|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » Stagliano's Trial - Jury Selection Began Today |
| 1-27 of 27 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 07-06-10 06:14pm - 5283 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
Stagliano's Trial - Jury Selection Began Today Time for me to get on my soap-box. This is probably the most important first ammendment rights case in many years. The prosecution is saying that any anti-porn government employee can order material that they want to build a case on, then use the material that they ordered and charge the producer and distributor of the material with obscenity - and, even though the law states that the material "as a whole" must be considered to have no redeeming social value, they can show clips of the material and ONLY show clips of the material and on that basis have the producer and distributor of the material sent to jail for decades and be fined for millions of dollars. Stagliano is facing a maximum of 32 years in jail and $7 million in fines if convicted on all counts. I've never been much of a fan of Howard Stern - I consider him to be a vicious bully based on the amount of his show that I've been able to stand listening to, but his points on this issue are right-on: http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i78191 If consenting adults can't buy material that is clearly created for and marketed to consenting adults, then there is no right to free speech. I'm a big fan of Evil Angel's material - it's the best porn company operating, as far as I'm concerned. Rocco's recent stuff is unbelievably great, with a freshness that is pretty striking considering how many years he's been in the biz. Jay Sin's stuff is brilliant. Their new director, Mike Adriano is awesome. It would be a big loss to porn fans if this company were taken down, but more than that, it would mean that nobody making porn is safe in the U.S. One could fool oneself that really vanilla porn is still going to be safe - but if they win this one, I don't think that will be the case at all. The porn industry seems to get the importance - both XBIZ and AVN have reporters that will be on the scene through-out the trial. The current expectations are that jury selection will take 2 days and opening statements will begin on Thursday. | |
|
||
| 07-06-10 07:32pm - 5283 days | #2 | |
|
williamj (0)
Active User Posts: 102 Registered: Sep 29, '07 Location: usa |
How's that Hope and Change going? Liberals voted for this current Administration and this attack on personal freedom. I would love to hear what the Zombie, kool-aid Obama lefty heads think? You voted for this change now defend it. Will | |
|
||
| 07-06-10 09:38pm - 5283 days | #3 | |
|
anyonebutme (0)
Active User  Posts: 294 Registered: Aug 23, '09 |
^^^ Oh go for it and call it that "Hopey Changey Thing"  Beyond that, politics is best left off this site me thinks. To this trial? All I'll say is I don't believe it has much at all to do with free speech rights. If Stagliano had created for sale an audio tape of himself describing the porn sex acts he visioned in his head, and he was prosecuted for selling such audio tape, then you have a free speech crisis. But here the situation is about physical acts one person is performing on another person - it's a tad bit more than just an idea. | |
|
||
| 07-07-10 12:25am - 5282 days | #4 | |
|
slutty (0)
Active User Posts: 475 Registered: Mar 02, '09 Location: Pennsylvania |
Not to start some sort of politcal debate, but I think you are giving Obama way too much credit here. I don't think the president has the control over federal prosecutors that you think he does. Either way, as an "Obama lefty", I have no real problems with anything this adminstration has done so far (aside from no public option, which is stupid - there should be one) Bunny Lebowski: I'll suck your cock for a thousand dollars. Brandt: Ah hahahahaha! Wonderful woman. We're all, we're all very fond of her. Very free-spirited. | |
|
||
| 07-07-10 01:03am - 5282 days | #5 | |
|
hodayathink (0)
Active User Posts: 312 Registered: Mar 27, '09 Location: Illinois |
Also, if I remember correctly, Stagliano's obscenity trail goes back to before Obama was even elected. Yup. Just checked Wikipedia. Charges were brought against him in April of '08, well before the election even happened. Nice try. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stagliano | |
|
||
| 07-07-10 07:51am - 5282 days | #6 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
The Obama Administration certainly could have dropped this case, just like they could have stopped making the same legal stand as the Bush Administration had in a lot of other areas, such as keeping White House documents secret. That's part of Obama's political strategy, it seems to me. He's got well-defined progressive agenda elements, like extending health care to millions more people, that he put out there and fought to enact and other than that he's carrying on with the same agenda as his predecessor to lessen the attacks by the Right - not that the Right gives a shit, but that's his political strategy and he's carrying on with it. | |
|
||
| 07-07-10 10:24am - 5282 days | #7 | |
|
anyonebutme (0)
Active User Posts: 294 Registered: Aug 23, '09 |
Everyone puts out so much fear about this case, big bad government trampling the porn industry. They act as if Stagliano has already lost. What if Stagliano wins this court case? What if precedence is finally set saying what the porn industry is doing is legal? All it takes is one juror on the case finding him not guilty. | |
|
||
| 07-07-10 11:11am - 5282 days | #8 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
It may be that Stagliano will win. He's a smart guy and I'm sure he's got good legal representation. But the fact that the judge has been going along with every proposal made by the prosecution - moving to silence Stagliano leading up to the trial, agreeing that only clips of the DVD's need be shown by the prosecution to the jury, etc - speaks to the orientation of the judge - and that's not helpful and doesn't point in a good direction. Multiple jurors in Max Hardcore's case were coming up to him immediately after his conviction with tears in their eyes saying that they felt that they had no choice but to vote to convict based on the directions they had received from the judge - so the guidance from the bench makes a big difference a lot of times. You can take the attitude, "Oh, no big deal - he'll win and we'll all celebrate" or you can look at what's going on and recognize that there's great danger that the judge will do what he can to force a conviction and that this case has great stakes for free speech generally and for porn in particular. | |
|
||
| 07-07-10 11:36am - 5282 days | #9 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I'm Canadian so my opinion of Obama has no real meaning to anyone but myself. I like Obama and I think that he's been a pretty good President so far. He inherited quite a few cluster fucks from the previous administration and he's been dealt a few with his own. all that to say that there was no way that his administration was going to drop this case. The previous administration started it and to simply cancel the trial would have been like commiting political suicide. Can you imagine the headlines that Obama is pro porn? I truly believe that if Stagliano looses this case then you can kiss most of the hardcore porn made in the US goodbye. We aren't talking about Max Hardcore here. We are talking about the Government accusing a man of selling obscene material and one of the charges is for a trailer and not the actual movie. The trailer was for a milk enema scene in one of Jay sins movies. The government picked Evil Angel because they are probably the biggest fish in the US. How long do you think it would be before they go after number 2? Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 07-07-10 12:24pm - 5282 days | #10 | |
|
slutty (0)
Active User Posts: 475 Registered: Mar 02, '09 Location: Pennsylvania |
PP, I don't think the Obama administration could have "dropped" the case, not that the adminstration would have if they wanted to. As you may recall the Bush adminstration dismissed a bunch of prosecutors in like 2006 partially in order to delay the procsecuting corruption charges against republican congressmen. Obama certainly could have tried to convince the prosecutors to drop the case, but I don't think he has the power to order them to do so. And considering all the flak Bush took for trying to monkey with the system, I doubt he'd be willing to try - especially given the topic of the case. I'd be pretty surpised if he lost, or if he did lose, I doubt he'd lose on appeal. Bunny Lebowski: I'll suck your cock for a thousand dollars. Brandt: Ah hahahahaha! Wonderful woman. We're all, we're all very fond of her. Very free-spirited. | |
|
||
| 07-07-10 01:00pm - 5282 days | #11 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
There really was no chance the case would get dropped. This case has been trudging on for years with lots of jockeying by both sides. Obama's Justice Dept. could have nixed the prosecution but it's definitely not a priority for him (I'm thinking that the economy and a little oil leak in the Gulf are more pressing to him than porn). Besides, meddling in criminal cases once they've begun is bad politics overall. Given that it's an election year, I couldn't see the Dems standing up for porn anyway. The two big issues facing Stag boy are 1) If the prosecution can get by showing only "offending" clips instead of the whole videos, and 2) What comprises the "community" under the Miller test (the stuff that Grandma thinks is bad or all the crap you can handle on your internet connection). If you're not up to speed on the Miller test, here's a refresher: https://www.pornusers.com/forum/forum_thr...&showPost=90#_90 . I haven't really followed much of the pretrial goings on with this case but he's probably already won or lost depending on how the judge rules on these two issues. The bigger issue is that there is no real sense of how these two issues are supposed to be addressed in obscenity cases any more. Any real direction will only come if he loses and an appeals court gives some clarification on the issues. | |
|
||
| 07-07-10 03:44pm - 5282 days | #12 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
Actually this case started under Bush II, and technically he did not win the popular vote in 2000 so...oh, who cares, the government rarely represents the people. If they did they would be worrying about terrorism or real criminals rather than a pornographer, and their 'approval' ratings might make one think they are actually elected officials. "Hope" and "Change" are about as truthful as "It's morning in America again" or "no new taxes" or "I feel your pain" or (my personal favorite) "compassionate conservative." It's just two sides of the same goddamn coin, and most citizens don't even have a right to that coin. The biggest differences with Obama are the color of his skin (though that's enough to send quite a few over the edge) and that he can actually construct a sentence. The rest is minutiae at best.  "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 07-07-10 04:00pm - 5282 days | #13 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
Stagliano may not have already lost, but we as a country sure have. What does it say about a country who only a few years after suffering the worst terrorist attack in history actually devotes resources in its justice department to prosecuting porn? In this day and age, and in a modern 'free' society at that? This isn't some harmless exploration of the 1st Amendment, this is taxpayers' lost money, along with lost time, resources, and manpower on the part of the government. How can poeple bitch and moan about the government not being able to 'regulate' Wall Street, say, or energy companies, when they don't have a problem with the regulation of adult entertainment? And if he wins? Well, I doubt precedent will be set with a milk enema movie (though I certainly hope so  ) but other studios will probably be worried because they could still be dragged into court over their content--that seems like the real precedent to me. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 07-13-10 07:35am - 5276 days | #14 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
How much of a railroad is the judge trying to make this trial? According to this article at Law.com: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=12..._Rare_Obscenity_Case "On Friday, (Judge Richard) Leon ruled the defense would not be allowed to call two experts to testify about the scientific and artistic value of the movies, stating such testimony would likely lead the jury astray." Yeah, we wouldn't want the jury to have to hear the defense, would we? Dangerous shit! | |
|
||
| 07-13-10 10:50am - 5276 days | #15 | |
|
Denner (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,217 Registered: Mar 03, '07 Location: Denmark |
Sorry, do not know much about US porn laws - but this sounds like ancient shit - almost like when "they" went for Jim Morrison/The Doors.... Where is the high spoken freedom in this? Is this some leftovers from the Bush-right-wing-hypocritical-so called-religious-inputs? Or what? Just curious "I don't drink anymore - I freeze it, and eat it like a popcicle" | |
|
||
| 07-13-10 04:14pm - 5276 days | #16 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
Yes, it's unfortunately from that era; the Obscenity Prosecution Task Force, a classic right wing relic of the Bush II justice department. Putting aside the basic free speech and obscenity definition issues, I always found this troubling when they made such a big point about 'fighting' terrorism after 9/11. How can you effectively fight violent and dangerous people when you're devoting resources to dirty movies? Just curious. Also the "high spoken freedom" is a funny thing too; those with the biggest patriot boners and who speak the loudest about 'defending freedom' seem to have a very narrow definition of what freedom actually means. It certainly doesn't apply to medical rights, personal drug use, rights to protest, pornography, most film, music, and art, or just free speech in general. No, those are all 'morally' suspect, thus they must be regulated, by a small government nonetheless. If it sounds hypocritical or just plain confusing don't worry, I don't think a lot of Americans get it either. I always get a laugh out of the morals and values crowd because they always have a very odd way of defining what is moral and what is valued. Like supporting war and death penalties but being against abortion on protection-of-life grounds! At least you guys in Europe and elsewhere around the world only have to deal with our bad foreign policy--we gotta deal with these idiots and their screw ups on a daily basis for at least four years at a time!  "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 07-13-10 06:35pm - 5276 days | #17 | |
|
williamj (0)
Active User Posts: 102 Registered: Sep 29, '07 Location: usa |
I suggest we all watch and donate. Will | |
|
||
| 07-14-10 05:44am - 5275 days | #18 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
And more on this trial, which continues to go in a dangerous direction: http://news.avn.com/articles/Stagliano-O...-At-Last-403381.html The two most dangerous elements: 1) The judge allowed the prosecution to tell the jury that "prurient" means "lustful" and over-ruled the defense's objection even when they pointed out that "the U.S. Supreme Court had decreed that "lust" was not a descriptive term for "prurient," since many people lust—including former President Jimmy Carter, who admitted to feeling lust in his heart for certain women." Aaah, the Supreme Court - whadda they know? 2) The judge ruled that even though the law is that obsenity needs to be judged by taking the work "as a whole", not only doesn't the jury HAVE to see the whole of the work being judged, but the defense "'do not have the right' to show the complete movies because that would be 'a meaningless consumption of time.'" Evidently this judge has other railroads he wants to get on to - can't have this one take too much time. | |
|
||
| 07-14-10 10:39am - 5275 days | #19 | |
|
Denner (0)
Active User Posts: 1,217 Registered: Mar 03, '07 Location: Denmark |
Thanks for this update/info ect..., turboshaft - you certainly got some good points/arguments here...  "I don't drink anymore - I freeze it, and eat it like a popcicle" | |
|
||
| 07-14-10 06:32pm - 5275 days | #20 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
Lots of new stuff out on the trial from different sources How did this travesty of a trial come about? By the LAPD working outside their jurisdiction and using the feds to do what they couldn't - isn't there a legal issue about "fruit of a poisoned tree" that would make this whole case need to be thrown out in a country where laws actually mattered? http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/th...-john-stagliano.html A chance to hear from the expert defense witness that the judge won't allow the jury to hear because she "might lead them astray" - the actual words of his ruling: http://www.xbiznewswire.com/view.php?id=122827 Cato and Reason's coverage - Stagliano has been a well-known financial contributor to Libertarian org's for years: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/07/1...nos-obscenity-trial/ Aurora Snow's blog: http://news.avn.com/articles/Aurora-Snow...no-Trial-403410.html And she's absolutely right that the Milk Squirters scene that the jury was forced to sit through is a rockin' example of everything that's good about EA porn - it's kookie, it's funny, the women are hot, the situation - a black milk man delivering milk to 2 white Milk Nymphos - is hilarious, everyone in the scene is obviously having a good time, the sex is crazy hot - filthy and fun at the same time - and it's filmed beautifully. In the first good turn for the defense, the file that is the basis for 1 - or possibly 2 - of the counts of the indictment was faulty and might necessitate 1 or 2 charges being thrown out - a complete rundown on that here: http://www.xbiznewswire.com/view.php?id=122841 | |
|
||
| 07-14-10 06:59pm - 5275 days | #21 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
A great line from Aurora's blog: "The fact that Stagliano and his company are being prosecuted for distribution of obscene material seems like a colossal waste of government spending, but what else is new?" Exactly; we've never been that smart about how we treat porn before, why start now? I mean it's not like porn is made by and for consenting adults or anything... The problem of course is Ms. Snow is from the porn business, in other words she might know what she is talking about, unlike the judge and some members of the jury who probably define porn as whenever the necklines begin to drop and the ankles are exposed. Oh, the horror! And what about the children! It reminds of something comedienne Sarah Silverman said in response to a joke she made, responding along the lines of "I don't want people whose jobs have nothing to do with being funny telling me how to be funny." The government is run by a minority of hypocritical, dishonest, bigoted, and largely out of touch prudes dictating to the people (the majority) how they can run their own lives. How utterly shameful in a 'free' society. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 07-15-10 05:26pm - 5274 days | #22 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
And finally a win for the defense - the judge threw out the defective CD-R that was the entire basis for 2 of the charges in this case and a partial basis for a 3rd charge: http://www.xbiznewswire.com/view.php?id=122879 And a summary of the afternoon - Sounds like the FBI agent fucked up in revealing that the judge had been having discussions with the prosecuting attorney about preparing key witnesses for the prosecution - both the judge & the prosecutor claiming that the testimony by the key defense witness is incorrect - when it comes to what that witness said about them anyway: http://www.xbiznewswire.com/view.php?id=122907 | |
|
||
| 07-15-10 11:11pm - 5273 days | #23 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
Fascinating stuff - for me anyway - in this AVN article on today's court transactions: http://news.avn.com/articles/Stagliano-O...Midpoint-403727.html The issue of jurisdiction is so outragreous. Here you have LAPD guys traveling to Las Vegas to go to the Adult Entertainment Expo so they can see stuff that they don't like and then sic the feds on people that they don't feel that they could ever get to a court in the place where they actually DO have jurisdiction. Then you have a case filed in DC by an FBI agent who rarely went to DC - who had ordered the vids from Virginia and had them delivered to a PO Box in DC, where they were picked up - supposedly - by someone else that brought them to Virginia where they were viewed - and then the charges are brought in a court in DC - why? Another interesting ruling tomorrow is whether the prosecuting attorney will be forced to take the stand to explain the main FBI agent's testimony that she - the prosecutor - told the FBI agent to re-acquaint himself with the vids he was going to testify about at the direction of the judge - who denies it. If she has to testify, then she has to recuse herself from the remainder of the trial presentation. Then there's going to be a ruling in the morning as to whether Lorelei Lei, one of the 2 female performers in the Milk Nymphos scene that was shown to the jury is going to be allowed to testify under her stage name - because she has no intention of having her real name bandied about - If she doesn't get to testify, then the only witness for the defense will be Stagliano, since the judge refused to allowe the defense's expert witnesses to testify since they "would leave the jury astray." This whole thing would make a great movie - reminds me of the trial in "The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest" except that the judge in that book wasn't conspiring with the prosecution as this one has been exposed to be doing. | |
|
||
| 07-16-10 03:30am - 5273 days | #24 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
I have to admit that as ashamed as I am by even the existence of this whole case I also get a little too interested in the proceedings. But at least I don't have the bloodthirsty morbidity of a murder trial junkie! Nope, my conscience is clean!  Maybe it's just because I approach this whole thing as a big legal comedy routine rather than anything remotely serious on the part of the justice system, and seeing how manufactured these cases really are--from having to ship the offending material all over the place, to never even viewing it until later--just makes me smile. What a farce it makes of governmental professionalism every time something like this comes to light. Reminds me of the trial and subsequent jail time Tommy Chong went through a few years back for operating a largely legal glass pipe business in California, and I believe a 'drop ship' was involved in one of those as well, though I think that's how he sold all of his merchandise since he was both manufacturer and seller. I didn't smile over that case since Chong actually went to jail (in exchange for immunity for his wife and son) and it showed how serious things had gotten for citizens under the Bush II years.  Sadly though it's not even that unique to W. To quote Aurora Snow's blog from the other day; "but what else is new?" "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 07-16-10 06:33am - 5273 days | #25 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
You realize that Stagliano is facing up to 32 years in jail if convicted on all counts? | |
|
||
| 07-16-10 11:18am - 5273 days | #26 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
Yeah, but the trial isn't over yet. Stagliano is still free, though apparently not free enough to make movies that might offend delicate sensibilities... Hopefully this whole circus act will be thrown out, or at most he will get a fine, but considering how much money he's probably already spent on lawyers and in lost productivity at Evil Angel I don't even want to think about a fine. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 07-16-10 11:19am - 5273 days | #27 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
Actually, he wouldn't get 32 years if convicted, that's just the max sentence that could be handed down and it won't be since Stagliano is not a hard core felon with numerous prior convictions. I'm rather surprised at how poorly the government case went. They couldn't get a video to play (think you might want to test run it before trial to make sure it works) and that resulted in several counts getting dismissed. They weren't able to bring a final witness to the stand because the witness wasn't in the courthouse at the time. A FBI agent apparently lied (worst case) or at least stretched the truth a bit about who ordered him to review a video last week. It also came out that the videos weren't even viewed in Washintong DC (the place of the trial), only delivered there (and that's not even fully established either) -- another mistake that might get the case tossed out since the court may lack jurisdiction. Reminds more of the OJ trial for the prosecutorial mistakes than a finely tuned federal justice machine. The only thing going for the feds is the fact that this is "out there" porn for most people and that in and of itself is a pretty big club for them. An issue that seems to be getting short attention is the whole access to websites concept. The prosecution has made a big deal about the movie trailers in question be open for minors to view. Obviously, there is no truly safe means of ensuring that minors don't access websites, especially the preview pages. If the feds win on this point it should send a shiver down the porn industries back because it means that virtually every porn site would be reduced to showing heavily edited previews on their sites. | |
|
||
| 1-27 of 27 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
