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

**Squirt** · 06-25-2005, 01:43 AM

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.

**Huskyhunks** · 06-25-2005, 01:50 AM

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 !

Slade · 06-25-2005, 01:58 AM

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.

Slade · 06-25-2005, 02:00 AM

"a rose by another other name.."

would still stink like this whole "join the fsc and avoid jail time!"

(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.

**Huskyhunks** · 06-25-2005, 02:10 AM

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.

BDBionic · 06-25-2005, 02:22 AM

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.

**Huskyhunks** · 06-25-2005, 02:33 AM

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

**Lee** · 06-25-2005, 02:44 AM

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

**Lee** · 06-25-2005, 02:46 AM

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

**Lee** · 06-25-2005, 02:48 AM

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

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

**Huskyhunks** · 06-25-2005, 02:49 AM

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

**Squirt** · 06-25-2005, 02:50 AM

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?

**gaystoryman** · 06-25-2005, 02:50 AM

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

**Lee** · 06-25-2005, 02:51 AM

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

**Lee** · 06-25-2005, 02:54 AM

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