HIV Porn Scare 2010: The Coup d'Twit Edition -- AIM Gets Its License Pulled {Temporarily]; The Lubben/Weinstein Alliance Reacts Like They Found Dubya's WMD; And Derrick Burts' Escort Skeletons Are Exposed [Updated]

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

HIV Porn Scare 2010 Redux: "Patient Zeta" Outs Himself...But Does His Story Pass The Gloryhole/Swiss Cheese Test??

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

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.

The Great HIV Porn Scare: All Bark, No Bite...Again (Also, Exposing Shelley Lubben's Fraudulent Scam)

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Another HIV Porn Scare: Shall We Dance The Same Tune Again??

So, once again, we have a panic in Porn Valley.

A performer tested positive for HIV last week, and all his primary and secondary contacts are now being tested, with the results pending.

And, the usual suspects, on cue, are chirping the same tune as last year about mandating condom usage.

Unfortunately, this time around, there is a distinctly more vicious tone to the debate, because the potential "Patient Zero" just so happens to be bisexual, and has been rumored to cross over into the making of gay male porn as well.  So now, we get gay bashing on top of the ususal shit-throwing debacle.

The reactions are already fast and furious. Many performers, including some A-listers like Lisa Ann, have now instituted explicit condom-only rules for their future scenes; others (like Avy Scott) have gone further and announced that they would eschew boy/girl scenes altogether.(It should be known, though, that Avy made her decision before everything went down.)

As with last year, the debate has been reenergized over whether AIM-MED has squandered its last chance of protection and whether the government should step in and impose the Weinstein program of mandated condom usage and alternative testing. Of course, the fear that such regulation would be the final blow to porn production in California (and, to a lesser extent, Florida) due to collapse of sales already depressed due to piracy and the recession, is the gravest concern of most porn performers and producers.

On the other hand, one person's fear is another one's opportunity: and some sex-positive intellectuals and activists, as well as even a few porn pros on both sides of the camera, may see the resulting storm as a silver lining that finally liberates  porn production to become more humane and progressive.

The dilemma here, as it always has been since we have had these panics, is balancing the well-meaning aims of those who want to provide the maximum protection for performers with those who don't necessarily see condoms as the end-all cure-all for STD prevention,  and would much rather have a say in their own profession.

As for BPPA's position on this issue??  Well, it remains the same as it has been...Ernest Greene's original rebuttal to the last scare in 2009 that was posted here remains as solid today as it was then.(I will add a link to that particular post and the ensuing comment thread it instigated to the sidebar here soon for easy access.)

But the best case against simply throwing condoms around as the ultimate panacea without actually listening to those who would have to actually use them comes from none other than Nina Hartley, who posted this at her website forum in response to similar calls last year:

[...]

Since then, the usual talking heads have gotten their panties in a wad about how Porn Sets Bad Example For The Viewing Public, and Porn Is A Menace To All Who Work In It, and Those Poor Women Who End Up In Porn: What Shall We Do To Save Them?

For the best response to all of this, do a search for "the blog for pro-porn activism," and read the 5,000 word essay that Ernest so generously took the time to write. It tells it like it is much better than I can, so why duplicate work? It won't take long to read, trust me.

In a nutshell, performers as a rule don't care for condoms for several reasons. For most of the men (with few exceptions), condoms make for a very-much-more difficult scene; just one more huge distraction to add to the host of other ones on the set: uncomfortable set, no chemistry with the female player, asshole director, late/early hours, too hot/cold, bad food, personal issues, etc.

For the women, there are just four words: rubber rash/friction burn. Not only do I have to work harder for him to feel anything, the scene takes much longer to get through, with the changing out of condoms, needing to give the guy a break and suck him again, and the total passion-killer that is on-set condom use. It's hard enough to create a real connection, so the scene doesn't feel to the viewer like we faxed it in, on a set as it is. If all of our energy is focused on our working parts, there is none left over to actually connect and show a spark, which is what the people at home want to see.

There are a few men who are voluntarily condom-only and so have little trouble with them, and their work is cut by 2/3, at least.

I know it sounds harsh, but it's not porn's job to set a good example to the viewing public. It's an entertainment medium like anything else out of Hollywood, and mainstream entertainment is not held up as needing somehow to set a good example. It's a shame that our country does such a piss-poor job of educating its young people so that they're driven to view porn to try to get a clue about sex. Except when a movie is expressly done as education-the Guides, Tristan Taormino's movies, etc., their job is to arouse and entertain, period.

I hate it when those who are made uncomfortable by sex or porn project their issues onto our business.

Porn is pretty safe. If a player says "no" to the most egregiously stupid acts (cream pies, whether anal or vaginal), then he or she is unlikely to get a deadly disease at work. People do get the non-lethal ones, but they get treated, as do their partners, and they get to work again when their new test comes back clean.

Of all of the dead porn stars on the Dead Porn Star site, most have died from auto accidents.

And then, there is Belladonna, who adds her nickel's worth on the responsibility of porn performers to protect themselves:

[...]

First of all, I’d like to say that I am thankful that the adult industry has become exceptionally safer since I first started performing back in 1999. Back then, testing for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea was not required, which I found to be ridiculous since those were the most common STDs. However, I do believe that if the 30 day window were shortened to at MOST, 7 days, we could BETTER prevent the spread of Chlamydia and Gonorrhea, not to mention HIV.

Since I started testing people that I have sex with 3 days prior to our engagement, it has been over 5 years since I’ve contracted Chlamydia or Gonorrhea. I knowingly caught over a handful of performers with STDs by using this rule. As a female in this industry, I can say it feels DAMN good to not have to spend every week at the doctor’s office clearing up an STD and being out of work. I feel like I’m more excited about having sex and performing, knowing that I’m going to be STD free. I also think it would be smart for new performers in the business to be required to get a full panel test, prior to performing, not only for themselves to see where they stand, but for our industry as well. I think a lot of performers get into the business and already have the herpes virus and don’t know about it and then try to blame it on the industry.

Performers in this business need to be safer when having sexual relations OUTSIDE of the industry. They need to be more responsible with safe sex because they DO know more than the average person when it comes to STDs and safe sex. If this were happening, the spread of STDs inside the business would be a fraction of what it is now. As for condoms, personally, I can only be as safe as I can be without diminishing the value of what I’m trying to accomplish. Condoms just don’t feel good to suck on, or to take in the ass, hard and fast. If I were required to use condoms, my performance would most likely suffer, and in the end I would suffer. I’m not trying to debate with anyone here, I’m just saying, if my co-workers were more responsible, we could all make some great porn and be STD free at the same time.

Now, the prevailing attitude of those wanting mandatory condom usage would probably be that women like Nina and Belladonna are merely elitists and paid shills for "the industry" who really don't give a damn about the risks of other female performers (and, if the likes of Shelley Lubben are to be believed, are in denial about the risks to themselves...as Lubben's recent crackback -- referenced here -- about Nina "being infected with chlamydia four times" in her porn career shows).

My response to that would simply be: Well...better them who have to take the risk themselves than those who simply talk about it. It's their asses and pussies and mouths that are on the line, now isn't it??

Oh...and one other thing: The only response that will be allowed here for "Patient Zero" regarding his sexual orientation is empathy and support. Those who will exploit this situation to spread unconfirmed rumors or vent their homophobia and rants about the "gay menace" simply will get no love or even bandwidth here. Until the actual test results are made public, the best thing is to wait and see, and make the necessary precautions.

Nina Hartley Layeth The Smack (And The Damn Truth) Down On Antiporn-AntiSexWork Jabronae @ Desiree Alliance 2010 Keynote Speech

I always knew there was a reason people call Nina Hartley "The Goddess of Sex." After watching this speech, they should also call her something else: "Madam Freakin' President." (OK...without the "freakin'" part.)

Last week, Nina gave the keynote address at the annual Desiree Alliance Sex Worker Conference in Las Vegas; discussing everything from the struggle to make her voice heard as a sex worker/pro-porn advocate to a thorough analysis of the forces invieghed against her and her activist sex worker associates.

I could give an analysis of the speech...but since Nina has a way of rendering analysis moot by her own eloquence and passion, I figure that reposting the speech (and the ensuing Q & A) would be more than suitable enough.

The original speech was posted by sawbuckfilms via their YouTube channel yesterday; a sincere thanks to them for giving permesion to repost it here. I have also posted the speech over at my own SmackDog Chronicles blog, too.

Adult entertainment legend/progressive sex educator Nina Hartley giving the keynote address at last week's Sex Worker Conference sponsored by the Desiree Alliance in Las Vegas (via YouTube, h/t to sawbuckfilms)

The Pink Cross Foundation: Charitable Organization?? Or: Just Shelley Lubben's Personal Ponzi Scheme??

To say that former porn starlet turned fundamentalist Christian/antiporn activist/"'ex-slut" ministress Shelley Lubben (aka "Roxy") has been on a roll of late would be an understatement; she has gotten plenty of publicity recently through her ties with the mainstream of the antiporn movement.

Lubben was one of the keynote speakers recently in a political luncheon gabfest titled "Pornography Harms" last month, and she was also one of the main speakers at the CalOSHA hearings on imposing mandatory condom requirements on the industry as a result of the "outbreak" last year. She even got some primetime publicity via an interview she did with ABC News for their Nightline news program.

Lately, though, she has had to deal with publicity that isn't quite so glowing...and may even spell real trouble for her and her "movement".

A number of active porn performers have come forth to directly question Lubben's motives in "helping women get out of the porn industry", and to counter some of her more bombastic claims about how women in porn are simply abused and "prostituted".

Monica Foster, for one, has experience in mentoring performers into and out of the industry through her GettingIntoPorn.com and GettingOutOfPorn.com websites; and she has recently been very critical of the fundamentalist Christian focus of Lubben and her PCF "ministry", as well as the lack of actual resources given to ex-performers seeking her help.  Some quotage from Foster, courtesy of her blog:

[...]

I used to admire this woman for her supposed attempts to help people, but after doing a bit of research on her, watching her interviews, and having heard about some of the realities of her organization from a few trusted friends, I'm not so certain that even she is clear as to what her true agenda is.

I think as of current that she is very self centered, immature, emotionally stunted, manipulative and on a quest of fame at the expense of hurting others and their livelihoods.

What I don't like about Lubben most of all, is that she blames everyone and everything else in life for circumstances she found herself in within life, except for herself. She seems to see the world as black and white rather than billions of shades of gray and colors.

We all have free will and we all make CHOICES in life. She CHOSE to work as a prostitute and a porn actress. No one held a gun to her head. Her career choice didn't work out for her and she chose to leave the industry completely, however that was her choice - and for her to demonize EVERYONE and EVERYTHING associated with it now is just plain wrong.

But even that is dwarfed by the campaign of another porn performer, Julie Meadows (aka Lydia Lee), whom has virturally launched a one-woman crusade to publically expose Lubben and the Pink Cross Foundation for the frauds they allegedly are. Meadows has been using both her own blog and her space on Mike South's blog to openly question both the motives and the actions of the PCF, and recently she has focused on their tax exempt status as charitable contributions.

Using the tax returns that were filed by the PCF in 2008 and 2009 -- returns that are public record and accessible to anyone thanks to disclosure regulations -- Julie and her husband Doug found countless questionable innaccuracies, inconsistencies, and questionable data that could possibly lead to genuine inquiries about the PCF's tax exempt status, let alone about whether or not they are living up to their professed goal of "helping adult performers get out of the pornography industry", or just exploiting ex-performers that much worse in order to line her pockets.

To that end, Doug and Julie created a video in which Doug documents in detail the inconsistencies and questions raised by the "tax documents", and openly wonders whether or not they are mere ruses designed to fend off more detailed auditing of their financial affairs. The video was originally posted to Julie's home blog, then to her YouTube account home page (JulieMeadowsEnt) in four parts; it is also now available over at my own personal SmackDog Chronicles blog.

I highly reccommend you watch the video (or the series) in its entirity; it is, to say the least, quite illuminating.

: