The FSC Sold Us Out [Archive] - Oprano Adult Industry Forums

Trev

06-23-2005, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by Biggy+Jun 23 2005, 11:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggy @ Jun 23 2005, 11:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lee@Jun 23 2005, 01:51 PM
The cunts.

As i have been saying for the last few months, this was nothing to o with defending the adult industry, rather lining their fucking pockets.

Nice to see an organization that defends the 'adult industry' is so happy to sell those same industry members out for a few grand.

Fuck the FSC and the scheister attorneys that make up their board :angry:
you're a first rate moron.

i guess lawyers should perform services for free. [/b][/quote]
That rash statement would make you the moron!

Lee was pointing out that the FSC are in his opinion cunts because even when your dues are paid you can get shafted!

The FSC are like the dead trade unions we have here in the UK, they still take money but give nothing!

If you wipe your own ass, only you are to blame for smelling of shit!

Biggy

06-23-2005, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by Trev@Jun 23 2005, 02:18 PM
"Lee was pointing out that the FSC are in his opinion cunts because even when your dues are paid you can get shafted!"

not until August or September.....
Its bought time, which is what they were originally going for, so how exactly do you find that bad?

Because a special "Court" Appointed Master gets access to the list.. how else would you have liked it done.

Trev

06-23-2005, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by Biggy+Jun 23 2005, 11:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggy @ Jun 23 2005, 11:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lee@Jun 23 2005, 01:51 PM
The cunts.

As i have been saying for the last few months, this was nothing to o with defending the adult industry, rather lining their fucking pockets.

Nice to see an organization that defends the 'adult industry' is so happy to sell those same industry members out for a few grand.

Fuck the FSC and the scheister attorneys that make up their board :angry:
you're a first rate moron.

i guess lawyers should perform services for free, or they should cover expenses out of pocket to protect us. you dont like what theyre doing, then dont join.

theyre protecting the people who support them. [/b][/quote]
I'll re-quote you're edited post!

NO THEY ARE NOT!

Biggy

06-23-2005, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by Trev+Jun 23 2005, 02:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Trev @ Jun 23 2005, 02:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Biggy@Jun 23 2005, 11:12 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Lee@Jun 23 2005, 01:51 PM
The cunts.

As i have been saying for the last few months, this was nothing to o with defending the adult industry, rather lining their fucking pockets.

Nice to see an organization that defends the 'adult industry' is so happy to sell those same industry members out for a few grand.

Fuck the FSC and the scheister attorneys that make up their board :angry:
you're a first rate moron.

i guess lawyers should perform services for free, or they should cover expenses out of pocket to protect us. you dont like what theyre doing, then dont join.

theyre protecting the people who support them.
I'll re-quote you're edited post!

NO THEY ARE NOT! [/b][/quote]
yes, they are. :)
if you want extra time you will pay up. no matter what, you will have to be 2257 compliant, until the official hearings come. we can argue all day.

Trev

06-23-2005, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by Biggy+Jun 23 2005, 11:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggy @ Jun 23 2005, 11:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Trev@Jun 23 2005, 02:18 PM
"Lee was pointing out that the FSC are in his opinion cunts because even when your dues are paid you can get shafted!"

not until August or September.....
Its bought time, which is what they were originally going for, so how exactly do you find that bad?

Because a special "Court" Appointed Master gets access to the list.. how else would you have liked it done. [/b][/quote]
Personally I don't think it's bad, I love the way it’s being done… talk, fret and hype. You can’t buy publicity like this.

As long as people are willing to pay then let it continue, but I’m in another country and I can see that the FSC are unionist, you can all gather under their umbrella and I’ll wait for the result because it’s all win, win for me!

Trev

06-23-2005, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by Biggy+Jun 23 2005, 11:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggy @ Jun 23 2005, 11:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Trev@Jun 23 2005, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Biggy@Jun 23 2005, 11:12 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Lee@Jun 23 2005, 01:51 PM
The cunts.

As i have been saying for the last few months, this was nothing to o with defending the adult industry, rather lining their fucking pockets.

Nice to see an organization that defends the 'adult industry' is so happy to sell those same industry members out for a few grand.

Fuck the FSC and the scheister attorneys that make up their board :angry:
you're a first rate moron.

i guess lawyers should perform services for free, or they should cover expenses out of pocket to protect us. you dont like what theyre doing, then dont join.

theyre protecting the people who support them.
I'll re-quote you're edited post!

NO THEY ARE NOT!
yes, they are. :)
if you want extra time you will pay up. no matter what, you will have to be 2257 compliant, until the official hearings come. we can argue all day. [/b][/quote]
I'm sorry but I don't need extra time because I follow the laws of my land not the laws of the US :)

They can come get me if they want <_<

Biggy

06-23-2005, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Trev+Jun 23 2005, 02:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Trev @ Jun 23 2005, 02:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Biggy@Jun 23 2005, 11:26 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Trev@Jun 23 2005, 02:18 PM
"Lee was pointing out that the FSC are in his opinion cunts because even when your dues are paid you can get shafted!"

not until August or September.....
Its bought time, which is what they were originally going for, so how exactly do you find that bad?

Because a special "Court" Appointed Master gets access to the list.. how else would you have liked it done.
Personally I don't think it's bad, I love the way it’s being done… talk, fret and hype. You can’t buy publicity like this.

As long as people are willing to pay then let it continue, but I’m in another country and I can see that the FSC are unionist, you can all gather under their umbrella and I’ll wait for the result because it’s all win, win for me! [/b][/quote]
Thats a way of looking at it :) If I was foreign, i'd feel the same way.

The bottom line is: The law is the law.

If you don't like what the FSC is doing, don't pay, and be prepared for inspections starting next week. If you want extra time, you'll pay your dues, what is essentially a fee for delayed inspections.

Once again, the law is the law, only people concerned with a list going to the gov't are people who are concerned their house isn't in order. The FSC will argue against it in a few months, hopefully they can create a strong case to kill it.

People in the US most likely are complaining because:

1. They have to "pay" for something they feel should be free, yet would not happen without monetary support.

2. Are afraid of 2257 for whatever issue and the FSC is the scapegoat for not geting rid of 2257.

FSC didn't sell anyone out, they bought time. 2257 is here, its law, theres a real possibility it can remain law FOREVER, so what are you going to do then. I will be joining the FSC, and its no wonder some of the biggest people in the adult net are members and are supporting them as well. DoJ will need some sort of access to the list, they are getting it via a court appointed "Master" - its obvious the FSC was concerned with confidentiality of its members. People who are concerned with their name being on that list, are people who don't have their houses in order. Do you disagree?

Trev

06-23-2005, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by Biggy+Jun 23 2005, 11:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggy @ Jun 23 2005, 11:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Trev@Jun 23 2005, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by Biggy@Jun 23 2005, 11:26 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Trev@Jun 23 2005, 02:18 PM
"Lee was pointing out that the FSC are in his opinion cunts because even when your dues are paid you can get shafted!"

not until August or September.....
Its bought time, which is what they were originally going for, so how exactly do you find that bad?

Because a special "Court" Appointed Master gets access to the list.. how else would you have liked it done.
Personally I don't think it's bad, I love the way it’s being done… talk, fret and hype. You can’t buy publicity like this.

As long as people are willing to pay then let it continue, but I’m in another country and I can see that the FSC are unionist, you can all gather under their umbrella and I’ll wait for the result because it’s all win, win for me!
Thats a way of looking at it :) If I was foreign, i'd feel the same way.

The bottom line is: The law is the law.

If you don't like what the FSC is doing, don't pay, and be prepared for inspections starting next week. If you want extra time, you'll pay your dues, what is essentially a fee for delayed inspections.

Once again, the law is the law, only people concerned with a list going to the gov't are people who are concerned their house isn't in order. The FSC will argue against it in a few months, hopefully they can create a strong case to kill it.

People in the US most likely are complaining because:

1. They have to "pay" for something they feel should be free, yet would not happen without monetary support.

2. Are afraid of 2257 for whatever issue and the FSC is the scapegoat for not geting rid of 2257.

FSC didn't sell anyone out, they bought time. 2257 is here, its law, theres a real possibility it can remain law FOREVER, so what are you going to do then. I will be joining the FSC, and its no wonder some of the biggest people in the adult net are members and are supporting them as well. [/b][/quote]
Why pay for protection when it's easy to protect yourself?

If you have non compliant then get rid, as BillPMP posted in another thread it should be a write off.

"Only fools join unions – Unions are all about money in!" 1979 Mr Trevor Jenkins Snr - Sogat Union Secretary (NE)

Biggy

06-23-2005, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by Trev+Jun 23 2005, 02:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Trev @ Jun 23 2005, 02:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Biggy@Jun 23 2005, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by Trev@Jun 23 2005, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by Biggy@Jun 23 2005, 11:26 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Trev@Jun 23 2005, 02:18 PM
"Lee was pointing out that the FSC are in his opinion cunts because even when your dues are paid you can get shafted!"

not until August or September.....
Its bought time, which is what they were originally going for, so how exactly do you find that bad?

Because a special "Court" Appointed Master gets access to the list.. how else would you have liked it done.
Personally I don't think it's bad, I love the way it’s being done… talk, fret and hype. You can’t buy publicity like this.

As long as people are willing to pay then let it continue, but I’m in another country and I can see that the FSC are unionist, you can all gather under their umbrella and I’ll wait for the result because it’s all win, win for me!
Thats a way of looking at it :) If I was foreign, i'd feel the same way.

The bottom line is: The law is the law.

If you don't like what the FSC is doing, don't pay, and be prepared for inspections starting next week. If you want extra time, you'll pay your dues, what is essentially a fee for delayed inspections.

Once again, the law is the law, only people concerned with a list going to the gov't are people who are concerned their house isn't in order. The FSC will argue against it in a few months, hopefully they can create a strong case to kill it.

People in the US most likely are complaining because:

1. They have to "pay" for something they feel should be free, yet would not happen without monetary support.

2. Are afraid of 2257 for whatever issue and the FSC is the scapegoat for not geting rid of 2257.

FSC didn't sell anyone out, they bought time. 2257 is here, its law, theres a real possibility it can remain law FOREVER, so what are you going to do then. I will be joining the FSC, and its no wonder some of the biggest people in the adult net are members and are supporting them as well.
Why pay for protection when it's easy to protect yourself?

If you have non compliant then get rid, as BillPMP posted in another thread it should be a write off.

"Only fools join unions – Unions are all about money in!" 1979 Mr Trevor Jenkins Snr - Sogat Union Secretary (NE) [/b][/quote]
BillPMB is right.

If people want the extra time to maintain their house is in order, they will pony up the fees, that is what I am saying :)

Thats what I call support, thats what you dont call support. You know what they say - time is money. FSC did a good job, no reason to hate on them. You don't like it, dont pay, they dont force you to, like most unions do...

*KK*

06-23-2005, 06:54 PM

Where does it say that if the FSC loses, their non-compliant members can't be prosecuted retroactively?

Today is the day for compliance. Just because they won't inspect you next week or indict you next month, I must be missing the part that says if the DOJ wins in court they still can't come back to you with screen shots from today or tomorrow and make you prove compliance.

Someone point that out to me.

Biggy

06-23-2005, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by *KK*@Jun 23 2005, 02:55 PM
Where does it say that if the FSC loses, their non-compliant members can't be prosecuted retroactively?

Today is the day for compliance. Just because they won't inspect you next week or indict you next month, I must be missing the part that says if the DOJ wins in court they still can't come back to you with screen shots from today or tomorrow and make you prove compliance.

Someone point that out to me.
If you aren't compliant today, you deserve it. As I stated above, the law is the law. No one should have been dependent that the TRO would 100% come through.

ThrobX

06-23-2005, 06:57 PM

Thanks, KK, I was just typing an identical post, I'm glad I hit refresh.

Today's compliance day, that's how I'm operating. While I'm an FSC member, they could give my name and address to the DOJ for all I care. My house is in full order, just like it should be for anyone who's treating this as a business.

Every industry has its rules and regs. If you can't take the heat, don't jump in the pan.

*KK*

06-23-2005, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by Biggy+Jun 23 2005, 02:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggy @ Jun 23 2005, 02:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-*KK*@Jun 23 2005, 02:55 PM
Where does it say that if the FSC loses, their non-compliant members can't be prosecuted retroactively?

Today is the day for compliance. Just because they won't inspect you next week or indict you next month, I must be missing the part that says if the DOJ wins in court they still can't come back to you with screen shots from today or tomorrow and make you prove compliance.

Someone point that out to me.
If you aren't compliant today, you deserve it. As I stated above, the law is the law. No one should have been dependent that the TRO would 100% come through. [/b][/quote]
Where does the law say that even had they gotten a TRO today that the DOJ could not prosecute retroactively in the event of winning the case?

The bottom line is pretty simple, a TRO isn't the be-all, end-all of the world. It simply means that there's a judge somewhere who thinks the plaintiff might win in court. It doesn't guarantee a win, and it certainly doesn't mean that if you were doing something found to be illegal in the end that you are not going to be prosecuted for it.

I'm not against what the FSC did -- in fact I think its great that someone did it.

But it doesn't change a thing until the Appeal Court is done.

Biggy

06-23-2005, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by *KK*+Jun 23 2005, 03:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (*KK* @ Jun 23 2005, 03:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Biggy@Jun 23 2005, 02:57 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-*KK*@Jun 23 2005, 02:55 PM
Where does it say that if the FSC loses, their non-compliant members can't be prosecuted retroactively?

Today is the day for compliance. Just because they won't inspect you next week or indict you next month, I must be missing the part that says if the DOJ wins in court they still can't come back to you with screen shots from today or tomorrow and make you prove compliance.

Someone point that out to me.
If you aren't compliant today, you deserve it. As I stated above, the law is the law. No one should have been dependent that the TRO would 100% come through.
Where does the law say that even had they gotten a TRO today that the DOJ could not prosecute retroactively in the event of winning the case?

The bottom line is pretty simple, a TRO isn't the be-all, end-all of the world. It simply means that there's a judge somewhere who thinks the plaintiff might win in court. It doesn't guarantee a win, and it certainly doesn't mean that if you were doing something found to be illegal in the end that you are not going to be prosecuted for it.

I'm not against what the FSC did -- in fact I think its great that someone did it.

But it doesn't change a thing until the Appeal Court is done. [/b][/quote]
We are in agreement :)

except with the thread title "The FSC Sold Us Out" which was what my first response and point I was trying to make.

Trev

06-23-2005, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by ThrobX@Jun 23 2005, 11:58 PM
Thanks, KK, I was just typing an identical post, I'm glad I hit refresh.

Today's compliance day, that's how I'm operating. While I'm an FSC member, they could give my name and address to the DOJ for all I care. My house is in full order, just like it should be for anyone who's treating this as a business.

Every industry has its rules and regs. If you can't take the heat, don't jump in the pan.
This is how it should be done!

Get your business working inline with the law, don't run to the FSC and hide under their shadow and cross your fingers, and be thankfull for more time!

*KK*

06-23-2005, 07:11 PM

I certainly hope that all these people who think they've bought themselves "time to become compliant" aren't the ones that the DOJ is handing more than enough rope to...

because if the DOJ wins in court, someone's going to be stupid enough to be hung on what they have on their servers today.

Trev

06-23-2005, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by *KK*@Jun 24 2005, 12:12 AM
I certainly hope that all these people who think they've bought themselves "time to become compliant" aren't the ones that the DOJ is handing more than enough rope to...

because if the DOJ wins in court, someone's going to be stupid enough to be hung on what they have on their servers today.
The law is in effect, lets see how many still hide under the umbrella!

aeon

06-23-2005, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by Lee@Jun 23 2005, 01:51 PM
The cunts.

As i have been saying for the last few months, this was nothing to o with defending the adult industry, rather lining their fucking pockets.

Nice to see an organization that defends the 'adult industry' is so happy to sell those same industry members out for a few grand.

Fuck the FSC and the scheister attorneys that make up their board :angry:
You cheap fuckin' faggot. Cough up your money like everyone else and stop bitching. I don't see you taking on the DOJ or doing shit other than having ass wrangler PMS on boards and expecting someone to give you something for free.

Hate crimes exist for a reason.

TheEnforcer

06-23-2005, 08:03 PM

I specifically held out of getting back in after doing mainstream for some time now until this mess was a little more clearer so it will be quite easy for me to comply if I decide to jump in. :)

Lee

06-23-2005, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by aeon+Jun 23 2005, 03:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (aeon @ Jun 23 2005, 03:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Lee@Jun 23 2005, 01:51 PM
The cunts.

As i have been saying for the last few months, this was nothing to o with defending the adult industry, rather lining their fucking pockets.

Nice to see an organization that defends the 'adult industry' is so happy to sell those same industry members out for a few grand.

Fuck the FSC and the scheister attorneys that make up their board :angry:
You cheap fuckin' faggot. Cough up your money like everyone else and stop bitching. I don't see you taking on the DOJ or doing shit other than having ass wrangler PMS on boards and expecting someone to give you something for free.

Hate crimes exist for a reason.[/b][/quote]
Ive paid my dues and more to PROPER attorneys, not a bunch of schisters out to line their own pockets through fearmongering in the adult industry.

We as a company, have been compliant for YEARS with these new regulations, yes, you read that right, we were compliant before these new regulations were even published, we know exactly where every single image we use is located on the web and, we know what provider sold it to us and where the model id is located.

This is all despite the fact that our 'porn' business is operated out of the UK.

Anyone running a responsible business should also know that sort of information, if they had retained a good attorney ;)

Biggy

06-23-2005, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by Lee+Jun 23 2005, 06:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lee @ Jun 23 2005, 06:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by aeon@Jun 23 2005, 03:49 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Lee@Jun 23 2005, 01:51 PM
The cunts.

As i have been saying for the last few months, this was nothing to o with defending the adult industry, rather lining their fucking pockets.

Nice to see an organization that defends the 'adult industry' is so happy to sell those same industry members out for a few grand.

Fuck the FSC and the scheister attorneys that make up their board :angry:
You cheap fuckin' faggot. Cough up your money like everyone else and stop bitching. I don't see you taking on the DOJ or doing shit other than having ass wrangler PMS on boards and expecting someone to give you something for free.

Hate crimes exist for a reason.
Ive paid my dues and more to PROPER attorneys, not a bunch of schisters out to line their own pockets through fearmongering in the adult industry.

We as a company, have been compliant for YEARS with these new regulations, yes, you read that right, we were compliant before these new regulations were even published, we know exactly where every single image we use is located on the web and, we know what provider sold it to us and where the model id is located.

This is all despite the fact that our 'porn' business is operated out of the UK.

Anyone running a responsible business should also know that sort of information, if they had retained a good attorney ;) [/b][/quote]
congrats on hiring your own attorneys..

once again, how did "the FSC sell us out."

Lee

06-23-2005, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by Biggy+Jun 23 2005, 06:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggy @ Jun 23 2005, 06:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Lee@Jun 23 2005, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by aeon@Jun 23 2005, 03:49 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Lee@Jun 23 2005, 01:51 PM
The cunts.

As i have been saying for the last few months, this was nothing to o with defending the adult industry, rather lining their fucking pockets.

Nice to see an organization that defends the 'adult industry' is so happy to sell those same industry members out for a few grand.

Fuck the FSC and the scheister attorneys that make up their board :angry:
You cheap fuckin' faggot. Cough up your money like everyone else and stop bitching. I don't see you taking on the DOJ or doing shit other than having ass wrangler PMS on boards and expecting someone to give you something for free.

Hate crimes exist for a reason.
Ive paid my dues and more to PROPER attorneys, not a bunch of schisters out to line their own pockets through fearmongering in the adult industry.

We as a company, have been compliant for YEARS with these new regulations, yes, you read that right, we were compliant before these new regulations were even published, we know exactly where every single image we use is located on the web and, we know what provider sold it to us and where the model id is located.

This is all despite the fact that our 'porn' business is operated out of the UK.

Anyone running a responsible business should also know that sort of information, if they had retained a good attorney ;)
congrats on hiring your own attorneys..

once again, how did "the FSC sell us out." [/b][/quote]
Do you genuinely not see how they sold the industry out to line their own pockets or have you been so blinded by their marketing tactics?

Biggy

06-23-2005, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by Lee+Jun 23 2005, 06:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lee @ Jun 23 2005, 06:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Biggy@Jun 23 2005, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by Lee@Jun 23 2005, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by aeon@Jun 23 2005, 03:49 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Lee@Jun 23 2005, 01:51 PM
The cunts.

As i have been saying for the last few months, this was nothing to o with defending the adult industry, rather lining their fucking pockets.

Nice to see an organization that defends the 'adult industry' is so happy to sell those same industry members out for a few grand.

Fuck the FSC and the scheister attorneys that make up their board :angry:
You cheap fuckin' faggot. Cough up your money like everyone else and stop bitching. I don't see you taking on the DOJ or doing shit other than having ass wrangler PMS on boards and expecting someone to give you something for free.

Hate crimes exist for a reason.
Ive paid my dues and more to PROPER attorneys, not a bunch of schisters out to line their own pockets through fearmongering in the adult industry.

We as a company, have been compliant for YEARS with these new regulations, yes, you read that right, we were compliant before these new regulations were even published, we know exactly where every single image we use is located on the web and, we know what provider sold it to us and where the model id is located.

This is all despite the fact that our 'porn' business is operated out of the UK.

Anyone running a responsible business should also know that sort of information, if they had retained a good attorney ;)
congrats on hiring your own attorneys..

once again, how did "the FSC sell us out."
Do you genuinely not see how they sold the industry out to line their own pockets or have you been so blinded by their marketing tactics? [/b][/quote]
i genuinely dont see how they "sold us out."

are they gaining personally from their work at the FSC - yes. That probably because of their work at the FSC, they are very well versed in this type of law.

did they "sell us out" - no. They worked an amicable deal out, but Lee - how did they sell you out? Did you pay to be a member, did it affect you - please stop hating. If you don't like them, ignore them, don't hate.

aeon

06-23-2005, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by Lee@Jun 23 2005, 06:01 PM
We as a company, have been compliant for YEARS
I love faggots - I mean come on...I don't even need to piss here.

Compliant for "years" with interpretations what were just published months ago - this is what makes oprano hillarious...

Lee

06-23-2005, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by aeon+Jun 23 2005, 06:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (aeon @ Jun 23 2005, 06:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lee@Jun 23 2005, 06:01 PM
We as a company, have been compliant for YEARS
I love faggots - I mean come on...I don't even need to piss here.

Compliant for "years" with interpretations what were just published months ago - this is what makes oprano hillarious... [/b][/quote]
As a company we HAVE been compliant for years.

As i have already mentioned, i know exactly where every single image on our network is being used, i know exactly where the model ids for those images are located, i know exactly which content provider sold the images to us.

Why is it so hard to understand that some of us actually do run our sites like a proper business?

Im sure if you asked someone at Directnic what domains they sold to "Joe Webmaster' 5 years ago, they would be able to provide you a list, along with every DNS setting that they used on the domains in question.

Anyone running a proper business has paperwork to do, just because it isnt required by law to do so, it doesnt mean that it doesnt get done.

I can tell you where every hit i send from our network goes to, virtually down to the second, i can tell you how much a sponsor sent me today 5 years ago, including their check number, i can even tell you which account that check got deposited in and, what the funds were used for.

Why is it so hard to beleive that any company keeps detailed records of their day-to-day business happenings?

Lee

06-23-2005, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by Biggy+Jun 23 2005, 06:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggy @ Jun 23 2005, 06:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Lee@Jun 23 2005, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by Biggy@Jun 23 2005, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by Lee@Jun 23 2005, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by aeon@Jun 23 2005, 03:49 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Lee@Jun 23 2005, 01:51 PM
The cunts.

As i have been saying for the last few months, this was nothing to o with defending the adult industry, rather lining their fucking pockets.

Nice to see an organization that defends the 'adult industry' is so happy to sell those same industry members out for a few grand.

Fuck the FSC and the scheister attorneys that make up their board :angry:
You cheap fuckin' faggot. Cough up your money like everyone else and stop bitching. I don't see you taking on the DOJ or doing shit other than having ass wrangler PMS on boards and expecting someone to give you something for free.

Hate crimes exist for a reason.
Ive paid my dues and more to PROPER attorneys, not a bunch of schisters out to line their own pockets through fearmongering in the adult industry.

We as a company, have been compliant for YEARS with these new regulations, yes, you read that right, we were compliant before these new regulations were even published, we know exactly where every single image we use is located on the web and, we know what provider sold it to us and where the model id is located.

This is all despite the fact that our 'porn' business is operated out of the UK.

Anyone running a responsible business should also know that sort of information, if they had retained a good attorney ;)
congrats on hiring your own attorneys..

once again, how did "the FSC sell us out."
Do you genuinely not see how they sold the industry out to line their own pockets or have you been so blinded by their marketing tactics?
i genuinely dont see how they "sold us out."

are they gaining personally from their work at the FSC - yes. That probably because of their work at the FSC, they are very well versed in this type of law.

did they "sell us out" - no. They worked an amicable deal out, but Lee - how did they sell you out? Did you pay to be a member, did it affect you - please stop hating. If you don't like them, ignore them, don't hate. [/b][/quote]
They sold the 'industry' out.

They say they represent the adult industry, they dont, they represent themselves and their members.

They have the gall to speak on behalf of the 'industry' whilst at the same time, selling that same industry down the river unless the individuals working it have paid them money.

This whole 257 debacle has been nothing more than a members drive for the FSC, one long, continuing marketing pitch culminating in getting the government to agree to something that will become their best marketing tool yet...

'The government wont go after you if you join before the 25th'

Webmasters are stupid, they will line up to send their money to these scheisters beleiving they will be excempt from prosectution indefinately, when the truth is, they wont be.

Thats not to mention they just gave the DOJ soe great ammo, if the FSC are so concerned about 'privacy' why did they just hand over a list of all their members to a third party? :blink:

aeon

06-23-2005, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by Lee@Jun 23 2005, 06:37 PM
As a company we HAVE been compliant for years.

As i have already mentioned, i know exactly where every single image on our network is being used, i know exactly where the model ids for those images are located, i know exactly which content provider sold the images to us.

Why is it so hard to understand that some of us actually do run our sites like a proper business?

Im sure if you asked someone at Directnic what domains they sold to "Joe Webmaster' 5 years ago, they would be able to provide you a list, along with every DNS setting that they used on the domains in question.

Anyone running a proper business has paperwork to do, just because it isnt required by law to do so, it doesnt mean that it doesnt get done.
Prove it. Show where you have better lawyers than ARS, TopBucks and the rest. Show you run a proper business.

Show where you run a better business and have been compliant with interpretations you didn't even hear about until a few months ago, for years.

That's all you have to do.

ThrobX

06-23-2005, 10:59 PM

Lee, you're overreacting.

sarettah

06-23-2005, 11:08 PM

I just finished reading the long version of all this, including the quotes from the lawyers.

Seems that it was a no brainer. They could have pushed for the tro hearing and possibly lost and then the feds could prosecute anyone they wanted while waiting for the injunction hearing in August, or they could cut a sure deal that covers their members and the plaintiffs until the injunction hearings.

Like I say no brainer, always go for the sure thing in a situation like that.

Also talked to my lawyer this evening (he manages the softball team I coach for :)) and he said it was exactly right that the deal only covers the plaintiffs, that that is the way all deals like that work.

So even though I do not always like the FSC, it sounds like they did the right thing on this one.

but that just imho of course... :unsure:

Lee

06-23-2005, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by aeon+Jun 23 2005, 06:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (aeon @ Jun 23 2005, 06:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lee@Jun 23 2005, 06:37 PM
As a company we HAVE been compliant for years.

As i have already mentioned, i know exactly where every single image on our network is being used, i know exactly where the model ids for those images are located, i know exactly which content provider sold the images to us.

Why is it so hard to understand that some of us actually do run our sites like a proper business?

Im sure if you asked someone at Directnic what domains they sold to "Joe Webmaster' 5 years ago, they would be able to provide you a list, along with every DNS setting that they used on the domains in question.

Anyone running a proper business has paperwork to do, just because it isnt required by law to do so, it doesnt mean that it doesnt get done.
Prove it. Show where you have better lawyers than ARS, TopBucks and the rest. Show you run a proper business.

Show where you run a better business and have been compliant with interpretations you didn't even hear about until a few months ago, for years.

That's all you have to do. [/b][/quote]
Now you are putting words in to my mouth.

I never said i had a better lawyer than any of the top sponsors, i never said our attorneys were any better than anyone lol

What i do know, is that OUR attorneys know more about OUR business than any FSC attorney knows and will ever know, not a single FSC attorney knows anything about UK law so they really cant give me any solid legal advice on how to run our UK company.

Our attorneys work with some of the largest companies in the UK http://www.cliffordchance.com i even explained a few days ago how we ended up using this law firm.

So far as proving how our documentation system is implemented, how would you propose we do that? Id be happy to 'prove it' if you can ask me what you want me to prove LOL

Lee

06-23-2005, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by ThrobX@Jun 23 2005, 07:00 PM
Lee, you're overreacting.
Why am i?

I dont see how im over reacting when the industry got sold out, one way or another the FSC is handing over a list of all their members to a third party.

Nowhere does it say what happens to that 'list' of names once the TRO is won or lost, the DOJ can have that list unsealed at any time.

The FSC are still 'spinning' this as a win to gain more members, which they can add to the 'master list'.

This is nothing more than a stay of execution, come the 8th of Augut we are still non the wiser as to whats going to happen one way or the other, all we know right now is that the FSC is willingly going to be giving a list of their member names and addresses to someone who isnt involved in any way with the FSC.

How am i over-reacting?

Even though we as a company are compliant, should the Feds come a knockin' its going to cost us time and money to prove our compliance, the best solution for this entire thing would have been for the FSC to get their TRO.

Instead, all thats happening is they put it off, so they could line their pockets at the expense of the industry members who they so adamantly 'defend'.

Weg Cory

06-23-2005, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by sarettah@Jun 23 2005, 07:09 PM
and he said it was exactly right that the deal only covers the plaintiffs, that that is the way all deals like that work.

How long will this thread continue until this point is understood?

Man, this industry is really terrifying. When the DOJ reads these boards, I bet they look upon us like a lion does when it spots a gimp old elephant.

Dravyk

06-23-2005, 11:45 PM

Lee, er ... you're over-reacting.

Timon

06-24-2005, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by aeon@Jun 23 2005, 09:53 PM
Show where you run a better business and have been compliant with interpretations you didn't even hear about until a few months ago, for years.

Again you show the fact that you are not an adult webmaster at all and know nothing about this business.

Record keeping and being able to prove the age of your models with ID's has been mandatory for years. Even Joe's Ho would know that.

Lee

06-24-2005, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by Timon+Jun 23 2005, 08:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Timon @ Jun 23 2005, 08:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-aeon@Jun 23 2005, 09:53 PM
Show where you run a better business and have been compliant with interpretations you didn't even hear about until a few months ago, for years.

Again you show the fact that you are not an adult webmaster at all and know nothing about this business.

Record keeping and being able to prove the age of your models with ID's has been mandatory for years. Even Joe's Ho would know that. [/b][/quote]
Moreso in the UK with their shitty obscenity laws, at least the USA has somewhat of a definition of 'obscenity' in the UK we just have to kinda guess, or go via that BBFC classifications which, at best are sketchy.

ThrobX

06-24-2005, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by Lee+Jun 23 2005, 07:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lee @ Jun 23 2005, 07:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ThrobX@Jun 23 2005, 07:00 PM
Lee, you're overreacting.
Why am i?

I dont see how im over reacting when the industry got sold out, one way or another the FSC is handing over a list of all their members to a third party.

yadda yadda yadda [/b][/quote]
Lee, you're overreacting.

Rolo

06-24-2005, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by Lee@Jun 23 2005, 07:22 PM
one way or another the FSC is handing over a list of all their members to a third party.
The DOJ probably already have a list, or they could just point their browsers to their favorite porn sites, and start surfing - its not like the industry is in hiding ;-))

Lee

06-24-2005, 02:27 AM

Originally posted by Rolo+Jun 23 2005, 09:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rolo @ Jun 23 2005, 09:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lee@Jun 23 2005, 07:22 PM
one way or another the FSC is handing over a list of all their members to a third party.
The DOJ probably already have a list, or they could just point their browsers to their favorite porn sites, and start surfing - its not like the industry is in hiding ;-)) [/b][/quote]
They do already have a list.

The FSC have opnly said that anyone on the DOJ's 'list' will be checked against those on the FSC's member list.

If the DOJ jas a current list of 'violators', see my point in that thread Drav started.

It only takes one bad apple to spoil the barrel ;)

PornoDoggy

06-24-2005, 02:56 AM

Originally posted by sarettah@Jun 23 2005, 10:09 PM
I just finished reading the long version of all this, including the quotes from the lawyers.

Seems that it was a no brainer. They could have pushed for the tro hearing and possibly lost and then the feds could prosecute anyone they wanted while waiting for the injunction hearing in August, or they could cut a sure deal that covers their members and the plaintiffs until the injunction hearings.

Like I say no brainer, always go for the sure thing in a situation like that.

Also talked to my lawyer this evening (he manages the softball team I coach for :)) and he said it was exactly right that the deal only covers the plaintiffs, that that is the way all deals like that work.

So even though I do not always like the FSC, it sounds like they did the right thing on this one.

but that just imho of course... :unsure:
I'm not so sure.

I don't want to completely disrupt this hissy fit, but consider this - would the Feds have agreed to this if they thought the new regs would stand? Seems to me the other guy has already winked, at least - and maybe he's blinking.

I'm all for a conservative legal strategy, but if the hand is loaded with Aces, you're a fool not to play them - and the new regs bear a striking similiarity to the ones tossed aside.

I am a laymen, don't profess to be a lawyer, but I did spend five years trying to keep them from fucking up my databases.

There is a lot about this whole thing that puzzles me. I'm confused by the number of people that contend there was no way to obtain a "blanket" TRO enjoining the DOJ from enforcement efforts of any kind against any entity; that only named plaintiffs could have been covered by a TRO resulting from today's hearing doesn't seem quite right to me.

I don't know enough at this point to conclude that what the FSC did is good strategy, bad strategy, or stupid strategy.

That being said, Lee - if you are not a member of the FSC, they can't have sold you out.

Even though we as a company are compliant, should the Feds come a knockin' its going to cost us time and money to prove our compliance, the best solution for this entire thing would have been for the FSC to get their TRO.

Instead, all thats happening is they put it off, so they could line their pockets at the expense of the industry members who they so adamantly 'defend'.

So what you are really saying is that this organization didn't follow a legal strategy that benefited you - an organization you do not belong to, and who therefore has no reason to give a fine flying fuck about you.

Why the fuck should they do your legal work for you? How much legal work have yoiu done for other people for free?

Rolo

06-24-2005, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by Lee+Jun 23 2005, 10:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lee @ Jun 23 2005, 10:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Rolo@Jun 23 2005, 09:59 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Lee@Jun 23 2005, 07:22 PM
one way or another the FSC is handing over a list of all their members to a third party.
The DOJ probably already have a list, or they could just point their browsers to their favorite porn sites, and start surfing - its not like the industry is in hiding ;-))
They do already have a list.

The FSC have opnly said that anyone on the DOJ's 'list' will be checked against those on the FSC's member list.

If the DOJ jas a current list of 'violators', see my point in that thread Drav started.

It only takes one bad apple to spoil the barrel ;) [/b][/quote]
I was not aware that people are joing the FSC, because they want to continue to be "illegal", but if they do, then its a personal choice - not something the FSC is promoting. The FSC has already washed their hands in the press release regarding any bad apples.

FSC have placed themself in a situation, where they can fight.. I would think just that would be enough to contribute, if you are located in the US?

PornoDoggy

06-24-2005, 03:05 AM

Anyone who joined the FSC in the effort to support the lawsuit against the government and expected that your information would be kept private - please contact me immediately.

I have bridges for sale in New York and San Francisco for sale real cheap.

:blink:

Lee

06-24-2005, 03:05 AM

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jun 23 2005, 10:57 PM
if you are not a member of the FSC, they can't have sold you out.
They havent sold 'me' out, they sold 'us' (the industry) out.

They claim to represent the industry yet, at the first chance they get, they make a non-disclosed 'dea' that benefits only their members.

They dropped a TRO that would have protected EVERYONE, not just their members, instead, they are continuing to line their profits usng the 'we represent the industry' marketing 'spin'.

I really couldnt care less myself as my company is fully compliant however, i know US based webmasters who are also compliant but do not currently belong to the FSC, they are the ones who got sold out. Even though they are compliant, because they arent a member of the FSC they can still be inspected at great expense to themselves.

Lee

06-24-2005, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by Rolo@Jun 23 2005, 10:59 PM
I was not aware that people are joing the FSC, because they want to continue to be "illegal", but if they do, then its a personal choice - not something the FSC is promoting. The FSC has already washed their hands in the press release regarding any bad apples.

FSC have placed themself in a situation, where they can fight.. I would think just that would be enough to contribute, if you are located in the US?
I agree, it isnt something that FSC is promoting but, its also not something that they are telling people NOT to do either.

If the DOJ finds a single webmaster in non-compliance with these 2257 regs, and they ARE a member of the FSC, every other member of the FSC's information will be made available to the DOJ.

As i mentioned above, this 'private deal' does NOT protect people who ARE guilty of a crime even if they are FSC members.

If someone has commited a crime, in this instance, non-compliance, no amount of 'private deals' in the world will stop them being prosecuted.

Lee

06-24-2005, 03:16 AM

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jun 23 2005, 11:06 PM
Anyone who joined the FSC in the effort to support the lawsuit against the government and expected that your information would be kept private - please contact me immediately.

I have bridges for sale in New York and San Francisco for sale real cheap.

:blink:
Can you prove ownership of the said bridges?

Perhaps you could stand by them with a copy of todays newspaper to prove you have them in your possession ;)

Rolo

06-24-2005, 04:00 AM

Originally posted by Lee@Jun 23 2005, 11:10 PM
If the DOJ finds a single webmaster in non-compliance with these 2257 regs, and they ARE a member of the FSC, every other member of the FSC's information will be made available to the DOJ.
How will the DOJ find out that they are illegal, if they can not inspect the company records until September 7, 2005? :unsure:

Lee

06-24-2005, 04:03 AM

Originally posted by Rolo+Jun 24 2005, 12:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rolo @ Jun 24 2005, 12:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lee@Jun 23 2005, 11:10 PM
If the DOJ finds a single webmaster in non-compliance with these 2257 regs, and they ARE a member of the FSC, every other member of the FSC's information will be made available to the DOJ.
How will the DOJ find out that they are illegal, if they can not inspect the company records until September 7, 2005? :unsure: [/b][/quote]
They dont have to inspect the records LOL

They ALREADY have a 'hit list'.

That means that they have ALREADY done their homework.

All its going to take is for the DOJ to find a single image on a site that they already know doesnt have the required documents in circulation and voila, no need to inspect, just arrest and charge.

Rolo

06-24-2005, 04:08 AM

Originally posted by Lee@Jun 24 2005, 12:04 AM
All its going to take is for the DOJ to find a single image on a site that they already know doesnt have the required documents in circulation and voila, no need to inspect, just arrest and charge.
Then how does that give the DOJ access to all the others on the FSC list? :unsure:

vdc-Loki

06-24-2005, 04:39 AM

I wish I caught this thread sooner so I could have shoved my 2cents at the top of the thread :( but better late then never.

Anyone who paid close attention to the FSC would have seen this coming a mile away,

Case in point:

They said for the last 30 days 2 things that TOTALY contradicted the other
(1) We Will NEVER Give out your info if you become a member
(2) Only our members will be covered by our TRO

Now one would read those two statements and do a compleate Homer "DOH" and see that these fucks are just full of shit, but for some reason the vast majority of webmasters totaly missed this????

Next up, they NEVER used proper legal terms for what they were doing from the get go:
(1) We will be filing for a TRO (Temporary Restraing Order) And it will only cover our members
(2) We will be filing an injunction.....
(3) We will not give out our member lists

Next up, They knew the end plan the entire time, a true TRO would cover EVERYONE member or not BUT a PLEA or "Begging for an extension" would only cover their members, this was their plan all along if you stop and apply commen sence to it all, again they misslead us and fuck over those who payed them money.

Finaly, They (My consperacy Theory) Are providing kickbacks to certain players who drum up huge signups, bringing us right back to the year 1999 where people made mass ammounts of cash by "less then ethical means" All one needs to do to understand this theory is to follow the board drama and who is doing what, These are not "stupid people" or "noobs" who would just believe everything they read, these are "power players" who hold a nice chunk of thier collective industries. The result is the ability to manipulate a huge flock of sheep to fork over $300.00 a pop from which they get how much in return?

The list goes on and on, but I called this 28 days ago but no one seemed to want to listen, but now a damn good portion of people see the truth, I just pray they did not put themselves and their freedoms at risk by being put on the FSC soon to be handed over to the court "Member List"

-Loki-

Lee

06-24-2005, 04:41 AM

Originally posted by Rolo+Jun 24 2005, 12:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rolo @ Jun 24 2005, 12:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lee@Jun 24 2005, 12:04 AM
All its going to take is for the DOJ to find a single image on a site that they already know doesnt have the required documents in circulation and voila, no need to inspect, just arrest and charge.
Then how does that give the DOJ access to all the others on the FSC list? :unsure: [/b][/quote]
Once one has been charged, its only going to take a plea to a judge on the grounds of 'discovery' to have them unseal the list.

99% of the time, if a crime has been commited by someone on a 'sealed' document, it gets 'unsealed' and entered in to public record at least thats what one of our attorneys are telling us :)

Something about having potential evidence hidden from law enforcement / prosecutors that could influence the outcome of a case was what she mentioned specifically.

In essence, it means people who are ALREADY members of the FSC need to be stopping those webmasters who have posted on places like GFY saying they only want to join to get the 'protection' from joining because its only going to take one of them to be caught for every FSC members to be up the creek without a paddle.

Lee

06-24-2005, 04:46 AM

Originally posted by vdc-Loki@Jun 24 2005, 12:40 AM
The list goes on and on, but I called this 28 days ago but no one seemed to want to listen, but now a damn good portion of people see the truth
Im with ya there, ive been saying since the FSC first started telling people they need to signup to be 'protected' that something was amiss.

Its only now people are starting to realize the consequences of the FSCs actions, along with what i have been saying made sense all along.

Trev

06-24-2005, 05:47 AM

$300 for an ass fucking is out of my price range <_<

Vick

06-24-2005, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by Trev@Jun 24 2005, 04:48 AM
$300 for an ass fucking is out of my price range <_<
Depends on who's ass

Does that price included a reacharound and kissing?

Rolo

06-24-2005, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by Lee@Jun 24 2005, 12:42 AM
99% of the time, if a crime has been commited by someone on a 'sealed' document, it gets 'unsealed' and entered in to public record at least thats what one of our attorneys are telling us :)
Well, I guess we get to see, if this will happen - no way all persons/companies on the FSC list have their things in order ;-)

But bottomline is that the FSC are now the industry best bet to get anything changed regarding 2257... I will not speculate, if they have a good case or not - but it will clearly benefit all if the FSC succeeds. So why not support them? (you can probably just wire them money without being a member ;-))

sarettah

06-24-2005, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jun 24 2005, 01:57 AM
There is a lot about this whole thing that puzzles me. I'm confused by the number of people that contend there was no way to obtain a "blanket" TRO enjoining the DOJ from enforcement efforts of any kind against any entity; that only named plaintiffs could have been covered by a TRO resulting from today's hearing doesn't seem quite right to me.

They could have gone for the blanket TRO, that is what was requested. The agreement was made to forego the hearing on the TRO.

My point was that the TRO was not a sure thing, that would have depended on the judge's mood.

The agreement was a sure thing, and covers only the plaintiffs.

Trev

06-24-2005, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by Vick+Jun 24 2005, 12:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Vick @ Jun 24 2005, 12:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Trev@Jun 24 2005, 04:48 AM
$300 for an ass fucking is out of my price range <_<
Depends on who's ass

Does that price included a reacharound and kissing? [/b][/quote]
If I'm being payed $300 then I don't mind a reach around with a little kissing :)

However if I'm paying $300 then I don't want to be ass fucked, period!

ThrobX

06-24-2005, 12:57 PM

Boy, the conspiracy theories are flying high now.

OK, here's my perspective. My house is clean, authorities can feel free to inspect my records. No cost involved to me, they come, ask to see records, I show them, they're going to say OK.

I belong to the FSC, not as some protective measure, but because I believe in what they do. This just turns out to be an added unexpected benefit to me as a paying member.

Let's just say that the "discovery" theory is true. "One bad apple" won't ruin me, because I'm compliant. The only people it'll "ruin" are the ones who AREN'T compliant, and my perspective is fuck 'em, they should've been compliant.

Why anyone would be concerned about anybody knowing they're a Free Speech Coalition member in the first place is totally beyond me. I really don't care who knows I'm a member, from the DOJ down to that red-haired kid down the block. Matters not to me.

aeon

06-24-2005, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Weg Cory+Jun 23 2005, 07:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Weg Cory @ Jun 23 2005, 07:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-sarettah@Jun 23 2005, 07:09 PM
and he said it was exactly right that the deal only covers the plaintiffs, that that is the way all deals like that work.

How long will this thread continue until this point is understood?

Man, this industry is really terrifying. When the DOJ reads these boards, I bet they look upon us like a lion does when it spots a gimp old elephant.[/b][/quote]
What the fuck's the matter with you? Don't you understand? These are the "l33t" of porn. Everyone on oprano has been compliant with the new regs since 96'. I mean these are the geniuses of online porn. They created it. Hell, they created pop ups! By that fact alone they should be included in any injunction or agreement for free. Didn’t you know all the lawyers from bangbro’s and ifriends, etc., surf here to learn how to deal with the DOJ? It’s not like paul cambria or others have any “real” idea of what's going on.

Gotta give has been and faggot porn peddlers credit, they make GFY look like yale orientation at times.

I'm praying they all get indicted so I can dance around at their sentencing hearings.

Trev

06-24-2005, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by aeon+Jun 25 2005, 12:41 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (aeon @ Jun 25 2005, 12:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Weg Cory@Jun 23 2005, 07:30 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-sarettah@Jun 23 2005, 07:09 PM
and he said it was exactly right that the deal only covers the plaintiffs, that that is the way all deals like that work.

How long will this thread continue until this point is understood?

Man, this industry is really terrifying. When the DOJ reads these boards, I bet they look upon us like a lion does when it spots a gimp old elephant.
What the fuck's the matter with you? Don't you understand? These are the "l33t" of porn. Everyone on oprano has been compliant with the new regs since 96'. I mean these are the geniuses of online porn. They created it. Hell, they created pop ups! By that fact alone they should be included in any injunction or agreement for free. Didn’t you know all the lawyers from bangbro’s and ifriends, etc., surf here to learn how to deal with the DOJ? It’s not like paul cambria or others have any “real” idea of what's going on.

Gotta give has been and faggot porn peddlers credit, they make GFY look like yale orientation at times.

I'm praying they all get indicted so I can dance around at their sentencing hearings. [/b][/quote]
Very nicely wrote :)

Your anger and hate barely shows, but you ignorance seems to be harder to hide! <_<

One of the people in this thread that have claimed that they comply and did before these regs came out, I truly believe! As he’s from the UK and has had to cover his ass with factor 2000 sunscreen from the start!

It’s easier to work this when the laws are tight and being loosened – harder to work it from the other way around!