Seymore Butts aka Adam Glasser is butting heads with Ultimate over financial irregularities. I sent Seymore's company a copy of an email from a source making serious allegations against Butts. Seymore's formidable attorney Alan Gelbard (5825 Reseda Boulevard, Suite 314. Tarzana, California 91356 Tel (818)342-7710 E-Mail HFaze@aol.com) wrote to me before about his client Shyla Foxxx. Gelbard, who serves as legal advisor to the Free Speech Coalition, appears in the 9/98 issue of AVN on page 92. He worked for years in the porn industry, paying for law school editing porn videos. Though he looks like a ferocious biker, he's known as a nice guy. He wants to be the main attorney for porn stars. Today he writes to me:
My client forwarded your e-mail message to me and asked that I respond on his behalf.
First, your information is completely and totally inaccurate. Addressing your request point by point;
1) Ultimate Pictures is not, and never has been Seymore Butts' "parent company." Seymore and Ultimate were involved in business dealings in the past including distribution of Seymore Butts productions, however Seymore determined that further business with Ultimate was, to put it mildly, unwise. That determination proved accurate when, subsequent to the two companies disengaging from one another, Seymore received information that Pinkowski and/or Ultimate had made unauthorized copies of his master tapes and was covertly selling them, off the books, through certain disreputable outlets.
A federal lawsuit was filed by Seymore against Nick Pinkowski and Ultimate Pictures in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. District Court Judge Manuel L. Real;
a) found the Pinkowski had, indeed, been selling unauthorized copies of Seymore's movies,
b) issued a Permanent Injunction against Nick Pinkowski, and his various business entities, including Ultimate, from any further such acts, and
c) awarded significant damages, attorney's fees and costs to Seymore.
2) Neither Ultimate, nor any other individual or entity has ever given Seymore $1,000,000.00 to make his movies for this, or any other year.
3) Any allegation, by you or any of your "sources," that Seymore has unlawfully misappropriated any funds whatsoever, including but not limited to the $750,000.00 your "source" allegedly wrote you about, is false, and defamatory per-se. As I have informed you of that fact, any publication of such an allegation will be made with actual knowledge of its falsity and/or reckless disregard for its truth (see New York Times v. Sullivan, (1964) 376 U.S. 255, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686) and will result in immediate litigation.
4) Any allegation that Seymore's mother, a private individual, was in any way involved with any unlawful misappropriation of funds, including but not limited to the $750,000.00 your "source" allegedly wrote you about, is false, and defamatory per-se. As I have informed you of that fact, any publication of such an allegation would be clearly negligent (see Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789) and will result in immediate litigation.
My client holds the First Amendment in the highest possible regard and respects the right of the media, including yourself, to publish information about any topic, from politics to pornography. However with that right comes the responsibility to be fair and accurate in reporting stories such as the one you are apparently working on.
Should any "source" attempt to "plant" an intentionally inaccurate story in an effort to damage the reputation, credibility, or public perception of the subject of that story, or to damage the reputation of the reporter who is misled into publishing that inaccuracy, that "source" should be exposed and subjected to both legal and public scrutiny. Please be so kind as to supply this office with the name of your "source" so that we may initiate a lawsuit for defamation against this individual and/or entity.
.....................................
Adult Industry Medicine sent out a fax 9/26 to leading powers in the industry about a chlamydia outbreak. All those who believe they might have been exposed should get themselves tested. Call AIM at 818-981-5681 or stop by 14241 Ventura Blvd, Suite 205, Sherman Oaks, CA 91423-2742.
Rob Spallone sent me the AIM fax which is in all capital letters. I quote it in its entirety:
"WE HERE AT AIM HEALTH CARE WOULD LIKE TO ALERT YOU TO A CHLAMYDIA OUTBREAK. WE HAVE HAD MANY POSITIVE TEST RESULTS COME BACK FROM VERY POPULAR AND ACTIVE TALENT.
"WE REALIZE THAT THERE ARE MANY TALENT MEMBERS IN MEXICO SHOOTING. WE STRONGLY URGE TALENT TO GO TO THE CLINIC OF THEIR CHOICE AND HAVE A STD PANEL DONE. WE MAY WANT TO CONSIDER THIS ANOTHER SUGGESTED REQUIREMENT ON A MONTHLY BASIS. FOR NOW HOWEVER IF WE SCREEN FOR STD AND TREATMENT FOLLOWS IMMEDIATELY, WE MAY GET CONTROL OF THIS CURRENT AND VAST CHLAMYDIA OUTBREAK.
"THANK YOU FOR BEING PART OF AN INDUSRTY THAT STAYS IN THE SOLUTION OF HEALTHCARE."
Rob Spallone quibbles with the sentence "We may want to consider this another suggested requirement..."
Rob says: "Who is 'we?' Sharon Mitchell? Who is AIM to suggest anything? I hear they are having financial trouble and this is just their way of getting people to spend money with them to take tests.
"Luke you're a maniac. Your writing causes me all sorts of trouble. I know that Sharon Mitchell, Reb Sawitz and Bill Margold are your buddies...
"Luke, you wrote that I am making $3000 off this movie for David Sturman. I'll be lucky to clear $1000. You guessed wrong Luke. You screwed up again. I have all sorts of people calling me complaining about things you've written. We're not buddies anymore."
AIM says that contrary to Rob Spallone's claim in the Update 9/28/98, AIM, and PAW before it, never used Specialty Labs. AIM is happy with Quest Labs. AIM is tired of the constant sniping at it on this site, most of it coming from Rob Spallone, who Luke is in bed with. AIM says that the Jessica Jewel inconclusive results is news that is six months old. AIM wonders why I have to keep dredging up negative reports.
Luke's back yard is full of dead chickens after the performance of the ancient rite of Kapparot, where a chicken is waved around your head, a blessing is said by a rabbi in Hebrew, and the chicken's throat is cut. This symbolizes the forgiveness of sin in preparation for Yom Kippur.
Luke is really sorry for the many people that he has hurt over the past year. Luke is sorry that he has caused much annoyance to the good folks at AIM.
Luke wishes Jewish porners (like Stephanie Rand at AIM) in particular a happy new year.
ALLENTOWN, Pa. (AP) -- Political discourse has taken a back seat to sex, Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel says.
``Once upon a time we talked about politics in public and sex in private. Now it's the opposite,'' the author and Holocaust survivor said Monday in accepting an honorary degree at Cedar Crest College.
``Who would have thought that this democracy would produce a situation in which the national discourse would go down to pornography?''
.....................................
From www.freespeechcoalition.com:
Sacramento Notes - August 1998
by Kat Sunlove, Lobbyist for Free Speech Coalition
Can I come up for air now?
Here it is, mid-August and all of our bills are gone, mostly deceased, but a couple are limping over to the Governor's office for his signature. My first year as a half-time lobbyist for Free Speech Coalition is almost completed and I'm exhausted but exhilarated!
(Half-time? yeah, right!) All in all, we enjoyed tremendous success this year, killing or crippling every bill of major importance to our industry. Thanks to all of you who sent letters of opposition when the calls went out. Those letters make all the difference in my ability to persuade legislators that they need to listen to our concerns.
Since the California Legislature convenes in January and usually adjourns by September, my lobbying work in Sacramento is heavily front-loaded. The spring and early summer are jammed reading and analyzing bills, meeting with staff and analysts, consulting with legal advisors to prepare opposition points and alternative language and, of course, putting out calls for grassroots letters of opposition. It's an adrenaline-rush endeavor and it's only after the session winds down that one really has time to assess the overall impact of the work.
As we head into the fall and make preparations for 1999, I want to offer a report on the 1998 session. Since it is important to us at FSC that our members and supporters always be given accurate information, I will also take this opportunity to set the record straight on some issues that have been distorted in a newsletter widely-distributed by fax and online by our former lobbyist, Mike Ross. If you saw those newsletters, you may have gotten a false impression of my work in Sacramento, so along with the details of my efforts on this year's bills, I will point out some of the many inaccuracies in Ross's communiqués. If you would like additional details on any of these items, please feel free to e-mail me at sunlove@inreach.com.
Long before the opening day of the session, I was in the Capitol working to defeat the porn tax bill, Senator Charles Calderon's SB1013. Long-time activist Bobby Lilly and I were informed by legislative staff that it was Mike Ross himself who shopped the idea of a porn tax around the Capitol back in the summer of 1996 looking for a sponsor -- not in order fight against it, mind you (that would be illegal), but because Mike sincerely believed that a "sin tax" would be a good idea for the industry to be seen as funding domestic and sexual violence programs (which perhaps says something about how he sees our industry).
With the primary elections looming, however, most legislators shunned the idea of any new tax -- even on pornography and even for a good cause -- but Senator Calderon had no such qualms. In his zeal to capture the Democratic nomination for state attorney general, the senator had latched onto anti-porn bills as a way to grab headlines and perhaps secure the undecided conservative vote in California's new open primary system.
When the bill was introduced by Calderon in January 1997, Mike called me excitedly saying, "Now this is a bill I think the industry should really support!" I quickly pointed out the fallacy in his thinking and chalked this wrong-headed instinct up to his lack of experience with the adult industry. Fortunately, Ross saw the light and together we fought hard against it. At the first hearing on the bill in the summer of 1997, with the incomparable Candida Royalle as our star witness, FSC's lobbying efforts derailed the bill temporarily. Now a "two-year bill," SB1013 was due to come up for a vote very quickly when the legislators reconvened in 1998.
By the time the session opened, I had begun developing relationships with mainstream lobbyists whose interests might overlap our own on First Amendment issues -- the Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry of America, the California Library Association, LIFE Lobby, Northern California Independent Booksellers Association, National Association of Record Manufacturers, Media Coalition, Association of Talent Agents and, of course, our staunchest ally, the ACLU.
In one of the newsletters by Ross, it was suggested that I was welcomed in the Capitol only by "gays and the ACLU," an attempt to insult two groups that do indeed stand with us on many issues and whose support should be valued, not maligned. The importance of such allies cannot be overstated. It was the last-minute involvement of the MPAA and RIAA lobbyists, a representative from Tower Records along with the ACLU lobbyist, that helped us defeat another repressive Calderon bill, SB1846, which would have required individual store owners to be held criminally liable for determining what is "harmful matter" -- legally, a determination for a jury -- and would have forced them to create an "adults only" section in which to segregate all such matter.
SB1846 occupied a very intensive few weeks in April during which I was also being "trailed" through the Capitol by the LA Times for a major story on the Free Speech Coalition. The MPAA was on-again, off-again in their opposition because Calderon kept amending the bill to eliminate their resistance. He almost succeeded. During the hearing, which was really a wild one, Senator Kopp called for an amendment which would broaden the bill even further, essentially nixing the deal with MPAA. In my comments, I pointed out that NC-17 movies might then be caught in the net of SB1846 as "harmful matter." At that point, the MPAA lobbyist joined us at the witness table to speak in opposition and the bill went down in defeat.
Our efforts to defeat the porn tax, SB1013, were also successful. On the first day of the session, the bill was pulled from the calendar by the author and died without going to a vote. But AB726, the "juice bar bill," was still alive and about to kick our collective butts with a proposed ban on tipping and live nude entertainment. Meeting with the author, legally embattled Assemblyman Baugh, it was clear that what he really wanted was to delete the theater exemption under which some strip clubs operate. He expressed a willingness to drop the tipping and dance language but we wanted a "grandfather" clause which would protect existing businesses.
Since he had the votes to get the bill out of the Assembly Public Safety Committee later that month, Mr. Baugh was unwilling to discuss such a compromise at that point.
During these negotiations on AB726, the same "industry" newsletter suggested that the FSC cocktail reception, derided in the fax as a "pornography party," caused the juice bar bill to be voted out of the Assembly committee -- an unseemly slur, to say the least, from a former lobbyist. The vote, in fact, was a given. Ross's suggestion that I left the hearing early is rather disingenuous as well since I left at the same time he did -- in fact, he and I, along with our opposition witnesses, took a picture in the hallway together. We both left the hearing before the final abstaining vote changed to a "yes" but the outcome was hardly a surprise.
Drafting alternate prose on AB726 occupied much of my time in the spring, most of it working on language with the Senate Judiciary committee counsel, who by the way, is a key person in working with the author on deciding exactly what language is permissible for a bill to get analyzed and heard as well as in drafting a thoughtful First Amendment analysis. Ross has referred to such work with counsel as a waste of time, a remarkable position for a man who should know where the underlying power is in Sacramento.
In the final analysis, it was our proposed language that prevailed in AB726, including a key change in the "intent" wording which will allow us to argue that adult businesses do not inevitably create negative secondary effects, and furthermore, it suggests that there is a need for new studies before a community can zone adult businesses based on old data.
In March, my attention turned to AB2055, the joint zoning bill by Assemblyman Martin Gallegos. I met with the sponsors in the ACLU offices and later with Mr. Gallegos' staff and proposed a number of changes to this poorly-drafted bill. Again, a comment seems appropriate regarding the assertion in Ross's newsletter that I had "no appointments." Since he has never served as my secretary, it seems odd that he would presume to know my schedule. In any event, it was my work with committee counsel, aided by the FSC Legal Advisory Committee, that eventually neutralized AB2055, limiting it to "intent language" only with no substantive change in the law.
Bills seeking to censor the Internet also occupied my time this spring and constituted a major area of disagreement with Ross. In particular, AB2350 proposed to require software on public library computers to screen for "obscenity" online. One of several bills along this line introduced in 1998, AB2350 smelled like pork-barrel, benefiting one local software company which claimed it could do the job of censoring for the rest of us. Since the question of what is obscene is a decision for a jury, not a software programmer, and since no software currently exists which can adequately screen for such material anyway, and furthermore, since our primary allies were in opposition, we took a low-key position against this bill. I testified that although our members did not produce obscene materials, we were nevertheless concerned about adults' access to protected materials online. And although we share the concern about what children may see online, FSC believes that one of the important jobs of parenting is to guide children in what they view on the internet or elsewhere.
The Assembly hearing on AB2350 was an absolute circus: the author, Assemblyman Frusetta, an impassioned figure in his ten-gallon hat, parents and children at the witness table offering anecdotes of searching for rabbits online and finding pussies, the lobbyist for the Committee on Moral Concerns comparing the opposition to people who want "to give Hustler to elementary school children," and our own former lobbyist, Mike Ross, right alongside not only arguing in favor of the bill, but actually being quoted by Mr. Frusetta in his opening remarks as saying "we've got to control all this pornography online." Go figure. My own work against this bill was coordinated with the California Library Association and the ACLU and although the bill passed that first hurdle, eventually it died in committee.
Two other bills on which I worked closely with MPAA, RIAA and the ACLU were AB2357, which would have required the state pension fund to divest itself of investments in companies producing "obscenity" among other things, and SB1859 which would have changed our current statewide standard for "obscenity" and "harmful matter" to a local one. Happily, both bills have been defeated for this year.
"For this year" is the operative phrase here because almost certainly we will re-visit many of these proposed laws in slightly different form in next year's session. So stay ready to continue the fight -- and don't believe everything you read in broadcast faxes or online.
The Free Speech Coalition is THE trade association for the entire adult industry -- from strip clubs to magazines, from video to phone sex, from the internet to novelties -- we are representing your interests in the California legislature and with your help and your active membership, we'll expand that representation to your state and on to the halls of Congress. Join us today and be there with us for future victories!
Kat Sunlove's column may also be seen in Adult Video News, the industry trade magazine.
Last week I had some extra time on my hands so I stopped by Mike Ross' site on the Internet (http://www.xxxadvocate.com) and played with some of the links. Some of the intriguing links lead me to a variety of stories and information, but when I clicked on one link, The Free Speech Coalition Link, I was taken directly to their site, even though I didn't expect it. After reviewing several articles on the FSC site I ran across Kat Sunlove's Sacramento Notes - August 1998, and forwarded them to Ross for his information and comment. This is a discussion with Mike Ross about the article.
Luke: Do you know this conversation is being recorded?
Mike: Yes, I do.
Luke: Would you like to make a comment on the article I Emailed you?
Mike: I don't know, I have mixed feelings about you and your articles.
Luke: What are your concerns?
Mike: Professionalism, accuracy.... the basics.
Mike: Yes, but I want to do one thing first. I want a professional guarantee that I get to review the story before it's posted on your website to ensure accuracy.
Luke: OK, I will Email it to you for your review, but can't guarantee that I will change anything.
Mike: Fine, then I will respond - What's your first question Luke?
Luke: What comments, if any, would you like to make about the story that posted on the Free Speech Website?
Mike: I believe that the article is an insult to industry leaders and a waste of Web space. If you look at what the letter has to say, you'll notice that it says very little of anything, yet takes up six pages when you print it out.
Luke: Can you give me an example?
Mike: Sure, the report talks about Kat being a halftime lobbyist and points out that she worked on eight Bills this year in the California Legislature and she totally misrepresents all of my positions. For instance, not once in her story did she say that the Adult Entertainment Industry Education Fund was not only part of the hearing process on every single one of these bills, but that we took positions on over forty Bills that Free Speech and herself did not. Specifically, we testified on the industry's behalf on 47 pieces of legislation, while her 8 Bill year was a "busy year," that apparently kept her from testifying on the following issues: Obscenity, Prostitution, Employment, Internet, Aids and Telecommunications. Secondly, I'd like to say that if she's tired after participating on just these couple of Bills then I'd like to find out what I am after participating in over 250.
Luke: Laughing...... So does that means you're exhausted?
Mike: Yes I am, I'm going grey and I can't take a break because I have a demanding schedule and there are other states and cities that need help like Sacramento, Phoenix, upstate New York and Kat's complaining about something that happened five, six or seven months ago - come on Kat, there's work to do.
Luke: Is there anything else you'd like to say about this article?
Mike: Yes I would. First, about me shopping the Porn Tax around the Legislature in 1996, what Kat doesn't mention is that not only was I paid by industry clients to do so, but that the proposal was substantially different than what Senator Calderon introduced. Secondly, It's kind of strange for a Free Speech organization to claim that they have "evidence about my activities," but have never presented that evidence before me nor filed a complaint about illegal activities with any governmental agency. In fact, the FBI in a two hour meeting (brought about by Jeffrey Douglas's accusations that I had improper political relations), found absolutely zero evidence against me, and as of today has charged me with no crimes. Next, with respect to taking to Kat about SB 1013, I did call Kat and say "Now this is a bill I think the industry should really support," but she left off the second half of the sentence, and that was the reason why.
Luke: So, what is the reason why?
Mike: Because it would not only make our industry look good, but once we supported the idea, then the issue would mean nothing and provide Senator Calderon with zero publicity. It's my impression that Jeffrey Douglas wanted the publicity so that he could promote himself and Free Speech. Now Kat needs this because she is/was hurting from her news rack losses and desperately needed the publicity to generate sales of her lagging publication.
Luke: Are you saying then that Free Speech opposed this Bill to help Jeffrey?
Mike: No comment.
Luke: What else would you like to say about the article?
Mike: Kat's article points out that she started developing relationships with a half a dozen organizations, especially the ACLU. The mark of a good lobbyist is to not only work with natural allies who show up whether you talk to them or not, but rather the ability to conduct negotiations and make public policy headway with the opposition. Which leads to my next concern.
Luke: And what concerns are those?
Mike: The information regarding AB 726. Miss Sunlove refuses or ignores the fact that in a meeting that she and I attended with the Author of the Bill, Assemblyman Scott Baugh, I brought up the idea of grandfathering everybody in. Now, she has now taken that information as her own idea and is representing this position as her original thought. It's funny, but the meeting was really about an article that Kat published on her website dealing with Scott Baugh introducing the Bill because of his legal problems.
Luke: What were those problems?
Mike: It's not that important to the overall story, but suffice it to say that Assemblyman Baugh had some Grand Jury problems relating to his first campaign.
Luke: Where are those problems today?
Mike: That is a legal question that you should ask Assemblyman Baugh or his attorneys. They can be reached at 916/445-6233 (Assemblyman Baugh's Capitol Office).
Luke: How many more comments would you like to make with regards to this letter?
Mike: I have two or three more to make, but please bear with me, this needs to be clear. Kat states that during the AB 726 hearings in the Assembly she didn't leave early on the first vote and that all of us stood in the hallway to get our picture taken, which is correct. After she left the building, my staff, the DeJaVu representatives and myself went back into the Committee room and waited for the final outcome of the vote. In fact, you can ask the staff of the Legislator who cast the final 'AYE' vote where I was, and she will tell you by her side in the Committee room answering questions for her boss.
Luke: Why doe's your and Kat's versions of the story differ so much?
Mike: Because Kat is trying to flippantly dismiss my role in the legislative process so she can take the lead role, and I'm tired of it. In fact, I'm also tired of her low quality work, of which this report is an example. This is not how you produce a year end report. Last year's report that I produced for Free Speech was over 15 pages long and contained no "parenthetical remarks." Rather, statistics, hard information that you can use to run your business. In fact, to show you how off base this report is, I'll go one step further. Before the Assembly Floor vote on AB 726, members of the dance industry helped me distribute over 10,000 letters of opposition to the legislature, while on the official analysis FSC was not even opposed to the Bill (that means that she did not turn in letters of opposition as she should have). Why isn't that mentioned in the report?
Luke: How may letters did she turn in?
Mike: I personally didn't see any of the letters, yet she claims to have turned in many. In fact, in over a dozen anti-industry Bills, FSC didn't submit letters of opposition, which is strange because she is a "professional writer" (by the way Kat the possessive form of "Ross" is Ross' and not Ross's as your English skills should tell you).
Luke: What about the part where Kat states that your comment about working with counsel is a waste of time?
Mike: I don't know what she means. The statement makes absolutely no sense. I don't even want to dignify it with a comment.
Luke: Why is that?
Mike: Next question. I'm done with that one.
Luke: OK - then how about Kat's comments regarding appointments and her "he has never served as my secretary" comment?
Mike: That's easy to answer and Kat should know this. I have worked in the Capitol for over 22 years and know the majority of staff people by their first name, including their spouses name and where they live because I live in the same area. As a result, they talk to me, they know me and my issues.
So when they see me at a garage sale with my wife, we chit chat, have coffee and talk politics. I know exactly what Kat does in the building because staff people tell me. When I go into an office and tell them I'm supporting or opposing a Bill on behalf of the industry, they never say "Oh are you working with Kat and her friends?" Why is that? Because she hadn't gone in the office. Otherwise somebody would have said something about her being there. Take for instance AB 2350. We supported the Bill, FSC didn't.
The Bill was designed to require software on public library computers to screen for obscenity. It's interesting to note that in both official analysis Miss Sunlove and the Free Speech Coalition were not in support or opposition to the Bill, whereas the AEIEF was listed on the analysis as being in support. In the Capitol, it's important and courteous to inform the legislator carrying the Bill about your position before it goes to committee. Both times the Bill was heard in committee, Free Speech was not on the official analysis as being in opposition. Which means she never talked to staff, the legislator or even the person who prepared the analysis. All she cared about was bringing the L.A. Times reporter with her. Besides, did Miss Sunlove and Free Speech tell you what AB 2350 was really all about? No. On behalf of 98.5% of the American public and adult businesses affected by this language (adult webmasters) the best position to take on this Bill was to support this language for one reason.
Luke: And what is that reason?
Mike: AB 2350 would have protected this industry's intellectual property rights by not allowing people to have free access from public libraries to your website (a product or service that you charge money for) for free, who then steal all your material simply because they were in the public library.
To make matters worse, they even distribute your information and you get blamed.
Luke: Why do you suppose that Kat didn't mention this in her report?
Mike: She is a Purist, while I'm a Realist. She says pure "no censorship," pro ACLU, while I say "lets find a way for us all to work together and profit - that's negotiations and reality," we may loose a little, but we'll stay in business and out of court. Other than that, I don't know. Why don't you ask her. Would you like her phone number?
Luke: Is there anything else you would like to say?
Mike: Yes. Every week I let the industry know what's going on in the legislature by sending out a Trade Fax and I do it for free. I even published a list of Bills that we should support, oppose or monitor. In Kat's article she states that the FSC was opposed to a Bill that would have required the State of California to divest or not invest in any project that was deemed obscene. I missed that Bill and sincerely would like to know what Bill that is. The only problem is that FSC shares no information with me (as a lobbyist or FSC member), while I on the other hand provide the Trade Fax, the Industry Website and constant availability to industry questions.
Luke: It sounds like you covered just about everything in the letter. Is there anything else you have to say on the matter.
Mike: Yes. Many people don't know this, but I am a member of the Free Speech Coalition. I was last year (professional courtesy) and am this year (paid). My feelings and thoughts are dedicated to educating this industry and helping to bring it competitively into the 21st Century. I am a proactive type of guy in a proactive type of industry. Whereas, FSC and this industry has best been known for their reactive stances. If we are to truly bring this industry into the 21st Century so that it takes its rightful place in the economic strata, we must not only tell the truth, but we must share information in a positive mode. It is my true opinion that I provide information about my activities. I am open, honest and above reproach. The FSC may not like the way I do things, but that's OK. What Kat and Free Speech have to do is to tell the truth by recognizing that I also provide many, many pluses of which this industry has benefited greatly. In other words, Kat.... didn't I do anything right this year?
Luke: That sure is an interesting response to her article. I still would like to ask you a few more questions.
Mike: OK shoot.
Luke: Would you like to comment on the AIDS epidemic in the industry and FSC's AIDS testing and related problems?
Mike: No comment.
Luke: Why no comment?
Mike: It's not for me to answer that question. If you want to find out ask the people who it affects. I'm not a lawyer.
Luke: OK, how about the World Pornography Conference that you attended. Did you enjoy it?
Mike: I was there, but did not attend the conference. I attended the Night of the Stars as Russ Hampshire's guest.
Luke: I understand you and Russel are working on a project together. Would you like to comment on it?
Mike: No, except to say thank you for your help Russ, Jane, Nina and Mike, I'm very excited about the project.
Luke: Is that all? Don't you want to tell me about it?
Mike: No. That's for another interview.
Luke: Would you like to comment on your problems with AVN?
Mike: What problems?
Luke: Didn't they scrap your column because of your disagreements with FSC?
Mike: No Comment.
Luke: Why won't you comment?
Mike: Because our agreement was that you and I would only talk about Kat's article and nothing else.
Luke: Yes we did. But I thought these were related questions.
Mike: No, there not.
Luke: OK, how about this..... What is your opinion of Jeffrey Douglas?
Mike: Luke, what are you trying to do? Stir up s---?
Luke: Well I know that you have been at odds with Jeffrey because he fired you. Don't you want to make a comment? Especially since he allowed Kat's article to be placed on the FSC Website?
Mike: Luke, I have no comment and unless you ask questions about the articles specifics this interview is over.
Luke: All right, I have one last question. In Kat's letter she described the FSC's Cocktail Reception that was held near the Capitol. Most people don't know it, but as reported in the press, only a handful of people showed up and that there were more picketers outside than guests inside. Were you invited and did you attend?
Mike: No, I was not invited and even if I was I could not have attended because I was at City Hall helping Sacramento's adult businesses negotiate a new adult business ordinance.
Luke: Was the FSC aware of this city ordinance? Did they have any representation at the hearing? Have they helped you in Sacramento?
Mike: Luke, no comment, that's not part of this interview.
Luke: You won't answer those questions?
Mike: No. Ask FSC yourself.
Luke: I guess since you won't answer, I'll just thank you for your time.
Mike: Luke, you're going to send me a copy of this interview before print?
Luke: Yes, I made you that promise.
Mike: OK, I look forward to reading it. Have a good day.
(Sacramento) - In a move that is sure to catch everyone off guard, the Adult Entertainment Industry Education Fund today announced that Adult Entertainment Advocate Michael Ross has joined the Free Speech Coalition (FSC).
"By joining FSC, I am not giving up my cause and organization, rather it's a way for us to recognize their existence as a Trade Association,"
Ross said. "Although the FSC recognizes groups across the US, they do not recognize the AEIEF, and we hope that this is the first step in mutual recognition."
Last year the AEIEF was the most active organization in the country, taking positions on over 45 bills, resolutions and amendments that affected this industry while the FSC took maybe a dozen in California."
According to Ross, "If we are to stem the tide of anti-industry legislation, we not only have to support each other, but have to work together to help cover each other's weaknesses.
"In our opinion, mutual recognition is the first step in the construction of a national lobbying organization," Ross continued.
"There are over a dozen organizations operating in the US, and I want to propose that we all join in a national federation."
Tentatively entitled The First Amendment Lobbying Association, this organization will not only unite groups to share resources and information, but also to help share the work load.
"Our goal is to help organization in various states to educate, organize and get involved," Ross continued. "We plan to help local communities fight back, fund-raise and protect their rights."
Porn historian and director Jim Holliday would like to speak to Viper. There are many stories about where she is.
The ex-Marine, ex-porn star hails, I believe, from New Hampshire. Her real first name is Stephanie... This Mark Ebner journalist knows her full name, I believe, having tracked down her Marine records. He took Holliday to lunch the other day.
Anyway, Jim and Jane Waters received several post cards and letters from Viper over the years... And Jim would like to talk to her again.
Holliday suggests that she can contact him through me.
Abby Ehmann began writing on porn in 1992 after answering an ad in the New York Times classifieds for an associate editor at Penthouse Forum. Two years later Abby was laid off and she's bounced around several jobs since including a month for ex-hot dog vendor Ted Leibowitz who made millions from phone sex and now operates numerous porn web sites.
"I was supposed to update his web site every day. I replaced Jeff Hickey. Ted didn't know what he wanted, so he let me go."
Abby now writes for Hustler, Fox, Gallery, Adam Film World, Panty Play and other sex magazines. She writes and edits her own bimonthly Extreme Fetish. The two men who provide the money for the publication wish to remain anonymous.
On Halloween, Abby, 39, will celebrate the fourth anniversary of her marriage to 35-year old Eric Danville, formerly of Screw and High Times. "It's awesome [that the two write on the sex business]. We work like a team. We discover stuff and share it… I helped him find stuff for his sex scene column. We go on the same business trips. We both go to Las Vegas [for the CES]. When there is a fetish ball, I'd rather not go alone. I considered replacing him at Screw.
"I love porn. I think there's lots of schlock out there, some of which I contribute to. Money is money. Whatever it takes to pay the rent. If I won lotto, and could become Larry Flynt and have my own porn empire, I'd think that would rock. I'd love to do a slick couples-oriented porn magazine. I'd like to do a US version of the British magazine Desire.
"I like Rob Black and Max Hardcore movies. I like dirtier movies. I'm all for plot, seduction and beautiful settings but if it is lousy script, I'm bored. I watch 18 porn videos a month so I've gotten numb. I need it wilder.
"I just did an article for Adam Film World entitled "Babe Fest." I invited a bunch of female writers over. We watched videos and I quoted their observations. I showed them a Rob Black movie with a gangbang… The consensus was - if you're going to do this fantasy, you might as well do it well. Get outrageous… That's what movies are for."
Abby lived in upstate New York during elementary school. She attended high school (class of 1977) in the San Francisco Bay Area. She graduated college with a double major from San Diego State in Graphic Communications and Journalism. "I got a Ph.D. in party. Playboy called it the biggest party school in America and the easiest place to get laid. I will attest to both being true."
Abby and Eric do not swing. "We are so vanilla. People don't want to know how boring we are.
"I've done mushrooms. I do coke when someone offers it to me. I can't bear to part with my cash for it. I'm too cheap to be a drug addict. I used to be a hardcore slut. I've slept with about 100 guys in my life. No women. After I got together with Eric, I wrote about my slutdom for Screw.
"All the people I know in this business, and the hardcore consumers… I've found them to be more respectful and more polite than the average shmuck.
"The most enjoyable part of CES is people watching. Looking at the drooling fans who stand in line to get autographed pictures from porn chicks. It gives you a feel for who out there supports the industry. You get to see the guys that feminists are afraid of, and it's immediately apparent that they [feminists] have nothing to worry about. They are like the AVECH guys (Audio-Visual techies who pushed slide projectors around in high school), or the ones with pimples who did not go to the prom. They're nerds. I mean that in the best way, having married one [Eric Danville]."
Like Al Goldstein, Eric Danville graduated from Pace University, a NY private school.
"Goldstein's myth preceded me there. I was part of this artsy clique of rebellious English majors. We thought Goldstein was cool."
Eric served as managing editor for the marijuana magazine High Times. "I wasn't a big pornography fan when I started in the industry. I was freelancing for nine months after I left High Times. My sister saw an ad in the New York Times for a porn magazine [High Society]… Fine.
"Porn is a fun industry to work in and I've met lots of nice people. I have three Rolodexes of s---. I started at Screw [in 1991] as Associate Editor, doing copy editing and proof reading… When the senior editor split, I became senior editor.
"It's not easy working for Goldstein. You earn every dime. He says going in, 'I'm probably the hardest person on the planet to work for.' If you can accept that and deal with it and perform up to his standards, which are high, then fine.
"I had gone as far in the company as I could go. It has a small editorial staff. The only way I could've gone further is to actually possess Goldstein's body."
Eric says Screw is not retrenching. "The editorial content has always been second in size to the ads. About six months ago, we added six new pages of ads and two pages of editorial."
Eric covered New York's sex scene for several years. "I'd go to sex clubs. I covered one porn film premiere (Sunset & Divine)."
Luke: "Did working at Screw help you get laid?"
Eric: "Not really. Not beyond doing a couple of massage parlor reviews… There's no groupie fan base for Screw writers and the porn chicks don't have to f--- you unless they want to. Working at Screw helped me meet my wife [Abby]. At a job interview."
Eric appeared briefly in the documentary Screwed. "My minute of hilarity got cut out. I thought it was too long and strayed away from Goldstein too much."
Danville's six months into a biography of Linda Lovelace.
.....................................
Elegant Angel owner Patrick Collins told the 11/98 edition of Hustler Erotic Video Guide: "I have a ton of stuff I don't release. Greg Steel made a movie for me. It's such a piece of s--- that I'll never release the f---ing thing. There was another movie that somebody from me bought from him and it's a piece of s--- that I won't release."
Director Greg Steel responds: "I directed a project for Elegant which was quite different from their standard product. Pat, not really having a grasp on the cable market, was unsure on how to market the movie. In the meantime I signed an exclusive deal with LBO Ent. Having the amount of success in the cable area I have I offered to purchase the movie from him at the cost leaving him clean from losing any money. Although surprised by the fact I didn't just bail-out leaving him with a project he couldn't sell, he was appreciative and on good terms with me. As all the "E" staff were. Then in this months issue of hustler v-guide there was Pat in print calling my movie "a piece of s---." I must say I was pissed, but moreover I was hurt by the fact that he showed no respect towards my good faith of not bailing out. I faxed a letter to his gm Hank which stated that I did not appreciate this unwarranted attack, but further stated they will see no such remarks from me in a negative response. My only response to the is by releasing another hit movie. Oh yeah, I also faxed the review of the movie in question. The only thing better than my movie...was the phenomenal review it received. No surprise here! Pat and I spoke the following day (calmly) and like I have always said he has a very cool staff and sometimes as we all do make comments out of frustration. You see he had not even seen my movie yet when he was interview. In the end I must say it worked out very well for me. I brought the movie home to LBO and its the inaugural release of our company's reemergence as a groundbreaking force. After our release of "THUNDER-PUSSY" in October, I will reign on this industry with so much positive and fresh new projects in all media areas it will spark (I hope) others in my field to demand our product quality to be higher. Having a bloated budget is no excuse for accepting mediocrity as triumph."
.....................................
Maestro aka D.K. Stanton attended Sunday's charity softball game. She won an award for her slide into first base and covered the game for AVN. I hear that Bill Margold coached one team. Stanton has another article in the 11/98 AVN about the VCA/Mike Ross video on how to lobby.
From Talking Blue:
Wicked Pictures announced last week that this upcoming Halloween will mark the first year that Wicked Pictures will sponsor three major party events.
First is the world-renowned 19th Annual Exotic Erotic Halloween Ball, being held at the famous Cow Palace in San Francisco on October 24th.
As a major sponsor of "the world's largest, sexiest indoor masquerade party", Wicked Pictures will be well represented by their award-winning contract couple Missy and Mickey G. Exclusive Wicked sensation Serenity will be there to host the Xplor live cybercast of this gala event along with Stuttering John from the Howard Stern Show.