Injunction

[Juicy D. Links]

injunction
An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that either prohibits or compels ("enjoins" or "restrains") a party from continuing a particular activity. The party that fails to adhere to the injunction faces civil or criminal contempt of court and may have to pay damages or sanctions for failing to follow the court's order.


Basis of injunctions
At the very core of injunctive relief is a recognition that money damages can't solve every problem. An injunction may be permanent or it may be temporary. A temporary injunction (or preliminary injunction) is a provisional remedy granted to restrain activity on a temporary basis until the court can make a final decision after trial. It is usually necessary to prove the high likelihood of success upon the merits of one's case and a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction before such an injunction may be granted; otherwise the party may have to wait for trial to obtain a permanent injunction.


Temporary restraints
In United States law, a temporary restraining order (or TRO) may be issued on a short-term basis until the court decides whether to issue a preliminary injunction. Thus, the relationship between a TRO and a preliminary injunction is the same as the relationship between a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction. In some cases a TRO may be granted ex parte, i.e. without informing the party to whom the TRO is directed in advance. Usually such ex parte orders are of a short term and are to prevent one's adversary from having notice of one's intentions. Such notice may allow the eventual object of the application for an injunction from doing something that would make the court's granting of an injunction fruitless, such as wasting or hiding assets as often occurs in dissolution of marriage or in the disclosing of a trade secret that had been the subject of a non-disclosure agreement.


Rationale behind injunctions
This injunctive power to restore the status quo ante; that is, to make whole again someone whose rights have been violated, is essential to the concept of fairness (equity). For example, money damages would be of scant benefit to a land owner who wished simply to prevent someone from repeatedly trespassing on his land. The ability of the landowner to use the courts to sue the trespasser for injunctive relief is often the only practical way to end the trespass (the government may or may not bring criminal trespass charges at the landowner's urging; the civil power is in the landowner's own hands). Once the order is secured, the trespasser violates it at his own peril, risking fines and imprisonment for contempt of court.

Courts may also issue mandatory injunctions, also called mandatory orders, i.e. equitable relief to compel a person to do a specific act or acts or follow a course of conduct; though in some jurisdictions courts will not issue mandatory orders that require judicial oversight to ensure compliance with the judge's order.

[J$tyle$]

Are you in trouble Juiceman?

[Juicy D. Links]

Originally Posted by J$tyle$

Are you in trouble Juiceman?

oh no , I was just pointing out that a injunction will most likely be filed on the 2257 shit

[Juicy D. Links]

[J$tyle$]

FSC Declares War on DOJ; Appeals to Webmasters for Donations

CHATSWORTH, Calif. ? In keeping with its original plan to file two simultaneous lawsuits against the Justice Department once Attorney General Alberto Gonzales signed the new amendments to 2257 into law, the Free Speech Coalition announced this morning that it is headed to Federal District Court to protect the interests of the adult industry.
The FSC also is actively seeking donations, and effective today, is appealing to adult webmasters to help shoulder the cost of maintaining a potentially lengthy legal challenge with the U.S. Government.

"Now it's a race against time," industry attorney Greg Piccionelli told XBiz. "We basically have thirty days to do this and we must raise the money to appropriately challenge whatever the final regulations are that have been proposed. It is critical that everybody in every aspect of the business, even the strip club businesses, join together and dip into their pockets."

In October of last year, the FSC and a group of industry lawyers first announced their intention to sue the government if the new regulations became law and challenge the issue all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Piccionelli, Jeffrey Douglas, Lawrence Walters, Paul Cambria, Louis Sirkin, Reed Lee and Robert Sarno have all agreed to donate a substantial amount of their professional time to fight the amendments.

Gonzales gave final approval Tuesday on changes to current 2257 law, known officially as 18 U.S.C. § 2257, which will create a more stringent record-keeping process for proving that minors were not used in producing content of any type.

The rule signed by Gonzales is a provision of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act and could become law within the next 30 days; however the specific language of the amended regulations remains unknown at this time.

FSC said in a statement that it intends to obtain a temporary restraining order and an injunction, challenging the law as unconstitutional.

According to the FSC's Executive Director Michelle Freridge, the revised 2257 law could "create an excessively burdensome paperwork system that may violate the privacy rights and personal safety of performers. On a practical level, many producers would find it difficult to comply with the highly technical requirements."

Freridge said that the purpose of filing two separate lawsuits, which will be filed through Paul Cambria and Louis Sirkin's respective law firms, is because there are so many issues with the amended regulations that addressing them all as part of one single lawsuit would be impossible.

The FSC will serve as the plaintiff in both lawsuits because it is a neutral party and does not distribute content and is also not subject to the requirements of 2257 record-keeping laws.

?Under the current unfriendly administration,? Freridge said ?the law would become a tool for selective enforcement by the Justice Department and a technical trap for legal adult businesses that have no connection whatsoever to child pornography.?

The FSC has so far raised $50,000 and has $50,000 in matched funds. Freridge estimates the monies needed for the legal challenge against the DOJ at around $200,000, although she said it was difficult to determine how much money would be needed until it is clear what the final regulations are.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Juicy D. Links

oh no , I was just pointing out that a injunction will most likely be filed on the 2257 shit

Well, I am glad you mentioned that, because nothing in your original post made me think that was what you were talking about.

Now, why do you think so? I have been thinking about it, and who would present it, and on what grounds? Whose rights will the pleading say have been violated? And what rights might those be?

Just wondering.

[Juicy D. Links]

Originally Posted by baddog

Well, I am glad you mentioned that, because nothing in your original post made me think that was what you were talking about.

Now, why do you think so? I have been thinking about it, and who would present it, and on what grounds? Whose rights will the pleading say have been violated? And what rights might those be?

Just wondering.

tbh with the lawyers today I am sure they can come up with something.....

I aint a lawyer but
"Whose rights will the pleading say have been violated?"

I am sure the lawyers can come up with some good stuff for that

[Juicy D. Links]

I bet you Gonzalez right now is wacking off to porn on theHun

[J$tyle$]

Originally Posted by baddog

Whose rights will the pleading say have been violated? And what rights might those be?

Just wondering.

According to the FSC's Executive Director Michelle Freridge, the revised 2257 law could "create an excessively burdensome paperwork system that may violate the privacy rights and personal safety of performers. On a practical level, many producers would find it difficult to comply with the highly technical requirements."

[Juicy D. Links]

Originally Posted by J$tyle$

According to the FSC's Executive Director Michelle Freridge, the revised 2257 law could "create an excessively burdensome paperwork system that may violate the privacy rights and personal safety of performers. On a practical level, many producers would find it difficult to comply with the highly technical requirements."

San Diego + Juicy D + J$tyle$ + Strippers =

[Juicy D. Links]

shit its 4 am here wtf am I up still

[Juicy D. Links]

I really could use a big boobed babe lapdancing me now

[baddog]

Originally Posted by J$tyle$

FSC Declares War on DOJ; Appeals to Webmasters for Donations

ContentShopper made this offer a few months ago, but I guess now is the time to do it again.

If you donate $100 or more to the Free Speech Coalition, ContentShopper will give you a free button for 3 months (a $300 value).

So, if you need an excuse to donate, now you have one.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by J$tyle$

According to the FSC's Executive Director Michelle Freridge, the revised 2257 law could "create an excessively burdensome paperwork system that may violate the privacy rights and personal safety of performers. On a practical level, many producers would find it difficult to comply with the highly technical requirements."

Yeah, I saw that, was thinking that might be their argument for a repeal, but for an injunction? I don't know that privacy would qualify. Will see I guess. Should be interesting.