"You can't take to the bank all of the answers that you just heard."
That statement was made by Greg Piccionelli on Wednesday, following a lively 2257 Inspection Process seminar at the XBiz Hollywood conference. Piccionelli's announcement highlighted several discrepancies in comments made by FBI Special Agent Chuck Joyner and the written 2257 guidelines.
Indeed, several attendees of the standing-room-only session seemed to be slightly put at ease following the seminar, which attempted to clarify the purpose, process, and misconceptions surrounding the widely controversial 2257 guidelines. But, since Joyner could speak only as an inspection agent and not an attorney from the Department of Justice, many of his answers failed to impress both the audience and industry attorneys Piccionelli, Clyde DeWitt, and Jeffrey Douglas, who posed to Joyner written questions from audience members.
The session got off to a late start, but soon was packed with show attendees eager to have their questions answered. "We are here to clarify as best we are able the 2257 inspection process," Piccionelli said at the start, adding that the revisions of the guidelines "created a good deal of concern and uncertainty among people in the industry at a level I'd never seen before. This led to a collective gnashing of the teeth."
Following his introduction, Joyner made his own set of opening statements. "The FBI would like to make the inspection process as transparent as possible," he spoke, "and this is a good opportunity to do that."
Joyner went on to address the purpose of the inspections ("to prevent the sexual exploitation of children and to require the industry to keep records to prevent that from happening") before turning to a detailed explanation of the inspection process. He assured audience members that producers to be inspected are selected completely at random ("Like a lottery, but a reverse lottery, because you're not winning anything," he joked), and claimed that the FBI is "not targeting" any particular producers. "We're not trying to play 'Gotcha,'" he professed.
Joyner advised the audience how to make the inspection process go as quickly as possible ("The more space we have to work, the quicker we can get in and out"), and told them that FBI inspection agents work only from spreadsheets that include names of models and the films in which they appear. Agents will check and make sure producers' records are cross referenced with all alternate names of models and their respective film titles, make copies of identification cards, and then will present producers with an unofficial report of the preliminary findings. "We like to give producers a chance to respond to the violations before the government gets involved," Joyner explained, adding that there also is an unofficial "grace period" of one week that producers have to respond to any potential violations.
"We're looking for intent," Joyner reasoned. "If you resolve the violation, we will listen to your reasoning. If you're showing intention to comply, the chances of prosecution are virtually nil. But, if you have violations and you didn't resolve them, you will see [us] again."
Joyner said common violations include failure to cross reference names of models with their stage names and the names of all titles they appear in; bad or illegible photocopies of acceptable forms of identification; and missing records with no photo identification.
Addressing common misconceptions about 2257 inspections, Joyner told attendees that a custodian of records does not have to be present at the place of business at all times during the business week. "You just have to post when your hours are, so we know when to come back," he said, adding that producers also are allowed to "close shop" for holidays. "If you post a sign that says 'Closed for Christmas; Be Back in Three Weeks,' we'll come back in three weeks."
The panel then was turned over to Piccionelli, DeWitt, and Douglas, who fielded several written questions from the audience.
When asked about the assumption that producers who run adult businesses out of their homes must list their home address as the place of business, Joyner replied that it would be acceptable for producers to hire an attorney or someone else to be a custodian of records. "It does not have to be your home," Joyner stated. "You can hire a company to keep your 2257 records, and we will consider that your place of business."
Attorneys clearly were confounded by Joyner's claim that his understanding of the 2257 guidelines was that identification records needed to be kept during the lifetime of a business and for five years after a company goes out of business. When later asked to clarify this, Joyner deferred to the DOJ.
Some other points of interest included Joyner's statements that digital copies of IDs such as PDF files are acceptable forms of identification, and that it is not necessary for FBI agents to see a performer's residential address on his or her identification. "All we need to see are the name and birth date," he said.
Second rounds of inspections can begin as soon as within four months of a previous inspection, he also noted, adding that—theoretically, while all producers are to keep copies of 2257 records—"We want to go where the best records are kept. You tell us who the person with the best records is, and that's who we'll go to."
Elsewhere, the issue of businesses that keep foreign addresses caused a bit of a stir when Joyner opined that "if your custodian of records is in Europe, that gives the appearance of wrongdoing, and you might come under closer scrutiny." However, after attorneys pressed him to explain this, Joyner conceded that the FBI has "no jurisdiction over foreign-based companies," even if one of its employees resides in the U.S.
At the closing of the question-and-answer period, Joyner said, "We would be delighted if every inspection that went on was in complete compliance."
Afterward, Joyner left the room so that the attorneys could discuss their opinions with audience members. It was then that all three attorneys cautioned attendees not to take to heart all Joyner said.
"The attorneys at the DOJ have taken positions which are at odds with what Joyner said," Douglas warned, advising producers "to follow what the law says.
"If it turns out that the FBI is being more liberal [about 2257 violations], that's great," Douglas continued. "But, I don't think you can rely on that."
