Material about child pornography to use to oppose the confirmation of Katanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court

Child pornography is two crimes, not one, when sexual contact, sex acts, and sado-masochistic actions with a child or underage person take place. Making or distributing images of a naked minor may be defined as a crime in some circumstances, as may the act of causing the minor to appear in a sexually lascivious pose, without the existence of sexual contact.

For example, an adult male performing vaginal, anal, or oral sex on a prepubescent female commits the rape of a child, which is a serious felony independent from the creation of any photographs or video of those sex acts. If still or moving images are made of the rape, that creates the child pornography, which can then be viewed by the actor or creator, or distributed for free to others, or sold for money.

Katanji Brown Jackson was nominated by president Barack Obama to the U.S. Sentencing Commission as Vice Chair in 2010 for a six-year term, but in 2013, he appointed her to be a federal trial court judge in Washington DC. This is the court at which she presided over sex crimes cases until 2021, when she was nominated by Joe Biden to be on the federal Court of Appeals for the District Columbia Circuit.

Originally, there were seven child pornography cases that were known, but then last week another one surfaced, which the White House had not disclosed, and which is the Lucas Cane case that concluded last year. Also, last week after more documents were received, a defendant who was convicted of raping his 13-year-old neice was given a lenient sentence, supplied false information on registering as a sex offender, and then was arrested for sexually molesting his sister-in-law, when he would otherwise have been in jail but for the light sentence.

If it is not possible to meet personally with a senator or his or her family members or friends, then the next most effective method is a telephone call to your senator’s office. A constituent’s call might be listened to, but calling a senator from a different state than yours is not useful. Even if the senators are from the Democratic Party, they should receive a call. Senator Jon Tester is a Democrat from Montana, and that state may not be a fan of light sentences for child pornography. Here are the phone numbers for the senators. To call you dial 202-224 and then the number of the senator on the list. The number “4” before the phone number is the 4 in the 224 prefix–

Here are the sentencing memos of the federal prosecutors in the eight child pornography cases, followed by the transcript of the sentencing hearing in each one. In the sentencing memos, a description of the case is usually contained in the first five pages. The court reporter’s transcripts have everything that was said at a sentencing hearing.

Wesley Hawkins. Case number 1:13-cr-244.

Neil Stewart. Case number 1:16-cr-67.

Brian Hess. Case number 1:17-cr-2.

Jeremy Sears. Case number 1:19-cr-21.

Christopher Michael Downs. Case number 1:18-cr-391.

Ryan Cooper. Case number 1:19-cr-382.

Lucas W. Cane. Case number 1:19-cr-103.

The government’s sentencing memo is under seal in the court clerk’s file.

Adam Chazin. Case number 1:21-cr-76.

Attorney Mike Davis has done a yeoman’s work on this problem. He had been a staff lawyer on the Senate Judiciary Committee and was involved the nomination and confirmation process for federal judges, including Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, and led an outside support team working on the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the court. He left the senate staff and is running an organization called the Article 3 Project. I got the case names from him and looked at the court clerk’s files. Davis had numerous people helping him and they got the court reporter’s transcripts and the sentencing memos and provided them to the Judiciary Committee, and put them on the Project’s website. The citations above are links to the documents from the court clerk’s files that the Project has put on their website, plus there is a short synopsis of each case–

The Judiciary Committee voted on the nomination today and it was a 11-11 tie. A discharge petition will be filed to get the nomination out of the committee and to the senate floor. There may be at least one vote before the up or down vote on the nomination. If the final vote cannot be postponed until after Easter week, the vote might happen by Thursday of this week. Easter week is next week.

There is some more information I want to provide, including some initial defections on the vote from Republicans [sic], but I want to make this information available to you so that you can read it and decide whether you want to contact your senators.

Time is of the essence, and it is not over until it’s over.

This entry was posted in Current Affairs, government, Justice, Politics, Transcripts and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Material about child pornography to use to oppose the confirmation of Katanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court

  1. fakebot says:

    Well done. Making the crime more lenient might be the closest pedophiles can get to “legalizing” it. Something has to be done to at least get her to go on record and admit the sort of leniency she has given in the past was a mistake. She should not be allowed to dodge the issue.

  2. blue peacock says:

    Republican senators Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski have stated that they will vote to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson.

    I don’t believe there’s a single Democrat senator who will oppose her confirmation.

    A Supreme Court that has allowed mass surveillance in violation of due process is a political tribunal and not an impartial adjudicator of the laws embodied in the Constitution.

    Sexual assault of children is not only heinous but reprehensible.

  3. Babeltuap says:

    Sentences are more severe for selling small amount of elephant ivory than being caught with material showcasing the raping and torturing of children to include distributing it. This is our new SCOTUS. Let’s enjoy this ride to the gates of hell together.

  4. Fred says:

    It looks like Senator Durbin, and by extension, the Democratic Party, supports being soft of child pornographers. “we now live in a world of internet and access to…thousands of images” Why on Earth is he supporting this?

    • Longarch says:

      “we now live in a world of internet and access to…thousands of images” Why on Earth is he supporting this?

      The following is educated guesswork, not professional-tier analysis.

      First factor: I imagine many politicians who don’t want to change the status quo have sloppy information security. If the rules are lenient and some prankster slips a forbidden computer file onto their networks, they know how to cope with that minor emergency. If the rules become more severe, they will have to make big changes to how they do business.

      Second factor: I imagine many politicians have important political alliances with people of questionable sexual ethics. Changing the status quo might endanger those alliances. One recent tragic case highlights the vulnerability of prominent lawyers:

      I don’t know the details, but it seems Michalski had a longtime friend named Peter Gerace. As Michalski became a lawyer, Peter Gerace got involved in the strip-club business. And for many years, Michalski seemed to have a good reputation. Then, apparently because the strip-club owner was accused of human trafficking, Michalski was subjected to extreme stress. One unsuccessful suicide attempt was noted; the second known suicide attempt was successful. I suspect many congresspersons who don’t want tighter anti-porn rules fear that they might also be driven to suicide for the alleged actions of their friends.

Comments are closed.