Something not addressed yet... a TRO is used as an emergency remedy for harm to a person/persons.

Now that the FSC has postponed the hearing for a TRO ... does it not make sense that now the case has weakend, if their filing was ever strong in the first place? Why would they settle like this? I have a theory. Is it possible they've weakend their own case?

I subscribed to PACE for the 10th Circuit Court of Colorado.. ( yes I put my money down to research this ) I found something not yet released to the adult community regarding this case See Exhibit A

Exhibit A is important for this reason. When the DOJ filed it's opposition to the FSC TRO request on page 23 of their opposition they made the following statement:

"More importantly, following the Sundance decision, DOJ did
nothing that would have suggested to Congress that DOJ had abandoned its interpretation that section 2257 applies to secondary producers. To the contrary, as of the date of enactment of the PROTECT Act (five years after the Sundance decision), DOJ’s previously enacted regulations remained in effect. Indeed, even lead counsel for the plaintiffs was quoted in a Free Speech coalition article (attached as Exhibit A, see page 4) as saying, “All along I have advised my clients not to rely on Sundance; that any image they had in any book, magazine, video, or whatever, whether it’s amateurs or swingers or any of that stuff, that they should have the appropriate records.”

I think that Exhibit A... which hasn't been released to our community until this post... is damaging to the case. What do you think? And you do you think it's wise for their attorneys to be making such public statements that can be used against them in this way?