I am gonna burn a bunch of candles this evening....

ya thank fucking god

are you SURE eveything'll be ok ?
i' m not ...
but well ...
who knows ...
whatever ...
if there is any LEGAL change let us know ;-)

A little clarification here, because obviously you were not listening to your attorney and/or he is being dangerous with your life.

Fact: The reason they filed in the 10th District is because Sundance set precedence in 10th District, so by law they pretty much are going to go with the most recent publixhed decision. That being said, it isn't like precedence has never been challenged and overturned.

Fact: Just because the 10th grants the injunction, that does not mean any other district has to honor the injunction. Only courts in the 10th District need apply it.

Fact: While the FSC is confident of at least a partial injunction, they are not suggesting that if an injunction is granted, everyone can resume life as normal.

precisely

Fact: You are not a lawyer.

The guy who wrote this is:
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=479486

Armchair lawyers suck...

nice job :)
lets see how well it does!

Great news. Anyone who hasn't donated to the FSC should do so now. :)

Mark

If nothing else we get more breathing room. Donate already if you did not do that.

nobody bets against cambria and wins

fifty!! :)

ummm, if you will notice, I was not putting blame on your attorney as much as just maybe you heard wrong.

Fact: Law is subject to interpretation. Ask 10 attorneys about 2257, and get 10 different answers.

Support the Free Speech Coalition :thumbsup :thumbsup

No doubt, but if you are going to support them, you should also listen to them, and they are not saying an injunction means all is well

I was just busting your balls...what you say is true about different answers, but should I...

A. Pay a decent chunk of change to get the legal councel of a one of the best 2257 attorneys there is, then ignore his advice.

B. Listen to baddog from GFY. :1orglaugh

I'm going with A -- no disrespect intended.

Very good ---- "This is good news people ? really good news. Stop worrying about 2257 and get back to work!"

Thanks for this post Jay

we are still in the same place

excellent news

Here is the link -- there seem to be some doubters:
http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=9162

Just in from the FSC:

FSC ASKS FOR RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST 2257
DENVER, CO -- As planned, Free Speech Coalition has filed a complaint and motion in the United States District Court of Colorado seeking a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining enforcement of the recently revised federal record-keeping and labeling requirements, 18 U.S.C. § 2257, which are due to go into effect June 23, 2005. The case is Free Speech Coalition v. Alberto Gonzales, # 05 CV 1126 WDM.
The lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of the membership of the Free Speech Coalition by attorneys representing three law firms -- Colorado-based Schwartz & Goldberg PC; Sirkin, Pinales & Schwartz LLP of Ohio; and the New York-based law firm of Lipsitz, Green, Fahringer, Roll, Salisbury & Cambria -- contains over 20 separate claims on which basis FSC is asking the court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order.
The expectation of the attorneys is that the court will order a hearing on the motion for a TRO before the regulations are scheduled to go into effect, at which time plaintiff attorneys H. Louis Sirkin, Paul J. Cambria, Jr., and Michael W. Gross of Schwartz & Goldberg will present arguments for temporary injunctive relief prohibiting the enforcement of the 2257 law.
Significantly, the U.S. District Court of Colorado falls within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in Sundance Associates v. Reno, 139 F.3d 804 (10th Cir. 1998), that the governments definition of ?secondary producer? was invalid because it went beyond the meaning of the original 2257 statute. Many so-called secondary producers, such as Webmasters, have relied on Sundance in deciding their record-keeping obligations under the law. However, the Department of Justice, in their revised interpretations of the 2257 law, have explicitly stated that they believe a decision by the D.C. Circuit in American Library Association v. Reno, rather than Sundance, is the correct view of the law.
From an FSC Press Release, 6/16/05

At the end of the day - I hope it goes well for you guys there.

That 2257 is a bitch.

Good Luck with your Law..... :thumbsup

Right on FSC! All around the World webmasters stand with you.

Good news, not gonna get my hopes too high though, after all Bush was re-elected.

so the process has been initiated rather than any ruling coming down?

Remember, you're only protected by the injunction if you're a member of the Free Speech Coalition, since they are the ones filing the suit. Better to fork over the money for a good cause than to be left in the cold.

Well the ball is rolling. Hopefully it rolls into the right court and we can get back to normal life.

at least the judge was a clinton appointee

Actually xxxjay, baddog is right. I did consult an attorney.
And if a decision is made in the 10th circuit court, it doesn't mean that the other circuit courts have to follow it. So for those of us who don't live in the 10th circuit court jurisdiction, we are still up the creek. Unless this case was tried in the D.C. circuit court or the Supreme court, than it would have had jurisdiction over everyone in the USA.

Elli-according to my attorney: when an injunction is granted, they pretty much leave all the people alone and not just the members of FSC.
But according to him, if you don't live in the 10th circuit jurisdiction than the other jurisdiction don't have to abide by what the 10th rulings are and you can spend $100,000 trying to prove your innocence.

Jayde
http://www.hotindianbabe.com

Yep, I already knew that - I heard the same thing from our lawyer. I posted that info on the boards weeks ago.

No..SIMPLY NOT TRUE! oh man..the mis-information here.

Technically only the individuals who file an injunction get immediate relief, but in practical terms, once an injunction is filed (as one was in the case of the COPA law), the new law/regulations are not enforced.

One good reason a restraining order stops the DOJ in its tracks from pursuing anyone is that even if they SHOULD get a conviction of someone who was not a legal complaintant in the injunction..if the injunction holds and the law/regs are thrown out..then the Feds have to throw out ALL convictions they got which would be a HUGE financial blow to the DOJ!

Oh man..

Hey..do you think all the SIGNERS of said injunction live in the 10th circuit court jurisidiciton?

NO!
Do you think they would have gone ahead and signed onto an injunction if they would not also get legal relief from said injunction? NO!

These "lawyers" you have talked too obviously haven't passed their bar exam yet!

Well that was straight from the mouths of four first amendment lawyers. Card carrying members of the FSC are exempt from inspections IF there is an injunction. Other people can still be inspected while the injunction is in place.

That's what they said.

yeah..they can...and "can" is the operative word here.
But they won't.
When they brought an injunction against COPA in the 90s, not one non-signee webmaster was submitted to any legal investigation then either.

when they file the lawsuit, and they name 'free speech coalition' as the plaintiff, does it list the individual members of the FSC in the lawsuit? how does the DOJ know who is in the FSC and who isn't?

Centurion

I have gone over and over on this with my lawyer. He is not an idiot, he is taking into account the laws that are in our state and jurisdiction. Trust me, I also paid for his fee and Jeff Douglas to consult on the phone (a pretty penny it was too).

Jayde

This was asked in the Q&A. The membership list is never given out. It is up to the member, if the DoJ comes knocking, to say "I'm a member of the FSC, take a hike."

Now, once you say that, they will know you're a member. But there is no disclosure of the membership list.

As said by the lawyers and the FSC reps in San Diego.

That would be nice if they could get it worked out.... lot of work/time ahead to do it. I agree with Baddog, tho... we can't stop worrying.

Jayde

I've talked with 2 attornies about this as well as done my own research.

Tell you what..write the FSC and tell them that unless the signees LIVE in Colorado that they will NOT be covered by any injunction. I can't wait to hear the reaction of those that live in California..of which there are many!

No, don't stop worrying, but there is reason to be optimistic. If you read this article really points out how weak the government?s case really is:

http://www.avnonline.com/articles/231124.html