|
What's more, Joyner could think of at least three occasions when no one was present at a company when the FBI came out to inspect, calling it "arguable" in one of those cases whether a company was trying to duck an inspection.
"We try to be as reasonable as possible. It's a case-by-case basis. If there's no indication that they're purposely ducking us, I don't mind coming back two or three times," Joyner said
-----------------------------
If the inspections are by surprise how could he say it's "arguable" that they were trying to duck the inspection? If haven't heard of anyone whom has said they got a call before hand.
On the cross-referencing problems, Joyner said he thinks "a lot of companies didn't fully understand the law. They probably didn't have any attorney representing them that was providing them counsel on 2257, so they thought 'I have to have photo identification and I have the titles they appeared in and that's good enough.' Most of the companies would have that much. If they shot movie X and they had ten performers, they would have, in the file labeled 'Movie X,' the ten performers' photo identification and they felt that's all they needed. And it's not. What other stage names have they used? What other maiden names have they perhaps used? What other films or books have they appeared in? That's what's required."
-----------------------------------
This part is so much BS IMO and I can't see how it will stand up in a court of law. Why the fuck is it my responsibility to keep track of what films this actor or that actor has been in? If I didn't shot it, if I don't have the content from this film or that. Why the Fuck am I required to have info on those films that a actor may or may not have been in? It's totally BS and overly burdensome.
__________________
In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator.
|