Post: #26

(02-12-2019 04:14 PM)Wutang Wrote:  Can someone link me to the AMAs mentioned?

Took 2 seconds from duckduckgo

https://reddit.olanola.com/blog/43363848...n.com-AMA!

https://www.reddit.com/r/NSFWIAMA/commen...rlsdoporn/

https://www.reddit.com/r/AMAAggregator/c...n_a_girls/

Post: #27

If a girl is truly traumatized by a porn movie gone wrong and/or made public, then she won't go on reddit and do an "ask me anything".
That's just pure attention whoring.

It smells like something else is going on here...like these girls are being paid by someone else to say they were fooled and file a class action lawsuit. Who's paying them to do this now ?

My best guess:
The people behind the mainstream porn industry and their (((financial backers))) who don't want any competition. No alternative source of porn that isn't under their control, will be allowed to exist. The porn indusry in the USA is essentially almost a monopoly/oligopoly operation.

From what I understand the guys running "girlsdoporn" were independents, who didn't have to pay agency fees, commissions, and all the other assorted costs that come with hiring mainstream porn stars and using the mainstream porn channels. They had exclusive contracts with their girls who didn't appear anywhere else...and that made them very profitable and free of studio controls. Hence they need to be stopped.

Just a theory on my part.

Post: #28

(02-12-2019 02:40 PM)The Wire Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 12:55 PM)Dirtyblueshirt Wrote:  Perhaps the girls are mislead about how the video will be released, but once you sign a waiver, the producers are free to do whatever they want with the video.

Not exactly. If that was true this would have been thrown out in court years ago. If the court is convinced misrepresentation occurred during the negotiation process the resulting contract can be held unenforceable. Meaning you and I can't verbally agree on one thing but you have language buried within a contract that somehow negates what we agreed on.

Unfortunately, the way it works is the exact opposite - it's what is in the contract that counts, not what you may say during the negotiations. Even if these girls "win" their lawsuit, the Internet never forgets. But yeah, I'm betting many of their claims are exaggerated. I wouldn't expect a judge to be anti-porno either, since after all they are the ones who legalized it every step of the way in the first place - why do you think we are where we are these days? Even if it is presided by a feminist, all any judge will be concerned about are contract law violations and civil liability burdens.

As for how stupid could people be in the age of the Internet, consider how many foolish Eastern European women wind up being sex trafficked after they get scammed into a job where they think they will be doing admin work then they show up at the airport, stuffed into a van and their passport taken away by their "sponsor." People are stubbornly naive.

Even military guys are no exception. When I was on active duty in the late 90s, there was a local sleazebag photographer who was always trying to con young soldiers into posing nude, doing swimsuit shots, etc.

One day I saw an acquaintance talking to this guy at an area coffee shop. Later on I gave him a heads up, asking if he knew what the guy was trying to pull.

"Oh yeah, I know the guy is gay but no biggie, it's just some swimsuit modelling stuff, gonna pay me a couple of hundred - easy money what the heck." I reminded him that once he signs that release, the word "release" is exactly what will happen to his right to those pics. They could wind up promoting some gay web site even if he himself isn't actually doing anything X rated. His face went blank.

A few days later he told me "Hey man, uh, I took your advice - I declined that guy's offer. Thanks." Good decision, I said.

A few short years later, this happened. Yes, it was the same photographer involved. Even if the stupid privates who participated were lied to, that didn't matter. One of them went to prison for being a prostitute and recruiting other soldiers into participating.

Post: #29

(02-12-2019 03:15 PM)jeffreyjerpp Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 02:40 PM)The Wire Wrote:  They also have the casting websites that GDP used for recruitment. The biggest litmus test is that GDP doesn't seem to have a single piece of evidence that they ever told them this was for the GDP(from what I know). No texts, no emails, no contracts...etc. A judge with half a brain looking over this is going to piece together this pretty easy. Trust me I'm all for girls being held responsible for stupid shit they do but I am highly against anyone who acts out of good faith when it comes to contracts and waivers.

Yeah, they don't deserve prison for this, but based on the evidence these girls do have grounds to sue. Outright lying and coercing teenagers crosses the line, I hope these guys are held accountable.

They are not "teenagers," as in minors. They are young women who can do it all, how dare you stop us, pussy hats, vote blue, etc. Can't have it both ways. Even if a judge were sympathetic and ignored their age of majority status and legal capacity to contract, any verdict dismissing the basics of contract law would be easily overturned.

Imagine the credit card companies being told they could not hold those same young girls accountable to the bills they rang up shopping in advance of their porno careers because they did not read their cc contracts, got pressured by the sales staff, etc. Uh huh. Nope.

Post: #30

(02-12-2019 05:32 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 02:40 PM)The Wire Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 12:55 PM)Dirtyblueshirt Wrote:  Perhaps the girls are mislead about how the video will be released, but once you sign a waiver, the producers are free to do whatever they want with the video.

Not exactly. If that was true this would have been thrown out in court years ago. If the court is convinced misrepresentation occurred during the negotiation process the resulting contract can be held unenforceable. Meaning you and I can't verbally agree on one thing but you have language buried within a contract that somehow negates what we agreed on.

Unfortunately, the way it works is the exact opposite - it's what is in the contract that counts, not what you may say during the negotiations. Even if these girls "win" their lawsuit, the Internet never forgets. But yeah, I'm betting many of their claims are exaggerated. I wouldn't expect a judge to be anti-porno either, since after all they are the ones who legalized it every step of the way in the first place - why do you think we are where we are these days? Even if it is presided by a feminist, all any judge will be concerned about are contract law violations and civil liability burdens.

The law is usually the law whatever a judge says the law is. When cases like these get put in front of a judge and you have the local San Diego press covering this from the perspective of the girls don't be surprised the judge is going to be anti-porno here. If I were a betting man I wouldn't be giving good odds on GDP's defense.

Post: #31

Yeah, well, if they lose it won't be because the judge feels sympathy. This isn't a sexual assault case, it's a contract case. Nobody is going to jail and even monetary awards are doubtful since the company is declaring bankruptcy. Since the bulk of the case is about what shortcomings in pay (peanuts) and punitive damages (most of the monetary claim), this thing is dead before it even starts, in terms of remedies.

You forget that Cali-pornia is the same place that produces the industry itself. They supposedly sympathetic courts and legislators don't even legally require STD testing of, the uh... "actors" (prostitutes). Barring adequate, admissible evidence of unconscionable conduct on the part of the defendants, it's going nowhere.

Post: #32

If claims are true, they were chatting up 17 year-olds on the cusp of turning 18. I don't want to die on that hill in court, sorry.

Post: #33

Hard to feel sorry for either side. Porn is filth.

Post: #34

(02-12-2019 05:11 PM)Caduceus Wrote:  If a girl is truly traumatized by a porn movie gone wrong and/or made public, then she won't go on reddit and do an "ask me anything".
That's just pure attention whoring.

It smells like something else is going on here...like these girls are being paid by someone else to say they were fooled and file a class action lawsuit. Who's paying them to do this now ?

My best guess:
The people behind the mainstream porn industry and their (((financial backers))) who don't want any competition. No alternative source of porn that isn't under their control, will be allowed to exist. The porn indusry in the USA is essentially almost a monopoly/oligopoly operation.

From what I understand the guys running "girlsdoporn" were independents, who didn't have to pay agency fees, commissions, and all the other assorted costs that come with hiring mainstream porn stars and using the mainstream porn channels. They had exclusive contracts with their girls who didn't appear anywhere else...and that made them very profitable and free of studio controls. Hence they need to be stopped.

Just a theory on my part.

They clearly made enemies everywhere lol.

Post: #35

Haven't seen those vids in a long time, fired up pornhub and had a wank to some of the best.

Post: #36

People are so autistic and disconnected from common sense that the idea that "porn makers are sleazy people" comes as a shock to them. Look these porno guys should be penalized if they were deceptive and broke the law but having a hustle and fast talk is not illegal.

Post: #37

Porn is full of sleazy people.

You accepted money in exchange for getting fucked on camera.

What strikes me is how well this illustrates how women think in social perceptions, primarily. For these girls what matters is justifying the videos. If they can play being the victim - regardless of whether or not they were a victim to some degree, or fully informed of what was happening - the ends justify the means.

They've got eggs to fertilize, and if lying about what happened will achieve that end, so be it. Responsibility? That's for people without eggs that desperately need fertilizing.

Bigger problem? Men who treat women like perfectly rational, trustworthy creatures, at one moment - and then incompetent children who need to be protected from exploitation. Have it one way or the other, but not both.

Post: #38

I worked with a girl who did part time modeling/softcore porn. After a trip to California she told our manager and me how the director talked her into fingering herself on camera. When all was said and done, she made the director promise not to share the video despite signing contracts that all property were his to do as he wished. My manager and I looked at each other and rolled our eyes. I could pick up on her doubts and shame for doing the shoot. This was 2010ish. I felt zero sympathy for her because she was a massive slut who left a college basketball player crying and begging her to quit modeling, so she could continue her career in whoredom. I wish I knew what happened to her and how far down she fell in the rabbit hole. My guess is she did anal on camera within the year.

Post: #39

But why didn't the girls just decide not to get fucked on camera in exchange for cash in the first place?

Post: #40

As a former litigator I don't like GDP's chances from the evidence I've seen.

You have to understand something that people not in litigation don't understand. The law in cases like these will likely have precedents (although not necessarily on point) that support both sides. This leaves the judge to effectively make a decision based on whats fair and whats just.

Who do you think a judge is likely to have more sympathy for. Guys who lied to young girls about the usage of their tape and had them sign contracts that weren't in line with what they were told? Absolutely not.

There were cases like this I read in law school but of a different nature where a door to door salesman comes in and gets older people to sign contracts based on his verbal representations. Of course the contract ripped off the older people and didn't line up with the verbal representations. The older people got their money back.

My understanding is that GDP verbally told these girls it would be given to private individuals in countries like Brazil and not online. I.e. like a dvd. I may be off on these assertions as I haven't reviewed the case in a long time. The judge isn't likely going to have sympathy for a bunch of older males manipulating young females. How much they are ultimately awarded in damages is going to vary widely based on who the judge is and any expert / medical opinions given at court.

If I were arguing the case I'd argue that all profits should be disgorged and given back to the girls. This isn't a case of fast speak its blatant misrepresentation using tactics that a Judge is going to have little sympathy for.

If it was 1 girl claiming to have been misled I'd say it's questionable but the sheer number of them tells me otherwise.

I 100% agree that girls agreeing to have sex on camera is horrible judgment in the first place but when the thought is that no one they know or even in their country will ever see it verse everyone I know will see it theres a big difference in thinking.

Personally I hope GDP gets smoked on this one despite my enjoyment of their videos.

One thing to understand is that cases don't necessarily only go to trial to decide whats right and what is wrong. Often times they will go all the way to trial despite one party knowing full well they will "lose" as the real question is how much are they going to have to pay out.

Post: #41

The trouble with that is A) there are no profits to disgorge, and B) unlike a door to door unsolicited sales to unsuspecting old people, these girls were found after putting themselves out there on CL looking for modeling gigs. They took the first steps.

Add this to their open declarations on camera about what they were about to do in each scene (take the D), and the innocent victim theory of the case will completely unravel.

Hence, I'm not as optimistic that any of the girls have a chance of winning even under the best subjective circumstances. Realistically they probably know this now, after hiring lawyers who gave them a reality check. Alas, they still figure if they don't at least try to present a public case of them being victims, they'll just look like bigger whores than they already are when it comes to bagging Mr. Beta Bux in a few years.

Watch this space to see how many of them wind up in a mega church right around their 33rd birthday.

Post: #42

(02-13-2019 10:00 AM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  The trouble with that is A) there are no profits to disgorge, and B) unlike a door to door unsolicited sales to unsuspecting old people, these girls were found after putting themselves out there on CL looking for modeling gigs. They took the first steps.

Add this to their open declarations on camera about what they were about to do in each scene (take the D), and the innocent victim theory of the case will completely unravel.

Hence, I'm not as optimistic that any of the girls have a chance of winning even under the best subjective circumstances. Realistically they probably know this now, after hiring lawyers who gave them a reality check.

You are missing the point.

If I run a coffee business and I sell the rights to my coffee but you are only allowed to sell it in Delaware yet you go and sell it in Maryland, Cleveland, Baltimore etc then you are in blatant breach of contract.

In this case because they probably signed a contract that wasn't in line with the verbal representations then it will probably be argued as misrepresentation. (I'm not familiar with US Law or the terms that they will use)

There are absolutely profits to disgorge. Somewhere earlier it was said that one of the owners was making $60,000 a month. Its hard to figure out how exactly to divvy it up but a simple way would be total profits / # of episodes. The court and experts would have to determine that.

These girls knew they were having sex on camera. That isn't the debate. The debate relates to the distribution, misrepresentations, warranties and likely as to whether the contracts were signed under duress or under the influence.

If this was two 45 year old experienced business owners arguing about a contract then the court would probably not have as much sympathy. The standard and expectation regarding their ability to review a deal is much higher than one involving an 18 year old college student.

One of the cases involving disgorgement involved an Intelligence offer. I believe what he did was sell a book based on intelligence he agreed not to distribute. All profits were disgorged. (This is based on memory as I read the case many years ago) That isn't so different than what happened here.

The average person hasn't seen complex contracts before. I have had clients come in with contracts so complicated that I had to read them a half dozen times to have any clue what was going on. There is 0 chance my client would've understand it in entirety.

So while you assume it was very obvious what the contract said it may have very well been extremely convoluted. The contract probably didnt say in big print on the front page that We will be distributing this video online on GDP website to anyone paying a fee. It more likely read something like you agree to give up all rights to the recording(s) to GDP to use the materials as they deem fit. Again for a business person that triggers alarms. For an 18 year old college student who has a guy telling her what it will be used for it probably doesn't.

Modelling vs sex on camera are entirely different things. GDP reached out to them and proposed a different type of work.

This raises the question as to whether there were misrepresentations / warranties etc.In the end like any many cases there will probably be a settlement complete with an NDA so we will never know what happened.

Post: #43

OJ Simpson was sued for wrongful death (a civil suit in the US; not sure about Canada). The first thing he did was move do FL and declare bankruptcy.* OJ's house was protected under the homestead exemption provisions in FL (100% of the value), as was his $200k a year NFL pension. Fucked up as it was, nothing remained that was reachable for Ron Goldman's family to collect.

Here, we have a contract case involving dumb yet legally competent plaintiffs who expect to collect from a defendant *legal entity.*

That legal entity, from what I gather, declared bankruptcy. It will be up to the court to determine the legitimacy of the legal entity but barring commingling of funds or other basis for piercing the veil of corporate shielding, these guys are probably in the clear in terms of massive monetary judgements, no matter what you and I think about them.

If the contract itself was unconscionable or of the - ahem - "models" - can *prove* duress in signing the contracts, then they may get some headway. Even then they still lose in terms of monetary gain.


*The laws changed at the federal level to prevent what he did there, but the lesson is the same - bankruptcy of a business entity does not mean the plaintiffs can automatically recover from the individuals who created the entity.

Post: #44

(02-13-2019 09:16 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  *The laws changed at the federal level to prevent what he did there, but the lesson is the same - bankruptcy of a business entity does not mean the plaintiffs can automatically recover from the individuals who created the entity.

I actually have experience in that area.

What happens is the corporate funds are moved then bankruptcy is declared. Thats exactly the type of scenario where the veil would likely be pierced. A common way people try to do it is by transferring their house / property to their wife.

You can't just remove all the funds from a business and then declare bankruptcy and skirt free. The veil would then likely be pierced.

If the business is indeed legitimately bankrupt thats a different story all together.

I don't know in the US what types of proof or ways there are to pierce the corporate veil. I suspect fraud would likely be one way though I don't know whether this case will meet the threshold required. (I have no idea the threshold required in the US) I suspect its harder to prove and requires a higher threshold then a misrepresentation case though.

"When they arrived at the hotel, the women say they were given drugs and alcohol.

“We smoked and we drank from the second we got to the [location] until after we stopped shooting,” one of the women told NBC7 Investigates."

Before the video shoot started, the women said they were given a contract to sign with only minutes to review it ahead of time.

“The contract was the size of a good book and they rushed me through it,” said one woman in an interview. “They did not let me look at it for more than five minutes because they kept rushing me, saying, 'We're out of time, we're out of time.'”

First of all given the size and nature of the contract any legitimate party would suggest they get independent legal advice. Secondly this is blatantly going to be contrary to the law.

"The trial was set for March 8, 2018, but on the day the judge issued a tentative ruling finding merit to the claims that the men engaged in “malice, fraud or oppression,” Pratt filed for bankruptcy. The case has since been put on hold. "

Fraud and oppression I suspect both are ways of piercing the corporate veil. (Not a US Lawyer though so can't say with certainty)

Post: #45

(02-13-2019 09:51 PM)lavidaloca Wrote:  

(02-13-2019 09:16 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  *The laws changed at the federal level to prevent what he did there, but the lesson is the same - bankruptcy of a business entity does not mean the plaintiffs can automatically recover from the individuals who created the entity.

I actually have experience in that area.

What happens is the corporate funds are moved then bankruptcy is declared. Thats exactly the type of scenario where the veil would likely be pierced. A common way people try to do it is by transferring their house / property to their wife.

You can't just remove all the funds from a business and then declare bankruptcy and skirt free. The veil would then likely be pierced.

If the business is indeed legitimately bankrupt thats a different story all together.

I don't know in the US what types of proof or ways there are to pierce the corporate veil. I suspect fraud would likely be one way though I don't know whether this case will meet the threshold required. (I have no idea the threshold required in the US) I suspect its harder to prove and requires a higher threshold then a misrepresentation case though.

What if all their assets are offshore, out of the reach of US jurisdiction? Something like a Cook Islands Trust?

Post: #46

(02-12-2019 07:05 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  Yeah, well, if they lose it won't be because the judge feels sympathy. This isn't a sexual assault case, it's a contract case. Nobody is going to jail and even monetary awards are doubtful since the company is declaring bankruptcy. Since the bulk of the case is about what shortcomings in pay (peanuts) and punitive damages (most of the monetary claim), this thing is dead before it even starts, in terms of remedies.

You forget that Cali-pornia is the same place that produces the industry itself. They supposedly sympathetic courts and legislators don't even legally require STD testing of, the uh... "actors" (prostitutes). Barring adequate, admissible evidence of unconscionable conduct on the part of the defendants, it's going nowhere.

As far as sympathy goes I don't think thats a slam dunk for the defense like you say it is. I understand it's produced in California but that doesn't indicate how a judge in the county of San Diego is going to handle this case.

The defendants in this case are as follows;


GIRLSDOPORN.COM, a business organization
MICHAEL J. PRATT, an individual
ANDRE GARCIA, an individual
MATTHEW WOLFE, an individual
BLL MEDIA, INC., a California corporation
BLL MEDIA HOLDINGS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company
DOMI PUBLICATIONS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company
EG PUBLICATIONS, INC., a California corporation
M1M MEDIA, LLC, a California limited liability company
BUBBLEGUM FILMS, INC., a business organization
OH WELL MEDIA LIMITED, a business organization
MERRO MEDIA, INC., a California corporation
MERRO MEDIA HOLDINGS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company;

Post: #47

True enough, it is not a slam dunk - nothing is. But I see just three individuals. The rest, entities since declared bankrupt.

What are the chances those three guys are going to be able to pay $500k to each one of these broads, as I recall is sought in the complaint?


As for moving the assets, that is a question that will come up during bankruptcy. If they did move assets in anticipation of bankruptcy, that would be a fraudulent transfer and the assets would be reachable.

Realistically, if they moved it to the Cook Islands and then to somewhere else, good luck. Not legal but we are talking about scumbags here. But this is all speculation - how much of that money was already blown on bottle service and blow by now?

Post: #48

(02-13-2019 03:39 PM)lavidaloca Wrote:  So while you assume it was very obvious what the contract said it may have very well been extremely convoluted. The contract probably didnt say in big print on the front page that We will be distributing this video online on GDP website to anyone paying a fee. It more likely read something like you agree to give up all rights to the recording(s) to GDP to use the materials as they deem fit. Again for a business person that triggers alarms. For an 18 year old college student who has a guy telling her what it will be used for it probably doesn't.

As far as I can tell they didn't sign a contract to appear on girlsdoporn but they signed a large contract that had language in it for the pornographic videos to be used in any manner the producer wished to use them.

From what I can tell from the case the guys from girlsdoporn do not have any evidence what so ever that the girls knew this was for that website. The plaintiffs have evidence showing misrepresentation occurred such as reference girls being paid money to give false referrals to the women https://drive.google.com/file/d/15N-RymJ...NOuGB/view

The got text messages from the reference girls paid by and instructed by the girlsdoporn staff. https://media.nbcsandiego.com/images/987...Text+4.png https://media.nbcsandiego.com/images/987...Text+5.png

Post: #49

A judgement in fraud doesn't expire on bankruptcy typically. So lets say these guys go work an office job and get paid 60k a year then it seems reasonable their wages could be garnished. Again I don't know the US law specifics or how the case was pleaded.

Overseas trusts and enforcing out of country judgements is a matter in itself.

Judgements are often difficult to collect. The overseas hidden trusts and things like those are blown way out of proportion. While its possible they did this frankly it's unlikely. The panama papers are what blew this out of proportion. It's rare. I've never met anyone who did that in my time in the law.

I have no respect for outright dishonesty which it appears these guys demonstrated. It would appear that in order to make a quick buck they knowingly prayed on and manipulated young girls based on the evidence provided. Read the article as to all the stuff that was done. Highly improbable the judge will have sympathy for them.

A judgement of 500k per plaintiff is obviously likely going to not be collected on unless this business was making a very very significant amount of money which is possible given that the one owner was taking $60,000 a month as salary.

Post: #50

Judgements are indeed difficult to collect, which would make any victory by the plaintiffs a Pyrrhic one. It took me almost two decades to collect on one, and even then it had a lot to do with chance occurrences.

Garnishing wages is possible, sure, but you know as well as I do that no competent lawyer is going to want to wait around for his money while these three stooges schlep away at (less than) $60k a year for the next however many years.

As mentioned before, while the guys behind this are sleaze bags, I do not for one second take the word of the women involved at face value. She said? Oh wow, ok, must be true.