Has anyone else seen this website with that model from last Fall?
http://www.kruezeratnight.com/
Printable View
Has anyone else seen this website with that model from last Fall?
http://www.kruezeratnight.com/
More drama... I think everyone in the industry will be happy when this thing finally plays out one way or another.
If the justice department wants to start busting sites for failure to comply with the 2257 physical location requirement, there will be about 10000000000 sites they can bust for that. The number has gone down since 6/23/05, but there are still a bazillion obviously noncompliant sites.
Granted, they should be complying, particularly given the situation, but I'm not even sure they have anything currently posted on brentcorriganonline that qualifies as "sexually explicit" at the moment, since almost all the pics are simply Brent naked, or Brent naked with a stiffie, and according to one of the pleadings that came out of the injunction hearing, nudity alone (even with an erection) doesn't constitute sexually explicit content.
Chip,
You couldn't be more wrong. It sounds (looking over previous posts) like you have always been a big supporter of Lockhart and Belville. The brentcorriganonline website has constantly shown photos of either Lockhart or other models in sexually explicit depictions.
The friendsofbrent.com website showed masturbation and a full action sexual scene that is still streamed there. I've heard not only has the Cobra team taped and sent this to the San Diego FBI, they have also sent it to Gonazales in Washington DC and asked that they make an example of a performer who blatantly breaks the laws, and once again puts the whole adult industry at risk.
It's by your admission Chip, that you show your complete bias by a performer who has been proven to lie before, and now, has no regard for the Law at all. It's easy to see you are friends with Sean Lockhart. Will you bail him out in jail too?
The basis is, he fucked up, and you just dont change a Custodian of Recordss at whim and expect it to be swept under the carpet.
Sal
Yawn. :sleep:
Thanks Chip for that auspicious resound of supposrt for Sean Lockhart, Chad Belville and company. You know, I''ve seen evidence that you have had involvement with Sean Lockhart since last summer. Do you consider yourself just a friend/supporter? Or is there something else more going on between you two? A cover up between you and Brian Dunlop of JuicyGoo?
You are giving everyone a resounding call that "Breaking the USC 2257 compliance is OK" it's just all to much drama. It's all Bullshit, right?? Just those damn Federal Laws getting in the way of doing business.
Are you and your company compliant? Should someone research your records? As we are noting now, your posts say that if you don't wish to be compliant, you shouldn't have to, it's a choice. right??
Should everyone search your Custodian of Records to see if you are Compliant since your posts reflect the USC 2257 Laws should be an option??
Sal
Philly,
I couldn't say it better myself. And I wont even try.
you're right Bostonboy, i have someone checking out the Custodian of Records for Chip/BoyFunk, but what does it matter right?? Just like Chip.Belville allegely says, you dont have to be USC 2257 Compliant, right? We can just do whateve we want, to much drama......
Hey Chip,
You seem to be an insider in all this mess. Can you tell us all in one day how Sean Lockhart's allegely fictional Custodian of records when from
V, Charles
7660 Fay Ave
Suite H181
:a Jolla, CA 02037
is now
S. Price
(( a USC 2257 Statement that wont be shown))
You can't violate the law and just change the Custodian of Records like you change your underwear. Just like Sean Lockhart and Grant Roy are trying to do now. Looks like Sean Lockhart and his group are allegely going to jail because they allegely broke the Federal Law.
Did Chip conspire in all this?
My last response to this thread:
You misinterpreted my post. Of course any company in the industry must comply with the regulations; the penalties are stiff for noncompliance. I was merely pointing out that if the justice department wishes to prosecute companies simply for administrative oversights (wrong 2257 address, improper wording, etc) rather than substantive violations (underage models, missing IDs, etc) then there will be a LOT of people being prosecuted. I suspect many smaller site owners don't even understand the new regulations.
We maintain and have always maintained full compliance with the 2257 regulations, and have made use of advice from more than one legal source in implementing our current compliance policies and procedures. We were one of the companies that didn't have a lot to do when the new regulations went into effect last year, because we were already maintaining crossreferenced recordkeeping and tracking of all our models and scenes, and we actually implemented a number of additional steps in an effort to minimize the risk of something similar to the Brent/Cobra debacle. We would have nothing to hide if the justice department wished to inspect our records.
As for Chad, of *course* we support him. He is an intelligent, respected industry professional who represents us and most of the major gay adult companies in the industry (as well as quite a few straight companies) and has been extremely generous with his time and knowledge on this and many other forums.
I've never met Brent and am not privy to any information other than what's been published various places. As for Brian at Juicygoo, we are friends with him, as he promotes our sites on his site, but that's the extent of it. There's nothing to cover up.
As I said earlier, I will be as happy as anyone when all the drama blows over.
Hey Chip, I hear what you are saying. But then do you mean someone like Sean Lockhart who says he's forged his IDs (as was confirmed by Chad Belville) and now has made up a fictional Custodian of Records for his business (it has been confirmed now, he changed it to another guy) should be allowed to continue in the Adult Industry?? Can you tell everyone here that you support his decisions from the beginning??? You do support him, correct??
Sal
PhillyGuy - whoever you are, you surely seem to have a grudge against chip or else you have a hair trigger and are interpreting what he said VERY differently than am i. i am not getting what you are getting out of his comments even a little bit.
Not to be one to jump in here, because I just don't care about this one way or the other, but since when did this become a topic attacking Chip? Just because someone has an opinion about something doesn't mean they should be targeted as being in coherts with them. That's McArthyism. Even if Chip DOES support the person in question, who are we to question his integrity and his own record keeping?
You can be against the war but not support terrorism...
This topic is not about Chip. It was posted about a certain individual and his standards of record keeping. As far as I know, neither Chad nor Chip are responsible for this person's records, nor are either of them the Custodian of Records for that company. Just because this person hired Chad as his attorney, does not make Chad solely responsible for every little thing that he does, legal or illegal.
If he were to mow down a bus full of nuns as they went to church on Easter Sunday, would Chad be responsible? No. He was hired as legal representation for a specific matter (IE: the Cobra issue, which I do not even want to discuss because it is not my business to do so). Chad is no more responsible for this person's 2257 Records information than he is for renewing the guy's driver's license.
As for Chip... I do no think it is fair to go after him on a topic that he has absolutely nothing to do with, except form an opinion, which everyone has.
Now, I do not know you or the beef you have with Chad or Mr. Lockhart or Chip, so maybe I am speaking out of turn. My opinion, however, is strictly neutral, and will remain so. This is not for me to pass judgement on. I am not here to make enemies or side with one person over another. I am here to do business. I just thought I would comment because this seemed to get a little off topic by attacking Chip and askign him, quite unfairly, what or whom he supports.
Quite frankly, who Chip supports, what type of underwear he wears or even who he voted for is none of our business. This isn't a topic about him. This was a post about the questionable record keeping a certain individual an dhas nothign to do with anyone or any company other than the one in question.
I hope my rambling made some sense.
Rocky
Wow, I can't believe I wrote so much. I wasn't really annoyed by that post, I just wanted to bring it back to the focus of the original reason for being posted.
:-)
Rocky
:yeah:Quote:
Originally Posted by EonFilms_Rocky
Regards,
Lee
the website link posted above is full of shit and drama he talk bad about people
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?
DROP IT MAN!Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyGuy
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
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.
He can say whatever he wants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt 26z
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyGuy
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.
Phillyguy,Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyGuy
Without being rude. Can I ask what your purpose/agenda is here? You have made less than 20 posts. Who are you? What do you do? Are you a webmaster?
Why don't you make a formal introduction to the board. Contribute something positive.
The reputation that Chad has on this board with webmasters cannot be damaged by those who know him with ANY remarks that you make whatsoever.
This Cobra issue is an issue that does not concern many of us at all, at least not as priority number one.
What concerns us is getting traffic to our sites, increasing sales, and making money. Can you contribute to that. If so it would be greatly appreciated...
I think PhillyGuy is Damon .... whose site I used to enjoy reading but the design is so horrid I can't read it any longer.
This says it all guys. I wonder what the Federal prison term is for knowingly Falsifying a Custodian of Records? Maybe Chad can tell everyone.
http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=272407
Once again, this would be Brent Corrigan's Custodian of Records problem, not Chad's (unless Chad is listed as the Custodian of Records).Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyGuy
Rocky