Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Linkster
Are we neglecting the fact that in most cases these WMs would fall under the definition of sec. producer and therefore would have no legal obligation under the "current 2257" (I assume you mean the one prior to July this year) to have any records nor have a statement since this was thrown out by the 10th Circuit a few years back?
Not a lawyer here, but I was of the impression that this was one of the big sticking points that the FSC was going against as the "new" 2257 ignored this decision.
|
You need to learn a bit more about the federal court system. The Sundance decision ONLY applies to the 10th circuit, not the entire country. The only time a federal judicial decision applies to the entire country is when it is handed down by the US Supreme Court. The only reason the DOJ didn't appeal the Sundance decision to SCOTUS was they wanted a stronger case to test the decision. The DOJ could technically force the issue and start inspections against webmasters outside of the 10th circuit if they wanted to, especially if they wanted a good legal fight.
The 'popular' opinion is that Judge Miller is somehow constrained to make his decision based upon the Sundance case... but it's quite possible that he might not agree with that decision and could make provisions to legislate from the bench and essentially overturn Sundance based upon new circumstances brought about by the regulations.
Quite frankly, I'm surprised there hasn't been a decision as of yet. I expected it to be fairly quick in this particular instance since Sundance already exists.
The case doesn't have anything to do with 'community standards' it's merely the requirements to keep records and who should keep them that is in question.