DOJ Filed False Declaration In 2257 Litigation

LITIGATION

Pursuant to the Protect Act, the DOJ issued new 2257 regulations addressing adult pornography on the Internet, which became effective in June of 2005.  In response, the U.S. adult industry filed suit in Colorado District court seeking a temporary restraining order, which was converted to a motion for preliminary injunction; Free Speech Coalition, Inc. et al., v Gonzales (05-cv-1126).

The plaintiffs were Free Speech Coalition, Inc. (FSC), the non-profit trade association of the U.S. adult entertainment industry; Lenjo, Inc. (dba as New Beginnings), a wholesaler of adult materials; and David Connors, an adult performer/producer who operates Dave Cummings Productions.  A number of the court documents can be found on FSC’s website.

Discovery in a U.S. federal civil suit falls under Chapter V of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 26-37.  Rule 33 covers Interrogatories, of which the response must be signed under penalty of perjury.

In July, 2005, the government filed a response to the plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories/admissions, including No.5 at pages 5-7:

5. Identify any document, study, report, or other information within Defendant’s possession that any Plaintiff or any of Plaintiffs’ members have been involved with or linked to the creation, dissemination, or distribution of actual child pornography. For the purposes of this interrogatory, assume that Plaintiffs’ membership includes all corporate entities in the United States that produce material depicting adults engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct.

Because the master list of FSC members was sealed, the government limited its response to corporate entities:

Subject to these objections and qualifications, Defendant is unaware of any non-privileged report or study that references the involvement of specific “corporate entities,” defined as specified supra, with child pornography.

And the declaration was made by:

I, Richard A. Hertling, hereby declare that the foregoing responses are true and correct.

This was false.  At the time of the July, 2005 filing, material owned or distributed by the following commercial adult companies had been charged or prosecuted as actual child pornography, including six that fit the definition of “corporate entit[y]”.

Als Scan, Inc.: Incorporated in Maryland and a member of FSC, 37 images from alsscan.com were charged as child porn in 2003.  The 8 females were alleged to be no older than 13 by the state of Massachusetts.

Digital Palette, Inc.: Administers the colorclimax website, and contracts with Color Climax for the digital Internet rights of their inventory, which includes footage and images of the Tove Jensen loop “Teenage Tricks” prosecuted as child porn by the DOJ.

Filmfare Video Labs, Inc.: Incorporated in Delaware, they distributed the “Blue Vanities” tapes, through their website, bluevanities.com, and through the mail.  B.V. tapes #80 and #82 contain footage prosecuted as child porn by the DOJ.

NewPath Inc.: Incorporated in Missouri, they bought and resold others’ video tapes as their own thru their recently closed website, adultvid.com.  These tapes included B.V. tapes #80 and #82, which contain the Tove and Christa footage prosecuted as child porn by the DOJ.

Caballero Control Corp.: Incorporated in California, they produced/distributed the Swedish Erotica adult movies, which includes #293, “Patsy Learns To Play”, the U.S. title of Tove Jensen’s “Teenage Tricks”, prosecuted as child porn by the DOJ.

A&B Video: Corporate status unclear of the defunct Florida based company, but they owned/distributed the flashing footage prosecuted as child porn by the DOJ.

GM Video, Inc.: An FSC member, they owned/distributed the A&B Video flashing footage prosecuted as child porn by the DOJ.

Dave Connors Productions: Known as Dave Cummings, and a plaintiff in the FSC v Gonzales case, Connors produced and uploaded to his website images of himself with Melissa Bertsch (Melissa-Ashley), that were charged by the U.S. feds as child porn in 2003.

FALSE DECLARATIONS

Knowingly making a false declaration in a court proceeding is a violation of 18 USC 1623:

(a) Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

In addition to Hertling, who at the time was Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, seven other DOJ officials contributed to the response (pg.12), including:

Laura Parsky…Criminal Division, Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Andrew Oosterbaan…Criminal Division, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Branch, Director

William Hall…Criminal Division, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Branch, Trial Attorney

At the time of Hertling’s filing, a number of DOJ employees had been informed directly or indirectly that “Blue Vanities” tapes distributed by Filmfare Video Labs, Inc., contained footage prosecuted as child porn, including:

* Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division

* Assistant Director Criminal Investigative Division–FBI

* Several CEOS attorneys

* At least 3 DOJ attorneys

* At least 4 federal prosecutors

* At least 4 federal agents

QUESTIONS

More questions.  Did the DOJ subject Hertling to a perjury charge by refusing to acknowledge they have charged and prosecuted commercial adult porn as child porn?

Was expert testimony/Tanner Staging used in all those cases, and is that what the DOJ is protecting?

Is that why the U.S. feds are allowing the prosecuted footage of “Teenage Tricks”, “Group Sex”, “L**ita Climax”, and “Nineteen & Lovin It” to be commercially distributed?

If so, then which of the more than 50 public servants who are knowingly allowing said prosecuted footage to be distributed, will be called as a defense witness in the R Kelly child porn trial?

How many will be called to refute the testimony of Dr. Sharon Cooper?  What’s the trewthe?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: