"Girls Gone Wild" Asshole Pleads Guilty
Joe Francis, raging douchebag and founder of the Girls Gone Wild empire, plead guilty to charges he and his company video taped underage girls. Francis acknowledged he did not maintain proper age and identity documents for each girl who performed for his camera. Although Francis will not spend any time in jail for the offenses, the court fines come directly out of Francis pocket.
GGW founder Joe Francis, along with related his related companies, Mantra Films Inc. and MRA Holding LLC, agreed to pay the government a total of $2.1 million in fines and restitution, however only $500,000 will be paid by Francis himself.
Francis showed regret for footage depicting underage girls involved in "sexually explicit conduct" in two of his Girls Gone Wild DVDs.
"Mantra Films, Inc., MRA Holdings Inc. and I admit that during 2002 and at times in 2003, we produced and distributed videos without obtaining the required records or attaching appropriate labeling," Francis said in a statement.
This is a landmark ruling; Francis was the first person to be successfully prosecuted under new federal laws requiring adult filmmakers to keep detailed records documenting age of participants in their films.
The charges in this case are believed to be the first to be filed under a law -- often referred to as Section 2257 -- passed by Congress to prevent the sexual exploitation of children. The law protects against the use of minors in the production of sexually explicit material by requiring producers to create and maintain age and identity records for every performer in sexually explicit movies and other media.
Even in Death, Ken Lay Still Finding Legal Loophopes
Earlier this year, in a decision met with joy by all, former Enron CEO Ken Lay was convicted on nineteen counts of fraud and conspiracy. But before he could serve his sentence or file an appeal, Lay died suddenly, a fact many received with mixed emotions, as we were happy to see the earth rid of the colossal cockroach, but saddened because we could no longer revel in his incarceration to the fullest. Now it seems that Lay may get away with it after all, since he did not have the chance to appeal his case, he may have wormed his way out of the guilty verdict.
The Justice Department has said it will use all available legal means to reclaim the money related to the criminal charges Mr. Lay was convicted of in May. But those means may be few because of the legal precedent set by the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which found in 2004 that a person's criminal record is "abated," or wiped out, if he or she dies before having a chance to exhaust all appeals.
The rationale is that someone convicted of a crime should not be denied the right to have the trial's fairness tested, says Brian Wice, a Houston attorney. In this case, it means Lay's conviction, trial, even his indictment will most likely be abated - making him an innocent man.
The lawyer handling Lay's estate has already filed a motion with US District Judge Sim Lake, asking him to erase Lay's criminal record, based on the ruling by the Fifth Circuit, which governors federal courts in Texas.
That may be hard for the public to take, says Ross Albert, an Atlanta lawyer formerly with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
"There is a presumption of innocence that comes before every conviction. But Ken Lay, at the time he died, was not presumed to be innocent," says Mr. Albert, who believes the Fifth Circuit is "zealously" protecting the prerogative of the appeals court even though well over 80 percent of all criminal appeals are denied.
At the very least an abatement seems premature. There's absolutely no reason why Lay's estate couldn't continue to petition for an appeal even after his death. If the appeal is granted then there would be little choice but to abate his sentence, however hard a pill that would be to swallow. But as has already been pointed out, most requests for appeal are denied, and there doesn't seem to have been any obvious problems with the course of Lay's trial that would point to the necessity of an appeal.
Abating Lay's sentence would also increase the burden on the conga line of plaintiffs waiting to file civil claims against him to collect damages done to them by Lay, by forcing them to prove his guilt (with a lower standard, but having to make a case nevertheless) in addition to the tort imposed on them by Lay's estate.
So Lay may have the last laugh afterall, and his wife may escape with her estate largely intact. Ain't justice grand?