Practical Application of 2257 and all injunctions - GoFuckYourself.com

blackmonsters · 06-25-2005, 10:12 AM

While an injunction legally covers those named in the action(FSC members) it is usually not practical for law inforcement to persue anyone during this time.

Reasons:
It only makes sense to grant an injunction when the judge sees a potential that the legal action being taken (2257 investigations of secondary producers) may violate rights and laws of the accused.

It makes very little sence to prosecute non-claimants(non-FSC) during the injuction because the end result could be that the court rules against the DOJ and they would have wasted time and money on reversed convictions.
The accused would then also be able to sue for damages since the court ruled against the action. Jury awards in such cases would be influenced by the fact that even though a judge said "hold off on this" the DOJ went ahead anyway.

Real life example:

I got an injuction against the LAPD that covered me and a few others. But the effect was that the cops stopped the activity in question for everyone.
If the LAPD had continued to write tickets for this activity it would have only added to the number of settlements the city ended up paying. The cops could have wrote anyone but me a ticket but it would have been foolish.

The DOJ is not going to bring 1000's cases this month just to find out that a judge finally ruled the action to be illegal. They have to wait(as a practical matter) for a judge to rule on the legalilty of the new 2257 regs before they actually go after someone under the "new regs".

They of course can and will put your ass in a sling for violating the old regs!!!!

Summary:

The preliminary injuction(agreement) that the FSC acheived is in affect protecting every "legal" webmaster at this time.

By legal I mean no CP; no Beast(USA), no scat...etc...

This is not guaranteed but it is most practical and most usual and most often the case and there is a snow balls chance in hell that anyone will be raided during this aggrement.

candyflip · 06-25-2005, 10:15 AM

I think you've been spot on with everything you've mention on the topic so far.

Let's hope you're right in the long run.

devilspost · 06-25-2005, 10:23 AM

Fight the wool production!

blackmonsters · 06-25-2005, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by devilspost

Fight the wool production!

Does he fuck it before or after trimming?

devilspost · 06-25-2005, 10:26 AM

During ;)

besterman · 06-25-2005, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

While an injunction legally covers those named in the action(FSC members) it is usually not practical for law inforcement to persue anyone during this time.

Reasons:
It only makes sense to grant an injunction when the judge sees a potential that the legal action being taken (2257 investigations of secondary producers) may violate rights and laws of the accused.

It makes very little sence to prosecute non-claimants(non-FSC) during the injuction because the end result could be that the court rules against the DOJ and they would have wasted time and money on reversed convictions.
The accused would then also be able to sue for damages since the court ruled against the action. Jury awards in such cases would be influenced by the fact that even though a judge said "hold off on this" the DOJ went ahead anyway.

Real life example:

I got an injuction against the LAPD that covered me and a few others. But the effect was that the cops stopped the activity in question for everyone.
If the LAPD had continued to write tickets for this activity it would have only added to the number of settlements the city ended up paying. The cops could have wrote anyone but me a ticket but it would have been foolish.

The DOJ is not going to bring 1000's cases this month just to find out that a judge finally ruled the action to be illegal. They have to wait(as a practical matter) for a judge to rule on the legalilty of the new 2257 regs before they actually go after someone under the "new regs".

They of course can and will put your ass in a sling for violating the old regs!!!!

Summary:

The preliminary injuction(agreement) that the FSC acheived is in affect protecting every "legal" webmaster at this time.

By legal I mean no CP; no Beast(USA), no scat...etc...

This is not guaranteed but it is most practical and most usual and most often the case and there is a snow balls chance in hell that anyone will be raided during this aggrement.

NO INJUNCTION HAS BEEN GRANTED YET! What are you talking about??? Only an agreement with DOJ has been set.

seven · 06-25-2005, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by devilspost

During ;)

fight the fucking during trimming

pornguy · 06-25-2005, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by besterman

NO INJUNCTION HAS BEEN GRANTED YET! What are you talking about??? Only an agreement with DOJ has been set.

I think that even with the pending injunction they may not do anything, because they may loose the chance to get the company that they screwed up with.

blackmonsters · 06-25-2005, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by besterman

NO INJUNCTION HAS BEEN GRANTED YET! What are you talking about??? Only an agreement with DOJ has been set.

It's an agreement to a peliminary injunction which is in affect an injunction until the judge is asked to finally rule.

The DOJ didn't want the judge to rule because it could have been against them and set them further behind. So they set and agreement that works as an injunction.

Most likely the DOJ will make revisions to the 2257 regs and then submit them to the judge for final ruling. If the DOJ saw no flaws in it's regs then they would not have agreed to anything.

The FSC was granted "more time" but the reality is that the DOJ needed more time to get it's shit together. They already lost on this issue in the 10th circuit so why plow ahead and lose again?

06-25-2005, 10:12 AM	#1
blackmonsters Making PHP work Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: 🌎🌅🌈🌇 Posts: 20,780	Practical Application of 2257 and all injunctions While an injunction legally covers those named in the action(FSC members) it is usually not practical for law inforcement to persue anyone during this time. Reasons: It only makes sense to grant an injunction when the judge sees a potential that the legal action being taken (2257 investigations of secondary producers) may violate rights and laws of the accused. It makes very little sence to prosecute non-claimants(non-FSC) during the injuction because the end result could be that the court rules against the DOJ and they would have wasted time and money on reversed convictions. The accused would then also be able to sue for damages since the court ruled against the action. Jury awards in such cases would be influenced by the fact that even though a judge said "hold off on this" the DOJ went ahead anyway. Real life example: I got an injuction against the LAPD that covered me and a few others. But the effect was that the cops stopped the activity in question for everyone. If the LAPD had continued to write tickets for this activity it would have only added to the number of settlements the city ended up paying. The cops could have wrote anyone but me a ticket but it would have been foolish. The DOJ is not going to bring 1000's cases this month just to find out that a judge finally ruled the action to be illegal. They have to wait(as a practical matter) for a judge to rule on the legalilty of the new 2257 regs before they actually go after someone under the "new regs". They of course can and will put your ass in a sling for violating the old regs!!!! Summary: The preliminary injuction(agreement) that the FSC acheived is in affect protecting every "legal" webmaster at this time. By legal I mean no CP; no Beast(USA), no scat...etc... This is not guaranteed but it is most practical and most usual and most often the case and there is a snow balls chance in hell that anyone will be raided during this aggrement. __________________ Get paid, get tools, get going with Camsoda Join Chaturbate get your cut of the pie

06-25-2005, 10:15 AM	#2
candyflip Carpe Visio Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: New York Posts: 43,069	I think you've been spot on with everything you've mention on the topic so far. Let's hope you're right in the long run. __________________ Spend you some brain. Email Me

06-25-2005, 10:23 AM	#3
devilspost Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Tampa yomebe -at- hotmail Posts: 3,980	Fight the wool production! __________________ Brothels and Escorts Worldwide.

06-25-2005, 10:26 AM	#5
devilspost Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Tampa yomebe -at- hotmail Posts: 3,980	During ;) __________________ Brothels and Escorts Worldwide.