New 2257 Compliance Guide

[tony404]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Not sure what you mean... but there's been the Connections case and the Joe Francis plea bargain not to mention the actual challenges by FSC over the past decade. Those are the cases I am referring to.

What I mean is until someone has their records and inspected the government says they are not in compliance and someone is arrested even though the models were of age. Until then its all guessing.
That's what my lawyer told me its all theories until someone gets arrested for noncompliance of models that are of age.

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by tony404

What I mean is until someone has their records and inspected the government says they are not in compliance and someone is arrested even though the models were of age. Until then its all guessing.
That's what my lawyer told me its all theories until someone gets arrested for noncompliance of models that are of age.

If thats your basis than you can include Francis, he was inspected, had models that were of age, was arrested, prosecuted and copped a plea. He is the only person that I know of that has had a 2257 case that resulted in a prosecutorial victory.

You can probably also include Ira Isaacs case. He was arrested and charged with 2257 violations in addition to obscenity. However, the 2257 charges were dropped after the lower court ruling in the Connections case which found 2257 to be unconstitutional, until it was reversed. They never reinstated the 2257 charges though.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

If thats your basis than you can include Francis, he was inspected, had models that were of age, was arrested, prosecuted and copped a plea. He is the only person that I know of that has had a 2257 case that resulted in a prosecutorial victory.

You can probably also include Ira Isaacs case. He was arrested and charged with 2257 violations in addition to obscenity. However, the 2257 charges were dropped after the lower court ruling in the Connections case which found 2257 to be unconstitutional, until it was reversed. They never reinstated the 2257 charges though.

Yes, but in both of those cases the 2257 charges were add-ons to far more serious charges.

No one has yet been prosecuted solely for 2257 record keeping violations, and I have serious doubts that anyone ever will.

When the FBI does an inspection, they're not on a fishing expedition, they know what they're looking for well in advance and are simply after confirmation. Unless you're promoting some fairly questionable content, as strictly a secondary producer, having the FBI show up to do an inspection isn't very likely.

What is far more likely given the economic climate and current administration is that well see porn taxed in some form.

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by Toby

Yes, but in both of those cases the 2257 charges were add-ons to far more serious charges.

As for Isaacs I would agree...

Where is your info from about the charges being added on in the Francis case ? He had state charges but the federal charges were clear 2257 violations.

Here's the DOJ's press release..

‘Girls Gone Wild’ Company Sentenced to Pay
$1.6 Million in Fines in Sexual Exploitation Case

WASHINGTON – Mantra Films, Inc., a Santa Monica, Calif. company operating as Girls Gone Wild, was sentenced today to pay $1.6 million in criminal fines for failing to create and maintain age and identity records for films it produced, Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher of the Criminal Division, and U.S. Attorney Gregory Miller for the Northern District of Florida announced today.

The sentence was imposed today by U.S. District Judge Richard Smoak at the federal court in Panama City, Fla.

Here's the link to the rest of it ....

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2006/Dec...6_crt_831.html