AVN ONLINE: FBI Agent Joyner: 2257 Record-Keeping 'Very Poor' But Improving
 

LOS ANGELES - "Very poor, with a couple of exceptions."

That's how Chuck Joyner, the FBI supervisory special agent in charge of the ongoing Section 2257 inspections in southern California, sums up the quality of the record keeping he's seen so far across the 19 companies inspected during the course of the past year.

Full Story

Unfortunately my lawyer said until they take someone to court and there is a trial.Only then we will have a crystal clear picture on how it should be done. In the article the FBI guy speaks about talking to a lawyer,you talk to three different lawyers you get three different answers because its speculation til someone goes to court.

yup :helpme

"three were in complete compliance, on the day they were inspected, with the federal statutes and regulations governing age-verification and record-keeping for the adult entertainment industry."

yep! we'd be one of those three.

congrats again shane's world!!!!!!!!!!

Would expect nothing less from Shanes World :thumbsup

Scary and important article. They plan to inspect every two weeks. This was an interesting quote "There are several reports that are with the U.S. Attorney's Office and back at the Department of Justice that are undergoing review right now to determine who to prosecute,".

Still no fucking word on secondary producers. This shit needs to be clear cut. :mad:

Crazy, but 99% of companies ran to GFY to say they were fully compliant and the agents were like "oh man your records rock!"

Yeah, I found that odd too after reading the article.

donate to the FSC

Heh.

:2 cents:

Well we will hardly ever see FBI here as far as we are outside US. But it would very much interest me how would the agents approach inspecting the piles of paperwork and records related probably to something like 15.000 scenes that we captured over the past two years (I count it approx. like 20 - 22 a day x 700).

The latest what we did is that we even started an online ID and releases archive that is updated in real time after the guests sign the contracts (before any live xxx action starts) in case we would have a US based partner.

Nevertheless there are always questions and once that would happen it would be still neccessary to doublecheck twice.

Right On :thumbsup

Agreed....

Also what will be interesting if they start visiting houses,most dont have offices. If I remember my 2257 correctly they can bring local law enforcement,wonder if balls will be busted. Once I recommend to my brothers sisters here go get a small office,grade c space so thats your base of operations.

I am considering it, but I have heard that it doesn't cover you under the new Adma Walsh act. Plus, I have heard a lot of cases of people that donacted at not receiving any kind of news updates. Then there's the fact of paying for protection...:disgust

"Although the FBI is not required to provide advance notice of its intent to search a specific company, Joyner noted that he has provided a heads up in two instances where the records were kept at private residences."

What's more, Joyner could think of at least three occasions when no one was present at a company when the FBI came out to inspect, calling it "arguable" in one of those cases whether a company was trying to duck an inspection.

"We try to be as reasonable as possible. It's a case-by-case basis. If there's no indication that they're purposely ducking us, I don't mind coming back two or three times," Joyner said

-----------------------------
If the inspections are by surprise how could he say it's "arguable" that they were trying to duck the inspection? If haven't heard of anyone whom has said they got a call before hand.




On the cross-referencing problems, Joyner said he thinks "a lot of companies didn't fully understand the law. They probably didn't have any attorney representing them that was providing them counsel on 2257, so they thought 'I have to have photo identification and I have the titles they appeared in and that's good enough.' Most of the companies would have that much. If they shot movie X and they had ten performers, they would have, in the file labeled 'Movie X,' the ten performers' photo identification and they felt that's all they needed. And it's not. What other stage names have they used? What other maiden names have they perhaps used? What other films or books have they appeared in? That's what's required."

-----------------------------------

This part is so much BS IMO and I can't see how it will stand up in a court of law. Why the fuck is it my responsibility to keep track of what films this actor or that actor has been in? If I didn't shot it, if I don't have the content from this film or that. Why the Fuck am I required to have info on those films that a actor may or may not have been in? It's totally BS and overly burdensome.

What other names and books have they appeared in? Give me a fucking break. Out of control. Do they want docs or a biography?