So, this "2257" conviction that XBiz reported on..
 

The article on the DOJ's site is from 2004, why the panic all of a sudden? The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Oh no!

DOJ link: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nyn/NewsRe...0411291057.htm

"November 29, 2004 United States Attorney Glenn T. Suddaby announced that RALPH G. MARTELL, age 77, of 3300 Westland Drive, Bouckville, entered a plea of guilty today to a felony charge of failing to maintain required records relating to persons portrayed in sexually explicit visual depictions produced by MARTELL."

XBiz article:
http://www.xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=9002

I don't get it, but, whatever....

I remembered reading about it long before also. XBiz is just using the current situation to increase views.

The guy's problems started with a complaint because he used the us post office to mail sexually explicit materials.

He also used underaged models. I don't see any charges for that....

I don't get it, either.

Oh I get why it started, and technically under the new regulations I can see how even if it went unpublished if they used the mail, then it qualifies under 2257, but it's an old case. He pleaded guilty before any new regs passed, and the way I read the article it felt like this was a blazing assult on the industry with the new regs, when in fact it wasn't? I dunno, poor reporting? Insighting fear? Who knows.

That article is bullshit...

By Gretchen Gallen

fired!!

its no fun if the sky isn't falling

He shouldnt of been guilty of 2257 ,he didnt publish they were for his own private use. He only used the mail to get them developed. Its fucked they wanted a precident for 2257 and the scared old man plead guilty to it. I guess it was better than cp for him.

I believe mailing them could be considered "publishing" by the official wording of 2257.

He says they lied about their ages... ya right.

This dirty old man can't tell the difference between a 13 year old and an 18 year old? give me a break. Sounds to me like he got off easy.

the downward spiral

media doing what it takes to get views, to compete with other media. fear, shock, dirty laundry..

Underage models for his personal use... developed photos by mail ... is this for real or am I missing something here? Lets see.. underage = cp. developed by mail.. uhhh when was digital invented?

Doesn't matter if he published them or not, he produced them.

§ 2257. Record keeping requirements

Release date: 2004-08-06

(a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter which?
(1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and
(2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;

I hate the law

Are you crazy? I have a hard time telling the difference and I'm 21, not 78. I'm not giving an excuse for the guy, but telling apart a 13 year old from an 18 year old isn't as easy as people would like.

Now now... don't be too hard on Gretchen. First, even though that story may have started back in 2004, that doesn't mean there wasn't come aspect of it that just happened... for example, the guilty plea or maybe the conviction. It's certainly a relevant story, and the story itself doesn't suggest that it is somehow tied to the new regs. In other words, I don't think it's trying to spread fear. You may have assumed that when you first saw the headline, or others may have assumed that, but it's not suggested in the story. What's interesting to me about this story is I hadn't heard that ANYONE was prosecuted under the old regs. That's odd. It shows that the DOJ has been thinking about 2257 for a while now, and it looks like they tested using it in this case with this pedophile.

That's what ID is for, thankfully.

You make an interesting point... I'm surprised nobody has claimed that digital cameras are a tool for child pornographers and should be banned! :1orglaugh

This kind of gave a hint towards the sensationalism of it.

http://www.xbiz.com/images/xbiz/temp/r1_9002_8.gif

Your not reading it only covers published work not taking pics for kicks. That would mean you got pics of you fucking a old girl friend you took for fun ,you now need 2257. He mailed the film to get developed not to sell it. When they say film in the 2257 code they mean movie not roll of film.

The girls were as young as 13 and most only up to 17.

Come on. You'd have to be one dumb mother fucker to use 13 year old girls and think you'd get away with it.

They should lock him up for a long time.

yep for the rest of his life

I agree wholeheartedly with that statement, but I'm not sure why he was only charged under 2257, it seems strange. Could they not have gotten him for a lot more?

Oh lord -- STFU.

Under you definition -- I've "produced" explicit pictures of my wife. Should I draw up papers for her to sign when I get home?

unless i am missing something... it appears that someone wrote the article for Xbiz - at least i did not notice where it gives credit to anyone else. that should say quite a bit. obviously the guy was charged with a ton of shit - he used the mail, he produced CP etc etc etc etc. yet someone only wrote about 2257 out of context and ended up with a story that most agree makes little sense.

Luke Forde no longer occupies the last rung on the ladder of shitty, sloppy and irresponsible journalists.
:2 cents:

If you'll look at the link I posted (To the DOJ), it doesn't give much information other then to imply 2257 wasn't the only thing they went after him on.

it's a lot of bullkaka

Once again, all talk and little action.

It's obvious XBix are just hunting for a topical headline.

If the defendant was committing illegal acts - there are far more serious charges than USC 2257 - namley "the defendant failed to keep records".

Did he have sex with under age girls? Did he abuse them? Did he assault them? Did he rape them? Or did he just "fail to keep records"? They seem to claim he was committing more serious illegal acts - why ain't they charged him?

A guy that "apparently" takes explicit pics of 13 year old kids is a weirdo anyway, - but the law, at least according to that article if it is reported accurately, is a total ass.

If that ain't a warped scenario all round - nothing is. Try another attention seeking heading XBiz.

shits gonna start hitting the fan!@

November 29, 2004 is not really that long ago.....

right from the DOJ site

Tooo much stupid shit going on.

Remember Amatuer Action BBS....

A naked guy takes sexually explicit photos of 13 year olds. Why do you need 2257 for this? This has been illegal since I can remember.

Great article in the SD Reader this week that covers postal inspectors. I will try to find it online.

who the hell reads xbiz? bunch of over inflated peons on that board.

thats my point. that page is about 1 conviction for 1 charge. there must have been others. that would mean other links at the time of those convictions - OR they have not tried him/convicted him for other charges yet, which might take longer than this charge which he pled guilty to. i don't see any situation where a federal prosecutor is going to let go of CP charges over record keeping requirements.

even the shittiest journalist in the world would have to ask themselves.. "hm... what and where is the rest of the story" - but apparently this journalist and xbiz decided that it would be in their interest to take advatage of the current climate of fear and confusion to get a few clicks.

what happened most likely is that this turd and did a search for 2257 convictions/charges and rushed to write something scary and controversial.

You obviously have never worked with inner city black girls. I can show you a few 12 year olds that are built like 25 year old women.

lol you missed the huge 2257 BUST! banner on the page... what is that suppose to make people think, then unless i missed it the article doesn't once state the date the old guy was arrested... 100% hype and bullshit. Terrible thing they did.

Um "plea bargin" anyone?

I would cop to 2257 irregularities if faced with multiple CP violations...