Girls Gone Wild GUILTY on 2257 Violations

[jonesy]

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...home-headlines


The Santa Monica-based company failed to maintain age and identity documents for performers in sexually explicit films.
By Michael Muskal, Times Staff Writer
11:17 AM PDT, September 12, 2006


The California company responsible for the successful "Girls Gone Wild" series of videos has pleaded guilty to violating a federal law designed to prevent the sexual exploitation of children, the Justice Department announced today.

Mantra Films Inc. of Santa Monica pleaded guilty to charges that it failed to create and maintain age and identity documents for performers in sexually explicit films that it produced and distributed. The company also failed to label its DVDs and videotapes as required by federal law, the Justice Department said.

Mantra Films entered its plea agreement today before U.S. District Judge Richard Smoak in Panama City, Fla. A second related company, MRA Holdings LLC, also entered into an agreement.

The companies, founded and owned by Joseph Francis, agreed to pay $2.1 million in fines and restitution. Of that, $1.6 million is to be paid by Mantra and MRA, and $500,000 by Francis.

Representatives of Francis could not be immediately reached for comment.

The case is believed to be the first to be filed under a federal law designed to prevent the sexual exploitation of children, the Justice Department said.

"This case sends an important message about the Justice Department's commitment to protecting children from all forms of sexual exploitation," Assistant Atty. Gen. Alice S. Fisher said in a statement. "Today's agreements ensure that "Girls Gone Wild" will comply with an important law designed to prevent the sexual exploitation of minors and puts other producers on notice that they must be in compliance as well."

"This prosecution makes clear that those who seek to enrich themselves at the expense of our children's innocence in violation of the laws intended to protect them will be held to answer in federal court," U.S. Atty. Gregory R. Miller of the Northern District of Florida said.

The "Girls Gone Wild" series is based on young women exposing themselves during the frenzy of spring break and at other times in hot locales. There is binge drinking, hookups and frantic exhibitionism.

By packaging and dispersing the videos, people close to Francis told the Los Angeles Times recently that the company does as much as $40 million a year in sales.

In the court papers distributed by the Justice Department, " 'Girls Gone Wild' admitted filming performers and producing and distributing sexually explicit video materials during all of 2002 and part of 2003 while violating the record keeping and labeling laws."

Specifically, Mantra Films pleaded guilty to three counts of failing to keep the required records and seven labeling violations.

MRA Holding entered into deferred prosecution agreement concerning the information filed in court charging the company with 10 labeling violations. As part of that agreement, the government will dismiss the charges at the end of three years if MRA Holding abides by all of its obligations, the Justice Department said.

MRA Holding also agreed to employ an independent outside monitor selected by the government and provide the monitor complete access to the books and records, production facilities and other locations required to ensure the company's compliance with federal law, the federal agency said.

[JimmiDean]

Ouch even for him thats going to sting.

[Jarmusch]

Originally Posted by JimmiDean

Ouch even for him thats going to sting.

Not sure about that.

By packaging and dispersing the videos, people close to Francis told the Los Angeles Times recently that the company does as much as $40 million a year in sales.

[jonesy]

Originally Posted by JimmiDean

Ouch even for him thats going to sting.

Like a mosquito bite.

[The Ghost]

The "Girls Gone Wild" series is based on young women exposing themselves during the frenzy of spring break and at other times in hot locales. There is binge drinking, hookups and frantic exhibitionism.

When did the press lose the ability to say 'just having a good time'.

But this is my favorite part....

"This prosecution makes clear that those who seek to enrich themselves at the expense of our children's innocence in violation of the laws intended to protect them will be held to answer in federal court," U.S. Atty. Gregory R. Miller of the Northern District of Florida said.

So if I am to understand this this, even though GGW didn't have 2257 paperwork on some of the girls (or a bunch), they pay a fine and are still able to sell the products? Or are the titles going to be removed from the market?

I didn't see where it said those details.

[shake]

Chump change for him, more like pocket lint.

[Fat Panda]

ya thats nothing to him, but what a dumb fucker...all that money on no compliance emplyee....ah da

[dcortez]

Originally Posted by jonesy

The Santa Monica-based company failed to maintain age and identity documents for performers in sexually explicit films.

This does not sound like they got nailed for trivial clerical errors - the dorks were not documenting IDs with model releases!

This kind of sloppiness hurts us all.

Even this one incident will fuel 2257 right back up as being THE tool to protect kids - and in truth, it did bust someone, according to the report posted, who could not prove that they were not using minors in 'explicit'.

We don't need this happening!

[tranza]

Originally Posted by The Ghost

So if I am to understand this this, even though GGW didn't have 2257 paperwork on some of the girls (or a bunch), they pay a fine and are still able to sell the products? Or are the titles going to be removed from the market?

I didn't see where it said those details.

I was wondering the exact same thing.

Also, that fine is peanuts when compared with all the profits they got from the GGW series.

[Shoehorn!]

Originally Posted by jonesy

"This prosecution makes clear that those who seek to enrich themselves at the expense of our children's innocence in violation of the laws intended to protect them will be held to answer in federal court," U.S. Atty. Gregory R. Miller of the Northern District of Florida said.

Did that stupid fuck really need to word it like that?

[Rhino22]

$500,000. He is worth 100 million.

[jollyperv]

$2.1 million

[Webby]

The companies, founded and owned by Joseph Francis, agreed to pay $2.1 million in fines and restitution.

OK... they got a $2.1 mill fine. Now I'm gonna go on a rant...

Why do courts in the US constant dish out fines in the million and multi-million penalty range for what is basically shit? Violation of 2257 - at least in this case, is a record-keeping offense - not a claim of child abuse.

Understandably on occasion there are personal liability claims and may be issues over whether a person is able to earn a living or is inhibited by permanent injury - and these can obviously be more than a mill dollars.

Violation of USC 2257 (and numerous other laws) is not exactly life-threatening or a major injury claim. Are the courts running a friggin profit center with a cut going to the judge for how high he can up a fine???

Whether Joe Francis can afford to pay whatever fine or not - the penalty range is absurd. No doubts there are many excellent jurists in the system - but the system stinks.

End of rant for today Back to not living under the laws of the US.

[Webby]

Originally Posted by jonesy

"This prosecution makes clear that those who seek to enrich themselves at the expense of our children's innocence in violation of the laws intended to protect them will be held to answer in federal court," U.S. Atty. Gregory R. Miller of the Northern District of Florida said.

And this idiot needs locked up - he's a menace to society

[Webby]

Originally Posted by tranza

I was wondering the exact same thing.

Also, that fine is peanuts when compared with all the profits they got from the GGW series.

Na.. don't think so tranza. Sell again without complying with the law and its a fresh set of offenses.

Paying a fine was never a license to go out and commit another 100 burglaries

[SomeCreep]

GGW is laughing all the way to the bank

[babymaker]

wow, how come only a fine?? This basically says that you could make softcore cp and and as long as sales generate a good profit it's no big deal. I thought 2257 would be jail time not a tiny fine in comparison to the profits??

[clickhappy]

Does this set a presidence for future 2257 violations?

[Mr. Romance]

Fuck this sucks

Mr. Romance

[Big Red Machine]

Originally Posted by Webby

OK... they got a $2.1 mill fine. Now I'm gonna go on a rant...

Why do courts in the US constant dish out fines in the million and multi-million penalty range for what is basically shit? Violation of 2257 - at least in this case, is a record-keeping offense - not a claim of child abuse.

That would crush many smaller companys, but being that they make 40 mil a year....its a minor inconvience. Then again its a win for the Gov

[sicone]

Havent GGW been busted a few times with underage girls in the video's?

[marketsmart]

oh ok... so no jail time if you can pay 2 million dollar fine... wtf...

then joe webmaster gets popped and goes to jail for 5 years....

[tony286]

If memory serves me right they have a choice fine or jail. This is bad that GGW rolled over it sets a precedent Once again they probably pushed for the fine because if you can prove all the girls were of age its hard for them to get jail time.

[darnit]

Are those videos even considered "sexually explilcit"? From the TV ads it just looks like a little T&A....

[PlugRush Sascha]

Originally Posted by darnit

Are those videos even considered "sexually explilcit"? From the TV ads it just looks like a little T&A....

That's enough to make it 'sexually explicit'. That's what happens when conservatives interpret a law.

At least no one has to go to jail this time around.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by tony404

If memory serves me right they have a choice fine or jail. This is bad that GGW rolled over it sets a precedent Once again they probably pushed for the fine because if you can prove all the girls were of age its hard for them to get jail time.

What is rolling over. As producers they were required to have the IDs of the girls and have their products properly labeled. They didn't, thus they violated the law. This law is 20 years old. The fact they got out of jail time is a victory for US. If a PRIMARY producer can have very egregious 2257 violations over a course of YEARS and only get a small fine( small in terms of what they generate in revenue every year ) then there is no way a SECONDARY producer( most of us ) should get any jail time for any 2257 violations. Of course I'm assuming the goverment plays fair and not favorites, which as we know isn't the case. But in any case it does set a precedent that could be used in an appeal if one were to receive a jail sentence.

[Digipimp]

nothing new, money is all that matters in the USA

[bknoob]

at least this should be a good case to reference in the future when someone of much smaller scale than GGW is convicted of 2257 and is in danger of jail time. Lawyers can refer to this case and fight it

[Snake Doctor]

Am I the only one doing backflips over this?!?!?!?!?!?

This is fucking awesome news......dead to rights guilty of a 2257 violation and NO JAIL TIME WHATSOEVER!

Also, the amount of the fine may seem big but it's my understanding that fines in cases like these are determined by how much the company profited by violating the law, so 2M for girls gone wild could very well be 20K for a small producer. (I'm just speculating there though)

But all in all, great fucking news.

[Lace]

figures no one from ggwcash is in here..lol

[Snake Doctor]

Originally Posted by tony404

If memory serves me right they have a choice fine or jail. This is bad that GGW rolled over it sets a precedent Once again they probably pushed for the fine because if you can prove all the girls were of age its hard for them to get jail time.

If you're found guilty in court it's mandatory jail time.....if you cut a deal you can get whatever the prosecutor agrees to and the judge will sign off on.

I don't get how you think they rolled over?
They were dead to rights guilty and they cut a deal, if they go to court they lose and spend time in jail.
Pretty easy decision IMHO.

Also, proving the girls were of age after the fact will keep you out of jail on child pornography charges....but not for 2257 charges.
If you fail to create and maintain records under 2257 you can go to jail even if the performers in question were 80 years old at the time of production.

[Viper2K1]

Originally Posted by darnit

Are those videos even considered "sexually explilcit"? From the TV ads it just looks like a little T&A....

Some of them are a bit more than just T&A
I have some with some girl on girl action in between ... one scene like that has (a young) Katie Morgan in it, so it's not all amateurs

[tony286]

Originally Posted by Lenny2

If you're found guilty in court it's mandatory jail time.....if you cut a deal you can get whatever the prosecutor agrees to and the judge will sign off on.

I don't get how you think they rolled over?
They were dead to rights guilty and they cut a deal, if they go to court they lose and spend time in jail.
Pretty easy decision IMHO.

Also, proving the girls were of age after the fact will keep you out of jail on child pornography charges....but not for 2257 charges.
If you fail to create and maintain records under 2257 you can go to jail even if the performers in question were 80 years old at the time of production.

to get a jury to send someone to jail for clerical errors if everyone is of age would be a very hard thing to do. They know that because if that wasnt the case they could of busted 1000 webmasters already just by going to their front pages because they arent in compliance.
It could of been a fight on how wasteful 2257 truly is and how it is truly doesnt protect children, child pornographers dont keep records. It just a way of fucking with porn producers.it could of become a constitutional battle.

[Dirty Dane]

Originally Posted by Lenny2

If you fail to create and maintain records under 2257 you can go to jail even if the performers in question were 80 years old at the time of production.

In theory, yes, but I hardly think it would come even as far as any investigation. Besides that, the hidden agenda would be too obvious

[notabook]

“This prosecution makes clear that those who seek to enrich themselves at the expense of our children's innocence…”

Erm, what the fuck? How exactly does this help in any which way in concerns of the ‘expense of our children’s innocence’? Are kids sitting there with their PARENTS credit cards, ordering this shit? If so how is it GGW’s fault that their innocence was lost? It’s ridiculous and that attorney needs to have his ass raped by no less than fourteen monkeys wearing dildos that have been keenly sharpened so that each plunge will remind that asshole just what it means to “lose your innocence”.

I’ll be the first one to agree that the GGW commercials are fairly distasteful and I have seen them come on at hours that I don’t think were appropriate, but come on. It doesn’t look like they got in trouble over the commercials anyways which is the only way whatsoever GGW could be construed as hurting our ‘children’s innocence’. So what in the hell did that assfuck Attorney mean by that?

[SabrinaDeep]

Boh...i had sex the first time at 14 giving head to a classmate during math, in a class of 28. I remember at least other 7 of my female classmates doing that that year at some point. we were all very curious and excited to do that and especially in public...i wonder what this attorney would have said about it...wow!

Innocence has no age, stupidity never had a good orgasm
(Herr Markus Helmut Deep)

[Kevsh]

Originally Posted by SabrinaDeep

Boh...i had sex the first time at 14 giving head to a classmate during math, in a class of 28. I remember at least other 7 of my female classmates doing that that year at some point. we were all very curious and excited to do that and especially in public...i wonder what this attorney would have said about it...wow!

Innocence has no age, stupidity never had a good orgasm
(Herr Markus Helmut Deep)

Wtf why wasn't I at your school????
Where I went there was maybe one girl that did anything like that. What a bunch of prudes ....

But seriously, it's one thing for two 'kids' to engage in sexual activities, it's entirely another matter to have adults participating, watching, videotaping, etc etc ... even more so if they are doing it for profit.

I don't know what GGW did or did not do, but if they knowingly videotaped <18 girls and then distributed it. Not good.

(and yes, I understand this decision was not about that, just adressing the bigger picture!)

[Brad Mitchell]

Originally Posted by SomeCreep

GGW is laughing all the way to the bank

Totally!

Brad

[scardog]

I thought GGW didn't have actual sex. I guess they masturbate and that is why it is considered actual sex?

[Manansala]

You pay a fine to prevent further issues. Smart move. Also, it's 2257 not child abuse. It's paperwork and papers is its match. All in all, GGW is not guilty of anything. It's all about the money.

[sharp]

lol - somehow I don't think that's going to hurt them.

[After Shock Media]

Originally Posted by notabook

?This prosecution makes clear that those who seek to enrich themselves at the expense of our children's innocence??

Erm, what the fuck? How exactly does this help in any which way in concerns of the ?expense of our children?s innocence?? Are kids sitting there with their PARENTS credit cards, ordering this shit? If so how is it GGW?s fault that their innocence was lost? It?s ridiculous and that attorney needs to have his ass raped by no less than fourteen monkeys wearing dildos that have been keenly sharpened so that each plunge will remind that asshole just what it means to ?lose your innocence?.

I?ll be the first one to agree that the GGW commercials are fairly distasteful and I have seen them come on at hours that I don?t think were appropriate, but come on. It doesn?t look like they got in trouble over the commercials anyways which is the only way whatsoever GGW could be construed as hurting our ?children?s innocence?. So what in the hell did that assfuck Attorney mean by that?

Well since they did not maintain records for a time being, they very well could of shot girls under the age of eighteen and thus profited off of the expense of our children's innocence. What do they pay, a shirt and hat?

I also think that it went down a certain way but it is pure speculation. The DA wanted them, GGW had some records of the harder stuff yet none on the softer flashing videos. The DA would have to test the waters on interpretation of "sexually explicit" considering it was very soft and thus his case would be at risk. Then on the other side GGW weighed the cost of court expenses to take it to trial and the bad PR hit with advertiser venues possibly pulling out of showing their commercials, versus the large cash fine. Business wise you take the fine if you are him. He more than likely rather gives less than a shit about the industry as a whole.

No jail time? I see this is a positive thing.

[SmokeyTheBear]

Originally Posted by JimmiDean

Ouch even for him thats going to sting.

i dont see why he just paid $2 mill to make way more than that selling underage content

[DWB]

Wow. I never say that coming.

</sarcasm>


But that is good news that he did not get jail time. Good news for all.

[notabook]

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

Well since they did not maintain records for a time being, they very well could of shot girls under the age of eighteen and thus profited off of the expense of our children's innocence. What do they pay, a shirt and hat?

lmao, if they were under the age of eighteen and doing those things, I really don't think those "children" have been innocent for a long time.

[Kimmykim]

This isn't a victory for anyone, thankfully. Based on the text of the article, public nudity hasn't been specifically challenged as being subject to 2257 -- something the government apparently didn't want to pursue and possibly set the wrong precedent for them -- or Francis defend/pursue and perhaps be out of business.

I'm also guessing the material they got him on didn't limit itself to public nudity but perhaps to some of the titles with girls in hotel rooms or other non-public places.

I don't think 2.1 million in fines is going to hurt him much, I'm sure he spends that much on jet fuel a month alone.

Nor does it say that he has to stop distributing the material in question, does it? That's the real kicker right there and the question I'd like to hear the answer to

[After Shock Media]

Originally Posted by notabook

lmao, if they were under the age of eighteen and doing those things, I really don't think those "children" have been innocent for a long time.

Does not matter though. We have set the guideline and regardless of the behavior, she is still a child and off limits. Not to mention any contracts are invalid anyways.

[tranza]

Is this the first time someone looses (or settles) a 2257 case?

I hope this doesn't become a trend...

[aico]

that probably caused one of the bubbles in his Jacuzzi to be fart gas