Here's the FULL agreement

I see quite a bit of interpretation of this ruling as being no more than non-expert speculation. I happen to disagree with how some of you guys are interpreting the text of that agreement. And even among you there's variation between how it's being interpreted.

None of us is a legal expert or lawyer and so perhaps we'd be better served passing over the text of the agreement to our lawyers - as I've done to mine - or waiting for an actual lawyer to come along and make a statement as to what the text means.

I'm not suggesting I'm right in my interpretation, nor that anyone else is necessarily wrong. But I simply think none of us has grounds to say we know definitively what it means, much less that for some reason we're able to correctly interpret the agreement to mean something other than what FSC's lawyers say it means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slade

Technically yes..when the defendant fails to show, judgement goes to the plaintiff. But in this situation, since the defendant is the government, it's not too practical to rule against them. ;-)

---

The fact that the DOJ didn't show in person indicates this stipulation was agreed upon at least a few days in advance. If not.. the DOJ would have already been in town etc. etc.

Of course an injunction can be granted if someone doesn't show to court. This is how all those sites got shut down by Acacia... the owners didn't show up for the injunction court date and the site was shut down.

There are things not being told to us and there are to many unanswered questions here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDBionic

I'm not suggesting I'm right in my interpretation, nor that anyone else is necessarily wrong. But I simply think none of us has grounds to say we know definitively what it means, much less that for some reason we're able to correctly interpret the agreement to mean something other than what FSC's lawyers say it means.

---

Well the problem here is that none of us would speculate it there weren't so many unanswered questions. Also, other attornies have stated that what the supporters of the FSC are putting out is false... such as the latest "agreement" protects all of us, not just the FSC .. an attorney posted that on here just the other day.. anyone have a link to that thread?

So this is where it's difficult. Attorneys don't agree... and funny enough.. the attornys giving their FREE input to us all have nothing to gain... where as the other side does.. right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

Well the problem here is that none of us would speculate it there weren't so many unanswered questions. Also, other attornies have stated that what the supporters of the FSC are putting out is false... such as the latest "agreement" protects all of us, not just the FSC .. an attorney posted that on here just the other day.. anyone have a link to that thread?

---

The FSC is stating that civil litigation rules govern the nature of this agreement, which is why it's able to cover only plaintiffs and not everyone in general. That it's a civil agreement. That's why they're saying that the equal protection doesn't apply. And mention that the very same type of agreement was in place for Library Assoc vs. Reno. So it's not unprecedented, nor is the agreement itself unconstitutional.

As an example of discrepancies in interpretation, here's how I read the meaning of the agreement, in stark contrast to how some others have read it in here...

1. The Court will forego ruling on the pending motion for temporary restraining order, treat the motion as a motion for preliminary injunction, and will take up scheduling matters at the time of hearing for temporary restraining order on June 23, 2005, 1:30 P.M.

It's key to realize this agreement was written and reached BEFORE June 23, 2005 @ 1:30pm. BEFORE. The agreement was NOT a result of the June 23rd hearing. It was reached BEFORE the June 23rd hearing, which was originally scheduled to be the date on which the court ruled on the pending motion for a TRO.

Because the agreement was reached beforehand, the June 23rd proceedings were changed. Instead of it being a hearing on a TRO as originally planned, it took up scheduling matters for the hearing of the motion for a PI in its place. IT DID NOT ISSUE A PI ON JUNE 23 @ 1:30pm. Instead, it scheduled the hearing on a PI. That hearing, in the June 23rd proceedings, was set for August 8, 2005.

From the date of this agreement until no later than 30 days after the date of the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction or the date of a decision on the motion, whichever comes first, unless otherwise extended by the Court, the Government agrees:

From the date of this agreement (June 22 or 23... doesn't matter as whatever the exact date of the agreement was has since been passed and so we are now in the "from" period... in other words coverage of the agreement has begun) until no later than 30 days after the date of the hearing on the motion for a PI (August 8, 2005), the government agrees... etc etc.

In other words, beginning on June 23rd and proceeding on til anywhere between August 8th and Sept 8th (Sept 8th being 30 days after the hearing on the motion of a PI) the agreement is in effect and DOJ can not inspect or lay claim against plaintiffs. The agreement's protections extend no further than to Sept 8th if the court fails to render judgement. If the court denies a PI within that 30 days, the agreement is over. If the court issues a PI within that 30 days, the agreement is also over. But in place of the protections of the agreement come the protections of the court if a PI is issues. In other words, the agreement isn't necessary if the court issues a PI because that means the court has told the DOJ they can not take action. If the PI is denied before Sept 8, that means the DOJ can take action. But they will not have had the opportunity to take action against plaintiffs beginning June 23 as they originally had hoped, and so even if a PI was denied the agreement had still bought people at least a month and a half of safety by then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDBionic

The FSC is stating that civil litigation rules govern the nature of this agreement, which is why it's able to cover only plaintiffs and not everyone in general.

---

One of the lawyers for the FSC made a statement on another board regarding this. Here is part of the statement:

"As a last matter, no one from the FSC has said or meant to suggest that someone should become a member of the FSC in order to be protected under an injunction that does not even exist. While it is a fact that under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure only parties to litigation are covered by an injunction, it has also been amply explained by now that while technical limitations apply, the practical result of some injunctions is that no one is prosecuted while the injunction is in effect, as has happened with COPA."

Other attorneys have also stated that there is no selective enforcement of the law. What goes for the FSC member, goes for all regarding legal proceedings.. as stated above by the FSC attorney.

My frustration here is that some are saying you have to join the FSC to gain some kind of special protection and/or privilege of the law.. and that's not true.. the FSC attorney has said that himself.

The DOJ itself has stated they are basically on hold until this is settled by the court. This is a direct quote from page 2 of the stipulation "The Government takes the position that the regulations codified at 28 CFR, part 75, et seq., are in effect as of June 23, 2005, and reserves the right, after the expiration of this agreement or the denial of a preliminary injunction, to prosecute or otherwise commence enforcement proceedings with respect to any violation that occurs on or after June 23, 2005 (including any violation that may occur during the period of this agreement)."

You know the MOST frustrating part of this? All of us wasting so much time and energy on this when it doesn't have to be like this. We all care about our industry, rights, etc. and we're being forced into this position of bickering because of a severe lack of communication and MAJOR spin going down online. Attorneys not associated with the FSC have stated clearly that this stipulation affects us all, not just the FSC. They have no financial stake in this and no reason to be untruthful.

Thanks for puting your time and effort into this as well BDBionic it does say something about your character :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

Other attorneys have also stated that there is no selective enforcement of the law. What goes for the FSC member, goes for all regarding legal proceedings.. as stated above by the FSC attorney.

---

Oh I definitely hear what you're saying. That's the practical affect of the agreement. All I'm saying is that the theory behind the agreement is allowed to specify plaintiffs alone. That it's not unconstitutional that an agreement was reached that specified covering plaintiffs as it seemed some suggested. Because it was a civil action (the agreement). I see joining the FSC post-agreement as insurance. It's betting on you're being better protected just in case something actually happens, but doesn't necessarily affect whether or not something will happen in the first place.

Quote:

---

The DOJ itself has stated they are basically on hold until this is settled by the court. This is a direct quote from page 2 of the stipulation "The Government takes the position that the regulations codified at 28 CFR, part 75, et seq., are in effect as of June 23, 2005, and reserves the right, after the expiration of this agreement or the denial of a preliminary injunction, to prosecute or otherwise commence enforcement proceedings with respect to any violation that occurs on or after June 23, 2005 (including any violation that may occur during the period of this agreement)."

---

I interpret that portion differently. I see it as saying, in effect, "Plaintiffs that break the law, even during the time this agreement covers, can be held liable for that. We just won't do anything about it between now and when the agreement or PI is over." I think that's part of why the agreement doesn't violate constitutional equal protection. Because no one is allowed to break the law. It's just that they can rest assured no actions will be taken against them between now and the end of the agreement or denial of a PI. So they have some breathing time because no action will be taken until the court renders a final decision. Whereas otherwise, anyone who's noncompliant could be investigated and have claim made against them even while court proceedings were taking place (in the absence of a TRO or PI). If the court strikes down 2257, then the DOJ won't be able to take action on that particular clause. If the court upholds 2257, we're all subject to it (despite any agreement) as if it went in to full force and effect on June 23.

Quote:

---

You know the MOST frustrating part of this? All of us wasting so much time and energy on this when it doesn't have to be like this. We all care about our industry, rights, etc. and we're being forced into this position of bickering because of a severe lack of communication and MAJOR spin going down online. Attorneys not associated with the FSC have stated clearly that this stipulation affects us all, not just the FSC. They have no financial stake in this and no reason to be untruthful.

---

I think we all share in the guilt there a bit, though, because we're passing on so much speculation ourselves lol. But I definitely agree that part of why we're passing on so much speculation is because there's plenty of room for speculation in the vacuum left by a lack of concrete answers. If we knew things for sure, we'd not be guilty of speculation cuz we'd not be speculating! lol.

I expect to hear from FSC personally tomorrow. And if I do hear something I'll share it. Because we are in direct contact with them, as well as our own attorneys, to be sure we have access to proper interpretation of it all. I'd suspect FSC is spending a lot of time clarifying all of this to alot of people and it's just that many of us have yet to be made privy to it all.

Quote:

---

Thanks for puting your time and effort into this as well BDBionic it does say something about your character :thumbsup:

---

Thank's for digging up all of these docs and paperwork and taking the time to share them with us. 8)