Chad Belville 2257 Compliance

Hey guys,

I didn't mean to "attack" Chip or anyone else, I was just stating facts in my way. It has been proven that Sean Lockhart AKA Brent Corrigan and his company who are represented by Chad Belville have in fact violated the USC 2257 laws by listing a fraudulant Custodian of Records (first V. Charles and now S. Price) and had previously a Post Office Box for a business address.

I just wondered why Chad Belville hasn't posted to explain why he has proclaimed himself to be an Internet Adult Industry specialist on USC compliance Laws, yet he has been allegely the only person to "verify" that Sean Lockhart's ID's given to Cobra Video had been forged.

It's just very strange to me as well as to many people that I know.

Does everyone support a company and a performer who is allegely known to have violated the US laws again and again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhillyGuy

I just wondered why Chad Belville hasn't posted to explain why he has proclaimed himself to be an Internet Adult Industry specialist on USC compliance Laws, yet he has been allegely the only person to "verify" that Sean Lockhart's ID's given to Cobra Video had been forged.

---

DROP IT MAN!

IF Chad is representing him, he will NOT comment in a public forum about a client he is representing. Few lawyers will.

Let it play out in court. The truth will come out.

Move on Man...

go here http://www.moveon.org

You seem like you could be an asset to this organization.

Why should the subject be dropped when there was a proven violation of the US Criminal Laws? Are you defending Belville and his alleged incompetence for some reason?

Let's call a Spade a Spade here. Sean Lockhart and his company listed a fake Custodian of Records which may put a magnifying glass on the Adult Indistry (like he did last Fall) and especially the Gay Industry by the Federal Government.

Since it's been stated Cobra Video's lawyers have filed a report with the San Diego FBI over this violation, are you saying you want it all to go away because you are supporting Lockhart or Beliville?

I don't understand. Please specify.

I am NOT supoorting anyone to be honest.

The FBI is involved. The courts are involved. Posting this stuff on this board will change nothing. No one here is promoting either site. We know the violations.

BUT - NO LAWYER IS GOING TO GO ON A FUCKING BOARD AND TALK ABOUT A CASE IN PROGRESS. MOST LAWYERS WONT EVEN TELL YOU WHO THEIR CLIENTS ARE.

I fucking hate someone who lies about his age and gets in the business. That to me is a scum bag. No matter if he leaves quietly or pursues a career.

MY POINT IS IT WILL ALL COME OUT IN DUE TIME. AND WHEN IT DOES WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT.

Actually, Chad DID discuss it at length on this board a while back. But, what does the CoR have to do with Chad? His client chooses not to obey that law but why hold Chad responsible? He can advise his client to follow the law but the client can choose to ignore it.

In reviewing sites I see very few that actually are in full compliance. Many still put POBoxes of content providers, leave off a name, use a UPS store addy, etc. Check out some of the sites owned by people who post here and you'll be amazed at the violations.

But, it's stupid to hold their attorney responsible/

ABostonGuy said

"IF Chad is representing him, he will NOT comment in a public forum about a client he is representing. Few lawyers will."

and then said

"BUT - NO LAWYER IS GOING TO GO ON A FUCKING BOARD AND TALK ABOUT A CASE IN PROGRESS. MOST LAWYERS WONT EVEN TELL YOU WHO THEIR CLIENTS ARE."

and I absolutely agree with ABostonGuy, but just as Rick replied, Chad Belville last Fall was all over these boards (I looked up the old posts) freely discussing his part in representing Sean Lockhart and also stating (or taking credit for) his part in determining that Lockhart's IDs were forged.

These new alleged violations by Lockhart and company show the credibilty of Lockhart and Counsel for all the Hypocracy they have continued to demonstrate.

That's my 2 cents.

An attorney is not responsible for a client's innocence or guilt. That is for a judge, and if needed, a jury to decide. A lawyer only represents their client. They are not responsible for the client's 2257 record keeping. That is what a Custodian of Records is for, and unless Chad's name appears as the Custodian of Records for Sean/Brent, then he has absolutely NOTHING to do with how his client maintains his records. The fact that the Custodian of Records information was wrong or falsified is not Chad's concern as legal counsel.

I am not supporting either party in this case, so don't accuse me of being a sympathizer like you have to everyone else who comes to Chad's defense, IE: Chip. I just feel as though you are barking up the wrong tree and accusing the wrong people, which could get you slapped with a cease and desist as well as a libel suit, if you are not careful.

Don't call someone a Communist just because they wear a red tee-shirt.

Rocky

Chip and Chad can attack Cobra on the boards for months, but Phillyguy (Cobra?) can't say a word about them.

Gay board drama at it's finest!

These are interesting Photos. Now I'm confused.

http://www.brentcorriganxxx.com/ABrentEvent/index.html

Is Brent Corrigan working for Cobra again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhillyGuy

These are interesting Photos. Now I'm confused.

http://www.brentcorriganxxx.com/ABrentEvent/index.html

Is Brent Corrigan working for Cobra again?

---

Get a life, man.

IF you know as much as you claim. You should know that Cobra filmed after he was 18 and supposedly before.

This is obviously AFTER he was 18.

Why don't you start posting some other things on this board as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Chip and Chad can attack Cobra on the boards for months, but Phillyguy (Cobra?) can't say a word about them.

Gay board drama at it's finest!

---

He can say whatever he wants.

The issue is he has made a total of 10 posts. All we know about him is that he maybe from Philly.

What has he contributed to this board except coming in and trying to cause drama.

Chad and Chip contribute on a regular basis and help webmasters here. He would gain some respect if he did the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhillyGuy

Why should the subject be dropped when there was a proven violation of the US Criminal Laws? Are you defending Belville and his alleged incompetence for some reason?

Let's call a Spade a Spade here....

---

PhillyGuy - So are you equally insensed that attorney Alan Dershowitz chose to be legal counsel for OJ Simpson? Everyone gets lawyers you know, not matter what "the facts" are. Either you are really dumb and do not understand the legal system of counsel in the United States, or you are an involved party in the incident, which may be why your posts read like relentless spam that hysterically reiterates convoluted points.

If your wife decided to sure you for divorce, would you feel so personally jilted to wage these kinds of defamation attacks on her and her counsel?

Steve

Hey Steve,

I'm not a fool and what I do understand quite clearly is that Chad Belville has been replaced as counsel and is off the case for the mess he created last Fall with Sean Lockhart (ie Brent Corrigan) and Grant Roy in the lawsuit initiated by Cobra.

So perhaps Chad isn't really as intelligent about the USC 2257 Laws (or in my opinion anything else regarding legal matters) as he tries to impress everyone here.

Time will tell, but as i have heard, Chad has been fired.

It has to be a pretty big downer to be fired when Belville was just a pro bono lawyer to boot. You get what you pay for I always say.

And that says it all.

OK, I'm breaking my own rule here, but I can't allow the comments about Chad to go unaddressed.

Disclaimer: We (Gaybucks) are represented by Chad, and have been for a while, so all of my comments are biased to the extent that we've chosen Chad to advise and represent us on adult industry issues.

First, although I haven't asked, I seriously doubt that Chad was "fired" from the Brent Corrigan defense team. Chad's practice is in Phoenix, and I think I read that the Cobra litigation is in San Diego, so it makes sense that Brent would need someone closer to the courts to be able to make frequent appearances, etc.

Second, in the case of Chad, "pro bono" does NOT mean "you get what you pay for." We've used Chad for a number of issues, and we've consulted other well-known professionals in the field as well. On several issues related to the 2257 regulation changes, Chad took a position contrary to what some of the more experienced industry specialists had taken last June, as the regulations were being published... and in at least two of those cases, his position has turned out to be the one the justice department agreed with, in contrast to the view that several of the other industry specialists had held. (Many of the issues haven't been clarified or resolved by the justice department yet, so there's no answer as to who's correct on those.)

In our consultations with him about our own compliance issues, we've found Chad to be exceptionally detailed, precise, and well read in his reasoning and interpretations of the 2257 regulations (as well as many other issues relating to the adult industry landscape where we've asked for his help), and it was his advice that helped us to feel comfortable with our own decisions with regard to the byzantine language of the 2257 regulations and how they affect us.

Finally, as I've mentioned before, Chad represents probably 3/4 of all of the major gay adult media companies and quite a few straight ones as well... and this info comes not from Chad (who, for ethical reasons, can't reveal who his clients are) but from the owners of the companies that I've spoken to.

And... to anticipate the next posting, nothing I'm saying above should be interpreted as an endorsement or lack thereof with regard to the Brent/Cobra matter, the validity or lack thereof of any 2257 statements made on Brent's website, or anything else. My understanding is that Chad's services to Brent are limited to providing counsel on the Cobra matter, and I simply wish to point out that Chad is, in our opinion, an exceptional attorney who is a true asset to our industry, and someone that we would recommend without reservation to anyone seeking legal counsel on matters relating to adult entertainment.