Here's the FULL agreement

People have been asking for the "full agreement" and here it is. Now can someone tell me if I am missing something in how LONG this agreement supposedly lasts? I have heard up until 9/7/05, but read this agreement and tell me what date YOU come up with:
------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO



FREE SPEECH COALITION, et al., :

Plaintiffs, :



v. Case No. 05-CV-1126-WDM-BNB

Honorable Walker Miller

ALBERTO GONZALES,



Defendant. :

STIPULATION REGARDING

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER



The parties, by through the their respective counsel, hereby enter into the following stipulation regarding the Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining order. The parties agree as follows:



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.

2. 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: (1) not to conduct any inspections, with regard to the Plaintiffs and their members, under 18 U.S.C. section 2257 and the Attorney General’s new implementing regulations; and (2) not to pursue any claim against Plaintiffs and their members under 18 U.S.C. section 2257 and the Attorney General’s new implementing regulations.



3. 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).



4. The parties mutually propose that the hearing on preliminary injunction occur as close as practicable to one month from the date of this agreement, subject to the Court’s schedule and as convenience permits.



5. By June 29, 2005, Plaintiff Free Speech Coalition, Inc., agrees to provide to a Special Master appointed by the Court a list of the names of those persons or entities who were members of Plaintiff Free Speech Coalition, Inc., as of June 25, 2005, at 2 p.m. The Government shall not be provided with the names of such persons, but shall instead consult with the Special Master before conducting any inspections under 18 U.S.C. 2257 and its implementing regulations, in order to ensure that such inspection would not involve a member of the Free Speech Coalition, Inc. Plaintiff Free Speech Coalition, Inc., shall bear all costs associated with this Special Master. For purposes of paragraph 2, “the Plaintiffs” shall mean persons or entities on the list, Plaintiff Free Speech Coalition, Inc., as an organization, Plaintiff Free Speech Coalition of Colorado as an organization, David Connors, and Lenjo, Inc. D/B/A New Beginnings Ltd.

Dated: June 24, 2005

/s/ Michael W. Gross

ARTHUR M. SCHWARTZ

MICHAEL W. GROSS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slade

2. 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

---

:D

Regards,

Lee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slade

(including any violation that may occur during the period of this agreement).

---

:D

Regards,

Lee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slade

5. By June 29, 2005, Plaintiff Free Speech Coalition, Inc., agrees to provide to a Special Master appointed by the Court a list of the names of those persons or entities who were members of Plaintiff Free Speech Coalition, Inc., as of June 25, 2005, at 2 p.m.

---

:D

Regards,

Lee

The order said specifically "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. "

So the court said SPECIFICALLY that they are treating this as a PRLIMINARY INJUNCTION, which is: A court order to perform or refrain from an action, issued prior to and until the final outcome of the court case. A preliminary injunction is used to preserve the status quo. Which means that things will stay the same until the judge reaches his decision.

So there is no protection for members, or anyone else... only delayed prosecution, as per the stipulation.

Why would the FSC make such extensions if they were going to win this TRO? And why would they not tell everyone this the judge is treating the agreement as a PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, which benefits all? :evil:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

why would they not tell everyone this the judge is treating the agreement as a PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, which benefits all? :evil:

---

:$$$: :$$$: :$$$: :$$$: :$$$:

Regards,

Lee

Well not being any expert, I'd say that given how some have said that this agreement gives them time to get their houses in order, ie the records and such.. this part of the agreement should make them a wee bit nervous.

Quote:

---

3. 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).

---

Now that seems to say to me, and I am no lawyer either, that should the TRO be denied, anyone of the FSC who was in violation at any time after JUne 23 is still liable to prosecution so I would say that if the FSC believes they can win, why the deal? It gets the members really nothing, no added time as the government has reserved the right to prosecute anyone who is in violation as of yesterday, and now with a nice list they can easily find some targets...

but what is worse in my mind here, is that the agreement has given many of its members a false sense of safety. That many who might have otherwise pulled their sites pending the outcome of the actual TRO hearing, have left it up under the impression that this deal gives them time to fix what might be needed, when in essence it doesn't.. least according to that one paragraph which the FSC agreed to.

I don't get it, maybe Chad can enlighten folks a bit, seeing as how he is a lawyer with some experience in all this...

just my opinion though.

Ian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaystoryman

but what is worse in my mind here, is that the agreement has given many of its members a false sense of safety. That many who might have otherwise pulled their sites pending the outcome of the actual TRO hearing, have left it up under the impression that this deal gives them time to fix what might be needed, when in essence it doesn't.. least according to that one paragraph which the FSC agreed to.

I don't get it, maybe Chad can enlighten folks a bit, seeing as how he is a lawyer with some experience in all this...

just my opinion though.

Ian

---

That is EXACTLY what is the problem brought about by an incredible amount of mis-information yesterday and today.

Also..supposedly the FSC was told NOT to "actively" recruit members UNTIL the deadline for the names came and went. THEN..and ONLY THEN, could the head haunchos of the FSC actually speak out..so, their underlings have been doing the "recruiting" on the boards apparently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaystoryman

but what is worse in my mind here, is that the agreement has given many of its members a false sense of safety.

---

The agreement hasn't done that.. the people surrounding the FSC have done that! I don't know if it's the FSC, or people supporting them, but they are putting a BIG spin on things. Saying we have agreements when we don't. Saying become a member to be protected... when members aren't, according to this stipulation.

It's unfortunate to see so many throwing their money at this for those reasons. Throw money at them because they are working for free speach.. not because some idiot says you'll be safe, because if you're breaking the law.. you're not safe, and if you're following the law & are in line with the new regs.. then you have nothing to worry about. :groovy:

i read (i think on xbiz, but there was a whole lot of reading going down on thursday) that the reason the fsc did not continue with the injunction was that one of the plaintiff's lawyers was unavailable on the day they went to court.

i will try to find that article when i wake up if someone else here hasn't found it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

i read (i think on xbiz, but there was a whole lot of reading going down on thursday) that the reason the fsc did not continue with the injunction was that one of the plaintiff's lawyers was unavailable on the day they went to court.

i will try to find that article when i wake up if someone else here hasn't found it.

---

Funny, my "inside scoop" is that the FSC wasn't going to get the judge they wanted! :nowords:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

i read (i think on xbiz, but there was a whole lot of reading going down on thursday) that the reason the fsc did not continue with the injunction was that one of the plaintiff's lawyers was unavailable on the day they went to court.

---

Interesting but not an excuse at all. If you read the Hearing on Terms of Stipulation I found.. it shows that the FSC attorney Gross was in court.. and none of the DOJ attorneys were there.. they did however have one of the DOJ attorneys "appear" by phone.. it was attorney Kaplan.

So actually being there in person has nothing to do with the hearing going ahead, as you can see by the DOJ appearing by phone.

I'd like to know the REAL reason this was all done and they are doing a PI instead of a TRO.. and I want to know because I want to be able to fully support them, or not, and when the facts aren't quick to come out, or are mixed.. I don't know how to take them.

the fsc attorneys were there, and the doj guys weren't? fuck, if there had been a way to push for that injunction - maybe there wasn't - that would have been the perfect time to go for it.

can you get an injunction if the opposing attorneys are not present?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

Interesting but not an excuse at all. If you read the Hearing on Terms of Stipulation I found.. it shows that the FSC attorney Gross was in court.. and none of the DOJ attorneys were there.. they did however have one of the DOJ attorneys "appear" by phone.. it was attorney Kaplan.

So actually being there in person has nothing to do with the hearing going ahead, as you can see by the DOJ appearing by phone.

I'd like to know the REAL reason this was all done and they are doing a PI instead of a TRO.. and I want to know because I want to be able to fully support them, or not, and when the facts aren't quick to come out, or are mixed.. I don't know how to take them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slade

Funny, my "inside scoop" is that the FSC wasn't going to get the judge they wanted! :nowords:

---

Interesting.. researched Judge Boland.. the one on the minutes of the stipulation... not good for us:

http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/c...ashcroft.shtml
"The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, and granted the government’s summary judgment motion on all claims. This means the case is over at the trial court level."

I googled Judge Walker D. Miller.. .the other judge on the actual stipulation agreement.. he doesn't look to good either.. ruled against a girl wearing a blue ribbon at her gradution to show sympathy & support for the dead kids at columbine.

I don't like these situations where we are all being swayed to do something.. yet LITTLE information is coming out as to why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

can you get an injunction if the opposing attorneys are not present?

---

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. ;-)

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)