US law states that temporary restraining orders and injunctions only apply to "officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys". The Free Speech Coalition didn't make this law. It applies to everyone.
US law states that temporary restraining orders and injunctions only apply to "officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys". The Free Speech Coalition didn't make this law. It applies to everyone.
Artist/Painter and Webmaster of Huskyhunks.com.
So in actual fact, even the FSC's members arent covered by the injunction.Originally Posted by Huskyhunks
This just gets weirder and weirder.
It now seems like all FSC members are doing, is paying for the protection of their attorneys :wtf:
Regards,
Lee
Lee I think it's great to question anyone's motives. No one should be allowed to run a business or an association without accountability.
The Free Speech Coalition is a trade association. Here's what they say they do:
"Free Speech Coalition is the trade organization of the adult entertainment industry, whose mission is to safeguard the industry from oppressive governmental regulation and to promote good business practices within the industry."
I am a member and I can see my $50 in action. I've made tons of money through the years and this is such a small amount to help a great cause. I don't believe they are trying to slight anyone. I joined when there was no need for injunctive protection. It just seems like a great way to help protect my business.
Artist/Painter and Webmaster of Huskyhunks.com.
Right however, now, on the face of it, since you posted that excerpt from the actual law, it doesnt look like YOU actually get any protection, instead, it would appear that your $50 went to ensuring the protection of the FSC staff and attorneys.
Regards,
Lee
I joined on principal and I hope that my fees are helping to cover their expenses - however they choose to use the money is fine with me. Whether I'm covered or not - hmmm, not that concerned right now. I'd rather see this all come to an end for everyone, not just members of the FSC. Bad law is bad law and I will have to leave it to the experts to fight on my behalf.
Artist/Painter and Webmaster of Huskyhunks.com.
You must not have read the entire excerpt. Either that or you're not understanding it. Because the interpretation you have is wholly wrong.
Well i just re-read it and i dont see how what im saying can be perceived as wrong..
There is nothing in there that says members of any 'organization' are covered by any injunction, unless you are referring to the 'binding only upon the parties' part which is a moot point because the FSC has already said that they wont be naming every FSC member in the injunction.F.R.C.P 65 (d) provides that injunctions and restraining orders shall be "binding only upon the parties to the action, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and upon those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise." A TRO or preliminary injunction is binding only on those "who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise." Successors or assigns of persons bound by an injunction may also be bound in proper cases. Golden State Bottling Co., Inc. v. NLRB, 414 U.S. 168, 94 S.Ct. 414, 38 L.Ed.2d 388 (1973).
Regards,
Lee
You're making the poor assumption that what he pasted in to this thread is the end all and be all of TROs and injunctions.
An injunction's applicants are the plaintiffs in the action, and if it's an organization doing the applying, it's being done on behalf of their members. Therefore, they're the ones covered.
Just like if a labor union or any other such group were to file for an injunction. Obviously it'd cover more than just the officers of the labor union. It would be filed by the union on behalf of its membership for sake of its membership.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks