Friday,
March 9th, 2001
A Nation Mourns - Taylor St. Claire Officially Not Available
Kelly writes: Hi Luke, Remember me. I run the fansite for Taylor St. Claire at www.taylorstclair.homestead.com. Well, last week on your site we had a minor debate over whether or not Taylor worked for nicisgirls.com or/and adultstarfantasy.com. I said she didn't and that she only did bachelor parties a couple of time through allure. Several people responded to the contrary. Well, here are Taylor's official words on the topic:
"I worked for nici's girls once for a two hour job. I worked for adult star fantasy a couple times. I do not work for any agency. I asked both sites to take my pic's down. I have done several bacheoor parties throught allure."
What's Up With Porn Kings?
I hear PornKings is up for sale. Owner Ian Eisenberg answers "Nope."
It's a widely used webmaster affiliate program.
Owner Ian K. Eisenberg was busted by the FTC a few months ago. Now he's telling webmasters in his affiliate program that he will pull payments to webmasters on joins that cancel or chargeback within 30 days of signing up.
Porn Kings aka Eroticcash sent out this email to their webmasters: Dear Eroticcash webmasters: Unfortunately due to the High volume of charge backs and the ever-changing adult industry we are forced to pull cancels and charge backs within a 30-day period from the day the members join in the Eroticcash stats and payouts. It was a very difficult decision for us to make, but do to the High volume of fraud taking place with the processing; we were forced to make this change. In order for Pornkings, and its programs to survive, profit and grow in these difficult times we needed to make changes. These changes should not have a great effect on the conversions and or joins if the traffic is good and no fraud is committed. The stats will show raw hits, unique hits, joins, exit joins, cancels, payables and conversion %.
Attorney Charles Carreon Sues Sex.com Owner Gary Kremen
From Wired.com: In a suit filed in the very same court where the trial was taking place, Carreon charged Kremen with breaching his contract. Carreon is seeking a court decree giving him a 15 percent stake in the profits from the operation of sex.com.
Carreon claims that Kremen agreed in July of 1999 to give him a 15 percent stake in sex.com in exchange for representing him at a reduced rate in a lawsuit seeking to get the domain returned to him. The lawsuit was successful, and in late November Kremen got the domain registered in his name. But now Carreon is claiming that Kremen didn't follow through with his agreement to pay him 15 percent of the proceeds from the site, which rakes in more than $400,000 a month in banner advertising revenue. He claims that Kremen paid him for only two months, then stopped doing so following an argument.
Carreon said he wanted to immediately remove many of the most explicit pornographic images on the site out of legal concerns, including the fact that the site was too easily accessible by minors to make it an appropriate venue for such material. He claims that Kremen did not go along with his plan.
These excerpts from the Wired.com article:
This makes for tight competition among adult sites. Yet large online porn businesses rely on ma-and-pa operations to feed traffic to their sites through a web of banner ads and affiliation programs, creating something of a Catch-22.
"Thousands of teeny tributaries are sending all this traffic to large rivers, which are the large sites. They provide huge affiliate programs," said Tom Hymes, who covers the online industry for the adult trade publication Adult Video News. "One of the problems of this business model is that it seems to me like an inverse pyramid. They're paying out more in the affiliate programs for traffic than they make in one membership."
Nevertheless, he adds, in the endless quest for traffic, they constantly need fresh sites from which to drive traffic to their paid site -- which begs the question, with so much free content out there, why pay?
Private Investigator On The Trail Of Cheating Sponsors
I've discovered a site, Sponsorpost.com, which has hired private investigator K.J. Word to track cheating webmaster programs.
On March 1st, the site's host was hit by a DOS (Denial Of Service) attack from Lensman's AmateurPages.com, a well known internet pornographer. Read more here. As well as a case against Dean Shannon's Intergal.
Meanwhile, Jeff Miller writes on Netpond: I don't give a s--- what you or other webmasters smoke. Do I come on here and give you s--- because you are a pole smoker? Hell no. What I do have a problem with is webmasters, and "industry leaders (hahahahahah)", posting pictures of themsleves doing drugs during a time when this industry is under the most intense scrutinity in its history.
Earnings Of A Porn Star
Heather Barron writes Luke: I think you should publish some statistics on exactly how much porn stars earn in any given year. I've always been curious. I'd like to see a breakdown of income from: Videos Web Site Memberships Hard Goods for Sale (ie: /T-Shirts/Autographs) Club Dancing (I'm sure some girls also do Private gigs) Magazine Gigs/Still Photography Escorting (I'm sure many do it but might not admit to it)
The porn stars that interest me are Jenna (since she is one of the biggest), Asia (since she does her own site and is self marketing but also works for others) and Kristy Myst (since her work involved the Extreme Wrestling gigs and she does a lot of magazine work...where is Kristy now a days?...she is one of my favorites!) Any research on these stats would be appreciated.
Are any porn stars willing to divulge what they have made historically and in which of the above niches they have achieved the majority of that income. As we know a girl that does a few video spots for $500-$1000 must maintain a regular job or have a rich sugardaddy. What do PT porn girls do to pay the bills?
Fred writes: L-- Regarding Ms. Barron's query, I doubt it would be terribly easy to compile accurate data on what porn girls make. What do you suppose the answers to these questions are:
a) What percentage of porn girls know their annual income?
b) What percentage of porn girls would tell you the truth about their monthly income?
c) What percentage of porn girls have a portion of their income that is not derived from legal activities?
d) What percentage of porn girls report income from illegal activities?
I think some data cannot be obtained reliably. BTW, I'm not trying to be derogatory. I have no doubt that some porn girls have a pretty good business head on their shoulders. I bet Asia tracks this data to the penny. I bet Nina Hartley tracks this data (although perhaps not to the penny--maybe to the dollar). I bet they are the exception.
Lynne writes: Gee, Heather, are you really a secret agent for the Internal Revenue Service?
Flashman's Attitude Is Unbelievable
LT writes: Luke, Flashman's attitude is unbelievable!. He mentions that Cumisha Amado is in the hospital because "of complications from liposuction" then turns right around and brags about how tiny her waist is!. Unfreakinbelievable!
I'm surprised he didn't mention how great and hot her (fake) tits are while she's still in the hospital. Complications from lipo are quite common and often very serious. There are more deaths from complications of liposuction than any other cosmetic procedure. The biggest problem in this industry is some folks constant praising of the women who get cosmetic surgery ("you look great"). It causes problems for them and creates more and more of the surgeries, for them and others. It's obvious Flashman falls into that.
What's he gonna do, go visit her in the hospital and tell her "Baby, your tits look great and damn!...look at that waist!".
Looking For 13-And-A-Half, Found Five-And-A-Half
Dave writes: Hey Ford, so you asked me about where I am from/what I do & how I found out about your site. I will tell of how I found your site.
Not so long ago the Weekend Australian ran a piece about the amazing times of John Holmes - Mr 13-and-a-half inches. The funniest part was the reminiscence of the talent agent who discovered him. You would know the name. He described it being late in the afternoon and his tiredness after a long shoot. Some scrawny ugly john schlepps up, and he's ushered behind a screen for a model shot just to shoo him away. "There he was with his pants down", it related "and I remember just being there with that camera in my hand, looking at it and saying to myself 'My God, this guys a star'." The most soaring moment in all the history of X, but never captured (?or relived?) on film!
I'd known about the bankrobber John Dillinger having an 11 inch trouser snake verified at autopsy. History relates as well that Rasputin had a foot long schlong. But even after ten years of tertiary study, how could the outstanding aspect of M.Holmes have remained beneath my radar screen? Thirteen-and-a-half inches is, to my mind, apt for World Heritage Listing and no less an item of cultural heritage than should be considered part of the Patrimony of All Mankind. All schoolchildren should learn about these things just like they learn about the Discovery of the New World, the Great Wall of China, and the capital of France.
Fired with curiousity and a righteous spirit, I next availed the resources of the worldwide web. In summary, I can you assure that the combination of the words "world's", "greatest" and "prick" do indeed lead to Luke F-rd (among other things). Alas it seems that at least four of the 13&1/2 inches were just good ol' hucksterism anyway, but the inquiry has enriched me and I feel that I have found something valuable and pure - a potential platform for moral elevation amidst the jaded and cynical demimonde that is X .
Regarding the rest of your queries, certainly you will know as much about me as you really want to in time. For now know only this: 'I am the Lorax. I speak for the trees.'
In Cricket, Mabo Coombs
ps. Thanks for you're earleir complemends about my speling and gramer. They're meaningful because I think you're a writer of more than ephemereal significance yourself. It seems my themes were unconvincing, though, and no-one picked up on any of the threads.
Lynne writes: Reaching back into the dim mists of time, to January, 1979 when I had sex with John, I am visualizing his dick...as being about eleven inches, maybe eleven-and-a-half... When I was given the assignment to interview him, my boss specifically asked me to try and obtain that measurement myself. And we wonder why I liked the porn biz? Any other readers with first-hand knowledge?
When Luke's Las Vegas sweetie Logan decided to not do a scene for Kid Vegas this coming week, he reacted typically.
Earlier today, I warned Logan that Kid Vegas may not be the right type of pornographer for her.
Thursday evening, I went to synagogue to celebrate the Jewish holiday of Purim by listening to the reading of the Megillah (scroll of Esther). When I came home, I had this message from Logan:
"Do you remember I talked to you earlier about Kid Vegas... Was he credible? And he had offered me a scene and I turned him down because I was really busy. And he's threatening me. It's really weird. I've saved the emails. The guy is nuts. He says he will ruin my career and I will be back turning tricks in Vegas."
Logan emails Luke: "You were right about this nobody kid vegas! Heard from many people. All i did as a courtesy to him,(more than he deserves) was tell him that i will not be able to shoot with him next tuesday. More than enogh time. well read the next emails from this person! He threatens me and shows what a real man he is!"
KidVegas123@aol.com writes Logan: "Are you not shooting this Sunday late night after we already booked ? I hope you are not flaking already."
Logan replies: "Flaking has nothing to do with it! The film I'll be involved with doing prior to you will be running into the next day! I am filled up the rest of the week with prior engagements. I'm not going to screw anyone over. You came at me with a offer. I told you i had prior jobs booked. The company I'm working for told me they will need another day. Now, after the way you talked to me, when i was being fair with you canceling ahead of time, I'll never shoot with you. Logan." Peace"."
Kid Vegas replies: "good cuzz I don't need a fat pig like you anyway, loose some weight, you just lost any possibility of shooting for a big company like Legend. You were only going to be in my pig mud farm anyway. Read gene's site, it would explain your tasks stupid....I am going to wreck any chances you will have working in this industry, you nobody.... You better ask around who you just talked s--- too, & flaked on, you will not get alot of work & will be back to turning tricks in Vegas soon, I look forward to wrecking you on all the adult sites, hooker ! Peace out whore!"
Logan replies: "What is you're problem? I never said no to shooting with you in first place! before you gave me a offer, i had prior commitments! The company I'm shooting for before our original day called me telling me it will run over into the next! I felt my email to you ahead of time was sufficient enough. I 'm sorry you feel that way about me now. Good luck to you. Please do not threaten me!
"What is you're issue man? i just wanted to let you now ahead of time i'd still be busy. ever hear of changing the date? You really hurt me lots!I'll have a hard time getting over it. Right? Peace, Logan."
Logan writes Luke: "My last response to this asshole loser ever! You are right Luke, there are bad and good people in this industry! That's like everywhere though. Kid Vegas who?
"Luke, from now on, please do not post my mail to ya. it is not you at all, I just want to stick with the winning companies from now on. I get losers like kid Vegas dude contacting me. I have winners lined up to shoot with. I am so glad I turned his offer down. I knew nothing about him. I know I'm new but this is how I'll learn. I got back to him and politely told him no to offer, I will not be able to shoot. then you read the bull s--- jealousy remarks that followed. From what I hear, he can't make a good film, let alone screw someone's career up! Post this last one."
Brian Kushner writes: "As I've said a million times before Kid Vegas is a piece of f---ing s---. He sounds like a little baby. I've never seen Logan but she was good enough for his film but when she can't do it she's a fat pig. That's how a 5th grader acts when a chick blows him off. I also love his you'll never work in this town again s---. Man, does he think he has that type of power? He's on the bottom of the f---ing scale of slime in the industry. f--- em'!"
Is the questioning of my buddy Rob Spallone connected to the following story?
Spallone was taken away by the FBI on Wednesday from James DiGiorgio's office and presumably flown to New York.
NEW YORK (AP) -- Federal authorities on Thursday charged 20 people with bilking investors out of $50 million in a stock fraud scheme hatched by mob-infiltrated brokerage firms in Manhattan and elsewhere.
Two defendants, Hunter Adams and Michael Reiter, were identified as associates in the Gambino organized crime family. An indictment accused them of funneling illicit profits to their mob bosses from First United Equities Corp., a now-defunct brokerage that had offices in Manhattan, Garden City, N.Y., and Woodbridge, N.J.
Juicy Documents In FTC's Bust Of Net Porner Kenneth Taves
RobbEvans.com, the same receiver overlooking RJB Telcom, has a page linking to a series of juicy documents about Kenneth H. Taves, the Malibu man convicted by the FTC on August 30, 2000 of running a big credit card scam. Click here.
AOL Sues CEN Exhibits (both in PDF files)
Frank Observer says: How come the complaints to spam ratio throughout the AOL vs CEN lawsuit is consistently .2%. How come, no matter how many spam email are sent, and no matter who sends them and what is sent in the spam, the complaint to spam ratio stays steady?
Mr Marcus Discusses Vivid
In late January, we discussed the so-called Cambria List - a list of acts and boxcovers that triggered obscenity prosecutions over the past 15 years. One thing that seemed to trigger a disproportionate number of obscenity prosecutions was interracial scenes depicted on the boxcover.
Vivid Video and VCA have decided to largely proscribe the types of acts that have triggered obscenity prosecutions. A widely circulated memo to Vivid Video editors ordered them to avoid interracial scenes, at least on boxcovers.
Mr Marcus told me Thursday afternoon: "I've got more control over the situation then I let on... I sat down with Steve [Hirsch]. I've been told by people within the industry to file a lawsuit against them but I don't know if people want to see them go through that... Is it worth it? I would look bad doing a lawsuit. I think I can change things a different way without embarassing anybody... Just by statements and interviews.
"One of the big things is that Stevie should publicly admit that it was a mistake. That it was stupid. Because he said that to me. He said it was a mistake. He said that he shouldn't have said that.
"You can't honestly look at their history and say that they are a racist company. I came in as a force and I was big part of their success. And I am black. So I'm thinking, how could I say something about a company that has allowed me to prosper?
"The problem has died down but it hasn't been taken care of. It hasn't been handled correctly. Things need to be different. Vivid needs a lot of black performers to come through there and perform and produce. They need to open up that door wider."
JRob writes: Is it the purpose of adult film producers to be the agents of social change, or is it their purpose to make money? It is debatable whether video tapes with black performers, or interracial scenes, sell more poorly than those without. I have no evidence one way or the other. However, if it were true (and I reiterate that I do not know one way or the other) that such tapes do, in fact, sell more poorly, do companies like Vivid or VCA have a responsibility to buck an economic reality to their financial detriment just to make a moral point? Or do they, as companies trying to make a profit, have a responsibility to follow where the market leads to their financial benefit?
Lynne writes: Black tapes do not sell more poorly than white tapes -- they sell differently, with interracial material forming yet another category. There are fewer black choices, so individual videocassettes may sell better than any given white videocassette. Interracial has less of a audience than all black: it's neither fish nor fowl. It tends to be considered prosecutable in some of the more sensitive markets., and no one specifically asks for it in the marketplace. Companies which specialize in black tapes move more than a company which just happens to have one or two in its merchandise mix. Urban areas with more blacks buy more black tapes. On the other hand, there are more whites in general, thus more potential white viewers for cable, and so white movies are more profitable for cable companies. In Europe, there's not a big demand for the rights to black tapes. Companies like Vivid or VCA may not have the soul, if you will, to produce and market black tapes any more than they do tickling fetish tapes. Honestly, people, I have seen less racism in the porn business than in almost any other facet of my life -- Jews aren't known for being racist and pornographers are equal opportunity exploiters -- although AVN prefers the "ho, pimp" school of black genre video (see their reviews) and some of the manufacturers are convinced that's what's selling their tapes, not the built-in scarcity factor.
Revenge Of The Gay Australian Porn Mafia
Chad Prater writes: Luke - pull your head out of your ass and start checking facts! I use ARS [AdultRevenueService.com] and when I read your report that they were deducting for chargebacks I went and read their Terms of Use available at http://www.adultrevenueservice.com/tos.php? I only found 2 instances where chargebacks were mentioned:
(c) 65/35 Program: We will pay you 65% of all initial and recurring sign-ups coming from your Links. The 65% is calculated net of chargebacks, refunds and processing fees. (4) $0.10 Dialer Download: You will receive ten cents ($0.10) for each Dialer download referred by you. There is no requirement that the Dialer be used, merely that it be downloaded. Once download of the Dialer program to an end-user computer is confirmed, you receive $0.10. The Commission Rate is subject to change from time to time, upon e-mail notice to you and commencing the 30-days following such notice. Net Income in a given monthly reporting period may be reduced for credit card chargebacks or credit backs resulting from prior months' activities.
Neither of these two program options are available yet so I doubt that anyone is getting screwed. Don't know why they have them listed if they are not active, but since they are not active I don't see why it should matter if they change the terms for them. I also doubt that the dialer program mentioned above would be used since I'm sure that Marc is aware of the s--- that RJB went though. I do a large amount of signups with ARS and have not seen any deductions come out of my account. Maybe you should start checking on facts when it is something that you did not discover yourself. Do you actually print anything that someone sends you? If so then I heard that JoeE, RB, and Fantasyman got together recently for a big orgy and decided to all turn gay and sell off all their straight sites. Got the info from someone who would only identify themselves as "XXX". Ooohhh.. mysterious! Good job Sherlock Ford! Call the Pulitzer committee and tell them this years prizewinner has been found!
Luke says: Chad, I amaze myself at times with how inept I am.
Shady Sponsors?
Rulez writes: Luke, Have you paid attention to how many sponsors are changing their terms and conditions? More and more programs are moving to the active signup. This means that the webmaster doesn't get paid unless the surfer converts from the trial to full membership.
Some sponsors are now extending that even further by secretly changing their terms and conditions to state a surfer must be a member for up to 10 days before the webmaster gets paid! Unless the webmaster goes back and reads the terms and conditions again then they are unaware of this!
Adult Revenue Service (ARS) recently changed their rules without informing webmasters so they are now deducting chargebacks from sales! They haven't told anyone this of course.
This follows their tradition of sleazy tactics. ARS is the first per-signup sponsor to charge webmasters for chargebacks. I hear they will soon be implementing the active member rule also. Webmasters have to beware, there are fewer and fewer sponsors who are paying for trial memberships anymore.
ARS's Director of Webmaster Support Laura Marks writes on the ARS board: To those of you asking about the TOS. We have not made any changes in the TOS. We have never charged our webmasters anything and at this time we are not planning on it. You receive your payment on trials or monthly subcription whether they are refunded or not we do not charge that money to you. As far as the partnership program we do not have a tenative release date on that at this time. We have not totally worked out how that will work and until we are able to then we do not want to give you information that could possibly be changed later. When we are ready to release the partnership program we will post the details and let you know via the news section of your stats page. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of any assistance to you.
Rob Spallone In New York?
No word yet from Rob Spallone, who was taken away by the FBI Wednesday morning. I suspect they've taken him to New York for questioning.
Vegas Lee On Luke F-rd Live?
Net porner Vegas Lee writes: Luke, I do not even like you, why would I want to be on your show. You are very irresponsible in your so called "reporting". You feel that you can publish anything you want and just go "sorry" later. You do not check for FACTS and you have publically stated many times that you hate our industry yet you run porn banners on your site. I would like to see you not have any contact in our industry at all since you have proven to be of no use to it. I have not seen that you have a positive effect on anything dealing with our industry and I do not understand why you keep trying to do things in this industry when you seem to have such a great hatered for it. You say one thing and do another and your so called reporting leaves alot to be desired. No thank you Luke, I have no use for you or your show. Lee Yarbrough aka VegasLee.
AlienX@SinCityFilms.com writes: Hey Luke I suppose Vegas Lee got some hatred... Well none the less, whether some like it, or some do not. This is a fact. You are an Adult Webmaster. Who's Vegas Lee again? Ehh perhap the being is just afraid to speak with ya he got alot of buddies on the other side of the fence, might tarnish his "Rep"....
Other notes: RJBT Should be left alone I personally think some just want to see his business get torched some but I am beginning to think that his operation is a real deal. They do hold Honesty and are treating there customers just fine. There sites are good, as I actually ran through them last night. The FTC thing is old meat anyways, and yes as he told you there are better stories out there:) If you want some hints just ask:)
Ya might want to have fun with the former Sex.com owner. Maybe look into the backers of New.net, and the .xxx domain syndrome. And I believe that Censorship issues are going to be comming up pretty shortly at least by the end of this year. The AOL VS CEN thing is going to be important. And seriously people CEN need's to win this case defending themselves from AOL. It has the possibility to set a precedent that potentially has the ability to affect webmaster sponsorship program's.
Luke Gets Mail
Joe Elkind from CEN writes: Luke, You have to talk to our in house legal... Steve Workman. On another note, I think it would be beneficial to understand that RJB WAS defrauded by webmasters. Every company has this problem.... Thanks to VISA!
Mark Wood writes: Luke Man: Check this out and watch the demo video, this will take the adult Internet the the next level. Now anyone can be Vivid or Wicked. AVN will be doing an upcoming feature in their tech issue/section. Here is the early scoop for you. Take the high road Bro! RDSOnline.com.
Luke Gets It Wrong Again
Esad2001 writes: dear luke, a few days ago you reported that AVN Emperor Paul Fishbein and his favorite porno asshole buddy were attending Eddie W's annual porno weekend retreat. You are wrong on both counts, Fishbein was busy sking taking his annual ski trip to Coloroda, and Hirsch was busy at home counting his receivables! From what I hear watching Fishbein ski is quite a treat as he was never known for his coordination or sense of balance! It is a scary thought that one bad spill from Fishbein could alter the world of adult entertainment for the next 50 years! I think the adult industry as a whole should consider purchasing insurance on Fishbein if he continues to ski?
Joe Porner writes: Luke, you are an imbecile. How can you honestly report that Hirsch and Paul were in Denver when neither went? Who can take you seriously? You have no concern about facts. And Esad got it wrong. Paul was skiing, but not in Colorado. But I'm sure you'll print it anyway, as if.
Is Luke Involved With Marci Hirsch?
Billy writes on BigDoggie.net: Only one agency is able to work with Luke F-rd... NicisGirls. You don't know some links . . . Nici (Nici's Girls) & Steven Hirsch ( Vivid Video Corp) The sister of Steven Hirsch (Vivid Board) & Luke F-rd. Go to Woodland Hills I agree , the L F meetings are very very PLATONIC but ... It's perhaps a good choice to be a Vallet . It's so difficult to become a Husband .
Nici@Nicisgirls.com writes on BigDoggie.net: Billy, what does my relationship with Luke F-rd have to do with anything? Seth already CLEARLY stated in his last post on the topic that it is NOT me know ratted him out. I was hoping that Luke would tell me who it was because if it is one of the girls I think that us agencies have a right to know. I would not want someone like that under my employ. As far as Luke, after everything I have been through with him I have decided to live by the old saying and keep my enemies close. P.S. The $5,000 for the Millionaires Club is applied towards the first introduction from the XXXclusives portfolio.
Pornfan writes on BigDoggie.net: I've used Nicisgirls in the past, and she came through with girls I wanted to see. But her current minimums of 2 HR appointments for $3K are too much. These girls seem to be available independently for much much less. Example, Aja, who is listed on LA-EXOTICS as Barby, for less than $500 as indicated by LAREVIEWER. Book thru Nici, and pay $3000. Nici, come in line with the other agencies, and book 1 hour appointments for more reasonable rates (i.e. $1000/hr max).
Nici@Nicisgirls.com writes on BigDoggie.net: Seth, You obviously spend a lot of time on TBD, Luke F-rd, and the Internet in general, not to mention the amount of e-mailing that you must do. Did you ever do any of your surfing at work? on the company computer? Did you by any chance bookmark any of the websites that you frequent? I obviously don't work for a big computer company but you would think that [company name edited] would have extremely sophisticated filtering software to target employees who are not working while on payroll. Even if they don't it is still possible that a nosey co-worker went snooping through your computer after noticing how much time you spend Online. Just a thought.
I was not trying to put Seth on trial. It just does not make sense to me that any agency would give out a clients information, and to Luke F-rd of all people! It's a horrible thing that happened to Seth but what purpose would it serve an agency to give up their clients information? I was just trying to add some rational to the sub*ect (I had to put a * in place of the "j" because you can not put a b and j next to eachother on TBD - what's up?). It would not be the first time that an employer caught an employee surfing adult websites while on the payroll. Still it is possible that it was an agency or provider, whoever it was period should be ashamed of themselves. I would think that Seth could have a lawsuit against his employer. What business is it of theirs what he does outside of work? He never publicly posted who he worked for.
Working Through Degradation
Lynne writes Luke: I've been thinking a lot about degradation lately...this is because you brought it up in the context of me doing porn, that it was "degrading to me and those around me," and that therefore I shouldn't do it. I was wondering, then, how you consider what you do (whatever the hell it is that you do)? Do you feel that what you do is degrading to yourself and others? Spreading news/gossip/truth about "chopsticks up the ass" or whatever? Do you consider your postings as to how degrading they might be? Specifically...I am starting to work through the aftermath of the emotional destruction Helpful wrought by his capricious actions.
Which brings us around to degradation once more. I find it far less degrading to earn a a living as a sex worker, surrounded by fellow sex workers who play by the rules, than I do having Helpful deliberately humiliate me on lf. It isn't funny -- it hurts. I'm getting really old, really fast, and it's scary...but it isn't something to be cruel about any more than women should joke about your physique or penis or whatever. It happens to all of us eventually.
And my question to you -- how do you feel about being a conduit to degradation? We're not even talking "in the context of a story," we're talking deliberate, evil "joking" designed to hurt. Sure, I can say that the enlightened will look at the person who has the need to act out in such a juvenile fashion, and see that they are only degrading themselves by their behavior, but if you weren't condoning this behavior and providing an outlet , it wouldn't be happening.
For some reason, Helpful has always wanted me to feel bad. I never did anything to him. I tried to address the situation by making an effort to show him that I am a real person, and a nice one, actually, who cares about her friends and little animals and has a tough enough life as it is. But for some reason he sees fit to hide behind pseudonyms and be deliberately cruel, because, with your enabling, he can.
Are we fighting over your affection, Luke? Is he taking extra special care to humiliate me through you because I am attached to you, and that makes it a double whammy? Because it hurts that he does it and it hurts that you let him do it.... Reality is that people do want to hurt others, but reality is also that most of us do not condone it, and do not facilitate it. You do. You degrade yourself and others. You told me that I shouldn't do that, because it was ethically wrong. You told me that, even if I didn't have the self-esteem to not degrade myself, I should be ethical and not degrade others. You should play by different rules?
"XXX slept with YYY" is gossip. "XXX is a stupid bitch" is a malicious opinion. And in Helpful's case, surely he's made his point by now -- he doesn't find me attractive. But you guys think its funny to promulgate his malicious opinions. There are plenty of people I don't find attractive, but I don't need to spend my time planning campaigns to hurt them in public by posting my opinions on lf. Can we stop with his gratuitous slurs? And maybe learn a lesson? Otherwise, how do I make it stop? Contact his employers? Sue somebody?
Tomorrow is Therapy Day, and if you will think back to how you felt when your therapist was late...it made you feel insecure. Is she taking my therapy seriously? Is she avoiding me? You expressed your displeasure to her. You felt that was important. She did NOT (I hope!) tell you that you were "overreacting," but addressed your concern in a way that made you feel more secure in the relationship.
Now I am doing something similar with you -- telling you honestly how your actions make me feel. If it so much more valuable that you provide Helpful with an outlet for his cruelty than that you avoid causing me pain and degradation, and you can ethically justify that, I would have to live with it, I suppose. If you learn from this....the pain it has caused me will at least have gone to some good purpose. Otherwise, I shall just make sure to share with you, whenever the occasion arises, the soul-wrenching detritus of being wounded just because someone takes pleasure in it. Eventually you will know how it feels...and things being what they are, eventually you, too, will be subjected to similar pain...so why not improve your karma and tell him to knock it off?
Luke says: Helpful, knock it off.
A Conversation With Nici@NicisGirls.com
NicisGirls: Luke, an agressive young go-getter definitely, but a temper?
Never! I'm the sweetest thing since sugar!
NicisGirls: Why does everyone think I have a temper?
NicisGirls: The only person I have flashed my temper at is Stacey.
NicisGirls: Hello Luke? Are you there?
NicisGirls: That really sucks about Seth though. The man has got to
pay the bills. You will need to do a few extra mitzvahs this week.
NicisGirls: Good thing Passover is just around the corner.
NicisGirls: it's like talking to a wall
Luzdedos1: just got home
NicisGirls: tell me who it was, the suspense is killing me
NicisGirls: that told on seth
Luzdedos1: he screwed up himself, he gave out too much information about
himself on the boards.
Luzdedos1: bigdoggie guys are small time players, theres not much money
to be earned from them, it is Nicis Millionaires Club where she really
makes the killing
NicisGirls: so it was not an agency?
Luzdedos1: No agency dobbed him in
Luzdedos1: i have sources now with every major porn star escort service
NicisGirls: there is only one NicisGirls: major that is
Luzdedos1: you?
NicisGirls: what do you think?
NicisGirls: that's bs about the vip thing, but whatever
Luzdedos1: what's bs, isn't that where the money is?
NicisGirls: not that, i've seen the others, they have 10-20, i have
over 100
NicisGirls: mostly playmates/pets though
NicisGirls: the porn biz could care less about them
Luzdedos1: do you have girls that are basically exclusive to you?
NicisGirls: of course Luke
NicisGirls: but i'm sure we all do
Luzdedos1: why would they limit themselves?
NicisGirls: honestly, those girls (the non-porn stars), most of them
are not on the Net, they probably don't know about the others (remember
that i am in LA, it's a lot easier to meet girls like that here) and
even if they did knpw about the others they are too paranoid, and they
trust me
NicisGirls: looking forward to purim too. taking my xxx to synagogue
Luzdedos1: good for you, it is fun!
NicisGirls: what are you doing for passover?
NicisGirls: you need to find a nice jewish girl and settle down luke
NicisGirls: i need your article by 4/1
NicisGirls: it's called (edited) cute huh?
Luzdedos1: nobody told his employer, i think he just dug his own grave
NicisGirls: if one of MY girls is that vindictive i would not want to
work with her
NicisGirls: he said there is an investigation and he knows who it is
NicisGirls: i'll e-mail you later. i have to do some work for nici's
world - trying to launch 4/1
NicisGirls: you going to give me promo?
NicisGirls: your the best. i think you're fond of me ; }
Luzdedos1: i'm putty in your hand
NicisGirls: hahaha
Luzdedos1: i am actually, i have these fantasies about you
NicisGirls: really? tell me...
Luzdedos1: my rabbi would not approve
Luzdedos1: well, i have this fantasy that you are the embodiment of
female brains and drive and sexuality...
NicisGirls: that is not a fantasy luke, it's reality!
Luzdedos1: i know that's a big load to dump on you, but i feel like
some schlepper schlump toiling away in a garage and you are big time
Luzdedos1: but at least i can write the stories
NicisGirls: i think that you are very unhappy with what you do
NicisGirls: and i think you have a talent and you can do better
Luzdedos1: i hear you are quite cute
NicisGirls: you should go where the bucks are, celeb gossip, become
big
NicisGirls: says who?
NicisGirls: i am.
NicisGirls: people always tell me i am cute but i have only met 4 porn
stars in person
NicisGirls: and i have never met a client
Luzdedos1: I will woo you to the headquarters of LF.com one day and
you will be mine
NicisGirls: oh, and two photographers NicisGirls: and one video company
owner
NicisGirls: so it has to be one of them
Luzdedos1: paul fishbein?
NicisGirls: oh, and i am personal friends with one male star but he
does not talk about "nici"
NicisGirls: no! never met paul
NicisGirls: he does not own a video company anyway
BrandyAlx1: Every time I post something about my not escorting I get
people asking me to escort. What is that? Are they looking for a non-hooker
who will hook to make themselves feel better about buying one? I mean,
if I wasn't hooker until they paid me, then they really didn't pay a
hooker. I just don't get it.
BrandyAlx1: BTW, never heard from Stacey again to take me up the challenge
of setting up a "date" for some guy to pay a few thousand for an evening
without the expectation of sex. Tell you what, though. I'll start hooking
just as soon as an I find an agency that screens all of their clients
and takes full responsibility, meaning they cover all medical and/or
legal bills should they f--- up. I guarantee it won't happen. They want
the money without the risk. They can bite me.
RB On SoundingPoint
KamaSoupa: Luke, get the transcript for tonight's show with RB. Wow!
They hate you. I was viciously attacked for defending you. KimmyKim,
Melody, RB, Ted.....the entire room wanted to kill me.
KamaSoupa: I was using the name, Shelby, and someone in the room said
that was your cat's name. They thought I was you. You really have taken
on the entire industry. I have more respect for you than ever before.
They shut me out because they didn't like my opinions. The webmasters
in that room are not people I would want to know.
RJB Telcom's lawyer Theodore Monroe writes:
Mr. Ford: As you know I represent RJB Telcom. I feel compelled to point out that your postings today regarding RJB Telcom are both deceptive and inaccurate. I will point out several of the more disturbing inaccuracies and demand a retraction.
First, you allege that RJB Telcom attempted to "SEAL the testimony of the more than 100 consumers . . . ." This allegation, as Mr. Botto has repeatedly pointed out, is simply false. RJB has not attempted to seal any statements of any consumers nor any other person alleged in the posting.
The only documents RJB and the FTC stipulated to be filed under seal are two appendices to the Preliminary Injunction and sections of the Receiver's report. The sealed information relates to (1) fraud detection and prevention measures undertaken by RJB Telcom and (2) confidential proprietary information about RJB Telcom and the Bottos (for example financial information). No information regarding consumer statements or testimony has been filed under seal.
Next, your publication of a part of RJB Telcom's answer in the FTC lawsuit is deceptive and libelous. In an obvious attempt to paint RJB Telcom as somehow admitting to fraud, you published sections of the answer in which RJB admits certain allegations. However, you do not set forth what allegations RJB admitted nor do you include that RJB denied the allegations of unfair and deceptive acts and practices.
When a party answers a complaint in Federal Court, it must specifically admit or deny each allegation in the complaint. In its answer RJB admitted to a series of allegations such as the "Federal Trade Commission is an independent agency of the United States Government created by statue," and that "Venue in this District is proper."
RJB Telcom specifically denied each and every allegation of unfair or deceptive acts and practices. However, your posting deceptively implies that RJB Telcom somehow admitted that it defrauded or injured consumers. This is untrue. Accordingly, this section of the posting is libelous and RJB Telcom demands that you remove it from your website.
Luke says: I accede to your demands. I apologize for posting anything untrue and deceptive about RJB Telcom. I think all webmasters and other businessmen would be smart to as aggresively defend their reputations as does RJBT.
Here is how this drama all started.
Skeptic writes: If RJB Telcom is so innocent, why did they get the court to SEAL the testimony of the more than 100 consumers whose complaints were part of the record ... along with the statements from the credit card companies, FTC investigators, the court-appointed receiver etc. etc?
BTW, I have it on good authority that the reason for all the copyright and license changes on RJBT's sites (crowngate and greensted) are to change the names enough to game the Visa and Mastercard systems so they can get credit card processing back.
Luke says: I emailed RB about this, as I have emailed him about other tough questions about his operations, and I received the same answer I usually get.
RB writes: "Again completely false."
Skeptic replies: Note all the SEALED documents and the reason they were sealed: by demand of Botto/RJBT here is complete docket.
Don't know the particulars yet, but shortly after the FTC came down on RJBT last October, RJBT filed suit against Visa ... but the U.S. Dist Court seems to have dismissed the case (see page 7 in the docket below). Could this mean that there may be some truth in whatever is in those SEALED documents in the FTC case? The curious thing is that there are entries in this docket AFTER things seem to have been dismissed ... There may be very logical and innocent explanations for everything that has gone on, but the refusal by Bottos to comment on anything or leaves a vacuum into which rumor and speculation can swirl.
FYI, Pacer is the U.S. court's online access system ... it is of limited usefuleness since it generally has nothing more than the docket.
Also of interest ... if you carefully read the FM/RB flamefest on maxcash, FM says: "As for the dialers and the FTC - all I said was that was the FTC "hotbutton" that brought their attention to you. In reading through your FTC public documents I would say the affidavit that VISA supplied the FTC is what brought you your real heat - read Martin Elliot's statent again - you should probably sue him and Visa."
So, how did FM get Elliot's statement? When I made a copy of the whole case file, these statements had been sealed by request of RB/RRBT. Curiouser and curiouser, eh?
Luke writes RB: Is RJBT doing anything about the renegade webmasters?
RB replies: We terminate them.
Luke asks: Did RJBT move to seal the testimony of the more than 100 consumers who complained?
RB replies: This is a lack of education. The only so called testimony is in the initial complaint which is still readily available on line. So obvious that this is one of my competitors trying to stir up s--- just like all the other BS you have sent me lately.
Luke replies: If you've settled with the FTC, has the FTC made that announcement yet that it has settled with you?
RB replies: Luke...Think about it....Would the FTC allow us to say we settled the case if it wasn't settled?
Luke replies: At least I am consistent.
RB replies: This is true. Amazing the vendetta people have.
Skeptic writes: I don't know if this will shake loose any real truth in the matter, but unless RB has another explanation, it seems that RB has been _provably_ caught in a lie ... which may be a leetle chink in the Don's Teflon coating (to paraphrase FM).
A "settlement" is an agreement, not a verdict. The FTC's overriding goal is always to stop consumer abuses, which is why they go for civil settlements ... but just because you get to settle without admitting guilt doesn't necessarily mean you're innocent ... it just means that you struck a deal ...
Besides, you'll notice that RB didn't answer the questions {"I got my Teflon a' working" ... sung to the tune of "got my Mojo working') The "terminate" answer is cute and fails to answer the question of how they would fail to take legal action against those "renegade webmasters." Can they even produce one of them?
Again, twirling and dodging the issue and the question ... the "vendetta" ... is this some sort of "vast right-wing conspiracy" ain't no vendetta on my part ... but WHY WON'T HE GIVE A DIRECT ANSWER?
RB writes: I'll make it more clear...
1 - Before the FTC came in, we terminated fraudulent webmasters
2 - Before the FTC came in, we took the initiative and credited ALL
transactions which were attributed to those webmasters.
3 - A list of fraudulent webmasters was provided to the FTC.
4 - We have no intention of going after the fraudulent webmasters...Why?
For what? We credited all the consumers who were defrauded and reported
the fraudulent webmasters to the gov't.
Sounds like someone I know is bored today. Teflon Don...over and out.
Skeptic writes: good spin ... but why would he be so afraid for others to know WHO the "renegade webmasters" are? Others might like to avoid working with them as well. Isn't it good for the industry to know who the scammers are? It's not like RB had to DO anything to get this word out ... all they had to do is NOT worlk so hard to seal the files. Funny, none of the claims in #1 or #2 are cited in their legal papers ... it would have strengtened RB's credibility if they had used those as a defense ... It's STILL hard to believe that you can rip-off RB with impunity ... if renegade webmasters ripped him off, then I think that (a) he'd take legal action and (b) the FTC would have gione after those themselves. The Teflon Don's a SpinMeister extraordinaire, but this still doesn't add up.
RB writes: Last response of the day and then I have work to do.
1 - It is blatantly obvious who Skeptic is...Anyone who has been in this business for more than 2 years should be able to figure that one out.
2 - We share fraud information with other program owners and the fact that Skeptic is questioning that should make his identity that much more obvious.
3 - #1 and #2 were indeed used in our defense and helped us disprove the allegations in an expedited manner.
4 - We sealed fraud detection and prevention techniques and confidential proprietary information.
5 - In my opinion, I am sure the FTC is taking our fraudulent webmaster list very seriously.
Now go find something *really* newsworthy...Trust me, there are other stories out there...Just ask Skeptic.
Skeptic writes: Gotta give it to the teflkon Don, he just don't give up spinnin' ...
First of all, as usual he leads with two items that are irrelevant ... but I am NOT anyone he thinks I am.
On point #3, I have a copy of the entire case file as of yesterday and there is nothing in the documents to support RB's contention. Perhaps that document was sealed as well?
On point #4, FAR MORE was sealed than company proprietary data... let's stick to the question RB has failed so far to address. AND I REPEAT (this needs repeating because the spin is thick around this): "...why did they (RJBT) get the court to SEAL the testimony of the more than 100 consumers whose complaints were part of the record ... along with the statements from the credit card companies, FTC investigators, the court-appointed receiver etc. etc.? Why are the Bottos fighting so hard to try and keep this secret?"
Point #5: That's cool if they are ... but if there are scammers out there who have ripped off RB, I would think that webmasters who are _currently_ part of the MaxCash program would want to be warned off these guys ...
How about an All Points Bulletin here, Let Luke Know RAISE YOUR HAND: if you (a) ARE a renegade webmaster that RB terminated or (b) KNOW a renegade webmaster that RB terminated.
Spankin Hank writes Luke: "Skeptic" expresses curiosity about why the case was dismissed on 11/17/00 and then continued. This, I can partially explain. There were two cases. The first one, which continued long after 11/17/00, was the FTC v. RJBT et al., and is the first docket on your website. The second, RJBT v. Visa, a completely separate action in front of a different judge, was dismissed on 11/17/00. RJB did make a motion in the FTC case, on 11/17, to join the Visa case with the FTC case; the motion was rejected. I have no idea what the allegation in the Visa case was; perhaps the guy with the PACER account can pull documents.
It looks like the Visa case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. This doesn't mean that RJB's claim against Visa was bad. It means only that even if RJB's claim was good, the district court in Arizona was not authorized to hear it, and it would have to be filed in some other court. On the other hand, the rules for jurisdiction are pretty clear in most cases, so if the claim was good they probably would have filed it in the right court, but mistakes in this area do happen.
Presumably the motion in the FTC case to join the Visa case was an attempt to use the jurisdiction of the court over the FTC case to shoe-horn jurisdiction over the Visa case (this is called supplemental jurisdiction, and I'm not going to get into it).
Three other points it is my misfortune to make: You might want testimony sealed to prevent it being used by a plaintiff's attorney as research or the basis of a mass tort suit. They have no motivation for going after the allegedly fraudulent webmasters (if they exist) since those webmasters are likely to be judgement proof. You would be able to substantiate or disprove the claims about RJB's new d/b/a's if you would get off your butt and look up their incorporation documents from the secretary of state of wherever they're incorporated. (Probably Delaware or Arizona, but you could do a national search for like $50 on Lexis or Westlaw, with a credit card.)
Kevin writes: Skeptic does have a good point on the FTC settling because it doesn't put people out of business, it just gets them to conform. I think that's right. But, if the allegations were as originally made (credit card cramming) they would not have settled. My guess is that when the strongest part of the case disappeared, the FTC decided not to push the rest...
Remember, RB keeps saying there was no evidence of fraud. Probably true. It wasn't a fraud suit though. It was a suit for unfair and deceptive trade practices. The rest of Skeptic's stuff just isn't that interesting. There's nothing there from which to draw a conclusion about RJB.
Skeptic writes: "Remember, RB keeps saying there was no evidence of fraud. Probably true..."
The truth is out there. Maybe it's in a sealed file, maybe not. It makes me wonder, however, why RJBT spent so much time and effort to seal up the declarations and exhibits that were quoted from in the original complaint. Perhaps my questions are not nearly as interesting as the answers in those secret files that RJBT's lawyers worked so hard to keep the public from seeing?
On the other hand, maybe this is like Al Capone's vault which contained nothing of value when they finally opened it up. Only RJBT's secret files know. And RB doesn't want anyone to see them. Wonder why?
AOL Sues CEN Exhibits (both in PDF files)
I've got a copy of AOL's complaint against the Cyber Entertainment Network (CEN), owned 50-50 by Joe Elkind and John Bennett.
AOL vs Netvision Audiotext dba Cyber Entertainment Network; John J. Bennett Jr., Joseph B. Elkind, Robert L. Atkinson, James Cattanach, Tim Perkins, Tracy Rizzutello, Kyle Vernon, Steve Adams, Kenneth Allen, Cyril Amin, Cliff L. Bingham, David G. Carrigan, Ruibo Chen, Michael Clark, Gregory R. Coleman, Justin D. Cook, Gregory T. Day, Michael Dunn, Sunny Feng... National Telemedia...
Civil Action 99-1186-A
America Online's Amended Complaint For Violations Of The Virginia Computer Crimes Act, the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Lanham Law and the Common Law.
1. Acting in concert with one another and with third parties, Defendants have transmitted millions of unsolicited bulk-email ("UBE") messages advertising adult Websites to America Online and its Members. The UBE messages advertise these adult Websites through graphic pictures and words, and contain hypertext links that take the viewer from the e-mail message itself to Internet Webpages through which the viewer can subscribe to adult content.
2. Defendants' UBE messages are transmitted indiscriminately to AOL Members without regard to whether the member has any desire to view adult material, or whether the member account is accessible to children. As a result, any child old enough to click a computer mouse can be exposed to the adult material advertised by Defendants.
4. In transmitting their UBE messages, the Defendants use a number of fraudulent and deceptive methods to hide their true identities and thereby make it more difficult to discover who is responsible.
5. Defendents' UBE messages harm AOL by triggering hundreds of thousands of Member complaints, thus damaging AOL's business reputation and goodwill.
6. ...Defendants have also violated common law by trespassing upon AOL's personal property. Defendants have also knowingly misappropriated advertising services on AOL's proprietary network and have been unjustly enriched at AOL's expense. ...Defendants have conspired with each other and others to engage in this unlawful conduct. In addition, Defendant Cyber Entertainment Network, its two owners/officers/directors and eight key employees named in this complaint have violated common law by negligently hiring and retaining the remaining Defendants as advertising "Webmasters" who they knew, or they should have known were sending illegal UBE messages.
13. Cyber Entertainment also operates a Webmaster advertising program by which persons (called "Webmasters") receive commissions from Cyber Entertainment based on the amount of traffic they drive to its sites. These persons become Cyber Entertainment Webmasters by registering online at Cyber Entertainment's Websites. At the conclusion of the sign up process, each webmaster is assigned a unique webmaster account code. This account code is embedded in the electronic advertising banners and hypertext links that are provided to the Webmasters by Cyber Entertainment at the conclusion of the Webmaster registration process. These banners and hypertext links facilitate the Webmasters' ability to drive traffic to Cyber Entertainment's adult Websites. The account code also allows Cyber Entertainment to track which webmaster is responsible for the traffic (or the complaints) that arrive at its adult Websites and to calculate how much commission to pay the Webmaster for that traffic. ...Cyber Entertainment has entered into Webmaster agreements with at least 29 identified persons and companies... In their capacities as Webmasters for Cyber Entertainment, these persons have transmitted millions of UBE messages advertising Cyber Entertainment's adult Websites from at least May 1999 through the present. These messages have generated hundreds of thousands of complaints from AOL members and have generated revenue for Cyber Entertainment.
14. ...John J. Bennett Jr. is president and chairman of the Board of Directors for Cyber Entertainment and owns 50% of the stock of the company. Bennett has overall responsibility for the activities of Cyber Entertainment and is specifically responsible for the operations of the four of the five company's five departments: design/HTML department, technical department, accounting department, and customer service department.
15. ...Joseph B. Elkind is the chief executive officer of Cyber Entertainment. Elkind is also the only other member of the board of directors of the company and owns 50% of the stock in the company. Elkind is specifically responsible for the operations of one of the company's five departments - the sales department - which is responsible for hiring, retaining and working with Webmasters to promote Cyber Entertainment's adult Websites.
29. Michael Clark is a webmaster representing Cyber Entertainment using the code Nikki69... Clark transmitted at least 6000 UBE messages...
46. On information and belief, National Telemedia, Inc, is a Webmaster for Cyber Entertainment, using account codes NTCOR5, NTCOR6, NTCOR7, SAMPO, TORN and XPORNI, among other account codes. On information and belief, National Telemedia transmitted at least 9.4 million UBE messages to AOL members from September 1999 to October 2000, and generated at least 18, 977 complaints from AOL members... National Telemedia is a California corporation with its principal place of business at 5000 North Parkway Calabasas, Suite 231, Calabasas, CA, 91302.
Ron Levi from Cybererotica aka National Telemedia writes: Yes, but we are a double opt-in email service and will be dismissed from the case very soon.
Luke says: That paragraph 46 about National Telemedia allegedly sending out 9.4 million spam emails was the biggest surprise that I received from reading the case. I've written extensively about Levi's double opt-in email service which is designed to only send emails to those who want them.
National Telemedia's email program has previously passed scrutinty with AOL, UU.net, and MAPS (RealTime Black Hole List).