Quote:

On Aug. 20 just past, the Department of Justice filed its motion to dismiss in part and a supporting memorandum arguing that the Fourth Amendment claims about 2257 inspections are not "ripe" for consideration now; "At least some future criminal defendants will likely be able to assert their own constitutional challenges if they are ever prosecuted, but it would probably spell the end of the so-called anticipatory challenges (i.e. those brought before enforcement). "

I has always been my contention that §2257 contains a serious 4th Amendment violation in the §2257 inspection regime.

Quote:

"My point is not that 2257 inspections should resume, but rather that the government's choice in refusing to enforce the law should not act to block the courts from deciding the law's constitutionality."

Hence the "not ripe" assertion. We should wait for a real criminal case to raise that issue (we can keep the intimidation alive a bit longer ...</sarcasm>).

Quote:

"If the Fourth Amendment search and seizure arguments are not dismissed, their ultimate resolution may be affected strongly by their potential effect on amateurs and on other private persons who are not involved at all in the commercial adult entertainment industry; the 3rd Circuit's analysis saw through the government's self-serving posturing that the law does not apply to them."

This issue was addressed in the 6th Circuit ruling then overturned en blanc by the entire 6th Appellate.

Quote:

It is not to be neglected that despite the mandate of Congress for annual reporting in 18 U.S.C. § 2257A (k) as to the number of inspections, the number of open investigations, the number of charges brought, and the dispositions of the ensuing prosecutions, it does not appear that DOJ has reported any of those things to Congress since the first term of George Bush in 2003, nine years ago. (I've inquired of the Attorney General by use of the Freedom of Information Act and his personnel have responded to me that no such reports can be located in the Executive Secretariat of the Attorney General nor in the records of his Legislative Affairs Office; they suggested that I also make inquiry of the Criminal Division, and several months later, after it denied my request for a fee waiver because it disagrees the disclosure would be in the public interest, I am still awaiting those probably chimerical annual reports to Congress.) (One wonders whether their apparent neglect of the statutory mandate and their apparent violation of 2257A (k) for nine years running makes the present and prior Attorney Generals the most flagrant violators of 2257 in the U.S..)

There's your answer Robbie -- they never reported it. I would draw the conclusion that it has been more of a threat under color of authority from a "bully pulpit." Further, this only proves the political agenda of §§ 2257, 2257A.

Good article Joe. If someone can be in Philly that day -- a court hearing report would be great.