So, this "2257" conviction that XBiz reported on.. - GoFuckYourself.com

jact · 06-04-2005, 11:21 AM

The article on the DOJ's site is from 2004, why the panic all of a sudden? The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Oh no!

DOJ link: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nyn/NewsRe...0411291057.htm

"November 29, 2004 United States Attorney Glenn T. Suddaby announced that RALPH G. MARTELL, age 77, of 3300 Westland Drive, Bouckville, entered a plea of guilty today to a felony charge of failing to maintain required records relating to persons portrayed in sexually explicit visual depictions produced by MARTELL."

XBiz article:
http://www.xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=9002

I don't get it, but, whatever....

chadglni · 06-04-2005, 11:23 AM

I remembered reading about it long before also. XBiz is just using the current situation to increase views.

Raven · 06-04-2005, 11:23 AM

The guy's problems started with a complaint because he used the us post office to mail sexually explicit materials.

He also used underaged models. I don't see any charges for that....

I don't get it, either.

jact · 06-04-2005, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raven

The guy's problems started with a complaint because he used the us post office to mail sexually explicit materials.

He also used underaged models. I don't see any charges for that....

I don't get it, either.

Oh I get why it started, and technically under the new regulations I can see how even if it went unpublished if they used the mail, then it qualifies under 2257, but it's an old case. He pleaded guilty before any new regs passed, and the way I read the article it felt like this was a blazing assult on the industry with the new regs, when in fact it wasn't? I dunno, poor reporting? Insighting fear? Who knows.

tradermcduck · 06-04-2005, 11:28 AM

That article is bullshit...

StuartD · 06-04-2005, 11:46 AM

By Gretchen Gallen

fired!!

FilthyRob · 06-04-2005, 11:48 AM

its no fun if the sky isn't falling

tony286 · 06-04-2005, 01:42 PM

He shouldnt of been guilty of 2257 ,he didnt publish they were for his own private use. He only used the mail to get them developed. Its fucked they wanted a precident for 2257 and the scared old man plead guilty to it. I guess it was better than cp for him.

xenigo · 06-04-2005, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

He shouldnt of been guilty of 2257 ,he didnt publish they were for his own private use. He only used the mail to get them developed. Its fucked they wanted a precident for 2257 and the scared old man plead guilty to it. I guess it was better than cp for him.

I believe mailing them could be considered "publishing" by the official wording of 2257.

stev0 · 06-04-2005, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Martell's photographs, featuring five girls between the ages of 13-17, were first reported by a film processing company, which filed a report with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service in January 2004.

He says they lied about their ages... ya right.

This dirty old man can't tell the difference between a 13 year old and an 18 year old? give me a break. Sounds to me like he got off easy.

Brujah · 06-04-2005, 01:48 PM

the downward spiral

media doing what it takes to get views, to compete with other media. fear, shock, dirty laundry..

Terry · 06-04-2005, 01:49 PM

Underage models for his personal use... developed photos by mail ... is this for real or am I missing something here? Lets see.. underage = cp. developed by mail.. uhhh when was digital invented?

stev0 · 06-04-2005, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

He shouldnt of been guilty of 2257 ,he didnt publish they were for his own private use. He only used the mail to get them developed. Its fucked they wanted a precident for 2257 and the scared old man plead guilty to it. I guess it was better than cp for him.

Doesn't matter if he published them or not, he produced them.

§ 2257. Record keeping requirements

Release date: 2004-08-06

(a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter which?
(1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and
(2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;

adonthenet · 06-04-2005, 01:52 PM

I hate the law

Sly · 06-04-2005, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stev0

This dirty old man can't tell the difference between a 13 year old and an 18 year old? give me a break. Sounds to me like he got off easy.

Are you crazy? I have a hard time telling the difference and I'm 21, not 78. I'm not giving an excuse for the guy, but telling apart a 13 year old from an 18 year old isn't as easy as people would like.

Connor · 06-04-2005, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NichePay - StuartD

By Gretchen Gallen

fired!!

Now now... don't be too hard on Gretchen. First, even though that story may have started back in 2004, that doesn't mean there wasn't come aspect of it that just happened... for example, the guilty plea or maybe the conviction. It's certainly a relevant story, and the story itself doesn't suggest that it is somehow tied to the new regs. In other words, I don't think it's trying to spread fear. You may have assumed that when you first saw the headline, or others may have assumed that, but it's not suggested in the story. What's interesting to me about this story is I hadn't heard that ANYONE was prosecuted under the old regs. That's odd. It shows that the DOJ has been thinking about 2257 for a while now, and it looks like they tested using it in this case with this pedophile.

Connor · 06-04-2005, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

Are you crazy? I have a hard time telling the difference and I'm 21, not 78. I'm not giving an excuse for the guy, but telling apart a 13 year old from an 18 year old isn't as easy as people would like.

That's what ID is for, thankfully.

Connor · 06-04-2005, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

Underage models for his personal use... developed photos by mail ... is this for real or am I missing something here? Lets see.. underage = cp. developed by mail.. uhhh when was digital invented?

You make an interesting point... I'm surprised nobody has claimed that digital cameras are a tool for child pornographers and should be banned!

jact · 06-04-2005, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

Now now... don't be too hard on Gretchen. First, even though that story may have started back in 2004, that doesn't mean there wasn't come aspect of it that just happened... for example, the guilty plea or maybe the conviction. It's certainly a relevant story, and the story itself doesn't suggest that it is somehow tied to the new regs. In other words, I don't think it's trying to spread fear. You may have assumed that when you first saw the headline, or others may have assumed that, but it's not suggested in the story. What's interesting to me about this story is I hadn't heard that ANYONE was prosecuted under the old regs. That's odd. It shows that the DOJ has been thinking about 2257 for a while now, and it looks like they tested using it in this case with this pedophile.

This kind of gave a hint towards the sensationalism of it.

tony286 · 06-04-2005, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stev0

Doesn't matter if he published them or not, he produced them.

§ 2257. Record keeping requirements

Release date: 2004-08-06

(a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter which?
(1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and
(2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;

Your not reading it only covers published work not taking pics for kicks. That would mean you got pics of you fucking a old girl friend you took for fun ,you now need 2257. He mailed the film to get developed not to sell it. When they say film in the 2257 code they mean movie not roll of film.

KRL · 06-04-2005, 02:18 PM

The girls were as young as 13 and most only up to 17.

Come on. You'd have to be one dumb mother fucker to use 13 year old girls and think you'd get away with it.

They should lock him up for a long time.

jimmyf · 06-04-2005, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KRL

The girls were as young as 13 and most only up to 17.

Come on. You'd have to be one dumb mother fucker to use 13 year old girls and think you'd get away with it.

They should lock him up for a long time.

yep for the rest of his life

jact · 06-04-2005, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KRL

The girls were as young as 13 and most only up to 17.

Come on. You'd have to be one dumb mother fucker to use 13 year old girls and think you'd get away with it.

They should lock him up for a long time.

I agree wholeheartedly with that statement, but I'm not sure why he was only charged under 2257, it seems strange. Could they not have gotten him for a lot more?

broke · 06-04-2005, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stev0

Doesn't matter if he published them or not, he produced them.

Oh lord -- STFU.

Under you definition -- I've "produced" explicit pictures of my wife. Should I draw up papers for her to sign when I get home?

Pleasurepays · 06-04-2005, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jact

I agree wholeheartedly with that statement, but I'm not sure why he was only charged under 2257, it seems strange. Could they not have gotten him for a lot more?

unless i am missing something... it appears that someone wrote the article for Xbiz - at least i did not notice where it gives credit to anyone else. that should say quite a bit. obviously the guy was charged with a ton of shit - he used the mail, he produced CP etc etc etc etc. yet someone only wrote about 2257 out of context and ended up with a story that most agree makes little sense.

Luke Forde no longer occupies the last rung on the ladder of shitty, sloppy and irresponsible journalists.

jact · 06-04-2005, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

unless i am missing something... it appears that someone wrote the article for Xbiz - at least i did not notice where it gives credit to anyone else. that should say quite a bit. obviously the guy was charged with a ton of shit - he used the mail, he produced CP etc etc etc etc. yet someone only wrote about 2257 out of context and ended up with a story that most agree makes little sense.

Luke Forde no longer occupies the last rung on the ladder of shitty, sloppy and irresponsible journalists.

If you'll look at the link I posted (To the DOJ), it doesn't give much information other then to imply 2257 wasn't the only thing they went after him on.

taibo · 06-04-2005, 03:13 PM

it's a lot of bullkaka

Webby · 06-04-2005, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taibo

it's a lot of bullkaka

Once again, all talk and little action.

It's obvious XBix are just hunting for a topical headline.

If the defendant was committing illegal acts - there are far more serious charges than USC 2257 - namley "the defendant failed to keep records".

Did he have sex with under age girls? Did he abuse them? Did he assault them? Did he rape them? Or did he just "fail to keep records"? They seem to claim he was committing more serious illegal acts - why ain't they charged him?

A guy that "apparently" takes explicit pics of 13 year old kids is a weirdo anyway, - but the law, at least according to that article if it is reported accurately, is a total ass.

If that ain't a warped scenario all round - nothing is. Try another attention seeking heading XBiz.

xXxtreme2005 · 06-04-2005, 04:25 PM

shits gonna start hitting the fan!@

VeriSexy · 06-04-2005, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadglni

I remembered reading about it long before also. XBiz is just using the current situation to increase views.

November 29, 2004 is not really that long ago.....

Jace · 06-04-2005, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raven

He also used underaged models. I don't see any charges for that....
\

right from the DOJ site

Quote:

MARTELL admitted that, between August, 2002 and January, 2004, he produced sexually explicit photographs of women and girls, including five identified underage females who ranged in age from 13 to 17 years old at the time the photographs were taken.

pornguy · 06-04-2005, 04:35 PM

Tooo much stupid shit going on.

GonZo · 06-04-2005, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raven

The guy's problems started with a complaint because he used the us post office to mail sexually explicit materials.

He also used underaged models. I don't see any charges for that....

I don't get it, either.

Remember Amatuer Action BBS....

scardog · 06-04-2005, 05:50 PM

A naked guy takes sexually explicit photos of 13 year olds. Why do you need 2257 for this? This has been illegal since I can remember.

JJ Gold · 06-04-2005, 05:54 PM

Great article in the SD Reader this week that covers postal inspectors. I will try to find it online.

MrVids · 06-04-2005, 06:52 PM

who the hell reads xbiz? bunch of over inflated peons on that board.

Pleasurepays · 06-04-2005, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jact

If you'll look at the link I posted (To the DOJ), it doesn't give much information other then to imply 2257 wasn't the only thing they went after him on.

thats my point. that page is about 1 conviction for 1 charge. there must have been others. that would mean other links at the time of those convictions - OR they have not tried him/convicted him for other charges yet, which might take longer than this charge which he pled guilty to. i don't see any situation where a federal prosecutor is going to let go of CP charges over record keeping requirements.

even the shittiest journalist in the world would have to ask themselves.. "hm... what and where is the rest of the story" - but apparently this journalist and xbiz decided that it would be in their interest to take advatage of the current climate of fear and confusion to get a few clicks.

what happened most likely is that this turd and did a search for 2257 convictions/charges and rushed to write something scary and controversial.

DWB · 06-04-2005, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stev0

He says they lied about their ages... ya right.

This dirty old man can't tell the difference between a 13 year old and an 18 year old? give me a break. Sounds to me like he got off easy.

You obviously have never worked with inner city black girls. I can show you a few 12 year olds that are built like 25 year old women.

will76 · 06-04-2005, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

Now now... don't be too hard on Gretchen. First, even though that story may have started back in 2004, that doesn't mean there wasn't come aspect of it that just happened... for example, the guilty plea or maybe the conviction. It's certainly a relevant story, and the story itself doesn't suggest that it is somehow tied to the new regs. In other words, I don't think it's trying to spread fear. You may have assumed that when you first saw the headline, or others may have assumed that, but it's not suggested in the story. What's interesting to me about this story is I hadn't heard that ANYONE was prosecuted under the old regs. That's odd. It shows that the DOJ has been thinking about 2257 for a while now, and it looks like they tested using it in this case with this pedophile.

lol you missed the huge 2257 BUST! banner on the page... what is that suppose to make people think, then unless i missed it the article doesn't once state the date the old guy was arrested... 100% hype and bullshit. Terrible thing they did.

darnit · 06-05-2005, 01:29 AM

Um "plea bargin" anyone?

I would cop to 2257 irregularities if faced with multiple CP violations...

06-04-2005, 11:21 AM	#1
jact Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Oakville, Canada Posts: 9,134	So, this "2257" conviction that XBiz reported on.. The article on the DOJ's site is from 2004, why the panic all of a sudden? The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Oh no! DOJ link: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nyn/NewsRe...0411291057.htm "November 29, 2004 United States Attorney Glenn T. Suddaby announced that RALPH G. MARTELL, age 77, of 3300 Westland Drive, Bouckville, entered a plea of guilty today to a felony charge of failing to maintain required records relating to persons portrayed in sexually explicit visual depictions produced by MARTELL." XBiz article: http://www.xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=9002 I don't get it, but, whatever.... __________________ Free agent

06-04-2005, 11:23 AM	#2
chadglni Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: PEI, Canada Posts: 6,924	I remembered reading about it long before also. XBiz is just using the current situation to increase views. __________________ Sign up here - Dating Site affiliate program

06-04-2005, 11:23 AM	#3
Raven Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 6,874	The guy's problems started with a complaint because he used the us post office to mail sexually explicit materials. He also used underaged models. I don't see any charges for that.... I don't get it, either. __________________ Raven ~RETIRED~

06-04-2005, 11:28 AM	#5
tradermcduck Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Europe - By the way I know my nickname sucks ;-) Posts: 2,362	That article is bullshit... __________________ MarkB

06-04-2005, 11:46 AM	#6
StuartD Sofa King Band Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Outside the box Posts: 29,903	By Gretchen Gallen fired!! __________________ This is me on facebook This is me on twitter

06-04-2005, 11:48 AM	#7
FilthyRob Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Anaheim - CA Posts: 6,741	its no fun if the sky isn't falling __________________ AKA - Clubsexy

06-04-2005, 01:42 PM	#8
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	He shouldnt of been guilty of 2257 ,he didnt publish they were for his own private use. He only used the mail to get them developed. Its fucked they wanted a precident for 2257 and the scared old man plead guilty to it. I guess it was better than cp for him.

06-04-2005, 01:48 PM	#11
Brujah Beer Money Baron Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: brujah / gmail Posts: 22,157	the downward spiral media doing what it takes to get views, to compete with other media. fear, shock, dirty laundry.. __________________ Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com For Sale: Obscenity.com

06-04-2005, 01:49 PM	#12
Terry Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Montreal Posts: 1,604	Underage models for his personal use... developed photos by mail ... is this for real or am I missing something here? Lets see.. underage = cp. developed by mail.. uhhh when was digital invented? __________________ TengaCash ICQ: 6776764

06-04-2005, 01:52 PM	#14
adonthenet Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,753	I hate the law

06-04-2005, 02:18 PM	#21
KRL Entrepreneur Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: USA Posts: 31,429	The girls were as young as 13 and most only up to 17. Come on. You'd have to be one dumb mother fucker to use 13 year old girls and think you'd get away with it. They should lock him up for a long time. __________________ If you would like to develop your domains, you can lease inexpensive foreign labor from the leaders in the field at iWebmasters.com TO LOWER YOUR COSTS AND INCREASE YOUR PRODUCTION! * * * * * * * * * * * * Domains Adult News KRL's Newsletter Biz Tips Just Listed Domains

06-04-2005, 03:13 PM	#27
taibo Confirmed User Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 3,720	it's a lot of bullkaka

06-04-2005, 04:25 PM	#29
xXxtreme2005 Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: st louis/IL metro area Posts: 717	shits gonna start hitting the fan!@ __________________ GOT TRAFFIC?.......I BUY TRAFFIC ICQ 318-368-640

06-04-2005, 04:35 PM	#32
pornguy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Homeless Posts: 62,911	Tooo much stupid shit going on. __________________ PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com \| Angeles Cid \| Mariana Cordoba \| MAILERS WELCOME!

06-04-2005, 05:50 PM	#34
scardog Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 886	A naked guy takes sexually explicit photos of 13 year olds. Why do you need 2257 for this? This has been illegal since I can remember.

06-04-2005, 05:54 PM	#35
JJ Gold Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 1,969	Great article in the SD Reader this week that covers postal inspectors. I will try to find it online.

06-04-2005, 06:52 PM	#36
MrVids i am a meat popsicle Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 1,070	who the hell reads xbiz? bunch of over inflated peons on that board.

06-05-2005, 01:29 AM	#40
darnit Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Teh Interweb Posts: 2,439	Um "plea bargin" anyone? I would cop to 2257 irregularities if faced with multiple CP violations...