Sorry Choker but the truth is......
 

I have been in a "free speech" class action suit before and won.
My lawyer worked probono to get injunctions.
He then asked me to get anybody else I knew who "may" have been affected and get them over to his office to sign a form(for free) agreeing to his representation.
I got about 20 more people to sign up.

Why was it free?
Because he won a jugdment for each and every client by only handling enough work for a single client and he took 1/3 of each of our settlements as his fee. He would have represented everyone in the world if it had been possible because it only would make him richer.

If the FSC had a solid case then why charge clients and thus reduce the number of possible settlements?

Posible reasons:

*They know they will win but they would like to have clients foot the bill now.

* They know they will win but the settlement would be smaller than getting 1000's of new FSC members that will pay yearly dues for the next 20 yrs to sign up now out of fear.

* They don't have a fucking case and just begged DOJ for time.


The last reason is about as likely as hell freezing over.

So go figure. 1000's of new memebers times $300 per year verses a joint settlement of 1/2 mil for all clients.

I'm not trying to knock them at all but lets be real about financial motives.
This is a whole lot of coin to get a lawyer to go to court and quote another case(Sundance) that's already been ruled in your favor.

The fact is that DOJ hasn't got a chance in hell of winning a case against a "secondary producer" if they are located on the west coast.

westsiiiiide

\X/

Uhh ..

the FSC has always charged a membership fee.

People are just seeing the need to join up now.

No one is twisting your arm but the DOJ.

:two-cents

This isn't a lawsuit for damages. There is no money involved in any "settlement".

Please change your name to "Jastupid".

I have a probono lawyer for this shit.

Um, yes there is.

They get all their expenses paid back, sorry, your membership fees paid back.

Regards,

Lee

That's great dude.

:thumbsup

You really do need the FSC.....because you are fucking really stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!

Any law suit concerning a civil rights violation by the DOJ includes damages.
Did you delete 5000 TGP galleries in fear? What was the damage?

That's not a settlement.

Damages continued:

What was the damage to Hawgs Cash due to fear of unconstiitution regs in 2257.

I'd say they are out of biz just as they announced.


What's the damage to sponsors who are dumping sites that are absolutely legal in everyway except for the new 2257 regs(which are not law).

This was not a lawsuit over a civil rights violation. It was a request for an injunction. If the suit had gone forward, and the FSC had won, no one would get paid a dime (except the lawyers for their usual fees).

Technically, it's a "COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF".

Read it yourself. Show me the part about damages: http://www.fight2257.com/2257-complaint-fsc-v-gonzales/

If you did sue the DOJ over an explicit federal rights violation, you would (or could) be suing for damages. That's not the case here.

$300 for a chance to not have to touch my sites that make me that much a day? Shit... sign me up.

:thumbsup

Right! And that's the reason to join. So you can sleep easy and make money.
But the people who have questions about the way the "agreement" went down are not stupid. Infact they are rather smart.

:1orglaugh

Please don't take the LSAT...you'd kill yourself after seeing the score.

The reason to file the "COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF" is that you are planning a lawsuit.

Why would a jugde grant a stay of "prosecution" if you had nothing else to add in the future; like a law suit.

Freedom of speech violations are civil rights violations....dude!
If you get investigated under unconstitutional regs or laws then that's a civil rights violation.

:1orglaugh

Hey - I understand about future suits and potential damages. The way I read your original post was that you were talking about today's action. I thought my responses made that clear. Maybe not.