17 Case: 1:07-cv-02787-DAP Doc #: 44 Filed: 07/14/08 18 of 20. PageID #: 860 Such conduct is at least two, possibly three, distinct violations of 18 U.S.C. 2252, et seq. that are regularly investigated and prosecuted by the government. Receiving, possessing and distributing contraband images are all clear violations of federal and state child pornography laws.

If the government desired punishing embarrassment to minors, it would prohibit all embarrassing manipulations to images of minors, not just those related to apparent, although not real, sexual conduct. It would also have narrowly tailored the language of 18 U.S.C. 2252(A) to require the publication or disclosure of the minor’s identity in a 2256(8)(c) image to trigger a violation. At least that language, arguably, is seeking to protect minors from some harm.

#8 at 4, Defendant’s options are to forego a defense in the civil matter and essentially concede a judgment approaching $1 Million dollars to avoid criminal liability under Ohio Revised Code 2907.323 and endlessly increasing civil liability under 18 U.S.C. 2252(A)(f)(1). WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully asks that this Court vacate its order in Dkt.

Section 2256(8)(B) applied to any visual depiction that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," and § 2256(8)(D) covered the depiction of sexually explicit conduct "advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed" in a manner to suggest that the material shows a minor engaging in such conduct. Before the CPPA was enacted with its new definitions, child pornography had been defined simply as any visual depiction produced by using a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct, 18 U.S.C. § 2252, and that definition was retained in § 2256(8)(A) of the new legislation. Section 2256(8)(C), the definition applied in Bach's prosecution for receiving the image with AC's face, covers any visual depiction that "has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct."

Therefore, no immunity exist for Defendant for causing that “display or presenting” of said court exhibits in this very case in discovery and at trial. Both the “display or presenting” of said court exhibits in discovery and the “display or presenting” of said court exhibits at trial are events that incur civil liability for Defendant under 18 U.S.C. 2252(A)(f)(1). That identical conduct, by Defendant, is the core of plaintiffs’ claim of liability in this case itself.

It also says that context and setting must be considered and that not every exposure of the genitals or pubic area is lascivious. 12 Case 1:13-cr-00043-S-LDA Document 38 Filed 10/30/13 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 146 III. ARGUMENT THAT THE LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE The defendant has been charged in counts 1 through 6 with violating 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and in count 7 with violating 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4). The statutes prohibit the receipt and possession of images of minors involving “sexually explicit conduct.”

Pursuant to 18 USC § 2255,21 Plaintiffs Jane Doe and Jane Roe are entitled to civil relief as specifically set forth therein including actual damages deemed to not be less than $150,000.00 each, costs, and attorney’s fees because they are minors who are victims of a violation of 18 USC § 2252A who suffered personal injury. Since the Defendant has admitted to violating 18 USC § 2252(A) (a) (5)(B) in his pre- trial diversion agreement and admitted to committing actions which violate violating 18 USC § 2252A (a) and (b) in his discovery responses, then minor plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Second and Sixth Causes of Action because there is no legitimate question of fact. Additionally the damages are deemed to be at least $150,000.00 for each person injured, costs of the suit, and reasonable attorney’s fees by this statute.

Even if the court rules that the statute does preempt, the First Amendment protected Defendant’s conduct. He was also immune from prosecution under 18 USC 2252(A) as a result of longstanding witness and judicial immunity. The Plaintiffs are not entitled to relief under 18 USC 2255.

PageID #: 961 7 Second and Sixth Causes of Action Premised Upon 18 USC § 2255 Pursuant to 18 USC § 2255,14 Plaintiffs Jane Doe and Jane Roe are entitled to civil relief as specifically set forth therein including actual damages deemed to not be less than $150,000.00, costs, and attorney’s fees because they are minors who are victims of a violation of 18 USC § 2252A and who suffered personal injury. Since the Defendant has admitted to violating 18 USC § 2252(A) (a) (5)(B) in his pre- trial diversion agreement and admitted to committing actions which violate violating 18 USC § 2252A (a) and (b) in his discovery responses, then Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Second and Sixth Causes of Action because there is no legitimate question of fact. Additionally the damages are deemed to be at least $150,000.00, costs of the suit, and reasonable attorney’s fees by this statute.

8 at 5). The exceptions in the Ohio statute do not protect them from federal liability under 18 U.S.C. 2252(A). (Id).