Actual 2257 definative case law
 

LEXSEE 139 F.3D 804

SUNDANCE ASSOCIATES, INC., a Colorado corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JANET RENO, Attorney General of the United States, in her official capacity only; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 96-1501

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

139 F.3d 804; 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 5720; 26 Media L. Rep. 1564; 1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 1415

March 23, 1998, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. (D.C. No. 95-N-2592). D.C. Judge EDWARD W. NOTTINGHAM.

DIShahahahahahahahahaha District court's decision AFFIRMED; remanded to the district court.

LexisNexis(R) Headnotes


COUNSEL: Arthur M. Schwartz (Michael W. Gross, Cindy D. Schwartz, and Gary M. Kramer, with him on the brief) of Arthur M. Schwartz, P.C., Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Anne M. Lobell (Jacob M. Lewis with her on the briefs), United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Defendants-Appellants.

JUDGES: Before BALDOCK and BRORBY, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, * District Judge.

* The Honorable Wesley E. Brown, Senior District Judge, District of Kansas, sitting by designation.

OPINIONBY: BRORBY

OPINION: [*805] BRORBY, Circuit Judge.
The Attorney General and the United States Department of Justice ("the government") appeal the United States District Court for the District of Colorado's award of summary judgment for Sundance Associates ("Sundance"), holding 28 C.F.R. § 75.1(c)(4)(iii) is an invalid implementation of 18 U.S.C. § 2257. This court assumes jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirms.
Concerned about the exploitation of children by pornographers, Congress enacted the [**2] Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-690, Title VII, § 7513(a), 102 Stat. 4187, 4485-4503 (significantly amended by the Child Protection Restoration and Penalties Enhancement Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-647, Title III, § § 301(b), 311, 104 Stat. 4808, 4816-17) to require producers of sexually explicit matter to maintain certain records concerning the performers n1 that might help law enforcement agencies monitor the industry. See 18 U.S.C. § 2257. Violations of these record keeping requirements are criminal offenses punishable by imprisonment for up to two [*806] years for first-time offenders and up to five years for repeat offenders. n2 See 18 U.S.C. § 2257(i).

yep, time to be very carefull :2 cents:

Right, because a case filed 6 years ago proves imminent danger to us all. Fucking idiot.

Sundance helped us silly.

don't call Gary a fucking idiot

I realize that, sig whore over there was talking out his ass, you're replying to the wrong person. :2 cents:

Who was sundance and what caused it to go to court.?

Yeah I relized that.

Do not make me cry please. I am really wondering about people more and more in this biz.

I found info :

Sundance publishes five magazines: Odyssey, Odyssey Express, Connexion, Looking Glass, and UnReal People. These magazines print personal or commercial announcements by individuals seeking to contact others with similar sexual interests. The announcements are typically accompanied by pictures, most of which are sexually explicit. The pictures are submitted voluntarily to Sundance by the individuals advertising in the magazines. Sundance, therefore, does not participate in the production of the photographs it publishes in its various magazines.

Facing possible criminal liability as a "secondary producer" under the regulation, Sundance filed a complaint seeking declaratory relief in the district court. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment in the district court.


So that wasnt commercial porn it was swinger ads. Wonder if the swinger sites know this?

hey didn't you catch the latest terror warning based on 4 year old info.. Bush admin is leaving no stone unturned :1orglaugh :1orglaugh