Link to actual 2257 injunction ruling? - GoFuckYourself.com

MikeSmoke · 12-30-2005, 12:54 PM

I can't find it anymore - anyone have it bookmarked?

TheLegacy · 12-30-2005, 12:55 PM

http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=252970

Judge Miller only ruled on the motion for an injunction. He didn't rule upon the law itself.

Anything in the ruling can be reversed at the trial. In fact, the DOJ, can appeal his ruling before there ever is a trail.

He simply made a ruling on a motion. This battle isn't even close to starting, much less over.

Maintain your records AS YOU WOULD under the NEW regulations, not based on this ruling.

I encourage everybody to slow down and read carefully. Headlines, taken out of context, DO NOT tell the whole story.

This ruling simply answered the single question "Should some or all of the new regulations be held unenforceable until trial?"

Thats it. Until trial. This ruling doesn't mean we won the battle. It just means we got off a decent first shot in a long damn battle.

You don't win the Super Bowl by scoring the first touchdown. You win the Super Bowl by scoring the most touchdowns.

You don't win a case like this by winning the first motions hearing / ruling. You win a case like the by winning the trial, AND any appeals that follow.

Be prepared to keep doing business AS IF THE NEW REGULATIONS are in effect.

Remember this... In the late 1990s FSC sued after Congress changed some of the words within 2256. We DID NOT win the first rulings in that case, but we did win the appeal to the 9th Circuit (FSC v. Reno) and we won when the DOJ fought back and appealed to the Supreme Court (Ashcroft v. FSC, 2002)....

Please do your business person's duty and read the FULL RULING, not just headlines. Know all parts of the ruling and the Judge's mindset, not just the headlines.

MikeSmoke · 12-30-2005, 12:59 PM

That's a link to a (biased) news story.
I'm looking for the link to the COURT RULING. It originally was linked from AVN's coverage, but for some reason they removed it.
(And thanks, but I wasn't looking for a lecture, that's what I pay most of my net income to my lawyer for.)
(And I also know that it was only a ruling on the injunction - that's why the title of the thread says "Link to actual 2257 injunction ruling" - I realize some people may have the need to cut and paste their expertise everywhere - all I was asking for was a link.)

ElvisManson · 12-30-2005, 01:56 PM

http://www.co.uscourts.gov/opinions/05-1126.piord.pdf

MikeSmoke · 12-30-2005, 03:20 PM

thanks.
also found it at
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/d...rdec28_000.pdf
it looks like they took the direct link off their site when they realized it wasn't a huge victory after all

12-30-2005, 12:54 PM	#1
MikeSmoke Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: SoCal Posts: 3,233	Link to actual 2257 injunction ruling? I can't find it anymore - anyone have it bookmarked? __________________ icq: 541-739-92

12-30-2005, 12:55 PM	#2
TheLegacy SEO Connoisseur Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Brantford, Ontario Posts: 17,177	http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=252970 Judge Miller only ruled on the motion for an injunction. He didn't rule upon the law itself. Anything in the ruling can be reversed at the trial. In fact, the DOJ, can appeal his ruling before there ever is a trail. He simply made a ruling on a motion. This battle isn't even close to starting, much less over. Maintain your records AS YOU WOULD under the NEW regulations, not based on this ruling. I encourage everybody to slow down and read carefully. Headlines, taken out of context, DO NOT tell the whole story. This ruling simply answered the single question "Should some or all of the new regulations be held unenforceable until trial?" Thats it. Until trial. This ruling doesn't mean we won the battle. It just means we got off a decent first shot in a long damn battle. You don't win the Super Bowl by scoring the first touchdown. You win the Super Bowl by scoring the most touchdowns. You don't win a case like this by winning the first motions hearing / ruling. You win a case like the by winning the trial, AND any appeals that follow. Be prepared to keep doing business AS IF THE NEW REGULATIONS are in effect. Remember this... In the late 1990s FSC sued after Congress changed some of the words within 2256. We DID NOT win the first rulings in that case, but we did win the appeal to the 9th Circuit (FSC v. Reno) and we won when the DOJ fought back and appealed to the Supreme Court (Ashcroft v. FSC, 2002).... Please do your business person's duty and read the FULL RULING, not just headlines. Know all parts of the ruling and the Judge's mindset, not just the headlines. __________________ SEO Connoisseur Microsoft Teams: Robert Warren SEO Telegram: @TheLegacy54 RobertWarrenSEO.com

12-30-2005, 12:59 PM	#3
MikeSmoke Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: SoCal Posts: 3,233	That's a link to a (biased) news story. I'm looking for the link to the COURT RULING. It originally was linked from AVN's coverage, but for some reason they removed it. (And thanks, but I wasn't looking for a lecture, that's what I pay most of my net income to my lawyer for.) (And I also know that it was only a ruling on the injunction - that's why the title of the thread says "Link to actual 2257 injunction ruling" - I realize some people may have the need to cut and paste their expertise everywhere - all I was asking for was a link.) __________________ icq: 541-739-92 Last edited by MikeSmoke; 12-30-2005 at 01:01 PM..

12-30-2005, 03:20 PM	#5
MikeSmoke Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: SoCal Posts: 3,233	thanks. also found it at http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/d...rdec28_000.pdf it looks like they took the direct link off their site when they realized it wasn't a huge victory after all __________________ icq: 541-739-92

12-30-2005, 01:56 PM	#4
ElvisManson Looking California Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 5,476	http://www.co.uscourts.gov/opinions/05-1126.piord.pdf