The ACLU of Pennsylvania has launched a legal strike against some clueless District Attorney in Wyoming County for attempting to shake down parents and students in his district. The skinny (no pun intended) here is that a few teenage girls took had some provocative photos of themselves distributed. Great, so the DA seems to think that is distribution of child pornography, and he’s trying to extort money out of everyone involved.
According to Ars Technica, DA George Skumanick decided to protect young people by threatening to charge them with child pornography unless they submitted to reeducation programs and go on probation. So basically he’s attempting to shake down people and make money for his district by collecting probation fees and by charging $100 to attend a reeducation program. He’s also attempting to copy the Vietnamese by ripping off our reeducation camps. Sorry but nobody does reeducation like Charlie.
What is silly about the whole thing is these girls took pictures of themselves in their underwear. No full frontal nudity at all.
But the parents of Marissa Miller and Grace Kelly were less than scandalized when they saw the snapshot for which their daughters had posed: both were shown wearing opaque white bras no more revealing than a bikini top—one on the phone, the other flashing a peace sign. Skumanick averred that it was nevertheless child pornography because the girls were posed “provocatively.” The pseudonymous Nancy Roe was a bit more exposed in her photo, which showed her fresh from the shower with a towel wrapped around her torso, below her breasts. But her mother doubted whether a bit of nudity was all it took to make a picture “pornographic.”
From the ACLU complaint filed in court excerpt from the INTRODUCTION
One photo shows Marissa and Grace, from the waist up, lying side by side in their bras, with one talking on a telephone and the other making a peace sign. The other photo shows Nancy Doe standing upright, just emerged from the shower, with a white towel wrapped tightly around her body just below the breasts. The two photographs, which depict no sexual activity or display of pubic area, are not illegal under Pennsylvania’s crimes code and, indeed, are images protected by the First Amendment.
Skumanick nevertheless persists in threatening to prosecute the girls because he has deemed the photos “provocative.” Since there is no basis to prosecute the girls for posing in photographs that plainly are not child pornography, in terms of content or production, Skumanick’s threat to prosecute the girls must be considered retaliation against the plaintiffs for asserting their constitutional rights – the parents’ right to direct their children’s upbringing and the girls’ rights both to free expression and against compelled speech – in refusing Skumanick’s demands. Accordingly, plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin Skumanick from bringing the retaliatory criminal charges against plaintiffs based on their refusal to accede to his demand that they submit to probation and participate in the re-education program.
It gets even more interesting on page 8 where the ACLU alleges that Skumanick did not pursue those who distributed the photographs, but only those who were in the pictures or who possessed them. That’s like saying it’s ok to traffic cocaine, but you can’t produce it or consume it. Way to go idiot Skumanick. To show what an asshat this guy really is check out page 10.
29. One parent stood up during the meeting and asked how Skumanick could be prosecuting his daughter because, according to him, she was in the photograph wearing a bathing suit. Skumanick told the assembled crowd that she was posed “provocatively,” which made her subject to a childpornography charge.
30. In response to Skumanick’s comment, Marissa’s father stood up and asked who was deciding what was provocative. Skumanick replied that he was not going to argue and that he could charge all of the minors there that night but was instead offering them a plea deal. Skumanick also told Mr. Miller
This jerk is a real winner. He doesn’t have to provide any reason or justification beyond “because I said so”. He apparently has the mentality of a 5-year old. He also rubbed it in their faces that minors are not eligible for jury trial. I would assume that the juvenile judge is a good golf buddy of his would be the sole juror, judge, and executioner in such a situation.
Does the ACLU have a good case against this guy?
48. The three plaintiff minors have committed no crime by simply having allowed themselves to be photographed, either in their underwear or topless.
49. The provisions of 18 P.S. § 6312 prohibit depicting, possessing or disseminating images of “sexual intercourse…., masturbation, sadism, masochism, bestiality, fellatio, cunnilingus, lewd exhibition of the genitals or nudity if such nudity is depicted for the purpose of sexual stimulation orgratification of any person who might view such depiction.”
50. The images of plaintiffs do not fall within the definition of the materials prohibited by § 6312.
It seems to be pretty straight forward to me. I wonder how he could have messed that up. Oh, wait. We had come to the conclusion based on evidence at hand that he has the mentality of a 5-year old. Silly us!
The other nice thing the ACLU went on to say is that :
55. Moreover, Skumanick’s decision to prosecute the subjects of the photographs, the three plaintiff minors, is unprecedented and stands anti-child-pornography laws on their head. Anti-child-pornography laws are intended to protect the children shown in the photos and videos, and plaintiffs’ counsel has found no published Pennsylvania or federal court decision sustaining such a prosecution against minors shown in such pictures.
In case you missed it earlier, Skumanick has done nothing to find out who took the pictures and who distributed them. Yes, that’s right. Based on everything in the media and the court papers I can find nothing that shows he expended any effort at all. At least the ACLU has some logic here. How can you be a perp and a victim at the same time? I guess if you appear to have the mentality of a 5-year old you don’t have logic as evidenced by Judge Munley’s smack down on Attorney Hailstone who is representing Skumanick
“It seems like the children seemed to be the victims and the perpetrators here,” the judge, James M. Munley, told a lawyer for the district attorney, George P. Skumanick of Wyoming County. “How does that make sense?”
The lawyer, A. James Hailstone, said state law “doesn’t distinguish between who took the picture and who was in it.”
Hats off to Judge Munley for detecting use of the Chewbacca Defense. I guess this explains even more. Apparently Skumanick is a mindless automaton who only knows how to follow literal directions. So in fact our assumption that he has the mental capabilities of a 5-year old was vastly out of bounds.
Skumanick must also have some problem against free speech, swimming pools, cameras, and swimwear.
57. Skumanick’s threatened prosecution chills Plaintiffs’ First Amendment right of expression, causing them concern about whether they may photograph their daughters, or whether the girls may allow themselves to be photographed, wearing a two-piece bathing suit.
58. The plaintiff minors will in the near future want to be photographed in their bathing suits, for instance during the summer when they go to a swimming pool or the beach, to which the respective parents have no objection. They are, however, chilled in their ability to take such photographs because of concern whether Skumanick will find them “provocative.”
Mr. Skumanick is now our personal nanny. YAY! I’m sure he’s going to go far under John Ashcroft with the Bush Administration’s PATRIOT ACT to help him. Oh wait!
60. Skumanick’s demand that the girls participate in the re-education program, which requires them to write a homework paper explaining “how [their] actions were wrong,” violates the plaintiff minors’ right to be free from compelled speech.
65. Skumanick’s threat to file felony charges against the plaintiff minors, charges for which there is absolutely no evidence or cause, unless the girls participate in a program that requires them to write a paper explaining “how [their] actions were wrong,” constitutes retaliation against the girls for exercising their right to be free from compelled speech, a right protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Can’t argue with any of the First Amendment points the ACLU is making here. But it gets even better
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (RETALIATION AGAINST PLAINTIFF PARENTS FOR EXERCISING THEIR FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS RIGHT AS PARENTS TO DIRECT THEIR CHILDREN’S UPBRINGING)
66. Skumanick’s illegitimate use of government authority to coerce the plaintiff parents to send their daughters to a re-education course that, among other things, would direct the girls to “[g]ain an understanding of how [their] actions were wrong,” “gain an understanding of what it means to be a girl in today’s society,” and “[i]dentify non-traditional societal and job roles,”
infringes on the plaintiff parents’ Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right to direct and control their children’s upbringing.
Skumanick must have some strange male inferiority issues, which makes him a prime candidate for a job with the Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice in Afghanistan. From reading the entire ACLU complaint this guy seems to have a problem with freedom and liberty and he abuses his authority in a way that allows him to become moral dictator.
From the not so bright department comes this statement from Skumanick
On the other hand, Skumanick stated he will fight the lawsuit. He said, “Frankly, we just wanted to protect these kids, and say, ‘Doing this is not right.’ We wanted to offer this course to educate them, and make them understand the long-term ramifications of having photos like this out there.”
And another
Skumanick, however, remains unfazed. The New York Times quotes the campaigning crusader as saying: “I’m simply giving them an option. We’re not forcing anybody to do anything. Frankly, it’s sad to me that their parents don’t realize this is wrong and they should be encouraging them to take the classes.”
Much like the idiot PIG in Dallas Texas who killed Ryan Moats mother this moron believes that putting teenage girls in jail for 20 years on child pornography unless they agree to be coerced into a reeducation camp is the right thing to do. If his intentions were genuine he would have made attendance at the reeducation camp an option rather than forcing it at the point of a gun.
According to the records from Wyoming County this idiot makes $157,127.88 a year. The detective makes $39,862 and the Assistant DA makes $71,294.28. The parts that don’t look right are the fact that the line item titled Secretaries is $30,667 and Paralegal is $22770.00. Since I could only turn up one Assistant DA on the website, one would assume that you only need one secretary and one paralegal. So why is the secretary making more money than the paralegal? The second largest item is Ins. Fraud Tsk. Force (REIMB) at $92,000. What expenses does the Insurance Fraud Task Force have that need reimbursing that costs more than the Assistant DA’s salary? His entire budget is $467,253.22. He doesn’t have a lot to spend on prosecuting violent criminals so he’s aiming for low hanging fruit by targeting teenagers. This brings into question what is really going on in the Wyoming County DA’s Office and since he was going to pawn off 3 girls to the prison system for a minimum of 20 years each at an estimated $50,000 per year that comes to $3,000,000 that he would inflict on the taxpayers because he wants to make a point. All things considered I would think he has failed in his fiduciary duty to the taxpayers of Pennsylvania.
The good news is that he has opposition in the 2009 election. So head on over to Deborah Albert-Heise’s website and make a campaign contribution. I have chipped in to make sure this ass hat doesn’t have a job and to make sure that Paralegals get fair pay in the future.
