Trial Update: Max Found Guilty on 10 Counts


--Tampa Tribune

TAMPA - After much deliberation by the jury, adult movie producer Max Hardcore, whose real name is Paul Little, was found guilty of 10 federal counts of distributing obscene materials over the Internet and through the mail.

His company, Maxworld Entertainment, was also found guilty on 10 related charges.

Earlier today, jurors told the judge they were having trouble reaching a verdict on half of the charges.

Jurors this afternoon sent a note to the judge reading, "If we make a decision on 10 of the 20 counts, but are unable to reach a decision on the other 10, will the 10 counts that were decided on stand?"

The judge sent a note back saying yes. The jurors responded with another note, reading, "There are people on both sides of the issues and we do not believe we will be able to make a decision on the 20 counts. How long must we deliberate? We are fairly certain we will not be able to reach a decision. This applies to 10 of the 20 counts."

U.S. District Judge Susan Bucklew assembled attorneys, brought the jury into the courtroom and gave the jury an instruction directing them to try again.

"It is your duty to agree upon a verdict on all counts if you can do so," the judge said. "I am not going to give you a length of time that you must deliberate. That's really up to you. But I am going to ask you to try again."

At this point, the jury foreman asked the judge if the jurors could take a break.

"Emotions were very high," he said. "It would be great if we could take a break now."

The judge allowed the jurors to take a break before resuming their deliberations

AVN

Max Hardcore Found Guilty in Obscenity Trial
Jurors find Max and his company guilty on all counts

By: David Sullivan

Posted: 06/05/2008

TAMPA - Producer Max Hardcore (a.k.a. Paul Little) was found guilty of 10 federal counts of distributing obscene materials over the Internet and through the mail.

Little's company Maxworld Entertainment was also found guilty on 10 related charges.

Earlier today, jurors asked U.S. District Judge Susan Bucklew for guidance today as the jury was having trouble reaching a unanimous decision.
ADVERTISEMENT

According to a report in the St. Petersburg Times, the jury foreman sent a note to Bucklew just after 3 p.m., asking: "If we make a decision on 10 of the 20 counts, but are unable to reach a decision on the other 10, will the 10 counts that we decide on stand?''

Bucklew said the jury's decision would count.

The jurors responded in another note: "There are people on both sides of the issues, and we do not believe we'll be able to reach a unanimous decision. How long must we deliberate?''

The judge urged jurors to try again.

"I'm not going to tell you how much time to deliberate, but I am going to ask you to deliberate again,'' she said.

According to the report, the jury then asked Judge Bucklew for permission to take a break, because "emotions were running very high."

Bucklew granted the break, asking attorneys to stay in the courthouse to give the jurors time to talk again. The jury returned its verdict at approximately 7 p.m.

proof that the first amendment is dead.

RAWR Kitty is not happy with Tampa!

I can think of a few reasons for reversal and remand just on procedural grounds. If the Eleventh Circuit agrees, they won't consider the constitutionality* of the case and simply send it back down for a new trial. At that point, the new DOJ is unlikely to proceed, whether Obama or McCain wins in November.





*Drink

Who started out posting the real name of Max Hardcore anyway?

And why would, if some publications do not mind doing this, it be posted here?

Or the name is altered already.

Whatever.

^^says the bitch who posts private messages without permission of the second party.

The irony is, while the Jeebus freaks win a round here, Turkey 's High Court today banned the wearing of muslim headscarfs in classrooms and seems poised to outlaw the ruling islamist party.

Well, the house is safe lol

Producer Max Hardcore was found guilty today of 10 federal counts of distributing obscene materials over the Internet and through the mail. His company Max World Entertainment was also found guilty on 10 related charges.

"It's a sad day for all Americans when they smash any kind of free speech and that's what happened in Tampa today," Max Hardcore told AVN. "They trampled on free speech, and I intend to appeal."

The government had separately sought the forfeiture of Hardcore's home in Altadena, Calif., but the jury ruled against that sanction.

"I'm full of good spirits and they didn't get my house," Hardcore said. "We're talking to a couple of jurors and they felt very strongly for me, but the way the laws are formulated, they were boxed in to a corner. I should have got off for this nonsense; obscenity is an archaic term, it's not defined well. I received no warning and they attempted to put me behind bars; they've got a conviction, but we intend to fight on."

Earlier today, jurors asked U.S. District Judge Susan Bucklew for guidance as the jury was having trouble reaching a unanimous decision.

The jury foreman sent a note to Bucklew just after 3 p.m., asking: "If we make a decision on 10 of the 20 counts, but are unable to reach a decision on the other 10, will the 10 counts that we decide on stand?''

Bucklew said the jury's decision would count.

The jurors responded in another note: "There are people on both sides of the issues, and we do not believe we'll be able to reach a unanimous decision. How long must we deliberate?''

The judge urged jurors to try again. "I'm not going to tell you how much time to deliberate, but I am going to ask you to deliberate again,'' she said.

The jury then asked Judge Bucklew for permission to take a break, because "emotions were running very high." Bucklew granted the break, asking attorneys to stay in the courthouse to give the jurors time to talk again.

The jury returned its verdict at approximately 7 p.m after deliberating for a total of 14 hours in the past two days.

"It was a travesty but we had no choice because of the way the law is written," one jurors told AVN.

Several jurors approached Max Hardcore and his attorneys to express their sympathy at having been forced to convict him on the counts due to the "poorly written" law regarding the transportation of obscene material via the internet and the mailing of the DVDs to the middle district of Florida.

Another juror reportedly said that if two words in the law had been different, he would have held out for acquittal.

Attorney Jeffrey Douglas echoed Max's sentiments.

"As I said in closing argument, I believe that this prosecution was shameful," Douglas told AVN. "And as Max Hardcore said, this is a sad day for America. It's a deeply sad day for him personally, but also for all of us."

Max Hardcore will be sentenced September 5. He is free on bail until that date.

I don't think the kids are banned, just the scarves. If they want to stay home, it's up to them.

Turkey's a weird country, anyway. Until the end of World War I, the Ottoman Sultans were also the Caliphs and the guardians of Islam. When Ataturk founded the modern Turkish state in the 1920s, he insisted that it be secular. the Army (which he led) and the courts have stepped in several times to keep it that way.

I personally think that trying to suppress religion is counterproductive, but it is nice to have one country in that part of the world that isn't trying to wage jihad.

I don't understand what Max was convicted for? Does this mean that you can't view porn over the internet or order porn through the mail? Was Max convicted because his porn was too extreme wheras other porn is nicer and OK ?
I hope in sentencing the judge takes into account that the laws are wishy washy

Here in Australia apparently its illegal for shops to sell pornographic movies to you BUT its fine for people to own them which is pretty weird although noone ever prosecutes any of the adult shops over it...

Will this have a chilling effect?

-Chuck, Vegetarian fanboy

If I can ever find Potter Stewart's grave, I'm going to go piss on it. He's the douchebag who started it all. When the Court was trying to define the legal concept of "reasonability," he once said, Reasonability is like pornography. I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." It's been downhill from that point on.

So Max gets keel-hauled for pissing on Layla Rivera, but Alpha Blue Archives can steal the copyrighted films of 70s' producers and put out a 4-disc compilation of rape films with impunity? Fuck it.

Wait a second. Are you telling me that a jury decided that girls puking on each other, while covered in piss, dressed up like school girls and pretending to 14 while being slapped and fucked in the ass is obscene?

Those square bastards!!

I'm not a fan of censorship and don't want to see my porn taken away. But I saw this coming a long time ago. I just hope it doesn't lead to them going after the more generic stuff.

The only thing I can see a Obama administration going after in porn is the violence. I'm actually cool with banning scat and vomit porn. But I realize I'm probably in the minority here.

CareLess 'thinks':

Quote:

---

My moral superiority is impeccable.

---

That, what does not exist, cannot be impeccable.

If vomiting and other body fluids and products shown in movies is considered obscene, let's put the guys who made Jackass 2 on trial. The "fart helmet" scene in particular.

Why are things viewed as much more sickening and outrageous just because sexual penetration is involved also?

I don't get it.

man where are you guys gonna get your fantasized pedophilia videos now?

I don't think the folks who are making light of this fully understand what's going to happen. Big Brother won. They lost when they went after Jeff, but they nailed Max and now they'll do it to someone else. Yeah, Max may be harder than most, but it set a precedent, and now the gov knows that they CAN win these kinds of cases. Christian right-wings know no bounds when it comes to porn...it's all bad in their eyes.

Will Max Case Be The One to Go to The US Supreme Court?

---Tampa Tribune via Gene Ross

TAMPA - Over several hours last week and this, seven men and five women on a federal jury have watched some of the most extreme pornography commercially available today.

Some lawyers and academics wonder why.

Critics of obscenity cases question the federal government's decision to file these charges, especially considering the defining case law is 35 years old and was on shaky legal ground to begin with.

Federal obscenity law requires jurors to determine whether the material is patently offensive to the average person based on community standards. In the age of the Internet, however, a community's standards have become more difficult, if not impossible, to define.

Still, as vocally as some question the government's role in deciding what is obscene, others are egging on federal prosecutors to stop the progression of the pornography industry as it becomes increasingly bizarre.

"There's been no real prosecution regarding adult obscenity and it's gotten totally out of hand," said David Caton, executive director of the Tampa-based Florida Family Association. "Where in society do we say enough is enough?"

The videos that jurors watched in Tampa, produced by and starring California resident Paul Little, feature scenes of violence and humiliation, urination and vomiting. Little, who goes by the name Max Hardcore, was convicted Thursday on five charges of distributing obscene material over the Internet and five counts of distributing obscene material through the U.S. mail.

As the attorneys prepare an inevitable appeal, some experts wonder whether this will become the case that prompts the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit the country's obscenity laws.

Miller V. California

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a controversial opinion in the case Miller v. California.

The opinion developed a test to determine whether material is obscene. In part, it asks a jury to decide if the average person applying contemporary community standards would find that the material is intended to sexually arouse in a patently offensive way.

Eric M. Freedman, a constitutional law professor at Hofstra University in New York, said that concept is constitutionally flawed. The First Amendment, Freedman said, is intended to protect unpopular speech from those who would gather together to quash it.

The Miller decision, Freedman said, skirts the First Amendment. It allows a community to determine what can be expressed by minority groups within that community. The problem in modern times, Freedman said, is that there are no average people who can apply the standards of their community.

"The idea of local standards, which was deeply problematic when it originated, has now become thoroughly obsolete in the Internet age," Freedman said.

The current Supreme Court has avoided making judgments on the Miller decision but, with cases such as Little's, it might not be able to dodge the question much longer.

Assuming Little's attorneys have laid the foundation for a constitutional appeal, this case could head to the Supreme Court someday and result in a new challenge to the validity of local community standards and obscenity, Freedman said.

Still, several factors could stand in the way.

"I wouldn't overestimate the chances," Freedman said. "Even if the issue is there, the Supreme Court may not take it. Those reasons could be tactical or political."

Clearwater lawyer Luke Lirot, who acknowledges that he is as much an advocate of the First Amendment as an expert on its intricacies, said he does not like Little's videos.

Lirot's client base has included strippers, pornographers and prostitutes. Still, he said, his tastes are significantly more "vanilla" than the Max Hardcore titles.

He doesn't think he's alone.

Most of the people in America would not enjoy Little's videos, Lirot said - but the material is not meant for them. Its intended audience is a small minority of people who enjoy watching consenting adults take sexual acts to an extreme. The concept is not unlike television reality shows where people eat worms and sit in vats of insects, Lirot said.

"It's like 'Fear Factor,' people watching what extremes people will subject themselves to," Lirot said.

The acts performed in Little's videos are not illegal, Lirot said, but because they are sexual, the government says it is illegal to film and distribute them.

Acts Become More Extreme

Caton said some First Amendment advocates miss the point of the Miller decision.

The Miller case determined that obscenity is not protected speech. That is why the justices in 1973 developed the test. The Internet, Caton said, is just another pipeline.

"The only difference is that the images are coming from a telephone wire or cable, not the mailbox," he said.

As in all obscenity cases, material is produced in one place and shipped to another. It doesn't matter whether it's a magazine, a video or a digital clip: If it's obscene, it is not legal, Caton said.

When the government does not prosecute obscenity charges, pornography becomes more extreme, Caton said. During the Clinton administration, he said, over-the-counter magazines such as Penthouse and Hustler went from soft-core to hard-core.

Popular stores that cater to the public are selling magazines that include urination scenes, Caton said.

"There is a certain level of degradation that goes beyond erotic art and erotic entertainment," he said. "I don't think it's any coincidence that we are seeing women abducted from universities. They have been degraded to the point of being toys."

Caton said it is encouraging that a jury in an area such as Tampa, where adult businesses flourish, found that there is a point where sexual exploitation is not tolerated.

Over the past seven years, Caton said, the family association has lobbied the U.S. Department of Justice to take a more active role in the prosecution of obscenity.

In a 2007 Senate committee meeting, then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said his office asked for the resignation of a Nevada U.S. attorney in part because of the attorney's lackluster desire to prosecute obscenity, according to a transcript of the meeting published in The Washington Post.

The choice to investigate and to prosecute obscenity cases lies with the presidential administration, said law professor Freedman. If President Bush wants federal prosecutors to focus on obscenity laws, that is his right as an elected leader.

In the case of obscenity, however, the endeavor is quixotic, Freedman said. When federal prosecutors push these cases, they might ultimately force the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit the Miller decision.

Freedman acknowledged, however, that the Internet obscenity issue recently came before the U.S. Supreme Court and the justices managed to sidestep the Miller issue. In 2002, the court was asked to review a lower court's ruling on the proposed Childhood Online Protection Act.

The lower court had questioned the Miller test's applications to the Internet. Under the Miller test, the judges determined, no one could post anything to the Internet unless it meets the standards of the most puritanical community in America.

The Supreme Court avoided the community standards question altogether.

"The Supreme Court is well aware that the idea of local standards is under severe pressure in the Internet age but has so far managed to avoid it squarely," Freedman said.

+ + +

I don't think the Supremes are going anywhere near this case, but anything's possible.

Does this mean Max's circulated videos will now go up in value?

I have a piece of shit Maxworld VHS from the 1990s that I use as a doorstop and haven't watched since I mistakenly purchased it. But now that Max is a major bad-ass criminal, his nasty contraband may actually be worth something to me.

[Brushes dust and cat's piss off Maxworld Video Magazine No. 6 - "Oh, a young Maria Bellucci! I may have to take another look at that movie after all"]

I might as well do my rant here.

The disturbing thing to me is the idea that something is considered obscene because it is out of the mainstream. We hear that term a lot now, out of the mainstream. Now, mainstream pornography is alright. But Max pushed the edge, he is different in a way that does not appeal to the mainstream. Conform. Surrender. Do as you are told. Follow the herd.

FUCK THAT

My car has a stick shift and a turbocharger. It had a Kucinich bumper sticker for a while. I've never seen American Idol, haven't been in a McDonald's short order restaurant for over 10 years, and have no interest in NASCAR. I'm vegetarian. I pray twice a day, but never go to church. I shave my balls. I am proficient at Morse Code. I have been sober for 17 years, but advocate the legalization of recreational drugs. I'm going to quit chasing money, retire at 55, and live out of my motorhome. I drink the juice straight out of the olive jar, so come get me, mutherfuckers!

If one more sick, left side of the bell curve asshole tries to tell me about his house in the suburbs and his two soccer playing boys named Wally and Beaver, I just might do something out of the mainstream.

Every advancement made by mankind was because someone thought outside the mainstream. Thank God for the Max Hardcores in engineering and science, philosophy, medicine, and the arts. I refuse to attempt to conform to "community standards". And so far, my life has been a lot more interesting than anything I've ever heard from the Ward Cleavers of the world.

Give me liberty, or give me death. Bless you, Max, I have the highest respect for you for keeping up the fight.

-Chuck, Vegetarian fanboy

Quote:

---

Does this mean Max's circulated videos will now go up in value?

---

It means you better not sell any on eBay and ship it by via the USPS to Tampa.

rock on, charin. and praise jesus to all men who shave their balls. hallelujah.

Another good article.

SOURCE

Jurors convict adult film producer

By Kevin Graham, Times Staff Writer

TAMPA — Twelve federal jurors drew the line Thursday for Tampa Bay area residents, saying the graphic and violent films of a Hollywood pornographer are unacceptable in their community.

They reached that decision after watching 81/2 hours of extreme pornography on a giant screen in court. At times, they winced as an adult film producer who calls himself Max Hardcore performed in scenes that included urinating, vomiting and violently dominating women.

After nearly two weeks of trial and roughly 12 hours of deliberation, jurors decided what they had seen went beyond the Tampa Bay region's community standards.

They convicted the actor and producer, whose real name is Paul F. Little, 51, of Altadena, Calif., and his company, MaxWorld Entertainment Inc., of 10 counts of selling obscene material on the Internet and 10 counts of shipping it to Tampa through the U.S. mail.

Jurors asked that their names not be used. But several spoke of how emotional it had been and how tensions among them escalated Thursday as they deliberated, temporarily unable to reach a decision on half of the charges.

"We made the right decision," a male juror said.

Among their ranks were an accounts receivable clerk with three young children at home, a licensed practical nurse, an insurance claims adjuster, a civil engineer. A pawnshop owner served as the jury foreman.

They said they plan to write a book about their jury service. And they criticized the law that was the basis for charges of aiding in the use of the U.S. mail to send the films to Tampa.

The president of Jaded Video, a California adult film distributor, testified that his business sold Little's films from Jaded's Web site and selected the U.S. mail to deliver them to customers. Little's attorneys argued that he had no knowledge or control over that process.

The judge, citing the law, told jurors that someone can be guilty of causing the mail to be used if, in the ordinary course of business, they perform an act where the use of the mail can reasonably be foreseen. In this case, Little sold his films to a business that would distribute them.

As they heard the word "guilty" read 20 times inside the courtroom, Little and his team of attorneys, including two former presidents of the First Amendment Lawyers Association, bowed their heads and remained motionless.

"We believe in freedom of speech, and this is a setback," MaxWorld attorney Louis Sirkin said afterward, vowing to appeal. "We expect to get our day of reckoning. It's not over."

At his attorneys' request, Little didn't comment on the verdicts. But earlier, he spoke at liberty to a St. Petersburg Times reporter about his views.

"People down here should be outraged that the government is saying you can't watch two people f---," Little said. "If this is bad, where is the outrage here? Where's the protesters?"

Prosecutors charged Little and MaxWorld each with five counts of using a computer server to sell and distribute obscene material and each with five counts of distributing obscene matter through the U.S. mail. He faces a maximum of five years in prison for each conviction when he is sentenced Sept. 5 by presiding U.S. District Judge Susan C. Bucklew. Little and MaxWorld face separate fines of up to $250,000.

Jurors spared Little from having to forfeit his house to the government, but decided as part of their verdict that he turn over three adult-oriented Web sites that advertise or sell his MaxWorld films.

The otherwise stoic defendant wiped tears from his eyes when he learned they had decided not to take his home.

Just hours into their deliberations on Wednesday, jurors sought to clarify the meanings of several words and phrases in their jury instructions, including "morbid and degraded," "unhealthy interest in sex," and "candid interest in sex." The judge refused their request to use a dictionary, and said they should rely on their common sense.

The case drew the attention of an adult film industry critic, who flew from California to write about it. Interns studying law sat in the courtroom to hear the legal arguments. And local First Amendment attorney Luke Lirot, who occasionally defends strip club operators locally, sat in the courtroom on several occasions.

Attorneys with the Justice Department's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section prosecuted the case in Tampa because Little's Max Hardcore site was housed on computer servers downtown for at least three years.

Defense attorneys said Little never knew his site was housed in Tampa, and that prosecutors never produced any evidence that he did.

In closing arguments, the defense called on jurors to consider the nearly five-dozen adult oriented businesses in the bay area and infer what that suggested about the local community standards.

Justice Department attorney Edward McAndrew urged jurors to rely on how the films made them feel as they watched. He told them in closing arguments that had the law not required they stay, he wouldn't blame them for running for the exits.

"These videos aren't only offensive, they assault your senses," McAndrew said.

Quote:

---

nor were they forced to watch it (other than in a court of law, ironically).

---

Besides the 1st amendment issue, what I don't like about the law is that a producer cannot know that his film is obscene to a community until he is convicted.

Here are six questions for everyone who has posted (or who will post) in this thread (hint, you don't need to be a lawyer to answer any of these questions, just use common sense):

Q1: If you had been one of the jurors at Max Hardcore's trial and you decided to vote "Not Guilty" on each and every charge, could any of the other jurors FORCE you to change your vote to "Guilty" on any of the charges?

Q2: If you remained steadfast in your position, and no matter how long jury deliberations dragged on, could the judge fine or imprison you or in any other way punish you?

Q3: Are you under any legal obligation to reach a consensus of opinion with the other jurors?

Q4: Do you bear any legal obligation to follow the judge's instructions on how to apply the law?

Q5: If, as one of the jurors at Max Hardcore's trial, you voted "Not Guilty" on each and every charge, what would have been the outcome of that trial?

Q6: What is the supreme law of the land?

If you are unsure of the answers to any of the above questions, please read my first post in this thread in its entirety.

In a truly free society, none of this should matter. He has his 2257 records, he pays his taxes, and he committed no crime against anyone. The religious right scores again.

1735.

A modern-day example of Jury Nullification (arguably, at least) is the OJ trial. I seem to recall that some jurors actually stated after the verdict that there was no way, no how they were going to convict him.

Quote:

---

I seem to recall that some jurors actually stated after the verdict that there was no way, no how they were going to convict him.

---

I'd like to see that.

That case was RUINED by inept prosecution, end of story.

What has frustrated me most is that those two morons got TV careers out of their incompetence.

I hate this country.

The whole thing is just so retarded to me. We're the only legal industry who has to deal with this kind of bullshit from our own government. Unreal.

---

Every single industry has to put up with bullshit from the gov. The FACT is, like it or not, there are laws on the books regarding obscenity, and like it or not, Max's product is in violation of those laws, as evidenced by the guilty verdicts.

The porn buissnes for years has flouted many many laws(unliscend agents,illegal workers form other countries,cash payments{dodging taxes},not to mention complete disregard for any health and safety laws,no workers comp insurance.


It is time for the ADULT industry to grow up and do something other that whine and complain about how persecuted they are. If you want to disregard the law and play with fire then dont complain when you get burned.


Should there be laws against obscene material, I dont know. But the fact is there are laws, and Max's material is in violation of those laws. If you dont like it, then do something about it.


And regarding the post that seems to justify jury nullification, that is a very dangerous, and slippery slope my friend. Juror independence can be much more dangerous to an innocent person, than helpful to someone who is guily but hoping the jury will "let him off" because they dont like the law. Some would say this is what the Max jury did. They ignored that Jaded sent the videos and convicted Max anyway. Be careful what you ask for, you might just get it.