I have verified that the lawsuit exists only insofar as there being a case named Doe v. Alter with a case number of 13-cv-01548-MJG. However, there is no attorney listed as Mark nor a law firm named Allen Baugh Law, as being or having an attorney of record listed with the Court - according to he federal Court "PACER" record system.

There is also only one Defendant listed, James Roberts, who is represented by the Federal Defender Program, Inc., with Richard Holcome listed as the attorney of record. However, in review of the Court's docket there are numerous summons issued. There is also two plaintiff's listed - both as Jane Doe.

The case was filed on May 28, 2013 and the date of the last filing was October 28, 2013. The actual Complaint filed with the Court list Mathew Alter as the named Defendant with 182 other Defendants who are not listed by individual names.

The Complaint holds in part

NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. Plaintiff is the mother of two young girls who, while only 4 and 6, were forced to engage
in various sexual acts with their father and his friend in front of a camera.
2. Video and images from these unspeakable acts were packaged together and posted to the
Internet and have been widely circulated under the series name “DKNY” and “YKND.”
3. The Defendants to this action have engaged a wide-ranging conspiracy to perpetuate the
harms these children have endured by viewing, possessing, distributing and otherwise trading in the
images memorializing the horrible abuse these children have suffered.
4. Plaintiff brings this action under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A (f), 2255, which Congress enacted
to help stem the demand for child pornography that led to the depraved acts committed against the
children on whose behalf this action is brought. Plaintiff also asserts causes of action, under Maryland
law, which entitle these children to compensation for the harms they have suffered and will continue to
suffer.
5. By this suit, Plaintiff invokes all available equitable and legal remedies to remedy the
wrongful conduct carried out by Defendants.

THE PARTIES
6. Plaintiff, Jane Doe, is the natural parent, legal guardian and next friend of Child 1 and
Child 2, who were sexually molested by their father and a co-conspirator in or about 2008, unbeknownst
to Plaintiff. Child 1 was approximately six years old when the abuse occurred and is now nine years of
age. Child 2 was approximately four years old when the abuse occurred and is now seven years of age.
Jane Doe, the mother, and her two daughters currently reside, and have resided throughout the relevant
periods, within the state of Maryland.
7. Defendants 1-80 have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to receipt of child pornography
in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2)(A) and (b) and 18 U.S.C. § 2256. Among the images seized
from Defendants’ computers were images depicting Child 1 and Child 2 as part of the DKNY and/or
YKND series.
8. Defendants 81-84 have been charged with receipt of child pornography in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2)(A) and (b) and 18 U.S.C. § 2256. Child 1 and Child 2 have received
notifications from the United States Department of Justice indicating that their images were recovered
from these Defendants’ computers.
9. Doe Defendants 1-182 have been identified through the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children’s (“NCMEC”) Child Victim Identification Program (“CVIP”) because the law
enforcement agency identified in the attachment submitted digital media seized from the Defendants,
pursuant to a lawful search warrant of which Defendants had notice and an opportunity to challenge,
indicating that Defendants were in receipt of images depicting the violent sexual assault of Child 1 and
Child 2

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
13. When Child 1 was six and Child 2 was four, they were sexually assaulted, molested and
forcibly raped by their father and his adult friend while being videotaped and photographed.
14. The children’s father and his co-conspirator produced the images and video of the abuse
with the express purpose of gaining entry into a closed group of pedophiles who trade in images of child
pornography. Pedophile file sharing groups require members to produce “new” pornography to
demonstrate, among other things, that they are not affiliated with law enforcement. Rings of pedophiles
operate an illicit trade in child pornography.
15. The children’s father and his co-conspirator pled guilty to various federal charges relating
to the production of child pornography and were sentenced to 45 and 36 years in prison respectively.
16. Photographs and video depictions of the unspeakable abuse suffered by the children were
uploaded to the Internet within the state of Maryland and have been exchanged and traded by child
predators, inter alia, as part of a series of sexually graphic images and videos known to child predators
and law enforcement as the “DKNY” and/or the “YKND” series.
17. In connection with criminal charges pending against each of the named Defendants in
this action, the United States Department of Justice has identified Child 1 and Child 2 as “victims” of
Defendants’ violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A and Child 1 and Child 2 were notified of the proceedings
against each Defendant pursuant to the Victim Notification System (“VNS”). Accordingly, each named
Defendant has been found to have received, viewed, possessed and/or distributed at least one
pornographic image depicting the sexual abuse of Child 1 and Child 2.
18. Information concerning the Doe Defendants was supplied by the NCMEC’s CVIP. For
each Doe Defendant, the identified law enforcement agency executed a search warrant and seized digital
media suspected of containing child pornography. That material was submitted to CVIP to determine
whether any of the children depicted in the seized child pornography had been previously identified. In
each of the cases listed in the attachment, CVIP identified at least one image depicting the abuse of
Child 1 and Child 2 and provided confirmation of the same to law enforcement. In providing to law
enforcement information concerning the Doe Defendants, NCMEC produced two affidavits confirming the process used and the findings.

COUNT I
VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. § 2252A

19. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if
fully set forth herein.
20. 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(f) provides that any person “aggrieved” by a Defendant’s violation of
18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a) or (b) may sue to recover compensatory and punitive damages and that the person
may seek attorneys’ fees and costs.
21. Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a) by receiving, viewing, possessing and/or
distributing child pornography depicting the abuse of Child 1 and Child 2.
22. As the children depicted in the obscene images unlawfully possessed by Defendants,
Child 1 and Child 2 are plainly “aggrieved” by Defendants’ possession and/or distribution of those
images. Child 1 and Child 2 have suffered acute permanent personal injury in the form of severe
emotional distress, mental duress and pain and suffering from the knowledge that Defendants derived
sexual gratification from viewing, possessing and distributing images depicting the vile sexual
molestation and rape perpetrated upon them.
23. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ actions, Child 1 and Child 2 suffered
personal injury in the form of acute emotional distress because Defendants have perpetuated the market
for the continued viewing and online distribution of the images depicting the abuse of Child 1 and Child
2.
24. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ actions, Child 1 and Child 2 live now,
and will perpetually live, in fear that any person they encounter in their daily lives may recognize them
as the children depicted in the obscene images viewed, possessed and distributed by Defendants.
25. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ actions, Child 1 and Child 2 have
suffered economic losses including (without limitation): past and future counseling and medical
expenses, diminished earning capacity and economic harms relating to various trauma-related symptoms
from which they now suffer and will continue to suffer in the future.
26. Defendants’ actions were motivated by actual malice as Defendants viewed, possessed
and distributed the images despite the severe and irreparable harm they knew would be felt by the
children depicted in the images in which they trafficked.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands eight million dollars ($8,000,000.00) in compensatory
damages and twenty-four million dollars ($24,000,000.00) in punitive damages, plus expert fees, other
reasonable costs and any relief the Court may deem equitable and just in light of the severe harm
perpetrated upon Child 1 and Child 2 by Defendants.

COUNT II
VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. § 2255

27. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if
fully set forth herein.
28. Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a) by receiving, possessing and/or distributing
pornographic images of Child 1 and Child 2 depicting their abuse.
29. 18 U.S.C. § 2255 provides:

Any person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of section 2241 (c),
2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of this title
and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation, regardless of whether
the injury occurred while such person was a minor, may sue in any appropriate
United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such person
sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee. Any person
as described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages
of no less than $150,000 in value.

30. Child 1 and Child 2 were “victims” of Defendants’ violations of 2252A(a) because they
were depicted in pornographic images received, viewed, possessed and/or distributed by Defendants.
31. In addition, Child 1 and Child 2 were minors at the time Defendants’ violations occurred
and are still minors.
32. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ actions, Child 1 and Child 2 suffered and
continue to suffer acute personal injury in the form of permanent severe emotional distress, emotional
duress and pain and suffering from the knowledge that Defendants derived sexual gratification from
receiving, possessing and/or distributing images depicting the vile acts perpetrated upon them.
33. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ actions, Child 1 and Child 2 suffered
personal injury in the form of acute emotional distress because Defendants have perpetuated the market
for the continued online viewing and distribution of the images depicting the abuse of Child 1 and Child
2.
34. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ actions, Child 1 and Child 2 live now,
and will perpetually live, in fear that any person they encounter in their daily lives may recognize them
as the children depicted in the obscene images viewed, possessed and distributed by Defendants.
35. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ actions, Child 1 and Child 2 have
suffered economic losses including (without limitation): past and future counseling and medical
expenses, diminished earning capacity and economic harms relating to various trauma-related symptoms which they now suffer and will continue to suffer in the future
36. Defendants’ actions were motivated by actual malice as Defendants viewed, possessed
and distributed the images despite the severe and irreparable harm they knew would be felt by the
children depicted in the images in which they trafficked.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands eight million dollars ($8,000,000.00) in compensatory
damages and twenty four million dollars ($24,000,000.00) in punitive damages, plus expert fees, other
reasonable costs and any relief the Court may deem equitable and just in light of the severe harm
perpetrated upon Child 1 and Child 2 by Defendants.

COUNT III
INVASION OF PRIVACY - INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION UNDER MARYLAND LAW

37. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if
fully set forth herein.
38. Defendants intentionally downloaded, viewed, possessed and distributed images
depicting Child 1 and Child 2.
39. The images depicted the sexual abuse of two very young children and, by receiving,
possessing, and/or distributing the images, Defendants intentionally intruded upon the seclusion of Child
1 and Child 2.
40. The images possessed by Defendants depicted the sexual assault of Child 1 and Child 2
as very young children, and therefore concerned affairs of a highly private nature.
41. Defendants’ acts of receiving, possessing, and/or distributing the images of the abuse of
Child 1 and Child 2 violated the reasonable expectations of privacy of Child 1 and Child 2.
42. The act of receiving, possessing, and/or distributing such images would be highly
offensive to any reasonable person.
43. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ actions, Child 1 and Child 2 suffered and
continue to suffer acute personal injury in the form of severe emotional distress from the knowledge that
Defendants derived sexual gratification from receiving, possessing, and/or distributing images depicting
the vile acts perpetrated upon them.
44. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ actions, Child 1 and Child 2 suffered
personal injury in the form of acute emotional distress because Defendants have perpetuated the market
for the continued viewing and distribution of the images depicting the abuse of Child 1 and Child 2.
45. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ actions, Child 1 and Child 2 live now,
and will perpetually live, in fear that any person they encounter in their daily lives may recognize them
as the children depicted in the obscene images viewed, possessed, and/or distributed by Defendants.
46. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ actions, Child 1 and Child 2 have
suffered economic losses including (without limitation): past and future counseling and medical
expenses, diminished earning capacity and economic harms relating to various trauma-related symptoms
from which they now suffer and will continue to suffer in the future.
47. Defendants’ actions were motivated by actual malice as Defendants received, possessed,
and/or distributed the images despite the severe and irreparable harm they knew would be felt by the
children depicted in the images in which they trafficked.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) in compensatory
damages and ten million dollars ($10,000,000.00) in punitive damages, plus attorneys’ fees, expert fees,
other reasonable costs and any relief the Court may deem equitable and just in light of the severe harm
perpetrated upon Child 1 and Child 2 by Defendants.

COUNT IV
INVASION OF PRIVACY – APPROPRIATION OF NAME OR LIKENESS
UNDER MARYLAND LAW

48. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if
fully set forth herein.
49. Defendants 1-98 and Doe Defendants 1-182 intentionally received, possessed, and/or
distributed images depicting Child 1 and Child 2.
50. The images depicted the sexual abuse of Child 1 and Child 2 and, by receiving,
possessing, and/or distributing the images, Defendants intentionally appropriated the likeness of Child 1
and Child 2.
51. By appropriating the likeness of Child 1 and Child 2, Defendants personally benefitted by
deriving sexual and other gratification and by using the images as currency to perpetuate a continuing
trade in child pornography.
52. The images depicting the sexual abuse of Child 1 and Child 2 constitute one of the most
highly circulated series of child pornography on the Internet. Accordingly, within the relevant market,
the images are of “commercial value.”
53. By appropriating the likeness of Child 1 and Child 2, Defendants have benefitted within
the child pornography trading community from the commercial value of the images.
54. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Child 1 and Child 2 suffered and
continue to suffer personal injury in the form of severe emotional distress from the knowledge that
Defendants derived sexual gratification from viewing, possessing and distributing images depicting the
vile acts perpetrated upon them.
55. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ actions, Child 1 and Child 2 suffered
personal injury in the form of acute emotional distress because Defendants have perpetuated the market
for the continued viewing and distribution of the images depicting the abuse of Child 1 and Child 2.
56. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ actions, Child 1 and Child 2 live now,
and will perpetually live, in fear that any person they encounter in their daily lives may recognize them
as the children depicted in the obscene images viewed, possessed and distributed by Defendants.
57. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ actions, Child 1 and Child 2 have
suffered economic losses including (without limitation): past and future counseling and medical
expenses, diminished earning capacity and economic harms relating to various trauma-related symptoms
from which they now suffer and will continue to suffer in the future.
58. Defendants’ actions were motivated by actual malice as Defendants appropriated the
likeness of Child 1 and Child 2 despite the severe and irreparable harm they knew would be felt by the
children depicted in the images in which they trafficked.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands eight million dollars ($8,000,000.00) in compensatory
damages and twenty-four million dollars ($24,000,000.00) in punitive damages, plus attorneys’ fees,
expert fees, other reasonable costs and any relief the Court may deem equitable and just in light of the
severe harm perpetrated upon Child 1 and Child 2 by Defendants.
COUNT V
INVASION OF PRIVACY – UNREASONABLE PUBLICITY GIVEN TO PRIVATE LIFE
UNDER MARYLAND LAW

59. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if
fully set forth herein.
60. Defendants 1-98 and Doe Defendants 1-182 intentionally received, possessed, and/or
distributed images depicting Child 1 and Child 2.
Case 1:13-cv-01548-MJG Document 1 Filed 05/28/13 Page 12 of 19
13
61. The images depicted the sexual abuse of Child 1 and Child 2 and, by receiving,
possessing, and/or distributing the images, Defendants gave unreasonable publicity to the private lives
of Child 1 and Child 2.
62. The images possessed by Defendants depicted the sexual assault of Child 1 and Child 2
as very young children, and therefore constituted crime scene images depicting affairs of a highly
private nature.
63. The fact that Child 1 and Child 2 were violently sexually assaulted by their father and a
co-conspirator is not of valid concern to the public
64. Defendants’ acts of receiving, possessing, and/or distributing the images of the abuse of
Child 1 and Child 2 violated the reasonable expectations of privacy of Child 1 and Child 2.
65. The act of receiving, possessing, and/or distributing such images would be highly
offensive to any reasonable person.
66. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ actions, Child 1 and Child 2 suffered and
continue to suffer acute personal injury in the form of severe emotional distress from the knowledge that
Defendants derived sexual gratification from receiving, possessing, and/or distributing images depicting
the vile acts perpetrated upon them.
67. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ actions, Child 1 and Child 2 suffered
personal injury in the form of acute emotional distress because Defendants have perpetuated the market
for the continued viewing and distribution of the images depicting the abuse of Child 1 and Child 2.
68. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ actions, Child 1 and Child 2 live now,
and will perpetually live, in fear that any person they encounter in their daily lives may recognize them
as the children depicted in the obscene images viewed, possessed and distributed by Defendants.
69. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ actions, Child 1 and Child 2 have
suffered economic losses including (without limitation): past and future counseling and medical
expenses, diminished earning capacity and economic harms relating to various trauma-related symptoms
from which they now suffer and will continue to suffer in the future.
70. Defendants’ actions were motivated by actual malice as Defendants gave unreasonable
publicity to the private lives of Child 1 and Child 2 despite the severe and irreparable harm they knew
would be felt by the children depicted in the images in which they trafficked.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands eight million dollars ($8,000,000.00) in compensatory
damages and twenty-four million dollars ($24,000,000.00) in punitive damages, plus attorneys’ fees,
expert fees, other reasonable costs and any relief the Court may deem equitable and just in light of the
severe harm perpetrated upon Child 1 and Child 2 by Defendants.

COUNT VI
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS UNDER MARYLAND LAW

71. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if
fully set forth herein.
72. Defendants 1-98 and Doe Defendants 1-182 intentionally received, possessed, and/or
distributed images depicting the sexual abuse of Child 1 and Child 2. Defendants used these images as
currency in the broader trade of child pornography among the rings of pedophiles in which they
participated.
73. Defendants knew that viewing, possessing and trading in images depicting the vile sexual
abuse of very young children by trusted adults would result in continued extreme emotional distress for
the children depicted in those images. Alternatively, Defendants should have known severe emotional
distress would result from their actions.
74. Defendants’ conduct was intentional, reckless, and in deliberate disregard of the
emotional distress reasonably certain to result to Child 1 and Child 2 as a consequence of Defendants’
actions.
75. Any reasonable person in a civilized community would find Defendants’ decision to
receive, possess, and/or distribute images depicting the violent sexual assault of Child 1 and Child 2
extreme and outrageous.
76. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ actions, Child 1 and Child 2 suffered and
continue to suffer acute personal injury in the form of emotional distress so severe as to give rise to
physical manifestations from the knowledge that Defendants derived sexual gratification from viewing,
possessing and distributing images depicting the vile acts perpetrated upon them.
77. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ actions, Child 1 and Child 2 suffered
acute personal injury in the form of severe emotional distress because Defendants have perpetuated the
market for the continued viewing and distribution of the images depicting the abuse of Child 1 and Child
2.
78. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ actions, Child 1 and Child 2 suffered
severe emotional distress in that they live now, and will perpetually live, in fear that any person they
encounter in their daily lives may recognize them as the children depicted in the obscene images viewed,
possessed and distributed by Defendants.
79. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ actions, Child 1 and Child 2 have
suffered economic losses including (without limitation): past and future counseling and medical
expenses, diminished earning capacity and economic harms relating to various trauma-related symptoms from which they now suffer and will continue to suffer in the future.
80. Defendants’ actions were motivated by actual malice as Defendants viewed, possessed
and distributed the images despite the severe and irreparable harm they knew would be felt by the
children depicted in the images in which they trafficked.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands eight million dollars ($8,000,000.00) in
compensatory damages and twenty-four million dollars ($24,000,000.00) in punitive damages, plus
attorneys’ fees, expert fees, other reasonable costs and any relief the Court may deem equitable and just
in light of the severe harm perpetrated upon Child 1 and Child 2 by Defendants.

COUNT VII
CIVIL CONSPIRACY UNDER MARYLAND LAW

81. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if
fully set forth herein.
82. Defendants 1-98 and Doe Defendants 1-182 entered into an agreement whereby they
agreed to secretly trade child pornography, including images depicting Child 1 and Child 2 within a
defined group of pedophiles with similar sexual proclivities in a manner to avoid detection by law
enforcement.
83. In furtherance of their understanding, Defendants joined closed underground anonymous
child pornography trading communities and engaged in a cooperative effort to keep law enforcement
from discovering the identities of any members of the conspiracy.
84. In furtherance of their understanding and to gain access to the child pornography trading
communities, many Defendants were required to upload new child pornography material.
85. In furtherance of their understanding, each Defendant knowingly and unlawfully
received, downloaded, viewed, possessed, or distributed images depicting the abuse of Child 1 and Child
Case 1:13-cv-01548-MJG Document 1 Filed 05/28/13 Page 16 of 19
17
2 using peer-to-peer file sharing software, which allows users to download content from one computer to
another.
86. As a result of their coordinated activity, each Defendant came into possession of images
depicting the sexual abuse of Child 1 and Child 2.
87. The images possessed by the Defendants depicted the sexual abuse of two very young
children and, by receiving, possessing, and/or distributing the images, Defendants enabled each other to
intentionally invade the privacy of and inflict emotional distress upon Child 1 and Child 2.
88. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ coordinated actions, Child 1 and Child 2
suffered and continue to suffer acute personal injury in the form of severe emotional distress from the
knowledge that Defendants derived sexual gratification from receiving, possessing, and/or distributing
images depicting the vile acts perpetrated upon them.
89. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ coordinated actions, Child 1 and Child 2
suffered personal injury in the form of severe emotional distress because Defendants instigated the
creation of the images by providing motivation for their creation.
90. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ coordinated actions, Child 1 and Child 2
suffered personal injury in the form of acute emotional distress because Defendants have perpetuated the
market for the continued viewing and distribution of the images depicting the abuse of Child 1 and Child
2.
91. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ actions, Child 1 and Child 2 live now,
and will perpetually live, in fear that any person they encounter in their daily lives may recognize them
as the children depicted in the obscene images viewed, possessed and distributed by Defendants.
92. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ actions, Child 1 and Child 2 have
suffered economic losses including (without limitation): past and future counseling and medical
expenses, diminished earning capacity and economic harms relating to various trauma-related symptoms
from which they now suffer and will continue to suffer in the future.
93. Defendants’ actions were motivated by actual malice as Defendants received, possessed,
and/or distributed the images despite the severe and irreparable harm they knew would be felt by the
children depicted in the images in which they trafficked.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands eight million dollars ($8,000,000.00) in compensatory
damages and twenty-four million dollars ($24,000,000.00) in punitive damages, plus attorneys’ fees,
expert fees, other reasonable costs and any relief the Court may deem equitable and just in light of the
severe harm perpetrated upon Child 1 and Child 2 by Defendants.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, Jane Doe, as next friend of individuals known to the Defendants as Child 1 and Child 2
in the video series known as YKND and/or DKNY, minors, by and through her undersigned counsel,
AND pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b) hereby demands a trial by jury for all issues so
triable.

Steven J. Kelly , Federal Bar No. 27386
Andrew C. White, Federal Bar No. 0821
SILVERMAN THOMPSON SLUTKIN WHITE, LLC
201 North Charles Street, Suite 2600
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
Tel.: (410) 385-2225
Fax: (410) 547-2432
skelly@mdattorney.com
awhite@mdattorney.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

Sorry about how that posted, but as we all know, there is no option to preview a post before publishing it and no way to edit it once posted, so bare with the confusion in the manner it was posted.

Allenbaugh is a lawyer in Florida and has been a member of this board for a while - he is on our side. Allenbaugh would we know if we were part of this?

honestly can i say something when ever someone needs to ask a question and needs advice from you your never around to answer them

Mr. Allenbaugh is a reputable attorney in these kinds of cases. He has been kind enough to come here and inform us of these latest lawsuits. Yes, he will accept our case if we want to hire him, as he mentioned.

Whether he wins every case or not is irrelevant. The main point is he is here and he does not have to be. I don't see any other attorneys around here posting on our board.

It is a bit cynical to think that he can come here and answer each and every question we might have concerning sex crimes or cp crimes, as he is a busy man.

Frankly, I am happy just to see him post on our board and share some of his knowledge and insight with us.

rewdiazepam

so am i but would love to see him around more often and not just pop up at random

BTW, anyone with any sense can see that this is just a money making scheme by the children's attorneys.

This same thing has been going on with "Vicky" and "Amy", two other children who were filmed being sexually assaulted several years ago.

I think the courts have been divided on this issues. Some courts have thrown out such lawsuits because the judges did not feel as if the defendant was the PROXIMATE CAUSE of the child's pain and suffering.

rewdiazepam

Thanks Allen and Legal Guardian for posting (LG, damn good research) I will read it. There is some talk going around, whether this ties in with it or not we can find out.
Mr. Baugh has been a member for some time and has always conducted himself on a very professional level, I can respect that.

Mr. Baugh,

It good to see you post here again. Plz don't be a stranger here.

Advocate2 (and others wondering the same thing), Before you have to worry about something like this affecting you directly, the plaintiff has to have been the victim in an image or images your loved one possessed.

Rew, you are right the courts have been divided on this issue and the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case about this which should be coming up soon, The case is Paroline V United States 12-8561 and I'm pretty sure it's an "Amy" case. http://tinyurl.com/pt3ajc2

To those who took offense with my post - all I was doing is reporting what is listed with the Court at my financial cost to insure that you folks had the information.

Legal Guardian: I am not showing up on Pacer as I was just retained two weeks ago by clients and have been granted an extension to file responsive pleadings. Once those are filed you will see me there. For those of you who want to know whether a specific individual is a named defendant just email me at Mark@allenbaughlaw.com or check PACER. BTW the Paroline case has to do with criminal restitution, not civil damages (although the Paroline case likely will have some impact on this litigation). Finallt, this civil case does NOT involve the Amy or Vicky victims.

LegalGuardian,

Oh, no offense to your post at all. I, for one, appreciate all your posts here and especially the research you do on our behalf to help us in this cause. We need you here as you are a valuable poster.

I was just pointing out to others that we cannot expect Mr. Allenbaugh to come here and answer all our questions. Heck, we are just very fortunate to have him here at all.

I know that these recent cases are not the Vicky or Amy series. Apparently these are cases involving a couple of new children. Over the years, I am sure hundreds of children have been filmed being abused and the pictures placed on the internet. If these latest lawsuits are successful, more children may come forward to file more cases against cp defendants.

rewdiazepam

Ok...I need to jump in here. Please do not get taken in my these "attorneys" that show up once in awhile on here. I did and very sorry that I did. I retained one (and you know who you are) and he did not do what he promised nor refunded money back that he promised. I have all e-mails to prove what I am saying.
I think there was one on here that had a family member going through what we did or now going through and he seemed on the up and up. He never said call me or looked for business through us. We all look for the best help we can get for our loved ones and will jump on anything that looks positive for them.
Please do not fall for these guys, they are NOT looking out for your best interest. They want to take your money and run because they get away with it.
You may privately message me if you want to know more about it.

I have been watching and reading along as this thread has developed. There are some things that I have been contemplating about the original post and the thread that follows.

First, the original post is in violation of the Forum Rules. (2. No posting things for sale. This is a support site, if there are documents to read that are free and informative post away, but if it is only a link to a place to purchase something with only a teaser to read it does not belong on a support forum and will be immediately removed, no explanation necessary from any Admin on here. I will set up an article in the News section for listing of items for sale, but the item must be submitted to an Admin or myself the Owner/Founder.) Attorney services are considered as items for sale.

Second, LegalGuardian's information that they posted at their expense is good information that I do not wish to rob the community of, which is why I am writing this to explain why this post is STILL HERE.

To Mr. Allenbaugh, this kind of advertising for your law firm is not permitted here any more. It may have been allowed in the past as I wasn't her as much to police, but now that I am here I am running a tight ship and this kind of post will never be allowed again if you are going to advertise at the end of it. From what I can tell you are not usually here to provide support or answers but many times to advertise your services for a fee. Posting information about cases that are coming up, is great, discussing outcomes of cases and the reasons and nuances, not a problem, but advertising at the end of them your information to garner business to me is no better than an attorney that sits in the emergency room waiting for the next ambulance to roll in. This is a place for support for people that are in vulnerable positions and what you seem to be doing is taking advantage of their emotional and mental state. This is no place for advertising your services. Consider this your final warning.

To everyone else here on our forum, if anyone has questions about my decision about this thread and this user please let me know either her or in PM and I'd be more than happy to talk about it with you.

Kind Regards,
WisconsinRSOL