So, this "2257" conviction that XBiz reported on..

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • jact
    Confirmed User
    • Sep 2002
    • 9134
    #1

    So, this "2257" conviction that XBiz reported on..

    The article on the DOJ's site is from 2004, why the panic all of a sudden? The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Oh no!

    DOJ link: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nyn/NewsRe...0411291057.htm

    "November 29, 2004 United States Attorney Glenn T. Suddaby announced that RALPH G. MARTELL, age 77, of 3300 Westland Drive, Bouckville, entered a plea of guilty today to a felony charge of failing to maintain required records relating to persons portrayed in sexually explicit visual depictions produced by MARTELL."

    XBiz article:
    http://www.xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=9002

    I don't get it, but, whatever....
    Free agent
    Tags: None
    • chadglni
      Confirmed User
      • Dec 2002
      • 6924
      #2
      I remembered reading about it long before also. XBiz is just using the current situation to increase views.


      Sign up here - Dating Site affiliate program

        Comment

        • Raven
          Confirmed User
          • Jul 2001
          • 6874
          #3
          The guy's problems started with a complaint because he used the us post office to mail sexually explicit materials.

          He also used underaged models. I don't see any charges for that....

          I don't get it, either.
          Raven

          ~RETIRED~

            Comment

            • jact
              Confirmed User
              • Sep 2002
              • 9134
              #4
              Originally posted by Raven
              The guy's problems started with a complaint because he used the us post office to mail sexually explicit materials.

              He also used underaged models. I don't see any charges for that....

              I don't get it, either.
              Oh I get why it started, and technically under the new regulations I can see how even if it went unpublished if they used the mail, then it qualifies under 2257, but it's an old case. He pleaded guilty before any new regs passed, and the way I read the article it felt like this was a blazing assult on the industry with the new regs, when in fact it wasn't? I dunno, poor reporting? Insighting fear? Who knows.
              Free agent

                Comment

                • tradermcduck
                  Confirmed User
                  • Apr 2001
                  • 2362
                  #5
                  That article is bullshit...
                  MarkB

                    Comment

                    • StuartD
                      Sofa King Band
                      • Jul 2002
                      • 29903
                      #6
                      By Gretchen Gallen

                      fired!!
                      This is me on facebook
                      This is me on twitter

                        Comment

                        • FilthyRob
                          Confirmed User
                          • Feb 2004
                          • 6741
                          #7
                          its no fun if the sky isn't falling
                          AKA - Clubsexy

                            Comment

                            • tony299
                              lurker
                              • Aug 2002
                              • 57021
                              #8
                              He shouldnt of been guilty of 2257 ,he didnt publish they were for his own private use. He only used the mail to get them developed. Its fucked they wanted a precident for 2257 and the scared old man plead guilty to it. I guess it was better than cp for him.

                                Comment

                                • xenigo
                                  Confirmed User
                                  • Jan 2001
                                  • 8067
                                  #9
                                  Originally posted by tony404
                                  He shouldnt of been guilty of 2257 ,he didnt publish they were for his own private use. He only used the mail to get them developed. Its fucked they wanted a precident for 2257 and the scared old man plead guilty to it. I guess it was better than cp for him.
                                  I believe mailing them could be considered "publishing" by the official wording of 2257.

                                    Comment

                                    • stev0
                                      Confirmed User
                                      • Aug 2003
                                      • 6801
                                      #10
                                      Martell's photographs, featuring five girls between the ages of 13-17, were first reported by a film processing company, which filed a report with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service in January 2004.
                                      He says they lied about their ages... ya right.

                                      This dirty old man can't tell the difference between a 13 year old and an 18 year old? give me a break. Sounds to me like he got off easy.

                                        Comment

                                        • Brujah
                                          Beer Money Baron
                                          • Jan 2001
                                          • 22157
                                          #11
                                          the downward spiral

                                          media doing what it takes to get views, to compete with other media. fear, shock, dirty laundry..

                                            Comment

                                            • Terry
                                              Confirmed User
                                              • Jan 2002
                                              • 1604
                                              #12
                                              Underage models for his personal use... developed photos by mail ... is this for real or am I missing something here? Lets see.. underage = cp. developed by mail.. uhhh when was digital invented?
                                              TengaCash
                                              ICQ: 6776764

                                                Comment

                                                • stev0
                                                  Confirmed User
                                                  • Aug 2003
                                                  • 6801
                                                  #13
                                                  Originally posted by tony404
                                                  He shouldnt of been guilty of 2257 ,he didnt publish they were for his own private use. He only used the mail to get them developed. Its fucked they wanted a precident for 2257 and the scared old man plead guilty to it. I guess it was better than cp for him.
                                                  Doesn't matter if he published them or not, he produced them.

                                                  § 2257. Record keeping requirements

                                                  Release date: 2004-08-06

                                                  (a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter which?
                                                  (1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and
                                                  (2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;

                                                    Comment

                                                    • adonthenet
                                                      Too lazy to set a custom title
                                                      • Feb 2005
                                                      • 16753
                                                      #14
                                                      I hate the law

                                                        Comment

                                                        • Sly
                                                          Let's do some business!
                                                          • Sep 2004
                                                          • 31379
                                                          #15
                                                          Originally posted by stev0
                                                          This dirty old man can't tell the difference between a 13 year old and an 18 year old? give me a break. Sounds to me like he got off easy.
                                                          Are you crazy? I have a hard time telling the difference and I'm 21, not 78. I'm not giving an excuse for the guy, but telling apart a 13 year old from an 18 year old isn't as easy as people would like.
                                                          Vacares - Web Hosting, Domains, O365, Security & More - Paxum and BTC Accepted

                                                          Windows VPS now available
                                                          Great for TSS, Nifty Stats, remote work, virtual assistants, etc.
                                                          Click here for more details.

                                                            Comment

                                                            • Connor
                                                              Confirmed User
                                                              • Feb 2003
                                                              • 1294
                                                              #16
                                                              Originally posted by NichePay - StuartD
                                                              By Gretchen Gallen

                                                              fired!!
                                                              Now now... don't be too hard on Gretchen. First, even though that story may have started back in 2004, that doesn't mean there wasn't come aspect of it that just happened... for example, the guilty plea or maybe the conviction. It's certainly a relevant story, and the story itself doesn't suggest that it is somehow tied to the new regs. In other words, I don't think it's trying to spread fear. You may have assumed that when you first saw the headline, or others may have assumed that, but it's not suggested in the story. What's interesting to me about this story is I hadn't heard that ANYONE was prosecuted under the old regs. That's odd. It shows that the DOJ has been thinking about 2257 for a while now, and it looks like they tested using it in this case with this pedophile.


                                                              YNOT v5 IS NOW LIVE! | SEEN YNOT MAIL YET?

                                                                Comment

                                                                • Connor
                                                                  Confirmed User
                                                                  • Feb 2003
                                                                  • 1294
                                                                  #17
                                                                  Originally posted by Sly
                                                                  Are you crazy? I have a hard time telling the difference and I'm 21, not 78. I'm not giving an excuse for the guy, but telling apart a 13 year old from an 18 year old isn't as easy as people would like.
                                                                  That's what ID is for, thankfully.


                                                                  YNOT v5 IS NOW LIVE! | SEEN YNOT MAIL YET?

                                                                    Comment

                                                                    • Connor
                                                                      Confirmed User
                                                                      • Feb 2003
                                                                      • 1294
                                                                      #18
                                                                      Originally posted by Terry
                                                                      Underage models for his personal use... developed photos by mail ... is this for real or am I missing something here? Lets see.. underage = cp. developed by mail.. uhhh when was digital invented?
                                                                      You make an interesting point... I'm surprised nobody has claimed that digital cameras are a tool for child pornographers and should be banned!


                                                                      YNOT v5 IS NOW LIVE! | SEEN YNOT MAIL YET?

                                                                        Comment

                                                                        • jact
                                                                          Confirmed User
                                                                          • Sep 2002
                                                                          • 9134
                                                                          #19
                                                                          Originally posted by Connor
                                                                          Now now... don't be too hard on Gretchen. First, even though that story may have started back in 2004, that doesn't mean there wasn't come aspect of it that just happened... for example, the guilty plea or maybe the conviction. It's certainly a relevant story, and the story itself doesn't suggest that it is somehow tied to the new regs. In other words, I don't think it's trying to spread fear. You may have assumed that when you first saw the headline, or others may have assumed that, but it's not suggested in the story. What's interesting to me about this story is I hadn't heard that ANYONE was prosecuted under the old regs. That's odd. It shows that the DOJ has been thinking about 2257 for a while now, and it looks like they tested using it in this case with this pedophile.
                                                                          This kind of gave a hint towards the sensationalism of it.

                                                                          Free agent

                                                                            Comment

                                                                            • tony299
                                                                              lurker
                                                                              • Aug 2002
                                                                              • 57021
                                                                              #20
                                                                              Originally posted by stev0
                                                                              Doesn't matter if he published them or not, he produced them.

                                                                              § 2257. Record keeping requirements

                                                                              Release date: 2004-08-06

                                                                              (a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter which?
                                                                              (1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and
                                                                              (2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;
                                                                              Your not reading it only covers published work not taking pics for kicks. That would mean you got pics of you fucking a old girl friend you took for fun ,you now need 2257. He mailed the film to get developed not to sell it. When they say film in the 2257 code they mean movie not roll of film.

                                                                                Comment

                                                                                • KRL
                                                                                  Entrepreneur
                                                                                  • Oct 2002
                                                                                  • 31429
                                                                                  #21
                                                                                  The girls were as young as 13 and most only up to 17.

                                                                                  Come on. You'd have to be one dumb mother fucker to use 13 year old girls and think you'd get away with it.

                                                                                  They should lock him up for a long time.
                                                                                  If you would like to develop your domains, you can lease inexpensive foreign labor
                                                                                  from the leaders in the field at iWebmasters.com TO LOWER YOUR COSTS AND INCREASE YOUR PRODUCTION!
                                                                                  *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
                                                                                  Domains Adult News KRL's Newsletter Biz Tips Just Listed Domains

                                                                                    Comment

                                                                                    • jimmyf
                                                                                      OU812
                                                                                      • Feb 2001
                                                                                      • 12651
                                                                                      #22
                                                                                      Originally posted by KRL
                                                                                      The girls were as young as 13 and most only up to 17.

                                                                                      Come on. You'd have to be one dumb mother fucker to use 13 year old girls and think you'd get away with it.

                                                                                      They should lock him up for a long time.
                                                                                      yep for the rest of his life
                                                                                      Epic CashEpic Cash works for me
                                                                                      Solar Cash Paysite Plugin
                                                                                      Gallery of the day freesites,POTD,Gallery generator with free hosting

                                                                                        Comment

                                                                                        • jact
                                                                                          Confirmed User
                                                                                          • Sep 2002
                                                                                          • 9134
                                                                                          #23
                                                                                          Originally posted by KRL
                                                                                          The girls were as young as 13 and most only up to 17.

                                                                                          Come on. You'd have to be one dumb mother fucker to use 13 year old girls and think you'd get away with it.

                                                                                          They should lock him up for a long time.
                                                                                          I agree wholeheartedly with that statement, but I'm not sure why he was only charged under 2257, it seems strange. Could they not have gotten him for a lot more?
                                                                                          Free agent

                                                                                            Comment

                                                                                            • broke
                                                                                              Confirmed User
                                                                                              • Aug 2003
                                                                                              • 4501
                                                                                              #24
                                                                                              Originally posted by stev0
                                                                                              Doesn't matter if he published them or not, he produced them.
                                                                                              Oh lord -- STFU.

                                                                                              Under you definition -- I've "produced" explicit pictures of my wife. Should I draw up papers for her to sign when I get home?
                                                                                              Perfect Gonzo

                                                                                                Comment

                                                                                                • Pleasurepays
                                                                                                  BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES
                                                                                                  • Aug 2002
                                                                                                  • 11913
                                                                                                  #25
                                                                                                  Originally posted by jact
                                                                                                  I agree wholeheartedly with that statement, but I'm not sure why he was only charged under 2257, it seems strange. Could they not have gotten him for a lot more?

                                                                                                  unless i am missing something... it appears that someone wrote the article for Xbiz - at least i did not notice where it gives credit to anyone else. that should say quite a bit. obviously the guy was charged with a ton of shit - he used the mail, he produced CP etc etc etc etc. yet someone only wrote about 2257 out of context and ended up with a story that most agree makes little sense.

                                                                                                  Luke Forde no longer occupies the last rung on the ladder of shitty, sloppy and irresponsible journalists.

                                                                                                    Comment

                                                                                                    • jact
                                                                                                      Confirmed User
                                                                                                      • Sep 2002
                                                                                                      • 9134
                                                                                                      #26
                                                                                                      Originally posted by Pleasurepays
                                                                                                      unless i am missing something... it appears that someone wrote the article for Xbiz - at least i did not notice where it gives credit to anyone else. that should say quite a bit. obviously the guy was charged with a ton of shit - he used the mail, he produced CP etc etc etc etc. yet someone only wrote about 2257 out of context and ended up with a story that most agree makes little sense.

                                                                                                      Luke Forde no longer occupies the last rung on the ladder of shitty, sloppy and irresponsible journalists.
                                                                                                      If you'll look at the link I posted (To the DOJ), it doesn't give much information other then to imply 2257 wasn't the only thing they went after him on.
                                                                                                      Free agent

                                                                                                        Comment

                                                                                                        • taibo
                                                                                                          Confirmed User
                                                                                                          • May 2005
                                                                                                          • 3720
                                                                                                          #27
                                                                                                          it's a lot of bullkaka

                                                                                                            Comment

                                                                                                            • Webby
                                                                                                              Too lazy to set a custom title
                                                                                                              • Oct 2002
                                                                                                              • 14956
                                                                                                              #28
                                                                                                              Originally posted by taibo
                                                                                                              it's a lot of bullkaka
                                                                                                              Once again, all talk and little action.

                                                                                                              It's obvious XBix are just hunting for a topical headline.

                                                                                                              If the defendant was committing illegal acts - there are far more serious charges than USC 2257 - namley "the defendant failed to keep records".

                                                                                                              Did he have sex with under age girls? Did he abuse them? Did he assault them? Did he rape them? Or did he just "fail to keep records"? They seem to claim he was committing more serious illegal acts - why ain't they charged him?

                                                                                                              A guy that "apparently" takes explicit pics of 13 year old kids is a weirdo anyway, - but the law, at least according to that article if it is reported accurately, is a total ass.

                                                                                                              If that ain't a warped scenario all round - nothing is. Try another attention seeking heading XBiz.
                                                                                                              XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.

                                                                                                                Comment

                                                                                                                • xXxtreme2005
                                                                                                                  Confirmed User
                                                                                                                  • Feb 2005
                                                                                                                  • 717
                                                                                                                  #29
                                                                                                                  shits gonna start hitting the fan!@


                                                                                                                  GOT TRAFFIC?.......                                                                                                                  I BUY TRAFFIC                                                                                                                   ICQ 318-368-640

                                                                                                                    Comment

                                                                                                                    • VeriSexy
                                                                                                                      Join The Royal Family
                                                                                                                      • Apr 2002
                                                                                                                      • 25463
                                                                                                                      #30
                                                                                                                      Originally posted by chadglni
                                                                                                                      I remembered reading about it long before also. XBiz is just using the current situation to increase views.

                                                                                                                      November 29, 2004 is not really that long ago.....
                                                                                                                      Looking for a KICK ASS TEEN SPONSOR? Check out ROYAL CASH - THE KING OF TEEN!
                                                                                                                      Incredible webmaster tools FHGs, Morphing Blog and RSS Feeds, Embedded FLV & WMV Videos                                                                                                                      .
                                                                                                                      With TOP RATIO Sites like


                                                                                                                      ATMovs.com | iTeenVideo.com |                                                                                                                       TeenSexMovs.com | TeenSexMania.com


                                                                                                                        Comment

                                                                                                                        • Jace
                                                                                                                          FBOP Class Of 2013
                                                                                                                          • Jan 2004
                                                                                                                          • 35562
                                                                                                                          #31
                                                                                                                          Originally posted by Raven
                                                                                                                          He also used underaged models. I don't see any charges for that....
                                                                                                                          \
                                                                                                                          right from the DOJ site

                                                                                                                          MARTELL admitted that, between August, 2002 and January, 2004, he produced sexually explicit photographs of women and girls, including five identified underage females who ranged in age from 13 to 17 years old at the time the photographs were taken.

                                                                                                                            Comment

                                                                                                                            • pornguy
                                                                                                                              Too lazy to set a custom title
                                                                                                                              • Mar 2003
                                                                                                                              • 62910
                                                                                                                              #32
                                                                                                                              Tooo much stupid shit going on.
                                                                                                                              PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic

                                                                                                                              AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online!
                                                                                                                              TChicks.com | Angeles Cid | Mariana Cordoba | MAILERS WELCOME!

                                                                                                                                Comment

                                                                                                                                • GonZo
                                                                                                                                  Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                  • Jul 2002
                                                                                                                                  • 3180
                                                                                                                                  #33
                                                                                                                                  Originally posted by Raven
                                                                                                                                  The guy's problems started with a complaint because he used the us post office to mail sexually explicit materials.

                                                                                                                                  He also used underaged models. I don't see any charges for that....

                                                                                                                                  I don't get it, either.
                                                                                                                                  Remember Amatuer Action BBS....
                                                                                                                                  Assclown Bob Rice wants to BANG your credit card!
                                                                                                                                  "I am putting the bastards of this world on notice; greed and corruption will always be met with "a voice made of ink and rage."
                                                                                                                                  All the information above is my personal opinion.

                                                                                                                                    Comment

                                                                                                                                    • scardog
                                                                                                                                      Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                      • Aug 2004
                                                                                                                                      • 886
                                                                                                                                      #34
                                                                                                                                      A naked guy takes sexually explicit photos of 13 year olds. Why do you need 2257 for this? This has been illegal since I can remember.

                                                                                                                                        Comment

                                                                                                                                        • JJ Gold
                                                                                                                                          Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                          • Aug 2004
                                                                                                                                          • 1969
                                                                                                                                          #35
                                                                                                                                          Great article in the SD Reader this week that covers postal inspectors. I will try to find it online.

                                                                                                                                            Comment

                                                                                                                                            • MrVids
                                                                                                                                              i am a meat popsicle
                                                                                                                                              • Jan 2005
                                                                                                                                              • 1070
                                                                                                                                              #36
                                                                                                                                              who the hell reads xbiz? bunch of over inflated peons on that board.

                                                                                                                                                Comment

                                                                                                                                                • Pleasurepays
                                                                                                                                                  BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES
                                                                                                                                                  • Aug 2002
                                                                                                                                                  • 11913
                                                                                                                                                  #37
                                                                                                                                                  Originally posted by jact
                                                                                                                                                  If you'll look at the link I posted (To the DOJ), it doesn't give much information other then to imply 2257 wasn't the only thing they went after him on.
                                                                                                                                                  thats my point. that page is about 1 conviction for 1 charge. there must have been others. that would mean other links at the time of those convictions - OR they have not tried him/convicted him for other charges yet, which might take longer than this charge which he pled guilty to. i don't see any situation where a federal prosecutor is going to let go of CP charges over record keeping requirements.

                                                                                                                                                  even the shittiest journalist in the world would have to ask themselves.. "hm... what and where is the rest of the story" - but apparently this journalist and xbiz decided that it would be in their interest to take advatage of the current climate of fear and confusion to get a few clicks.

                                                                                                                                                  what happened most likely is that this turd and did a search for 2257 convictions/charges and rushed to write something scary and controversial.

                                                                                                                                                    Comment

                                                                                                                                                    • DWB
                                                                                                                                                      Registered User
                                                                                                                                                      • Jul 2003
                                                                                                                                                      • 31779
                                                                                                                                                      #38
                                                                                                                                                      Originally posted by stev0
                                                                                                                                                      He says they lied about their ages... ya right.

                                                                                                                                                      This dirty old man can't tell the difference between a 13 year old and an 18 year old? give me a break. Sounds to me like he got off easy.
                                                                                                                                                      You obviously have never worked with inner city black girls. I can show you a few 12 year olds that are built like 25 year old women.

                                                                                                                                                        Comment

                                                                                                                                                        • will76
                                                                                                                                                          Making $$$$ w/ ClickCash
                                                                                                                                                          • May 2003
                                                                                                                                                          • 18037
                                                                                                                                                          #39
                                                                                                                                                          Originally posted by Connor
                                                                                                                                                          Now now... don't be too hard on Gretchen. First, even though that story may have started back in 2004, that doesn't mean there wasn't come aspect of it that just happened... for example, the guilty plea or maybe the conviction. It's certainly a relevant story, and the story itself doesn't suggest that it is somehow tied to the new regs. In other words, I don't think it's trying to spread fear. You may have assumed that when you first saw the headline, or others may have assumed that, but it's not suggested in the story. What's interesting to me about this story is I hadn't heard that ANYONE was prosecuted under the old regs. That's odd. It shows that the DOJ has been thinking about 2257 for a while now, and it looks like they tested using it in this case with this pedophile.
                                                                                                                                                          lol you missed the huge 2257 BUST! banner on the page... what is that suppose to make people think, then unless i missed it the article doesn't once state the date the old guy was arrested... 100% hype and bullshit. Terrible thing they did.
                                                                                                                                                          ICQ: 86364801 Email: will [at] innovativeassets [dot] com

                                                                                                                                                          PROGRAM SHIT LIST - DO NOT PROMOTE (click link for gfy thread)
                                                                                                                                                          FNCash | Media Revenue

                                                                                                                                                            Comment

                                                                                                                                                            • darnit
                                                                                                                                                              Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                                              • Jul 2001
                                                                                                                                                              • 2439
                                                                                                                                                              #40
                                                                                                                                                              Um "plea bargin" anyone?

                                                                                                                                                              I would cop to 2257 irregularities if faced with multiple CP violations...

                                                                                                                                                                Comment

                                                                                                                                                                Previous template Next
                                                                                                                                                                Working...