Why I Won't Support Max Hardcore (I Hate Liberty)

[Toby]

Originally Posted by gonzo

BTW Toby was at the same show.

Its possibile he spent some time with Jim too.

I spent the better part of one whole evening sitting next to him as a whole group of us sat around and shot the bull.

The only place I've read anything about crew/staff fucking models was in the very early mainstream media reports. I've not seen anything stated by the local prosecutors that confirms that.

This case will potentially set some very important precedents. 1) Is hiring models to have sex on camera considered prostitution in Florida? 2) What is the definition of Obscene? (lawyers for the plaintiffs have petitioned the court for just such a definition.)

The overall significance of the Obscenity definition is obvious, but in relation to this case if the obscenity charges go away, then so do the RICO charges, since the prostitution charge alone isn't sufficient for RICO.

[softball]

Originally Posted by Toby

I spent the better part of one whole evening sitting next to him as a whole group of us sat around and shot the bull.

The only place you've read anything about crew/staff fucking models was in the very early mainstream media reports. I've not seen anything issued by the local prosecutors that confirms that.

This case will potentially set some very important precedents. 1) Is hiring models to have sex on camera considered prostitution in Florida? 2) What is the definition of Obscene? (lawyers for the plaintiffs have petitioned the court for just such a definition.)

The overall significance of the Obscenity definition is obvious, but in relation to this case if the obscenity charges go away, then so do the RICO charges, since the prostitution charge alone isn't sufficient for RICO.

I have seen absolutely no confirmation of point 1. I have seen no charges of sex on camera being prostitution. I would say, but have not seen any indication of this definition of obsenity petition, that this would be significant. The devil is in the details and no one seems very forthcoming when asked. I just get the same old prostitution claim, but no formal charge has been produced. So now is the time, T. Please produce any and all charges.
This is not a question of anyone's foot in anyone's mouth. You might think about retracting that particular accusation.

[Toby]

Charges:
"manufacture and sale of obscene material"
"racketeering — conducting a criminal enterprise by engaging in prostitution."

The only mention of 'private parties' was in a Pensacola newspaper report in regards to an affidavit accompanying the arrest warrants.

I was mistaken about the petition to define obscene, that's not exactly the case. They petitioned to define "community standards", which is what is used to determine what is considered obscene. http://www.xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=22227

I don't believe that you honestly feel this case is about hiring hookers for private parties. For starters, in Florida the statute of limitations on prostitution is one year, so those charges by themselves are non-starters. It's all posturing for making the RICO charge.

[softball]

You still have not shown me where they have been charged with prostituion while filming porn. Which, btw, was the whole pitch when they went looking for funding for their case. I still say it is not the issue and never has been. Even Mr. Walters never answered this when I asked. It is a tapdance to raise money. Like I said, I have asked over and over and over again and the best anyone, including yourself can do is say that they have been charged with prostitution while filming, but there seems to be no evidence of this. Now about the foot in mouth issue, Toby.....

[Toby]

from a post by Jim Manley on another board last July.

Originally Posted by jimatcohf

Why the charge of Racketeering? As mentioned, the cops assert that compensating people who perform in, or produce, adult sexual content is prostitution and that any parties earning an income derived from activity based on prostitution is Racketeering

[softball]

Originally Posted by Toby

from a post by Jim Manley on another board last July.

I still have not seen this in any charge. I will give Mr. Manley the benefit of the doubt, but am not yet convinced of the veracity of the statement. There seems to be an abundance of smoke, a plethora of mirrors and a paucity of facts surrounding this case.
Call me cynical but the hat was out pretty quickly on this one considering the rather large profits this company claimed to be making back in the day. I have never been against helping out if I believe in a cause, but in this case I still have my doubts.
Edit: BTW, neither of my feet was in my mouth on this one, and I still think an apology is in order. You may not agree with my opinion, but it is well thought out and I was not shooting from the hip, Toby.

[Toby]

My point is that you're stuck on the private parties allegation when they have nothing to do with the case.

For the prostitution charge to apply to the racketeering it has to be part of an illegal enterprise. In other words the alleged illegal enterprise (manufacture and sale of obscene material) has to derive income from the alleged prostitution as part of the enterprise. Beyond entertaining clients I don't see much income relative the the web sites being derived from private parties, so that leaves models hired to perform on film.

Is it starting to make sense?