Printable View
From what i recall the decision was due before the injunction thing runs out, that runs out tomorrow (1st).
Has anything been mentioned yet that ive missed or is this being cut really close yet again?
I dont know but in my opinion, on a matter such as this, you'd think that there would be some kind of urgentcy playing on peoples minds.
So whats the dealio? Are we expecting news from the FSC today?
Regards,
Lee
Yeah, thats right, the injunction ends on Sept 1st but I have already read that it will very likely be extended until a decision is made. Of course that is not official :teach:
cheers,
Luke
This is what XBiz had:
http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=10114
FSC Expects Action Before 2257 Injunction Expires
By Matt O'Conner
Monday, August 29, 2005
CANOGA PARK, Calif. — Technically, Sept. 1 is the last day Free Speech Coalition members are guaranteed protection against enforcement of re-issued 2257 federal record-keeping and labeling requirements under an agreement between the FSC and the Justice Department.
But FSC Communications Director Tom Hymes told XBiz there’s no cause for alarm.
“Yes, the agreement would expire [on Sept. 1], but that’s not going to happen because the judge will extend the stipulation [agreement] if necessary, and that probably won’t be necessary because we still expect a decision by then,” Hymes said.
The amended regulations went into effect June 23, but a temporary restraining order barring Justice from prosecuting FSC members under 2257 was signed by U.S. District Court Judge Walker D. Miller after the FSC and Justice officials struck an 11th hour deal on the eve of the law’s enforcement.
Under the deal, authorities won’t conduct any inspections or pursue any claims to FSC members “until no later than 30 days after the date of the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction,” which was held on Aug. 2.
If the court fails to make a decision by that date and doesn’t grant an extension on the order, Justice would be free to pursue enforcement. But Hymes told XBiz that such a scenario is highly unlikely.
“A request will be made [by FSC lawyers] to the judge to extend the stipulation, and we have every expectation that he will,” Hymes said. “There’s no reason to worry.”
In June, Lawyers from three law firms — Denver-based Schwartz & Goldberg’ Sirkin, Pinales & Schwartz of Cincinnati, Ohio; and Buffalo, N.Y.-based law firm Lipsitz, Green, Fahringer, Roll, Salisbury & Cambria — petitioned the court on behalf of the FSC to overturn the amended regulations on the grounds that they are overly burdensome and would cause irreparable harm to the industry.
The court is currently weighing the merits of those arguments and is expected to make its decision or extend the order against enforcement by Thursday. In the meantime, the court remains silent on the issue and there is no indication which way it is leaning.
so is that a good sign or bad sign that they haven't made a decision and haven't indicated which way they are leaning? :huh:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaystoryman
I think it's a good sign. If the prosecution hadn't made some really good arguments against the case, the judge would have easily and quickly dismissed the plaintiffs case.
But, I think almost every rational and half way intelligent person that has read this set of regulations finds it to be in huge disaray at best, and detrimental to free speech and rights against unlawful search and seizure at it's worst. That's why if the judge doesn't strike down a great MANY of the regs, I will really be suprised.
Btw..I finally got my FSC membership in snail mail just last week.
I hope when the word comes out that it is in real plain simple English.
Lol..good luck on that one!Quote:
Originally Posted by ponyboy
"FSC, Justice Department Extend 2257 Agreement Another 30 Days
By Matt O'Conner
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
DENVER — The Free Speech Coalition (FSC) and the Justice Department have agreed to extend of the original stipulation regarding a motion for a temporary restraining order against enforcement of amended 2257 record-keeping regulations.
The original stipulation, scheduled to expire tomorrow, Sept. 1, 2005, will now be extended for an additional 30 days, until and including Oct. 1, or until the court rules on plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction as requested in Free Speech Coalition et al vs. Alberto Gonzales, whichever occurs first. The case is pending in U.S District Court in Colorado.
The terms of the original stipulation are maintained intact, meaning that FSC members are protected against prosecution under the amended regulations.
FSC attorneys said they expect a decision by U.S District Court Judge Walker D. Miller on the Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction will be rendered well before the extended deadline.
“Our legal team is the best in the country,” FSC Executive Director Michelle L. Freridge said, “and we have every expectation of a positive ruling by Judge Miller regarding the imminent motion. But we all have to remember that we are just at the beginning of a complicated case that could continue on for another year, during which time we will need the ongoing support of our members and the industry as we build on the successes we have achieved thus far.”
The FSC has said it is grateful to its members for their support and also appreciates the Justice Department attorneys for their cooperation during the process."
http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=10150
and so...we hurry up and WAIT!!
not a surprise on that one, justice is blind so she is a bit slow too LOL!!!
cheers,
Luke