ALECOMM

Former Family Court Judge Brett Blomme was convicted for use and dissemination of extreme and sadistic child pornography.

The confiscated images and videos showed prepubescent children posing in lewd and lascivious positions, underage children performing sexual acts on adults, and adults sexually abusing minors as young as toddlers. Blomme also targeted children for sex online.

The Wisconsin Federal District Court judge presiding over Blomme’s trial described the images as "sadistic treatment of toddlers," "extreme victimization" of young children and "the worst of the worst" kind of porn.

Prosecutors found 27 videos and images which Blomme had shared amongst organized groups of perpetrators. These are undoubtedly just the tip of the iceberg since Blomme admitted to having a long addiction to child porn.

Every time an image of child sexual abuse is shared, it re-victimizes that child.

U.S. Attorney Timothy O’Shea

SWEETHEART PLEA DEAL

Blomme was indicted on 7 counts of distributing child pornography and was facing 175 years in prison and a $700,000 fine. But, not surprisingly, he received a super-sweetheart plea deal. He was sentenced to just 9 years in prison and a $5000 fine. And he likely will get out early.

Each of the children involved in every video and image he viewed and shared over many years—likely in the thousands—suffered incredible pain and terror, robbed of their innocence, and will most likely suffer some long-term mental, emotional, and physical problems because of the abuse.

But this vile child perpetrator only has to serve nine years (or less), probably in some upscale prison for white collar criminals, protected from the rest of the population.

Unbelievably, at the sentencing, a fellow judge of Blomme’s was allowed to make a victims’ impact statement for the State, lamenting the tarnishing of the judicial system and the $50,000 it had cost for replacement judges. Typical judge: no sympathy for the real victims.

MORAL OF THIS STORY

The moral of this story is that a judge should not have the power to decide custody of children. Blomme’s horrific criminality and sociopathy provide yet another example of why.

As a victim of Family Court once said, “Judges are just sleazy lawyers in black robes. They don’t just suddenly become wise and just after making a move to the bench.”

An earlier Women’s Coalition News & Views article—NBC Report: Judges Exert Nearly Absolute Power—goes into more depth about why judges should not be the fact finder in a contested custody case.

U.S. Founding Fathers recognized the danger in entrusting fallible, untrustworthy, corruptible judges with important decisions.

I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which government can be held to the principles of its constitution.

Thomas Jefferson, 1788

The Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides for any civil case worth more than $20—about $650 today—to be heard by a jury. Inarguably, our children’s safety and well-being is more than a few hundred bucks.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Deciding custody is arguably the most important ruling that is made in a court of law. The fallout from bad rulings can endanger children and result in abundant emotional pain, financial devastation, child development disruption, estrangement, mental health disorders and loss of human potential.

Therefore, a new system where judges like Blomme do not have the power to decide custody is necessary. The Child Custody Act provides for a new system in which custody cases are removed from the Family Court system and are heard in a regular civil court with a jury as the fact-finder. It also provides for many due process protections which help to protect women and children.

A UNIFIED WOMEN’S MOVEMENT

This new system would result in real consequences for fathers who abuse children, something that has never happened before in written history. It would entail a reduction in men’s power and control in the family, hence the power elite will fiercely oppose it.

The only way for women to gain enough power to overcome the old boys’ resistance to this cutback in male entitlement is to unite and rise up as women, as a class, as half the population.

Join the women’s movement to demand a new system.

IN OTHER NEWS

VAWA was finally reauthorized this week after a many years long stall by Republicans. A child safety law was included in the new version, so it got lots of fanfare by “protective parent” activists. Angelina Jolie was on hand to promote it.

Unfortunately, VAWA, with or without child custody provisions, will not make any difference for women in custody cases, since laws are not the problem.

The problem is judges are deliberately dismissing evidence of abuse and falsely finding mothers to be liars, alienators, abusers, mentally ill, etc. Judges can do this because they have been given the power to rule however they want, regardless of facts or evidence.

So the Custody Crisis is essentially about Power, not abuse: the Power judges have to emPower men to maintain Power in the family after divorce. So, as stated above, that means the solution is to remove that Power from judges.

An earlier Women’s Coalition News & Views column goes into more depth about why neither DV nor child safety laws will help: Angelina’s Speech Misses the Mark: Sexism Is the Problem, Not DV or Child Safety Laws

Source : https://womenscoalition.substack.com/p/judge-convicted-for-worst-of-the?s=r