Lensman I smell some FSC bullshitting - GoFuckYourself.com

DatingGold · 06-25-2005, 01:57 AM

Lensman why did you edit this post?

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=483903

Originally your post said that they agree not to inspect anyone until the next hearing, then you changed it to just say FSC members. I just find it very interesting how the post was edited.

Why doesn't the FSC post the actual documents. It was originally stated that there was a 2257 injunction overall, not just for plaintiffs and FSC members.

No disrespect. I just don't get why your statement was changed, was it mis-stated or did I read it wrong?

DWB · 06-25-2005, 01:58 AM

Front row....

Digipimp · 06-25-2005, 01:58 AM

i always thought it was obivous why sponsors were pushing FSC so hard, but that's just me

Sami · 06-25-2005, 01:59 AM

I believe the court documents have been released already!

Hornydog4cooter · 06-25-2005, 01:59 AM

Damn i was about to go to bed

nofx · 06-25-2005, 02:01 AM

some very devious actions are in the making

NaughtyRob · 06-25-2005, 02:02 AM

I am a member just in case and I recommend you all do it.

xxxice · 06-25-2005, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornydog4cooter

Damn i was about to go to bed

mee tooo

WebGod · 06-25-2005, 02:04 AM

Now if the FSC would hurry up and process my fax join, I'd be able to sleep.

Mr.Fiction · 06-25-2005, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DatingGold

Why doesn't the FSC post the actual documents.

I thought they released them yesterday:
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=484947

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 06-25-2005, 02:08 AM

ADG Webmaster

baddog · 06-25-2005, 02:08 AM

I thought he edited it because he was spilling the beans before the judge approved it.

A big no-no.

DatingGold · 06-25-2005, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

I thought they released them yesterday:
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=484947

So was what Lensman posted from his lawyers a mistake? I could swear what I read said differently.

Machete_ · 06-25-2005, 02:09 AM

Government agrees: (1) not to conduct any inspections, with regard to the Plaintiffs and their members, under 18 U.S.C. section 2257 and the Attorney General?s new implementing regulations; and (2) not to pursue any claim against Plaintiffs and their members under 18 U.S.C. section 2257 and the Attorney General?s new implementing regulations.

not to pursue any claim against Plaintiffs and their members under 18 U.S.C. section 2257 = MEMBERS

DatingGold · 06-25-2005, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

I thought he edited it because he was spilling the beans before the judge approved it.

A big no-no.

Did you join?

Digipimp · 06-25-2005, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebus_dk

Government agrees: (1) not to conduct any inspections, with regard to the Plaintiffs and their members, under 18 U.S.C. section 2257 and the Attorney General?s new implementing regulations; and (2) not to pursue any claim against Plaintiffs and their members under 18 U.S.C. section 2257 and the Attorney General?s new implementing regulations.

i don't see how they could protect only FSC members. what i see is more along the lines of them trying to say they won't target you specifically because you're in the FSC, but being in the FSC won't save your ass. but i don't know what the hell i'm talking about normally.

Mr.Fiction · 06-25-2005, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DatingGold

So was what Lensman posted from his lawyers a mistake? I could swear what I read said differently.

I have him on ignore, so I didn't see the post.

Actually, I did miss what the post originally said - I only saw the recent version.

Machete_ · 06-25-2005, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digipimp

i don't see how they could protect only FSC members. what i see is more along the lines of them trying to say they won't target you specifically because you're in the FSC, but being in the FSC won't save your ass. but i don't know what the hell i'm talking about normally.

"not to pursue any claim against Plaintiffs and their members under 18 U.S.C. section 2257 " - I pretty much read that as "their members"

DatingGold · 06-25-2005, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

I thought they released them yesterday:
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=484947

I thought it would have been a lot longer than that.. also District 10 Court.. that doesn't include many states..

Hornydog4cooter · 06-25-2005, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ContentProducer

I am a member just in case and I recommend you all do it.

I assume you produce all your own content so you would have all the required docs correct? I just dont get the part about "Just in case"

DatingGold · 06-25-2005, 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornydog4cooter

I assume you produce all your own content so you would have all the required docs correct? I just dont get the part about "Just in case"

haha if you produce it you better make damn sure you got it.. lol

Digipimp · 06-25-2005, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebus_dk

"not to pursue any claim against Plaintiffs and their members under 18 U.S.C. section 2257 " - I pretty much read that as "their members"

yes for that. to me it sounds as though being a member just makes you party to the case that's being brought on your behalf as the coalition, however it doesn't make you exempt from the new 2257 unless it's granted a temporary exemption just by being a party to the case.

so with that being said being a part of the coalition could only make you temporarily exempt if that's granted and i haven't read up to see if it was or has been. but if the case fails you'll be in the same shit as everyone else and quite possibly get yourself exposed more, but all of that takes time. and bla bla bla bla bla like i said i don't know what i'm talking about and it's not legal advice.

baddog · 06-25-2005, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DatingGold

Did you join?

I did, but it was really more as a sign of unity. I didn't need to. This extension does not mean anything to me personally.

Hornydog4cooter · 06-25-2005, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DatingGold

haha if you produce it you better make damn sure you got it.. lol

Which makes me think about something else now lol. What if a sponsor gives out the proper docs to the afillates and down the road the doj finds out the sponsor shot a minor or something. Will the afillates be held responsable and asguilty as the sponsor ? real scary think about it

baddog · 06-25-2005, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DatingGold

I thought it would have been a lot longer than that.. also District 10 Court.. that doesn't include many states..

Six to be exact, 6 whose populations combined equals LA maybe (going by memory I think it is Wy, UT, CO, NM, KS and OK). Not too many webmasters there I don't think.

Digipimp · 06-25-2005, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornydog4cooter

Which makes me think about something else now lol. What if a sponsor gives out the proper docs to the afillates and down the road the doj finds out the sponsor shot a minor or something. Will the afillates be held responsable and asguilty as the sponsor ? real scary think about it

i would say the answer is yes. and another thing with all the encryption ideas sound great and shit, but what happens. hey the feds are here, oh hold on let me call so and so and get the id's for you. i don't have firsthand knowledge these girls are legal, but i'm sure they do. oh i'm on hold they'll get back to me in a few days, they're a big company their support is slow. so the feds say, oh no problem, can we schedule a better time to seize your hard drives and consider charging you.

Hornydog4cooter · 06-25-2005, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Six to be exact, 6 whose populations combined equals LA maybe (going by memory I think it is Wy, UT, CO, NM, KS and OK). Not too many webmasters there I don't think.

wait wait wait.... lol So you are saying the injunction only covers people und the District 10 Court area?

gecko · 06-25-2005, 02:33 AM

Guess I shouldn't be heading to bed

Hornydog4cooter · 06-25-2005, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gecko

Guess I shouldn't be heading to bed

Nope this should prove to be interesting. I will be on the phone tommorw. I wish the FSC would get someone over here to anwser question

Hornydog4cooter · 06-25-2005, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digipimp

i would say the answer is yes. and another thing with all the encryption ideas sound great and shit, but what happens. hey the feds are here, oh hold on let me call so and so and get the id's for you. i don't have firsthand knowledge these girls are legal, but i'm sure they do. oh i'm on hold they'll get back to me in a few days, they're a big company their support is slow. so the feds say, oh no problem, can we schedule a better time to seize your hard drives and consider charging you.

Thats alot of trust to be puting in a sponsor..........

Bladewire · 06-25-2005, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DatingGold

Originally your post said that they agree not to inspect anyone until the next hearing, then you changed it to just say FSC members. I just find it very interesting how the post was edited.

Why doesn't the FSC post the actual documents. It was originally stated that there was a 2257 injunction overall, not just for plaintiffs and FSC members.

I thought the same thing so I went to the 10th circuit court website... ennrolled in the PACE online document system.. got the docs & uploaded them to one of my servers:

Document 1: HEARING ON TERMS OF STIPULATION

Document 2: STIPULATION REGARDING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

ALSO

Here is Exhibit A that the DOJ is using against the FSC. You know.. the FSC attorney making statements on the site that the FSC doesn't endorse relying on Sundance for protection.. something of that nature.

baddog · 06-25-2005, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornydog4cooter

wait wait wait.... lol So you are saying the injunction only covers people und the District 10 Court area?

If there was an injunction, only courts are required to honor it, although usually all will.

Thing is, I don't think they went for the injunction yet, they just stipulated to the conditions you have already read.

DatingGold · 06-25-2005, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornydog4cooter

wait wait wait.... lol So you are saying the injunction only covers people und the District 10 Court area?

I'd be surprised if the FSC answered that question. Should you bother to join if your business is in a different district? Can District 10 grant an FSC member in NY or Florida an injuction?

Hornydog4cooter · 06-25-2005, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

If there was an injunction, only courts are required to honor it, although usually all will.

Thing is, I don't think they went for the injunction yet, they just stipulated to the conditions you have already read.

ah ok.....

Digipimp · 06-25-2005, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornydog4cooter

Thats alot of trust to be puting in a sponsor..........

well that's why in theory with the new regs we wouldn't be trusting the sponsor, we would be directly as liable for it as they are. yet the sponsors won't provide you direct access to the stuff for the most part, until they're seizing your hard drives. so you are putting your trust all in the hands of the sponsor since generally for hardcore content you won't have the actual id to look at and check. you might have access if there is a case against you, or you might have an encrypted copy you've never seen personally or what not.

so sure the govt is fucking us on this one, we all know that. i for one would be very happy to see all of the sponsors providing good quality softcore content anyway and always have wanted that.

Hornydog4cooter · 06-25-2005, 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DatingGold

I'd be surprised if the FSC answered that question. Should you bother to join if your business is in a different district? Can District 10 grant an FSC member in NY or Florida an injuction?

This shit will make your head spin.......

baddog · 06-25-2005, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirtit

I thought the same thing so I went to the 10th circuit court website... ennrolled in the PACE online document system.. got the docs & uploaded them to one of my servers:

Document 1: HEARING ON TERMS OF STIPULATION

Document 2: STIPULATION REGARDING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

ALSO

Here is Exhibit A that the DOJ is using against the FSC. You know.. the FSC attorney making statements on the site that the FSC doesn't endorse relying on Sundance for protection.. something of that nature.

Oh yeah, huge victory. Power to the people.

</sarcasm>

DatingGold · 06-25-2005, 02:47 AM

Well the docs, which I overlooked before are saying "members" only.

so that's insightful.. just wondering about districts now.

baddog · 06-25-2005, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DatingGold

Well the docs, which I overlooked before are saying "members" only.

so that's insightful.. just wondering about districts now.

Well, after reading the stipulation, it says the DOJ won't hold inspections on members, it doesn't say it won't conduct inspections on members in the 10th District, so I am sure it applies to all.

Hornydog4cooter · 06-25-2005, 02:51 AM

Total time in court 24 minutes.... Glad to see it was a long draged out fight....

Bladewire · 06-25-2005, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Well, after reading the stipulation, it says the DOJ won't hold inspections on members, it doesn't say it won't conduct inspections on members in the 10th District, so I am sure it applies to all.

I agree!

One of the lawyers for the FSC made a statement here regarding this. Here is part of the statement:

"As a last matter, no one from the FSC has said or meant to suggest that someone should become a member of the FSC in order to be protected under an injunction that does not even exist. While it is a fact that under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure only parties to litigation are covered by an injunction, it has also been amply explained by now that while technical limitations apply, the practical result of some injunctions is that no one is prosecuted while the injunction is in effect, as has happened with COPA."

blackmonsters · 06-25-2005, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

ADG Webmaster

Funniest thing I've seen in a while!

PS: I hate you for making me spit out my beer and shit in my shorts at the same time.

Bladewire · 06-25-2005, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornydog4cooter

Total time in court 24 minutes.... Glad to see it was a long draged out fight....

Did you also notice that the DOJ didn't appear in court in person... they "appeared" by phone

Hornydog4cooter · 06-25-2005, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirtit

Did you also notice that the DOJ didn't appear in court in person... they "appeared" by phone

no i missed that i got to go back and look

Hornydog4cooter · 06-25-2005, 03:00 AM

Get ready to buy xxx domains people its coming...........

Bladewire · 06-25-2005, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornydog4cooter

no i missed that i got to go back and look

HEARING ON TERMS OF STIPULATION

1l30 p.m. COURT IN SESSION

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. Mr. Kaplan appears by telephone.

Mr. Gross advises that the parties have reached a stipulation and agree that the Court would not need to rule on the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, but treat this matter a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Counsel requests the Court set a hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
Mr. Gross reads the substantive terms of the parties? stipulation.

DatingGold · 06-25-2005, 03:10 AM

I'm starting to think maybe Lensman just mis-stated something or his lawyers told him incorrect info.

Lost in translation is my guess.

V_RocKs · 06-25-2005, 03:57 AM

And I was just about to start thinking DatingGold was intelligent...

Have you NEVER been included in a class action lawsuit? Ever been in a union? Ever been sued or sued someone in court? If any of those applies to you then you would see why only FSC members would be covered... BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONES DOING THE SUEING!

Now... if a judge decides to make it class-action and to cover everyone else, that is another matter and would require a request for class-action status... But until that happens and until you donate, don't expect much.

adonthenet · 06-25-2005, 04:10 AM

all this 2257 are to much noise

DatingGold · 06-25-2005, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

And I was just about to start thinking DatingGold was intelligent...

Have you NEVER been included in a class action lawsuit? Ever been in a union? Ever been sued or sued someone in court? If any of those applies to you then you would see why only FSC members would be covered... BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONES DOING THE SUEING!

Now... if a judge decides to make it class-action and to cover everyone else, that is another matter and would require a request for class-action status... But until that happens and until you donate, don't expect much.

I'm simply saying what Lensman originally stated caused some confusion for me personally, which is perhaps why it was edited. People posted links in this thread to the court docs which make a few things more clearer, other than court jurisdiction...

and who says we haven't donated?

06-25-2005, 01:57 AM	#1
DatingGold $6 PER EMAIL JOiN Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: California Posts: 13,185	Lensman I smell some FSC bullshitting Lensman why did you edit this post? http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=483903 Originally your post said that they agree not to inspect anyone until the next hearing, then you changed it to just say FSC members. I just find it very interesting how the post was edited. Why doesn't the FSC post the actual documents. It was originally stated that there was a 2257 injunction overall, not just for plaintiffs and FSC members. No disrespect. I just don't get why your statement was changed, was it mis-stated or did I read it wrong? __________________ 9 Years of SOLID payouts and conversions! ADULT DATING - $100 PPS LIVE CAMS - $214 PPS WWW.DATINGGOLD.COM ICQ: 27442303

06-25-2005, 01:58 AM	#3
Digipimp BP4L OT DL Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: BP4L Swap Meet Posts: 13,481	i always thought it was obivous why sponsors were pushing FSC so hard, but that's just me __________________ Still Hosting at Webair and You Should Be Too

06-25-2005, 01:59 AM	#4
Sami Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 2,047	I believe the court documents have been released already! __________________ ServerProvider.com ICQ#: 311-848-143

06-25-2005, 02:01 AM	#6
nofx Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Virgin Mary's womb Posts: 16,826	some very devious actions are in the making __________________ Often times I wonder why There's love and hate, theres live or die. When sickness comes I must decide: When feelings go, theres suicide.

06-25-2005, 02:02 AM	#7
NaughtyRob Two fresh affiliate progs Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Inside teen pussy Posts: 29,602	I am a member just in case and I recommend you all do it. __________________ [email protected] Skype: 17026955414 Vacares Web Hosting - Protect Your Ass with Included Daily Backups

06-25-2005, 01:58 AM	#2
DWB Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Encrypted. Access denied. Posts: 31,779	Front row....

06-25-2005, 01:59 AM	#5
Hornydog4cooter Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,859	Damn i was about to go to bed

06-25-2005, 02:04 AM	#9
WebGod Registered User Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Las Vegas, Nevada Posts: 12	Now if the FSC would hurry up and process my fax join, I'd be able to sleep. __________________ NikkiDollars.com - 60% Signups and Recurring SinCityXXXtreme.com - Post your galleries here

06-25-2005, 02:08 AM	#11
AsianDivaGirlsWebDude Purveyor, Fine Asian Porn Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: San Francisco Bay Area Posts: 38,323	ADG Webmaster __________________ Asian Diva Girls - Exclusive Photos and Videos Asian Diva Girls Affiliate Program (50% ccBill Revshare)

06-25-2005, 02:08 AM	#12
baddog So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: the beach, SoCal Posts: 107,089	I thought he edited it because he was spilling the beans before the judge approved it. A big no-no.

06-25-2005, 02:09 AM	#14
Machete_ WINNING! Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 14,579	Government agrees: (1) not to conduct any inspections, with regard to the Plaintiffs and their members, under 18 U.S.C. section 2257 and the Attorney General?s new implementing regulations; and (2) not to pursue any claim against Plaintiffs and their members under 18 U.S.C. section 2257 and the Attorney General?s new implementing regulations. not to pursue any claim against Plaintiffs and their members under 18 U.S.C. section 2257 = MEMBERS Last edited by Machete_; 06-25-2005 at 02:10 AM..

06-25-2005, 02:33 AM	#28
gecko ****** Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 21,846	Guess I shouldn't be heading to bed __________________ [email protected]

06-25-2005, 02:47 AM	#38
DatingGold $6 PER EMAIL JOiN Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: California Posts: 13,185	Well the docs, which I overlooked before are saying "members" only. so that's insightful.. just wondering about districts now. __________________ 9 Years of SOLID payouts and conversions! ADULT DATING - $100 PPS LIVE CAMS - $214 PPS WWW.DATINGGOLD.COM ICQ: 27442303

06-25-2005, 02:51 AM	#40
Hornydog4cooter Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,859	Total time in court 24 minutes.... Glad to see it was a long draged out fight....

06-25-2005, 03:00 AM	#45
Hornydog4cooter Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,859	Get ready to buy xxx domains people its coming...........

06-25-2005, 03:10 AM	#47
DatingGold $6 PER EMAIL JOiN Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: California Posts: 13,185	I'm starting to think maybe Lensman just mis-stated something or his lawyers told him incorrect info. Lost in translation is my guess. __________________ 9 Years of SOLID payouts and conversions! ADULT DATING - $100 PPS LIVE CAMS - $214 PPS WWW.DATINGGOLD.COM ICQ: 27442303

06-25-2005, 03:57 AM	#48
V_RocKs Damn Right I Kiss Ass! Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Cowtown, USA Posts: 32,409	And I was just about to start thinking DatingGold was intelligent... Have you NEVER been included in a class action lawsuit? Ever been in a union? Ever been sued or sued someone in court? If any of those applies to you then you would see why only FSC members would be covered... BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONES DOING THE SUEING! Now... if a judge decides to make it class-action and to cover everyone else, that is another matter and would require a request for class-action status... But until that happens and until you donate, don't expect much.

06-25-2005, 04:10 AM	#49
adonthenet Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,753	all this 2257 are to much noise