PDA

View Full Version : Continued Threats On The Adult Industry By The Goverment


AllanahStarrNYC
04-10-2008, 01:45 AM
Something really newsworthy about the adult industry that is true and we all have to face.

More obscenity charges filed by the goverment:

By: David Sullivan

Posted: 04/08/2008

WASHINGTON - Evil Angel owner John Stagliano has been charged by a federal grand jury with multiple obscenity violations stemming from the sale and distribution of adult videos through the mail and the Internet.

The indictment handed down April 8 in Washington, D.C. names Stagliano and his companies Evil Angel Productions and John Stagliano Inc. as defendants. The videos cited as "obscene" are Jay Sin's Milk Nymphos, Joey Silvera's Storm Squirters 2 and an online trailer for Belladonna's Fetish Fanatic 5.

ADVERTISEMENT

Stagliano and his companies are charged with "three counts of using a facility of interstate commerce to sell and distribute DVDs containing obscene films together with a movie trailer in violation of 18 U.S.C. SS 1465; two counts of using a common carrier for the conveyance or delivery of DVDs containing obscene films in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. SS 1462; one count of engaging in the business of selling or transferring an obscene film and a movie trailer in violation of 18 U.S.C. SS 1466; one count of using an interactive computer service to display an obscene movie trailer in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age, in violation of 47 U.S.C. SS 223 (d); and one count seeking forfeiture of certain assets of the defendants under 18 U.S.C. SS 1467."

When asked for comment, Stagliano's response was calm.


"I don't sell obscenity according to how the law is defined, and I am sure in the end there will be a positive resolution to this," Stagliano told AVN.

"We believe in what we do, so John is absolutely going to stand up for this," added Evil Angel's Karen Stagliano. "This morning he told me that when his name is the copyright holder on every one of those movies it's because he believes in those movies, and he believes in those directors."

Attorney Al Gelbard is representing Stagliano and his companies in the case. Gelbard successfully defended JM Productions head Jeff Steward on similar charges last year.

Pamela Satterfield of the DOJ's Obscenity Prosecution Task Force is prosecuting the case, with support from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia.

"We haven't been served yet," Gelbard told AVN. "I have not seen the indictment. I spoke with Miss Satterfield this morning at the DOJ. We are making arrangements to exchange the documents and do the surrenders and do the normal beginning stuff that happens in cases like this. And I'm looking at associating necessary co-counsel. I'm not at liberty to discuss who that's going to be yet, but there's a usual list of players. We're very confident. She told me the movies that were charged, though I haven't had a chance to look at them yet, and there's an interesting charge relating to one of the trailers, which raises some interesting constitutional issues, at least in terms of 'taken as a whole.'"

When asked about the specific titles named in the indictment, Karen Stagliano told AVN the company is "completely confident with the content of these movies."

"These movies in particular - everything we make, but especially these movies - it's showing girls having fun doing things that maybe you don't always do in your normal bedroom, but that's kind of the point of porn," she said. "Squirting, and I'm not sure about milk enemas, but squirting has been defended before. They obviously didn't try to pick the hardest thing that they possibly could have picked against the hardest company they were trying to pick."

If convicted, Stagliano faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison on each of the obscenity counts charged under Title 18 U.S.C. and two years on the count charged under Title 47 U.S.C. The two corporations face a maximum penalty of $500,000 in fines per count.

The investigation was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Adult Obscenity Squad based in the Washington, D.C. field office, with assistance from the Los Angeles Police Department.

youcancallmeclaire
04-10-2008, 03:06 AM
Squirting what?

jmecross2
04-10-2008, 03:12 AM
The government's action shows the vulnerability of the adult industry. The government can declare any depiction of sexual content obscene any time it wants. The industry is at its mercy.

Really, milk enemas are obscene! Suppose the actors blew milk out of their noses.

Nose OK. Ass bad. That's about it.

The whole concept of obscenity in the context of consensual behavior is nonsense.

Meanwhile, we'll be in Iraq for the next hundred years.

hondarobot
04-10-2008, 03:14 AM
I guess the FBI finally figured out pussy "squirting" was peeing. I hope Stagliano beats the crap out them in court.

Unbelievable.

hondarobot
04-10-2008, 03:18 AM
The government's action shows the vulnerability of the adult industry. The government can declare any depiction of sexual content obscene any time it wants. The industry is at its mercy.

Really, milk enemas are obscene! Suppose the actors blew milk out of their noses.

Nose OK. Ass bad. That's about it.

The whole concept of obscenity in the context of consensual behavior is nonsense.

Meanwhile, we'll be in Iraq for the next hundred years.

Lol. If there was a genre of porn where performers shot milk out their nose, I would probably watch it. That would be very amusing, actually.

:lol:

Oli
04-10-2008, 03:20 AM
Does it surprise you that the Feds are targeting the Adult industry now?

GWB's approval ratings hovering around the 30% area , the Republicans lost control of both houses of Congress last year, the Conservatives are depressed and the presumptive GOP candidate for President is loathed by the Conservative base.

Going after porn is a no-brainer for this crew. Conservative Republicans are firmly in control of the Department of Justice (which includes the FBI) These charges will boost the moral of the base, it's something McCain and Congressional candidates can point to and say they are fighting for the return of "Family Values", and it shades important topics that really need to be dealt with i.e. deficit and debt, Iraq and Afghanistan, tax policy, Social Security et al. After the election the charges will probably be dropped.

It's also easier for 'Joe Lunchbox' to understand than the complex issues that face us.

I might be wrong, but that's what I think.

tsmandy
04-10-2008, 03:23 AM
The feds will most likely lose, just like they always do. Unfortunately Stagliano will have to pay millions in lawyer fees. Of course DOJ is doing this now, as it is election year and porn will rouse the evangelicals out of the woodwork. Interestingly enough, the incredibly sexist nature of these charges, will probably not win any points with the feminist community that often supports obscenity charges. So at least this time maybe we will be spared the painfully strange team of baptists and old school feminists holding press conferences together.


Claire:
Squirting is female ejaculation, which evidently is somehow more obscene than a 500 person bukakke scene, go figure. It is not as hondarobot said, the same thing as piss, though it does bear some resemblance.

hondarobot
04-10-2008, 03:30 AM
Oh, give me a break Mandy. I've watched a few of those "squirt" scenes, and that is most definitely pee. I do not find attractive women peeing to be obscene, but let's be honest:

It's pee. 99% of the time, at least.

Minutemouse9
04-10-2008, 04:33 AM
Amazing. This was in the NY Times front page today.

In Justice Shift, Corporate Deals Replace Trials

By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: April 9, 2008

WASHINGTON — In 2005, federal authorities concluded that a Monsanto consultant had visited the home of an Indonesian official and, with the approval of a senior company executive, handed over an envelope stuffed with hundred-dollar bills. The money was meant as a bribe to win looser environmental regulations for Monsanto’s cotton crops, according to a court document. Monsanto was also caught concealing the bribe with fake invoices.
Enlarge This Image

A few years earlier, in the age of Enron, these kinds of charges would probably have resulted in a criminal indictment. Instead, Monsanto was allowed to pay $1 million and avoid criminal prosecution by entering into a monitoring agreement with the Justice Department.

In a major shift of policy, the Justice Department, once known for taking down giant corporations, including the accounting firm Arthur Andersen, has put off prosecuting more than 50 companies suspected of wrongdoing over the last three years.

Instead, many companies, from boutique outfits to immense corporations like American Express, have avoided the cost and stigma of defending themselves against criminal charges with a so-called deferred prosecution agreement, which allows the government to collect fines and appoint an outside monitor to impose internal reforms without going through a trial. In many cases, the name of the monitor and the details of the agreement are kept secret.

Deferred prosecutions have become a favorite tool of the Bush administration. But some legal experts now wonder if the policy shift has led companies, in particular financial institutions now under investigation for their roles in the subprime mortgage debacle, to test the limits of corporate anti-fraud laws.

Firms have readily agreed to the deferred prosecutions, said Vikramaditya S. Khanna, a law professor at the University of Michigan who has studied their use, because “clearly it avoids a bigger headache for them.”

Some lawyers suggest that companies may be willing to take more risks because they know that, if they are caught, the chances of getting a deferred prosecution are good. “Some companies may bear the risk” of legally questionable business practices if they believe they can cut a deal to defer their prosecution indefinitely, Mr. Khanna said.

Legal experts say the tactic may have sent the wrong signal to corporations — the promise, in effect, of a get-out-of-jail-free card. The growing use of deferred prosecutions also suggests one road map the Justice Department might follow in the subprime mortgage investigations.

Deferred prosecution agreements, or D.P.A.’s, have become controversial because of a medical supply company’s agreement to pay up to $52 million to the consulting firm of John Ashcroft, the former attorney general, as an outside monitor to avoid criminal prosecution. That agreement has prompted Congressional inquiries and calls for stricter guidelines.

Defenders of deferred prosecutions say that they have been too harshly criticized lately and that they play a crucial role in allowing the government to secure the cooperation of a company while avoiding the time, expense and uncertainty of a trial. The agreements, government officials say, also avoid the type of companywide havoc seen most acutely in the case of Arthur Andersen, the accounting firm that was shuttered in 2002 after being indicted in the Enron scandal. The firm’s collapse threw 28,000 employees out of work.

At a Congressional hearing last month, Mr. Ashcroft defended the agreements, saying that they avoided “destroying entire corporations” through criminal indictments. “Prosecutors understand that a corporate indictment can be a corporate death sentence,” he said. “A deferred prosecution can avoid the catastrophic collateral consequences and costs that are associated with corporate conviction.”

Paul J. McNulty, a former deputy attorney general who put new guidelines in place in 2006 for corporate investigations at the Justice Department, said in an interview, “There’s a fundamental misapprehension with D.P.A.’s to think that they’re a break for the company.”

With the imposition of fines and an outside monitor, “the reality is that for the government, it gets pretty much everything without the difficulty of going forward with an indictment,” said Mr. McNulty, who is now in private practice. “I think companies are beginning to wonder whether they ought to fight more, because they are pretty burdensome.”

But critics of the agreements question that assertion. Charles Intriago, a former federal prosecutor in Miami who specializes in money-laundering issues, said that huge penalties, like the $65 million fine for American Express Bank International in 2007, were “peanuts” compared with the damage posed by a criminal conviction. The company was accused of failing to enact internal controls to guard against laundering of drug money and other reporting problems.

The agreements were once rare, but their use has skyrocketed in the current administration, with 35 deals last year alone by the Justice Department, lawyers who follow the trend said. Banks, financial service companies and auditors have frequently entered into such agreements, including recent ones involving Merrill Lynch, the Bank of New York, AmSouth Bank, KPMG and others. Beyond financial crimes, deferred agreements have been used in lieu of prosecuting companies — though not individuals — for export control violations, obscenity violations, Medicare and Medicaid fraud, kickbacks and environmental violations.

In general, such agreements result in companies acknowledging wrongdoing by not contesting criminal charges, but without formally admitting guilt. Most agreements end after two or three years with the charges permanently dismissed.

Monsanto, for example, while not admitting guilt, agreed to abstain from further violations of bribery laws. In an e-mail message, Lori Fisher, a spokeswoman, said that Monsanto had cooperated with the Justice Department and fully complied with the agreement, leading to deferred charges being permanently dismissed in early March.

The trend has led to increased speculation about how the Justice Department might use the agreements in investigations against financial companies in the mortgage lending scandal, which has become a top law enforcement priority for the department as the economy has withered.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has 17 open inquiries into accusations of corporate fraud in connection with the subprime scandal, and Neil Power, who leads the bureau’s economics crime unit, said in an interview that the number was certain to grow. The F.B.I. has publicly identified only one target — the Doral Financial Corporation, a mortgage company based in Puerto Rico whose former treasurer has already been indicted — but major companies like Countrywide Financial, once the nation’s biggest mortgage lender, have also been reported to be under criminal investigation.

Mr. Power said the investigations were a reflection of the “environment of greed” that allowed companies to package mortgages into securities they sold to investors without sufficient documentation of the borrower’s ability to repay. One line of criminal inquiry focuses on whether bond companies gave accurate information to investors.

“What we’re looking at,” he said, “is the fact that they may be performing accounting fraud.”

Justice Department officials would not discuss the role that deferred prosecution agreements may play in their ultimate handling of the mortgage investigations. One official said it was “way too early” to begin speculating about such possibilities.

But the prospect already has some experts in the field worried.

Michael McDonald, a former Internal Revenue Service investigator in Miami who is a private consultant and has given seminars on deferred prosecutions, said such deals “should not be on the board” in the subprime mortgage investigations.

“In light of what this did to our economy, people shouldn’t just be able to write a check and walk away,” Mr. McDonald said. “People should be prosecuted for it and go to jail.”

Timothy Dickinson, a lawyer in Washington who was the outside monitor for Monsanto, agreed. Corporate lenders caught up in the mortgage scandals should not assume they will be given the chance for a deferred prosecution, Mr. Dickinson said, and the Justice Department should “insist on a guilty plea” rather than offering a deal.

“It’s a tool that will remain to be used by prosecutors in appropriate circumstances, but not every circumstance,” he said. “It depends how egregious the conduct is.”

tsmandy
04-10-2008, 08:19 AM
Oh, give me a break Mandy. I've watched a few of those "squirt" scenes, and that is most definitely pee. I do not find attractive women peeing to be obscene, but let's be honest:

It's pee. 99% of the time, at least.

I haven't seen the scenes in question, so I can't argue about that. But I will say that female ejaculation is often described as a myth by perplexed men and frustrated women, jokes on them. Ha ha.

I've been peed on, and I've had lovers ejaculate on me, and there is definitely a similarity in volume and consistency. Taste and smell are different than urine, color is different, but it seems that Female ejaculate contains some urine in it, but is not urine.

justatransgirl
04-11-2008, 02:18 AM
Oh, give me a break Mandy. I've watched a few of those "squirt" scenes, and that is most definitely pee. I do not find attractive women peeing to be obscene, but let's be honest:

It's pee. 99% of the time, at least.

Ah, let's be honest Honda... we know you love it! :-) :-)

Giggle,
TS Jamie :-)

justatransgirl
04-11-2008, 02:24 AM
I've been peed on, and I've had lovers ejaculate on me, and there is definitely a similarity in volume and consistency. Taste and smell are different than urine, color is different, but it seems that Female ejaculate contains some urine in it, but is not urine.

Kinky! :-)

I once woke up in bed with this drunk neighbor chick when I lived in Key West. I woke up in the middle of the night to this sound, like the wind blowing... the next thing I knew my side of the bed started getting damp... Ewwww ---- she wet the bed - and there was no way to wake her up, so I moved to the couch.

The next morning she accused ME of peeing on her in the bed. And then she moved onto my boat with me for about a month - but thankfully didn't pee in my bed.

Giggle,
TS Jamie :-)