Shelley Lubben's Pink Cross Scam Gets More Exposure...Plus, How AHF, Shelley, and UCLA Almost Pulled Off An "Ambush"

OK...just when you thought things couldn't get more whack concerning the UCLA "conference" on condoms in porn, more facts come piling on.

A blogger named Cameron Rowe has now published what he calls an expose on Shelley Lubben and her organization, The Pink Cross Foundation, basically building on the work of former porn performer Julie Meadows (aka Lydia Lee) in exposing the shadier and slightly less friendly shadows of that org. The first two parts dealt with Lubben's credentials as a porn performer (she lists 30 movies to her credit, but others have reduced that number to only 12); and her creds as a minister (her degree allegedly comes from a "diploma mill" that was once banned and sanctioned in the state of Conneticut, and her ordination is from a group that mostly consists of a "mail drop").

Part 3 goes more into the financial nuts and bolts of the PCF, and it relies heavily on the publically disclosed 2008 and 2009 Federal tax returns that PCF filed in order to maintaiin their 501(c)(3) tax exempt status as a non-profit charitable organization. A sample of Rowe's findings:

 A charity website and a commercial website are not supposed to be a marriage due to IRS rules. However, thepinkcross.net redirects to shelleylubben.com, but only thepinkcross.org is listed on the tax return. On thepinkcross.org, some article does link to shelleylubben’s website and her new book.  Shelley Lubben’s bio on thepinkcross.org does link to her site. 

[...]

The big item on this tax return is that Shelley Lubben took $24,250 in compensation, which is 37.6% of gross receipts. It is the single biggest expense. The charity spent an extremely large $1,971 on financial assistance and gift cards, which is 3.1% of gross receipts. So, based on their accounting, 96.9% was spent on administration.

The better business bureau (BBB) recommends no more than 35% of gross receipts spend on Line 14, 15 of a 990 tax return. The federal government recommends, under CFC (Combined Federal Campaign), only 25%. So, 37.6% is above both the BBB and CFC. Some new charities can be higher if administration and fundraising goes over that percentage. The tax return does not say how much was spent on fundraising.

[....]

The Pink Cross Foundation did lobbying last year but on Section IV, Question 4, they said they didn’t. This is a lie and if they did they have to fill out a Schedule C should be completed and is open to public inspection. This allows the IRS to determine of a charity can retain a 501(c)(3) status. It is known they tried to influence legislation, attended a California subcommittee, or committee, on that proposed legislation. Failure to fill out this form by lying and saying no lobbying was performed could cost them their 501(c)(3) status. Also, if you spend more than 20% of your gross receipts on lobbying, you may have to pay a tax or lose tax-exempt status.

Use of volunteers, mailings, advertising, direct contact with legislators, has to be accounted for on Schedule C. The Pink Cross Foundation did mail at least one legislator since I remember seeing the document. The video of the hearing did have at least one volunteer.

This is a red flag. Of course, if the IRS claimed, “Tax evasion”, Garrett Lubben is responsible since he was listed as the person supposed to sign it. It is interesting the tax return with lies on it wasn’t signed by the President, Shelley Lubben. The 2008 return she signed. On the return, Ms. Lubben claims to be the “president” but is “executive director” on their website. Which is it?

[...]

Does thepinkcross.net belong to Pink Cross or Shelley Lubben? The website address does redirect to shelleylubben.com. According to WHOIS, ownership is hidden. Pink Cross does not appear to be trademarked so this could be legal. However, it really should go to thepinkcross.org not her personal website just for reasons that there is no conflict of interest between a commercial endeavor and a charitable one.

Rowe also hits hard and deep on the PCF's alleged assistance to those former porn performers seeking help getting out. Citing Julie Meadows' revelations on the so-called "Recovery Assistance Program" application, Rowe essentially asks the same questions that Julie and yours truly asked when this first was exposed:

Why not just tell someone up-front you can’t provide something? Most of this they aren’t providing in full anyway. This is a draconian program. Get a job and we’ll help. Give up any money porn owes you or we won’t. So, you got screwed by porn and have to give up the pay? Pardon the pun. Or, and you will be accountable to some mentor of Pink Cross. What does Pink Cross do if you have a spouse in porn but you only want to leave? No idea.

The application also wants your real name, driver’s license, porn star name/names, SSN (why exactly?), DOB, address, know if you are eligible to work in the United States, and know if you have been convicted or pleaded guilty to a felony in the past five (5) years. Needing a copy of your SSN card before they approve you isn’t right. They also want to know what that felony it was as well.

Apparently Shelley and the PCF never heard of the HIPPA law..except when they throw it at AIM when they want to release porn performers' medical records to the authorities for their own purposes.

There is so much more over at Rowe's blog...it makes for a fascinating and troublesome read.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

The second big news is that Shelley did manage to post her reassessment of her appearance at the UCLA "condoms in porn" conference.  Needless to say, her version had some interesting deviations from most other's recollection of that debacle.

But before that, we get this from Michael Whiteacre on how the UCLA conference sponsors attempted to cook the debate in their favor by ambusing their critics (posted earlier as a response to my earlier post here):

The organizers of the UCLA School of Law panel ACTIVELY PLOTTED to keep adult industry members away, and I can attest that it is true. This event was not promoted at all. Google and Yahoo searches turned up nothing. I stumbled upon a reference to it in the calendar on Shelley Lubben’s site two days before the event. She listed the name of the event, the location, and gave the start time as 11:00 am. I passed the info on to Free Speech Coalition, and Diane Duke essentially “bullied” her way onto the panel. FSC also alerted AVN. The next day (the day before the event) AVN mentioned the event, and it also popped up on Darrah Ford's blog (listing the start time, correctly, as 11:30 am).

Shelley Lubben must have been told to not promote the event, because after FSC (and AVN) called over to the organizers, citing Shelley’s website as how they heard about it, the start time on Shelley’s site was mysteriously ALTERED to 2:00 pm (which is 50 minutes after he event had to end so that a scheduled class could use the room). That altered start time is still on her website as I write this. I must conclude they called her to complain, and Shelley’s instinct, as usual, was to distort the truth. She takes a kernel of truth, and then twists it to serve her needs.

This panel was plotted as a way for a cabal of likeminded interests to add another all-star meeting to their roster, try out their propaganda on a small test audience, and hopefully get a few quotes to use for self promotion. That I helped out them, and take the fight to them, is a badge of honor for me. But the real praise belongs to Mr. Marcus and Diane Duke, who knowingly walked into a turkey shoot.

Lubben's take on the event was, shall we say, just a bit different. Some excerpts, taken from a comment left at Julie Meadows' blog this morning:

“When questioned on how she knew these consequences came from porn and not her six years of prostitution before she entered porn, Lubben replied, “I never had STDs until I did porn. I had protected sex as a prostitute. I didn’t do as hard of (sex) acts in prostitution. I never did anal until I got to porn.” Although Lubben states unequivocally that prostitution is still horrible, porn is worse.”

“Diane Duke of the Free Speech Coalition (FSC) who was there on behalf of the producers defended the industry’s current testing system as ‘remarkable’ but it was pointed out that testing ‘does not prevent anything.’ Current porn star Mr. Marcus, a 17 year veteran of the industry who has appeared in over 50 gangbang movies and who is known for his brutal acts in porn, showed up to defend the industry – yet in a meeting that was filled with testimony of violence against women and damage to the reproductive health of women, it was hardly convincing.”

“No other porn performers showed up to defend the industry – which is the norm for public debates. Why do porn actors rarely show up? There have been several state and local meetings in the last two years and yet only a handful of porn stars have ever showed up. Mainly producers and lawyers for the industry show up at these meetings. Why is that?

“Mr. Marcus spoke of a need for ‘more education’ in the industry. We agree on that point. No woman should go into porn on the false promise that they will be kept safe, or that the porn industry is concerned about the health and safety of their employees. They say they are, but their actions speak otherwise. Just two weeks ago, Diane Duke wrote an article in the adult industry trade magazine titled, “FSC: On the Forefront of Fighting for Your Bottom Line.”

“Who is fighting for the health and safety of these people? Certainly not the industry. But we will! Not only that, Pink Cross demands that the entire industry be shutdown until it is in compliance with state law. The current workplace health and safety laws must be enforced. The porn industry is currently operating illegally. We also know that the porn industry is full of rampant disease and thrives on illegal activity such as drug trafficking, prostitution and brutality against women.”

I really don't know what's funnier or more pathetic: Lubben attempting to spin the deliberate attempt to stone her critics as a legitimate debate; her slanderous attack on Mr. Marcus as "known for his brutal acts in porn", as if his real reputation as one of the most woman-friendly and pro-pleasure performers means nothing at all; or, her smack about porn being a haven for "drug trifficking, prostitution, and brutality against women"....and full of "rampant disease", completely discounting her own history as sex worker who regularly practiced unsafe and possibly illegal sex practices on her own both before and after her short lived career as a porn actress.

Of course, this is the same Shelley Lubben who regularly  blows out faked-up stats like "90% of all women in porn are diseased and prostituted" and who gleefully prints nonsense like "[..] ...porn starlet Nina Hartley, whom has contracted clamydia 4 times in her career....' ; as if her 12 videos and the backing of "God" can overcome 26 YEARS and actual activism for safer sex and authentic women's pleasure.

Oh...and Shelley??  Nina's bachelors degree in nursing from San Francisco State is REAL. Don't hate.