Is Someone About To Get Prosecuted For 2257 Violations? Did anyone catch this? - GoFuckYourself.com

BoyAlley · 07-31-2007, 10:19 PM

I haven't seen this Xbiz article mentioned on here, maybe I missed it:

Keeping Line Open on 2257
http://www.xbiz.com/articles/82414/2257

There's a lot of great clarification packed in that article, so check it out if you haven't already. I was pretty impressed with how forthcoming the FBI was in this interview.

Also interesting to note at the end:

Joyner = FBI

Quote:

Joyner: On a related note, I did want to mention some re-inspections that have occurred. If a company has no violations, we are unable to inspect them again for at least four months. Some companies have violations and failed to resolve them. This is bad and leads to a re-inspection. If they continue to have violations, this indicates a deliberate disregard of the law.

XBIZ: You mentioned that "some re-inspections have occurred" and "some companies have violations and failed to resolve them." To clarify, have there been re-inspections wherein the producer failed to resolve violations noted in their initial inspection?

Joyner: Yes.

(Note: Joyner could not discuss further these re-inspections, or the unresolved violations, as they pertain to specific inspections, and Joyner is not authorized to discuss specific inspections in detail.)

Sounds to me like a company may be thumbing their nose at the Feds, or be unable to comply for some reason? Reading between the lines, whoever this is, they're not making the DOJ very happy.

The article makes it sound like the FEDs were trying to give this company every chance to get into compliance and it's not happening for whatever reason.

Might we be hearing about a prosecution soon?

pocketkangaroo · 07-31-2007, 10:20 PM

Is this the same DOJ that is led by a guy who commits perjury and fires people who aren't loyal Bushies?

Tempest · 07-31-2007, 10:45 PM

Oh good.. Some idiots are going to cause problems and end up putting everything under the spotlight of the media and give all the politicians more ammunition.

GatorB · 07-31-2007, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempest

Oh good.. Some idiots are going to cause problems and end up putting everything under the spotlight of the media and give all the politicians more ammunition.

Isn't Bushie your boy? Next time join the team that fight for YOUR rights. Not the rights of Jesus freaks.

Casa Nova · 07-31-2007, 11:35 PM

The article seems really interesting. I wonder what will come of it.. the first big case for violations will make mainstream news for sure.

Matt 26z · 07-31-2007, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

Sounds to me like a company may be thumbing their nose at the Feds, or be unable to comply for some reason?

"Some companies have violations and failed to resolve them."

So it's more than one. Funny thing is, everyone who has been inspected has been on the boards or the adult news sites claiming to have passed with flying colors.

sicone · 07-31-2007, 11:45 PM

will be interesting to follow this in the coming months.

bausch · 07-31-2007, 11:55 PM

I think this is one of the companies:

"The FBI 2257 inspectors visited the offices of Robert Hill again last week to follow up on IDs that were missing during their first sweep a few months back. Once again, there were missing IDs. Time may be running out for them to get it straight before federal charges start accumulating."

http://lukeisback.com/bloglukeisback/?p=31

TheDoc · 07-31-2007, 11:58 PM

From the article:
"However, two producers have had records indicating two performers were underage at the time of filming. According to the identification on record, both were 16 years old on the production date.

Although additional investigation determined both performers were of legal age, it does demonstrate some producers' record-keeping is so poor they could negligently hire an underage performer."

Like they need any other reasons to proceed....

bausch · 07-31-2007, 11:59 PM

Also, Gentlemen's Video didn't cross-reference their stuff

"The company's 2257 records weren't cross-referenced, which is a technical violation. The agents told the company to cross-reference the records, and Gentlemen's Video has hired a person to do so."

http://xbiz.com/news/news_piece.php?...&mi=all&q=2257

bausch · 08-01-2007, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

From the article:
"However, two producers have had records indicating two performers were underage at the time of filming. According to the identification on record, both were 16 years old on the production date.

Although additional investigation determined both performers were of legal age, it does demonstrate some producers' record-keeping is so poor they could negligently hire an underage performer."

Like they need any other reasons to proceed....

Right after that is says

"Although additional investigation determined both performers WERE OF LEGAL AGE, it does demonstrate some producers' record-keeping is so poor they could negligently hire an underage performer."

So they weren't underage, the companies just didn't know how to keep good records.

pocketkangaroo · 08-01-2007, 12:03 AM

Considering Girls Gone Wild got nothing more than a fine for their shooting of underage girls and not having IDs of tons of others, I can't fathom the punishment being too harsh.

Mr. Cool Ice · 08-01-2007, 12:06 AM

Good.

A few of the video companies had a LOT of violations. Who are they to think they are above the law?

TheDoc · 08-01-2007, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bausch

Right after that is says

"Although additional investigation determined both performers WERE OF LEGAL AGE, it does demonstrate some producers' record-keeping is so poor they could negligently hire an underage performer."

So they weren't underage, the companies just didn't know how to keep good records.

The only need to show neglect.

gideongallery · 08-01-2007, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bausch

Right after that is says

"Although additional investigation determined both performers WERE OF LEGAL AGE, it does demonstrate some producers' record-keeping is so poor they could negligently hire an underage performer."

So they weren't underage, the companies just didn't know how to keep good records.

see i don't see how you could come to this conclusion the only way in which
1. the ids were valid
2. they could have been 16 at the time of production
3. and further investigation determined both performers were of legal age

would be if the production date on file was miss marked by 2 years.

nothing about that circumstance demonstrates that they could negligently hire an underage performer since at the time of shoot they would have/did do the math correctly.

bloggingseo · 08-01-2007, 12:14 AM

That is just blatant disregard and sloppy business :-(

bausch · 08-01-2007, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

see i don't see how you could come to this conclusion the only way in which
1. the ids were valid
2. they could have been 16 at the time of production
3. and further investigation determined both performers were of legal age

would be if the production date on file was miss marked by 2 years.

nothing about that circumstance demonstrates that they could negligently hire an underage performer since at the time of shoot they would have/did do the math correctly.

I have no idea what happened, what I quoted was directly from the article as stated by "Joyner" who is the fbi guy; he was the one who said the performers were of legal age and the company kept piss poor records.

bobby666 · 08-01-2007, 01:04 AM

thanks for the link

Tempest · 08-01-2007, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Isn't Bushie your boy? Next time join the team that fight for YOUR rights. Not the rights of Jesus freaks.

You've mistaken me for someone else..

Gnus · 08-01-2007, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Is this the same DOJ that is led by a guy who commits perjury and fires people who aren't loyal Bushies?

Sad part about Gonzales is if they do convict him of perjury or anything Bush will just pardon him anyway like he did Libby.

Gary

The Duck · 08-01-2007, 05:13 AM

I bet those laws will reach europe real soon.

07-31-2007, 11:35 PM	#5
Casa Nova Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto Posts: 2,867	The article seems really interesting. I wonder what will come of it.. the first big case for violations will make mainstream news for sure. __________________ ICQ: 405 009 573

07-31-2007, 11:45 PM	#7
sicone Retired Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Sac Posts: 18,453	will be interesting to follow this in the coming months. __________________

07-31-2007, 11:58 PM	#9
TheDoc Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Currently Incognito Posts: 13,827	From the article: "However, two producers have had records indicating two performers were underage at the time of filming. According to the identification on record, both were 16 years old on the production date. Although additional investigation determined both performers were of legal age, it does demonstrate some producers' record-keeping is so poor they could negligently hire an underage performer." Like they need any other reasons to proceed.... __________________ ~TheDoc - ICQ7765825 It's all disambiguation

08-01-2007, 12:14 AM	#16
bloggingseo Confirmed User Join Date: May 2007 Location: Austin Posts: 1,793	That is just blatant disregard and sloppy business :-( __________________ Writing mainstream and adult since 2003 Hit me up ICQ 375089597

08-01-2007, 01:04 AM	#18
bobby666 boots are my religion Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Heart of europe Posts: 21,765	thanks for the link __________________

07-31-2007, 10:20 PM	#2
pocketkangaroo Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 8,452	Is this the same DOJ that is led by a guy who commits perjury and fires people who aren't loyal Bushies?

07-31-2007, 10:45 PM	#3
Tempest Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2004 Location: West Coast, Canada. Posts: 10,217	Oh good.. Some idiots are going to cause problems and end up putting everything under the spotlight of the media and give all the politicians more ammunition.

07-31-2007, 11:55 PM	#8
bausch Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,017	I think this is one of the companies: "The FBI 2257 inspectors visited the offices of Robert Hill again last week to follow up on IDs that were missing during their first sweep a few months back. Once again, there were missing IDs. Time may be running out for them to get it straight before federal charges start accumulating." http://lukeisback.com/bloglukeisback/?p=31

07-31-2007, 11:59 PM	#10
bausch Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,017	Also, Gentlemen's Video didn't cross-reference their stuff "The company's 2257 records weren't cross-referenced, which is a technical violation. The agents told the company to cross-reference the records, and Gentlemen's Video has hired a person to do so." http://xbiz.com/news/news_piece.php?...&mi=all&q=2257

08-01-2007, 12:03 AM	#12
pocketkangaroo Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 8,452	Considering Girls Gone Wild got nothing more than a fine for their shooting of underage girls and not having IDs of tons of others, I can't fathom the punishment being too harsh.

08-01-2007, 12:06 AM	#13
Mr. Cool Ice Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,289	Good. A few of the video companies had a LOT of violations. Who are they to think they are above the law?

08-01-2007, 05:13 AM	#21
The Duck Adult Content Provider Industry Role: Join Date: May 2005 Location: Europe Posts: 18,243	I bet those laws will reach europe real soon. __________________ Skype Horusmaia ICQ 41555245 Email [email protected]