Chad Belville 2257 Compliance

PhillyGuy · 06-02-2006, 11:12 AM

Has anyone else seen this website with that model from last Fall?

http://www.kruezeratnight.com/

**gaybucks_chip** · 06-02-2006, 05:41 PM

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.

PhillyGuy · 06-02-2006, 05:58 PM

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

**gaybucks_chip** · 06-02-2006, 06:10 PM

Yawn.

PhillyGuy · 06-02-2006, 06:38 PM

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

abostonboy · 06-02-2006, 07:04 PM

Philly,

I couldn't say it better myself. And I wont even try.

PhillyGuy · 06-02-2006, 08:57 PM

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......

PhillyGuy · 06-02-2006, 09:20 PM

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?

**gaybucks_chip** · 06-02-2006, 09:34 PM

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.

PhillyGuy · 06-02-2006, 10:32 PM

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

**basschick** · 06-02-2006, 10:40 PM

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.

**EonFilms_Rocky** · 06-03-2006, 04:34 AM

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

**EonFilms_Rocky** · 06-03-2006, 04:34 AM

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

**Lee** · 06-03-2006, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by EonFilms_Rocky

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

:yeah:

Regards,

Lee