Actual 2257 definative case law - GoFuckYourself.com

gkremen · 08-08-2004, 02:33 PM

LEXSEE 139 F.3D 804

SUNDANCE ASSOCIATES, INC., a Colorado corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JANET RENO, Attorney General of the United States, in her official capacity only; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 96-1501

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

139 F.3d 804; 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 5720; 26 Media L. Rep. 1564; 1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 1415

March 23, 1998, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. (D.C. No. 95-N-2592). D.C. Judge EDWARD W. NOTTINGHAM.

DIShahahahahahahahahaha District court's decision AFFIRMED; remanded to the district court.

LexisNexis(R) Headnotes

COUNSEL: Arthur M. Schwartz (Michael W. Gross, Cindy D. Schwartz, and Gary M. Kramer, with him on the brief) of Arthur M. Schwartz, P.C., Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Anne M. Lobell (Jacob M. Lewis with her on the briefs), United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Defendants-Appellants.

JUDGES: Before BALDOCK and BRORBY, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, * District Judge.

* The Honorable Wesley E. Brown, Senior District Judge, District of Kansas, sitting by designation.

OPINIONBY: BRORBY

OPINION: [*805] BRORBY, Circuit Judge.
The Attorney General and the United States Department of Justice ("the government") appeal the United States District Court for the District of Colorado's award of summary judgment for Sundance Associates ("Sundance"), holding 28 C.F.R. § 75.1(c)(4)(iii) is an invalid implementation of 18 U.S.C. § 2257. This court assumes jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirms.
Concerned about the exploitation of children by pornographers, Congress enacted the [**2] Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-690, Title VII, § 7513(a), 102 Stat. 4187, 4485-4503 (significantly amended by the Child Protection Restoration and Penalties Enhancement Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-647, Title III, § § 301(b), 311, 104 Stat. 4808, 4816-17) to require producers of sexually explicit matter to maintain certain records concerning the performers n1 that might help law enforcement agencies monitor the industry. See 18 U.S.C. § 2257. Violations of these record keeping requirements are criminal offenses punishable by imprisonment for up to two [*806] years for first-time offenders and up to five years for repeat offenders. n2 See 18 U.S.C. § 2257(i).

pornstar2pac · 08-08-2004, 02:35 PM

yep, time to be very carefull

jact · 08-08-2004, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pornstar2pac
yep, time to be very carefull

Right, because a case filed 6 years ago proves imminent danger to us all. Fucking idiot.

freeadultcontent · 08-08-2004, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jact
Right, because a case filed 6 years ago proves imminent danger to us all. Fucking idiot.

Sundance helped us silly.

pornstar2pac · 08-08-2004, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jact
Right, because a case filed 6 years ago proves imminent danger to us all. Fucking idiot.

don't call Gary a fucking idiot

jact · 08-08-2004, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by freeadultcontent
Sundance helped us silly.

I realize that, sig whore over there was talking out his ass, you're replying to the wrong person.

tony286 · 08-08-2004, 02:41 PM

Who was sundance and what caused it to go to court.?

freeadultcontent · 08-08-2004, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jact
I realize that, sig whore over there was talking out his ass, you're replying to the wrong person.

Yeah I relized that.

freeadultcontent · 08-08-2004, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tony404
Who was sundance and what caused it to go to court.?

Do not make me cry please. I am really wondering about people more and more in this biz.

tony286 · 08-08-2004, 02:44 PM

I found info :

Sundance publishes five magazines: Odyssey, Odyssey Express, Connexion, Looking Glass, and UnReal People. These magazines print personal or commercial announcements by individuals seeking to contact others with similar sexual interests. The announcements are typically accompanied by pictures, most of which are sexually explicit. The pictures are submitted voluntarily to Sundance by the individuals advertising in the magazines. Sundance, therefore, does not participate in the production of the photographs it publishes in its various magazines.

Facing possible criminal liability as a "secondary producer" under the regulation, Sundance filed a complaint seeking declaratory relief in the district court. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment in the district court.

So that wasnt commercial porn it was swinger ads. Wonder if the swinger sites know this?

crockett · 08-08-2004, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jact
Right, because a case filed 6 years ago proves imminent danger to us all. Fucking idiot.

hey didn't you catch the latest terror warning based on 4 year old info.. Bush admin is leaving no stone unturned

08-08-2004, 02:33 PM	#1
gkremen Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: With Seth W. in Thailand Posts: 368	Actual 2257 definative case law LEXSEE 139 F.3D 804 SUNDANCE ASSOCIATES, INC., a Colorado corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JANET RENO, Attorney General of the United States, in her official capacity only; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendants-Appellants. No. 96-1501 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 139 F.3d 804; 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 5720; 26 Media L. Rep. 1564; 1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 1415 March 23, 1998, Filed PRIOR HISTORY: [*1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. (D.C. No. 95-N-2592). D.C. Judge EDWARD W. NOTTINGHAM. DIShahahahahahahahahaha District court's decision AFFIRMED; remanded to the district court. LexisNexis(R) Headnotes COUNSEL: Arthur M. Schwartz (Michael W. Gross, Cindy D. Schwartz, and Gary M. Kramer, with him on the brief) of Arthur M. Schwartz, P.C., Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Anne M. Lobell (Jacob M. Lewis with her on the briefs), United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Defendants-Appellants. JUDGES: Before BALDOCK and BRORBY, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, District Judge. * The Honorable Wesley E. Brown, Senior District Judge, District of Kansas, sitting by designation. OPINIONBY: BRORBY OPINION: [805] BRORBY, Circuit Judge. The Attorney General and the United States Department of Justice ("the government") appeal the United States District Court for the District of Colorado's award of summary judgment for Sundance Associates ("Sundance"), holding 28 C.F.R. § 75.1(c)(4)(iii) is an invalid implementation of 18 U.S.C. § 2257. This court assumes jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirms. Concerned about the exploitation of children by pornographers, Congress enacted the [2] Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-690, Title VII, § 7513(a), 102 Stat. 4187, 4485-4503 (significantly amended by the Child Protection Restoration and Penalties Enhancement Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-647, Title III, § § 301(b), 311, 104 Stat. 4808, 4816-17) to require producers of sexually explicit matter to maintain certain records concerning the performers n1 that might help law enforcement agencies monitor the industry. See 18 U.S.C. § 2257. Violations of these record keeping requirements are criminal offenses punishable by imprisonment for up to two [806] years for first-time offenders and up to five years for repeat offenders. n2 See 18 U.S.C. § 2257(i). __________________ ICQ 153288107 Contact us at: http://www.grantmedia.com/contact/adteam.html to purchase country specific traffic on a per click, no fraud basis! No need to get Iran and China traffic when you can get it from Google or other of our partners

08-08-2004, 02:35 PM	#2
pornstar2pac Omaha Hi/Lo Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 17,380	yep, time to be very carefull __________________ Trump haters gonna hate. that's all they can do

08-08-2004, 02:41 PM	#7
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	Who was sundance and what caused it to go to court.?

08-08-2004, 02:44 PM	#10
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	I found info : Sundance publishes five magazines: Odyssey, Odyssey Express, Connexion, Looking Glass, and UnReal People. These magazines print personal or commercial announcements by individuals seeking to contact others with similar sexual interests. The announcements are typically accompanied by pictures, most of which are sexually explicit. The pictures are submitted voluntarily to Sundance by the individuals advertising in the magazines. Sundance, therefore, does not participate in the production of the photographs it publishes in its various magazines. Facing possible criminal liability as a "secondary producer" under the regulation, Sundance filed a complaint seeking declaratory relief in the district court. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment in the district court. So that wasnt commercial porn it was swinger ads. Wonder if the swinger sites know this?