 years of experience assisting clients resolve business disputes through litigation, arbitration, mediation and negotiation. Their firm focuses on commercial litigation, employment law, securities arbitration, white-collar criminal, and ERISA. For more information, visit www.freemanlewis.com.

Dr. Eli Newberger on Penn State

2011-11-17T21:07:38Z

In the best and most enlightening interview on the Penn State scandal to date, Dr. Eli Newberger, a renowned expert on child abuse and pedophilia, talks about what Sandusky said in his interview and the victims of Sandusky's alleged abuse.

Watch this great interview here.

Barely Legal in PA

2011-11-16T15:59:41Z

Okay, I'm finally speechless. The Penn State scandal has finally done it. This post needs no further commentary:

Sandusky lawyer impregnated a teen

The lawyer for accused child molester Jerry Sandusky apparently likes his women young.

Defense attorney Joe Amendola, 63, representing Sandusky in the sexual molestation case roiling Penn State and Joe Paterno’s legendary football program, impregnated a teenager and later married her, The Daily has learned.

According to documents filed with Centre County Courthouse, Amendola served as the attorney for Mary Iavasile’s emancipation petition on Sept. 3, 1996, just weeks before her 17th birthday.

The emancipation request said Mary graduated from high school in two years with a 3.69 grade point average and maintained a full-time job — but makes no mention of any special relationship between her and her lawyer.

Roughly around the same time, however, Iavasile became pregnant with Amendola’s child, and gave birth before she turned 18, her mother, Janet Iavasile, alleged in an interview with The Daily.

He was born in 1948 and was around 49 at the time.

“At the time, I didn’t know the extent of the relationship,” said Janet of when her daughter first began spending time with the attorney. Amendola seemed more like Mary’s “mentor,” she added.

“She met him through the school district; she was interested in the law,” Janet said.

Read this entire story here at The Daily.

Exploitation of Children Over the Internet Congressional Testimony

2011-11-16T03:26:25Z

The C-Span Video library is a tremendous resource. It has archived on the internet thousands of Congressional hearings and testimony available nowhere else.

Here is Masha Allen's testimony in May 2006 about her international adoption by pedophile Matthew Mancuso.

Unfortunately the explosive Congressional Hearing in September 2006 concerning so-called Follow-Up Issues to the Masha Allen Adoption (i.e., how a single adult male pedophile was able to adopt a five year old Russian girl with the approval of the U.S. State Department and the State of Pennsylvania) is only available in a boring old Congressional Report. Sadly, that revolution was not televised.

How We Can Prevent Child Sexual Abuse

2011-11-15T19:57:50Z

This just arrived in my inbox from the Massachusetts Citizens for Children Enough Abuse Campaign. It is well worth repeating here:

An Open Letter to Massachusetts Citizens About the Penn State Scandal
How We Can Prevent Child Sexual Abuse in Our State
While the Penn State child sexual abuse scandal and cover-up grab national attention, the fact is that cases of child sexual abuse continue to be exposed with unrelenting regularity in every state and community across our country. In Massachusetts alone just in the past six months, we have learned about the decades-long sexual abuse of boys treated by renowned pediatrician Dr. Melvin Levin of Children’s Hospital, the revealed boyhood sexual abuse of Senator Scott Brown by a counselor at a Cape Cod summer camp, the sexual abuse of young female tennis players by former Massachusetts coach and International Tennis Hall of Famer Bob Hewitt. Many more current incidents of child sexual abuse involving less well-known abusers appear weekly in local newspapers all across our state.

Predictably, the Sandusky/Paterno case has prompted the media to focus on who knew what and when. Legislators rush to file bills to strengthen reporting requirements, the alleged abuser is arrested and charged, and we all express sorry for the children who have been violated and for their families who are distressed beyond what we can even imagine.

But the truth is that these after-the-fact responses are insufficient to address what the American Medical Association has labeled “…a silent, violent epidemic.” It’s time to support efforts aimed at preventing child sexual abuse from happening in the first place. This is what Massachusetts Citizens for Children (MCC), lead agency for the Enough Abuse Campaign, has been working to do since the Campaign was launched in 2002.

A public opinion poll conducted in 2007 by the Campaign documented that:

80% of citizens believe child sexual abuse is a serious problem in our state

75% said they believe it is preventable

64% said they would be willing to participate in local community trainings about child sexual abuse and how they can prevent it—up from 48% in a poll conducted four years earlier

Clearly, citizens like you are critical partners in getting the word out that child sexual abuse can be prevented and that in Massachusetts, through the Enough Abuse Campaign, we have the tools and the tested strategies to get the job done.

As a parent, grandparent, or concerned citizen, we are asking you to:

Educate yourself about the real facts of child sexual abuse so that you can be an informed advocate for your children and all the children in your family and community.

Get involved with the Enough Abuse Campaign, a Massachusetts effort that has been recognized nationally as an effective model to mobilize communities and educate parents, youth, and a range of professionals and other adults about child sexual abuse and how to prevent it.

Support the Campaign with your dollars so we can achieve our goal: By 2015 every city and town in Massachusetts will be actively engaged in learning about child sexual abuse and preventing it.

Here are the Details

The Enough Abuse Campaign is overseen by the Massachusetts Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Partnership, a collaboration of twenty statewide public agencies and private organizations. The Campaign was formed in 2002 under a 5-year grant from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, our nation’s leading public health agency. The Campaign is now operating in Greater Gloucester, Newton/Waltham, Orange/Athol area, Greater Lowell, Springfield, and in western rural counties. Efforts are currently underway to expand the Campaign to Cape Cod and other communities.

The Campaign’s work has caused the CDC to call Massachusetts “one of the first states in the nation to lead a trailblazing effort to prevent child sexual abuse….” The Ms. Foundation for Women has called the Campaign “an effort that breaks the mold on child sexual abuse in many ways. Its emphasis on community collaboration truly sets it apart from previous efforts.” The Campaign was selected earlier this year by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as one of 12 exemplary projects in the country working to end child maltreatment.

While the Campaign mobilizes communities and trains their leaders to deliver free in-person community workshops and presentations, a new effort has been launched to educate concerned citizens in the privacy of their own homes and offices. By “Joining the Movement” on the Campaign’s homepage, members receive by email our “10 Conversations” series; a new short educational piece is sent twice each month for five months filled with critical information every concerned adult should know and can use to prevent sexual abuse. Topics include:

What is Child Sexual Abuse? Touching and Non-Touching Offenses

Who are the Abusers? How Can We Identify Them?

Grooming Tactics used by Sexual Abusers

Behavior and Physical Signs that Might Indicate Child Sexual Abuse

Sexual Behaviors of Children: Typical or Problematic?

Responding to Sexual Behaviors of Children: Building Skills to Respond Appropriately

Talk to Your Children: It’s Easy if You Begin Early and Communicate Often

Impact of Child Sexual Abuse on Children

Keeping Children Safe on the Internet

The Public’s Opinion on Child Sexual Abuse

The series is followed with regular email updates about the latest information in the field, activities of Campaign communities, special events and trainings, and profiles on outstanding prevention advocates.

So please take these actions today. Go to www.enoughabuse.org and view our brief video, “a silent epidemic.” (Many have called it “powerful”, “compelling”, “a real eye opener.”) Then be sure to “Join the Movement” on the homepage so you can begin immediately receiving our “10 Conversations” series online. Tell family members, friends and colleagues about how they, too, can get educated and encourage them to join.

Enjoying Young People in the Shower and Having a Good Time

2011-11-15T15:13:06Z

In a series of interviews last night, accused Penn State child molester Jerry Sandusky was asked if he is “sexually attracted to underage boys?” He responded, “No. I enjoy young people.” When asked to explain Sandusky's alleged rape of a ten year old boy in the Penn State locker room on a Friday night in 2002, his lawyer Joe Amendola replied that “the kid was messing around and having a good time” in the shower with Sandusky:

“Jerry Sandusky is a big, overgrown kid. He's a jock,” Amendola told CNN's Jason Carroll. “The bottom line is jocks do that—they kid around, they horse around.”

Amendola told NBC's Today show the apparent person in question claims the alleged rape never happened.

“We believe we've found him and if we have found him, he's telling a very different story than Mike McQueary and that's big news,” Amendola said.

Clearly, the effort to whitewash the overwhelming evidence against Sandusky is in full swing. Unfortunately the willingness of otherwise honest and decent people to ignore and justify the actions of pedophiles and child molesters is nothing new and all too common.

Just last week in the New York Times, respected Ohio State law professor Douglas Berman referred to child pornography as nothing more than “dirty pictures.” This kind of flippant belittling effectively desensitizes and normalizes the collection and broad dissemination of pictures and videos of pre-pubescent children being raped and sexually exploited.

What Berman fails to recognize is that “in the context of children … there can be no question of consent, and use of the word pornography [let alone “dirty pictures”] may effectively allow us to distance ourselves from the material’s true nature. A preferred term is abuse images and this term is increasingly gaining acceptance among professionals working in this area. Using the term abuse images accurately describes the process and product of taking indecent and sexualized pictures of children, and its use is, on the whole, to be supported.” Sharon W. Cooper, et. al., Medical, Legal, & Social Science Aspects of Child Sexual Exploitation p. 258 (2005).

Not surprisingly, Professor Berman is a defense expert witness in child pornography cases and a critic of mandatory minimum sentences for inter alia producing, collecting and sharing child pornography.

In an interview with Cincinnati.com, Professor Berman claimed that “because the Internet has made this kind of material more readily available, it's not as obvious that someone who looks at these images will be a serious threat to do harm to a child.” Rationalizing the wide and ubiquitous availability of child pornography, Berman intoned “we're to a point now where it's just one click. There may be a lot of serendipity as to whether that one click gets you one picture or a thousand pictures.”

Berman is not alone in providing intellectual cover for child molesters. None other than the Administrative Office of the United States Courts has taken the position that “the only appropriate judicial role” is to deny restitution requests for victims of child molesters who are convicted of collecting child pornography.

That's right. In an illegal advocacy brief written by the federal court system itself, Assistant General Counsel Joe Gergits suggested that “even though federal law prohibits him from lawfully “engag[ing] directly or indirectly in the practice of law in any court of the United States,” his “legal advice” is something which might “coincidentally” be beneficial to judges around the country.

After its release in August 2009, Mr. Gergits' brief quickly became exhibit number one for child molesters across the country who were seeking to avoid paying criminal restitution to child pornography victims. The brief was reportedly distributed to the chief probation officer in every federal judicial district in the country.

By actively taking such a position, the United States federal court system itself injected bias and prejudice against child crime victims into the "independent, national judiciary providing fair and impartial justice."

New York University law Professor Amy Adler explained that since the legal war against child sex abuse images has already been lost, there is “the possibility that certain sexual prohibitions invite their own violation by increasing the sexual allure of what they forbid.” Adler argues that “the dramatic expansion of child pornography law may have unwittingly heightened pedophilic desire.”

In the Berman-Gergits-Adler justice system, the very existence of laws against child sex abuse images and the wide availability of those images creates unwitting offenders who are then prosecuted in a justice system which is biased against the “alleged victims” depicted in the images and who are ultimately given little or no criminal sentence.

Add to this mix yellow journalists like the New York Times' Erica Goode—whose recent article on an absurdly rare “life sentence” for child pornography gave carte blance acceptance to a defense attorney's proclamation that “a growing body of scientific research shows that that someone who looks at child pornography is not a child molester or will become a child molester”—and Debbie Nathan—whose so-called National Center for Reason and Justice is a wholly owned subsidiary of the pedophile defense bar and whose work for the movie Capturing the Friedmans vigorously advocated for the absolution of convicted child molesters Jesse and Arnold Friedman—and it's not a stretch to believe that Sandusky was just behaving like one of the boys.

Everything can be explained away. Things are not what they seem. A little fun in the shower never hurt anyone.

Sadly, the effort to silence, marginalize and de-legitimize victims of child sex crimes is alive and well in 2011.

To quote the Pope, again, approvingly:

In the 1970s, paedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children. This, however, was part of a fundamental perversion of the concept of ethos. It was maintained—even within the realm of Catholic theology—that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself. There is only a “better than” and a “worse than.” Nothing is good or bad in itself. Everything depends on the circumstances and on the end in view. Anything can be good or also bad, depending upon purposes and circumstances. Morality is replaced by a calculus of consequences, and in the process it ceases to exist. The effects of such theories are evident today.

The rationalization and justification of child sex abuse in all its forms not only discredits the victims, it corrupts justice and society. Morality ceases to exist. Evil becomes a construct. Punishment disappears.

Understanding the sexual exploitation of children means accepting that evildoers actively exploit the naivete of youth by grooming victims, establishing trust, normalizing deviant behavior and enforcing loyalty. When caught perpetrators sow doubt and confusion.

No wonder Sandusky's victims feel sadness, shame and even complicity. As one of the Penn State victim's attorney, Ben Andreozzi, revealed yesterday on the Today show:

The eight victims currently involved in charges against Sandusky all became part of the Penn State football team’s inner circle and developed deep attachment to the program.

“I think it’s fair to say the victims could be thinking to themselves right now that as a result of (my) coming forward, look what’s happened to this football program,” Andreozzi said.

“These folks were involved in the Penn State football community—they were on the sidelines at football games, they were spending significant amounts of time travelling with the team and/or in the locker room with the team and getting to know members of that football team.”

Andreozzi added that his client, who is now in his 20s, is grieving. “To say that he’s torn apart, I think would be an emotion that would really explain where he’s at right now.”

As I wrote on this blog in July, “The Secret" is the key to understanding child sex abuse.

In my post Pedophiles Lobby for Acceptance I explain how politically motivated child molesters and pedophiles actively discredit social science research which indicates a substantial rate of recidivism by convicted child sex offenders.

Sandusky and his defenders fit into a well-established dialectic which minimalizes the crime and co-opts the victims. Let's hope that this time around, voices of reason and justice prevail.