I just found a new FSC court document.. we have a preliminary injunction!

I went to PACE and looked at all the court docs uploaded overnight.

Document 1: HEARING ON TERMS OF STIPULATION

This document states "Mr. Gross advises that the parties have reached a stipulation and agree that the Court would not need to rule on the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, but treat this matter a Motion for Preliminary Injunction."

So this is a preliminary injunction we have.... not a special agreement. There is no selective enforcement by law enforcement.. therefore nobody will be inspected until the jundge rules on the TRO.

The next court date is August 1st.. so this preliminary injunction is good for less then a month.

Also here is the full STIPULATION REGARDING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER for anyone who might not trust what was posted online.. this is the actual and true document from the courts.

That's good news. It should really cover everyone and I believe that's the way the FSC wanted it in the first place. Without this injunction, almost all of us would have been up shit creek. I'm thankful to them. Nothing like this has every happened to this industry. Alot of the confusion stems from the fact that alot of us work as individuals and we like to stay low key and we don't like to join any organizations. Is this a perfect process, of course not ? Are we better for the extension of time, I certainly think that we are.

The date has been recently moved so they may have agreed to change this legal proceeding from a "deal" to an temporary injunction. That is in fact great news. That means the judge has agreed that as an industry, we are all being harmed by this.

Great work Squirt !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

I went to PACE and looked at all the court docs uploaded overnight.

Document 1: HEARING ON TERMS OF STIPULATION

This document states "Mr. Gross advises that the parties have reached a stipulation and agree that the Court would not need to rule on the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, but treat this matter a Motion for Preliminary Injunction."

So this is a preliminary injunction we have.... not a special agreement. There is no selective enforcement by law enforcement.. therefore nobody will be inspected until the jundge rules on the TRO.

The next court date is August 1st.. so this preliminary injunction is good for less then a month.

Also here is the full STIPULATION REGARDING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER for anyone who might not trust what was posted online.. this is the actual and true document from the courts.

---

Excuse me while I take another hit of acid. It helps when dealing with this psycho issue! LOL LOL LOL!

I was wondering where people were getting 2-3 months! It's actually just a tad over 30 days.

"a rose by another other name.."

would still stink like this whole "join the fsc and avoid jail time!" lol (again)

It may walk like a duck, talk like a duck, and sound like a duck, but fuck, you can't really call this an actual duck (TRO)..it just has the effect of a tro.

As a member, I don't feel very protected but I believe that I took the necessary step to help fight the new regulations. I don't know the outcome but I do know that I am getting rid of *all* of my "actual sexually explicit content" because I cannot afford to defend this type of content should there be an ongoing legal battle. If larger companies can afford to defend their content than that's gonna be ok, I will gracefully bow out of this area. Being small means being able to react very quickly and adaptability is the key to survival in this biz. So, back to the drawing board for me.

I may pull my site tomorrow. That's the day that my name will appear on the Registry and I will probably be subject to more scrutiny than the average site. I simply do not want to worry anymore. I can afford to take the site down and keep my peace of mind. I'm glad I saved some money for this rainy day because it sure is here.

I think you guys are misreading what the document states. How I perceive it is that the motion for the TRO has been abandoned - because of the mutual agreement - and instead been replaced with a motion for a PI. Not a PI itself, but a MOTION for a PI. Which will take place on Aug. 8.

So a PI has not been granted. Instead, what was originally supposed to be a hearing on a motion for a TRO was, because of the agreement having been reached beforehand, suspended in favor of a hearing on a motion for a PI at a later date.

I went back and reread this thing and I do believe that your right BDBionic. There hasn't been any ruling on a motion yet, just a stipulation to the upcoming motion :(

Quote:

---

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.

---

So now that we have HAD the hearing, the DOJ has free reign to do 'something' no later than the 23rd of July :groovy:

Thats in effect like me telling you, ill send you $100 by Paypal 'no later than' the 1st July, it means i have up until the 1st of July to send you $100 by Paypal, it might be sent before the 1st, it might be sent on the 1st but, it will be sent.

Regards,

Lee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDBionic

I think you guys are misreading what the document states. How I perceive it is that the motion for the TRO has been abandoned - because of the mutual agreement - and instead been replaced with a motion for a PI. Not a PI itself, but a MOTION for a PI. Which will take place on Aug. 8.

So a PI has not been granted. Instead, what was originally supposed to be a hearing on a motion for a TRO was, because of the agreement having been reached beforehand, suspended in favor of a hearing on a motion for a PI at a later date.

---

Brian,

You are correct to a point, the TRO has been abandoned at the present time however, the 'motion for preliminary injunction' is what this 'agreement' actually is, therefore, within the next 30 days, the DOJ can start investigating and / or prosecuting webmasters.

Regards,

Lee

Just to clarify where i am getting that information from..

Quote:

---

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.

---

In the eyes of the LAW the motion for preliminary injunction has already been heard, scheduled and acted upon.

Regards,

Lee

So what exactly is it that the government can't do. If this is a preliminary injunction, it is injunctive relief of something.

Ok.. so has the FSC explained to anyone why they've changed their stance from a TRO to a PI?

It's does say: "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,"

Maybe the FSC has switched it's stance to a PI and that's why they need more time... haven't they had time enough to be ready for this court date?

Does it really matter when they can start prosecuting? I mean given clause 3, it don't matter if your site wasn't compliant as of the 23rd and is on the 24th they can still prosecute you whenever this agreement expires, or the injunction fails... so why worry about how long it is till it expires? I'd worry more about will the injunction pass or not... because if you weren't compliant as of the 23rd, you coudl be dead meat. No matter what you do in the meantime...

but hey, just my take on it. just an opinion.

Ian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Huskyhunks

So what exactly is it that the government can't do.

---

That is a very good question isnt it, so far as this motion agreement goes, they can do pretty much anything they want in the next 30 days, to FSC members or non FSC members :groovy:

Regards,

Lee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaystoryman

Does it really matter when they can start prosecuting? I mean given clause 3, it don't matter if your site wasn't compliant as of the 23rd and is on the 24th they can still prosecute you whenever this agreement expires, or the injunction fails... so why worry about how long it is till it expires? I'd worry more about will the injunction pass or not... because if you weren't compliant as of the 23rd, you coudl be dead meat. No matter what you do in the meantime...

but hey, just my take on it. just an opinion.

Ian

---

Agreed, as i have been saying for the last couple of days :)

Regards,

Lee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Huskyhunks

So what exactly is it that the government can't do. If this is a preliminary injunction, it is injunctive relief of something.

---

The stipulation states:

"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)."

it also states:

"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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

The stipulation states:

"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)."

it also states:

"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."

---

Which basically means, within the next 30 days, they can do anything they like, at any time, to anyone.

Its only AFTER the 30 days where they may start running in to problems :)

Regards,

Lee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Huskyhunks

I may pull my site tomorrow. That's the day that my name will appear on the Registry and I will probably be subject to more scrutiny than the average site.

---

What registry? The FSC's membership list?
You don't think there will be total privacy as far as this list goes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slade

What registry? The FSC's membership list?
You don't think there will be total privacy as far as this list goes?

---

DOJ: Is gayguys.com on your 'protected' list?

Judge: Yes.

DOJ: Okay we cant go after them then.

Judge: Correct.

DOJ: Lets file this for later use anyway.

DOJ: Is gayguysfuckingmen.com on your 'protected' list?

Judge: No.

DOJ: Okay cool.

Either way, if someone is, or isnt on the list, the DOJ will know who you are LOL

Regards,

Lee

On the 23rd, I pulled down my members area, now I'm just yanking the site. I do believe the names will be confidential but if there is no injuction at a later date, somehow I feel that the DOJ will try to get their hands on the list somehow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDBionic

So a PI has not been granted. Instead, what was originally supposed to be a hearing on a motion for a TRO was, because of the agreement having been reached beforehand, suspended in favor of a hearing on a motion for a PI at a later date.

---

Yes..so in essence a virtual PI has been issued because there was an agreement between the FSC & DOJ, and signed off (literally) by the judge. And while it technically says membership in FSC is required, it's practical effect is affording coverage to all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee

DOJ: Is gayguys.com on your 'protected' list?

Judge: Yes.

DOJ: Okay we cant go after them then.

Judge: Correct.

DOJ: Lets file this for later use anyway.

DOJ: Is gayguysfuckingmen.com on your 'protected' list?

Judge: No.

DOJ: Okay cool.

Either way, if someone is, or isnt on the list, the DOJ will know who you are LOL

Regards,

Lee

---

Why the hell are you using MY domains as examples?!?!?!?!


















LOL!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slade

Yes..so in essence a virtual PI has been issued because there was an agreement between the FSC & DOJ, and signed off (literally) by the judge. And while it technically says membership in FSC is required, it's practical effect is affording coverage to all.

---

I don't read it as such. I read it that an agreement was reached to hold a hearing on a PI on August 8. Not that a PI was actually granted, but that a hearing for a PI will be held on Aug. 8th.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDBionic

I don't read it as such. I read it that an agreement was reached to hold a hearing on a PI on August 8. Not that a PI was actually granted, but that a hearing for a PI will be held on Aug. 8th.

---

You could be right :karate:

Am I the only one that listened to OutQ on Sirius satellite radio with Michelangelo Signorile on Friday at 3 pm? He had Tom Hymes from the FSC on his show talking about this for a hour. They were mainly talking about how this affects sites like gay.com and gay personals in general. Tom Hymes said this TRO was for FSC members only on paper but really effected everyone since it would be almost unprecedented for the DOJ to go after anyone while any TRO was in place. He also said the reason they got this deal with the DOJ was so they could get even more of a case together and get more media coverage as to what this new law will actually do to free speech in America. His conversation with Michelangelo was very informative. I was driving my car when Tom Hymes came on the show so I stopped at the nearest convenience store and sat for the full hour listening to the show. Hearing this Tom Hymes gave me more faith in the FSC so I'm now thing of becoming a member.