'Girls Gone Wild' Cuts Plea Deal (plead guilty to federal law on sexual exploitation of children)

Los Angeles Times ^ | September 12, 2006 | Michael Muskal

[nickcarraway]

The Santa Monica-based company failed to maintain age and identity documents for performers in sexually explicit films.

The California company responsible for the successful "Girls Gone Wild" series of videos has pleaded guilty to violating a federal law designed to prevent the sexual exploitation of children, the Justice Department announced today.

Mantra Films Inc. of Santa Monica pleaded guilty to charges that it failed to create and maintain age and identity documents for performers in sexually explicit films that it produced and distributed. The company also failed to label its DVDs and videotapes as required by federal law, the Justice Department said.

Mantra Films entered its plea agreement today before U.S. District Judge Richard Smoak in Panama City, Fla. A second related company, MRA Holdings LLC, also entered into an agreement.

The companies, founded and owned by Joseph Francis, agreed to pay $2.1 million in fines and restitution. Of that, $1.6 million is to be paid by Mantra and MRA, and $500,000 by Francis.

Representatives of Francis could not be immediately reached for comment.

The case is believed to be the first to be filed under a federal law designed to prevent the sexual exploitation of children, the Justice Department said.

"This case sends an important message about the Justice Department's commitment to protecting children from all forms of sexual exploitation," Assistant Atty. Gen. Alice S. Fisher said in a statement. "Today's agreements ensure that "Girls Gone Wild" will comply with an important law designed to prevent the sexual exploitation of minors and puts other producers on notice that they must be in compliance as well."

"This prosecution makes clear that those who seek to enrich themselves at the expense of our children's innocence in violation of the laws intended to protect them will be held to answer in federal court."

[Patrick1]

Oops.

[sandbar]

>>>"This prosecution makes clear that those who seek to enrich themselves at the expense of our children's innocence in violation of the laws intended to protect them will be held to answer in federal court.">>>

Hallelulah!!

[Robwin]

"The companies, founded and owned by Joseph Francis, agreed to pay $2.1 million in fines and restitution. Of that, $1.6 million is to be paid by Mantra and MRA, and $500,000 by Francis."

Pocket change to these cretins, I fear.

[MAD-AS-HELL]

Joe Francis is a jerk. It's too bad he won't be put in jail so that he can star in "Bubba gone wild on Joe"

[Al Simmons]

They ought to send these scum to the slammer. You can't help seeing their ads for their videos on late-night TV. I just change the channel. It has to be the most disgusting 'main-stream' trash ever.

[NinoFan]

I agree that these creeps violated the law that requires record keeping of proof of age, but I really doubt the bit about this ruining the "children's innocence".

Any "child" who would flash their private parts isn't that innocent to begin with, no matter what mom and dad want to think.

[unspun]

Thanks for the post, nick.

All, (cc: admin): please, no lewd pictures.

[redlocks322]

AND... for the life of me, I don't understand how they are exempt from the v-chip ratings on parental control. I woke up one morning around 3am and surfed the channels and about came unglued at the filth. So much for paying extra for digital cable with parental control if the commercials are allowed.

[RippyO]

He's come close to it once.

http://www.radaronline.com/magazine/features/2005/11/the-hustler-the-heiress-and-the-softporn-king.php

The above link contains adult language and situations.

[dollar_dog]

Here is proof that Joe Francis is a liberal.

[nickcarraway]

Any business person who would rely on contracts signed by intoxicated parties isn't a legitimate business person, to me...

[CedarDave]

Any parent of a girl under 18 who would let her go to one of these resorts while still living at home is not right in the head. Most college freshmen are 18 by the time spring rolls around, so where are these kids coming from??

[dljordan]

"Joe Francis is a jerk. It's too bad he won't be put in jail so that he can star in "Bubba gone wild on Joe"

I wonder if that's his real name or a "Nom-de-Porn" so to speak?

[Bobalu]

I have seen 2 of these videos...
I saw no exploitation of children at all.
In fact I saw no children.
I saw college age girls...mostly drunk and acting foolish.

Pretty dull stuff to me...maybe if I was 19 again I'd like it.

IMO this stuff is just stoopid...not illegal.
This is terstified to by a prosecution for 'paperwork errors'
and not for anything else...mainly because even if they could prove a few of these idiots were under 18 they would still have to show the video to a jury...and 12 jurors would never all agree they are little children needing protection.
An overworked and bored public defender could win such a case for the defendant.

[lmr]

You mean like this?

[TenthLegion]

Maybe now they won't have so many commercials on early in the morning. If I fall asleep with the tv on comedy central I wake up to those irritating kettle drums. And just how "innocent" are the females who get sloppy drunk and flash their goods? Yeah yeah, I read what it was about and I'm not sanctioning it so :p

[DaveyB]

"This prosecution makes clear that those who seek to enrich themselves at the expense of our children's innocence in violation of the laws intended to protect them will be held to answer in federal court."

So when does the prosecution of the NEA begin?

[CSM]

"Any "child" who would flash their private parts isn't that innocent to begin with, no matter what mom and dad want to think."

If parents want their children protected, they should not allow them to go to spring break!

[brwnsuga]

I have seen 2 of these videos.

you actually watched a second one after subjecting yourself to the first one?..... men are so silly