Search This Blog

Wednesday, September 30, 2015


For those of you new to this game - let me recap something.  Last night I saw this post on Buzzfeed  This post is saying that a lawsuit was filed against Relativity Media claiming "breach of promise" essentially against the show for supposedly not "coming through on promises to deliver up exit services to the women filmed on the show, as well as "invasion of privacy".  The date of the filing was Friday, September 26th, supposedly.

Now, let me point you to something else going on with Relativity Media, the production company that filmed "8 Minutes" -  Note it's dated September 28th - two days after the lawsuit was supposedly filed by these "sex workers".

The very day that Relativity Media canceled the show "8 Minutes", Tom Forman put on his Twitter page that they were "going to start looking for investors".  However, on July 30th, they filed for bankruptcy.  Meaning they weren't finding any buyers.  Word about Hollywood is that the company produces garbage, and that Kirk, the owner, is a "con artist" according to comments pepping Variety and the Hollywood Reporter.

Notice what happened on September 25th - the day before the lawsuit was filed supposedly about this "invasion of privacy" and "breach of promise"  The quote for the 25th was:

Today was the deadline for bids to take the studio out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, Yet “nobody has come close” to a $250 million offer for the entire company from creditors informally known as Stalking Horse Bidders, the person told Deadline. Apparently, “all bids are quite low.

So suddenly, this lawsuit is filed  Now I assure you as a paralegal who has worked in the field of litigation for the three decades now I've been out of sex work - no lawyer in his, or her, right mind, would sue Relativity Media knowing they're filing bankruptcy.  You can't sue the producers "personally" meaning you would have to sue the corporation.  Only the corporation is filing bankruptcy, or might be sold   Meaning unless you can get a judgment into that bankruptcy before it closes - you don't stand a chance in hell of winning a monetary judgment.  Meaning the only reason or why any attorney would help or file such a lawsuit would be to prove a point - not for a monetary judgment.

This frankly is why I started hitting the brakes myself on the lawsuit I was preparing for "defameacast" on the show.  The show "defamed" sex workers AND sex trafficking victims both equally.  As for sex workers, it made them appear to be nothing more than mentally ill junkie whores who couldn't take care of their own children and this was the only thing they could think of to do to pay the rent because they were too lazy, or crazy, to get a "real" job.  Not a very good characterization of sex workers. 

As for sex trafficking victims - it was also "defaming" in that it made them appear that the only thing stopped them from being a victim was a job or a brain.  I mean here they are being offered a tiny bit of financial assistance from Kevin Brown and they are given 8 minutes to "accept the help" and THAT'S called "rescue"?  It implies that a trafficking victim has a choice.  So it also "defames" sex trafficking victims by implying they're really just prostitutes who need drug treatment, a counselor and a job to be "free".

Only that's not the case either.  The word "victim" implies they can't leave.  Not that they haven't got the right job offer yet  Not they haven't found the right church yet.  Not that they can't afford an attorney.  But "trafficking victim" is a word designated to be for someone who CAN NOT leave.  Not "doesn't want to" but "can not".  Big difference.

Patty Hearst, daughter of Randolph Hearst, was sitting in her home with her boyfriend when SLA terrorists broke into her home, kidnapped her, brainwashed her, and then had her help them rob banks to raise money for their terrorist activities.  She was initially put into prison for bank robbery.  However, realizing she had been a "victim" of these terrorists, and brainwashed into robbing the bank she robbed at gunpoint - she received a pardon from President Ford.  Patty was a "victim".  

A sex trafficking victim CAN'T leave  They're either held in active captivity with handcuffs, locked doors, guns, chains, etc. OR they're forced to do sex work under threat of someone they love being harmed, or some kind of blackmail, or even deceit.  But either way a true sex trafficking victim can't leave just because Kevin Brown says "we're going to give you a place to stay and some counseling and education".  Poverty is not captivity.  

Now the women on that show signed contracts releasing their image, voice, etc  So there's absolutely not one single ground for "invasion of privacy".  You don't sign a contract to be filmed for TV and then claim "invasion of privacy".  To file for "invasion of privacy" it has to be something that's in fact "private.  Now, Texas has a law whereby you can legally record someone in a private bedroom without their consent.  SO this means again that no lawyer would advise them they have one single leg to stand on for "invasion of privacy" because they "failed to blur their faces as promised".   Now Relativity didn't publish their diaries, didn't publish their private emails, nor did they reveal their real names, where they live, their social security numbers, or anything that is considered "private" under the law.  For something to legally be considered something "private" - it has to be something kept "private" like a diary, an email, a phone call, etc. NOT YOUR FACE.  You are not granted an automatic "right to privacy" over your face.  I am however granted by law the privacy of my emails, or my diary, or my phone calls, as well as personal information like my social security number.  

So let's get to "breach of promise".  The only thing promised to them that's recorded as "proof" of that promise is Kevin Brown offering to take these women onto his "ranch" where he was supposed to offer them a residential program  Only there was no residential program.  There is no church.  The address for his church is a bunch of doctor's offices.  Kevin told reporters he "found God" right after he retired two years ago which would be about 2012.  However, the church was incorporated in 1994 - while sex trafficking was not granted federal recognition as even being a real thing until the Trafficking Act of 2000.  So he didn't start the church two years ago, nor to save trafficking victims.  

The women were paid $200 to "pretend" to be prostitutes he was saving  Now IF and I mean BIG if the producers offered to help anyone leave prostitution off camera - it makes no sense.  Here they are staging a fake rescue - why would they even think these people knew anything about a "real" way out?  Now Kamylla herself has stated she was already attending Kathryn Griffin Townsend's program  So she was already IN an exit program supposedly.

So let me get this straight - I'm hired to pretend to be taken to an imaginary bakery.  Then after the filming is done I tell the producers "you know what?  I think I'd really like to go to a real bakery - can you hook me up?"  To which they supposedly said "oh yeah sure I can get you to a real bakery" off camera, not in writing, etc.  The only thing that is recorded and proveable in a court of law is the recording of them offering to take me to a fake bakery.  But now six months later or so I'm going to sue them for not taking me to a real bakery?  The judge would laugh this one right out of court.  

And any lawyer knows that.  So if there's no way to get a monetary judgment, and there's no way they're even going to win such a thing what the heck is going on? 

Everyone knows that the majority of people who contributed to Kamylla's fund raiser were sex workers.  I'd be willing to bet at least a portion of them do not work at the legal brothels - meaning they're illegal sex workers.  Now, they've entered into these fund raisers their legal names, and their banking information even if they only donated a dollar.  So these sex workers are now in possession of contact and banking information for sex workers.  

Now if they have sued Relativity Media, then that gives Relativity the right to do what's called "discovery".  Meaning they can now subpoena all of that information, and now make it public record.  That's one possibility

The other is that this is possibly a desperate attempt to cover their ass.  Because the whole thing is one big fraud.  Now let me ask you something - why is it soooo important that people believe "8 Minutes" was "real" and not staged and scripted by actors?  Everyone knows that "Gigolo's" is scripted and has actors.  Even the clients are actors.

How?  Because that's another show I went to Metro and had pulled off the air. They were portraying to be "real" male escorts.  Only I knew it was another fraud.  Not only a fraud about what real male escorts are like, and their clients, but that Heidi Fleiss and Dennis Hof were using that show to defraud investors out of millions of dollars by making them think it was real - and that when Heidi opened up her "male only brothel" in Pahrump - that this type of straight male escort thing was going to sell enough to make them rich.  That's why I did it.

So then when Metro gets on them about filming "illegal prostitution" it comes out the whole thing was fake  They told metro that the men were "actors" and the clients were "actors" and the whole show was a completely staged fake.  Therefore no "real" prostitution - therefore nothing illegal.  So they're proudly waving the fact this show is staged and faked to protect themselves from Metro  Even the men on the show state they're "actors" when you get to know them better.  

But now they've been trying DESPERATELY to convince everyone "8 minutes" is not fake.  A couple of reasons why could be for one  - Dlita Miller.  Ms. Miller's story was falling apart so badly on the CNN "Truth Behind 8 Minutes" that twitter was jumping with people talking about how her "story was changing", and how she couldn't follow the story, etc.  Ms. Miller's website for Families Against Trafficking - when the show was canceled had nothing on it but links to a homeless shelter in San Diego.  There was one blog post about her baking bread, and then a few blurbs about the show.  But this was a woman who at the time was claiming to not only be a survivor herself - but also that her daughter was - and she was "consultant on the show 8 Minutes and also running Families Against Trafficking".  

Ms. Miller also helped Jim McDonnell apply for, and receive, a grant for 4.5 million dollars to "work with juvenile trafficking victims".  This application was based on news stories, and other public appearances of Ms. Miller, and Jim, saying there "are no resources for these victims".  However, there are.  Children of the Night for one.  They've been around since 1979 and are right in Van Nuys, California.  Covenant House also is a residential program for juveniles.  For adults, the Mary Magdalene Project is also in Van Nuys.  We are headquartered in Van Nuys - but we have chapters in Long Beach and San Diego.  There is also a home for trafficking victims in San Diego that's been around a few years.  So THERE ARE RESOURCES.  

When I did have Ms. Miller speak to me on the phone - she tried to run that "there are no resources" game on me.  I countered with "yes there are resources" and started naming them off.  She complained to me they were telling victims "they had no resources"  Well that's just unacceptable when in fact there are.  So I offered to meet with her to show her the many resources that do exist to help get men and women out of sex work.  There's Mercy Ministries also in Los Angeles that takes in adult women wanting to get out of the sex industry.  There's Treasures.  I mean I could go on  But the minute I started talking about the resources that DO exist - she got off the phone and wouldn't return my calls again.  

So if "8 Minutes" has a guy up there claiming to be running a rescue program that doesn't exist, with Samoly Mam's up there being his "consultant" for the show, and CNN is putting her on instead of someone like myself when trying to tell the public "the truth about 8 Minutes" - I mean why is it that CNN and Buzzfeed and Daily Beast will absolutely not mention one single word about the "notice of intent to sue" I slapped on Relativity Media four hours before they took down the page with the videos of the show on it, and 8 hours before they canceled the show while Maxine had been "complaining' about them for weeks with no effect - and Buzzfeed, Daily Beast and CNN will mention THEIR lawsuit - but not mine?  

Because this lawsuit makes it appear that the show was "real" and that the producers just didn't come through on promises made.  Clearly this has something to do with the bankruptcy - or I should say Relativity trying to entice buyers during the bankruptcy.  You're not going to convince me it's a complete coincidence about the date of the filing of this lawsuit and it being the date after bids closed being one day apart.  Nor are you going to convince me this is a "real" lawsuit when any lawyer I don't care how dumb or desperate they might be would not file such a lawsuit.  There's no grounds, no money to be won, no point to be made - so clearly this lawsuit is just a tactic.

Now whether it's to cover up the fraud that's connected to a lot of money that was given by people thinking the show was real when it was filming and then aired, or whether it's got something to do with trying to not make them look like complete shysters while they're trying to sell the company, or whether it's a tactic to legally release information on active sex workers in this country without a warrant - I don't know.  

But the truth always comes out in the end - just like it did with Samoly Mam.  I will say this - whoever is investing in Relativity Media or buying it - you'd better be sure to do your homework.  Unless this is also a very clever way to disguise some of Liang's money being laundered into the USA in what looks like the buying of an American film company and this might be some way to bypass the rules that apply in a straight sale.  I say that because I saw a photo of the guy who is in charge of the company that's supposedly investing in them right now.  He looks like he's Chinese, and he's 26 years old.  I mean who put this young pup in charge of that much money?  Either he's being duped or we're being duped in a very clever money laundering scheme.  But there's definitely more here than meets the eye.  

Just remember this - anything filed in a court of law is done so under penalty of perjury and there is no statute on that.  

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.