![]() |
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||||||
| Notices |
| Legacy Archived Main Board Business chat and general industry chat. All participation is welcome. Dont post your fucking spam here. |

|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#11 | ||
|
Cramming 3 people in a Room to Attend Show
Want to see your own Advertising Here!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Amid the Cornfields of Illinois
Posts: 5,366
|
Quote:
I don't want to completely disrupt this hissy fit, but consider this - would the Feds have agreed to this if they thought the new regs would stand? Seems to me the other guy has already winked, at least - and maybe he's blinking. I'm all for a conservative legal strategy, but if the hand is loaded with Aces, you're a fool not to play them - and the new regs bear a striking similiarity to the ones tossed aside. I am a laymen, don't profess to be a lawyer, but I did spend five years trying to keep them from fucking up my databases. There is a lot about this whole thing that puzzles me. I'm confused by the number of people that contend there was no way to obtain a "blanket" TRO enjoining the DOJ from enforcement efforts of any kind against any entity; that only named plaintiffs could have been covered by a TRO resulting from today's hearing doesn't seem quite right to me. I don't know enough at this point to conclude that what the FSC did is good strategy, bad strategy, or stupid strategy. That being said, Lee - if you are not a member of the FSC, they can't have sold you out. Quote:
Why the fuck should they do your legal work for you? How much legal work have yoiu done for other people for free?
__________________
SEX STORY TEXT Exotic Material for Adult Websites Available for part time (project or ongoing) work ... |
||
|
|
|
| Bookmarks |
|
|