believe or not, we have a legal system that has functioned quite well and without change practically since its inception. ... so whats your point? it doesn't work? or you just want to take the stance that it doesn't work when you are the target? jury trials have served this country quite well for centuries.



i believe in the legal system as well. i also believe people are going to use it more effectively against YOU in the future... for a simple reason... you and everyone in this industry just sits around waiting for the tallest blade of grass to get mowed down... then does nothing but piss and moans about how you can't believe the grass gets mowed at all.

you want to keep making it a religious issue because you have no choice but to externalize the problem and point somewhere off in the distance to say "there... the problem is way over there" because thats the only way you can be consistent in your views and the only stance that allows you to avoid the conversation entirely about the law that exists and compliance with it and the inherent risks involved in pushing the line or accept any responsibility for the risks you (or others) choose to take.

like most pornographers, you're issue with with authority, not with legal clarity. thats what makes you an easy target. the whole "fuck you, i'll do what i want" attitude is exactly what a prosecutor needs to convince a jury that you're an asshole and cancer on society.

yeah... larry flynt. the same guy who once faught for the legalization of child pornography and adult sex with children and has published naked pics of kids in Hustler in a sexual context? that larry flynt?

i noticed you mentioned "you" were "fighting back"... made me curious... You just watched Max Hardcore get convicted on 10 counts. What did YOU do about it? are you out there producing stuff you know will eventually attract a prosecutors attention so you can get your day in court on everyones behalf? Are you going to serve some of his time for him? are you going to start pissing into little girls mouths on film until they choke and puke?... or are you just going to bitch about the federal government on a porn forum while the world keeps spinning as usual? what are you and everyone doing exactly besides bitching and moaning in a virtual world about how unfair life is in the real world?

god you're dense. you believe in a system that is rampant with manipulation and think anyone who disagrees with a law is a fucking anarchist. the government has no right to tell me what i can and cant do in my own home as long as im not hurting anyone else. why you think that legal precedence justifies fascism is beyond comprehension.

i never heard of this,got links?

he went from role model to villain in one page. new record?

no, im selling porn. period. the legal system you claim to have faith in is manipulated and controlled by people who think porn itself is obscene and are pushing to put me in jail. so yes, im pushing stuff i know will eventually attract a prosecutors attention. just because its not beyond the line you've drawn in the sand doesnt make me exempt from a corrupt system with unlimited resources and an agenda.

Some people have a more liberal view of our constitution. You have a strict constructionist view. There are those that believe that freedom of speech means that everyone has the right to express themselves how they want as long as it doesn't encroach on the life, liberty, or happiness of another individual. You on the other hand believe that unless the constitution specifically states that you have a right to express yourself a certain way, the government can make it illegal.

Now there is nothing wrong with either point of view. It's been an ongoing war of the Supreme Court for decades. It's insidious though to pretend that there is not an alternative viewpoint to yours on the definition of the constitution. There are 4 Supreme Court justices (maybe 5) who would side with the people in this thread that says it is their constitutional right to make this kind of pornography.

And just remember, your constructionist viewpoint isn't in the greatest company. Your view of the constitution is the same as those who felt blacks had no constitutional right to vote, own property, receive a fair trial, or even attend a public school. The same constructionist view that women had no rights to divorce, own property, vote, or choose what happens to their own body. That it was perfectly alright to create sedition laws and lockup those who spoke negatively of the government. That children had no rights and could be forced to work endless hours in factories. That you have no right to be put in front of a judge for a particular charge.

The Religious Right is an organized and implacable enemy of porn. That's a reality, not some made up boogie man "over there".


How do you comply with a law that is incomprehensible by intent and impossible to comply with by definition?

It's easy to catalog some of the tasteless extremes Max went to as "no no's" but rather harder to arrive at a intelligent line.

Don't tell us what you would not allow, that's easy. Tell us what you would allow.


What line?

Our enemies are opposed to any and all adult entertainment. Therefore, any line we choose to draw ourselves will simply become their new frontline on "the war on porn".

I don't know about you, but I think we're best served by keeping our enemies busy fighting the far distant outposts on the extreme fringe of porn. :thumbsup

The gist of your argument is that since a bunch of morons have selected us as their target, and aim to do something that's wrong, the only reasonable course of action is to a) organize b) police and c)defend, by doing ourselves, to ourselves, what they aim to do to us.

What are you fucking nuts ?

You sound like you've spent time in a chinese re-education camp, for the love of fuck.

He is NOT talking about the legal system in general. He IS talking about one legal notion, namely, "obscenity", which to this day could not be defined in any meaningful way, and which is at the core of prosecutions for actions that can only reasonably be considered actionable after they've been actioned.

Do you grasp the problem here ? If tomorrow I invent "horrorability", which is something that "I know when I see", YOU have no way of defending yourself. I'll prosecute you, for whatever I don't like, send you to prison, take your property, all is fair game.

And some other nitwit will sit where you're sitting right now and blabber about how my tyranny is somehow "matter of fact" and as such must be accepted, and also, being so matter of fact, can not be unconstitutional, or patently illegal, and in general undefensible.

We're not discussing jury trials, and we're not discussing "the legal system". We ARE discussing the fact that obscenity is not a valid notion, logically, nor laws based on the concept of "obscenity" constitutional.

you tatooed hand signing fucks are way to young to even know what is at stake here... You were not even a sperm yet :2 cents:

"obscene" isn't an obscure "notion" - the Miller Test and case law give you a pretty clear idea of what criteria something must meet to be obscene.. furthermore, the supreme court has ruled that each community has the right to decide for themselves what "obscene" is..

imagine that!!!

democracy in action.

the judges in their wisdom understood that since every community is different and has different values, they should have the right to decide for themselves what is obscene.

crazy notion.

sounds a lot like freedom to me.

interesting that you guys want to ramble on about "freedom" and can't respect that of others.

its not like people are getting arrested for sticking their penis in another consenting adult here. we are talking about some very very very extreme shit and the inevitable end to a torrid story about someone that even pornographers think is ridiculous and over the line.


you have yet to explain why this "notion" of "obscenity" is unconstitutional. i have never said it can't be.

i am not defending anything. i am simply picking on a bunch of jackasses that line up behind the worst of the worst... people that will destroy your livelihood and defend them as they invite the federal government and prosecutions into your life and scream "fuck the world" as they do it, on your behalf with you forcing yourself into the position of taking his side.

FYI, "i don't like this" doesn't equate to "its totally unconstitutional"

are you retarded? seriously. you think someone is free when their community gets to decide how they live their life? thats how they live in many of the middle eastern countries many here in the US mock for being barbaric. freedom isnt imposing your beliefs on others and using police state tactics to enforce it. cant you see that? im not saying we should show max's movies in schools but if YOU or ANYONE ELSE decides that MH's fantasy floats their boat, im not going to say THEY CANT HAVE ACCESS TO IT because it offends ME.

This quote, directed at Pleasurepays, is spot on.
Pleasurepays' views on this subject aren't what scare me. What scares me is how many people here (some of whom are actually in this industry and not just hangers on or wannabes) are cheering him on and saying things like his posts are the most exceptional, well-thought out, truthful things they've ever read here.

1) The Miller test and case law give a reasonably intelligent person absolutely no fucking clue about what criteria would cause something to be obscene.
The fact that you can't possibly know whether or not you've broken the law until after you've broken it is quite a conundrum. Any reasonable person would agree with that.
Since you fancy yourself such an expert on the law, perhaps you could share with us your views on the vagueness doctrine and why you don't think it applies to obscenity law?

FWIW, the Miller Test is from a Supreme Court decision in the 1970's. In 1856, The court ruled seven to two against Dred Scott, finding that neither he, nor any person of African ancestry, could claim citizenship in the United States, and that therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott's temporary residence outside Missouri did not affect his emancipation under the Missouri Compromise, since reaching that result would deprive Scott's owner of his property.

I suppose that people who thought this decision was unconstitutional and would probably be overturned by a later court with different justices were just juvenile selfish idiots like those of us who think obscenity laws in their current form are unconstitutional?

2) The problem is, which community gets to decide?
The community where it is produced? The community where it is shipped? The community where it was processed? The community where a postal sorting hub happens to be that the material passed through?
If Max had been tried in the "community" where he produced the material, he walks and we all know that.
Instead he was tried in the community that the government decided to order the material from. In terms of the internet charges, he was charged in the community where the government decided to plug in their computer.
Therefore, if your material can't pass the Miller test in every "community" in the upper 48, (including places like the Mormon compounds in Utah) you risk doing hard time. Yet you think those of us who think obscenity laws have constitutional problems are the ones being unreasonable?

It does? What defines those community standards? Is it if 5% of the people like it, 10%, or do you need a majority of the community to agree that it is acceptable. Furthermore, what is the definition of artistic value? There are many things in this world that I don't find artistic that others do, and vice versa.

We aren't a democracy though. In fact our courts aren't even setup like one as you need a unanimous vote.

But they haven't decided what is obscene. They make it up as they go along. If there was a law on the books that said "such and such is obscene and cannot be distributed in our city", then that makes more sense. If this community standard approach was used on other laws, there are parts of this country that would still allow you to lynch a black man.

But the biggest problem people have with this is that it's outdated. By the Miller Test, every single person here who produces some form of pornography is guilty of obscenity if they're on the internet. I can pick out the most conservative areas of the country, ask them if this meets their community standards, and they'll say no. You don't think it's a bit crazy that producing porn thousands of miles away can be illegal if one community in this country doesn't approve? That to me is having a few small communities telling the rest of the world what is acceptable.

It's actually the opposite. It's suppressing a minority opinion. No one has disrespected the freedom of anyone in Tampa. They were not forced to watch the videos, buy the videos, or even know about the videos. They have lost no freedom. As for choosing their standards of life, they are free just like everyone else to vote for representatives who will change the laws and constitution to meet their wishes.

I understand your viewpoint from a professional perspective. But I also know that you can't be for freedom of speech/expression without defending the craziest forms of it. I think the KKK is an abomination, but I respect their right to say what they want. No one in this country should have their speech/expression considered illegal because a majority of people don't like it. That's fascism, not freedom.

He is often dead on the money.

This is simply not possible. This is an industry that will never unite.

I disagree with you that porn in the US will be snuffed out, however I do think it's going to take a serious ass beating and get toned down. It IS out of control and since we are unable to curb it, they will do so for us.

We can't even group together to get a handle on piracy and tube sites, what makes any of you think we can join together and fight the US Government?

Obscene IS an obscure notion, because it has no definition. The miller test is a method to determine AFTER THE FACT if something WAS obscene, and it strictly depends on oppinion, of people that as a rule aren't there aforehand.

For a comparison, drunk driving is NOT an obscure notion, because it has a definiton (the action of operating a vehicle on public roads while carrying more than x parts per million alcohol in the bloodstream).

The test for it (breathalyzer) is a method to determine at any point if someone is drunk, and it does not depend on the opinion of anyone, being a scientifical measurement. Alternative tests can be designed by anyone, and their accuracy can be logically assesed by anyone else.

Similarly, going over the speed limit is NOT an obscure notion, because it has a definition (the action of opperating a vehicle at a speed exceeding x miles an hour on public roads).

The test for it (radar) is a method to determine at any point if someone is going over the limit, and it does not depend on the opinion of anyone, being a scientifical measurement. Alternative tests can be designed by anyone, and their accuracy can be logically assesed by anyone else.

Proving that either the brethalyser used in any given ticket, or the radar instrument, were NOT operating scientifically, but really just based on the opinion of their operator is the most common cause for tickets/convictions being thrown out in court. In fact, if you get a speeding ticket and can prove just that the radar used hasn't been checked in x time, you are as a rule off the hook.

Mull on that for a second.

You then simply do not understand what freedom is. Freedom is not a right of the community, but a right of individuals. Further, the law exists to protect individuals from encroachment against their rights by communities, be they a county, a state or the federal government.

The others do not have the right to select individuals they consider are weak enough, or unpopular enough, and buldgeon on them. Why would you think otherwise is beyond me.

It is EXACTLY like that.

With a cheer to SnakeDoctor's respectable points on the vagueness doctrine, and the Scott citizenship case.

You mean like how homosexuals can't be legally married in most states? Or do you mean like how sodomy is illegal is some states? Or do you mean why I can't buy hardcore porn DVDs in Cincinnati, Ohio simply because they don't allow it there? Or do you mean how my passport does not allow me to travel to Cuba, Iraq, Libya or North Korea?

I'm confused about which freedom you speak of, because based on what is is supposed to mean, it's not working so well.

I understand what it is SUPPOSED to be, but you can't throw the word "freedom" around and then limit the freedoms you have. It doesn't work that way, yet that is the way we are force fed it. Either a man / woman is free (totally free) or he / she is not. No limits.

Those would all be examples of where the laws are currently either wrongly written or wrongly applied, or both, and need fixing.

Indeed not.

Freedom is a continuum, not a discrete state. Being god-inspired, god-filled, god-loved, true-believbing, whatnot, are all discrete states. So is being a virgin.

Freedom however is more like being a slut than being a virgin.

The history of sentient beings on earth is the history of their struggle for their freedom. There exist objective limits to that (you do not have the freedom to not breathe), and subjective limits to that.

Those subjective limits can be self imposed (you do not have the freedom to lie for instance) or mandated from outside (you do not have the freedom to speak in public).

Of the later, some are more reasonable than others, in that they have some reason, and some are completely arbitrary.

At the very least, practical freedom is the freedom from any arbitrary restrictions on freedom.

Sodomy laws have already been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. A prime example of what I was talking about when I said that a later court with different justices could very well rule in a totally different way when it comes to the Miller test. Therefore, those of us who think obscenity laws have constitutional problems aren't victims of overly-wishful thinking as Pleasurepays would have you think.

The law you speak of in Cincinnati, Ohio, has never been challenged in federal court (as far as I know) and would likely be struck down if it were.

You can't compare travel to another country with free speech, considering free speech is the 1st amendment in our bill of rights (not the 5th, not the 9th, the FIRST)
Freedom to travel abroad isn't anywhere in the constitution that I can remember.

For sure it has constitutional problems, and it's not going to change any time soon. Unconstitutional or not, the very idea of ruling something obscene simply because one group of people do not like it, slaps the entire idea of freedom down. Well, of course unless it means that the powers that be have the freedom to rule that others can not be free, and that is more what it seems like to me.


Maybe. But the point is... why does someone even have to fight it? Are we not free to purchase even the softest of hardcore movies there? It seems we are not.

I don't think it's actual law there, but any store who sells it gets raided. The also bullied all the hotels to drop adult PPV in Cincinnati.


I was speaking about "freedom" in general in response to someone else's post. Not freedom of speech. The way I see freedom is, either you are or you are not. To put restrictions of any kind means to me that you are not. Do you have choices, sure, but are you totally free? No we are not. In the context of travel of living abroad, freedom would mean we can travel ANYWHERE and would not be forced to pay taxes even though we don't live in the country. That would be freedom. Instead what we have is a small list of countries that we are forbidden to visit, and can be fined and or jailed for doing so, and a tax system that punishes people for leaving.

My problem is with the word "freedom" and how as Americans we are sold into thinking it is something that it's not.

On my first trip to Cuba (yea, fuck the rules), one of the first things I noticed was how relaxed the people were and that they would gather in numbers in certain areas or parks, day or night to sing, dance, play music and DRINK until THEY decided it was time to go home. Police never bothered them. Never. They were free to mass and enjoy their life any time day or night.

Every city I have ever lived in within the USA has parks that close at dusk (WTF) and you can not just gather on a street corner with your guitar and bongos and dance and sing songs until dawn. The police would be called and you would be forced to leave, even if that corner was your corner. Noise curfews, drinking in public, too many people gathering in one place... all no-nos in a lot of the USA. You can't even do a lot of it in your own yard if you have neighbors who are too close. But in Cuba, the communist country, axis of evil, you could do what you want. On the flip side, they have their own problems there BUT Cuba does not sell "freedom" to the people.

I could go on and on about this with more examples, but it gets nowhere. I moved abroad for a reason, and I don't look back. Don't miss a thing.

Another great write by Mark. AVN story on Max Hardcore appeal filing: story


Max Hardcore Defense Files Motion For New Trial
Juror fired from her job for participating in obscenity trial?

By: Mark Kernes

Posted: 06/18/2008

TAMPA - Attorneys for "Max Hardcore" (Paul Little) and Max World Entertainment yesterday filed a Motion for New Trial And/Or Judgment of Acquittal on behalf of both defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The defense attorneys had to quickly refile their motion after Judge Susan C. Bucklew rejected the first attempt for being too long - 40 pages, with the Court's self-imposed limit being 25. The final motion came in at just 12 pages.

But it's 12 pages of dynamite. The motion, largely written by Max World attorney Jennifer Kinsley, cites six reasons for overturning the jury's verdict of guilty on all counts, including:

1) That the federal obscenity statutes are invalid under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights, as well as being unworkable when applied to Internet speech under the current COPA holding that the "community" for the 'Net is the entire world;

2) That the judge erred in allowing prosecutors Lisamarie Freitas and Edward McAndrew to present only excerpts from the charged videos - the "Euro" versions of Max Extreme 20, Pure Max 19, Golden Guzzlers 7, Fists of Fury 4, and Planet Max 16 - thereby prohibiting the jury from considering the material "as a whole," as well as prohibiting the defense from playing some "extras" on four of the DVDs;

3) That the Court should have recused herself from presiding over the trial after she made comments indicating that she had already formed an opinion as to the guilt of the defendants without having heard all the evidence;

4) That the Court should have dismissed the counts involving mailing of the five DVDs to Tampa on the basis that the government presented insufficient evidence that defendants knew the mails would be used to send the videos, and also that the defendants did not in fact mail the videos at all;

5) That the Court failed to properly handle several jury irregularities, including a note sent from one juror during the trial asking that only excerpts of the charged videos be played rather than the videos in their entirety, and the fact that on the evening of the first day of deliberations, one juror was informed that she had been fired from her job that day, and such firing was not brought to the attention of either the prosecution or the defense; and

6) That the government failed to show that the charged material met the federal standards for obscenity in relation to the material's target audience: the "dominant and submissive sexually deviant group."

The abbreviated memorandum that accompanies the Motion makes specific reference to the judge's failure to conduct sufficient voir dire (in this case, pre-selection questioning) to "avoid the prejudice that may result when a juror's ability to remain fair and impartial has been compromised by either outside influence or premature deliberations."

"In this case," Kinsley wrote, "the Court failed to conduct the proper inquiry into whether irregularities with the jury that occurred during both the trial and jury deliberations prejudiced individual jurors' ability to remain fair and impartial and thus deprived Mr. Little and Max World of a fair trial under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments."

As evidence, Kinsley cited the juror's note, and recalling the Court's attention to the events of the trial, where the defense had objected to the fact that the judge had refused to conduct any questioning of that juror as to whether the juror had discussed the writing of the note with any other jurors either before or after it was written, and the related question of whether the jurors had engaged in discussions about whether they had already formed an opinion as to the obscenity or innocence of the video material before all of the evidence had been presented - another no-no.

Kinsley also took the Court to task for its ambivalent attitude regarding whether the charged videos needed to be "published to" (played for) the jury "as a whole," noting that, "The Court initially agreed with Defendants and refused to permit the government to play excerpts of the works for the jury that represent a mere fraction of the entire running time of the DVDs. However, after viewing a portion of one DVD in open court before the jury, the Court inexplicably changed its mind and agreed that it was sufficient for the government to play only a small portion of each DVD instead of the whole. In explaining its ruling, the Court continued to agree that the jury must judge the material in its entirety, but has offered no explanation for how its rulings will ensure that the jury even sees the whole DVDs, much less judges the material as a whole in reaching a verdict."

Kinsley also referenced a comment made by a U.S. Attorney to a juror in an elevator, where the attorney asked the juror if the juror was going upstairs to "watch the porn," which Kinsley argues implies that the attorney was "chid[ing]" the juror "for being exposed to the allegedly obscene materials."

"The most egregious and troubling incident," Kinsley wrote, "involving extrajudicial influence on a juror occurred on the morning of June 5, 2008, the final day of jury deliberations. At 9:45 am that morning, the Court's bailiff, Mr. Towson, accepted a note from a juror requesting to speak to the Court because she had been fired from her job the night before... On two separate instances in her communication, the juror requested to talk with the Court regarding the incident... The note alleges that the juror was fired for her participation on the jury, but is silent as to what impact the termination may have had on her ability to continue deliberating."

"Although the Court received the note on the morning of the second day of deliberations," Kinsley continued, "the Court did not speak with the juror as she had requested until after a guilty verdict was returned in the case... Even more suspect is the fact that the Court never notified Mr. Little, Max World, or their counsel about the note's contents or how the Court intended to address the situation. This is particularly problematic in light of the fact that the jury indicated that same afternoon that it was likely deadlocked as to 10 of the 20 counts and then orally requested a break in court, suggesting that deliberations had become 'emotional.' Equally troublesome is the fact that, when the jury finally did reach a verdict several hours later, the juror who was terminated was crying as the verdict was read..."

"The options available to the Court were numerous; it could have disclosed the note to the parties and allowed them to individually voir dire the juror or it could have questioned her itself to assess her ongoing ability to be fair and impartial. Inexplicably, however, the Court elected to do nothing, concealing the note from counsel and ignoring the juror's requests to talk. This is a violation of Defendants' Sixth Amendment rights."

"Moreover, facts now known to defense counsel make it likely that, had the Court conducted the proper voir dire, the juror and potentially others would have been excused from jury service, necessitating a mistrial. The fact that the juror cried in the courtroom when the verdict was read is indicative of her inability to persevere in voting not guilty, and her will was likely overcome by the news of her termination. In addition, the remaining two hold-out jurors may have been more likely to compromise based on their knowledge of the juror's termination, and the Court should have questioned them as well to determine their ability to remain impartial."




Fight the part 1!

Kinsley also expanded on the issue of the Court's bias against the material, noting that federal statutes require a judge to recuse her/himself "when a judge is personally biased either for or against a party" and "when her impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

"Whereas the statutes generally apply to extrajudicial situations giving rise to bias or a question of impartiality," Kinsley argued, "'when a judge's remarks in a judicial context demonstrate such pervasive bias and prejudice that it constitutes bias against a party,' the judge must be recused," she wrote, quoting an Eleventh Circuit case.

"After seeing only portions of the one DVD the Court permitted Mr. Little and Max World to publish in its entirety," Kinsley detailed, "at the conclusion of the May 29, 2008 trial session, the Court confronted defense counsel on the record and inquired why the defense was insisting on having the jury view the material as a whole. When defense counsel expressed that their decision was a matter of trial strategy not within the province of the court or the government to know, the Court further commented that there was nothing it had seen in the small amount of material it had viewed thus far that was of educational, artistic, scientific, literary, or political value. This comment is particularly troubling because it reflects that the Court prejudged the evidence and determined, prior to the government having rested its case in chief, that at least the third prong of the Miller standard for obscenity - that a reasonable person would find that the material taken as a whole lacks serious scientific, artistic, political, or literary value - had been satisfied. Further problematic with the Court's comment is that, at the point it was made, the Court had not seen four of the five charged DVDs in their entirety to determine whether they individually possessed or lacked value. Given that the Court had formed an opinion as to the evidence prior to the conclusion of the trial, in violation of its own instruction to the jury not to do the same, the Court should have granted Defendants' motion for recusal. Its failure to do so mandates judgment of acquittal and/or a new trial."

Finally, Kinsley took the Court to task for failing to make clear from exactly what "community" the "community standards" requirement of the Miller test for obscenity should be taken.

"[T]he prosecution must prove an identifiable community standard exists, what that standard is, and that the charged materials violate it," Kinsley wrote. "And if the trier of facts, based on the evidence, is unable to determine what the community standards are, then the defendant will be entitled to a verdict in his favor... Thus, while the prosecution is not required to introduce expert testimony or other evidence of what the community standards are in order to avoid a judgment of acquittal as a matter of law at the conclusion of its case, the prosecution assumes the risk that, in the absence of such evidence, the trier of facts will be unable to determine what the prevailing community standards are, and will therefore be required to enter judgment for the defendant on this ground alone." [Citations omitted]

During the trial, the jury was unclear as to how to assess the standards of the "community" at whom the charged videos were aimed, as evidenced by a question the jury sent to Judge Bucklew during deliberations. However, even after the judge's further instruction on the subject, it appeared that the jury still did not understand the issue, and that may have affected the trial's outcome.

The prosecution has 30 days to respond to the defense motion, and Judge Bucklew will rule shortly thereafter.



Fight the part 2!

interesting update ... thx :thumbsup

Thank you also how could the government say the community is against when there are over 60 adult video stores in that town?

I still say put the crazy fuck on the electric chair or have take a vacation in Iraq SHia area with a shirt that say's "I am a pornographer"

Well that long paragraph basicaly means the Defense Lawyer is crying and clawing at any unreasonable legal thing that can be grasped.

MaxHardcore is going to go away for along time.

May he die in fucking jail getting ass raped by felons.

Maybe he can experience first hand his own method of chocking out a girl on a cock with the famous head lock and cock shock thing he does.

I have no pity for that shit stain of a non human being.

how quickly we forget ....

http://www.sweetentertainment.com/legal/042304.htm

I wouldn't count on Judge Bucklew to rule against herself and grant Max a mistrial or judgment of acquittal, but there are definitely solid grounds for appeal.
In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the appeals court didn't throw the entire case out and force the government to retry it or just leave it alone.

I do not recall SEG ever having girls call the guy who is fucking them daddy, nor recal SEG video's selling the concept of underage sex. nor have I heard of SEG physically abusing there girls to the point of tears and real pain, nor creating near realistic rape scenes, nor has SEG ever created and distributed video's that portray incest.

I am not defending SEG just saying what SEG does and MaxHardcore does are very very different things. Besides SEG is in Canada.

No thats not what that paragraph means asshat. You and people with your imperious mentality over what is acceptable is the reason we, and when I say we I mean you and your hypocritical Extreme Associates website designing ass and EVERYBODY else in this business are being atacked on multiple fronts by the government and moral police who give them money.

This aint about the Miller Test. This is about the government appeasing the family values groups and the christian fundamentalists. Now go find out what types of porn they approve of and post it here so we can all make sure we don't push the line you spineless fuck.

You and your hypocritical yellow ass wouldn't be fit to clean The Yellow Couch after Max explains safe sex to some clueless teen. Do people really think Max picks up runaways and sets up "mainstrem modeling gigs" and then somehow tricks women into taking it up the ass and drinking piss. Are you fucking serious? He is a pornographer, just like everybody else here.

You are one sad fuck.

You should see if they have nightschool in your area so you can become a smarter person. A perfect example of someone talking out the side of their neck.

HAVE YOU SEEN SWEET"S WEBSITES?

Take a look. Oh and by the way THEY OWN THE SITE MAXHARDCOREPORN for fucks sake.

A Smart and Super-nice Person, Too!
 

Attorney Jennifer Kinsley is one VERY sharp mind. Along with other top FSC attorneys involved with the case, I witnessed her intellect during the FSC actions at Denver's 10th District Circuit Court considering the TRO against DOJ 2257 enforcement as it regarded Secondary Producers.

Absolutely Dave, she is worth every penny.

No, clown. It means they have at least six legitimate legal grounds for appeal.

Well it me Jake Sweet formerly 9 years with SEG and uh ,, ya I am sure we did .. I personally have done every one of the things Max has done ."real skat" aside .. but i did do tons of work on itsjustchocolate ..lol .
We talked all about every production in depth fully and what we would be doing.. PRIOR to ..DURING .. AND AFTER every production .. everyone/thing was agreed upon prior .. and I could have shown you 1000's of post production addendums with discussions of safety .. health and welfare were discussed .. but I did my very best to make it look ..sound and seem real to the consumer ..I personally know Max and have and support his feeds ... the only problem I see here has been having court in the wrong place at the wrong time .. and in my gut I am just getting the feeling that the legal system has just had enough of his antics ..and well everyone else kind of washing their hands because your all to afraid to learn more about what your country is actually doing to you and your rights ....
Take the time to read the court stuff .. all of it .. it was a very long trial .. and it was all based on "Obscenity based on community standards" .. the only difference in trials that I have read would be using the US postal service to distribute the content .. that and the fact Max would be the last person I would want to see on the stand ...

I smell "acquittal" or "dismissal" in the air and it smells good.