Girls Gone Wild GUILTY on 2257 Violations

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • topshelfdesign
    Confirmed User
    • Aug 2006
    • 930

    #51
    cant do their image any good if they ave been doing that!

    Comment

    • Snake Doctor
      I'm Lenny2 Bitch
      • Mar 2001
      • 13449

      #52
      Originally posted by tony404
      to get a jury to send someone to jail for clerical errors if everyone is of age would be a very hard thing to do. They know that because if that wasnt the case they could of busted 1000 webmasters already just by going to their front pages because they arent in compliance.
      It could of been a fight on how wasteful 2257 truly is and how it is truly doesnt protect children, child pornographers dont keep records. It just a way of fucking with porn producers.it could of become a constitutional battle.
      You don't seem to understand the law in question then.

      You don't have to convince a jury to send someone to jail. It's a black and white issue, you're either compliant or you aren't, and if you aren't then the jury has no choice but to find you guilty, and the judge has no choice but to sentence you based on the guidelines set forth in the statute.

      It sucks, it's not fair to go to jail for a paperwork error, but congress passed the law and the president signed it and that's the way it is.

      There "will" be a constitutional battle over the statute itself, but GGW probably didn't see that as their fight and I can't say that I blame them. If I can pay a fine and be done, or I can "fight the good fight" and possibly spend 5 years in jail if I lose, I pay the fine every day and twice on Sunday.
      sig too big

      Comment

      • tony299
        lurker
        • Aug 2002
        • 57021

        #53
        Originally posted by Lenny2
        You don't seem to understand the law in question then.

        You don't have to convince a jury to send someone to jail. It's a black and white issue, you're either compliant or you aren't, and if you aren't then the jury has no choice but to find you guilty, and the judge has no choice but to sentence you based on the guidelines set forth in the statute.
        .
        You dont seem to understand the way the court system works, they just cant say you broke the law give the sentence. I dont know what kind of lawyer you talk too but if it went to court a competent lawyer could show the confusing aspect of the law and therefore his client is not guilty of the clerical error that he was trying to comply the best he could with such a confusing statue.
        Once again if it was as simple as you said they could of gotten rid of half the websites in the us already but its not that cut and dry.
        Last edited by tony286; 09-12-2006, 07:06 PM.

        Comment

        • Snake Doctor
          I'm Lenny2 Bitch
          • Mar 2001
          • 13449

          #54
          Originally posted by tony404
          You dont seem to understand the way the court system works, they just cant say you broke the law give the sentence. I dont know what kind of lawyer you talk too but if it went to court a competent lawyer could show the confusing aspect of the law and therefore his client is not guilty of the clerical error that he was trying to comply the best he could with such a confusing statue.
          I disagree, you can't argue that a statute was too confusing to a jury, a jury can't decide whether or not a law is "fair" they can only decide your guilt or innocence based on the law as it is written.
          Arguments over whether or not the law is clear or fair or whether or not is possible to comply with aren't for juries, they're for judges.
          Originally posted by tony404
          Once again if it was as simple as you said they could of gotten rid of half the websites in the us already but its not that cut and dry.
          I think that is their intention. Obviously the justice department and fbi's resources were overwhelmed after 9/11, which is what took this administration so long to start coming after us, but they are indeed coming after us.

          Our court victory in the 10th circuit has also been holding them up. I think they had every intention of going after secondary producer website owners the day the new regulations went into effect, but our court challenge stopped that.
          Now they're inspecting primary producers (not covered under the FSC's agreement with the DOJ) AND rewrote the law regarding secondary producers which is really going to screw us in the court case in Denver.

          It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when, they're coming for us and we all better have our docs in order.

          sig too big

          Comment

          • Babagirls
            Text Writer
            • Feb 2001
            • 18812

            #55
            good, i never liked that guy. and the videos fuckin suck.




            Need a Text Writer?
            Blogs|Reviews|Descriptions|Paysites|TGP's|Stories

            ICQ: 397892500

            Comment

            • Quick Buck
              Confirmed User
              • Feb 2006
              • 1026

              #56
              I'm hiring the lawfirm of Lenny2& Tony404 LLC to represent me!
              $50 FREE TRIALS! Every Day til 2008!!!
              Only at QuickBuck

              Comment

              • SlamDesigns
                Confirmed User
                • Jul 2005
                • 2339

                #57
                Reading all of this...I am really glad that I didn't take everyones advice a couple of days ago and restart my sites.

                Comment

                • fetishblog
                  Confirmed User
                  • Sep 2005
                  • 5995

                  #58
                  I remember a judge a few years back saying that 'Girls Gone Wild' was not pornography.. I guess things have changed.

                  Fling.com doesn't steal your traffic and sales unlike some other dating companies. I promote them, and so should you!

                  Comment

                  • 2257-Ben
                    Confirmed User
                    • Jun 2005
                    • 633

                    #59
                    Originally posted by marketsmart
                    oh ok... so no jail time if you can pay 2 million dollar fine... wtf...

                    then joe webmaster gets popped and goes to jail for 5 years....
                    You mean he goes to jail and gets popped for five years...
                    2257-Ben
                    www.2257ware.com
                    The BEST, most compliant 2257 record-keeping software available. Period.

                    Comment

                    • 2257-Ben
                      Confirmed User
                      • Jun 2005
                      • 633

                      #60
                      Originally posted by tony404
                      to get a jury to send someone to jail for clerical errors if everyone is of age would be a very hard thing to do. They know that because if that wasnt the case they could of busted 1000 webmasters already just by going to their front pages because they arent in compliance.
                      It could of been a fight on how wasteful 2257 truly is and how it is truly doesnt protect children, child pornographers dont keep records. It just a way of fucking with porn producers.it could of become a constitutional battle.
                      I think you are incorrect here Tony... If I were a juror and I were instructed that I had to convict someone based upon the facts (not my own opinion of the facts) and the facts stated and were borne out that the accused was guilty of the crime then no matter how 'stupid' I thought the law was, it's still the law and I'd have to vote based upon the facts... guilty. Jurors don't have the luxury of voting based upon their opinions.
                      2257-Ben
                      www.2257ware.com
                      The BEST, most compliant 2257 record-keeping software available. Period.

                      Comment

                      • Kimmykim
                        bitchslapping zebras!!!!!
                        • Jun 2001
                        • 16015

                        #61
                        Where does it say there was a jury or a judge? This looks like a simple plea agreement... geez.

                        Comment

                        • Snake Doctor
                          I'm Lenny2 Bitch
                          • Mar 2001
                          • 13449

                          #62
                          Originally posted by Kimmykim
                          Where does it say there was a jury or a judge? This looks like a simple plea agreement... geez.
                          It doesn't, we were arguing the hypothetical "what if they had decided to fight".

                          Tony seems to think that if you can prove that the girls were over 18 that a jury won't send you to jail for simply not having the records (or not having them in order) during an inspection.

                          I disagree.
                          sig too big

                          Comment

                          • tony299
                            lurker
                            • Aug 2002
                            • 57021

                            #63
                            Originally posted by Lenny2
                            It doesn't, we were arguing the hypothetical "what if they had decided to fight".

                            Tony seems to think that if you can prove that the girls were over 18 that a jury won't send you to jail for simply not having the records (or not having them in order) during an inspection.

                            I disagree.
                            I wasnt talking not having the records I was talking about a clerical error, like you cross referenced 4 times and it could of been done 5. Again its not black or white its very grey. Thats why the more legal power you can afford the better defense you got. If it was just black or white it wouldnt matter what lawyer you had.
                            If it was as you say they would of closed those sites already because there would no case, your not in exact compliance off to jail you go. That would be very quick but those things are never that simple.
                            Now I have records and a office to hold them.At the request of my attorney will be adding a second local criminal attorney on retainer. Everyone that doesnt live in the same state as their lawyer should do that. This is all a insurance policy for something I really dont worry about any more. If your in their sights 2257 will be the least of your worries. With GGW it wasnt a 2257 check , they already know they shot underage girls. So this is step one of that.

                            Comment

                            Working...