bet there is a non disclosure clause which will be the explanation... which wouldn't be out of the ordinary either...
just my guess
bet there is a non disclosure clause which will be the explanation... which wouldn't be out of the ordinary either...
just my guess
Right, the good thing is, that non-disclosure clause will only effect people who ARENT plaintiffs.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaystoryman
So for example, Charles could ask the FSC for a copy and, as he is a member of the FSC, they have no reason not to provide him with a copy, unless that is, they have something to hide.
Regards,
Lee
Hmm.. well to be honest Lee, if I was heading the FSC, and it had a non disclosure clause in it and that violation could terminate the agreement, I'd think long and hard before releasing it to the general membership of the group, for the simple fact that the more it was made available, the greater the risk of it being made public.. which defeats the non disclosure aspect. So while I'd love to know what was in the deal, I dont' think I can fault them for not releasing it assuming, big assumption, that it does have a non disclosure agreement.
But I certainly think a better PR position is needed. A point by point explanation at least, given that they do claim to be an 'industry watchdog'... which in my view, hasn't happened yet. Perhaps after the weekend?
Ian,
Non disclosure isnt an issue here, they have 'plaintiffs' and the FSC is acting on behalf of several thousands plaintiffs, how can those plaintiffs follow the agreement if, they dont know what is contained in it.
Its law 101, hopefully Chad will be able to shed a little more light on this matter for us though :)
Regards,
Lee
Here is how the agreement came about apparently:
The FSC also expresses appreciation to our extraordinary legal team: H. Louis Sirkin, Paul Cambria, Art Schwartz, Jennifer Kingsley, Roger Wilcox, Michael Gross, Barry Covert and Michael Deal. Special acknowledgement also to Michael Murray, whose agreement with the DoJ in the Connections Magazine case in Cleveland, Ohio, laid the groundwork for this agreement.
Apparently Michael Murray who is working on another case had something going and the FSC took advantage of a "good thing".
Might be worth checking up on this other case to see if something is available on it regarding the deal.
PapaBear
i just don't see how giving the doj more time to prepare is a good thing :(
Unfortunately, that seems to be lost in the shuffle.Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
I agree. It's been said that the DOJ thought they were going to lose the case... that's why they did this deal... well logically one has to ask.. if the FSC thought they were going to win, why broker a deal?Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
Has anyone seen a full copy of the 'agreement' yet?
Regards,
Lee
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
Nope..nor who the actual decision makers were that said "Go for the deal!"
i also haven't read officially that there is, in fact, a non-disclosure agreement.
2c on the sundance thing, it's common knowledge that it is only applicable to a small part of the states and only in a very narrow set of circumstances.
This is from an old email from Obenberger on the topic:
"Sundance is the decision of only one American intermediate Appellate Court, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals based in Denver, and its decision, strictly speaking, is binding law only in the ten states in its Circuit. Its decision does not bind any courts outside its Circuit. There are twelve Circuits in all. The Justice Department does NOT agree that Sundance was correctly decided (though they didn't try for an appeal to the Supreme Court), Justice takes the position that the secondary producer requirements are valid, and the new regulations proposed continue to incorporate them.
"A prudent webmaster or publisher will continue to obey them until there is a definitive decision nationwide invalidating the regulations. The risk is a maximum of 5 years in prison if Sundance is not followed by the other Circuits, or if the issue winds up in the Supreme Court in another case, and the Supreme Court goes the other way. Honestly, I think that's unlikely. But, given the risk, the only intelligent position is to demand the records required by the law until there is a clear decision of nationwide binding precedent that invalidates the law."
ap.
I personally see a lot of reason in this agreement.
Consider the fact that the law came in to effect on the 23rd of June. The TRO could have been denied. The hearing on the motion for a TRO could have taken awhile. So what we get in the agreement is assurance no action will be taken as proceedings are ongoing. Complete assurance for the plaintiffs (and implied assurance for everyone else) that no matter what decision might have been reached on the motion for a TRO and no matter how long it would have taken for that decision to be reached, they're safe from inspections and/or action. The June 23rd hearing was not going to offer any ounce of ruling on 2257 itself. The tRO hearing was never going to offer a permanent solution, or even permanent answer. That wasn't what the hearing was about. The court could have decided to deny a TRO and let the government do its work until a challenge to the law itself finally came about in subsequent hearings.
At the opening of the business day on June 23rd the government could very well have chosen to carry out a massive sweep of inspections. They could have brought action against anyone they wanted. They could have created a lot of hassle for a lot of people. If the judge denied the TRO, all hell could have broken loose for a lot of people. Even if the court had approved the TRO there still could have been ample time for folks lives to have been made miserable and anxiety and uncertainty run amock.
So this agreement has provided people with at least a month and a half of respite, regardless of any other circumstances that are beyond any of our control. Guaranteed month and a half of respite. Even a TRO on June 23rd could not have offered that much relief.
So you're allowed to breathe a little easier for at least a month and a half, get a guaranteed extra month and a half to be sure your ducks are in a row, and then on the date of the hearing on the motion for a PI the FSC goes in to fight for an even greater period of relief, followed then by their fight for total relief in the form of an oppressive relief being struck down by the court.