ok, the guy needed to get busted for being a sick ass pedo.. But I don't get is why he wasn't nailed on CP laws...
http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=9002
http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=9002
-
~TheDoc - ICQ7765825
It's all disambiguation
-
wow............ -
"Several of the girls involved gave affidavits to federal agents saying Martell was sometimes naked when he photographed them..."
"His books include "When Does the Fun Start?" and "Never Stop Dancing."
LOL!
I am guessing that he wasn't nailed on the CP charge because the evidence of the women allegedly lying was too thin... maybe
Comment
-
What a dumbass.Comment
-
o so this is the FIRST guy, its supposed to make everyone shit themselfs and panic even more... great here we gooo......
this guy was a pedo for real though?Comment
-
They needed to prove that the 2257 laws worked. Now they can use this case in court as proof, 2257 took a dirty CP guy away. Hooray.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
-
Valid bust though.. no reason to panic, please go back into your homes. ~TheDoc - ICQ7765825
It's all disambiguationComment
-
so, what does this mean?Trump haters gonna hate. that's all they can doComment
-
My guess too it looks from the article they have been watching him for awhileOriginally posted by SlyComment
-
Means people need to get shit into order, probably sooner than later.Originally posted by pornstar2pac ~TheDoc - ICQ7765825
It's all disambiguationComment
-
I confused those pics werent published anywhere if they are not published you dont need 2257. It was cp not 2257 weird, I guess for him it was better to convicted of 2257 than cp but he is 78 so five yrs can be a life sentence.Comment
-
I don't understand that either. According to the article he was only taking pictures, the developer reported him, and bam. Of course he could have been doing other things, but I fail to see how this ties into 2257.Originally posted by tony404Vacares - 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
-
it is sloppy and incomplete writing and just bad journalism. there is obviously more to the story and its obvious that more charges were filed. the article says he was taking sexually explicit photos of minors. not having proper ID would only be one of many charges.Originally posted by Sly
the article apparently was written to incite adult webmasters.
Last edited by Pleasurepays; 06-03-2005, 09:08 PM.Comment
-
If a photographer takes sexually explicit photos or Video he/she must keep 2257 records... Even if they are not published...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pleasurepays
the article apparently was written to incite adult webmasters.
Looks that way from here. It just doesn't make sense.
But on the other hand 2257 may have been the only thing that was provable in the court, and due to his age they may have thought the penalties sufficient.
It would be nice to get another take on the story from a different news source.Comment
-
THat is not true a guy takes a video of his old gf and him fucking , he still has the video he doesnt need 2257 for that. 2257 only covers published material. He isnt a pro he is a old pervertOriginally posted by studioComment
-
.....
But I don't get is why he wasn't nailed on CP laws...
His age probably had a lot to do with it.ICQ: 150-803-430
Email: marketing7(at)cox(dot)netComment
-
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nyn/NewsRe...0411291057.htm
Here's more information. Doesn't say much besides XBiz though.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
-
if he had a lawyer they wouldnt of gotten him for 2257 ,it looks like they made a deal. Its for published work 2257 is not for anybody who shoots dirty pics. You shoot your gf sucking for your personal use going to have to get 2257 now?Originally posted by SlyComment
-
Oh my
Comment
-
I don't think that's true. Doesn't it have to be for commercial purposes to fall under 2257?Originally posted by studioComment
-
that article is bullshit...MarkBComment
-
nothing was mentioned if he used those photos for.Comment
-
The law as it was in effect during this time:Originally posted by tony404
---
Sec. 75.2 Maintenance of records.
(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter that contains one or more visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct made after November 1, 1990 shall, for each performer portrayed in such visual depiction, create and maintain records containing the following:
---
Sounds to me like he did indeed have to keep the records, even if he never intended to publish the pics.Comment
-
It proves that it is being used as it was intended.. To stop child porn... Since law enforcement doesn't have the resources to SHUT DOWN the adult internet, they go after things EVERYONE (us included) will want them to go after, CP!
Applause for getting this guy off the street... fucking retard.Comment
-
I agree that it's great they got this guy off the street, but I disagree that the new 2257's intent is to stop CP. There's no way it's overly burdensomeness is required to stop CP to any magnitude greater than a more simplistic approach would accomplish. CP is just a convenient excuse and means for it's implementation.Originally posted by V_RocKsComment
)
Comment