it's no logic at all. it defines that the only thing people in adult need to do cp is opportunity.
btw, i'm a woman in california...
Printable View
it's no logic at all. it defines that the only thing people in adult need to do cp is opportunity.
btw, i'm a woman in california...
Well if I were you I would wait for the official announcement. I am...
And as far as I know you have to have a lawyer file a suit on behalf of a particular party or group. So, the FSC is the lawyer, and the membership of the FSC is the group. So when you belong to the FSC you are part of the suit. I don't think they can just file a suit against the law "in general" as far as I understand it.
If you dont like them you can file your own suit with your own lawyer....as far as i know nobody else has filed an injunction, but i could be totally wrong. However, I haven't heard of anyone else filing.
If it were that easy to file against the whole law, wouldn't some of us, or many of us just had a lawyer do that? The FSC is the ONLY organization of any sort that has offered any help to our industry at all. I don't understand why some people are so down on them. I believe they are doing a great service for us, and I don't mind paying to be a member, and get that service. Just my two cents.
Buck
P.S. I'm SURE y'all will let me know if I'm wrong....hahaha
Hey Buck one of the lawyers for the FSC made a statement on another board regarding this. Here is part of the statement:Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Angel
"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."
If the FSC wins then it benefits all.. not just their members
I don't know specifically how they did it, but they were able to get the virtual CP law thrown out. Why couldn't they have handled 2257 the same way?Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Angel
Buck,Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Angel
One question..do you believe in "legal precedence"?
Meaning, when something has happened before, the law tends to follow that precedence?
Basically, I think the FSC is a great organization also.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Angel
However, I don't think it should be touted as: If you want coverage from new regulations, you must be a member of the FSC.
My thoughts exactly :beard:Quote:
Originally Posted by Slade
Yea what Slade said