The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari thereby affirming the reasoning and holding in Bach.32 Therefore, the defendant’s claim that the definitional section of 18 USC § 2256(8)(C) is unconstitutional has been specifically addressed and decided adversely to him. Even if 18 USC § 2256(8)(C) were unconstitutional, Plaintiffs still can civilly recover under 18 USC § 2252A(f) and 18 USC § 2255 for a violation of 18 USC § 2252A(a) which is neither premised upon nor uses the definition of child pornography contained in 18 USC §2256(8)(C). It is irrelevant that Bach took the face of an actual minor and placed it on existing child pornography33 while the defendant took the images of real and identifiable minors and placed them upon adult pornographic subjects that he altered to appear younger.

If the criminal prohibitions of the United States Code apply in “morphing” situations, without offending the Constitution, then so must the civil remedies applicable to the same misconduct. It is respectfully suggested to this court that the deemed damages clause of 18 USC § 2255 is proof that Congress intended to punish offenders/compensate minor victims who suffer personal injury regardless of whether the victims are aware of being sexually exploited . (4) Does the definition of child pornography, section 2256(8)(C), violate the First Amendment?

D. THE PRIVATE ACTION STATUTES, 18 USC 2255 AND 1595, PROVIDE REMEDIAL MECHANISMS WHICH AUTHORIZE CIVIL ENFORCEMENT OF THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TREATY RIGHTS BY INDIVIDUALS. Case: 4:10-cv-01740-TCM Doc.

PageID #: 964 10 punish offenders/compensate minor victims regardless of whether the victims were aware of being sexually exploited or if the personal injury occurred while they were minors. The legislative history supports the proposition that injury to reputation or property damage is included in the term “personal injury” as utilized by Congress in 18 USC § 2255. Section 4 Civil Remedies of the Congressional Record.

Engaging in necessary conduct during trial (i.e. causing the display or presenting of alleged child pornographic images to Defendant himself or others, e.g. judge, jurors, court reporter, members of the public present) necessarily results in Defendant committing a felony under Ohio Revised Code 2907.323, incurring additional civil liability under 18 U.S.C. 2255(A)(f) and potentially violating his Deferred Prosecution Agreement, special condition #5. /s/ Dean Boland Dean Boland 0065693 18123 Sloane Avenue Lakewood, Ohio 44107 216-529-9371 ph 866-455-1267 fax dean@deanboland.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing will be served upon all parties by operation of the court’s electronic filing system /s/ Dean Boland Dean Boland 0065693 13 Case: 1:07-cv-02787-DAP Doc #: 32 Filed: 05/07/08 13 of 13.

The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari thereby affirming the reasoning and holding in Bach.30 Therefore, the defendant’s claim that the definitional section of 18 USC § 2256(8)(C) is unconstitutional has been specifically addressed and decided adversely to him. Even if 18 USC § 2256(8)(C) were unconstitutional, Plaintiffs still can civilly recover under 18 USC § 2252A(f) and 18 USC § 2255 for a violation of 18 USC § 2252A(a) which is 28 Ohio Rev. Code § 2741.07 provides: (A)(1) A person who violates section 2741.

Defendants rely heavily on M.A. v. Village Voice Media Holdings, LLC, 809 F. Supp. 2d 1041, 1055 (E.D. Mo. 2011), a case which involves Backpage.com, and is inapposite for multiple reasons. In M.A., the plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 2255 for aiding and abetting a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591, and that they also were liable under 18 U.S.C. § 1595. The factual allegations focused principally on the defendants’ knowledge of trafficking on their website.

Obado, 2014 WL 3778261, at *8 (emphasis added). Indeed, in M.A., the plaintiff tried the same tack, alleging civil claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2255 and 1595, contending Backpage.com violated federal criminal laws by facilitating sex trafficking of minors. 809 F. Supp. 2d at 1053.

Amendment should not be permitted. As previously discussed, Goodwin’s second motion to amend, filed July 21, 2014, is not entitled to automatic amendment, and thus, to the extent that it raises new claims, is untimely under 18 U.S.C. § 2255(f). In his second motion to amend, Goodwin indicates that, at the time of his plea, he was under the influence of a long list of medications and seeks to have a doctor’s report included. (CV No. 12 at 3.)

Moreover, it is not clear under which statute the Plaintiffs’ damages were rendered. While the $300,000 amount indicates they were awarded under 18 U.S.C. 2255 which includes the “elevator clause” which increases a persons actual damages from their personal injury to $150,000, the court’s order does not declare under which provision or under both in some divided measure, the damages were awarded. In either event, an element of damages is subject to a Due Process hearing for Defendant since they were not disposed of via summary judgment by the court.