Click Here For The Home Page
HOME






CNBC Says "Mike South - South is the Nikki Finke of the porn industry. His blog, which is never short on opinion, is a must-read among industry insiders. His style is unique, but he is also a leading agent of change within the industry. There are few fence-sitters when it comes to opinions about South, but no one ignores him."

Mike South Filmography

Recent Comments

  • Did Stagliano Throw His Producers Under The Bus? (4)
    • BT: My guess is that Stagliano does not now, and certainly won’t in the future, sign a contract with independent producers to create specific...
    • LurkingReader: And….now we know why this report disappeared from the OSHA site between February and April 2014. The links below detail the...
    • erik2690:
    • jilted: I wonder if Karen Tynan is going to represent the producers who make content for Evil Angel when OSHA cites them, or will that be a...
  • Reader Response From Sabrina (9)
    • LurkingReader: @Sabrina Once again a breathe of fresh air! With ‘Prostitution’ defined as exchanging something of value for...
  • Clover Arrested Again. At AEE (70)
    • erik2690: Making another comment is not how you stop it. You just cease the back and forth and it dies out. You aren’t required to read the...
    • erik2690: You right pieces that could certainly be considered nitpicking. You responded to the critique and then changed your reasoning several...
    • jilted: Wash, rinse, repeat. Wash, rinse, repeat. Ring around the rosie. Duck, duck, goose. One fish two fish red fish blue fish, Sam I am, I do...
    • erik2690: After “Jesse Jane” can’t get that exact name, why do you assume that “Jesse” isn’t her next choice?...
    • erik2690: I honestly don’t have a good answer. The parameters of our debate seem pretty clear, Mike said Digital owned “Jessie...

Who Will Benefit and Who Won’t From the Statewide Condom Law

At first glance you would automatically say that performers will benefit, and to some degree that is true.  For sure the A List will benefit, it may weed out a lot of performers on the low end of the scale though.  That is already happening to a large degree because most companies have cut production drastically. It also relieves them of the burden of testing costs and post exposure treatments for any STD.

The performers who will benefit most though will probably be the ones that are not USA based.  As many have pointed out in the previous post it’s not so hard to simply place a phone call or send an email and get content shot outside the USA.  There is talk of American porn actresses being flown to foreign countries to shoot and things of that sort.  While that could happen it would almost certainly be for the very upper echelon girls because financially it doesn’t make sense to fly the girls to say The Czech Republic and put them up when you have a plethora of gorgeous girls in Prague that shoot for half of what their American counterparts get.  This is why many of the Euro talent comes to the USA wanting to shoot.

Another thing I noticed about the law is hat it doesn’t differentiate between male and female condoms so a good female condom manufacturer may find this to be a boom market.

Male talent on the other hand could face problems, many of todays performers can’t perform without a condom and a Caverject injection or a handfull of Viagra so those guys are going to fall by the wayside VERY quickly, guys who can perform with a condom will get even more work…lots more.  One such performer I talked to was excited about this aspect, more money for him.

Any way you look at it this law will be tough on agents, the further slow down in work, the offshore production of content and regulations forbidding them to book shoots with non compliant companies.  There is no upside for agents.

The FSC and Diane Duke will benefit greatly.  Porners desperate to fight the law will pour in money, money that largely (over 75%) goes to pay for nothing but Diane Dukes salary and expenses.  No matter what she tells you she is loving the prospect of this…it is job security for her unless porners get smart and send her and The FSC packing like should have been done a lone time ago.

Companies like Evil Angel actually won’t benefit much or be hurt much, its pretty neutral for them.  Companies that rely on in house directors and such will be hurt unless they outsource from offshore, then those in house directors will be toast…in many cases I would say good riddance.

AHF will benefit because this is a huge publicity coup.  It will generate massive amounts of money and attention plus it will help relieve them of the burden of taking care of the people in the industry who do get STD’s.

The guys that will be hurt the most are the independent US based producers that rely on extreme content.   The good ones will do fine, they will continue to make quality product with condoms and prolly not miss a lick but the ones that depend on extreme and trainwreck content….not so much.

The lawyers, on both sides, again job security.

Finally the one thing that bothers me the most about this or any law like this is that once it is cast in the legal doctrine it’s next to impossible to get out.  For example suppose this law passes now in 10 years some big pharma company developes an STD vaccine that completely eliminates all STDs, they all go the way of Polio…The law is still enforceable and still on the books and can be used to harass. Don’t laugh, such a vaccine is certainly possible in the next ten years.

In the end we are reaping what we have sown.  How many times do you stick someone with the check before that someone no longer wants to go to dinner with you.  porners took no responsibility in looking after our own and instead dumped them off on society…well now society is coming to us and saying hey….time to pay your dues…..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How The California Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act Impacts YOU!

If you haven’t read the previous post..The text of The California Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act, go do it NOW!

Much has already been written about this but There will be things here that will be useful to everyone.

First lets get some things out of the way.

This is well written legislation and it has more teeth than a school of barracuda.  It is all based on existing law and technically doesn’t allow for civil action that couldn’t already be taken.  What it does do is quantifies and codifies it into one law. Much has already been pointed out about how it makes producers civilly liable for non condom shoots.  It also makes penalizes agents who send talent to non condom shoots.  All of this has been discussed here on mikesouth.com in the past.  These are already actionable under civil law.

If you think this law will go down on a constitutional challenge you’d be wrong, it won’t.  There may be some small areas that would, like licensing producers,  but the law as a whole will stand.  It is sound and it is wholly based on existing law.

I made the statement many times over the years that one competent attorney could completely bankrupt this industry with civil lawsuits.  Welcome to the dawn of that prophecy.

If the industry wants to fight this they had better build a war chest, a big one and they had better NOT lay it in the hands of the incompetent group of morons at The Free Speech Coalition…Simply ask yourselves how that has worked for you so far?  You have a likely passage of this legislation by 71% of the likely voters.  Cons like slate mailers ain’t gonna overcome that…matter of fact you would likely see it grow in the wake of more bad publicity for the industry.

Don’t think running to Las Vegas or anyplace else will be a viable solution, this legislation will follow you, not to mention existing legislation may provide a stumbling block, Nevada is already talking of applying the same rules they have for brothels to any adult filming done in the state and unless you are completely clueless you know those rules require condoms.

If you haven’t read the text of the act  …one more time…do it NOW!

Who it effects:

Performers: Actually as a whole  it is VERY pro performer. It provides for 50,000.00 dollars every time a performer shoots without a condom, it also provides large monetary rewards for whistleblowers.

Producers:  Producers will be responsible for paying those penalties in the form of civil awards.  Producers will also have to be licensed, this is one area that could be challenged on constitutional prior restraint grounds.  It does have basis in law in that it IS constitutional to require licensing of dancers even though dancing is protected free speech.

What is interesting is that this law would have no real bearing on a company like Evil Angel.  Because every one of Evil Angels Producers IS an independent producer with his/her own company THEY would be the ones responsible for the fines, NOT Evil Angel. So Manuel Ferrara for instance, has a TON at stake here if he chooses to shoot his movies with no condoms.  John Stagliano would not be liable for penalties imposed on Manuel’s shoots.

In most other companies it would likely be that the producer would be deemed to be an employee of the company as things are now.  Look for companies to start taking moves requiring producers to have federal tax ID numbers and valid companies before the company will purchase product from them.

This differentiation may also be the bills biggest loophole as we will discuss.

Agents: There is liability on agents who knowingly send performers to non condom shoots.

There are other things but these are the bigger points.  Now, lets talk about how this would change the industry and where the potential loopholes are.

One thing I did last night was contact a handful of very high profile glamor models who don’t do boy girl.  After I explained the requirements of the legislation more than half responded that they would likely at least consider doing boy girl scenes if condoms were a strict requirement.  The result could be a much higher quality of girl coming into the business and way, way fewer performers as a whole.

Here comes the loophole I see.

What if Manuel and Nacho Vidal decide they want to do a gay scene together non condom….they simply become co-producers, equal partners in that scene. Since they are the producers they won’t be suing themselves….This is what I would envision as the husband and wife loophole.  Lets say a husband and wife are doing a website, they only work together and they own the website, as both producers and performers the law would have no effect and therein lies the potential fly in the ointment.  If the performers in the scene all OWN that scene and are all equal producers and the performers arent hired through an agency nobody faces a potential action.  This scenario would change how porn works and could potentially finally give performers an ownership stake…the downside of that would be that the performers would no longer be paid for the shoot on the spot, they would be paid when the shoot sold.

There is more but this is a good starting point.

 

 

The Entire Text of The California Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act

If you are in porn and you don’t read and understand this TODAY you are making a BIG BIG Mistake, this includes performers and agents.
There will be discussion about this later today and in the coming days and if you havent read this you wont understand it.  This is important.
1
The California Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act
The People of the State of California do hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. Title.
This Act shall be known and may be cited as “The California Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act” (the “Act”).
Section 2. Findings and Declarations.
The People of the State of California hereby find and declare all of the following:
(a) Widespread transmission of sexually transmitted infections associated with making adult films in California has been documented by one or more county departments of public health. All workers in the adult film industry deserve to go to work and not become ill. It is important that safer sex practices in the making of adult films, and in particular the use of condoms by performers, be required so as to limit the spread of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections in the adult film industry. Not only is the risk of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections among adult film performers of immediate public concern, but so is the risk of transmitting HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections between adult film performers and the broader population.
(b) The adult film industry places profits above worker safety and actively prevents and discourages the use of certain essential safer sex methods. Costs of vaccinations, testing, and medical monitoring relative to HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections are currently unfairly borne by adult film performers, while adult film producers avoid bearing these costs and responsibilities. This Act is necessary and appropriate to address these public concerns.
Section 3. Purposes and Intent.
The People of the State of California hereby declare the following purposes and intent in enacting this Act:
(a) To protect performers in the adult film industry and minimize the spread of sexually transmitted infections resulting from the making of adult films in California, thus reducing the negative impact on people’s health and improving Californians’ quality of life.
(b) To require producers of adult films to comply with the law by requiring, among other things, that performers are protected by condoms from sexually transmitted infections.
(c) To authorize and require the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) and the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board to take appropriate measures to enforce the Act.
2
(d) To require the costs of certain vaccinations, testing, and medical monitoring relative to HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections to be paid by adult film producers and to give adult film performers a private right of action to recover civil damages for economic or personal injury caused by adult film producers’ failure to comply with the health, vaccination, testing, and medical monitoring requirements of this Act.
(e) To hold liable all individuals and entities with a financial interest in the making or distribution of adult films who violate this Act.
(f) To require adult film producers to provide notice of filming, to maintain certain records regarding filming, to post a notice regarding the required use of condoms for specified scenes, and to fulfill additional health requirements.
(g) To discourage noncompliance and encourage compliance with the requirements of this Act by requiring adult film producers to be licensed.
(h) To extend the time in which the State of California may pursue violators of the Act.
(i) To enable whistleblowers and private citizens to pursue violators of the Act where the State fails to do so.
(j) To prohibit talent agents from knowingly referring performers to locations where condoms will not be used in the making of adult films.
(k) To provide for the Act’s proper legal defense should it be adopted and thereafter challenged in court.
Section 4. The California Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act shall be codified by adding the following provisions to the California Labor Code:
Section 6720. Health and Employment Requirements: Adult Film Industry.
(a) An adult film producer shall maintain engineering controls and work practice controls sufficient to protect adult film performers from exposure to blood and any other potentially infectious material – sexually transmitted infections (“OPIM-STI”). Engineering controls and work practice controls shall include: (1) Provision of and required use of condoms during the filming of adult films; (2) Provision of condom-safe water-based or silicone-based lubricants to facilitate the use of condoms; and (3) any other reasonable STI prevention engineering controls and work practice controls as required by regulations adopted by the Board through the Administrative Rulemaking process, so long as such engineering controls and work practice controls are reasonably germane to the purposes and intent of this Act.
(b) The costs of all STI prevention vaccinations, all STI tests, and all medical follow-up pursuant to the adult film regulations, or otherwise required by an adult film producer in order for an individual to be an adult film performer, shall be borne by the adult film producer and not by the adult film performer.
3
(c) An adult film producer’s failure to offer, provide, and pay for a STI prevention vaccine, STI test, or medical examination, as required by the adult film regulations or as required in order to be an adult film performer, if such vaccine, test, or examination is consented to by the adult film performer, shall result in a penalty against the adult film producer equal to the cost of each STI prevention vaccine, each STI test, and each medical examination that the adult film producer failed to offer, provide, or pay for on behalf of the adult film performer.
(d) Adult film producers shall maintain as strictly confidential, as required by law, any adult film performer’s health information acquired by any means.
(e) Any adult film performer may seek and be awarded, in addition to any other remedies or damages allowed by law, a civil damages award of up to $50,000, subject to yearly consumer price index increases, if the trier of fact: (1) finds that the adult film performer has suffered economic or personal injury as a result of the adult film producer’s failure to comply with Labor Code sections 6720(a), (b), (c), or (d); (2) makes an affirmative finding that the adult film producer’s failure to comply was negligent, reckless, or intentional; and (3) finds that an award is appropriate. The court shall award costs and attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff in litigation filed pursuant to this section. Reasonable attorney’s fees may be awarded to a prevailing defendant upon a finding by the court that the plaintiff’s prosecution of the action was not in good faith.
(f) Any adult film performer entitled to bring an action under Labor Code section 6720(e) shall be entitled to bring such an action on behalf of all similarly situated adult film performers, subject to class certification by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(g) An adult film producer shall designate a custodian of records for purposes of this Act. A copy of each original and unedited adult film shall be retained by the custodian of records.
(h) By January 1, 2018, the Board shall adopt regulations to implement and effectuate the provisions and purposes of this Act in accordance with the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code) (“Administrative Rulemaking”).
(i) This section shall not be construed to require condoms, barriers, or other personal protective equipment to be visible in the final product of an adult film. However, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that any adult film without visible condoms that is distributed for commercial purposes in the State of California by any means was produced in violation of this section.
(j) Liability under this Act shall not apply to adult film performers, bona-fide employees, individuals providing independent contracting services, or production volunteers of an adult film producer who are acting within the scope of the general services being provided and in accordance with the instruction of the adult film producer, provided that such individuals have no financial interest in the adult film and are not adult film producers.
4
(k) In the event the amount of any monetary penalty set forth in this Act is found invalid by a court of law, the Division is empowered to and shall develop, and the Board is empowered to and shall adopt, monetary penalties via the Administrative Rulemaking process in a reasonable amount sufficient to deter noncompliance and encourage compliance with the requirements of the provision(s) in which the penalties are found to be invalid.
Section 6720.1. Notice & Disclosure.
(a) Within 10 days after the beginning of filming, an adult film producer must disclose to the Division, in writing, signed under penalty of perjury by the adult film producer, the following information:
(1) The address or addresses at which the filming took, is taking, or will take place, with any changes in location to be disclosed to the Division within 72 hours of such changes;
(2) The date or dates on which the filming took, is taking, or will place, with any changes to the filming date(s) to be disclosed to the Division within 72 hours of such changes;
(3) The name and contact information of the adult film producer;
(4) The name and contact information of the designated custodian of records as required by Labor Code section 6720(g);
(5) The name and contact information of any talent agency who referred any adult film performer to the adult film producer;
(6) A certification signed by the adult film producer, under penalty of perjury, that: (a) condoms will be used at all times during the filming of acts of vaginal or anal intercourse; (b) all STI testing, STI prevention vaccinations, and medical examinations, as required by the adult film regulations or otherwise required by an adult film producer in order for an individual to be an adult film performer, have been offered to the individual prior to the beginning of filming at no charge, and (c) the costs of all administered STI testing, STI prevention vaccination, and medical examinations have been paid by the adult film producer.
(7) Any other documentation or information that the Division or Board may require to assure compliance with the provisions of this Act.
(b) Upon submitting the information required by this section, the adult film producer must pay a fee set by the Division or Board in an amount sufficient for data security, data storage, and other administrative expenses associated with receiving, processing, and maintaining all information submitted under this section. Until the Division or Board sets the fee, the fee shall be $100.
(c) An adult film producer’s failure to timely or truthfully disclose to the Division the information required by this section or to comply with the Labor Code section 6720.1(d) training program requirement and the Labor Code section 6720.1(e) signage requirement shall be punishable by
5
a penalty of no less than $5,000 and no more than $15,000 per violation, as determined by the Division or a court of competent jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis.
(d) An adult film producer shall provide a training program to each adult film performer and employee as required by regulations adopted by the Board in accordance with the Administrative Rulemaking process.
(e) A legible sign shall be displayed at all times at the location(s) where an adult film is filmed in a conventional typeface not smaller than 48 point font, that provides the following notice so as to be clearly visible to performers in said films:
The State of California requires the use of condoms for all acts of vaginal or anal intercourse during the production of adult films to protect performers from sexually transmitted infections and diseases.
Any public health concerns regarding any activities occurring during the production of any adult films should be directed to: ______________________________________________________________.
(f) By January 1, 2018, the Division or Board shall adopt regulations to implement and effectuate this section and Labor Code section 6720.2 in accordance with the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code) (“Administrative Rulemaking”).
Section 6720.2. Adult Film Producers: License
(a) Within 10 days following the beginning of filming of an adult film, the adult film’s adult film
producer(s) shall pay the required application fee, submit a required application to the Division, and obtain from the Division an Adult Film Production Health License (“License”). The application fee shall be set by the Division via Administrative Rulemaking, in an amount sufficient to provide for the cost of the administration of this section. Until the Division sets the fee, the fee shall be $100.
(b) A License shall be effective immediately upon the Division’s receipt of the application and fee, and its effect shall be retroactive by 10 days or the day of beginning of filming, whichever is earlier.
(c) Issuance of a License shall be a ministerial task to be performed by the Division. Suspension of a License shall only be permitted upon a stipulation by an adult film producer or upon a proper showing before a Presiding Officer, to be selected by the Division to conduct the hearing, that the License holder has been found, via the administrative enforcement process or a civil action, to have violated Labor Code section 6720(a).
(d) For any adult film producer who is not an individual, no License shall be valid unless all owners and managing agents of such person obtain a License.
(e) A License shall be valid for two (2) years, unless suspended by the Division. Following the
6
last day of the suspension period, the Division shall inform the suspended licensee of License reinstatement.
(f) Licensing Requirements:
(1) Each applicant and licensee must not have been found, through the administrative enforcement process or by a court of competent jurisdiction, to have violated any of the requirements of Labor Code section 6720(a) for the twelve (12) months preceding the filing of an application with the Division or the duration of the adult film producer’s suspension, whichever is lesser. All persons shall be considered in compliance with this Act as of the effective date of this Act.
(g) Whenever the Division determines that a licensee has failed to comply with the requirements of Labor Code section 6720(a), the Division shall issue a written notice to the licensee. The notice shall include a statement of deficiencies found, shall set forth corrective measures, if any, necessary for the licensee to be in compliance with Labor Code section 6720(a), and shall inform the licensee that penalties and/or License suspension may result.
(h) A written request for administrative review, or for a continuance if good cause is shown, must be made by the noticed licensee within fifteen (15) calendar days of the issuance of the notice to comply, or else such review or continuance are waived.
(i) Within ten (10) days following the administrative review or waiver, excluding weekends and holidays, the Division shall issue a written notice of decision to the licensee, specifying any penalties imposed on the licensee. For Licenses that have been suspended, the notice of decision shall specify the acts or omissions found to be in violation of this Act, and, in the case of a suspended License, shall state the length and extent of the suspension. The notice of decision shall also state the terms, if any, upon which the License may be reinstated or reissued.
(j) A License issued pursuant to this Act may be reinstated if the Division determines that the conditions which prompted the suspension no longer exist and any penalties imposed pursuant to this Act has been satisfied. In no event shall this section be construed as limiting a licensee’s right to seek mandamus or to appeal an adverse License decision.
(k) Performing the functions of an adult film producer without a License shall result in a fine of up to $100 per day for any adult film producer who has previously been found to have violated Labor Code section 6720(a). Any adult film producer who fails to register as an adult film producer within 10 days after qualifying as an adult film producer shall be liable for a fine of up to $50 per day for performing the functions of as an adult film producer without a License.
Section 6720.3. Statute of Limitations.
(a) Notwithstanding Labor Code section 6317, in an action to prosecute any alleged violators of this Act or any adult film regulations now or hereafter adopted, the time for commencement of action
7
shall be the later of the following: (1) one year after the date of the violation; or (2) one year after the violation is discovered, or through the use of reasonable diligence, should have been discovered.
Section 6720.4. Liability and Penalties.
(a) Notwithstanding Labor Code section 6423, every adult film producer and every officer, management official, or supervisor having direction, management, control, or custody of any employment, place of employment, or of any adult film performer, who does any of the following shall, in an administrative or civil action, be assessed a penalty as defined in subsection (b) of this section:
(1) Knowingly, negligently, or repeatedly violates any provision of Labor Code section 6720, or any adult film regulations;
(2) Fails or refuses to comply with, after notification and expiration of any abatement period, any provision of Labor Code section 6720; or
(3) Aids and abets another to commit any of the acts in paragraphs (1) or (2) of subsection (a) of this section.
(b) Any violation of Labor Code sections 6720.4(a)(1) or (a)(2) is punishable by a penalty of not less than $10,000 nor more than $30,000; and any violation of Labor Code sections 6720.4(a)(3) is punishable by a penalty of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000.
Section 6720.5. Agents of Control; Aiding and Abetting; Multiple Violations.
(a) Every person who possesses, through purchase for commercial consideration, any rights in one or more adult films filmed in California in violation of Labor Code section 6720(a) and who knowingly or recklessly sends or causes to be sent, or brings or causes to be brought, into or within California, for sale or distribution, one or more adult films filmed in California in violation of Labor Code section 6720(a), with intent to distribute, or who offers to distribute, or does distribute, such film(s) for commercial purposes, shall be assessed a penalty of : (1) not less than one-half times, but not more than one-and-one-half times, the total amount of commercial consideration exchanged for any rights in the adult film(s); or (2) not less than one-half times, but not more than one-and-one-half times, the total cost of producing the adult film(s), whichever is greater.
(b) Any person found to have aided and abetted any other person or persons in violating Labor Code section 6720.5(a) shall be found liable for violating Labor Code section 6720.5(a).
(c) Any person found liable for violating Labor Code section 6720.5(a) who has previously been found liable for violating Labor Code section 6720.5(a) shall be assessed a penalty of: (1) not less than two times, but not more than three times, the amount of commercial consideration exchanged for any rights in the adult film; or (2) not less than two times, but not more than three times, the total cost of producing the adult film, whichever is greater.
8
(d) Any person found liable for violating Labor Code section 6720.5(a) who has been found liable two or more times for violating Labor code section 6720.5(a) shall be assessed a penalty of: (1) not less than three times, but not more than four times, the amount of commercial consideration exchanged for any rights in the adult film; or (2) not less than three times, but not more than four times, the total cost of producing the adult film, whichever is greater.
(e) This section shall not apply to legitimate medical, educational, and scientific activities, to telecommunication companies that transmit or carry adult films, and to criminal law enforcement and prosecuting agencies in the investigation and prosecution of criminal offenses.
Section 6720.6. Enforcement; Whistleblowers; Private Rights of Action.
(a) Any person who violates any provision of this Act shall be liable via the administrative enforcement process, or via a civil action brought by the Division or its designee, a civil prosecutor, an adult film performer aggrieved by a violation of Labor Code section 6720, or an individual residing in the State of California. Any adult film performer or individual, before filing a civil action pursuant to this subsection, must file with the Division a written request for the Division to pursue the alleged violator(s) via the administrative enforcement process or by commencing a civil action. The request shall include a statement of the grounds for believing that this Act has been violated. The Division shall respond to the individual in writing, indicating whether it intends to pursue an administrative or civil action, or take no action. If the Division, within 21 days of receiving the request, responds that it is going to pursue the alleged violator(s) via the administrative enforcement process or a civil action and does so within 45 days of receiving the request, no other action may be brought unless the Division’s action is abandoned or dismissed without prejudice. If the Division, within 21 days of receiving the request, responds in the negative, or fails to respond, the person requesting the action may proceed to file a civil action.
(b) The time period within which a civil action shall be commenced shall be tolled from
the date of the Division’s receipt of the request to either the date the civil action is dismissed without prejudice or the administrative enforcement action is abandoned, whichever is later, but only for a civil action brought by the individual who filed the request.
(c) No civil action may be filed under this section with regard to any person for any violations of the Act after the Division has issued an order consistent with this Act or collected a penalty against that person for the same violation. Although this Act imposes no criminal liability, no civil action alleging a violation of this Act may be filed against a person pursuant to this section if a criminal prosecutor is maintaining a criminal action against that person regarding the same transaction or occurrence. Not more than one judgment on the merits with respect to any particular violation of the Act may be obtained under this section against any person. The court may dismiss a pending action without prejudice to any other action for failure of the plaintiff to proceed diligently or in good faith.
(d) If judgment is entered against one or more defendants in an action brought under this section,
9
penalties recovered by the plaintiff shall be distributed as follows: 75 percent to the State of California and 25 percent to the plaintiff. The court may award to a plaintiff or defendant other than a governmental agency who prevails in any action authorized by this Act and brought pursuant to this section the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney’s fees. However, in order for a defendant to recover attorney’s fees from a plaintiff, the court must first find that the plaintiff’s pursuit of the litigation was frivolous or in bad faith.
Section 6720.7. Talent Agency Liability.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any talent agency, as that term is defined in Labor Code section 1700.4(a), to knowingly refer, for monetary consideration, any artist, as that term is defined in Labor Code section 1700.4(b), to any producer, or agent of the producer, including, but not limited to, casting directors, of adult films who are not in compliance with Labor Code section 6720(a). Any talent agency found liable for violating this subsection shall be liable to the artist for the amount of the monetary consideration received by the talent agency as a result of the referral made in violation of this section and for reasonable attorney’s fees associated with successfully pursuing the talent agency for liability for violating this subsection.
(b) Any talent agency that obtains written confirmation prior to the beginning of filming, signed under penalty of perjury by the producer of the adult film, that the producer is in compliance with, and will continue to comply with, all requirements of Labor Code section 6720(a) shall not be liable for violating this section.
(c) Violation of this section may be grounds for suspension or revocation of the violator’s talent agency license. The Division and the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement shall maintain concurrent jurisdiction over the enforcement of this section.
(d) Upon the finding of liability for violations of Labor Code section 6720(a), the Division shall transmit the information in Labor Code section 6720.1(a)(5) to the Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement or any successor agency.
Section 6720.8. Definitions.
(a) For purposes of California Labor Code (“Labor Code”) sections 6720 through 6720.8, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) “Adult film” means any recorded, streamed, or real-time broadcast of any film, video, multimedia, or other representation of sexual intercourse in which performers actually engage in vaginal or anal penetration by a penis.
(2) “Adult film performer” shall mean any individual whose penis penetrates a vagina or anus while being filmed, or whose vagina or anus is penetrated by a penis while being filmed.
(3) “Adult film producer” means any person that makes, produces, finances, or directs one or more
10
adult films filmed in California and who sells, offers to sell, or causes to be sold such adult film(s) in exchange for commercial consideration.
(4) “Adult film regulations” shall mean all regulations adopted by the Board in accordance with the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act that are reasonably germane to the purposes and intent of this Act.
(5) “Aided and abetted” or “aids and abets” means knowingly giving substantial assistance to a Person.
(6) “Beginning of filming” means the point at which an adult film begins to be recorded, streamed, or real-time broadcast.
(7) “Board” means the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board.
(8) “Commercial consideration” means anything of value, including but not limited to, real or digital currency, or contingent or vested rights in any current or future revenue.
(9) “Commercial purposes” means to sell, offer to sell, or cause to be sold, in exchange for commercial consideration.
(10) “Distribute” or “distributed” means to transfer possession of in exchange for commercial consideration.
(11) “Division” means the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA).
(12) “Filmed” and “filming” means the recording, streaming, or real-time broadcast of any adult film.
(13) “License” means Adult Film Producer Health License.
(14) “Licensee” means any person holding a valid Adult Film Producer Health License.
(15) “Other potentially infectious material – sexually transmitted infections” (“OPIM-STI”) means bodily fluids and other substances that may contain and transmit sexually transmitted pathogens.
(16) “Person” means any individual, partnership, firm, association, corporation, limited liability company, or other legal entity.
(17) “Sexually Transmitted Infection” (“STI”) means any infection or disease spread by sexual conduct, including, but not limited to, HIV/AIDS, gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia, hepatitis, trichomoniasis, genital human papillomavirus infection (HPV), and genital herpes.
11
Section 5. Liberal Construction.
This Act is an exercise of the public power of the People of the State of California for the protection of their health, safety, and welfare, and shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes.
Section 6. Conflicting Measures.
This Act is intended to be comprehensive. It is the intent of the People of the State of California that in the event this Act and one or more measures relating to the same subject shall appear on the same statewide ballot, the provisions of the other measure or measures shall be deemed to be in conflict with this Act. In the event that this Act receives a greater number of affirmative votes, the provisions of this Act shall prevail in their entirety, and all provisions of the other measure or measures shall be null and void.
Section 7. Proponent Accountability
The People of the State of California hereby declare that the proponents of this Act should be held civilly liable in the event this Act is struck down, after passage, in whole or in part, by a court of law for being constitutionally or statutorily impermissible. Such a constitutionally or statutorily impermissible initiative is a misuse of taxpayer funds and electoral resources and the Act’s proponents, as drafters of the Act, must be held accountable for such an occurrence.
In the event this Act, after passage, is struck down in a court of law, in whole or in part, as unconstitutional or statutorily invalid, and all avenues for appeal have been exhausted, proponents shall pay a civil penalty of $10,000 to the General Fund of the State of California for failure to draft and sponsor a wholly constitutionally or statutorily permissible initiative law. No party or entity may waive this civil penalty.
Section 8. Amendment and Repeal.
This Act may be amended to further its purposes by statute passed by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Legislature and signed by the Governor.
Section 9. Severability.
If any provision of this Act, or part thereof, or the applicability of any provision or part to any person or circumstances, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions and parts shall not be affected, but shall remain in full force and effect, and to this end the provisions and parts of this Act are severable. The voters hereby declare that this Act, and each portion and part, would have been adopted irrespective of whether any one or more provisions or parts are found to be invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 10. Legal Defense.
The People of the State of California desire that the Act, if approved by the voters, and thereafter
12
challenged in court, be defended by the State of California. The People of the State of California, by enacting this Act, hereby declare that the proponents of this Act have a direct and personal stake in defending this Act from constitutional or statutory challenges to the Act’s validity. In the event the Attorney General fails to defend this Act; or the Attorney General fails to appeal an adverse judgment against the constitutionality or statutory permissibly of this Act, in whole or in part, in any court of law, the Act’s proponent(s) shall be entitled to assert its direct and personal stake by defending the Act’s validity in any court of law and shall be empowered by the citizens through this Act to act as agents of the citizens of the State of California subject to the following conditions: (1) The proponent(s) shall not be considered an “at-will” employee of the State of California, but the Legislature shall have the authority to remove the proponent(s) from their agency role by a majority vote of each house of the Legislature when “good cause” exists to do so, as that term is defined by California case law; (2) The proponent(s) shall take the Oath of Office under California Constitution, Article XX, §3 as an employee of the State of California; (3) The proponent(s) shall be subject to all fiduciary, ethical, and legal duties prescribed by law; and (4) The proponent(s) shall be indemnified by the State of California for only reasonable expenses and other losses incurred by the proponent, as agent, in defending the validity of the challenged Act. The rate of indemnification shall be no more than the amount it would cost the State to perform the defense itself.
Section 11. Effective Date.
Except as otherwise provided herein, this Act shall become effective the day after its approval by the voters.

Advocates Submit Official Language for Condoms in Porn California Ballot Measure

Groups first announced plans for ballot measure in November; today, safer sex advocates from AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) and FAIR (For Adult Industry Responsibility), submitted official text of a 2016 California statewide ballot initiative for title and summary as a prelude to signature gathering.

Proposed statewide California law will require condom use in all adult films shot anywhere in the state.

LOS ANGELES–(BUSINESS WIRE)–As part of its ongoing campaign to improve and strengthen state law on the use of condoms in adult films produced in California in an effort to reduce the spread of STDs, including HIV, safer sex advocates from AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) as well as from FAIR (For Adult Industry Responsibility), the formal campaign committee that will shepherd signature gathering for the ballot initiative process, today submitted the official text of a 2016 California statewide ballot initiative for (proposed) title and summary as a prelude to signature gathering. Plans for the proposed initiative—a statewide California law that will require condom use in all adult films shot anywhere in the state—were previously announced by the group in November. The measure will be formally known as “The California Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act.”

“Given the probability of strong support from California voters, we are confident that this no-nonsense workplace safety measure will become the law of the land, providing much-needed additional protection to California workers”

Advocates aim to have the condoms in porn measure qualified to appear on the November 2016 Presidential election California ballot. Initial polling of 1,158 California voters that the group conducted on the statewide measure in mid-September 2014 showed overwhelming support for the proposed law—71% answered ‘yes’—when asked how they would vote on such a measure were the election held today.

“Given the probability of strong support from California voters, we are confident that this no-nonsense workplace safety measure will become the law of the land, providing much-needed additional protection to California workers,” said Michael Weinstein, President of AIDS Healthcare Foundation and one of the five formal proponents of the ballot measure. “We sadly just witnessed another HIV infection directly tied to the adult industry this fall—an outcome that consistent and correct condom use could have prevented.”

When condom advocates first announced plans for the statewide ballot measure in November (link to full press announcement here), Cameron Adams, who became HIV-positive while working in the adult film industry in August 2013, said at the time: “The adult film industry exposed me to blood on set because they just wanted to finish a scene. I did everything the adult film industry told me to do, and now I am HIV-positive … I am proud to support and participate in this California-wide ballot initiative to require the use of condoms in all adult films. Being exposed to bloodborne pathogens and other potentially infectious material shouldn’t be considered part of the job. It’s time for California voters to support fairness.”

About AIDS Healthcare Foundation

AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), the largest global AIDS organization, currently provides medical care and/or services to more than 382,000 individuals in 36 countries worldwide in the US, Africa, Latin America/Caribbean, the Asia/Pacific Region and Eastern Europe. To learn more about AHF, please visit our website: www.aidshealth.org, find us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/aidshealth and follow us on Twitter: @aidshealthcare.

Contacts

AHF
MEDIA CONTACTS:
Ged Kenslea
Senior Director, Communications
+1.323.308.1833 work
+1.323.791.5526 mobile
gedk@aidshealth.org
or
Christopher Johnson
Associate Director of Communications
+1.323.960.4846 work
+1.310.886.9913 mobile
christopher.johnson@aidshealth.org

Why Michael Whiteacre Is Not In Jail

Last week a judge made the unusual order that Whiteacre (Ari Scott Bass) aka Uncle Peg (Because girls he has hired as escorts claim he likes to be pegged) not have any contact with his wife Christina Parreira, after going to court for the second of several domestic violence charges in the last year.

Many of you have wondered why The Flip Flop Ninja isn’t behind bars as he probably should be.

Oddly enough it goes back to something that happened way before most porn chicks were even born. In June of 1971 President Richard Nixon declared that the country was at war with drugs. In doing so he pushed through things like no knock warrants and mandatory sentencing.

Thanks to that The land of the free could just as easily be called the land of the incarcerated.  the United States of America has more people behind bars than any other country on earth, yes that includes China.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 2,266,800 adults were incarcerated in U.S. federal and state prisons, and county jails at year-end 2011 – about 0.94% of adults in the U.S. resident population. Additionally, 4,814,200 adults at year-end 2011 were on probation or on parole. In total, 6,977,700 adults were under correctional supervision (probation, parole, jail, or prison) in 2011 – about 2.9% of adults in the U.S. resident population.

That number is even a lot higher now.

Of all of those people just over half are incarcerated for non violent drug crimes, half of those, simple possession of Marijuana.

That is because of mandatory sentences imposed by the federal government,  Remember when The first President George Bush went on TV to defend his escalation of the war on drugs, He stated “We will make room” when defending the idea that we didn’t have room in the prison system for all the non violent drug offenders.

We have made room at the expense of not incarcerating people guilty of far more violent and dangerous crimes (Like Ari Bass).  The sad eventuality is that they almost always end up there anyway because the violence escalated to the point of aggravated assault or murder. Just like “War Machine”.  Don’t let anyone tell you there is a difference between Koppenhaver (War Machine) and people like Michael Whiteacre, there is not, the only difference is that Whiteacre hasn’t injured Christina Parreira enough to put her in the hospital… Yet.

With porn claiming to be looking to move to Las Vegas, it certainly seems they have a high tolerance for spousal abuse there.

Y’all should keep this war on drugs thing and mandatory sentencing in mind next election cycle.

Remember, there are so may guys in jail for having a joint that they don’t have room for a guy who habitually beats his spouse, so the judge issues a no contact order hoping to keep these events from happening again so that he can have room for the weed smokers he has to send behind bars.

Think about that.

About That NPR Thing – Reader Mail

(With my comments in parenthesis)
“What Is The PASS Protocol For Gay Industry Talent”
During the show on NPR yesterday the guy from AHF said that one of the HIV positive guys in this latest incident did test at a PASS facility. Dianne Duke said he didnt.  ( well thats what she said day fore yesterday but in the press releases back in October Diane Duke said that the Talent pool was tested and that there had been no further exposure, we now know that to be another lie.  IIRC she also praised the PASS system for not letting an on set exposure happen…ooops….) Regardless if he did or didn’t it brings up the question, what is the PASS protocol for the gay industry?  Does anyone know?  APAC, do you know? Do performers know?
Here’s the problem for the FSC.  Too many performers are not using the PASS system, and the vast majority of the gay industry doesn’t use it. With all the crossovers these days that leaves a huge gaping hole in this safety net. But what if this unfortunate guy did go to a PASS facility? ( He actually DID)   Why was there no moratorium, no quarantine list in September or October when he tested?( There was a 3 day shutdown as I recall)   Is it PASS protocol to not do a gay industry quarantine,to not call for a moratorium when a gay actor turns up positive? (actually it is)
 Dianes self serving statement that they didn’t use PASS is reason enough to conclude that the system isn’t working. During yesterdays show nobody mentioned that the general rule is, the gay industry does not participate in PASS, and left the impression that these guys were outside of the industry protocol, when in fact there is no protocol for testing in the gay industry. This recent case is proof of exactly what Diane has been saying “between the lines,” we don’t include the gay industry in our protocols or in our statement about no on set transmission. Basically, the gay side doesn’t count, even when they use a PASS facility.
Does the FSC, which claims to be the industry watchdog, represent the gay industry, and if gay industry talent test at a PASS facility are there separate protocols if someone tests positive? Only time will tell if this person did or did not test through PASS because one thing is absolutely certain,  Diane or the guy from AHF ..one is either mistaken or lying. (lying and we know which one)  And just exactly how does Diane know who  tested how? , that all the results of the exposed partners were negative if they weren’t using PASS?  Who gave them this private, HIPPA protected information. How do they know what kind of test was used, who gives them this information?
Testing is not a shield that protects you, it is a safety net that catches you after something bad has happened. Testing did not PREVENT any of the exposed people from contracting the disease. Testing did not prevent this one guy from passing it to the other.

Happy Birthday To Two of My Favorite People

elvis-presley-poster-1429104693 melhill

Uncle peg Gets no Contact Order Yesterday In Court

Uncle Peg Gets No Contact Order With Christina Parreira in Court Yesterday.  This is the result of his second Domestic violence cpurt date  he has 2 more to go just for 2014

Wanna bet he has already violated it?  I already know he has  This wont end well for Peg.

no-contact-order

 

I’m Getting Bored

One of the things I always liked about working in the IT biz as a consultant was that I got to do a lot of public speaking, something I am actually quite good at.

Lately I have been thinking about taking it up again but this time speaking on a topic that is more fun, the adult biz of course.  One of the things I often get asked when people find out I do adult is either how do I get in or how do I keep my daughter out.  The latter is an interesting topic and it is one I am quite familiar with as you may have surmised. But I have learned a few things in my 20+ years in porn it is human sexuality.

Depending on the organization I am speaking to I will do it for a while for only expenses.  If you would be interested in booking me for your college, church, civic organization, city council, swingers club…whatever shoot me an email.

 

American Gods… California Style

I am a fan of reading and I recently did something I rarely do.  I re-read a book, this one is rich in lore and in history so I got just as much almost out of it the second time around.  the Book is by Neil Gaiman and is titled “American Gods” my friend Tim case turned me on to it and I in turn gave a copy to many people, including my friend Kayden Kross, who absolutely loves it.

One of the central ideas behind the story is that there are places on earth where for lack of better wording forces of nature and other powers come together to create something of a holy place,  places where significant events are destined to happen, and people are drawn to them for reasons that are beyond their comprehension.

It got me to thinking…could I come up with one such place, one not mentioned in the book, a modern day such place.  When I think of things like that I immediately think of Rock and Roll for some reason, probably because it is a powerful art form that completely happened in my life time.

Places started coming to mind, Athens, Georgia.  Haight Ashbury in San Francisco, London England.  The Sunset Strip…there it was I knew when I thought of it that was it and that was before I learned of its history.

Turns out the sunset strip has a long and rich history.  It is a mile and half long and it connects Hollywood to Beverly Hills.  Before Sunset gave birth to some of the rock and roll music I love it was well known as inspiration for Hollywood.  because it was originally outside the city limits of Los Angeles gambling was legal and during prohibition it was the place to go to be served alcohol. It attracted pretty much all of Hollywoods elite.

The Chateau Marmont Hotel (designed to be earthquake proof back around 1929),Hunter S. Thompson, Annie Leibovitz, Dorothy Parker, Bruce Weber, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Tim Burton, Jay McInerney, Sofia Coppola, and Ville Valo, among others, all have produced work from within the hotel’s walls.   John Belushi died of a drug overdose in Bungalow 3 on March 5, 1982.

The hotel is also mentioned in Charles Bukowski’s (another writer I like reading) major work Hollywood.

Glamour and glitz defined the Strip in the 1930s and the 1940s, as its renowned restaurants and nightclubs became a playground for the rich and famous. There were movie legends and power brokers, and everyone of significance danced to stardom at such legendary clubs as Ciro’s, the Mocambo and the Trocadero. Some of its expensive nightclubs and restaurants were said to be owned by gangsters like Mickey Cohen.

. Other spots on the strip associated with Hollywood include the Garden of Allah apartments (Joni Mitchell wrote a song about them (“Paved paradise and put up a parking lot”) — Hollywood quarters for transplanted writers like Robert Benchley, Dorothy Parker, and F. Scott Fitzgerald — and Schwab’s Drug Store.

You also had The Hacienda Arms Apartments, which included The House of Francis, Hollywood’s most famous and most forgotten brothel, whose regular customers included males and females.

Regular customers at the “House of Francis” included Jean Harlow, who visited the house and paid Francis $500 to take customers home with her. Francis’ prostitutes and customers reportedly “complained about Harlow’s rough sexual appetite.” Clark Gable, Errol Flynn, and Spencer Tracy were also regular customers.   The MGM studio was reported to have maintained a business charge account at the brothel under an assumed name.

The Sunset Strip of the 30s and 40s was very much a precursor to Las Vegas but unlike Las vegas the strip could survive without gambling.  When Vegas started siphoning off talent like Sammy Davis Jr and Frank Sinatra  the strip evolved.

In the 1960 The Sunset Strip gave rise to the Beatniks counterculture and the riots over the curfew there served as the inspiration for the Buffalo Springfield Song, “For What It’s Worth”

In the 1960s and 1970s the Strip became a haven for music groups. Bands such as Led Zeppelin, The Doors, The Byrds, Love, The Seeds, Frank Zappa, and many others played at clubs like the Whisky a Go Go, the Roxy, Pandora’s Box and the London Fog.

In the early 1970s a popular hangout for glam rock musicians and groupies was Rodney Bingenheimer’s English Disco. The 1979 Donna Summer song “Sunset People” from the album Bad Girls, was about the nightlife on Sunset Boulevard. Also, throughout the 1970s, much like New York City’s Times Square, the Strip became a haven for sleaze and prostitution. The Strip continued to be a major focus for punk rock and new wave during the late 1970s, and it became the center of the colorful glam metal and heavy metal scenes throughout the 1980s, hosting groups including Van Halen, Mötley Crüe, Quiet Riot, Ratt, Poison, L.A. Guns, Guns N’ Roses and Whitesnake.

I can only imagine what it would have been like to experience The Doors or led Zeppelin in such a setting.

To this day these clubs (The Whisky, The Roxy, The Rainbow) still exist of course and the area still attracts those looking for immortality through fame as well as those awed by it Johnny Depp opened the Viper Room in a spot that was originally a jazz bar called the Melody Room, a hang out of mobsters Bugsy Siegel and Mickey Cohen.

As much as I hate Los Angeles the Sunset Strip is one of those places that Gaiman wrote about, a place where forces come together close by and those properly attuned can become Gods while others pay their respects.

Maybe that proximity is why Porn Valley became the Mecca of American porn instead of New York or San Francisco….

If you would like to learn more about the Sunset Strip I highly recommend the documentary “Sunset Strip

 

 

 

More On Gregg Dodson and Shaun Patrick Reilly

It was interesting to me that the owner of adultverifiedvideo chat shared an address with a convicted rapist.  The photo of the rapist was easy to find but I had no idea if it was Gregg Dodson or not.  What was interesting was that I had people swearing it was him, I had others saying they didn’t think it was.  One girl who has been to that address said “if that isnt Gregg it is his twin brother.”

Finally it all came together when I got a call from someone who could identify them BOTH. and now it makes some degree of sense.  The caller told me that the guy in the photo had been introduced to him by a different name but that he was WITH Gregg and Gregg introduced him as a business associate or partner.  Now it makes sense why they use the same address at 7944 Nookfield Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89147

It is possible that Shaun has introduced himself as Gregg to some people.  I have always felt like the name Gregg Dodson was a fake to begin with, I’m digging more on that, but while Gregg is not the guy in the picture they are known business associates so ya might wanna keep that in mind when doing business with Greg, who DOES own adultverifiedvideochat and helpyoubookher2 (more info on that coming as well)

As for any lawsuit from karen Tynan, I have yet to be notified, served or even gotten the email that the lesser sites claim, when I do I will post it.

 

What I Would Like To See in 2015

I was asked this and me being me I just felt it isn’t fair to give nebulous answers  anyone can say I would like our industry to be taken seriously or I would Like to see HIV disappear in the industry or I would like to see talent treated fairly or I would like to see the STD rate drop below the norm.

The problem is we would all like to see these things but nobody seems inclined to take any measures to make them happen.

Lets Start With The FSC, as odd as it may sound I’d like to see them be successful at what they were chartered for, the pursuance and battle for free speech.  The first thing that needs to be done of course is to clean house.  Corruption comes from the top down and when you have the top two people cheating with each other on their spouse how is it you think they could be honest with you? The FSC must divest themselves of scams like slate mailers.  they must get out of the testing business, it is a direct conflict of interest to their stated purpose (originally).  There are good honest people who have had or currently have positions in The FSC. People like Corey Silverstein and Dave Cummings. Sad;y The FSC has installed a board of “Yes men” who would never allow any progressive change to happen. This has to change.

APAC is an organization that started with a great deal of hope, of the original founders at least a few of them had the right idea.  Sadly Karen Tynan and the FSC propped them up in exchange for apparently letting the FSC call the shots.  now instead of things that might be helpful to talent, like insurance, the freedom of choice to wear a condom or not, standing together to support a fellow performer who was screwed over by an agent or a producer they have meetings where they tell you how to tell your parents and friends you fuck for a living…SMH.  So sad.

On the positive side LATATA may have some faults but it is a good move, an organization to protect the interests of legitimate agents and to small degree talent IS a positive step, one that others in this industry should look at following, particularly APAC.

I have often said that we would have gotten much further working with AHF, The Pink Cross and others than we ever have by digging in our heels.  I’m afraid now that those bridges are burned, there may be some hope if The FSC got out of this fight and the industry put together a real board of health professionals to oversee things and to work with CalOSHA and AHF. The data that this industry COULD provide to health organizations and pharmaceutical companies is invaluable and could provide us with a war chest that would far exceed what we raise with “bowling”

Somewhere within this industry we need just one company with just one director that has the vision and the ability to create a good story and bring it to life, preferably to a cable TV audience.  Enough with the uninspired “parodies”. Isn’t there anyone here in porn with the ability to make a real movie?

We should take care of our own.  Instead of dumping our problems on AHF or Medicaid we should have an organization that oversees the care and treatment of our own, they could and should work hand in hand with the real board of health care professionals.  Maybe Evil Angel’s annual payments to The FSC would be far better directed towards this end.

In the end my friends suggest that I expect too much from the people in porn, that they are simply incapable of both the cooperation and the innovation that this would require. I wish they would be proven wrong.

 

2014 The Year At A Glance

 

January

Only The Good Die young…Toby Dammit Passes

Jesse Jane quietly announces she is done with Digital Playground, the era of DP Contract Girls ends.

XBiz Makes Jenna Jameson Host of the XBiz Awards and she didnt disappoint the train wreck was right on cue

Karen Tynan Loses To CalOsha in Treasure Island media Case

APAC is formed and right off the bat is the puppet of The FSC, with Karen Tynans hoof prints all over it.

Judge Rules That The condoms ARE required anywhere in California

Uncle Peg aka Ari Scott Bass aka catches 1st of four assault charges this one is a felony

Kink was fined $78,000 by OSHA over the Cameron Bay Shoot

February

Porn legend Gloria Leonard Passes

The Long secret PASS Medical Advisory Board Unveiled, No surprise some of the “doctors” are somewhat less than qualified

“Porn Addiction” Proven to be a myth

Lyltith Lavey Sues Bangbros over Mr Marcus Shoot

Many Porn Companies Get Cal OSHA Fines

March

Jake Malone Commits Suicide

Manwin Rigs Twistys Treat of the Year Contest

Manwin Fires entire legal team in Montreal possibly over Jules Jordan Loss

At least one probably many HIV Positive Performers slip through the PASS Cracks

Brett Rossi Tells About her experience with manwin/Digital Playground

Uncle Peg aka Ari Scott Bass aka catches 2nd of four assault / domestic violence charges

Ira Isaacs Obscenity Conviction is Upheld

 

April

Kink Threatens To Move To Las vegas

Exclusive photos from XRCO

2 performers in Florida Arrested for “animal torture” videos (The case was later dropped)

Banks start closing accounts of people in porn (later shown to be part of a DOJ directive)

Digital Playground Set Closed Down For Shooting without a permit

 

May

Tom Byron closes the lid on his own coffin

Samuel Jackson gets pornhub Tshirt wearing porn chicks in a tizzy…Pot…Kettle…

Manwin Files suit against Gamma Entertainment for Stealing Mailing List

Condom Law Passes The Appropriations Committee

Amateur Performer Commits suicide over porn

Billy Glide Overdoses

Uncle Pegs Ex Joanne Cachepero exposes what  scum bags Ari and Christina Parreira are

 

June

HIV Positive Performer TJ Cummings Trying to get hook ups on social media claims he has been “cured”

Uncle Peg aka Ari Scott Bass aka catches 3rd of four assault / domestic violence charges

Seymore Butts Son Birdie Goes Missing (Later find out that he left home and he was old enough to do so)

Performer STD Study presented to The CDC  FSC isnt happy

Lylith lavey Wins 130K judgement from Mr Marcus

Greg Dodson, Owner of Escort site exposed

 

July

Operation Choke point behind bank account closures on porn people

Compared to Michael Whiteacre aka Ari Bass aka Uncle peg Donny Long is a good guy

Cameron Bay Speaks to me

Diane Duke Sets meeting With HIV Positive Performers, then Flakes

Bobby and Jen leave Cutting Edge testing and go to Talent Testing Services

Christian Mann Passes

 

August

Jonathon Koppenhaver aka War machine Joins Fellow Misogynist Uncle Peg aka Ari Scott Bass aka Michael Whiteacre fan club and beats up his girlfriend Christy Mack

The condom law gets shelved

FSC Chairman Jeffrey Douglas defaults on 100K in debt declares bankruptcy

ATMLA performer  tests positive for HIV (later turns out to be a false positive)

 

September

Jeffery Douglas and Diane Duke Affair Exposed

Bonnie Rotten Sues Max Hardcore

Max Hardcore Files Bankruptcy

Manwin colludes with ICM registry Fabian Calls Out The FSC as having no value for its members

 

October

ATMLA Ousted from LATATA (readmitted a month later)

Rob Black Finally Goes away after a failed attempt to get on staff at TMZ

Another HIV Positive this is the one thats making the rounds now…turns out the infected performer WAS PASS tested the FSC Is working double time to do damage control, lying their asses off….This wont end well.

The UK passes age verification law for adult sites

AVN and Peter Warren accused of sex for AVN Award scam. Peter busted promising two different girls his vote in the same category

 

November

No on B financial reports show some very sketchy spending on the part of The FSc, Nobody in porn cares…

The FSC Pays to Scam Voters

Manwin pays almost 50% interest on 360M Dollar Loan

 

December

Former Porner Arrested for Sex with under 14 year old

Uncle Peg aka Ari Scott Bass aka catches 3rd of four assault / domestic violence charges (but claims its all just me writing a hit piece on him…what a moron)

AVN is quietly being shopped

The REAL Reason AIM Went Bankrupt

AVN gives a booth to PornHub for Adult Expo, some companies say enough and cancel ads.

Federal Court Upholds Measure B ruling

Cal OSHA sends Shot Across The Bow of Porners

AdultVerifiedVideoChat owned by Greg Dodson, registered sex offender listed at the same address, some say it is Greg, I dont know, I met him once and it does look like a younger less obese version, you decide

 

 

Cal OSHA Issues An Occupational Health Alert

The long term results of what this means are yet to be found out but this is a very clear shot across the bow of the Adult industry.  What it immediately does is dispel the myth that testing is enough.  It also dispels the bullshit about no on set transmissions in ten years. But let’s face we ALL knew that was bullshit, anyone who didn’t know that is prolly too dumb to be in porn to begin with.
I think it would behove people in the biz to see this as a shot across the bow, because that is exactly what it appears to be.
If you are a smart performer you will make sure you are signed up for health insurance as is required by law, Then you should get on a PreP regimen which your insurance should cover based on this Alert.  This should actually be encouraged and/or required by agents.  It takes some of the responsibility off of them and off of producers.
 calosha-1

About that Greg Dodson Story

I met Greg once, at a time when I was on heavy meds for a broken leg…i thought that photo looked like him but Im not sure.  Turns out I have quit a few people telling me that IS Greg. I have tried to find anything to tie the two together other than the address, I have even asked for photos of Greg but it seems he is very very camera shy.

Meantime…Draw your own conclusions as to whether or not you wish to do business with him.