<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Community Defense Counsel &#187; Topic: Restitution</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/tag/topic-restitution/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress</link>
	<description>Protecting Children and Their Neighborhoods</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 17:30:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>5th Circuit: Utah law prof. to argue apportionment issue in child porn restitution case</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/05/02/5th-utah-law-prof-to-argue-apportionment-issue-in-child-porn-restitution-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/05/02/5th-utah-law-prof-to-argue-apportionment-issue-in-child-porn-restitution-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2012 17:58:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 5th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Restitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: USA v. Amy Unknown]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2692</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://today.law.utah.edu/2012/05/cassell-to-argue-before-fifth-circuit-in-child-pornography-case/">ULaw Today</a>: The case involves an important issue of whether child pornography victims can recover all of their losses (e.g., psychological counseling and lost income) from one defendant or must apportion their losses out among multiple defendants.   &#124; USA v. Amy Unknown, No. 09-41238 (5th Cir.) <a href="http://today.law.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/opening-brief.pdf">Opening Brief</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/05/02/5th-utah-law-prof-to-argue-apportionment-issue-in-child-porn-restitution-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>En Banc 5th Circuit to rehear restitution case for child porn victim</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/01/31/en-banc-5th-circuit-to-rehear-restitution-case-for-child-porn-victim/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/01/31/en-banc-5th-circuit-to-rehear-restitution-case-for-child-porn-victim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 22:06:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 5th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Restitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: In re Amy Unknown]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2669</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://howappealing.law.com/013112.html#044521">How Appealing</a> quotes and links to the <a href="http://www.statesman.com/news/texas/court-to-weigh-restitution-for-child-porn-victim-2136339.html">AP</a> and the earlier 5th Circuit opinion: A federal appeals court in New Orleans has agreed to rehear two cases in which a victim of child pornography sought restitution from men who viewed sexually explicit photographs of her on the Internet." &#124; <em>In re: Amy Unknown.</em>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/01/31/en-banc-5th-circuit-to-rehear-restitution-case-for-child-porn-victim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court refuses to resolve confusion over restitution for child porn victims</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/11/28/supreme-court-refuses-to-resolve-confusion-over-child-pornography-law/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/11/28/supreme-court-refuses-to-resolve-confusion-over-child-pornography-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2011 21:08:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: U.S. Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Restitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Amy v. Monzel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2656</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Federal courts have disagreed about how to enforce a law that requires people convicted of possessing child pornography to pay restitution to the victim, even if they didn't know the victim. But the Supreme Court refused to take up the case Monday . . . The case was <em>Amy v. Monzel</em> (11-85). 
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/11/28/supreme-court-refuses-to-resolve-confusion-over-child-pornography-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Second Circuit panel reverses child porn restitution award to &#8220;Amy&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/09/08/second-circuit-panel-reverses-child-porn-restitution-award-to-amy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/09/08/second-circuit-panel-reverses-child-porn-restitution-award-to-amy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2011 19:43:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 2nd Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Restitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sentencing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: U.S. v. Aumais]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2623</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2011/09/second-circuit-panel-reverses-child-porn-restitution-award-to-amy.html">Sentencing Law and Policy:</a>: The Second Circuit has today issued an important new opinion in the on-going saga concerning whether and how the kids victimized by being featured in illegal child pornography can secure restitution awards from defendants who downloaded these pictures via the internet.  The panel opinion in <em>US v. Aumais</em>, No. 10-3160 (2d Cir. Sept. 8, 2011) (<a href="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/4a1e8328-fb5b-47a0-aa35-9f97fc90fb17/1/doc/10-3160_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/4a1e8328-fb5b-47a0-aa35-9f97fc90fb17/1/hilite/">available here</a>), gets started this way . . . 
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/09/08/second-circuit-panel-reverses-child-porn-restitution-award-to-amy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>5th Circuit: Restitution to child porn victim not limited by proximate causation</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/04/21/5th-circuit-restitution-to-child-porn-victim-not-limited-by-proximate-causation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/04/21/5th-circuit-restitution-to-child-porn-victim-not-limited-by-proximate-causation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2011 19:28:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 5th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: DC Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Restitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: U.S. v. Monzel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: U.S. v. Wright]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2567</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em><a href="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/09/09-31215-CR0.wpd.pdf">U.S. v. Wright</a></em>, No. 09-31215 (5th Cir. Apr. 20, 2011)
This appeal presents issues related to the amount of restitution that a district court may order a defendant convicted of possessing child pornography to pay to one of the children depicted in the images . . . As explained further below, the recent In re Amy panel opinion rejected the causation arguments made by Wright]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/04/21/5th-circuit-restitution-to-child-porn-victim-not-limited-by-proximate-causation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>D.C. Circuit: Child Pornography Victim Owed More Restitution</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/04/19/d-c-circuit-child-pornography-victim-owed-more-restitution/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/04/19/d-c-circuit-child-pornography-victim-owed-more-restitution/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2011 18:36:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Restitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: U.S. v. Monzel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2564</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ . . . The appeals court said Kessler must “order restitution equal to the amount of harm the government proves the defendant caused the victim.” Victims can receive restitution for, among other things, medical services, lost income, attorneys’ fees and rehabilitation. . . . &#124; <em><a href="http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/1FCEB0FD6526EAC885257877004E9BFA/$file/11-3008-1303879.pdf">U.S. v. Monzel</a></em>, No. 11-3008 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 19, 2011)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/04/19/d-c-circuit-child-pornography-victim-owed-more-restitution/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ND: Federal judge denies mandatory restitution claim against receiver of pornographic materials</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/08/04/nd-federal-court-rejects-mandatory-restitution-claim-against-receiver-of-pornographic-materials/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/08/04/nd-federal-court-rejects-mandatory-restitution-claim-against-receiver-of-pornographic-materials/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 22:03:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: North Dakota]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Restitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: U.S. v. Solsbury]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2413</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em><a href="http://www.communitydefense.org/cases/20100804.pdf">U.S. v. Solsbury</a></em>, No. 4:09-cr-062, 2010 WL 3023913 (D.N.D. Aug. 4, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/08/04/nd-federal-court-rejects-mandatory-restitution-claim-against-receiver-of-pornographic-materials/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CA: Victim of child pornography awarded $2,851.20</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/05/19/ca-victim-of-child-pornography-awarded-2851-20/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/05/19/ca-victim-of-child-pornography-awarded-2851-20/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 May 2010 22:03:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Restitution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2321</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>U.S. v. Yang</em>, No. 1:09-CR-00168 AWI, 2010 WL 2011561 (E.D. Cal. May 19. 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/05/19/ca-victim-of-child-pornography-awarded-2851-20/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Law Review: Creating a Legal Remedy for Victims of Porn 2.0</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/02/16/law-review-creating-a-legal-remedy-for-victims-of-porn-2-0/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/02/16/law-review-creating-a-legal-remedy-for-victims-of-porn-2-0/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 18:51:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Restitution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1969</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<strong><em>Sex, Privacy, and Webpages: Creating a Legal Remedy for Victims of Porn 2.0</em>
Ariel Ronneburger, 21 Syracuse Sci. &#38; Tech. L. Rep. 1 (2009)</strong>

"This paper addresses this problem by proposing an amendment to the CDA, creating potential liability for service providers who fail to at least investigate claims of non-consented pornography."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/02/16/law-review-creating-a-legal-remedy-for-victims-of-porn-2-0/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mo. AG backs plan to let child porn victims sue</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/25/mo-ag-backs-plan-to-let-child-porn-victims-sue/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/25/mo-ag-backs-plan-to-let-child-porn-victims-sue/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:07:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Missouri]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Minors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Restitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Victimization]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1907</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["Child pornography victims could sue anyone convicted of producing, promoting or possessing their sexual images for at least $150,000 in damages . . . "]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/25/mo-ag-backs-plan-to-let-child-porn-victims-sue/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

