Printable View
Ive just been talking to someone on ICQ who told me that some webmaster was arrested earlier this week in relation to not keeping 2257 records.
Anyone got any additional information on this? AVN, as usual, doesnt have anything on this news as yet.
Regards,
Lee
http://www.xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=10091
While the guy settled, he also is helping the DOJ as I read the article, and It seems that the 2257 is simply being added to further strengthen their cases, the primary charge appears to be the can-spam law.
Ian
Hey-
Well I would hope they don't settle or plea the 2257 charge, but litigate it.
Steve
Quote:
Originally Posted by desslock
There are a lot of counts on the indictment, and more than likely the defendants will be offered a deal where they plead to 1 or 2 charges and the others will be dropped. Defendants don't get to choose to go to trial on some charges and plead the others--they get packaged offers that are usually take it or leave it.
When I was prosecuting I filed all the legitimate charges that could be filed and then I would have a lot of bargaining power to get a guilty plea on the most important charges. That is just the way the system works--more than 95% of all indictments result in a guilty plea. If everybody demanded a trial, the justice system would grind to a halt because there is not enough courtroom space or courtroom time for all those jury trials. A typical guilty plea and sentencing can be done in under 30 minutes with 1 judge, 1 prosecutor, a court reporter, defense lawyer and bailiff. A jury trial needs all those people, plus a jury pool of 20-40 people, a clerk, and 12 to 16 hours of courtroom time. Consider that when 3% to 5% of cases are going to trial and the system is overloaded, what would happen if even 20% of cases demanded a trial.
If we were still in 2003 before new 2257 regs were first introduced, I would say that the 2257 was a throw-away charge that would be dismissed as part of a plea bargain. However, today there is more pressure to show that 2257 is being enforced, so I would bet that a guilty plea to a 2257 charge would be part of any plea agreeement offered to the defendants.
Lets hope the guy wasnt a member of the FSC then.Quote:
Originally Posted by chadknowslaw
IMHO, having one FSC 'protected' member pleading guilty could put each and every one of them in a whole world of hurt, lets not forget their names (all FSC members) are on that list the FSC handed over to the courts :eek:
Chad, as an attorney, would you say that finding 1 guilty FSC member would be enough for the government to request the 'master list' be unsealed so they can see a full list of FSC members? So far as 'investigations' in to illegal 2257 records keeping goes?
Regards,
Lee