Read this Doc Re: the DOJ's 2257 plan REAL COURT DOCS HERE - GoFuckYourself.com

Toolz · 06-22-2005, 05:21 PM

This was filed YESTERDAY in CO District court, anyone who thinks the DOJ is striking a deal is crazy, read this document they appear even more PISSED.

http://www.monkeypoocash.com/dm.pdf

chadglni · 06-22-2005, 05:25 PM

I'm gonna be a nerd and ask for a summary. My internet is fux0red at the moment and I can't open that.

Toolz · 06-22-2005, 05:26 PM

Um based on that the government is now even more pissed. They ask why a pornographer who can publish 10's of thousands of pages can't organize his system and why a person who's been in wholesale since 1986 hasn't been following the regs.

ronaldo · 06-22-2005, 05:35 PM

Jesus, what utter bullshit. I only read three paragraphs and could see where it was headed.

Whenever a reference is made to defend their position, it immediately refers to child porn.

However, whenever a reference is made to the ESTABLISHMENT questioning the regulations, it's simply, "The pornography industy."

Example-

"Moreover, the harm to the government and the public interest from a temporary restraining order would dwarf any claimed harm to the pornography industry that would result from a denial. A temporary restraining order would greatly increase the likelihood of the distribution of child pornography during this period..."

Right. They make it sound like the child pornography distributers are sitting on the edge of their seats at this moment hoping for a restraining order or else they'll have to cease distribution. Please.

baddog · 06-22-2005, 05:37 PM

an objection being filed was a given

basschick · 06-22-2005, 05:38 PM

thanks, Toolz!

AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE · 06-22-2005, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadglni

I'm gonna be a nerd and ask for a summary. My internet is fux0red at the moment and I can't open that.

In short the DOJ is whinning.
I can not say there position is very "Justice" oriented at this point.

More like the Gestapo waiting for the call to flip the gas switch on.

chadglni · 06-22-2005, 05:44 PM

Thanks, my internet is assed out to slower than dialup speeds.

(

Toolz · 06-22-2005, 05:44 PM

Yeah they sure don't sound very happy in their retorts of everything, man that would be a fun case to sit and watch tomorrow

baddog · 06-22-2005, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronaldo

Jesus, what utter bullshit. I only read three paragraphs and could see where it was headed.

Whenever a reference is made to defend their position, it immediately refers to child porn.

However, whenever a reference is made to the ESTABLISHMENT questioning the regulations, it's simply, "The pornography industy."

Example-

"Moreover, the harm to the government and the public interest from a temporary restraining order would dwarf any claimed harm to the pornography industry that would result from a denial. A temporary restraining order would greatly increase the likelihood of the distribution of child pornography during this period..."

Right. They make it sound like the child pornography distributers are sitting on the edge of their seats at this moment hoping for a restraining order or else they'll have to cease distribution. Please.

There is a reason why it was filed in the 10th District (Sundance), and the precedence that was set. The Defendent is naturally going to file an objection, but it really is just a formality.

sicone · 06-22-2005, 05:46 PM

http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=9236

read it

tony286 · 06-22-2005, 05:49 PM

this doesnt look good at all just finished reading it

Sosa · 06-22-2005, 05:52 PM

oh boy, here we go

Snake Doctor · 06-22-2005, 05:52 PM

What's confusing to me is that they disregard Sundance in light of Congress changing the definition of "produces" in the Protect Act of 2003.

Confuzling as hell if you ask me.

ronaldo · 06-22-2005, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

There is a reason why it was filed in the 10th District (Sundance), and the precedence that was set. The Defendent is naturally going to file an objection, but it really is just a formality.

I realize that baddog, but the language, while certainly expected, still pisses me off.

PattyeCake* · 06-22-2005, 05:58 PM

"One plaintiff is an Internet pornography publisher who is capable of publishing tens of thousands of pornographic photographs on more then 600 web-sites, but who somehow lacks the "computer programming ability" to store age-verification records electronically. or to hire someone to help him do so".....

Sounds like the DOJ is pretty much wanting to push this one... My main question however is: WHO is this one person they speak of? That could be interesting....

NetRodent · 06-22-2005, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sicone

http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=9236

read it

That might means there's a deal.

It could also mean that the FSC has no chance of winning the injuction or restraining order and is making a last ditch grab for memberships.

Toolz · 06-22-2005, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PattyeCake*

"One plaintiff is an Internet pornography publisher who is capable of publishing tens of thousands of pornographic photographs on more then 600 web-sites, but who somehow lacks the "computer programming ability" to store age-verification records electronically. or to hire someone to help him do so".....

Sounds like the DOJ is pretty much wanting to push this one... My main question however is: WHO is this one person they speak of? That could be interesting....

Dave Cummings, read the initial complaint filed by the FSC

tony286 · 06-22-2005, 06:08 PM

The question is if there is a deal what did the fsc give up? I also cant see the doj making a deal what do they gain.

PattyeCake* · 06-22-2005, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toolz

Dave Cummings, read the initial complaint filed by the FSC

Thanks Toolz!
I'm sitting on the sidelines on this particular matter, so I hadn't read the initial complaint

seeric · 06-22-2005, 06:41 PM

when i read this, it makes me even wonder if they know how this business even works.

when was the last time you saw a "real" CP on a board or at a show?

they don't get it. the people doing CP are not participating in this business. they are underground rougues and do not even associate with anyone in this biz.

this abhorant attempt by the government to "slamder" , yes "slamder" the adult biz is so obvious.

why is the fsc not suing them for defamation, slander, or some other hardhsip bullshit? surely, they are not that naive to see that this law does nothing to stop CP.

people are not looking at all perspectives on this.

2257 will not even dent CP. you know who can dent CP? hosting companies. Or, an organization that takes an offensive and gets into the CP community, steals their lingo and goes after them at their own level.

i wanna puke when i read the govenments intention for this law.

i've been in and around the adult biz since 1998 and i cant even tell you the name of one CP fucker.

insane how words are used as the tool to accomplishing other agendas not so hidden.

JD · 06-22-2005, 06:45 PM

Hmmmm................i've already pulled all of my hardcode and the second I find out that the new 2257s are shot down (IMO they will be) it's all going back up

tony286 · 06-22-2005, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A1R3K

when i read this, it makes me even wonder if they know how this business even works.

when was the last time you saw a "real" CP on a board or at a show?

they don't get it. the people doing CP are not participating in this business. they are underground rougues and do not even associate with anyone in this biz.

this abhorant attempt by the government to "slamder" , yes "slamder" the adult biz is so obvious.

why is the fsc not suing them for defamation, slander, or some other hardhsip bullshit? surely, they are not that naive to see that this law does nothing to stop CP.

people are not looking at all perspectives on this.

2257 will not even dent CP. you know who can dent CP? hosting companies. Or, an organization that takes an offensive and gets into the CP community, steals their lingo and goes after them at their own level.

i wanna puke when i read the govenments intention for this law.

i've been in and around the adult biz since 1998 and i cant even tell you the name of one CP fucker.

insane how words are used as the tool to accomplishing other agendas not so hidden.

I agree with when was the last time they bust a legimate adult porn producer for cp and it was a real case, as far as I know never.

ezrydn · 06-22-2005, 07:00 PM

You're all getting worked up over a ONE-SIDED discussion. I immediately wondered why the Plantiff's Brief wasn't posted. Briefs and cases focus on more than personal positions. So far, everything in this thread is worthless without reading the other party's brief. Where is it?

Paraskass · 06-22-2005, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A1R3K

when i read this, it makes me even wonder if they know how this business even works.

when was the last time you saw a "real" CP on a board or at a show?

they don't get it. the people doing CP are not participating in this business. they are underground rougues and do not even associate with anyone in this biz.

this abhorant attempt by the government to "slamder" , yes "slamder" the adult biz is so obvious.

why is the fsc not suing them for defamation, slander, or some other hardhsip bullshit? surely, they are not that naive to see that this law does nothing to stop CP.

people are not looking at all perspectives on this.

2257 will not even dent CP. you know who can dent CP? hosting companies. Or, an organization that takes an offensive and gets into the CP community, steals their lingo and goes after them at their own level.

i wanna puke when i read the govenments intention for this law.

i've been in and around the adult biz since 1998 and i cant even tell you the name of one CP fucker.

insane how words are used as the tool to accomplishing other agendas not so hidden.

preach it brother A1R3K!

cosis · 06-22-2005, 07:21 PM

doesn't look good after reading this

Toolz · 06-22-2005, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ezrydn

You're all getting worked up over a ONE-SIDED discussion. I immediately wondered why the Plantiff's Brief wasn't posted. Briefs and cases focus on more than personal positions. So far, everything in this thread is worthless without reading the other party's brief. Where is it?

I'd pay to download it again from the system but there's no need to scoop Xbiz twice in the same day, it was posted in numerous places over a week ago.

reynold · 06-22-2005, 08:05 PM

i don't want to read that! damnit

spanky part 2 · 06-22-2005, 08:18 PM

I wanna know why they aren't going after the real deal....priests. They are the ones actually having sex with children, but aren't being convicted.

This is complete and utter nonsense.

We are in a war, the economy is in the shitter, oil companies are raping this country, and what is the whitehouse and congress worried about. Porn and whether or not you can burn the flag.

Fuck man, I miss Bill Clinton.

Merrioc · 06-22-2005, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DOJ

Justice further asserted to the Court that a restraining order would greatly increase the likelihood of distribution of child pornography.

wait... so the NEW regulation is the anti child porn magic bullet?

I got an idea... lets just require everyone that distributes pirated movies mp3's and software to attach there drivers license... that will surely put an end to that as well...

oh wait... just like cp people.. there already breaking the law... why would the listen to another one

scoreman · 06-22-2005, 08:53 PM

This Xbiz article I find disturbing.

What I hope is not the case is that a deal is being worked out where the DOJ agrees not to prosecute FSC members but leaves open the prosecution of non FSC members. If thats the case, IMO this is a sell out.

Again, this is just my opinion and I could be wrong, but if you think in terms of money here, the FSC lawyers are really do well with this. All of them have their phones ringing off the hook. I'll probably get flamed for saying this but if the FSC lawyers phones are ringing off the hook, it explains maybe why the TRO and the suit itself was filed and scheduled for the last possible moment. If the suit had been filed earlier and the TRO filed earlier and possibly granted, the lawyers in the FSC would have had a significant drop in the amount of inquiries from freaked out webmasters. I hope this is not the case where a bunch of lawyers sat around and planned out how to maximize revenue and this is the endgame of that plan where they create a situation where there will be a stampede of folks giving them protection money.

Ok I will now remove my tinfoil hat, but in my experience following money trails often explains and is a good predictor of human actions.

Toolz · 06-22-2005, 10:32 PM

From my understanding you can't file an injunction on something that is not yet law, hence the wait till the 23rd for the hearing.

06-22-2005, 05:21 PM	#1
Toolz Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Podunk Posts: 690	Read this Doc Re: the DOJ's 2257 plan REAL COURT DOCS HERE This was filed YESTERDAY in CO District court, anyone who thinks the DOJ is striking a deal is crazy, read this document they appear even more PISSED. http://www.monkeypoocash.com/dm.pdf

06-22-2005, 05:25 PM	#2
chadglni Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: PEI, Canada Posts: 6,924	I'm gonna be a nerd and ask for a summary. My internet is fux0red at the moment and I can't open that. __________________ Sign up here - Dating Site affiliate program

06-22-2005, 05:38 PM	#6
basschick Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: el lay, ca usa Posts: 2,540	thanks, Toolz! __________________ Got Gay and For Women Traffic?

06-22-2005, 05:44 PM	#8
chadglni Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: PEI, Canada Posts: 6,924	Thanks, my internet is assed out to slower than dialup speeds. ( __________________ Sign up here - Dating Site affiliate program

06-22-2005, 05:46 PM	#11
sicone Retired Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Sac Posts: 18,453	http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=9236 read it __________________

06-22-2005, 05:26 PM	#3
Toolz Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Podunk Posts: 690	Um based on that the government is now even more pissed. They ask why a pornographer who can publish 10's of thousands of pages can't organize his system and why a person who's been in wholesale since 1986 hasn't been following the regs.

06-22-2005, 05:35 PM	#4
ronaldo Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: ICQ#: 272000271 Posts: 5,475	Jesus, what utter bullshit. I only read three paragraphs and could see where it was headed. Whenever a reference is made to defend their position, it immediately refers to child porn. However, whenever a reference is made to the ESTABLISHMENT questioning the regulations, it's simply, "The pornography industy." Example- "Moreover, the harm to the government and the public interest from a temporary restraining order would dwarf any claimed harm to the pornography industry that would result from a denial. A temporary restraining order would greatly increase the likelihood of the distribution of child pornography during this period..." Right. They make it sound like the child pornography distributers are sitting on the edge of their seats at this moment hoping for a restraining order or else they'll have to cease distribution. Please.

06-22-2005, 05:37 PM	#5
baddog So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: the beach, SoCal Posts: 107,089	an objection being filed was a given

06-22-2005, 05:49 PM	#12
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	this doesnt look good at all just finished reading it

06-22-2005, 05:52 PM	#13
Sosa In Tushy Land Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Nebraska Posts: 40,149	oh boy, here we go

06-22-2005, 05:52 PM	#14
Snake Doctor I'm Lenny2 Bitch Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: On top of my soapbox Posts: 13,449	What's confusing to me is that they disregard Sundance in light of Congress changing the definition of "produces" in the Protect Act of 2003. Confuzling as hell if you ask me. __________________ sig too big

06-22-2005, 05:58 PM	#16
PattyeCake* Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Far far away... Posts: 843	"One plaintiff is an Internet pornography publisher who is capable of publishing tens of thousands of pornographic photographs on more then 600 web-sites, but who somehow lacks the "computer programming ability" to store age-verification records electronically. or to hire someone to help him do so"..... Sounds like the DOJ is pretty much wanting to push this one... My main question however is: WHO is this one person they speak of? That could be interesting.... __________________ Big Hugs to ALL! PattyeCake* Make MORE with your sites with Rabbit's Reviews!! AND don't forget!!!! Help a Child

06-22-2005, 06:08 PM	#19
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	The question is if there is a deal what did the fsc give up? I also cant see the doj making a deal what do they gain.

06-22-2005, 06:41 PM	#21
seeric .......... Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: .......... Posts: 41,917	when i read this, it makes me even wonder if they know how this business even works. when was the last time you saw a "real" CP on a board or at a show? they don't get it. the people doing CP are not participating in this business. they are underground rougues and do not even associate with anyone in this biz. this abhorant attempt by the government to "slamder" , yes "slamder" the adult biz is so obvious. why is the fsc not suing them for defamation, slander, or some other hardhsip bullshit? surely, they are not that naive to see that this law does nothing to stop CP. people are not looking at all perspectives on this. 2257 will not even dent CP. you know who can dent CP? hosting companies. Or, an organization that takes an offensive and gets into the CP community, steals their lingo and goes after them at their own level. i wanna puke when i read the govenments intention for this law. i've been in and around the adult biz since 1998 and i cant even tell you the name of one CP fucker. insane how words are used as the tool to accomplishing other agendas not so hidden.

06-22-2005, 06:45 PM	#22
JD Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 22,651	Hmmmm................i've already pulled all of my hardcode and the second I find out that the new 2257s are shot down (IMO they will be) it's all going back up

06-22-2005, 07:00 PM	#24
ezrydn Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Guadalajara, MX Posts: 695	You're all getting worked up over a ONE-SIDED discussion. I immediately wondered why the Plantiff's Brief wasn't posted. Briefs and cases focus on more than personal positions. So far, everything in this thread is worthless without reading the other party's brief. Where is it?

06-22-2005, 07:21 PM	#26
cosis Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Beach Posts: 5,282	doesn't look good after reading this

06-22-2005, 08:05 PM	#28
reynold Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Global Traveler Posts: 51,271	i don't want to read that! damnit

06-22-2005, 08:18 PM	#29
spanky part 2 Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,981	I wanna know why they aren't going after the real deal....priests. They are the ones actually having sex with children, but aren't being convicted. This is complete and utter nonsense. We are in a war, the economy is in the shitter, oil companies are raping this country, and what is the whitehouse and congress worried about. Porn and whether or not you can burn the flag. Fuck man, I miss Bill Clinton.

06-22-2005, 08:53 PM	#31
scoreman Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Miami, Florida Posts: 1,491	This Xbiz article I find disturbing. What I hope is not the case is that a deal is being worked out where the DOJ agrees not to prosecute FSC members but leaves open the prosecution of non FSC members. If thats the case, IMO this is a sell out. Again, this is just my opinion and I could be wrong, but if you think in terms of money here, the FSC lawyers are really do well with this. All of them have their phones ringing off the hook. I'll probably get flamed for saying this but if the FSC lawyers phones are ringing off the hook, it explains maybe why the TRO and the suit itself was filed and scheduled for the last possible moment. If the suit had been filed earlier and the TRO filed earlier and possibly granted, the lawyers in the FSC would have had a significant drop in the amount of inquiries from freaked out webmasters. I hope this is not the case where a bunch of lawyers sat around and planned out how to maximize revenue and this is the endgame of that plan where they create a situation where there will be a stampede of folks giving them protection money. Ok I will now remove my tinfoil hat, but in my experience following money trails often explains and is a good predictor of human actions. __________________

06-22-2005, 10:32 PM	#32
Toolz Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Podunk Posts: 690	From my understanding you can't file an injunction on something that is not yet law, hence the wait till the 23rd for the hearing.