2257, FSC and what you should know - GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

X

nikad

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2004

Posts: 2579
Share

Post
#1

2257, FSC and what you should know

06-23-2005, 03:16 PM

People are misunderstanding these agreement and the letter that has been posted everywhere.

The letter was directed to the plaintiff - FSC, they cannot address a letter to " all the US webmasters " if this a response to a FSC petition. It is a formalism!

It would be inconstitutional to prosecute non FSC members.

This letter is a sign that the DOJ thinks is not going to win the case, although if they do, after August 8th anybody could be prosecuted. So it would be wise to get your stuff compliant before August 8th just in case.

This letter is for all of us, so thank the FSC, become a FSC member if you want, but this in no way means that if you become a member you have your ass covered!

Ppl saying that the FSC is trying to get money of them are ignorants, just as the ones that are saying that if you pay you are covered.

To make it brief, if FSC and other plaintiffs win = we all win, if FSC got an agreement = we all got an agreement, members and non members, if FSC looses = we all loose, members and non members.

nik

The Filthy Few
[email protected]
Tags: None
Drake

Hello world!

Join Date: Mar 2003

Posts: 12508
Share

Post
#2

06-23-2005, 03:17 PM

Great post
Comment
nikad

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2004

Posts: 2579
Share

Post
#3

06-23-2005, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by Mike33

Great post

thank you

The Filthy Few
[email protected]
Comment
Mr.Fiction

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2002

Posts: 9484
Share

Post
#4

06-23-2005, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by nikad

It would be inconstitutional to prosecute non FSC members.

Which part of the constitution says that non-FSC member can't be prosecuted if the government makes a deal with FSC members?

Post a link.

Don't be lazy, protect free speech: ACLU | Free Speech Coalition | EFF | IMPA
Comment
nikad

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2004

Posts: 2579
Share

Post
#5

06-23-2005, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by Mr.Fiction

Which part of the constitution says that non-FSC member can't be prosecuted if the government makes a deal with FSC members?

Post a link.

It is something very basic, if FSC members are exempt and the rest can be prosecuted, would basically mean that the law is not equal. Does it sound familiar?
nik

The Filthy Few
[email protected]
Comment
Snake Doctor

I'm Lenny2 Bitch

Join Date: Mar 2001

Posts: 13449
Share

Post
#6

06-23-2005, 03:32 PM

Where did you get your law degree?

The press release from the FSC specifically says that "The government reserves the right to inspect and prosecute anyone who is not a plaintiff or FSC member"

So you can theorize all you want, but I wouldn't take any chances.

sig too big
Comment
nikad

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2004

Posts: 2579
Share

Post
#7

06-23-2005, 03:38 PM

Article. III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

The Filthy Few
[email protected]
Comment
nikad

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2004

Posts: 2579
Share

Post
#8

06-23-2005, 03:40 PM

Lenny2:
I am a lawyer, and the letter has to be addressed to the paintiff and the agreement refers to the paintiffs interests, otherwise this would be a collective action, wich technically it is not.

The Filthy Few
[email protected]
Comment
Snake Doctor

I'm Lenny2 Bitch

Join Date: Mar 2001

Posts: 13449
Share

Post
#9

06-23-2005, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by nikad

Lenny2:
I am a lawyer, and the letter has to be addressed to the paintiff and the agreement refers to the paintiffs interests, otherwise this would be a collective action, wich technically it is not.

What's your bar number?

I just received this from my attorney.
It is particularly urgent that all clients establish membership in FSC and confirm all D/B/As at once.

More details will be provided as they become available.

Why would he send me that if it weren't neccessary for us to be members of the FSC?

sig too big
Comment
FilthyRob

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 6741
Share

Post
#10

06-23-2005, 03:47 PM

I think I will just join and not take my chances. 100 bucks or 300 bucks compared to possible prosecution, yada yada yada

AKA - Clubsexy
Comment
nikad

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2004

Posts: 2579
Share

Post
#11

06-23-2005, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by Lenny2

What's your bar number?

I just received this from my attorney.
It is particularly urgent that all clients establish membership in FSC and confirm all D/B/As at once.

More details will be provided as they become available.

Why would he send me that if it weren't neccessary for us to be members of the FSC?

maybe he thinks that a few more bucks would help if he misses anything ?

The Filthy Few
[email protected]
Comment
Snake Doctor

I'm Lenny2 Bitch

Join Date: Mar 2001

Posts: 13449
Share

Post
#12

06-23-2005, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by nikad

maybe he thinks that a few more bucks would help if he misses anything ?

What's your bar number?

Also, I don't follow what you're saying.
My attorney isn't one of the attornies arguing the FSC's case, so he gains nothing financially by me joining the FSC.

sig too big
Comment
eddieguy

Confirmed User

Join Date: Aug 2004

Posts: 116
Share

Post
#13

06-23-2005, 03:49 PM

so basically what people are saying is that a law applies to one set of people in this country and not all people? so is the going to be an amendment to the constitution protecting only the FSC folks? And who the fuck is the Free Speech Coalition anyways? Are they a bunch of lawyers filing briefs and shit like that? We'll protect your 1st amendment rights for a price!?!? well then thats not free speech now is it?
Fuck this, Fuck George W. Bush, Fuck the DOJ, and all Republicans reading this right now!

Adult Photography by eddieguy
Comment
nikad

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2004

Posts: 2579
Share

Post
#14

06-23-2005, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by FilthyRob

I think I will just join and not take my chances. 100 bucks or 300 bucks compared to possible prosecution, yada yada yada

I am not giving any advice to anybody, it is just that a lot of FSC haters are showing off their ignorance, and some other people think that they will have their asses covered only if they are FSC members. If after Aug 8th FSC looses, members and non members will be fucked up.

The Filthy Few
[email protected]
Comment
Fuckin Bill

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2003

Posts: 1020
Share

Post
#15

06-23-2005, 03:51 PM

Let's think about this logically for a second. The stated intent of the law is to help stop child pornography. So if it's true that ONLY FSC members are going to be helped by a deal, an injunction, or any kind of court action, that would mean the government is creating a "club", for lack of a better word, where people can join up and be exempt from certain child porn laws. Does that sound right to you?

Maybe you should ask your lawyer for a more detailed explanation.
Comment
TheSenator

Too lazy to set a custom title

Join Date: Feb 2003

Posts: 13330
Share

Post
#16

06-23-2005, 03:52 PM

I am not called the SENATOR for no reason. My lawyer already has about 2000 pages prep for any DOJ prosecution. An additional 5000 pages are sitting in my office. I am fully complaint. I rather cut my nose off to spite my face. I love Hebrew lawyers.

ISeekGirls.com since 2005
Comment
nikad

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2004

Posts: 2579
Share

Post
#17

06-23-2005, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by eddieguy

so basically what people are saying is that a law applies to one set of people in this country and not all people? so is the going to be an amendment to the constitution protecting only the FSC folks? And who the fuck is the Free Speech Coalition anyways? Are they a bunch of lawyers filing briefs and shit like that? We'll protect your 1st amendment rights for a price!?!? well then thats not free speech now is it?
Fuck this, Fuck George W. Bush, Fuck the DOJ, and all Republicans reading this right now!

I have nothing for or against FSC, but it would be nice and ethical if they clarify that the results are not extensive to " members only " since a lot of clueless people are joining and paying for it.

The Filthy Few
[email protected]
Comment
hy777

I have 6 credit cards, each buying 1 trial a day

Join Date: May 2003

Posts: 56
Share

Post
#18

06-23-2005, 03:52 PM

nikad, I am no lawyer so your response is appreciated.

I have a different reading than yours.

Your point seems to be valid for cases when courts grant injunctions, for example. Events when there has been a ruling.

But this is different. The facts are:

1) A law has come into effect as of midnight.
2) A suit has been filed and a TRO has been requested.
3) No court has ruled anything, yet.
4) A private deal has been struck between litigating parties by which the prosecution agrees not to enforce to litigants what they can rightfully enforce as of last night.

This leaves open the possibility of the gov. inspecting and enforcing the regulations to any non-member.

Remember, no injunction has been granted and the hearings will start in 40 days.

What am I missing?
Comment
Socks

Confirmed User

Join Date: May 2002

Posts: 8475
Share

Post
#19

06-23-2005, 03:56 PM

We just removed every image on our site, to be compliant today.

Is this not a necessary move at the moment? Is it just important to be compliant come August 8th now?

I'm also Canadian, so I'm sure lower priority
Comment
nikad

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2004

Posts: 2579
Share

Post
#20

06-23-2005, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by hy777

nikad, I am no lawyer so your response is appreciated.

I have a different reading than yours.

Your point seems to be valid for cases when courts grant injunctions, for example. Events when there has been a ruling.

But this is different. The facts are:

1) A law has come into effect as of midnight.
2) A suit has been filed and a TRO has been requested.
3) No court has ruled anything, yet.
4) A private deal has been struck between litigating parties by which the prosecution agrees not to enforce to litigants what they can rightfully enforce as of last night.

This leaves open the possibility of the gov. inspecting and enforcing the regulations to any non-member.

Remember, no injunction has been granted and the hearings will start in 40 days.

What am I missing?

Well, I guess the 2257 regulations obviously have a legal frame to be valid, if the regulation can be enforced only to non members, then members can promote illegal content?
The government has to stick to the law too, remember that the Constitution is the first law in the country. This is an agreement between the DOJ and has to be backed by the law, it is not just a spare private agreement.

The Filthy Few
[email protected]
Comment
nikad

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2004

Posts: 2579
Share

Post
#21

06-23-2005, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by Socks

We just removed every image on our site, to be compliant today.

Is this not a necessary move at the moment? Is it just important to be compliant come August 8th now?

I'm also Canadian, so I'm sure lower priority

Personally, I would comply, FSC member or not.

The Filthy Few
[email protected]
Comment
TheSenator

Too lazy to set a custom title

Join Date: Feb 2003

Posts: 13330
Share

Post
#22

06-23-2005, 04:01 PM

bottom line is no one is protected....get complaint with the new regs.

Donate to the FSC, hire a Jewish lawyer who is familiar with hardcore paper work and the US Constitution.

ISeekGirls.com since 2005
Comment
ULVideo

Confirmed User

Join Date: Oct 2004

Posts: 405
Share

Post
#23

06-23-2005, 04:01 PM

I would find it hard to belive that DOJ would go after non-members between now and 8/8. If they did, the ACLU would be on their ass like white on rice for selective prosecution.
Comment
Fletch XXX

GFY HALL OF FAME DAMMIT!!!

Join Date: Jan 2002

Posts: 60840
Share

Post
#24

06-23-2005, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by TheSenator

hire a Jewish lawyer who is familiar with hardcore paper work and the US Constitution.

Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site?

Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com - recent work - About me
Comment
pornguy

Too lazy to set a custom title

Join Date: Mar 2003

Posts: 62910
Share

Post
#25

06-23-2005, 04:04 PM

Let me say that the Judge gave the DOJ in writing the ok to go after ANYONE that is not a member of the FSC. And that is fucked up.

PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic

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

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2004

Posts: 2579
Share

Post
#26

06-23-2005, 04:05 PM

and remember this also:

Ex post facto Law:

A law that makes illegal an act that was legal when committed, increases the penalties for an infraction after it has been committed, or changes the rules of evidence to make conviction easier. The Constitution prohibits the making of ex post facto law.

The Filthy Few
[email protected]
Comment
Socks

Confirmed User

Join Date: May 2002

Posts: 8475
Share

Post
#27

06-23-2005, 04:07 PM

I'm glad I'm a pothead and not a lawyer!
Comment
lagwagon

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jul 2001

Posts: 8464
Share

Post
#28

06-23-2005, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by Fletch XXX

Too funny

FTVGirls - FTVMilfs - DanielleFTV
Comment
nikad

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2004

Posts: 2579
Share

Post
#29

06-23-2005, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by Socks

I'm glad I'm a pothead and not a lawyer!

LMAO ROTFLOL

The Filthy Few
[email protected]
Comment
thewebgarage

Confirmed User

Join Date: Sep 2002

Posts: 1002
Share

Post
#30

06-23-2005, 04:09 PM

in general this industry really needs to have more organized lobbying. My membership fee is the best money I have spent. Period.

Big Boob trades icq 265907826
Comment
Fletch XXX

GFY HALL OF FAME DAMMIT!!!

Join Date: Jan 2002

Posts: 60840
Share

Post
#31

06-23-2005, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by thewebgarage

in general this industry really needs to have more organized lobbying. My membership fee is the best money I have spent. Period.

yeah but what do you expect from an industry infected with people who cant find $100, but want to "blog" hardcore images across 30 domains?

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=484420

fucking pathetic is what it is.

they cant afford to do business, but want to give away as much graphic hardcore as they can.

fuck em.

Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site?

Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com - recent work - About me
Comment
nikad

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2004

Posts: 2579
Share

Post
#32

06-23-2005, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by thewebgarage

in general this industry really needs to have more organized lobbying. My membership fee is the best money I have spent. Period.

I definetly agree, but personally I would love to see something that is ours, not just stick to what it is out there. It might be an utopy though.

The Filthy Few
[email protected]
Comment
VeriSexy

Join The Royal Family

Join Date: Apr 2002

Posts: 25463
Share

Post
#33

06-23-2005, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by pornguy

Let me say that the Judge gave the DOJ in writing the ok to go after ANYONE that is not a member of the FSC. And that is fucked up.

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

TeenStarsOnly.com - Earn $$ with our New Site & Bonus Payouts!!

ATMovs.com | iTeenVideo.com | TeenSexMovs.com | TeenSexMania.com
Comment
CrazyNakedChick

Confirmed User

Join Date: Mar 2002

Posts: 1902
Share

Post
#34

06-23-2005, 04:13 PM

Hahaha, Fletch. You are on the fooken ball today, my fren.

Addicted to Lingerie? Got Broadband? Click Here!
Comment
Fletch XXX

GFY HALL OF FAME DAMMIT!!!

Join Date: Jan 2002

Posts: 60840
Share

Post
#35

06-23-2005, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by CrazyNakedChick

Hahaha, Fletch. You are on the fooken ball today, my fren.

seriously.

this guy wants someone to pay his FSC membership dues for him, so he can sit around and "blog" hardcore images, and not only that, taunt the D0J in his blog about doing so.

assholes like that as the very reason the shit is going on.

yeah, thats what the industry needs. fuck these assholes.

Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site?

Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com - recent work - About me
Comment
dopeman

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2005

Posts: 294
Share

Post
#36

06-23-2005, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by pornguy

Let me say that the Judge gave the DOJ in writing the ok to go after ANYONE that is not a member of the FSC. And that is fucked up.

the judge just signed the deal that the DOJ and FSC came up with themselves.
Comment
Centurion

Confirmed User

Join Date: Dec 2002

Posts: 6033
Share

Post
#37

06-23-2005, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by hy777

nikad, I am no lawyer so your response is appreciated.

I have a different reading than yours.

Your point seems to be valid for cases when courts grant injunctions, for example. Events when there has been a ruling.

But this is different. The facts are:

1) A law has come into effect as of midnight.
2) A suit has been filed and a TRO has been requested.
3) No court has ruled anything, yet.
4) A private deal has been struck between litigating parties by which the prosecution agrees not to enforce to litigants what they can rightfully enforce as of last night.

This leaves open the possibility of the gov. inspecting and enforcing the regulations to any non-member.

Remember, no injunction has been granted and the hearings will start in 40 days.

What am I missing?

You are dead on right.
With an injunction, there would have been MORE practical relief for non-members (meaning the DOJ ain't going to go after someone, member or not, if they think an injunction is going to result in the striking down of the regs).

However, with this private agreement, the FSC bascially is just covering it's own ass and telling everyone "Join us if you want protection!"

I think the question Nikad is raising is that there MIGHT well be practical relief even in this private agreement as the same "fear" by the DOJ remains..fear that the regs may get struck down and ANY convictions would be then overturned meaning a lot of LOST money from the DOJ.
Comment
andrej_NDC

Registered User

Join Date: May 2004

Posts: 7760
Share

Post
#38

06-23-2005, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by Fuckin Bill

Let's think about this logically for a second. The stated intent of the law is to help stop child pornography. So if it's true that ONLY FSC members are going to be helped by a deal, an injunction, or any kind of court action, that would mean the government is creating a "club", for lack of a better word, where people can join up and be exempt from certain child porn laws.

True and you need only a common sence to realize this...yet you still find people who "think" otherwise.
Comment
GatorB

The Demon & 12clicks

Join Date: Oct 2001

Posts: 18208
Share

Post
#39

06-23-2005, 04:36 PM

Under the deal with the Justice Department, authorities won?t conduct any inspections or pursue any claims to FSC members through Sept. 7, but the government reserves the right to inspect and prosecute anyone who is not a plaintiff or FSC member.

Can't get much cleaer than that. The FSC sold us non-mebers out and what they are doing is really a mafia type shakedown. "Pay us money for 'protection' or else."
Comment
nikad

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2004

Posts: 2579
Share

Post
#40

06-23-2005, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by Centurion

You are dead on right.
With an injunction, there would have been MORE practical relief for non-members (meaning the DOJ ain't going to go after someone, member or not, if they think an injunction is going to result in the striking down of the regs).

However, with this private agreement, the FSC bascially is just covering it's own ass and telling everyone "Join us if you want protection!"

I think the question Nikad is raising is that there MIGHT well be practical relief even in this private agreement as the same "fear" by the DOJ remains..fear that the regs may get struck down and ANY convictions would be then overturned meaning a lot of LOST money from the DOJ.

exactly, the way it is now is in a very thin line, but still has to be within a legal frame

The Filthy Few
[email protected]
Comment
Sosa

In Tushy Land

Join Date: Oct 2002

Posts: 40149
Share

Post
#41

06-23-2005, 04:48 PM

I want to know what happens to that list the 3rd party will have after the suit. Win or Lose I want to know where it goes.
Comment
nikad

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2004

Posts: 2579
Share

Post
#42

06-24-2005, 04:57 AM

Originally posted by Sosa

I want to know what happens to that list the 3rd party will have after the suit. Win or Lose I want to know where it goes.

God only knows...........

The Filthy Few
[email protected]
Comment
will76

Making $$$$ w/ ClickCash

Join Date: May 2003

Posts: 18037
Share

Post
#43

06-24-2005, 05:21 AM

Originally posted by nikad

People are misunderstanding these agreement and the letter that has been posted everywhere.

The letter was directed to the plaintiff - FSC, they cannot address a letter to " all the US webmasters " if this a response to a FSC petition. It is a formalism!

It would be inconstitutional to prosecute non FSC members.

This letter is a sign that the DOJ thinks is not going to win the case, although if they do, after August 8th anybody could be prosecuted. So it would be wise to get your stuff compliant before August 8th just in case.

This letter is for all of us, so thank the FSC, become a FSC member if you want, but this in no way means that if you become a member you have your ass covered!

Ppl saying that the FSC is trying to get money of them are ignorants, just as the ones that are saying that if you pay you are covered.

To make it brief, if FSC and other plaintiffs win = we all win, if FSC got an agreement = we all got an agreement, members and non members, if FSC looses = we all loose, members and non members.

nik

Got to love when someone makes a post "trying to clear up the matter" and they are 100% wrong. Only on GFY.

ICQ: 86364801 Email: will [at] innovativeassets [dot] com

PROGRAM SHIT LIST - DO NOT PROMOTE (click link for gfy thread)
FNCash | Media Revenue
Comment
will76

Making $$$$ w/ ClickCash

Join Date: May 2003

Posts: 18037
Share

Post
#44

06-24-2005, 05:24 AM

Originally posted by Centurion

You are dead on right.
With an injunction, there would have been MORE practical relief for non-members (meaning the DOJ ain't going to go after someone, member or not, if they think an injunction is going to result in the striking down of the regs).

However, with this private agreement, the FSC bascially is just covering it's own ass and telling everyone "Join us if you want protection!"

I think the question Nikad is raising is that there MIGHT well be practical relief even in this private agreement as the same "fear" by the DOJ remains..fear that the regs may get struck down and ANY convictions would be then overturned meaning a lot of LOST money from the DOJ.

man how many times does someone have to tell you this:

You don't have to join the FSC to be part of an agreement. It is for the FSC and all the PLAINTIFFS, so if you dont want to be apart of the FSC then go hire your own fucking attorney. No one is making you join the FSC to be covered. You are very hard headed. You keep ignoring me when i tell you this which is proof you just want to bitch. period.

ICQ: 86364801 Email: will [at] innovativeassets [dot] com

PROGRAM SHIT LIST - DO NOT PROMOTE (click link for gfy thread)
FNCash | Media Revenue
Comment
will76

Making $$$$ w/ ClickCash

Join Date: May 2003

Posts: 18037
Share

Post
#45

06-24-2005, 05:27 AM

Originally posted by GatorB

Under the deal with the Justice Department, authorities won?t conduct any inspections or pursue any claims to FSC members through Sept. 7, but the government reserves the right to inspect and prosecute anyone who is not a plaintiff or FSC member.

Can't get much cleaer than that. The FSC sold us non-mebers out and what they are doing is really a mafia type shakedown. "Pay us money for 'protection' or else."

another clueless person who wants to bitch, and has done so over and over. You even post this " the government reserves the right to inspect and prosecute anyone who is not a plaintiff or FSC member "

GO BE A FUCKING PLAINTIFF. NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO JOIN THE FSC. IT"S NOT A SHAKE DOWN. YOU HAVE OTHER OPTION.

DAMN THERE IS SOME STUPID FUCKERS ON HERE>

ICQ: 86364801 Email: will [at] innovativeassets [dot] com

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

Confirmed User

Join Date: Apr 2003

Posts: 5526
Share

Post
#46

06-24-2005, 05:33 AM

Originally posted by will76

another clueless person who wants to bitch, and has done so over and over. You even post this " the government reserves the right to inspect and prosecute anyone who is not a plaintiff or FSC member "

GO BE A FUCKING PLAINTIFF. NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO JOIN THE FSC. IT"S NOT A SHAKE DOWN. YOU HAVE OTHER OPTION.

DAMN THERE IS SOME STUPID FUCKERS ON HERE>

Seriously.

There's less and less said on this board that has any actual worth. I hope people listening to what's spewed here gets a real second opinion other than from this board (or any board).

Your post count means nothing.
Comment
nikad

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2004

Posts: 2579
Share

Post
#47

06-24-2005, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by will76

Got to love when someone makes a post "trying to clear up the matter" and they are 100% wrong. Only on GFY.

I am not wrong, prove it

The Filthy Few
[email protected]
Comment
Oedipus

Confirmed User

Join Date: May 2003

Posts: 190
Share

Post
#48

06-24-2005, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by thewebgarage

in general this industry really needs to have more organized lobbying. My membership fee is the best money I have spent. Period.

1. Did the FSC know that a revision to the 2257 regulations was in the works prior to June 2004 when the proposed regulations were announced?

2. Did the FSC ever attempt to meet with the DOJ to discuss the revision to the regulations prior to the open comment period? (To attempt to negotiate better language for the regulations).

3. Did the FSC make comments and provide evidence to support their comments during the open comment period for the revised regulations?

To me, these seem like logical steps that an organization would take to protect the interests of its members. Lobbyists act before the effective date of a law or regulation, not after. Just curious what, if anything, was done prior to asking the Court for an injunction.
Comment
FilthyRob

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 6741
Share

Post
#49

06-24-2005, 07:27 AM

I just joined today. Well faxed in today anyway.

AKA - Clubsexy
Comment
Giorgio_Xo

Confirmed User

Join Date: Mar 2003

Posts: 4263
Share

Post
#50

06-24-2005, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by nikad

It is something very basic, if FSC members are exempt and the rest can be prosecuted, would basically mean that the law is not equal. Does it sound familiar?
nik

Um... your heart is in the right place but sadly you are wrong.

Make Levees, Not War
Comment

Previous 1 2 template Next

Working...