Posted on 05/30/2013 7:47:59 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
A Maryland mother has filed a federal lawsuit against more than 250 people, calling them pedophiles after videos of her two daughters being sexually molested by their father and a co-conspirator were exchanged and circulated as part of a child porn series.
The suit, filed Monday in a Baltimore federal court, accuses 266 defendants - 84 of them named, while 182 are listed as "John Doe."
The suit claims that some of the defendants received child porn containing the unnamed defendant's daughters, who were 4 and 6 at the time, being "violently sexually assaulted by their father and a co-conspirator in 2008."
Video and images from the sexual acts were packaged together and posted to the Internet, and were widely circulated under the series names "DKNY" and "YKND," according to the complaint.
Attorney Steve Kelly, who is representing the plaintiff, told ABCNews.com that the middle-class family living in Maryland's Ann Arundel County was at home in 2008 when federal agents showed up.
"The FBI burst in with full force and ripped the kids out of the house, and took the father off in handcuffs," he said. "And that's when the mother discovered this was happening."
(Excerpt) Read more at gma.yahoo.com ...
I hope they can track down every piece of filth involved and lock them up.
If you read the article, you’ll see that the 84 named defendants have all been criminally charged. The father got 45 years.
Sounds like they have jailed or charged EVERYONE they have identified as video recipients, all 84. I’m impressed but I’m also quite sure many of those who haven’t been identified are well connected people who are being protected, the rest being those with computers that couldn’t be traced.
I like the idea of civil suits by the victim’s family following criminal prosecution.
Of course the Catholic church isn’t a fan...
I completely understand prosecution to the fullest extent of the law, where the mildest appropriate penalty would be life with no possibility of parole. I completely understand the Smith & Wesson response, if she can track down these perverts. I have absolutely no understanding of the “let’s get some money” reaction to this terrible news.
She has 2 daughters to support (and who may need extensive and expensive counseling) and the “daddy” is in jail for the next 45 years.
She should absolutely sue all involved.
Or the NEA, the official pedophile wing of the DNC.
I'm not much on computers but I've always been under the impression that if you delete a file or something there's ways that it can be dug out since it may not really be gone gone........
Where’s your outrage?
On Windows if you drag the file into the recycle bin (or press DEL) then the file is just renamed (moved into a special system folder.) It can be recovered from there easily and without loss of data.
If you press Shift-DEL then the file is deleted from the filesystem immediately. It remains, in theory, recoverable, but on larger drives it is a very complex task. If your drive is full, the space that the file occupied will be quickly reused, and then nothing can be done to recover the data.
There are also utilities (most of them free) that not just delete the file, but overwrite the space where the file resided. This doesn't always help because if you moved a file from one drive to another and back then each copy was deleted by standard API calls of the OS - and is therefore theoretically discoverable. If one is careful, though, and doesn't copy files left and right, then the secure delete utility will take care of the file for good.
There are also encrypted filesystems and containers that raise the challenge much higher. These are specifically designed for security. The FAT is just designed for speed; the NTFS is designed for reliability and speed. Secure delete was not a requirement, and most people wouldn't want to have a slower filesystem just because it securely deletes their not-so-secret files.
Apparently, such folks consider sexual abuse to be the norm everywhere else ... they certainly don't get upset about it.
As a Catholic, I don't too much mind being held to a higher standard than the rest of the world. I still find the double standard odd.
Quite the contrary. What the Church isn't a fan of is the suspension of the statute of limitations in only those cases involving the Church. The Church also isn't a fan of the statutorial cap on damages when state agencies are sued but the no holds barred awards when the Church is sued.
You of course already know this but mentioning it would conflict with your agenda because behind every double standard lies an unconfessed single standard.
LOL where's yours?
Not...
Church will pay but not US amounts
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/05/27/17/01/church-will-pay-but-not-us-amounts-pell
Cardinal George Pell says the Catholic Church will pay victims of child sex abuse appropriate compensation but he doesn’t think it has a moral obligation to match the billions paid out in the United States.
These vermin need more than suing.
And there's this from Pell, too:
...Cardinal Pell admitted cover-ups of abuse committed by priests had occurred within the Australian Catholic Church and said he was “fully apologetic and absolutely sorry”. But he rejected the push for increased compensation, saying the church would pay only what was required to meet “the law of the land”.To AA's point in post #14, I also disagree with a law that selectively applies only to (or is selectively enforced against) one group of people over another. I can't argue whether the Catholic church's case is unique enough to warrant a change in the law - that's a discussion for another day. I will argue that if additional groups of lawbreakers are exposed by the changed law, they too should be liable and prosecutable under it. But just because the police don't pull over everyone guilty of speeding, it doesn't mean that if you were caught speeding you're not guilty of speeding. It might be unfair, it might be selectively applied, but it doesn't mean the charge is not accurate.
-- from the thread George Pell warns against moves he says would amount to discrimination against Catholics
If the law is equally applicable to all parties, and if the law is equally enforced against all parties, then I have no problems with changing the laws in this instance. Unless we're discussing immunity from prosecution for murder, via refuge granted by a religious order (Numbers 35), I don't see a "statute of limitations" granted in the OT case laws, and certainly none for acts of a sexual nature.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.