2257 Injunction has been filed - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

BlueDesignStudios · 06-17-2005, 03:17 AM

fifty!!

baddog · 06-17-2005, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

Fact: You are not a lawyer.

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

Armchair lawyers suck...

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.

JFK · 06-17-2005, 03:38 AM

Support the Free Speech Coalition

baddog · 06-17-2005, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JFK

Support the Free Speech Coalition

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

xxxjay · 06-17-2005, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

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.

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.

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

mufas · 06-17-2005, 04:23 AM

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

blofer80 · 06-17-2005, 04:24 AM

Thanks for this post Jay

Zester · 06-17-2005, 04:40 AM

we are still in the same place

khs · 06-17-2005, 06:46 AM

excellent news

xxxjay · 06-17-2005, 12:15 PM

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

xxxjay · 06-17-2005, 12:29 PM

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

MrChips · 06-17-2005, 05:44 PM

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.....

Penthouse Tony · 06-17-2005, 05:55 PM

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

Nightwind · 06-17-2005, 06:00 PM

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

kernelpanic · 06-17-2005, 06:01 PM

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

Elli · 06-17-2005, 06:10 PM

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.

06-17-2005, 06:11 PM

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

dopeman · 06-17-2005, 06:13 PM

Quote:

However, Judge Walker Miller, a Clinton appointee who will preside over the FSC v. Gonzales lawsuit, is bound by the Tenth Circuit's decision in his consideration of FSC's application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the new regulations. Moreover, since one version of the regulations has been in existence since 1995, and many sections of the new regs are substantially similar to those, and since the Justice Department, in the 10 years of the regs' existence, has not sought to conduct even one investigation of an adult company under 2257, it seems likely that Judge Miller will enjoin enforcement of the entire statute, at least until the trial of the case, or until a higher court may vacate such order.

at least the judge was a clinton appointee

Jayde · 06-17-2005, 06:30 PM

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

xxxjay · 06-17-2005, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hib96

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.

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

Centurion · 06-17-2005, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elli

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.

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!

Centurion · 06-17-2005, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hib96

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.

http://www.hotindianbabe.com

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!

Elli · 06-17-2005, 06:49 PM

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.

Centurion · 06-17-2005, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elli

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.

dopeman · 06-17-2005, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Centurion

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?

Jayde · 06-17-2005, 07:02 PM

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

Elli · 06-17-2005, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dopeman

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?

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.

Sparks · 06-17-2005, 07:12 PM

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.

Centurion · 06-17-2005, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hib96

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

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!

xxxjay · 06-17-2005, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hostive

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.

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

MyNameIsEmily · 06-17-2005, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nosey

great news!

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueDesignStudios

fifty!!

you fucking peice of shit, postwhores. "omfg, good news, yay!" "50, lols!"

This isn't something to laugh about. And to all you other lazy ass American webmasters, what the fuck are you doing about this? If nothng, it's all your fucking fault.

Fucking 2257 compliant pussies... Do anything to make your final bucks while watching the industry crumble.

And STRIKE the bloody 2257 content providers. They're a fucking disease.

Surfers don't know the shit that's going down. Only when they don't HAVE porn will they join us.

Zester · 06-18-2005, 04:14 AM

only a few more days, I wouldn't count on anyone to rescure our asses
sponsors: do what you need to do now - ignore these "hopes"

Zester · 06-18-2005, 02:44 PM

any update?

broke · 06-18-2005, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MyNameIsEmily

Fucking 2257 compliant pussies... Do anything to make your final bucks while watching the industry crumble.

STFU --

Honestly.

dopeman · 06-18-2005, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zester

any update?

"We Plaintiffs and a bevy of top attorneys go to Denver on Wed for a Court hearing on Thursday concerning the TRO."

this is from Dave Cummings

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=482191

06-17-2005, 03:17 AM	#51
BlueDesignStudios Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 9,492	fifty!! __________________ Blue Design Studios - Adult Design Specialists! Email me for a free quote: [email protected]

06-17-2005, 03:38 AM	#53
JFK FUBAR the ORIGINATOR Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: FUBARLAND Posts: 67,374	Support the Free Speech Coalition __________________ FUBAR Webmasters - The FUBAR Times - FUBAR Webmasters Mobile - FUBARTV.XXX For promo opps contact jfk at fubarwebmasters dot com

06-17-2005, 04:23 AM	#56
mufas Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 1,054	Very good ---- "This is good news people ? really good news. Stop worrying about 2257 and get back to work!" __________________

06-17-2005, 04:40 AM	#58
Zester Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,344	we are still in the same place __________________ * Mainstream ? $65 per sale * new male contraception

06-17-2005, 06:46 AM	#59
khs Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 1,730	excellent news __________________ Make MORE $$$ now! PussyCash

06-17-2005, 04:24 AM	#57
blofer80 Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 932	Thanks for this post Jay

06-17-2005, 12:15 PM	#60
xxxjay Tube groupie. Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: LoScandalous, CA Posts: 13,482	Here is the link -- there seem to be some doubters: http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=9162 __________________ http://donttellmehowtoruinmylife.com/ - http://www.jmdigitalmarketing.com/my...s-and-reviews/ - http://www.wouldyouhitit.org - http://shinyobjectreviews.com/

06-17-2005, 12:29 PM	#61
xxxjay Tube groupie. Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: LoScandalous, CA Posts: 13,482	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 __________________ http://donttellmehowtoruinmylife.com/ - http://www.jmdigitalmarketing.com/my...s-and-reviews/ - http://www.wouldyouhitit.org - http://shinyobjectreviews.com/

06-17-2005, 05:44 PM	#62
MrChips Confirmed User Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 1,504	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.....

06-17-2005, 05:55 PM	#63
Penthouse Tony Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Mountain View, CA Posts: 5,835	Right on FSC! All around the World webmasters stand with you. __________________ aamos AT FFN dot com Penthouse.com Business Development ICQ: 49090846 \| Yahoo IM: ff_aamos

06-17-2005, 06:00 PM	#64
Nightwind Confirmed User Join Date: May 2005 Location: ICQ: 303-282-636 Posts: 4,786	Good news, not gonna get my hopes too high though, after all Bush was re-elected. __________________

06-17-2005, 06:01 PM	#65
kernelpanic Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,961	so the process has been initiated rather than any ruling coming down? __________________ ZangoCash - Turn Your Traffic Into Ca$h. $.40 Per Install - No Tier

06-17-2005, 06:10 PM	#66
Elli Reach for those stars! Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 17,991	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. __________________ email: [email protected]

06-17-2005, 06:11 PM	#67
shermo Guest Posts: n/a	Well the ball is rolling. Hopefully it rolls into the right court and we can get back to normal life.

06-17-2005, 06:30 PM	#69
Jayde Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: USA Posts: 108	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

06-17-2005, 06:49 PM	#73
Elli Reach for those stars! Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 17,991	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. __________________ email: [email protected]

06-17-2005, 07:02 PM	#76
Jayde Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: USA Posts: 108	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

06-17-2005, 07:12 PM	#78
Sparks Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Southern CA Posts: 2,466	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.

06-18-2005, 04:14 AM	#82
Zester Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,344	only a few more days, I wouldn't count on anyone to rescure our asses sponsors: do what you need to do now - ignore these "hopes" __________________ * Mainstream ? $65 per sale * new male contraception

06-18-2005, 02:44 PM	#83
Zester Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,344	any update? __________________ * Mainstream ? $65 per sale * new male contraception