Here's the FULL agreement

[Slade]

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

[Lee]

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

Regards,

Lee

[Lee]

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

Regards,

Lee

[Lee]

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.

Regards,

Lee

[Squirt]

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:

[Lee]

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

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

Regards,

Lee

[gaystoryman]

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.

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

[Slade]

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.

[Squirt]

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:

[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.

[Slade]

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:

[Squirt]

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.

[basschick]

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?

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.

[Squirt]

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.

[Slade]

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. ;-)