GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

davecummings · 12-17-2008, 10:57 AM

Part 2:
-----------------

g. In my opinion, the element of a surprise inspection accomplishes nothing other than a Custodian possibly being able to have 2257 records and extra coffee cups on a work table awaiting the FBI---if a DOB document is missing or is unreadable, it?s that way whether or not the Custodian was surprised by the inspection, or whether it was coordinated a day or week or month earlier. I think and strongly recommend that the 2257 regulations should mandate no more than a NON-inspection system to centrally garner DOB documentation via fax, mail, scanning-email, on each performer of ?age-interest? to DOJ engaged in actual sexual activity being filmed, along with the date of production(s) and the ?Stage Name? used for the productions. Part of the FBI teams could be deactivated (and/or reassigned to fighting real crime and preventing terrorism?) in favor of a cost-saving non-government administrative contract; and, Custodians should no longer have to show the actual place of business (in many cases, their actual private homes) address for inspections of records?instead, Post Offices Boxes and Postal Plus type addresses should be authorized. One DOJ individual would monitor the contract and take action if an Adult Film producer is tardy or unresponsive to providing requested DOB Documentation, Stage Name (the legal name is already/innately provided by the DOB document), and Dates of Production to the government contractor assembling the central database; that same DOJ individual would act as DOJ Point-of-Contact for any needed legal actions if a performer is found to be underage (something, per paragraph d. above, which seems quite unlikely). I recommend not only the elimination of ?surprise? inspections, but also the elimination of any kind of on-site inspections?instead, once it?s determined that a performer ?looks? underage, require fax/mail/scan-email DOB documentation and date of production certification from the Primary Producer or Custodian of 2257 records. I also recommend that Custodians be able to cite and use addresses other than their private homes or place of business.

h. I question how legislators or 2257-writers can contend that the purpose of 2257 is to prevent underage performers (and to catch and prosecute violators?). Past experience (and FBI inspections) shows that no producer knowingly uses underage performers. 2257 seems like an after-the-fact tool, not a prevention tool. 2257 overly burdens producers, and is extremely far from being the least restrictive means of enforcing the Adam Walsh Law.

i. Our great United States of America says that people are innocent until proven guilty, but 2257 seems to be unconstitutionally forcing records-keeping and SIGNIFICANT unnecessary burdens, and making producers have to prove that they didn?t use an underage performer; doesn?t our American Constitution require prosecutors to have to prove that the producer did indeed knowingly and intentionally commit the crime of illegally filming someone under 18 years of age? What will a Judge say about this Constitutional affront? What will a Judge decree about the over-burdening and inappropriate requirements of 2257? What might the American electorate do at the ballot box about the people and the Administration behind 2257 and the deterioration of their access to legal Adult films, Internet sites, and entertainment? I recommend that you consider the aforementioned before finalizing the pending 2257 regulations

j. I hope that there weren?t any political or government shenanigans involved with the way the Adam Walsh law provided for the inclusion of Secondary Producers. Again, the Courts might frown on such an insult to our Constitution, the citizens and voters might be upset with the cow towing to campaign contributors and religious freedom-robbing radicals who want State to genuflect to the hypocritical Church, and with the government individuals who foster such subjective ?punishments? as 2257 doles out to American citizens, fans of Adult entertainment, and voters! Like everything in this letter, this is just my personal opinion!

k. Please understand that Secondary Producers have nothing to do with the talent that appear in the products they use; they don?t meet the person on set; they are not able to personally check the DOB documentation prior to the filming; and, to make Secondary Producers maintain the same bureaucratic, political hassling, ?punishment? records as Primary Producers are presently required to do accomplishes nothing worthwhile, least of all any form of ?protecting the children under 18 years of age?. Further, many Secondary Producers are small businesses, often only one-person or part-time operations, who can?t afford the expense or time to obtain and maintain copies of records that are best initiated and maintained by the Primary Producers who actually see and copy the ORIGINAL documents provided by the performers presenting their DOB documentation. Hassling and pressuring Secondary Producers via 2257 record keeping mandates might cause some to go out of business, an UNAMERICAN shame that will only open the floodgates to foreign websites that have content which will still rile the religious radicals?why ?punish? or violate the rights of American fans/viewers/VOTERS who want to give their business to American websites; so, why subject American Secondary Producers to unnecessary 2257 regulations which might put some of them out of business, and subject Americans to patronize foreign web sites??? In my opinion, the pending 2257 regulations seem like a politically-inspired boomerang that will cause voter discontent against government writers and supervisors of 2257 and the federal government, will hurt small American businesses, worsen the Balance of Payments due to out-flow of dollars by Americans who will have to ?get their porn? from foreign sources, cause unemployment, and create further distrust of the subjective government officials who seem to ignore the line between Church and State. Bottom line----for Secondary Producer record keeping, 2257 can satisfy the Adam Walsh law by merely requiring only an email or letter from the Primary Producer attesting to the DOB documentation availability at the Primary Producer?s place of business. Of course, in those instances where a Secondary Producer is also a Primary Producer filming content, any Primary Producer filming must include the same record keeping as required of Adult Film companies. Again, to me, only legal name, DOB documentation, stage name and date of production is all that is comprehensively necessary?2257 should not mandate more, or cross-referencing, or a listing of other productions, OR Secondary Producer records keeping as required by the pending new regulations. I strongly recommend the above to DOJ. Besides the comments in this paragraph that connote my recommendations, I also recommend that the pending 2257 requirement for 2257 Disclosures to be on every page of adult websites be eliminated as not contributing to the purpose of 2257 to ?prevent the filming of underage persons?.

l. I understand that Adult Industry comments to the previous pending 2257 regulations seemed to ignore expert input. I?m appalled if this is true. I think the people and their supervisors writing the ?new? 2257 regulations should work cooperatively with the Free Speech Coalition and others, THIS TIME! This should be a workable regulation, not one that ends up in many court battles or seems political or submissive to campaign contributors or the religious hypocritical radicals who ?pressure? officials into inappropriate rulemaking.

m. I wonder if Free Speech and freedom of expression is being overly burdened by the ?hassling-portions? of 2257. Will it require extensive court cases to get the 2257 amended to the least restrictive way of enforcing a way to insure that performers are of legal age? Rather than a 2257 regulation, why shouldn?t the government maintain a centralized set of records instead of forcing a decentralized and burdensome requirement upon the producers of adult free speech expressions?

n. Contrary to what DOJ might erroneously think, most Adult Entertainment Producers are NOT awash in money. The glut of footage from the advent of digital camcorders in the hands of wannabe producers, and the availability of free Internet adult materials and overseas competition has significantly decreased revenues. Indeed, this 2257 is a HUGE financial burden, especially when viewed in relationship to present-day decreasing revenues!

Please carefully and fully digest everything in this letter, and to fully follow my opinions-comments-recommendations.

Please do the right thing concerning the new 2257 regulations. Do it for America, our time-tested Constitution, and the American People who want you to act favorably upon my comments/opinions/recommendations.

Again, this letter/opinions is meant to be helpful and useful to you, Americans, and the United States of America.

Sincerely,

David C. Conners/D. Charles Conners/?Dave Cummings?

CC: President of the United States; Attorney General; Chief, Criminal Div, DOJ; FBI Special Agent Joyner (by email); DOJ Inspector General; Free Speech Coalition; et.al

12-17-2008, 10:57 AM
davecummings Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: San Diego Posts: 2,922	Part 2: ----------------- g. In my opinion, the element of a surprise inspection accomplishes nothing other than a Custodian possibly being able to have 2257 records and extra coffee cups on a work table awaiting the FBI---if a DOB document is missing or is unreadable, it?s that way whether or not the Custodian was surprised by the inspection, or whether it was coordinated a day or week or month earlier. I think and strongly recommend that the 2257 regulations should mandate no more than a NON-inspection system to centrally garner DOB documentation via fax, mail, scanning-email, on each performer of ?age-interest? to DOJ engaged in actual sexual activity being filmed, along with the date of production(s) and the ?Stage Name? used for the productions. Part of the FBI teams could be deactivated (and/or reassigned to fighting real crime and preventing terrorism?) in favor of a cost-saving non-government administrative contract; and, Custodians should no longer have to show the actual place of business (in many cases, their actual private homes) address for inspections of records?instead, Post Offices Boxes and Postal Plus type addresses should be authorized. One DOJ individual would monitor the contract and take action if an Adult Film producer is tardy or unresponsive to providing requested DOB Documentation, Stage Name (the legal name is already/innately provided by the DOB document), and Dates of Production to the government contractor assembling the central database; that same DOJ individual would act as DOJ Point-of-Contact for any needed legal actions if a performer is found to be underage (something, per paragraph d. above, which seems quite unlikely). I recommend not only the elimination of ?surprise? inspections, but also the elimination of any kind of on-site inspections?instead, once it?s determined that a performer ?looks? underage, require fax/mail/scan-email DOB documentation and date of production certification from the Primary Producer or Custodian of 2257 records. I also recommend that Custodians be able to cite and use addresses other than their private homes or place of business. h. I question how legislators or 2257-writers can contend that the purpose of 2257 is to prevent underage performers (and to catch and prosecute violators?). Past experience (and FBI inspections) shows that no producer knowingly uses underage performers. 2257 seems like an after-the-fact tool, not a prevention tool. 2257 overly burdens producers, and is extremely far from being the least restrictive means of enforcing the Adam Walsh Law. i. Our great United States of America says that people are innocent until proven guilty, but 2257 seems to be unconstitutionally forcing records-keeping and SIGNIFICANT unnecessary burdens, and making producers have to prove that they didn?t use an underage performer; doesn?t our American Constitution require prosecutors to have to prove that the producer did indeed knowingly and intentionally commit the crime of illegally filming someone under 18 years of age? What will a Judge say about this Constitutional affront? What will a Judge decree about the over-burdening and inappropriate requirements of 2257? What might the American electorate do at the ballot box about the people and the Administration behind 2257 and the deterioration of their access to legal Adult films, Internet sites, and entertainment? I recommend that you consider the aforementioned before finalizing the pending 2257 regulations j. I hope that there weren?t any political or government shenanigans involved with the way the Adam Walsh law provided for the inclusion of Secondary Producers. Again, the Courts might frown on such an insult to our Constitution, the citizens and voters might be upset with the cow towing to campaign contributors and religious freedom-robbing radicals who want State to genuflect to the hypocritical Church, and with the government individuals who foster such subjective ?punishments? as 2257 doles out to American citizens, fans of Adult entertainment, and voters! Like everything in this letter, this is just my personal opinion! k. Please understand that Secondary Producers have nothing to do with the talent that appear in the products they use; they don?t meet the person on set; they are not able to personally check the DOB documentation prior to the filming; and, to make Secondary Producers maintain the same bureaucratic, political hassling, ?punishment? records as Primary Producers are presently required to do accomplishes nothing worthwhile, least of all any form of ?protecting the children under 18 years of age?. Further, many Secondary Producers are small businesses, often only one-person or part-time operations, who can?t afford the expense or time to obtain and maintain copies of records that are best initiated and maintained by the Primary Producers who actually see and copy the ORIGINAL documents provided by the performers presenting their DOB documentation. Hassling and pressuring Secondary Producers via 2257 record keeping mandates might cause some to go out of business, an UNAMERICAN shame that will only open the floodgates to foreign websites that have content which will still rile the religious radicals?why ?punish? or violate the rights of American fans/viewers/VOTERS who want to give their business to American websites; so, why subject American Secondary Producers to unnecessary 2257 regulations which might put some of them out of business, and subject Americans to patronize foreign web sites??? In my opinion, the pending 2257 regulations seem like a politically-inspired boomerang that will cause voter discontent against government writers and supervisors of 2257 and the federal government, will hurt small American businesses, worsen the Balance of Payments due to out-flow of dollars by Americans who will have to ?get their porn? from foreign sources, cause unemployment, and create further distrust of the subjective government officials who seem to ignore the line between Church and State. Bottom line----for Secondary Producer record keeping, 2257 can satisfy the Adam Walsh law by merely requiring only an email or letter from the Primary Producer attesting to the DOB documentation availability at the Primary Producer?s place of business. Of course, in those instances where a Secondary Producer is also a Primary Producer filming content, any Primary Producer filming must include the same record keeping as required of Adult Film companies. Again, to me, only legal name, DOB documentation, stage name and date of production is all that is comprehensively necessary?2257 should not mandate more, or cross-referencing, or a listing of other productions, OR Secondary Producer records keeping as required by the pending new regulations. I strongly recommend the above to DOJ. Besides the comments in this paragraph that connote my recommendations, I also recommend that the pending 2257 requirement for 2257 Disclosures to be on every page of adult websites be eliminated as not contributing to the purpose of 2257 to ?prevent the filming of underage persons?. l. I understand that Adult Industry comments to the previous pending 2257 regulations seemed to ignore expert input. I?m appalled if this is true. I think the people and their supervisors writing the ?new? 2257 regulations should work cooperatively with the Free Speech Coalition and others, THIS TIME! This should be a workable regulation, not one that ends up in many court battles or seems political or submissive to campaign contributors or the religious hypocritical radicals who ?pressure? officials into inappropriate rulemaking. m. I wonder if Free Speech and freedom of expression is being overly burdened by the ?hassling-portions? of 2257. Will it require extensive court cases to get the 2257 amended to the least restrictive way of enforcing a way to insure that performers are of legal age? Rather than a 2257 regulation, why shouldn?t the government maintain a centralized set of records instead of forcing a decentralized and burdensome requirement upon the producers of adult free speech expressions? n. Contrary to what DOJ might erroneously think, most Adult Entertainment Producers are NOT awash in money. The glut of footage from the advent of digital camcorders in the hands of wannabe producers, and the availability of free Internet adult materials and overseas competition has significantly decreased revenues. Indeed, this 2257 is a HUGE financial burden, especially when viewed in relationship to present-day decreasing revenues! Please carefully and fully digest everything in this letter, and to fully follow my opinions-comments-recommendations. Please do the right thing concerning the new 2257 regulations. Do it for America, our time-tested Constitution, and the American People who want you to act favorably upon my comments/opinions/recommendations. Again, this letter/opinions is meant to be helpful and useful to you, Americans, and the United States of America. Sincerely, David C. Conners/D. Charles Conners/?Dave Cummings? CC: President of the United States; Attorney General; Chief, Criminal Div, DOJ; FBI Special Agent Joyner (by email); DOJ Inspector General; Free Speech Coalition; et.al __________________ Dave Cummings www.davecummings.com www.davecummings.tv San Diego Email--- [email protected]